Buying a vintage acoustic?

[newfx11]

Long story short I've been wanting an old Epiphone. My first vintage acoustic but not the first vintage guitar. I first wanted a Cortez but have since found a Texan local to me that is a decent price. The deal-breaker is that it needs a neck reset badly. I'm debating if I should try to talk the seller down but I don't know if he will go down much more on price.

I know neck resets can be very expensive and I'm thinking I'll be above the $2000 range after fixing it up. Is this a common problem for acoustics, as in if I decide to get something cheaper like a Cortez it would probably still need to be reset? The difference here is the risk involved with buying the Cortez, it is not local to me and also I'd be in it more than it's worth.

On the other hand, I could just get something newer like a J-35 or something but I seem to prefer the allure of playing an old beat up guitar rather than a new one. Thanks.

[1neeto]

It all depends on many things. If it’s a keeper, then a costly reset shouldn’t matter. If it’s something you might sell later, then how much is the guitar worth vs the repairs.

[HHP]

First, what year is the Texan? What is its condition besides the re-set? Normally, you want to assess where it will be condition-wise after all repairs are made, estimate what those repairs would cost, and compare to the market value of the instrument.

Carter's has a 1961 Texan in stock for $5300 so having $2000 in one doesn't seem too bad. If its a newer model, having $2000 in could be very bad.

[zombywoof]

I own two old Epiphones including an FT-79 which Gibson transformed into the Texan. Both though are pre-Gibson guitars so are very different beasts.

Buying "vintage" guitars is not for the unwashed. Not only do you have to have a good working knowledge of original features but an ability to spot existing and potential issues and be able to formulate a ball park estimate for repairs in your head.

That said, if I ran into an original Kalamazoo-built Texan, particularly one built before 1965, for $2K and assuming it was all original (or even mostly), I would be all over it despite the need for a neck set. If I had to I would sit on it until I came up with the cash for the repairs.

There is another possibility. You could look for either a MIJ Elitist 1964 Texan or a more recent Kalamazoo-built version of which there were at least two runs - one a repro of the original and another a typical Gibson fanciful version combining features from past catalogs but which never existed on one guitar. I know prices on used Elitists are all over the board. I have seen them go anywhere from $1500 up to $3K. It might have to do with the particular issue but I am not really up on these guitars.

Anyway, it is just a possible alternative way to go. And the hunt is always fun.

[Osage]

Originally Posted by newfx11

I know neck resets can be very expensive and I'm thinking I'll be above the $2000 range after fixing it up. Is this a common problem for acoustics, as in if I decide to get something cheaper like a Cortez it would probably still need to be reset?

Yes, this is a very common problem. Many, although not all, older acoustics will need to have their necks reset.

[Carl-CME-Kammin]

Buying a vintage guitar can often be bittersweet for these reasons. The tough truth is, if it doesn't need repairs like a neck reset or a refret now, it will at some point. If the sound and feel of the guitar is right, I feel like putting the cash into the guitar is more than worth it. Getting repairs is just part and parcel to owning vintage gear, so if you'd like something as maintenance free as possible, new or lightly used might be the way to go.

- Carl from CME

2007 D-35
2016 SJ-200
1994 J-45 100TH Anniversary
1967 J-45 Standard

[Woolbury]

I have a '46 Gibson LG2 I love dearly. If the house was burning down and I could only grab one thing... A great vintage guitar can elicit deep feelings.

[newfx11]

I believe it to be a ‘66 model. Number shows it to be ‘66 or ‘69 but I think the ‘69 models are square shoulder, this one is round. I forgot to mention the tuners are not original and there are some cracks on top... not bad but still need to be fixed. There has developed a belly where the bridge is too. Hope this helps.

[semolinapilcher]

I love my Texan. Highly recommended, so long as you're okay with a nut that'll be 1 5/8" max. Listen to Black Water, that's played on a '65.

Anything you can do to reduce surprises is good. is there any way the repair person can see it prior to funding? Pricing sounds okay to me.

[newfx11]

I talked to my luthier and basically sight unseen low end to fix will be $600, high $1000. I’m kinda discouraged, I’m not a collector but I know there is no replacement for mojo. I don’t really want to buy a vintage acoustic online without trying it out first either.

[tbeltrans]

There was (and probably still is, but I can't find it right now), an article by George Gruhn about buying vintage acoustic guitars, particularly Martin guitars. He talked about how we have all heard the ultimate praise for these old Martin guitars, but how often first time customers of these instruments end up returning them. He said that people need to understand what these really are. They require care, can be a hassle to care for, and often don't play as nicely as some of the more modern instruments. Also, not all of them have "the sound" that people rave about.

Though my further comments are largely about Martin, since that is what I have, I think the gist is applicable to buying vintage in general...

Recently, I purchased locally, an old 1917 Martin 0-18, fully realizing that it would need a neck reset. It was just on the verge of that, so it still felt pretty good. What attracted me to it, among other things, was that it is the most comfortable playing old Martin I have yet played. Many, even with a neck reset, seem to feel somewhat stiff to me for some reason. This one didn't, so I knew its potential for me as a player, rather than collector guitar.

I really feel that with vintage instruments, you really need to play it. The old cliche "they don't make them like they used" does often seem true when it comes to vintage instruments. Most of the vintage instruments I have played, I would not choose over my 2016 Taylor 914ce because my Taylor plays so much easier than those vintage instruments. It is built differently.

However, my old Martin is different. I can use my thumb to fret the 6th string easily, which just seems difficult on my other instruments. The shape of the neck makes that difference. The scale on my Martin is 24.75, short enough to be really comfortable without being cramped. On later 0-18 models, the scale was changed to 24.9".

The 0-18 went through several changes over the years, well documented by the Martin books. Sometime in 1917, Martin switched from Brazilian rosewood to mahogany. Mine was probably one of the last made with Brazilian rosewood. Martin changed the bridge sometime in the 1920s from the pyramid style to a plain flat bridge. They added a pick guard in the 1930s and also started bracing the guitar heavier for steel strings. My Martin can use silk and steel strings, and sounds quite good with them, unlike any of my other steel string guitars that are braced much heavier.
Silk and steel is very comfortable for aging fingers. Sometime along the way (I don't remember the year offhand), Martin made the nut narrower from almost 1 7/8" to 1 3/4", and even narrower to 1 11/16" (if I recall correctly). The fretboard on my Martin does not feel as wide as is typical for a 1 7/8" width, but certainly more comfortable for fingerstyle than a 1 3/4" nut. For me, given what I know now, I would definitely want the older 0-18 such as what I have, from before all those changes.

The most desirable Martins, according to market prices, are those from the 1930s. That is called the "golden era". However, in my case, by the 1930s Martin had made the 0-18 a much less desirable guitar for my needs/wants. I don't know if guitars of other makers have a "golden era" that affects market prices. The point here is that your particular needs may not be the same as what "the market" feels is desirable. There is little reason to follow the crowd, unless your intent is reselling later at a profit, assuming the market allows for that in the future.

The point is that knowing the history of the making of the instrument can provide information as to whether this really is the one you want. I would never suggest buying a vintage instrument because it is vintage. I would recommend learning about what you are buying as much as possible.

One other thing to consider is that these guitars really are OLD and require care just as we do as we age. You become the caretaker of that instrument.

Tony

[semolinapilcher]

Originally Posted by newfx11

I talked to my luthier and basically sight unseen low end to fix will be $600, high $1000. I’m kinda discouraged, I’m not a collector but I know there is no replacement for mojo. I don’t really want to buy a vintage acoustic online without trying it out first either.

Living vicariously... here is some righteous guitar. No idea about the action or the sound or anything, BUT....

early 70s Guild

[Truckjohn]

I think if you are getting into vintage - it super duper behoves you to try and buy in person... At least for now until you get a better feeling between what things look like in pictures... Aka being able to spot damage, modification, misidentification, and fakes....

There are many things you don't know to look for.... Idiosynchrasies... Oddities... Features.. Defects.. Things you simply take for granted now and get burned badly on...

It also pays heavily to do some soul searching to understand specifically what you are after.. That can save you from some costly mistakes... One of which is assuming you will like the "Holy Grail" instruments that "The Internet" raves over... Another is assuming you will be comfortable without modern conveniences like good tuners, adjustable truss rods, pick ups, modern neck profiles, radiused fretboards, and intonation compensated bridges...