Brazilian Nylon String help

[murj]

Hi Everyone, first post. I hope I do it all correctly.

I have a pretty nice Brazilian classical or flamenco guitar, beautiful inlay on the back, solid top, but three problems. Inlay has crinkled possibly with cold or dryness. 1)Laminate has lifted from one corner of the back. 2)Where the laminate has lifted, the (3)back has separated from the side (I'm not sure the photo shows that very well). There is some epoxy over the spot where the laminate peeled off, but the epoxy did not repair the separation. Plays and sounds great, although I don't know much about nylon string guitars. It doesn't have a ton of volume, but I think that might be pretty normal. Looks great from the front. I enjoy playing it, but it would be nice to fix it up. Not sure it is worth a trip to the Luthier. It is a Di Giorgio Classical from I think 1979. Is it worth taking it to a Luthier? Any ideas on how to improve it?



http://s58.photobucket.com/user/murj...q.jpg.html?o=4

http://s58.photobucket.com/user/murj...p.jpg.html?o=1

[Bax Burgess]

Who are the quality Brasilian guitar producers? I don't want to think that this is one of them.

[murj]

Originally Posted by Bax Burgess

Who are the quality Brasilian guitar producers? I don't want to think that this is one of them.

Som D'Ouro is the manufacturer, and DiGiorgio C2 Cuarnay is the brand. I have found old (ended) listings for this guitar. I saw one from the Netherlands that indicated to me that if my guitar were in good condition, it might be worth a few hundred dollars. But, I saw another one on Reverb that was listed for $250.00 in excellent condition. I don't know what it sold for, or if it sold. It also said that the top was laminate. But, it looks solid to me, following the grain into the soundhole. Thank you for the question.

[Wade Hampton]

Murj, at the very least you should get that delamination halted and repaired. Since I can't see the guitar in person, I can't tell what that blob is; if it's the epoxy you're talking about. But it looks as though the very top layer of laminate has chipped off and peeled away there.

But if you like the sound and playability of the guitar, it's worth getting it stabilized, regardless of how much it cost you. No, it's not an especially valuable guitar in terms of its market value. but it has musical value to you, and that's all that really counts.

Take the guitar to your nearest experienced guitar tech, and let him or her do what they can. Getting it to look brand new is probably impossible, but gluing the back to the sides is not.

Hope this helps.


Wade Hampton Miller

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by murj

Is it worth taking it to a Luthier?

No. Even getting one those repairs completed will likely cost more than the value of the guitar (which is probably less than $100 considering the condition).

Originally Posted by murj

Any ideas on how to improve it?

Just play it until it's unplayable.

[AndrewG]

That de-lamination on the lower bout looks terminal. I wouldn't bother attempting getting it fixed unless you have deep pockets or especially value the guitar.

[murj]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Murj, at the very least you should get that delamination halted and repaired. Since I can't see the guitar in person, I can't tell what that blob is; if it's the epoxy you're talking about. But it looks as though the very top layer of laminate has chipped off and peeled away there.

But if you like the sound and playability of the guitar, it's worth getting it stabilized, regardless of how much it cost you. No, it's not an especially valuable guitar in terms of its market value. but it has musical value to you, and that's all that really counts.

Take the guitar to your nearest experienced guitar tech, and let him or her do what they can. Getting it to look brand new is probably impossible, but gluing the back to the sides is not.

Hope this helps.


Wade Hampton Miller

Thank you for your thoughts. It is too good to toss, can't trade it in current condition, and not worth shipping costs to sell. Maybe I'll see what a local Tech can do. That blob is epoxy, I'm pretty sure.

[Wade Hampton]

Just get the fixable parts fixed and don't worry about the rest. I would also suggest that, regardless of its market value (which is obviously not much) it has intrinsic value to you. So to my mind it would be wasteful to play it until it falls apart but not spend any money to keep it together.

To my mind, getting the back glued up is a maintenance cost, no different than putting oil in your car. Sure, if you've got an old beater car, maybe it's it's not "worth" putting oil in it, but that's a false economy so far as I'm concerned. If I was in your position I would keep putting a little money into it here and there to hold it together so long as it remains playable.

I have done precisely that with an old solid top/laminated back and sides Hondo guitar. It kept having things go wrong with it, but it sounded great and I gigged with it, so I kept it maintained until my repairman told it was no longer fixable.

I don't consider those repair shop charges as money wasted, but as money well spent. Obviously, some would see that as money wasted, but they weren't gigging with the guitar and watching how it paid for itself over and over again.


whm

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Just get the fixable parts fixed and don't worry about the rest. I would also suggest that, regardless of its market value (which is obviously not much) it has intrinsic value to you. So to my mind it would be wasteful to play it until it falls apart but not spend any money to keep it together.

Intrinsic value has limits. If, for the money you'd have invest, you could purchase a better sounding, better playing guitar, that's going to be the better option. Now if the guitar has "sentimental" value, all that goes out the window, but thus far there's been no indication that's the case here.

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

To my mind, getting the back glued up is a maintenance cost, no different than putting oil in your car. Sure, if you've got an old beater car, maybe it's it's not "worth" putting oil in it, but that's a false economy so far as I'm concerned. If I was in your position I would keep putting a little money into it here and there to hold it together so long as it remains playable.

Wade, that's a bad analogy for a couple of reasons. First, the cost of an oil change is never going to exceed the value of a car that still runs. Second, the person driving that beater may be broke not have the money to replace it with something better. In this case, the cost of the repairs is clearly going to exceed the value of the guitar. If a person is so broke than he can't afford to replace a guitar with a value of around $100 or less, it would be irresponsible for anyone to encourage that person to throw his limited funds into costly repairs.

[Wade Hampton]

Jim, you and I have different outlooks on this. I don't think it's irresponsible to encourage Murj to keep this guitar playable - for one thing, it's not as though I'm pointing a gun at his head forcing him to get it fixed. I've simply made the suggestion that he do so.

If you believe he should sock away his money for a better guitar, I have no quarrel with that. But it seems apparent to me that there IS sentimental value here.

Besides, Murj has attested that the guitar sound great and plays really well. That in and of itself makes it worthy of a glue job to keep the back from peeling off. It's an inexpensive repair to have done, and if it can keep the guitar functioning for a few more years, to me it seems wasteful to let the guitar's negligible market value be the only factor given any weight when making that decision. As I wrote earlier, I believe skipping that repair would be a false economy.

I'm sorry if it irks you that I have a different outlook on this than you do, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. After all, neither you nor I will be the one who makes the decision whether to spend a bit to keep the back attached: that's Murj's call.

But as I explained, if I was in his position, I would get that repair done. To me if the guitar sounds good and plays well, it would be wasteful to avoid fixing that problem. Murj can certainly think about stashing away some funds for a better guitar. But I believe he should keep this one going while it's still a functional musical instrument.

Hope that makes more sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[musicman1951]

If you like the guitar you should definitely get an estimate from a luthier. I am a little concerned about the veneer on the bottom that appears it might be the next trouble spot. But it's hard to tell in the picture.

It's going to be a decision. I think the car analogy is a good one. In my younger days I drove many old cars that were virtually totaled with the next needed repair. Fix it or get another? You have the same decision.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Jim, you and I have different outlooks on this. I don't think it's irresponsible to encourage Murj to keep this guitar playable - for one thing, it's not as though I'm pointing a gun at his head forcing him to get it fixed. I've simply made the suggestion that he do so.

I didn't accuse you of being irresponsible. What I said was, "If a person is so broke than he can't afford to replace a guitar with a value of around $100 or less, it would be irresponsible for anyone to encourage that person to throw his limited funds into costly repairs."

There's a variable in that statement that is an unknown to both of us: whether the cost of the repair would represent an economic hardship to the OP. If the cost of the repair is going to stretch his budget and make paying for more important things difficult, then encouraging him to money on this guitar would be irresponsible.

I also have an additional concern. The OP called this guitar a "Brazilian Nylon String." I don't know how extensive his knowledge base is and, while that term may be technically accurate to some degree, to most of us it would imply solid Brazilian back and sides, and would almost certainly make the guitar more valuable than what it actually is: a laminate with a Brazilian veneer.

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

If you believe he should sock away his money for a better guitar, I have no quarrel with that. But it seems apparent to me that there IS sentimental value here.

That there's sentimental value may or may not be true. The OP didn't claim any so I'm not assuming any. It may also be true that we're dealing with different definitions of what constitutes "sentimental value." For me, anything with sentimental value would have to connect in some meaningful way with a person or event in my life. The OP hasn't articulated any such connection.

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Besides, Murj has attested that the guitar sound great and plays really well. That in and of itself makes it worthy of a glue job to keep the back from peeling off.

It's an inexpensive repair to have done, and if it can keep the guitar functioning for a few more years, to me it seems wasteful to let the guitar's negligible market value be the only factor given any weight when making that decision. As I wrote earlier, I believe skipping that repair would be a false economy.

In the absence of some sentimental attachment, if the repair is cheap enough, say $100 or less, then perhaps it's good money spent but I'd hate to see him taken for a ride by an unscrupulous repair shop. And they're out there. The further north of that it goes, the less inclined I'd be to look at the money as well spent.

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

I'm sorry if it irks you that I have a different outlook on this than you do, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. After all, neither you nor I will be the one who makes the decision whether to spend a bit to keep the back attached: that's Murj's call.

But as I explained, if I was in his position, I would get that repair done. To me if the guitar sounds good and plays well, it would be wasteful to avoid fixing that problem. Murj can certainly think about stashing away some funds for a better guitar. But I believe he should keep this one going while it's still a functional musical instrument.

Hope that makes more sense.

I'm not irked in the least. I wouldn't have even responded to your post if not for the oil analogy which struck me as quite misleading for the reasons I've already stated and won't rehash, but on the major issue at hand, yes, we'll agree to disagree.

[murj]

Thank you all for your opinions. I learned especially from the varying ideas that were offered. Most appreciative. I let you know when I take some action.

[PerryE]

A repair is preferred even if it is equal to value of the guitar. People throw away things too easily. I was given an all-laminate 45-year old Landola nylon-string some time ago. Value in good condition would have been around USD110 but I paid USD90 to have it repaired (missing tuner and some other things). Maybe not excellent business case but it is a no-worries guitar and I use it frequently. Sempre prefiro concertar e não bota fora!

[Wade Hampton]

Perry wrote:

Originally Posted by PerryE

Sempre prefiro concertar e não bota fora!

I prefer to get nice quality things and then fix them as needed, too. Instead of using the oil in the car analogy that I used earlier, a more apt comparison would be for shoe repairs: I buy good quality shoes, then get them repaired as needed. I can keep and use the same shoes for decades that way.

My shoe repairman told me that I've become an exception these days, however: fewer people are getting their shoes repaired. More and more people just throw them out when the shoes need work and buy new ones instead.

That's counter to the way I was brought up.

Same thing with guitars: to me it doesn't matter what the purchase price or market value of a guitar might be, if it's something I enjoy playing, to me it's worth getting repaired. It's that simple.


whm