Is the used market primarily the rejects ?

[CoastStrings]

Originally Posted by kurth

You're inferring that very badly made instruments are destroyed. I find this hard to believe.

Sadly, it does happen. The MSRP for the Firebird X was $5,570. I believe it was made stateside. These weren't cheap imports.

Even if you discount that to street price, it's a rather hefty sum

Look away, friends! *SOB* Look away!



Leaked video shows Gibson destroying hundreds of their own guitars

But wait; there’s more. Wilkes worked for Gibson for six years, specifically in maintenance and facilities at their Memphis location. According to him, destroying new guitars isn’t new for Gibson. “I’ve seen them take, daily, 10, 20 ES guitars that were painted and ready to go, and just cut them up because there was some teeny-tiny little blemish,” he said in the interview.

Gibson just destroyed 100s of Firebird X guitars - here's why

[soups]

The best guitar I own (a Collings 001 Traditional) was pre-owned.

[zcregle1]

What is not "the one" for one person is most likely "the one" for someone else

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by kurth

Looking at the used guitar market, one wonders if these instruments were the ones players didn't want to keep ?

Well for the most part it's not the lifetime guitars unless someone's in some severe financial distress. But surely there are a lot of nice guitars floating around from people experimenting and figuring out what they really like.

[UncleJesse]

Originally Posted by Gchord

I also have a sneaking suspicion that a healthy percentage of used guitars either need a neck reset or are close to needing one.

I don't think it's the majority of used guitars or anything. People who buy used guitars can learn how to evaluate the geometry on a guitar fairly easily and being sent a guitar in need of a neck reset would be a genuine reason for return. It does help to learn what to ask for and what to evaluate when you're looking to purchase. That said, I'm sure it's happened but I'd bet that it's way more common on less expensive guitars sold on craigslist to uninformed buyers. I'd bet GAS is more responsible for sales than anything.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by kurth

Looking at the used guitar market, one wonders if these instruments were the ones players didn't want to keep ?

By definition, yes. But this implies nothing about the quality of used instruments. A tour through this forum illustrates the often fickle nature of people’s priorities for guitars.

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by CoastStrings

Sadly, it does happen. The MSRP for the Firebird X was $5,570. I believe it was made stateside. These weren't cheap imports.

Even if you discount that to street price, it's a rather hefty sum

Look away, friends! *SOB* Look away!



Leaked video shows Gibson destroying hundreds of their own guitars

But wait; there’s more. Wilkes worked for Gibson for six years, specifically in maintenance and facilities at their Memphis location. According to him, destroying new guitars isn’t new for Gibson. “I’ve seen them take, daily, 10, 20 ES guitars that were painted and ready to go, and just cut them up because there was some teeny-tiny little blemish,” he said in the interview.

Gibson just destroyed 100s of Firebird X guitars - here's why

I thought that was level-4 relicing (with level-5 at around 2:30).

[FrankHudson]

OK, for those in the used strongly indicates less than the best qualities a guitar can offer camp:

So, all those pre-war Martins that are out of my price range are probably ("primarily" as in the subject would indicate a majority, not just "some examples") not very good. If they were good, they'd never (or rarely -- remember "primarily" is the level of "rejects" the OP asks about) be sold right?

Whew! I just saved a lot of money that I don't have to spend on guitars.

My wallet sends its thanks.

[kurth]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

OK, for those in the used strongly indicates less than the best qualities a guitar can offer camp:

So, all those pre-war Martins that are out of my price range are probably ("primarily" as in the subject would indicate a majority, not just "some examples") not very good. If they were good, they'd never (or rarely -- remember "primarily" is the level of "rejects" the OP asks about) be sold right?

Whew! I just saved a lot of money that I don't have to spend on guitars.

My wallet sends its thanks.

You're welcome. You can magnify that logic and choose an even more extreme category like '19th century' Martins. Where's their value? In their quality of sound, or in their collectability ? Would a pre-war Martin make someone a better player ?
I guess to express the gist of my question... is buying a used guitar more risky than buying a new one. It certainly is for almost every other tool we use. Or, it could be that buying a used is less risky, because these are the ones that survived the dozer.

[Andyrondack]

I have sold two guitars over the years, both sounded great to me I just found them to be too uncomfortable for me to play sitting down.

[Tony Burns]

My favorite guitar is one the owner sold because it wasnt a Martin
or should i say a martin sound alike . which is my gain -
i own a martin , and i like it and all -but two of them that sound simalar
would drive me nuts .

[Oldguy64]

If you look at the list below, quite a few were “rejected” for one reason or another.
The PD85S-some college kid needed book money.
The AJ60SC-a jumbo didn’t fit the previous owner.
One of my PD85’s came cheap because the x-braces and the top weren’t touching. The repair was also not terribly expensive.
There are a plethora of reasons that one person gets rid of a guitar.
I once foolishly sold an Alvarez that I had restored, because I had a boatload of dreads at that time. (Still do).
I literally have four dreads that are spruce over rosewood.
But I like them all.

You also have to take into account that SWMBO doesn’t mind the guitars, but the space they take up is problematic.

Look at it this way. Sometimes, it gets us great guitars at low prices.

[Sage Runner]

Funny. For 40+ years I always approached a used guitar like this. first I almost always knew something about the model and knew somewhat to expect. Half the instruments over the years were usually never set up decent, so being a luthier with a trained Ear. I was able to tell the potential regardless if Action was bad strings were old , crummy saddle existed etc. I have probably owned at least a hundred Acoustic Six strings since 1969. Only a handful , maybe 5 were New. None were Rejects. They were just used Guitars. Some were better that others. As time went on, I sold most over the years, gave a few away. Also bought and Owned probably a dozen Mandolin family instruments , few Nationals , few Banjos. all were vintage. 40 years ago I focused on Vintage stuff. Good Vintage was more affordable back then. But there also was Not the array of quality newer guitars at all price levels to choose from like there is now. Of note though, and I chuckle now. Many of the old used Harmony, Kay and inexpensive guitars that most players myself included passed on and never considered decent guitars. Now Some are quite sought after and actually some are quite decent if set up right. I remember when most players regarded Gibson LG-0s in low esteem! I passed on many a instrument years ago that I guess would be considered reject if you wanna use that term. but as I look back. What is a reject today. Twenty years later is the Epiphone Olympic that David Rawlings plays and everyone wants now! Anyway that is my take.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

I have sold two guitars over the years, both sounded great to me I just found them to be too uncomfortable for me to play sitting down.

I definitely get that. However, I think the assertion that it's all 100% relative - one man's lemon is another man's treasure, etc. - is exaggerated. I think we've all played guitars that would be great for anyone with a little playing experience and a pair of ears. Guitars that have 'ring,' depth and sustain do not generally lose these features according to who is hearing them.

Sometimes, sure, a person will sell a guitar that has these qualities for various reasons; however, they are far more likely to sell guitars that do not have them - guitars that look fine, are well constructed, have a good name on the headstock, but which sound a bit nondescript - not bad, just a bit nondescript, unspectacular. For this reason, I think we need to proceed with caution when we buy a used guitar online that seemingly checks all the boxes.

[drtedtan]

Originally Posted by ewalling

I definitely get that. However, I think the assertion that it's all 100% relative - one man's lemon is another man's treasure, etc. - is exaggerated. I think we've all played guitars that would be great for anyone with a little playing experience and a pair of ears. Guitars that have 'ring,' depth and sustain do not generally lose these features according to who is hearing them.

Sometimes, sure, a person will sell a guitar that has these qualities for various reasons; however, they are far more likely to sell guitars that do not have them - guitars that look fine, are well constructed, have a good name on the headstock, but which sound a bit nondescript - not bad, just a bit nondescript, unspectacular. For this reason, I think we need to proceed with caution when we buy a used guitar online that seemingly checks all the boxes.

Who is to say that guitars with “'ring,' depth and sustain” are better, though? Those attributes are great for some things, but could be negatives for someone looking for a guitar to play blues or jazz rhythm.

It really comes down to context: who’s looking and what they’re looking for.