Consumers...how do you judge a guitar? What makes it great?

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Simon Fay

Several years ago, I played an amazing sounding guitar from a well known builder (IMO, an entirely different league than a standard bellcurve guitar by Taylor/Martin). The guitar was very well made and the workmanship was overall superb but the heel joint had a visible gap against the body right near the fretboard. That sort of thing really bothers me and from an objective standpoint, is something you just don't see on a Taylor or Collings.

To be fair, the Taylor neck joint DOES have gaps, but they are cleverly hidden by having the heel and fretboard extension slightly mortised into the top and heel area. This has to be because of the shim inserts used; if the shims didn't protrude slightly from their corresponding pockets, then they wouldn't work, hence the gaps.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for me, if I were to have commissioned a guitar, I would hope first and foremost for responsiveness to my playing nuances and amount of attack. All the great tone wouldn't mean anything if I had to wrestle it out of the guitar, or had to change my playing style - which is pretty simplistic, but I rely a lot on changing attack on different parts of a song or composition. I also do quite a bit of strumming, with thumb and with pick, as well as fingerpicking - so I prefer something with a large dynamic range.

Secondly, would be the aesthetics. As a woodworker (and aspiring builder) I can appreciate the difficulty of executing even a simple detail, as excellently as possible - and pull it off. After visiting Dream Guitars and Woodstock 2014, I am amazed at the level of work even among many of the less-known builders. The attention therefore to me turns to the aesthetics; and while I have an appreciation for the ornate, my preference is for minimal decoration, and more of a emphasis on the woods.

I put tone last because I feel at a certain level, there are many excellent guitars that sound amazing, with virtually unlimited wood combinations. But as I mentioned earlier, this may not matter as much to me if the responsiveness and aesthetic are not to my liking.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Neon Soul

1. Tone - Sound is number 1. If it doesn't sound right, it's not coming home.

2. Build Quality - I need it to be made of top notch materials and be put together well. I need to instrument to last and be put through it's paces on the road

3. Aesthetics - Some people say it's not important, I want a guitar that I'm excited to pick up. No matter how great it sounded, I probably wouldn't play this on stage:



4. Playability - Although important, I can adapt to a slightly too wide neck or edge of a large body digging into my forearm. Just got to get used to it if it is stellar in all the categories above.

Look like an Ed Roman (RIP) creation? Not sure who built these for him...

[Neon Soul]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

Look like an Ed Roman (RIP) creation? Not sure who built these for him...

No idea, I just googled ugly acoustic guitar to make my point.

[pattste]

I have been to all editions of the now defunct Montreal Guitar Show, the inaugural edition of the Memphis show as well as to the Ottawa Guitar Show. I have played guitars at virtually all price points from little known to legendary luthiers. The only guitar to ever make my jaw hit the floor was at the Ottawa show in June, a $7800 guitar from a little known Montreal area luthier. I will own that guitar (or commission a build from him) some day. Playing that one was basically a life-changing experience. To me.

And I want to emphacize this point. "To me." We are all different and evaluating guitars is hugely subjective. It is affected (consciously or not) by what you have, what you've had, what you learned on, what your heroes play, the music you play, the way that you play, the sound you're going for.

All luthiers that stay in business have a winning formula. Someone, somewhere is willing to pay the price to own the guitar they build, in preference to any other.

When you go to a guitar show, with hundreds of guitars on the floor, you are not going to play them all. You will be drawn to some of them by their looks. The build quality, over a certain price point, has to be there. Playability, feel, tone, probably in that order, will separate those who make the short list to the one I would actually buy. And if I'm going to order a custom build from a luthier, his personality will also play a major role.

[Richard Mott]

"The only guitar to ever make my jaw hit the floor was ... from a little known Montreal area luthier"

OK, great referral and please say who this person is--maybe even helpful to him/her!

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by gitarro

1. The guitar has a distinctive and profound 3 dimensional timbre and tone that have enough overtone and harmonic complexity to create and sustain interest, enough fundamental to be definite and clear, enough sustain to play any form of music, and yet enough punch and bass to play alternating bass pieces. What is created is a pulsating, living sound.This to me sets apart the greatest guitars from the merely best - when the tonal envelope of the guitar is so arresting and moving that it is clearly on a different level from other guitars.

2. The guitar is responsive to a level that it responds to the slightest touch, and yet the sounds created are always controllable with ease and the sound stops on the proverbial dime when the player wants it to. This is also very important to me - the guitar has to be literally super responsive.

3. The guitar is powerful and projects well and requires little effort to produce great volume.

4. The build and finish quality have to be stellar and free from any defect whatsoever and having the appearance of perfection to the naked eye and able to sustain even a close up examination.

5. There is a unique and artistic elegance and style in the design of the guitar itself and the choice of the purfling, binding, rosette, shape of the heel, choice of materials, etc. that is beautiful to the eye and that speaks of great taste on the part of the luthier.

6. The design is well thought out and executed so that ergonomic consideration are maximised and playability is enhanced.

I didn't know God was still building.

[Richard Mott]

it's mostly his Disciples, but He still directs.

[Burton LeGeyt]

I certainly pay attention to the world of acoustic guitars but not as a buyer- I understand my viewpoint isn't directly applicable to the idea of the thread but I thought it might be interesting to some.

When I am looking at other people's work the first thing I notice and what I pay most attention to is the vibe of the guitar, or the building style. I realize that is a hard thing to quantify, but it is how I approach it. How the builder is presenting themselves, the aesthetic of the guitar, what body styles or features are being focused on, and what influences are obvious in the work. I almost always approach a builders work that way first and will look at individual examples of that person's work though that lens.

When I get to play these guitars (which isn't at all as often as I would like to) I find way more similarities than differences in serious builders of acoustic guitars. I find the biggest difference when comparing good modern guitars to good vintage ones. I almost always prefer the vintage ones. I don't think that is uncommon, especially when the vintage ones are very good examples. And that isn't meant to take anything away from modern guitars.

Another thing I think about, and really like, with steel string guitars is the range of acceptable features and tonal signatures. I think there is a feeling that a good steel string guitar doesn't have to have a very specific tone to be successful in the same way a concert classical guitar does. There is a wide range of "good", or "great" that is accepted and that is a great thing- for builders, for players, and for the creativity of the discipline in general.

One other thing I notice that gets said, but maybe not enough, is that experience matters a lot. It isn't universal but I find it to be true more often than not- The more you have made (especially in the same stye) the better they are. Tonally, I mean. And that is where I am impressed. Building a flawless guitar aesthetically is a serious achievement but not the same as manipulating and being in control of tone. I think most people who apply themselves fully to guitar building will make a few magnificent sounding guitars in their careers. Some people, though, do it over and over again. It is amazing.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Poor resale value means the item was too expensive to begin with.

While I am not an economist, I do take an interest in economic questions, and this claim strikes me as at best a hasty one, and very likely to be false.

If the new and used markets in guitars are free and efficient, then both will be pricing the guitars appropriately. In that case the guitar with a poor resale value was not overpriced to begin with, and its low resale value (when compared with other guitars) is not due to any overpricing when new--in fact overpricing will not be possible. Discrepancy among makers in the relative new and used prices in a free and efficient market would have to be due to differences in the goods; for example, one maker's guitars might have a shorter lifespan than another's. Yet all would be fairly priced, both new and used. A free and efficient market by definition cannot overprice or underprice.

Another reason for such a discrepancy among makes would be market inefficiency (I'm going to assume that freedom is not much of an issue in guitar markets). One reason guitar markets are inefficient is a high transaction cost. Put simply, doing research and finding guitars can take a lot of time and also money. Transaction costs would tend to be higher in the used market because of the variable of the guitar's condition that is not present in the new market. But they also may be higher because it is hard to find the used product, even though there is no difficulty in finding the product new (you order one from the maker).

As a rule, high transaction costs drive down price. So in some cases where a maker's guitars are not common on the used market, their prices may be depressed not because new prices were too high (the transaction cost of finding and evaluating one not being a problem in the new market), but because more investment of time and money is needed in order to find and buy one in comparison with the guitars of another maker's of which there are more available.

Another very different reason why a guitar with a relatively low resale price may not have been overpriced when new is its quality, and even more so its unique properties. Guitars are not fungible the way widgets are. The more someone buys one for its individual quality and unique properties, the more they will be willing to pay for those things in a free and efficient market, which by definition cannot overprice. Yet resale price may be low because of the guitar's very uniqueness--perhaps few people have heard of the maker, and the guitar has quirky features that were of value only to the original buyer.

Let me put that another way: The more one is buying a guitar to keep and play it, the more disconnected its value new is from its value used. If it is a lifetime guitar, the used price is pretty much irrelevant to the new price for a rational buyer, because value to the buyer is expected to be taken from its use during the buyer's life. Conversely, the more buyers expect to turn over their instruments, the more used price affects new price. The irony here is that the expectation of selling does not actually speak well of the instrument, but it pushes the new and used prices closer togehter. If, for example, a maker's instruments were known for having a high turnover (perhaps their sound soon gets boring and buyers find that they are not "all that"), people would not want to buy new ones for much more than they could get for them used. The used price would be relatively high, and the spread very narrow from new, but that would hardly indicate they they were underpriced to begin with (which seems a reasonable corollary to the original thesis that a relatively low resale price means the guitar was overpriced to begin with).

By now I'd guess I have bored and lost 99% of our readers. So I'll wrap up: The quoted claim above seems to me to be mistaken, for multiple reasons.

[pattste]

Originally Posted by Richard Mott

"The only guitar to ever make my jaw hit the floor was ... from a little known Montreal area luthier"

OK, great referral and please say who this person is--maybe even helpful to him/her!

I did not want to look like a shill or something. Plus what if someone else reads this and buys it before me?! Kidding.

The luthier's name is Vincent Latulippe. The guitar was an OM, sinker red cedar top, indian rosewood back and sides. I don't think he his a regular on the guitar show circuit but he has shown his guitars in Montreal before and he told me that he hopes to be at the Berlin show.

I played other nice guitars at that show, notably a Beauregard. But the Latulippe, was just stellar.

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

I didn't know God was still building.

LOL well God still distributes His gifts to humanity at large, and the talents that we have, come from Him ultimately but it is for us to hone and improve them...and many luthiers have indeed honed their art...

I have owned or played guitars that have sufficiently fulfilled those criteria to me, so it is not an impossible feat at all.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

<<snip great-stuff>>

By now I'd guess I have bored and lost 99% of our readers.

Not me, baby...

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

So I'll wrap up: The quoted claim above seems to me to be mistaken, for multiple reasons.

Well, yes.

Thank you for elucidating in a fashion beyond my ability to synthesize, organize, and deliver.

You Da' Man.

[Brad Goodman]

As a Builder and player I feel that our obsession with aesthetic perfection is somewhat "unhealthy".

I remember reading something Todd Cambio of Fraulini guitars wrote comparing guitars to tomatoes.

The tomatoes in the store are all perfect, no bruises perfect color and perfect shape and basically tasteless.

The ones from the farm not so perfect but taste great.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

By now I'd guess I have bored and lost 99% of our readers. So I'll wrap up: The quoted claim above seems to me to be mistaken, for multiple reasons.

No statement is meant to be absolute and you've certainly brought very good points and counter examples.

While I've painted with a rather broad brush, I do stand by what I said. The stratospheric prices requested by certain luthiers partly reflect the quality of their work -- but they also reflect the popularity/demand of the builder.

Personally, I'm not spending $25K on a guitar if there's a near mint equivalent on the used market for about half the price. Of course, other people are free to do as they will.

[Guitars44me]

One really well put and looong analysis of the economics, and one succinct summation of visual perfection versus TONE.

Hey Mike, you sure asked a great question! Some very thoughtful and interesting answers from everyone here!!!

Now that I am planning my second build with John Kinnaird, I have realized that I really hope to play it until I wake up dead one day. I do not ever want to sell it.
Perhaps my heirs will feel the same...

I get an amazing amount of satisfaction in taking SUPER guitars to my low paying unamped senior and healthcare gigs. And sometimes volunteer gigs! The concept of leaving the great ones at home and taking out the good ones seems silly to me. I have had folks who appear to be on their deathbeds say things like "that is the most beautiful sounding guitar I have ever heard! Thank you for playing for me." Try to put a monetary value on that!

And it is not my skill as a player, that is for sure! Hahahahahah

We only get so much time to make music, and we should revel in it, and play the ones that make our hair stand up and wave!

And the older I get, the more the ergonomics come into the equation. So I must thank John K for putting up with my ergo requests! And my visual design esthetics.

Play the good ones, and send the good vibes!

Cheers

Paul