Have you ever bought a guitar principally because it just looked so darn good?

[TomB'sox]

Originally Posted by ewalling

Yes, I'm not suggesting that anyone might abandon their aesthetic preferences. What I'm wondering is if your aesthetic preferences have ever overruled your judgement to the point where you've bought something that a) you didn't need, or b) really wasn't all that good?

Right, 100% A, and I have 1 B that I wish I had not bought, but dang it looks good...

When I said, why would the answer be no, I was not trying to dismiss your question at all haha, I was trying to imply that I would not think of it in any other way haha!

[hotroad]

Its a constant battle. I have a guitar that is stunning in its tone but fairly simple in looks. I have others that are stunning in their appearance but the tone is not quite as good as the plain one. But I am a sucker for looks but on a limited budget, the tone has to be there as well.
I play a lot on cruise ships and see a lot of beautiful women but I always wonder whats inside...what tone is there under the beauty. Of course I don't get to play those being married and all!!!

[rmyAddison]

Originally Posted by HHP

Saying "no" and owning something with "45' in the name would seem to be a contradiction.

No, the question was "bought principally because it looked so darn good", I bought the guitar for how it sounded, it happened to be beautiful.

No contradiction anymore than saying I bought the Authentic principally because it was so darn plain, I didn't. Having a collection that goes from plain to "45 series" is because sound comes first, second and third to me, I don't care if the guitar is plain or fancy, I care how it sounds................

[DukeX]

The first acoustic I ever bought was a Fender dred with a sunburst finish. Oooh, it sure was pretty, but not a very good guit, which I didn't know at the time. I was very happy to part with it a few years later when I bought my first Larrivee, a D-03 (after I had gained some experience and knowledge).

[Silly Moustache]

On the other foot ........

When I bought this guitar via ebay, and it arrived, and I opened up the case, it s simple beauty and perferction took my breath away:

Stock DS1 - Sitka top, over hog, ebony faceplate,fretboard, and bridge, faux tort binding.



And it sounds great too ...natch.

[TBone-Idle]

My 2nd guitar and the first I bought for myself. It was 1985 and I'd been playing for about 9 months. I was in my first year at university and I had just received my grant cheque and was feeling quite wealthy. Hanging in the music shop window was the most beautiful guitar I'd ever seen. It had a dark grey/silver burst with a contrasting bright red plastic binding, and to my inexperienced eyes it was stunning. The price tag was £105 and I bought it there and then.

It was called a "Marlin" and I loved it.

In spite of the limitations of a painted plywood guitar with dubious tone, that instrument was my best friend for the next 10 years and I still have it (though rarely play it).

[DukeX]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

On the other foot ........

When I bought this guitar via ebay, and it arrived, and I opened up the case, it s simple beauty and perferction took my breath away:

Stock DS1 - Sitka top, over hog, ebony faceplate,fretboard, and bridge, faux tort binding.



And it sounds great too ...natch.

That is my kind of guit. Elegant beauty.

[Borderdon]

Yes, of course, appearance is a big factor in deciding on a purchase. Why else would some makers go to great lengths to make the backs of their instruments beautiful, when most people would seldom get to see them ?
Don

[Pitar]

Yes, but no. My 2nd guitar, 1st 6-string was a Glen Campbell model Ovation. Because I learned on a 12 string, all 6 string guitars sounded anemic to me - totally dead- by contrast. So, the Ovation was just more of the 6-string sound and it looked better to my eye than the gaudy Gibsons and the opposite plain-jane Martins. That was 1973 and described the best inventory one could find at the time. But, I got it home and played it in a mix with a 6-string Yamaha that blew it away. Within 6 weeks I parted with it and picked up the gaudiest Martin I found (D-35) instead.

[Steadfastly]

This liar says no.

[Quebec Picker]

Principally? No

Partially? Yes.

[aknow]

I just did. An emerald green concert sized Oregon Breedlove.
I love Breedlove.

[zhunter]

Acoustic? No, all of my acoustics are pretty plain. D18 plain.

Electrics? Yes looks have influenced an electric purchase or two.

hunter

[Mr Fingers]

Noipe -- never. Can't afford to. Though I eventually have come to have a good income, my instincts were formed, and informed, back when I used loaners or whatever I could barely afford. No complaints. This just means that the visuals that attract me are almost all functional, too - good wood for the top, beautiful fret job, etc. A great sunburst or beautiful binding appeals to me and aren't excessive; I can't say that shell decoration makes much sense or appeals to me much at all... these instruments, or ornate builds like Monteleone's, are just not for me at all. I guess my only point is that my tastes are no better or worse than others' and are in obvious ways the result of my ownb circumstances and experiences. Fortunately, that's true for most, which is why we have such a great diversity of interesting builds with something great for everyone.

[Toby Walker]

Eat your hearts out folks. Not only does she look wonderful, but you should hear her when she's singing some Blind Willie Johnson.