Is it price, playability, tone or appearance

[wguitar]

While my guitar buying decisions include all the these, to me playability and tone are the most important to me. Price to me is simply a function of being within or outside of my budget, which narrows down and scopes the possibilities quite a bit. Appearance is important to the extent that a guitar is not ugly or gaudy or totally unpleasing to my visual senses (in reality, most are at least acceptable). That brings us to the most important factors in buying a guitar -- is it comfortable and a good fit for you (neck, body depth, body style, etc.), AND how does it sound. While marketers focus a lot on Appearance to drive sales, as a player I'm most interested in sound and feel. YMMV

Cheers!

[Ray175]

All other things being equal, tone is number one for me - provided playability is acceptable. Because all other things are never equal, playability will be always a major determinant. Looks? to a much lesser degree. I don't often sit in front of a mirror to watch myself play, and my guitars range from a very basic, no frills road series Martin to an Everley Brothers jumbo. I'm fortunate that price will never be an issue, but the price has to reflect the quality.....

[perttime]

A number of things must be considered:
- Can I afford it? Is it worth the money, for what I want?
- Does the sound and response to picking dynamics fit what I'm hoping for?
- No problems with playability? (My few guitars have very different necks, so lend themself to different styles of playing)
- Is it comfortable, FOR ME? (I've played nice dreads, but don't really want one for myself: the size is fine but the shape is not)
- Does it have something attractive in the looks department?

[Nymuso]

I have always bought guitars with a specific function in mind: Stage, studio, couch, writing/arranging, band, solo . . . and probably things that will come up that I haven’t considered yet.

Consequently different attributes come into play for each function. For example a stage guitar has to be one that I will be comfortable playing for four or so hours and won’t feed back readily; a studio guitar doesn’t have to meet those requirements. None have to be pretty, but I don’t like bursts and can do without a lot of bling.

On balance, I’m easy to please.

[Zissou Intern]

I consider price first and foremost. If I didn’t need to worry about that, I’d have a ‘36 D18 and D28, a ‘37 J35, ‘22 Loar… and the list goes on. Ergonomics and tone are on equal footing for me. If the playability isn’t good for me, then it doesn’t matter how it sounds. I have let go of more than one great sounding guitar because of string spacing or neck profile. I have also sold or traded a couple guitars that played like butter with great necks because the tone wasn’t doing it for me. And lastly I consider aesthetics. I have a Guild Orpheum 12 Fret D that is probably my all-time favorite guitar. I really do not appreciate the pickguard design, but I can overlook that, because it plays and sounds fantastic.

[jimmy bookout]

OK...I'll be the shallow one and confess that looks ARE important to me. Not number 1 (#2 probably), but I would NEVER buy a beat up guitar that sounds good.

[dadio917]

there is nothing better than an old beat up guitar that sounds and plays great.

[Zissou Intern]

Originally Posted by dadio917

there is nothing better than an old beat up guitar that sounds and plays great.

True that!

[raysachs]

Originally Posted by Dru Edwards

Well put, Ray.

Of the playability, tone, and appearance I probably swing playability first, then tone, and appearance is last and doesn't even matter for my acoustic purchases. If the neck doesn't feel comfortable I don't care how it sounds.

If the neck doesn’t feel comfortable, I don’t care how it sounds either. But OTOH, if the sound doesn’t inspire me, I don’t care how comfortable the neck is! I guess what it comes down to is price, sound, and playability ALL have to be there or I don’t buy a guitar. Looks is really the only criteria where I’m pretty flexible…

I two acoustic guitars. Both have sublime necks and both sound great (but very different). Both were affordable (one of them just barely - it was a real stretch). One of them I find pretty ugly, the other I think looks great. So the first three criteria all have to be met, and were. The looks part is highly negotiable…

-Ray

[FingahPickah]

I second Gordon Currie's:
"Tone and playability are inextricably linked for me"

Bling doesn't mean nearly enough for me to target it. Most of my acoustics are traditional designs, plain Janes. But they all play and sound great. I do appreciate the beauty of woods but not over/playability or tone.

I do intentionally look to avoid redundancy (i.e., no need for more than one sitka/rosewood dreadnought). I appreciate the variations of tone and playability (on all counts: neck, string spacing, body shape and depth, etc) from instrument to instrument (i.e., my mahogany 12 fret 000 Larrivee is very different from my '73 maple Guild dread, etc.).

I will say, however, with regard to esthetics... I never cared for Breedlove's most recognized headstock design. A few years back I had a (used) Korean made OM I picked up for "wicked" cheap (in Boston). Again good tone, easy to hold and play but... reminded me of "Gumby". I do own a 2011 American Series Breedlove (OM/SReH) with a Martin style headstock. Wouldn't change a thing about that guitar. And I've played some outstanding high-end Breedloves (a sitka/myrtlewood in particular) recently with a somewhat modified (from the old look) headstock - that I would definitely consider buying.

[musicman1951]

I have some prerequisites: smaller than a dread, at least 1 3/4 nut and short scale. I know I need those things to be comfortable. I do occasionally play others, but just because I'm curious.

Sound is first and foremost, because if it doesn't have the sound who cares what it feels like? But I wouldn't buy a guitar that felt uncomfortable in any way - too many choices to do that.

Looks are my last consideration, including wood choice and finish. I spend almost no time looking at the guitar, and there are precious few guitars I consider ugly. I very much prefer it not be beat up by the former owners.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Gonna be a bit of a bore, but it is the design.

I don't buy Martins or Gibsons but if it doesn't look like one or t'other, then it doesn't look right. I suppose you could call that : Looks
then
Playability Further, for flat tops it will be a) 12 fret, b) have a nut width of 1 & 13/16" so a modern version of a pre 1930s design.

Tone? Most of my purchases have been online, so I rarely get to sample the tone first, but the brands that I buy will have a known potential, and I know that I can open up most guitars fairly well.

I think that I follow a very similar path to Andy, but with slightly different parameters.

Design/Looks - is definitely my starting point. I probably carry a lot of prejudice but I'm unlikely to pick a guitar off a rack in a shop if it doesn't look like a "guitar". And bling is not my thing - I prefer "basic" to "beautiful" - I'm not going to pay for the posher version when the basic version will get the job done. Build geometry and build stability are the major design features for me, so they feature in the initial once over inspection of a new guitar. I do hold other design prejudices over woods and where a guitar is made too.

Price - I'm definitely an inverse guitar snob. I love playing great, cheap, guitars. I get a buzz when my friends with Martins, Gibsons, Taylors etc ask to play my guitars and say "that's a great guitar" without adding "for the price." If I had a lot of money then I'd play an old guitar from the 40s or 50s as my only guitar. Something like an LG-2 or a 00-18. It is pretty annoying that these great cheap guitars of their day now fetch such ridiculous prices!

Tone - In many respects, like Andy, I can coax something good out of the box if the design parameters are OK. Guitar body size effects tone more than any other factor (woods, bracing etc). So just picking a body size that will tonally work for my playing style will put me in the ball park and hopefully the "design" assessment will have already weeded out the duds.

Playability - I place this last as I do my own set-ups. And I can tell from that initial design inspection if a guitar will set-up well. I make my own nuts and shape my own saddles, and I can fret level and re-crown if needed.

[hatamoto]

Originally Posted by hotroad

What drives a purchase for you? Is the price of the guitar first, the playability of the guitar as in how it feels in your hands, it's size and how it conforms to your body, or is it the tone of the guitar including woods used, or lastly, the guitar's looks including sunburst or not, bling, rosette, fret markers, etc.

It's a balance of all those but for me, playability is always first, then looks, then tone. I'm not really that picky with the nuances in tone and as long as it falls in the general sound of what I'm looking for then I'm good.

If a guitar has the tone, and looks but is not playable for me, then all the good characteristics instantly goes down the drain.

[Bushleague]

Tone for sure, though playability is important I seem to be fairly insensitive to variations in necks.

Price, I pretty much just keep going up in price until I find the point of diminishing returns. At the point where I need to spend several times as much money to get a noticeable increase in sound quality I'm done spending.

[EllenGtrGrl]

As much as I hate to say it, price is the #1 factor for me. I've played some awesome guitars, that there was no way I could afford them, so I wasn't going to be buying them.

#2 by a nose is playability - setup can help in this regard, but a thin neck that is uncomfortable to me, will remain a thin and uncomfortable neck (I'm talking to you Martin, Taylor, and Larrivee), regardless of whether or not I switch to lighter gauge strings, and lower the action.

#3 and just behind playability is tone (it would be a tie between playability and tone, if it weren't for the fact that I've played some great sounding guitars that had necks I absolutely hated) - I've played dead sounding guitars (a certain 50s spec Gibson LG2 I tried last year comes to mind), that I put down within seconds of trying them out.

#4 is appearance - as long as it doesn't look hideous to me, and as long as a guitar meets the first 3 criteria I mentioned, I'll seriously consider buying it.