When did “vintage” acoustics become a thing…

[The Bard Rocks]

I recognize vintage instruments as dating from the 40's or earlier, though sometimes my mind accepts the 50's. By definition,"vintage" must mean "older than me". Some would argue that I am vintage as well. Not sure if I should take that as a compliment or an insult. Or a statement of fact.

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by JayBee1404

I may be wide of the mark - I often am - but, to my way of thinking, guitars become ‘Vintage’ after fifty years, and in ten-year blocks. So, in the decade beginning 2021, guitars built pre-1971 drop into the ‘Vintage’ classification, and in the decade beginning 2031, guitars built pre-1981 will become ‘Vintage’, etc., etc., etc.

This is my personal perception only, and I’m pretty sure others will judge by different yardsticks, but it works for me.

That’s a currently accepted rule-of-thumb, but I think the OP is getting at something different: at what point did older guitars become more desirable—and more expensive—than new ones? Was Bob Dylan onto something when he bought a 1947 J-50 in ~1960? Did he like the sound better than a new J-50, or was it just a used guitar?

The most coveted Martins are from the pre-war era, the 1930s and 1940s. People want them not just because they are old and/or rare, but because they have an elusive sound. In 1940, were people clamoring for guitars built in the 1890s or even 1870s, lamenting how much better those old guitars sounded than the new ones?

In an interview of George Gruhn floating about the interwebs, he basically says the same thing several posters have said—that 1970 was a watershed year in the guitar market. Martin switched from BRW to IRW, yes, but also as the market for acoustic guitars boomed, manufacturers of guitars—including Martin—began to beef up the construction of their guitars to ward off warranty claims. A 1972 Martin may now be considered vintage, but it will probably never command the price of a 1942 Martin. Query how much that 1942 Martin went for in 1972, when it was only 30 years old? Did people pay more for it then than a new guitar? That to me is the crux of the OP’s question.

[Mr. Jelly]

I think right after they were old they became vintage.

[383roller]

I personally know an old timer that was buying old guitars in the 60s when he was young. He learnt it from somewhere

[L20A]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Good Question, and my response is pure conjecture but both Gibson and Martin made poorer guitars in the '70s, plus the BRW thing, and so, possibly the term "vintage" became a marketing term for "used". around then.

These is my thoughts also.

[JayBee1404]

Originally Posted by sinistral

That’s a currently accepted rule-of-thumb, but I think the OP is getting at something different: at what point did older guitars become more desirable—and more expensive—than new ones? Was Bob Dylan onto something when he bought a 1947 J-50 in ~1960? Did he like the sound better than a new J-50, or was it just a used guitar?

The most coveted Martins are from the pre-war era, the 1930s and 1940s. People want them not just because they are old and/or rare, but because they have an elusive sound. In 1940, were people clamoring for guitars built in the 1890s or even 1870s, lamenting how much better those old guitars sounded than the new ones?

In an interview of George Gruhn floating about the interwebs, he basically says the same thing several posters have said—that 1970 was a watershed year in the guitar market. Martin switched from BRW to IRW, yes, but also as the market for acoustic guitars boomed, manufacturers of guitars—including Martin—began to beef up the construction of their guitars to ward off warranty claims. A 1972 Martin may now be considered vintage, but it will probably never command the price of a 1942 Martin. Query how much that 1942 Martin went for in 1972, when it was only 30 years old? Did people pay more for it then than a new guitar? That to me is the crux of the OP’s question.

Thanks for that response, Sinistral. I get what you're saying, and I can't disagree - I guess I hadn't understood the underlying question, and your explanation makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[Dash_Starkiller]

Originally Posted by sinistral

That’s a currently accepted rule-of-thumb, but I think the OP is getting at something different: at what point did older guitars become more desirable—and more expensive—than new ones? Was Bob Dylan onto something when he bought a 1947 J-50 in ~1960? Did he like the sound better than a new J-50, or was it just a used guitar?

The most coveted Martins are from the pre-war era, the 1930s and 1940s. People want them not just because they are old and/or rare, but because they have an elusive sound. In 1940, were people clamoring for guitars built in the 1890s or even 1870s, lamenting how much better those old guitars sounded than the new ones?

In an interview of George Gruhn floating about the interwebs, he basically says the same thing several posters have said—that 1970 was a watershed year in the guitar market. Martin switched from BRW to IRW, yes, but also as the market for acoustic guitars boomed, manufacturers of guitars—including Martin—began to beef up the construction of their guitars to ward off warranty claims. A 1972 Martin may now be considered vintage, but it will probably never command the price of a 1942 Martin. Query how much that 1942 Martin went for in 1972, when it was only 30 years old? Did people pay more for it then than a new guitar? That to me is the crux of the OP’s question.

Thank you for putting it perfectly. This is exactly what I was trying to say. Why in the early 60s would someone have wanted a 40s era guitar over a brand new one? Thank you for making it more clear!

[Osage]

Originally Posted by Dash_Starkiller

Thank you for putting it perfectly. This is exactly what I was trying to say. Why in the early 60s would someone have wanted a 40s era guitar over a brand new one? Thank you for making it more clear!

As for why someone might have wanted a 40's Gibson in the early 60's, Gibson stopped scalloping their braces in 1955 and starting in 1961 their guitars had the dreaded adjustable bridge and oversized plywood bridge plate, which negatively effect the tone and volume. A 40's J-45 would have just been a better sounding guitar than a brand new one from the early 60's.

[Jim Owen]

I started playing in the 70s, and I didn’t hear the term “vintage” in regular parlance. But we knew to look for older guitars for the reasons Andy listed.

When I started reading George Gruhn’s remarks in Guitar Player, old guitars became vintage.

The 55 000 18 I played throughout the 70s would be vintage now. Back then, it was used.

[Br1ck]

I have learned over time to love the tone of age on a guitar. I can't describe it but I like it. Those old Gibsons and Martins were played in the sixties for two reasons. Musicians could afford them, and they sounded good. Gruhn and others created a market that turned old used guitars into old vintage guitars.

Now rarity clouds judgement. There were not so good guitars in the 30s. There were not so good guitars in the 70s. 70s and 80s are the new vintage. It's inevitable. Don't have the braces scalloped or the bridge moved on that 77 D 28. You'll ruin it's value making it a good instrument.

[FrankHudson]

Speaking (as the OP was) just of acoustic guitars I think it was a development circa 1970, and that if George Gruhn didn't totally start it, he was key in disseminating the concept and the specifics of what made the vintage acoustic guitars different.

Were there pockets of "you know, the good'uns are pre-war Martins" insider knowledge before him? Possible, but I'd be curious to see the cites. One poster upthread said it was known to bluegrassers in the 50s for example. I can't say that's not so, but I haven't run across it.

There'd be two aspects of that knowledge. The first, what is sometimes called a "black box" observation, that a player might play a pre-war Martin and say "You know this one sounds better, I'll buy/play this one." This kind of choice wouldn't necessary launch "vintage" as a value-added thing that would increase prices for similar examples. And that player might much later learn the theory of what specs were supposed to be responsible for that theory retroactively, and so later on use that theory to explain why they made that choice unaware at the time of anything that was transferable value as "vintage."

The second level, the part that Gruhn helped propagate, is the theory: what woods, glues, specs, construction techniques were used, and our now much discussed stories about "opening up over time" and "changes in wood structure due to age" and so forth. This level is highly important to "vintage" meaning extra monetary value. Someone saying "this guitar sounds better" doesn't necessarily transfer to someone seeking out the same model, year, or specs if you don't know that what is the something that is supposed to make it sound better.

We know that violins (and probably other orchestral instruments) already had a long-established theory before flat top acoustic guitar players latched onto their own version of this. It's even possible that electric guitar players were a couple of years or so ahead of acoustic player with the "Beano cult" of the OG Les Paul models. So maybe a vintage theory would be inevitable for acoustic guitars.

My reading of period interviews and other material of folk-related musicians in the post WWII folk revival and its decedents doesn't indicate a great deal of reverence for pre-war instruments or specs before 1970. Stephen Stills seems to be one of the early ones to latch onto the idea that vintage specs were to be sought out.

But to a large degree, from what I've read and partially observed, the value of a "vintage" guitar in the 1950s or 60s was "it's cheaper."

[godfreydaniel]

An interview with George Gruhn:

http://acousticguitar.com/makers-sha...guitar-market/

And some of Eric Schoenberg’s thought on vintage instruments:

http://www.om28.com/custom/article/A...arNotes-05.jsp

http://om28.com/custom/article/Acous...arNotes-06.jsp

http://om28.com/custom/article/Acous...arNotes-02.jsp

[ssynhorst]

godfrey,
From a WC Fields fan, thanks very much for the links which tell pretty much the full story.

All that remains is discussion of the effect of age on the woods of the top and its bracing.

The issues are real, and the highly developed ears of expert players can hear the with great certainty which instruments have them. Sometimes we can even hear them fairly clearly on our computer speakers. - Stevo

[Cibby]

I bought my 1967 D28 in 1969...I never thought of it as vintage..I don't know maybe it's not. All it means to me is I'm old and older than my D28.

[johnnydobbers]

In my limited experience, most private transactions include the most desirable examples of pre-war Martins. There are some guitars for sale on websites, but they are "picked over" in a sense. Vintage guitars start from the mid to late 30's. Anything else is just "old"