What is the most overrated part of a guitar?
 

A recent post got me thinking. Why do some obsess (probably not the best word) over the looks of the back of the guitar? You don't see it while you are playing and you don't see it when you put the guitar on a stand or hanger. As long as it sounds good I could care less about the grain or what it looks like.

Any other aspects of a guitar you think people make too much of a big deal over?

Can you tell I'm getting bored cooped up in the house all day?:D

I’d say the *name* on the headstock.

When I saw the title of the thread: What is the most overrated part of a guitar? I was going to answer "me."

So, I'll leave it to our forum brethren.
And yes, I can tell you're bored! :D
LarryK.

Well, I feel quite the opposite. If I'm going to spend the kind of money the guitars I want to play cost, I expect them to be as visually appealing as they are tonally. To me, the guitar is more than wood that makes music.

Everyone's different. My close buddy spends $40k on a car and then puts his feet (with shoes on) up on the dashboard where it scuffs. Doesn't care a bit how the car looks as long as it gets him from point A to point B.

My thoughts exactly. That and the grain on the top. I own wide grain, and narrow grain, as well as bear clawed. If it sounds good it sounds good. I'm less concerned about looks and more concerned with function and tone. I upgrade my bridge pins mostly to make string changes easier. I do polish my guitars, but mainly to clean the scum off them, not so much to make them purdy :)

I would agree about the back. But I love beautiful wood. But I almost never look at the back of the guitar, so it's certainly not an important part of my purchase decision.

Neck shape, I've never cared much about what shape a neck has. I'm not very good at describing them and I've never played a guitar where the shape the neck had any impact on whether or not I liked the guitar or could play it.

The look of the wood (front, back or top) is the most overrated IMHO. Visited Tim McKnight a while back and while showing us his wood room we did several A-B comparisons (in response to only visuals of 1 piece vs another). In all instances the really cool looking woods were the deadest in terms of sound (Tim selected certain woods to make a point). A very educational exercise. For me guitars are mostly about sound and feel. LOOKS are great for marketing. This being said, there are many guitars out there that sound, feel AND look great -- but the least important of these is looks IMHO (as a practical matter). Cheers!

The back & sides wood. The wood in the B&S contributes little to the tone, & yet most players (especially the traditionalists) insist on rosewood or mahogany. With so many renewable domestic woods on our shores, it's a shame and a waste. And as far as visual & sonic appeal, nothing beats a good walnut!
Steve

You took the words right out of my ... fingers.

Condition...

Volutes. Not the first place I look on a guitar.


(Now I know we've all been cooped up for too long.)

I think bling is a little over rated; fancy headstock inlays, fret board inlays, etc, but at the same time I admire the workmanship. I guess when I look at the guitars that are designed to be just as much a piece of eye candy as an instrument, a little voice in my head says "but you will still sound like you"....

Yup...that is my answer, too.

The player. (runs for cover...) :)

Tony