next »

[bassturd]

i mean honestly its all wood and strings to an extent, does something being 50 years old make it better?... i mean i would think since wood drys out more overtime, you'd lose something in the process, my 2 cents

[rudutch]

are we talking accoustics, electrics or amps?

Accoustics, absolutly
Amps, older ones were constucted differently
electrics, I guess that's a subjective call

[MrSandMan]

Hell yeah it's worth it!  Vintage equipment not only holds value, It's highly sought after, and has uncompromisable tone. It's extremely beautiful relic art while every instrument holds it's own story. 

Yes, it's worth it.

[floydmoline]

depends on how handy you are with a soldering iron :-O i got a black "jimi hendrix" re-issue fuzz face, it sounded like a cat dying, pulled out dunlop's "extra" parts, changed it back to a PNP device, and threw in some germanium transistors i stole out of an ancient radio, it sounds on par with the first run fuzz faces, have about nothing invested in it..... as opposed to buying a real vintage FF for a few hundred, it might not have the look, but i'm more a guy that gets off on sounds than looks heh,  but if you want the vintage sounds, you are not going to get them from new era machine, might get a close approximation, but not THE sound,  besides there is something organic about vintage items, it's hard to explain unless you do or have used them, most vintage effects and specifically amps,  are sort of like an instrument on their own, they seem almost alive at times, they respond differently to the way you play,  i can tell you straight up, a DS-1 Vs. a fuzz face, any fool can get a useable sound from a DS-1(at least as useable as the sound of a DS-1 is :-P) but you really have to work to get a fuzz face to sound good

[indytruckboy]

I thought he was talking about guitars? ???


And yes it does make a difference. A lot of older guitars were made different than today. For one, the were finished different. They used nitro-finish, which is thin, and allows the guitar to "breathe" much easier than the poly-finish they use today. This causes the guitar to sound SO much better. Another example is something most people overlook, but also makes a huge difference. Les Paul guitars that come out of the factory today have a different wiring scheme that there 50s predecessors. Off the top of my head I can't remember how they do it. But it makes the controls more viable and opens a plethora of sounds. The electronics also used old paper-oil caps as opposed to the plastic 'chicklets' they use  today.

But I am rambling now.........

.......Bottom line is; Is the old stuff better? Yup. But they make some pretty nice stuff now, too. Would I dish out $250k for a 58 LP? Nope. Maybe, maybe, maybe if I was a millionaire. But I doubt it.

[MrSandMan]

I agree with Indytruck,

I wouldn't dish out $250k... Hell I wouldn't dish out 2k for a guitar.  The older stuff is uncompromisable.  One can't generate a guitar to be vintage...

Best of all, Vintage is eye candy.  but yeah, I prefer the $400-$600 guitars to play.

[indytruckboy]

Well, I don't mind dishing $2k on a guitar. I used to be the $500 guitar gy and thought they were the same. Then I came into a little money and bought the Gibson models of my SG and LP. Won't look back. Even now when I go to our practice space to hang out, and I don't bring one of my Gibbys. I'll use my singers Epi. I remind myself why I pay all that extra money. It's like flipping a switch.
Even the guy from another band, thrashpunk by the way, that shares our space who plays through a Squire that I did as much tune-uping to it as humanly possible without spending too much money, uses one of my Gibsons. He is amazed at how good he actual sounds like he can play. And he is terrible. Sloppy sloppy. But he sounds half-decent with a Gibby. :babymonkey:

[Glo2ube]

I've spent a lot of money on this stuff over the years and it only retains its monetary value if someone is willing to pay for it. Technology has come along ways. Things can be built with precise chemical construction and mechanically to tighter tolerances therefore "better". And yet intentionally this godsend all to often sacrificed by some manager somewhere for profit margin translating to personal gain.
"Older" things have their own special quirks, though sonically desirable, take the nitro finish on my old explorer. The finish is all cracked because it breaths. Humidity changes, temperature changes and I do not live in a hermetically sealed museum therefore... is its value hurt monetarily, historically or has its value increased simply because I or someone else has had it?

I guess "worth" is subjective. :wallbash:

[flyguitars]

i mean honestly its all wood and strings to an extent, does something being 50 years old make it better?... i mean i would think since wood drys out more overtime, you'd lose something in the process, my 2 cents

Theres a lot of issues here. Firstly craftsmanship - High End pre 70s guitars were made to very high standards. Yes modern day mass production can also be of high standard, but certain things, like shaping the necks, was all done by hand, and resulted in some really good, fine-playing instruments.

Secondly we come to materials. Certain woods (including South American mahogany) are no longer available, deforestation is a real problem as we all know - you do occasionally come across some really special Mahogany (Cuban, for example) but this will be in very limited quantities, and will be saved for the really special high end guitars costing thousands. Old lower end tuners for example are often poor, but  even 50s and 60s budget guitars often use woods that would be in a lot more expensive guitars today.

Then there is fashion. In the 50s we wanted different sounds than the 70s or early eighties - Guitar manufacturers cater for what sells the most, at the time, not necessarily what all guitarist want. Whats more construction techniques now veer towards cheapness rather than some musical ideal. So even though they could make them a certain way, they tend not to. An example is the electric bass. In the 50s, a bass was made to sound like an old upright - quite deliberately. Now its made to be as far from that as possible!

But probably the most relevant is collectability - certain old guitars (Gibson, Fender etc) have defined our culture for the last 50 years, and will remain collectable, rising in price. Other brands less-so. Older budget guitars are not so collectable, especially if they were not used by the bigger names, back in the day. Especially Japanese, and cheaper Americans (Kay, Harmony etc)

I am a vintage guitar addict. Mass produced new guitars are fine - but just like modern music, SOUL (not the music genre) has been replaced by technical excellence and a perception of what will sell. X factor, popstars etc (or the American equivalent) create a bland imitation of what music once was, and in my opinion still should be.

[MrSandMan]

i mean honestly its all wood and strings to an extent, does something being 50 years old make it better?... i mean i would think since wood drys out more overtime, you'd lose something in the process, my 2 cents

Theres a lot of issues here. Firstly craftsmanship - High End pre 70s guitars were made to very high standards. Yes modern day mass production can also be of high standard, but certain things, like shaping the necks, was all done by hand, and resulted in some really good, fine-playing instruments.

Secondly we come to materials. Certain woods (including South American mahogany) are no longer available, deforestation is a real problem as we all know - you do occasionally come across some really special Mahogany (Cuban, for example) but this will be in very limited quantities, and will be saved for the really special high end guitars costing thousands. Old lower end tuners for example are often poor, but  even 50s and 60s budget guitars often use woods that would be in a lot more expensive guitars today.

Then there is fashion. In the 50s we wanted different sounds than the 70s or early eighties - Guitar manufacturers cater for what sells the most, at the time, not necessarily what all guitarist want. Whats more construction techniques now veer towards cheapness rather than some musical ideal. So even though they could make them a certain way, they tend not to. An example is the electric bass. In the 50s, a bass was made to sound like an old upright - quite deliberately. Now its made to be as far from that as possible!

But probably the most relevant is collectability - certain old guitars (Gibson, Fender etc) have defined our culture for the last 50 years, and will remain collectable, rising in price. Other brands less-so. Older budget guitars are not so collectable, especially if they were not used by the bigger names, back in the day. Especially Japanese, and cheaper Americans (Kay, Harmony etc)

I am a vintage guitar addict. Mass produced new guitars are fine - but just like modern music, SOUL (not the music genre) has been replaced by technical excellence and a perception of what will sell. X factor, popstars etc (or the American equivalent) create a bland imitation of what music once was, and in my opinion still should be.

Great post and very well said!

[senor_penguin]

vintage acoustic > anything

[Monster]

yes i they don't make guitars as good as they used... so they sound and played better in the old days then today. sad thing is these days its more about the electronics then the guitar it self.. i care more about the wood and how well it was built because i can always change the electronics my self... allot easier then making a new body or neck..

[characterzero]

I feel that older stuff certainly can be better, especially when looking at acoustics, but the price inflation is really unjustified.  I mean, if I were really really rich I'd buy a bunch of vintage gear but I'm not, so I don't.  While there are benefits to older guitars, people add a lot of extra money to them based on things like looks and nostalgia.  For me right now, buying vintage = not worth it.

[Brian Krashpad]

Really depends on the sitch.

I'm no great shakes as guitarist, and don't have unlimited funds either.  It's not worth it to me to get a vintage guitar (or amp for that matter) if it's beyond my budget.  I mean, maybe I could have 2 or 3 vintage guitars instead of 20, but frankly I'd rather have 20 of all different kinds that are modern cheapos than have a couple of expensive guitars that costs thousands each.

That said, if I were making a lot more money or were a full time musician who could afford ot, I would have more vinatge stuff.  And I do have some things from the '60's (mainly amps) that I really love, but those were purchased for reasonable prices because they were old but not particularly "collectible."

[floydmoline]

i am the opposite, i only keep one guitar around, so one vintage instrument would be worth it to me, for sentimental reasons, IF i HAD the money for one.

but the current cost of vintage gear i can deffinately do without, and get a decent modern guitar :D