I'm commenting on guitar brands I have owned. Seems like Collings is a popular choice but I have no experience with them....So, Being a huge Martin fan......I'd have to say Taylor for consistency ;). I've owned a few of them and they were very consistent. I'd also give a nod to Yamaha. The more I play of theirs the more I am impressed.

I favor Martin's and it took me three 000-42's to find the one I loved. The finish was perfect on all 3, but the sound varied wildly from super stiff to wide open. I kinda like the difference though. It makes the purchase process a little more personal and important for me. I guess I like the hunt.

Consistent Quality. Does it exist?
 

It could, the overarching word here being integrity; as previously stated, while there will be inevitable variations in the specific woods used and the resulting tone, given modern technology there's absolutely no reason for poor out-of-the-box playability or fit/finish issues - which may in certain cases require a major rethink of current corporate philosophy, but we'll just leave it at that...

Just sticking to D-18's and D-28's, arguably the flagship models, the inconsistency is noticeable. It's not surprising and evidently all of them are being bought by players that like them so why change?

Come on, guys... this thread is about, "high-end guitar manufacturers... that build good or even great guitars with great consistency."

Taylor. Period.

Fairly consistent? Yes. Part of the consistency is the innovation that Taylor maximizes to their benefit in production and uses those innovations (for good or bad for the customer) for their guerilla (and gorilla :eek:) marketing. They seem to strive for components that are consistent, cost conscious, easy to install and hard to screw up in the process.

Great question and glad most responders focused on the question of "consistency" rather than just which brand they favor.
Large MFGer's:
1) Started out as a "Martin Guy" at a time when there was only a handful of luthiers. Some Martins still blow my socks off -I have a few- but I've picked up too many that really left me flat, so for consistency...No.
2) Gibson has had their ups and downs.
3) Conversely, while most Taylors don't blow me away, I rarely pick up a "bad" one. Among larger luthiers Taylor is the most consistent AND up and down their price line.

"Smaller" Luthiers (Of those Ive played):
1) I rank Bourgeois really high in consistency and I prefer their guitars for playability and tone; BUT
2) Like others on this thread the Collings I've played have been amazingly consistent in feel and tone, although their tone doesn't grab me. That's probably because I'm usually playing new ones in shops. (I need to play more that have opened up, as I believe even Collings said he built them to open with time & playing.)

I would agree. But it does beg the question of whether consistency is inherently a good thing. Or simply consistency.

True. That inherent inconsistency, due to the fact that we are dealing with wood and it's variances, can make the search for tone so much more interesting than if sitka spruce=sitka spruce in absolute terms.

All the guitars I have purchased have been of good, consistent quality. Martin, Taylor, Gibson, Fender, Santa Cruz, Collings, Olson, Sheppard, Rickenbacker, ... I have never had quality issues with any of them.

- Glenn

Depends which day of the week it is . Ya can get a bad one in any brand . Geo may be on 3rd shift and not have his mind on work and poof , you get a bad one . Many many factors involved in guitar " consistent " quality . Some co's better than others tho for sure .