genuine wear on a spectacular '36 D18 -- how does this make you feel about relics?

[musicman1951]

Originally Posted by fazool

I am a terrible "collector"

The first thing I would do is refinish it LOL

I'm not totally enamored by 100 year old guitars (especially at $50K), and I would not usually even consider a guitar that beat up. But if I found a beat up guitar with a tone I simply couldn't live without I'm with you - I'd have it refinished. Instruments are not part of my retirement plan, and I have to look at them every day.

[capefisherman]

All I know for sure is that if I had $50K to spend on a guitar, I'd take two $25K guitars from the best boutique makers out there and I am pretty confident I'd have two incredible instruments, built to my specs that sounded and LOOKED spectacular. No matter how good that D-18 sounds, I could not live with that look. But hey, that's just me.

[1Charlie]

To be clear, the original finish is an important factor in the tone of a vintage guitar.

And to remove it, by necessity, the top has to be sanded and thinned. Thus, an already lightly-constructed guitar gets even lighter, and more at risk of the top deforming/bellying.

So refinishing a vintage guitar has potentially negative ramifications, both in the way it sounds, and how well it holds up to relentless string tension.

That is why refinishing is the kiss of death for a vintage guitar’s value.

[spectro28]

Interesting lead-in story to my OP — my girlfriend bought a 2004 SCGC OM Custom (short scale, 1 11/16 nut width) at Sylvan Music in Santa Cruz a couple of weeks ago.

It’s a GREAT guitar, sounds so open and alive, well setup, let her get a clean F#m bar chord for the 1st time.

Modest wear on the top, modest wear on the back, some dings, some scratches, it’s not been baby’d. The case has a bunch of festival stickers, and had clearly spent time outdoors camping, with some hay and dried grasses in it (nothing exotic).

That said, it’s gonna need some work eventually, but if it’s stable, I’m really happy for her to have a guitar that’s already got a history. Really cool. Had hands laid on it, and clearly loved.

Work will address the low saddle and the separation of the neck joint at the base of the heel — you can slide paper between the heel and the body for about 3/4 inch.

But she loves it, and is playing it a lot! I play it when I’m over (don’t bring any of my mostly-closet queens anymore, though I have been bringing over a ukulele, my pandemic instrument).

I was really attracted to the Pre*War guitars after playing one at Gryphon — I am not a dreadnought player, but I sat with & played that one for a while — it was amazingly good, responsive, and flawless, while having some playwear and a vintage finish. All of my mirror finish guitars are kinda asking to be too much cared for; my 2007 Eichelbaum is starting to have some nice honest wear, and the Collings OM1A-JL satin finish asks less.

But this is fun, and very gracious to be able to explore what matters and what I wish for!

And I’m not the Bank of Guitars, I’m getting older now and enjoying them, and they aren’t a part of my retirement fund, but art to hold in my arms and connect with! And to connect with others — which I’m missing right now...

Cheers —
Marc

[lowrider]

It's On hold!

Which one of you bought it?! Did you get the internet discount?

[UncleJesse]

That's a lot of wear and not in my favorite place but I'll bet it sounds otherworldly.

I'd own it in a second if I could afford it. I also like relic'd guitars. I own one (D28AA) and will soon own another (Iris DF). I think they look cool and are a lot cheaper than actual vintage guitars. If someone else doesn't like them and thinks I'm a poser, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Live and let live, right?

[colins]

Originally Posted by capefisherman

All I know for sure is that if I had $50K to spend on a guitar, I'd take two $25K guitars from the best boutique makers out there and I am pretty confident I'd have two incredible instruments, built to my specs that sounded and LOOKED spectacular. No matter how good that D-18 sounds, I could not live with that look. But hey, that's just me.

And me, although that's also my preference for a modern sound over a vintage sound and for not thrashing a guitar.
Not possible 100 years ago, but if the guy that owned that Martin had a decent amp he may not have had to play it so hard.

[kizz]

I really wonder how he/she managed to get that kind of wear, must have been an odd way of playingstyle or maybe they dropped a sander on it ?

[Nama Ensou]

Originally Posted by kizz

I really wonder how he/she managed to get that kind of wear, must have been an odd way of playingstyle or maybe they dropped a sander on it ?

My ex got that same kind of wear pattern strumming over the top of the fingerboard and it looks like if the same person did all of it that they just played in two different areas for tonality.

[stephenT]

Originally Posted by fazool

Not just a $25,000 guitar but a PRETTY $25,000 guitar

...that sounds like dookie 'cos it's been refinished.

[Frodolicious]

I really dig natural play wear and relics alike! When you see the real thing like that, it would have to sound killer for someone who obviously loved playing it!!

[hubcapsc]

Originally Posted by Frodolicious

I really dig natural play wear and relics alike! When you see the real thing like that, it would have to sound killer for someone who obviously loved playing it!!

Or it was all some honky tonk player could afford when he bought it
for $40 during WWII and used it that way for 20 years ...

-Mike

[Br1ck]

Well that guitar's patina just about matches mine, so it would work for me.

[brandall10]

Originally Posted by musicman1951

I'm not totally enamored by 100 year old guitars (especially at $50K), and I would not usually even consider a guitar that beat up. But if I found a beat up guitar with a tone I simply couldn't live without I'm with you - I'd have it refinished. Instruments are not part of my retirement plan, and I have to look at them every day.

FYI, a refin can impact both the tone and structural integrity of an acoustic due to the thinning of the wood and of course having a brand new finish. That guitar you fall love with could become something else.

It's a wild thing to do to any acoustic that has any vintage value unless it's part of a restoration that addresses more than cosmetic damage (ie. flood damage, impact). Basic rule of thumb, if you purchase something that 'needs' work, does that work end up being a net positive to value or net negative?

I get not wanting a beat to hell guitar, at these levels it's far better to pay 10-25% more for an example that hits the condition you prefer than take an easy 50% hit.