Froggy Bottom vs... ?

[asobi]

Originally Posted by usb_chord

One thing’s for sure - given every thing you’ve described about this next pending acquisition, your next guitar should probably be 12-frets to the body.

Kim’s guitars are fabulous in way that one rarely -if ever- encounters in guitars by other makers. He’s just that good. Given the volume of guitars I’ve auditioned, I’m glad to say that it IS POSSIBLE to find guitars by other builders that are comparable in quality of tone to Kim’s work. It's just not at all common to do so.

Frogs punch above their weight class. Period. Do they sound like a Walker? No but I’ve played 15 or so of Kim’s guitars so far and I’ve yet to have an experience that made me love my M DLX any less. The old growth 1876 logged German spruce top on mine probably doesn’t hurt.

It’s important to remember that this is a never-ending game if you want it to be; if you think you like Kim’s “normal” guitars, wait until you play his “master model” . . . or a great Wayne Henderson dread, or a 1929-30 Martin 000-28 or a 1931 OM-28, or a . . .

Again, as in the other thread, thanks for bringing much needed insight and clarity... and for giving me other crumbs to go chase down in the forest trail!

[leeplaysblues]

In all honesty, all of the independent/ small shop makers guitars I have tried (apart from a couple of H&D) have left me unimpressed.

Why?

Yes they were all works of art and stunning guitars but when I do the cost/benefit equation in my head they all came up lacking compared to the beautiful guitars that can be had from more mainstream makers.

The tone and playability was not worth the $'000's more they were charging for the guitars.

But thats just me....

[usb_chord]

Originally Posted by leeplaysblues

In all honesty, all of the independent/ small shop makers guitars I have tried (apart from a couple of H&D) have left me unimpressed.

Why?

Yes they were all works of art and stunning guitars but when I do the cost/benefit equation in my head they all came up lacking compared to the beautiful guitars that can be had from more mainstream makers.

The tone and playability was not worth the $'000's more they were charging for the guitars.

But thats just me....

I was just having a conversation around this subject with a dear friend this afternoon. I've met many people with the means to purchase a guitar of the price points implied in this thread that have actively decided against doing so for reasons similar to what’s expressed above.

Make no mistake - this is the niche of niches and guitars like these are not for everyone; the vast majority of them aren’t for me either. Having been properly corrupted by instruments so lovely sounding they literally took my breath away, it’s hard to go back.

The barrier of entry can be high to gain another 5% of tonal whatever, but I’m too much of a nerd for this stuff to not at least try to go there. I have a guitar in my hands roughly 4 hours of everyday. I'm obsessed with guitar-based music and pretty much spend all my free time engaging in it. I mean, it’s Saturday night and I’m taking a break from playing guitar . . . to post on a freaking guitar forum. Shouldn't we be somewhere watching Netflix? Nope, not me - guitars (whatever the cost) are more fun . . .

[Crash-VR]

Originally Posted by usb_chord

I was just having a conversation around this subject with a dear friend this afternoon. I've met many people with the means to purchase a guitar of the price points implied in this thread that have actively decided against doing so for reasons similar to what’s expressed above.

Make no mistake - this is the niche of niches and guitars like these are not for everyone; the vast majority of them aren’t for me either. Having been properly corrupted by instruments so lovely sounding they literally took my breath away, it’s hard to go back.

The barrier of entry can be high to gain another 5% of tonal whatever, but I’m too much of a nerd for this stuff to not at least try to go there. I have a guitar in my hands roughly 4 hours of everyday. I'm obsessed with guitar-based music and pretty much spend all my free time engaging in it. I mean, it’s Saturday night and I’m taking a break from playing guitar . . . to post on a freaking guitar forum. Shouldn't we be somewhere watching Netflix? Nope, not me - guitars (whatever the cost) are more fun . . .

I'm like you. Guitars are my number one, but I do love modern and classic high end toys like fast cars and mountain bikes. Technology has benefited modern bikes and cars in remarkable ways. But you have to pay for it. And they depreciate remarkably fast. You can easily spend $8k - $10k on a modern mountain bike that will need to be replaced in 5 years. I just bought a '14 Audi that originally sold for $45,000 for $13,000 in remarkable condition. Instruments are made to last multiple lifetimes. That's not the norm in today's disposable society. It's also my favorite industry to support. Especially at this level of instrument where you're supporting true artisans.

I've bought and sold more electric guitars and amps than I can count. To the point that I don't even want to play electric anymore. Acoustic has always been my number one. I started with cheep laminates only to discover Taylor. After wearing the frets down to nothing on my Taylor, I upgraded to my SCGC OM 12 years ago. After thousands of hours on my SCGC, I have a once in a lifetime opportunity to buy an ultra high end acoustic and I feel great about it. It's the only area of my life after 30+ years of practice that I can truly appreciate the nuance that comes in that last 5-10%, and I'm willing to pay for it because I've proven to myself that I will get the most out of that instrument.

One of the biggest thing I've learned about opinions on forums over the years is that you just never know the skill of the person posting. Too many times in the world of electrics, I've allowed someones opinion guide my decision, only to see them post a video and see that they can't even play. At least not in a way that they are looking for what I'm looking for. Dynamics come with a lot of time. Extremely dynamic instruments or amps can be way too revealing to a novice, but to a pro they can be what allows their playing to go where it needs to. And no, you don't have to have great skill to appreciate fine instruments. But like fast cars, my skills make me love any fast car, but an experienced racer using it at the track can appreciate that last 10% and have very strong preferences on those details and is most likely willing to pay to get the one that's just right. I love my SCGC, but I've reached a point that I want/need more from my guitar. If I can find the guitar that gives me that more, I know it will guide me to the next level. Just like any tool can in any art. I'm just grateful that enough people agree with me for these amazing builders to stay in business and refine their craft.

[asobi]

Originally Posted by leeplaysblues

Yes they were all works of art and stunning guitars but when I do the cost/benefit equation in my head they all came up lacking compared to the beautiful guitars that can be had from more mainstream makers.

The tone and playability was not worth the $'000's more they were charging for the guitars.

Originally Posted by usb_chord

The barrier of entry can be high to gain another 5% of tonal whatever, but I’m too much of a nerd for this stuff to not at least try to go there. I have a guitar in my hands roughly 4 hours of everyday. I'm obsessed with guitar-based music and pretty much spend all my free time engaging in it. I mean, it’s Saturday night and I’m taking a break from playing guitar . . . to post on a freaking guitar forum.

Originally Posted by Crash-VR

Guitars are my number one, but I do love modern and classic high end toys like fast cars and mountain bikes. Technology has benefited modern bikes and cars in remarkable ways. But you have to pay for it. And they depreciate remarkably fast. [But] Instruments are made to last multiple lifetimes. That's not the norm in today's disposable society...

...After thousands of hours on my SCGC, I have a once in a lifetime opportunity to buy an ultra high end acoustic and I feel great about it. It's the only area of my life after 30+ years of practice that I can truly appreciate the nuance that comes in that last 5-10%, and I'm willing to pay for it because I've proven to myself that I will get the most out of that instrument.

This sub-thread is more interesting than my main thread, and gets to the heart of the matter. I work in the corporate world, and have spent most of my career on the buy side as an investor (though I pivoted over to the sell side in recent years). What leeplaysblues says makes so much inherent sense to me vis cost-benefit analysis. The law of diminishing returns. Add to this what Crash says about immediate depreciation, and it should be offensive to any sound mind to indulge in this irrational hobby.

What resonates with me with the most is usb-chord's description of the obsession with the "niche of niches" category of this hobby, where chasing the elusive 5-10% - that Venn diagram overlap where the gear melds with your crazed devotion to musicianship - is for sure worth the devotion to some. Obviously not for all. Also Crash's accurate description that unlike expensive cars, guitars last for generations, and it also seems to me that investing in instruments created by specialty niche artisans that could last lifetimes makes more sense - seems more worthwhile - than indulging in a perishable commodity that is designed for a near-term obsolescence.

There's also an element of custom designing, interacting with the luthier. Buying my beautiful Collings was an exhilaration, but I'd imagine that thrill could likely pale compared to the day when I receive the two guitars I have on commission, whose history of creation will be tied to my personal history of working with the builder. It's a super niche, occult subset of what is an already outlier hobby, admittedly. But that is what I like about it.

[iim7V7IM7]

After 35 posts, I think that is clear that your question is only at best answered subjectively. The Froggy Bottom small shop makes some fine guitars no doubt. Some players adore them and consider them among the best available and others will prefer alternative guitars both factory and luthier made.

Your question regarding how specific luthier’s work compares is a difficult one to answer. They all sound a bit different in my experience from each other based differences in size, depth, design, material variability and execution. Many builders call guitars “OM” that are quite different in size and depth from the Nazareth namesake. They also differ in that some guitars you ask about are built completely by an individual and others by a small team approach.

I would place the guitar makers that you ask about in different camps from a design perspective. I think of guitars as falling into three different camps from this perspective:

1) “Traditionalists” who make guitars derivative of vintage guitars by Gibson and Martin;

2) “Evolved Traditionalists” whose guitars function similarly to traditional instruments, but modify them for structural and sonic goals.

3) “Modernists” whose guitars are really are designed and function a bit differently than traditional guitars.

Like any morphology, there are no clear borderlines between these broad distinctions. Some builders you ask about actually build instruments that cross two categories. Some “Evolved Traditionalists” lean towards “Traditionalist” and others towards “Modernist” as well.

Froggy Bottom is an “Evolved Traditionalist” guitar in my view. I view the builders that you asked about this way:

• Circa (John Slobod) builds “Traditional” and “Evolved Traditional” guitars
  
• Jeff Traugott builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Brian Applegate builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Kim Walker builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Jim Olson builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
  
• Michael Greenfield builds “Modernist” guitars
• Michi Matsuda builds “Modernist” guitars
• Ervin Somogyi builds “Modernist” guitars

My $.02

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

After 35 posts, I think that is clear that your question is only at best answered subjectively. The Froggy Bottom small shop makes some fine guitars no doubt. Some players adore them and consider them among the best available and others will prefer alternative guitars both factory and luthier made.

Your question regarding how specific luthier’s work compares is a difficult one to answer. They all sound a bit different in my experience from each other based differences in size, depth, design, material variability and execution. Many builders call guitars “OM” that are quite different in size and depth from the Nazareth namesake. They also differ in that some guitars you ask about are built completely by an individual and others by a small team approach.

I would place the guitar makers that you ask about in different camps from a design perspective. I think of guitars as falling into three different camps from this perspective:

1) “Traditionalists” who make guitars derivative of vintage guitars by Gibson and Martin;

2) “Evolved Traditionalists” whose guitars function similarly to traditional instruments, but modify them for structural and sonic goals.

3) “Modernists” whose guitars are really are designed and function a bit differently than traditional guitars.

Like any morphology, there are no clear borderlines between these broad distinctions. Some builders you ask about actually build instruments that cross two categories. Some “Evolved Traditionalists” lean towards “Traditionalist” and others towards “Modernist” as well.

Froggy Bottom is an “Evolved Traditionalist” guitar in my view. I view the builders that you asked about this way:

• Circa (John Slobod) builds “Traditional” and “Evolved Traditional” guitars
  
• Jeff Traugott builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Brian Applegate builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Kim Walker builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Jim Olson builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
  
• Michael Greenfield builds “Modernist” guitars
• Michi Matsuda builds “Modernist” guitars
• Ervin Somogyi builds “Modernist” guitars

My $.02

What a great post. I learned a lot from this.

[mercy]

It depends on what you play. If you play rhythm and traditional music then a guitar in the traditional vein is the one. H&D makes powerful instruments but I personally dont like the sound. The morphology above lists several builders in the Trad and Evolved vein, H&D being evolved.
I play fingerstyle and think that Greenfield is the top of the line. Other modern builders and in that que for me.
I wouldnt buy a Froggy but a Goodall would be, well good.
So there no best guitar, there is the best for you though.

[brandall10]

Originally Posted by leeplaysblues

In all honesty, all of the independent/ small shop makers guitars I have tried (apart from a couple of H&D) have left me unimpressed.

Have you tried a variety of Froggys?

I'll admit that part of the reason I'm looking in this direction is because I saw it mentioned on a few dealer descriptions that some particular guitar they were selling was reminiscent of the better prewar Martin examples. When folks mention 'magic' and that the guitars sound a size bigger than they are, it seems there is some common thread there.

I can say from my travails in the electric-guitardom I am ultimately a traditionalist (my favs are my 2012 '59 reissue strat and 2013 Reissue '58 Les Paul). I've owned makes like Tom Anderson and Don Grosh... the problem I have with some guitars that are more upmarket/modern is the frequency response is so evened out and smooth that they seem to lack character.

I sorta feel my endgame with acoustics goes there as well, I've thought often about picking up a wartime 00 or 000-18, or a player grade 000-28/21. I can say for sure my Pre*War 000-28 has redefined what I thought a newer acoustic could be that chases a traditional tone, and quite frankly, if I just stopped there I would be happy.

[FormerFoodie]

Originally Posted by latestyle

FormerFoodie, thanks for sharing your journey. It eerily sounds like the one I might be treading. Curious what about the Circa grabbed you to the point where you no longer thought about the Walker, which to you may have been the best guitar you'd ever played? It's a testament to Froggy that you are not selling them though they're no longer your "go to" guitars.

My Circa journey began with a used Adi/Braz OM28. Bar frets, banjo tuners, pyramid bridge... the quintessential vintage replica. I believe John Slobod calls it his "Full Monty" vintage repro. Though it was a rosewood guitar, it was crazy dry. Not loads of overtones like the Frogs. But it had an 'old world authority' that really grabbed me. This is the guitar that really started to scratch that vintage tone itch....

The Walker I played was a blonde Adi/Maple L00. It completely shattered all the (false) stereotypes about maple guitars (e.g. brittle, thin, bright, etc.). In hindsight, I probably should have purchased it.

Once Kim closed his list, I approached John Slobod about building an Adi/Maple OM. Interestingly enough, by this time, I had adopted a "don't commission new guitars" approach because I felt I could always get more bang for my buck buying used guitars. However, when all the saw dust settled, I had in my hands a guitar that completely blew away all my expectations. It had this presence that was amazing; very similar to the Walker, if not as mature. I felt that if it sounded this good off the bench, OMG, it was going to sound even more amazing a few years down the line. Anyways, I was hooked and it became my go to guitar (basically overtaking my Blazer & Henkes at the top of my preference pecking order). Once I combined the sonic experience with this Circa with the opportunity cost of owning a Walker (and time to find the right one!) , it just became so much easier for me to resign myself to not owning a Walker. Plus, since this guitar was commissioned, it was so much more personal to me. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to own the right Walker. But it's difficult me to stomach putting $30K+ into _one_ guitar. I can't get over that.

If you're interested, I've put a link to my original build thread below.
https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...ht=circa+maple

Late last year, a Forum member sold me his OM42 adi/braz Circa. It was voiced differently than my other rosewood Circa. This definitely had more overtones, but still with a strong fundamental - somewhere between my Frogs and my original Circa. Not as dry, but still very much the awesome guitar. (I actually like it so much I will eventually be selling my first Circa when the world isn't as crazy...) Not that I needed more supporting evidence, but this is just another data point that suggests John Slobod is building some of the best guitars on the planet.

The Circas are amazing guitars. But I would say there are LOTS of amazing guitars out there. On your list, I would love to play (and own?) an Olson or a Somogyi. I would love to own a Brondel and a Franklin. And there are a bunch of other luthiers I would love to learn more about. I'm slowing down because it's getting harder to justify acquiring more ridiculously high quality guitars. At the beginning of the boutique journey, I sold all my guitars and rebuilt my stable. I tried instituting a one in/one out rule when my stable hit 4, and I have failed spectacularly of adhering to that in the last couple of years. (And this doesn't even include my electrics!)

Last night, I broke out one of my Frogs for the first time in a few months. It was so nice to be reminded why I fell in love with this guitar in the first place. If this was my only guitar, I would still be one very happy dude.

If you can hear the difference in your ears, feel the difference in your hands, and can afford going down the boutique rabbit hole, go for it. If not, if you stopped your journey today, you would be sitting pretty. As long as the guitars bring you joy and doesn't put you in a financial bind, that's as good a first world problem there is. We all need distractions to pull us away from the craziness in the world. Just make sure to have lots of fun on this journey!

[FormerFoodie]

Originally Posted by leeplaysblues

In all honesty, all of the independent/ small shop makers guitars I have tried (apart from a couple of H&D) have left me unimpressed.

Why?

Yes they were all works of art and stunning guitars but when I do the cost/benefit equation in my head they all came up lacking compared to the beautiful guitars that can be had from more mainstream makers.

The tone and playability was not worth the $'000's more they were charging for the guitars.

But thats just me....

Dude, consider yourself blessed. Your perspective hits the nail on the head: if you can't hear the difference, the financial trade-off isn't going to work out. Both of those criteria are unique to every individual. All I know is that I wish I couldn't hear the difference between these brands. If so, I would have stopped a long time ago!!!!!!

[jaan]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

After 35 posts, I think that is clear that your question is only at best answered subjectively. The Froggy Bottom small shop makes some fine guitars no doubt. Some players adore them and consider them among the best available and others will prefer alternative guitars both factory and luthier made.

Your question regarding how specific luthier’s work compares is a difficult one to answer. They all sound a bit different in my experience from each other based differences in size, depth, design, material variability and execution. Many builders call guitars “OM” that are quite different in size and depth from the Nazareth namesake. They also differ in that some guitars you ask about are built completely by an individual and others by a small team approach.

I would place the guitar makers that you ask about in different camps from a design perspective. I think of guitars as falling into three different camps from this perspective:

1) “Traditionalists” who make guitars derivative of vintage guitars by Gibson and Martin;

2) “Evolved Traditionalists” whose guitars function similarly to traditional instruments, but modify them for structural and sonic goals.

3) “Modernists” whose guitars are really are designed and function a bit differently than traditional guitars.

Like any morphology, there are no clear borderlines between these broad distinctions. Some builders you ask about actually build instruments that cross two categories. Some “Evolved Traditionalists” lean towards “Traditionalist” and others towards “Modernist” as well.

Froggy Bottom is an “Evolved Traditionalist” guitar in my view. I view the builders that you asked about this way:

• Circa (John Slobod) builds “Traditional” and “Evolved Traditional” guitars
  
• Jeff Traugott builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Brian Applegate builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Kim Walker builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Jim Olson builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
  
• Michael Greenfield builds “Modernist” guitars
• Michi Matsuda builds “Modernist” guitars
• Ervin Somogyi builds “Modernist” guitars

My $.02

The value of this post can't be overstated. All the builders you've listed will all get universal raves, as they should; it would be hard to find better luthiers. The trick is, are they nuanced in the way that fits you. It takes a long time, and a lot of exposure, to gather the fine differences in them. To have an experienced collector, who owns many of these type of guitars, lay them out in easier to quantify terms is so incredibly helpful; far more so than YouTube videos. This is the kind of thing that makes this forum special. Many of us dream on these guitars, and if you're going to, it may as well be the actual right one for us!

[asobi]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

I think of guitars as falling into three different camps from this perspective:

1) “Traditionalists” who make guitars derivative of vintage guitars by Gibson and Martin;

2) “Evolved Traditionalists” whose guitars function similarly to traditional instruments, but modify them for structural and sonic goals.

3) “Modernists” whose guitars are really are designed and function a bit differently than traditional guitars.

Like any morphology, there are no clear borderlines between these broad distinctions. Some builders you ask about actually build instruments that cross two categories. Some “Evolved Traditionalists” lean towards “Traditionalist” and others towards “Modernist” as well.

Froggy Bottom is an “Evolved Traditionalist” guitar in my view. I view the builders that you asked about this way:

• Circa (John Slobod) builds “Traditional” and “Evolved Traditional” guitars
  
• Jeff Traugott builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Brian Applegate builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Kim Walker builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
• Jim Olson builds “Evolved Traditional” guitars
  
• Michael Greenfield builds “Modernist” guitars
• Michi Matsuda builds “Modernist” guitars
• Ervin Somogyi builds “Modernist” guitars

My $.02

This needs to be pinned to the top somewhere in this forum, asap.

Originally Posted by FormerFoodie

My Circa journey began with a used Adi/Braz OM28...Though it was a rosewood guitar, it was crazy dry. Not loads of overtones like the Frogs. But it had an 'old world authority' that really grabbed me.

...The Walker I played was a blonde Adi/Maple L00. It completely shattered all the (false) stereotypes about maple guitars (e.g. brittle, thin, bright, etc.). In hindsight, I probably should have purchased it.

Once Kim closed his list, I approached John Slobod about building an Adi/Maple OM...Once I combined the sonic experience with this Circa with the opportunity cost of owning a Walker (and time to find the right one!) , it just became so much easier for me to resign myself to not owning a Walker. Plus, since this guitar was commissioned, it was so much more personal to me.

If you're interested, I've put a link to my original build thread below.
https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...ht=circa+maple

Late last year, a Forum member sold me his OM42 adi/braz Circa. It was voiced differently than my other rosewood Circa. This definitely had more overtones, but still with a strong fundamental - somewhere between my Frogs and my original Circa.

The Circas are amazing guitars. But I would say there are LOTS of amazing guitars out there. On your list, I would love to play (and own?) an Olson or a Somogyi. I would love to own a Brondel and a Franklin. And there are a bunch of other luthiers I would love to learn more about.

Last night, I broke out one of my Frogs for the first time in a few months. It was so nice to be reminded why I fell in love with this guitar in the first place. If this was my only guitar, I would still be one very happy dude.

Amazing, thank you for sharing that. Your maple Slobod guitar is super pretty. I'd for sure love to try a Circa guitar some day. Seems from the way you describe the overtone content v. dryness, Froggy seems the next step for me. I still haven't yet experienced that vintage tone moment, but judging by how things are progressing (transgressing?!), I'll be there soon!

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by FormerFoodie

Not loads of overtones like the Frogs. But it had an 'old world authority' that really grabbed me.

I've never felt Froggy Bottoms have loads of overtones. I would attribute that more to Goodall than FB.

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

1) “Traditionalists” who make guitars derivative of vintage guitars by Gibson and Martin;

2) “Evolved Traditionalists” whose guitars function similarly to traditional instruments, but modify them for structural and sonic goals.

3) “Modernists” whose guitars are really are designed and function a bit differently than traditional guitars.

No offense, but these descriptions are so vague, I don't find them very helpful. Doesn't every builder modify their guitars for structural or sonic goals? Who doesn't do that?

And what does "function a bit differently than traditional guitars" actually mean?