Golden Age of Affordable Guitars? Agree?

[ALBD]

Seems that the moral here is that guitar builders, from big producers to one man shops, however we want them to be, are not immune to capitalism.

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by jazzd

So I'm saying that truly stunning sound, regardless of price, can be readily available for a reasonable price at $2k & below, & should never cost much more

For some value of "stunning."

unless it's a luthier-built, handcrafted instrument of the very finest rare woods.

Even when a builder charges you a lot for a fancy wood upgrade, the wood costs are a small fraction of what you're paying for, which is workmanship and expertise.

The difference between a $35K sitka/brw Somogyi and a $8K sitka/brw somebody-else isn't that Ervin's brw is $27K nicer than the other guy/gal's.

[Kayper]

My opinion is that we have GC to thank for the blossoming of the golden age.
I recall visiting a music store in the 1970's (as a teen) and being stared down by the owner. He had maybe 5 "good" guitars and 3 or so beginner ones. All dreadnought. And since I could not play, I was not allowed to touch.

With the big box store, I could walk in, see, hear and touch all sizes and kinds of guitars. End of 2016, I had 7 acoustics I never would have bought otherwise. And they all sounded nice! One was used, and a couple were mailorder, but I did buy a couple from GC and do not regret it.

Somewhere down the line, that has to translate to more production in China or Mexico (or Pennsylvania since I had a Martin 000-15 sm).

Now that I know what a good guitar sounds like, I am much more interested in purchasing from a luthier. If I had not tried a mahogany GS mini, I would never have considered buying a custom guitar. Or any guitar.

And playing these guitars, daily, is heaven.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by jazzd

But what about *incredible guitars, regardless of price, at prices most people can afford? They're certainly possible, some are out there, and there should be more.

I don't know; one man's 'incredible' is another guy's, 'meh'. As ever it's subjective, and cost is really irrelevant to one's ability to play well on whichever instrument they have.
Someone earlier mentioned economies of scale. A similarly spec'd guitar from a one man shop is generally going to cost you considerably more than one from a mass producer, like Martin, Gibson or Taylor. Then there's the nebulous concept of 'reputation' which you can't put a price on. You can make one up, if you think you can get away with it! Get a 'name' player on your CV and your prices will reflect whatever you think that association is worth in generated sales. Those who care about music above 'reputation' will play whatever works best for them. Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MO_Xxq3LVw

[BoneDigger]

I totally agree with the OP. A person can buy a heck of a nice solid wood guitar from Blueridge Eastman, Epiphone, Yamaha, Godin/Seagull, and others that can be a lifetime guitar. Martin, Guild, Breedlove, and Taylor also make good guitars in that price range.

For those people that are only happy with high end guitars, yes, prices have risen. However, that doesn't take away from the idea of what the OP stated. For the sub-$1500 market, options are much better than they ever have been.

[RP]

Definite golden age of acoustics....

[Garrison314]

Absolutely....musical equipment in general is a steal and the quality is much higher due to all the competition compared to when I was a kid, about a hundred years ago.

[Johnny Danger]

Appologies for not reading through the entire thread just yet, but the conversation reminds me of an interesting parallel to another industry. My other expensive hobby is bicycles. The 70's are constantly referred to by the vintage cycling enthusiasts (and by everybody, really) as the bike boom era. I am led to understand folk music was also particularly popular around the same time frame. (I'm a little "young" and wasn't there to confirm).

What both of these industries had in common was large demand that created a window for opportunists to produce "affordable" options. I would wager that while guitars already had a bit of a budget market, the really fine instruments were going to be handcrafted by luthiers or maybe mass produced to a high standard, as opposed to mass produced to a price point. (I know Gibson was making some student models, but I honestly don't know what Martin offered back then) Schwinn cranked out a lot of tanks that took a beating, but were no match for the featherweight European racing frames. So lots of factories stepped up with BSO's (bicycle shaped objects) and GSO's (guitar shaped objects). They were junk, but they still got young people playign and riding.

While those XSO's still abound (thanks, walmart) the fine tuning of mass production means you can get bicycle from a "big name" manufacturer that isn't as nice as one 2-3 times as much from that same manufacturer, but certainly blows away any BSO from the 70's that would cost about the same adjusting for inflation. The true is same for guitars. There is a budget, mid-range, and high end for mass manufactured examples. And just like bicycles where you can get a handmade frame for several thousands of dollars, you can also get a luthier to make you a custom instrument to your tastes.

Anyway, that's just me rambling. Please feel free to respond and educate me. I don't honestly know the timeline for vintage guitars as well as I do bicycles.

[ManyMartinMan]

Originally Posted by ALBD

Seems that the moral here is that guitar builders, from big producers to one man shops, however we want them to be, are not immune to capitalism.

Nor should they be in my opinion. If you decide to put your financial life on the line and create a company, you are able to sell that item/items for whatever the market will bear. That's entrepreneurism. Capitalism is the system we work in, not a byproduct or symptom of something negative. The market (consumers) will decide if that product will or will not sell.

cap·i·tal·ismˈ-noun- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.....

[FrankHudson]

There's a weird factor I can' t quite put my finger on involved here. I've thought about starting a thread on it, but this thread seems to be going there.

These two statements are both "true" as far as I know, yet they seem to contradict themselves.

1. Inexpensive acoustic guitars today are made from better quality materials than they were 30-70 years ago. And the designs of inexpensive guitars more faithfully copy the significant design decisions of the upper end makers. Back in my youth, the inexpensive guitars almost never had solid tops much less any other solid wood, and at the bottom of the market many shortcuts were taken: trapeze tailpieces, painted fretboards, painted "binding", non-nickel frets with no finishing, tuners that hardly worked, and so on. And the construction quality and Q/C was abysmal. The legendary "Cheese-slicer action" was rife at the lower end. A $300 guitar in 2017 dollars is about $37 in 1960 dollars or $64 in 1975. Given $300 today I'd record or perform happily with any number of instruments available new for that price. They'd work, they'd likely be playable, and 98% of the audience wouldn't notice any difference Are today's $300 guitars the greatest acoustic guitars ever made? No, of course not, but they are a much closer approximation of the classic designs of more expensive makers.

2. Interest in surviving low end instruments from this period has grown in the past few years. While the absolute lower end has seen less of an interest growth, the guitars just over that have even received "tribute" models. In electric guitar this is even more marked. The crappy electrics of the 50's through to the early 70s that could hardly get yard-sale action in the late 20th century are now getting collector and hip player interest, and some of this is happening on the acoustic front as well. Of course most of those old low-end instruments need work to be made playable, and they don't sound just like a Martin, they do sound like something.

Odd isn't it, that appreciation of the "best of the classic breed" designs of Martin et al, has in the context of a broad market, engendered an interest in the budget line and catalog guitars as well.

[ALBD]

Originally Posted by ManyMartinMan

Nor should they be in my opinion. If you decide to put your financial life on the line and create a company, you are able to sell that item/items for whatever the market will bear. That's entrepreneurism. Capitalism is the system we work in, not a byproduct or symptom of something negative. The market (consumers) will decide if that product will or will not sell.

cap·i·tal·ismˈ-noun- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.....

With you there, brother. All for it.

[Kitkatjoe]

Being able to build a guitar out of the United States has resulted in some great guitars from makers like Breedlove and others. There are many guitars that are being made in South Korea and China.Bargans in the golden age are often tied to off shore labor.

[Mickey_C]

I've been playing for over 45 years, and I've never seen a wider selection or greater bang for the buck.

I have an Eastman AC520 that I traded my Martin HD28V for (and I got a chunk of cash with it too). It's a smoking guitar, just absolutely amazing. I am still convinced I got the better deal

I say yes, it's a Golden Age. When you can grab this for $500, thank your lucky stars:

[merlin666]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

There's a weird factor I can' t quite put my finger on involved here. I've thought about starting a thread on it, but this thread seems to be going there.

These two statements are both "true" as far as I know, yet they seem to contradict themselves.

1. Inexpensive acoustic guitars today are made from better quality materials than they were 30-70 years ago. And the designs of inexpensive guitars more faithfully copy the significant design decisions of the upper end makers. Back in my youth, the inexpensive guitars almost never had solid tops much less any other solid wood, and at the bottom of the market many shortcuts were taken: trapeze tailpieces, painted fretboards, painted "binding", non-nickel frets with no finishing, tuners that hardly worked, and so on. And the construction quality and Q/C was abysmal. The legendary "Cheese-slicer action" was rife at the lower end. A $300 guitar in 2017 dollars is about $37 in 1960 dollars or $64 in 1975. Given $300 today I'd record or perform happily with any number of instruments available new for that price. They'd work, they'd likely be playable, and 98% of the audience wouldn't notice any difference Are today's $300 guitars the greatest acoustic guitars ever made? No, of course not, but they are a much closer approximation of the classic designs of more expensive makers.

2. Interest in surviving low end instruments from this period has grown in the past few years. While the absolute lower end has seen less of an interest growth, the guitars just over that have even received "tribute" models. In electric guitar this is even more marked. The crappy electrics of the 50's through to the early 70s that could hardly get yard-sale action in the late 20th century are now getting collector and hip player interest, and some of this is happening on the acoustic front as well. Of course most of those old low-end instruments need work to be made playable, and they don't sound just like a Martin, they do sound like something.

Odd isn't it, that appreciation of the "best of the classic breed" designs of Martin et al, has in the context of a broad market, engendered an interest in the budget line and catalog guitars as well.

Indeed I think most people in the 50s/60s and into the 70s or 80s played on horrid clunkers compared to today. Look at what kind of acoustics even the Beatles played well into the zenith of their careers. Yet much of the recorded music of these days sounds so great and generations of guitar players have tried to re-create those sounds. Maybe it was the sheer poor quality of instruments that forced them to be creative and excel in their craft. Nowadays with affordable quality instruments available more often than not it appears that the creative quality of what is produced with them pales in comparison.