Huss and Dalton, the good years.

[Newbflat]

Ok maybe that’s an over statement. Over the last month or so reading up on H&D among others I have noticed a number of times people have mentioned their guitars were better after a certain date. Curious if anyone else has heard this or has any experience with this? I’m purposely leaving out the dates to avoid influencing anything people might mention.

Just to be clear… I’m in no way suggesting there is a point in time when things changed, it might all be internet here say. I’m just curious if there is any thoughts /corroborating info in this. I sure do love my 2021 TOM-M.

[Dwight]

All years of Huss and Dalton are exceptional!

[Zissou Intern]

I had the prototype for the TDM back in 1999. I think it was SN: 195. It was excellent in all ways. I decided I had to have one of the new Weber Yellowstones and traded away the TDM. I often wonder where that guitar is today. I don't ever think about the Weber, which is also long gone.

[JustGlyphs]

In my observation, Huss & Dalton were underrated/underpriced for many years and then spent a bunch of money on internet marketing which caused their business to soar. They now charge more, in line with their peers. I don't think the quality has changed much at all.

Their tone also tends to be more mellow and vintage Gibson-ey, clean and traditional. This is less flashy and perhaps perceived as lower quality compared to the harmonic complexity and overtones of other builders.

[soups]

I have a 2014 and a 2021, both OM's. Both are superb guitars.

[cc132]

[Edit] deleting this comment because I realized it was kind of mean spirited.

[Newbflat]

Originally Posted by cc132

This may not be a popular opinion, but I think a big part of Huss and Dalton's issues in terms of being perceived at the same level of Collings, Bourgeois, and Santa Cruz is that a lot of their guitars just aren't that good looking. They might be fabulous instruments, but many of them that I've seen over the years have a very "DIY guitar made in the shed by a competent hobbyist woodworker" look to them.

I don't think it's a coincidence that builders who build guitars that both sound and look good tend to be the ones that end up at the top of the stack.

My TOM-M save the burst looks just like a Collings OM1…. The TD-M I was looking at looks just like a D-28. If you want fancy looking wood and binding they will do that. If you want inlay they will do that…I’m really not sure what you are talking about.

[JustGlyphs]

I was only writing about tone but the visual aesthetic difference is a good point too. I really like the stingray fretboard inlays and some work upgraded appointments I've seen, but their basic models are more plain than builders of similar reputation.

[cc132]

[edit] deleting this one too. I can't figure out how to get my point across without sounding unkind, which is not my intention.

[Newbflat]

Originally Posted by cc132

I was hoping to delete my comment before anyone read it but it looks like I was unsuccessful. Since it's already out there, I'll use this guitar from their website as an example:



To me - and I can't reiterate enough that this is just my personal opinion - this guitar looks a little "off." The wings on the bridge look bulbous, the drop-in saddle isn't flattering given the bridge shape, the abalone bridge-pins look out of place somehow, and the pickguard looks misshapen with way too much bloat towards the bridge. This makes the pickguard look unbalanced, and like it is drooping. Their headstock logo also looks like something that was created in Microsoft Word.

When I cover the bridge and pickguard with my thumb, it's a great looking guitar.

I'll reiterate this again, because I don't want to yuck anybody's yum. Aesthetics are purely a matter of personal taste, and I'm sure there are people out there who would think that the ones I own aren't great looking either.

I'm only bringing this up because someone suggested that tone or marketing are the reasons that H&D has lagged behind their competitors, and I think that's not quite a full explanation. I've also seen some H&D's that looked great.

So… you need to go look at a 000-18 natural. It has a cheep decal for a headstock label and a belly bridge that looks pregnant, otherwise the same. To each their own. The subject here is sound threw the years, not why you think other people don’t buy them based on looks.

[fenderball]

ive only played one...it was in 2008 in richmond, at a small guitar shop...i dont even recall what model...but it was exceptional! wish i had been smart enough to buy it...

[KevinH]

It's hard to find H&Ds where I live, so I've only played a handful of them (and own an FS), but they've all been exceptional. Very responsive and nicely balanced.

[jaymarsch]

I found in the ones that I played over the years that they got more consistently excellent after about 2015 or so. They have always made good guitars but I think that after any builder hits a certain number of guitars, there is just a consistency from guitar to guitar that develops. FWIW - I have never heard or experienced any period of time where H & D were sub par.
Best,
Jayne

[Godfather]

Originally Posted by Dwight

All years of Huss and Dalton are exceptional!

^^^^^^ THIS RIGHT HERE!^^^^^^^

[Skeezix]

I appreciate cc132’s opinion that some H&D guitars might look a bit plain, and the pickguard on that particular 00 in the photo from their website looks a little odd to me too…maybe has to do with the perspective. But if you look on their website at the Recently Shipped guitars and click on Show More, you’ll see all sorts of fantastic looking guitars. Wish I could try them all… I don’t know if they have a “Golden Era” per se, but I’d base my opinion on the individual instrument from any year in their history.