Manufactured guitars vs. handbuilt

[JohnRII]

Originally Posted by ljguitar

Hi John...
Is your tongue in your cheek? I like the way you were thinking and sharing here...

Yes, ljguitar, my tongue was boring a hole in my cheek on this one-even a slight touch of sarcasm perhaps. I just think everyone makes purchasing decisions for a lot of different reasons which may or may not be rational. But certainly we justify (or try to) these decisions to ourselves when we spend a fair amount of money on ourselves trying to cure this GAS disease. I have to think that if we play a better guitar, we will play longer and thus get better. And receive more enjoyment. So I don't think there is an ultimate guitar. I like my Yamaha and Taylor for different reasons. The Taylor is better than the Yamaha in my opinion. I'm hoping the custom I'm in the process of ordering will be better than the Taylor. Otherwise, why spend the time and money in this endeavor?

[devellis]

An issue that seems to cut across the factory vs handbuilt issue is how much personalization a buyer wants. I consider personalization a bit risky. My practice (more with mandolins than guitars at this stage) has always been to give the luthier a good deal of latitude, figuring he/she knows better than I how to produce a good instrument. If someone builds guitars that have a certain sound that I like, I'm loath to recommend too many variations from their standard practices. So, even if having a new instrument built for me (which I've done on occasion), I'd probably not request too many features that would be unique to me, but more a representative example of the builder's work. As has been noted, little changes can have big effects. If I suddenly request a different neck profile, slightly deeper body, alternative scale length, and novel wood for the back and sides, aren't I depriving myself of all the standardization that the builder (either factory or individual) has acquired? I realize I'm overstating this a bit, but where along the continuum of modification does customization run the risk of unpredictable tone changes?

A different approach is to find a source that you consistently like (again, either a mega-factory, boutique shop, or individual luthier) and say, "Do for me what you do so well. Make me a box with your characteristic sound and feel." The results should be predictable (assuming the builder is conscientious and experienced enough to have developed some consistency). The instrument should be a good exemplar of the characteristic qualities associated with that builder. In the case of the big builders, the process may not be as much a personal request as a matter of sampling what's available and finding the one that fits the player's mental prototype of what is sought: "Yeah, this one has that BrandX tone that I'm after!"

As someone who has owned multiple instruments of quite different types (and who takes pleasure in those differences), I find that I'm not that strongly biased toward a list of specifics, as long as the instrument works well as a whole. Different neck widths feel different to me depending on a lot of other factors, so that I don't necessarily have a "favorite" width with all others being a problem. Bound or unbound fingerboards, rosette designs, even wood choices, are not necessarily deal breakers for me. Nor do I necessarily have a favorite neck profile or a favorite degree of neck relief. Different factors in combination give results that are more significant (to me, at least) than a cataloging of specific dimensions. I have often found that the things I think I would like in an instrument don't match very well with the instruments I end up preferring when I can sample a bunch at once.

So, I place a premium on either (a) being able to try before I buy, or (b) getting an instrument with relatively few custom features that might have unintended effects on the experience of the instrument as a whole. That combination of values directs me toward small builders who give care to their individual instruments but who also produce in large enough numbers that I can anticipate what a specific combination of features will add up to because I've encountered it on multiple occasions (and, hopefully, have actually played the instrument I hope to buy).

I recognize that this is a kind of ideosycratic view of things and I recognize that some people do really have very specific preferences for lots of aspects of their guitars. Some musical genres (like bluegrass mandolin) have an established orthodoxy and a certain, representative sound is widely admired with other tonal variants seeming out of place. I play mostly Irish traditional music, where there is far less orthodoxy concerning the proper tone of fretted instruments. I suspect that individuals with strong personal preferences will gravitate more strongly to custom builds (or will consistently buy a brand/model that they know fits their bill). People more like me may prefer to test different instruments and take one home that they experience first hand as meeting their needs, even if they stray from their preconceived preferences.

No value judgments intended here. Just trying to understand why some may strongly prefer custom builds while others may not. As others have said, the important thing is to get something that will provide ample enjoyment that matches or exceeds the cost of the instrument in question. We each will find our own path to that reward.

[Glen DeRusha]

Originally Posted by bitsmith

Thanks for that summary -- that's precisely the sort of characterization I was trying to grope toward. Do you know of any forums where luthiers are discussing their attempts to quantify or model their construction approaches? I'd find that fascinating reading, if it exists somewhere :-).

Thanks,
Bryan

Hi Bryan,

You could check out these guys and gals.

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/leftbrainluthiers/

Fascinating and interesting reading it is.

Glen

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by HHP

As others have stated, this is more about the player/buyer than any real objective difference that would matter to a listener. I say buy whatever makes you feel good when you play it.

While custom lutherie is a fairly recent development, I would also note that if you listed the 10 most significant American acoustic guitar recordings, probably none would have involved a boo-teek made guitar.

Sir, you're clearly missing out on a lot of guitar history. Factory luthierie is in fact the fairly recent development, all guitars and their predecessors were the product of hand builders until the late 19th century.

Originally Posted by HHP

Just to clarify my statement about significant recordings. I refer to music that substantially changed music or the way people played it. To list some names I have in mind would be Charley Patton, Robert Johnson, Blind Blake, Merle Travis, The Ventures, Dick Dale, John Fahey, Leo Kottke, The Beatles, Buddy Holly, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Clarence White, Doc Watson. All of these did their most significant work on factory instruments ranging from pretty bad to excellent quality.

My point was that great music does not require great instruments. Again, buy and use whatever makes you enjoy playing.

Once again, I'm afraid your grasp of guitar history is flawed:

Merle Travis - Custom Gibson, Customized Bigsby Martin D-28, Paul Bigsby
The Ventures - Custom Mosrite
Leo Kottke - Boz(h)o Padunavac
Eric Clapton - Fender Custom Shop, Zemaitis, Henderson
Clarence White - Roy Noble
Doc Watson - Gallagher

Now maybe these instruments were not used on the tunes that you deem their most significant work, but they all have used custom instruments. As did other somewhat significant players like Django Reinhardt, Chet Atkins, Jim Hall, and Andres Segovia among many many others.

On the other hand, I absolutely agree with your central points - buy what you like, the subtle details of the guitar matter a lot more to the player than the listener, and it's the music and musician, not the instrument.

Fran

[bitsmith]

Originally Posted by Glen DeRusha

Hi Bryan,
You could check out these guys and gals.

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/leftbrainluthiers/

Thanks for the pointer. Judging from the name that looks like it should be right up my alley -- I just submitted a request to join, and am looking forward to having a look at it.

Bryan

[HHP]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Once again, I'm afraid your grasp of guitar history is flawed:

Merle Travis - Custom Gibson, Customized Bigsby Martin D-28, Paul Bigsby
The Ventures - Custom Mosrite
Leo Kottke - Boz(h)o Padunavac
Eric Clapton - Fender Custom Shop, Zemaitis, Henderson
Clarence White - Roy Noble
Doc Watson - Gallagher


Fran

Might check the history again.

Travis- The Bigsby was a re-necked standard D-28, most of his "customs" were cosmetic additions.

Ventures - The Mosrites were factory made, again, hardy what we would define as a modern custom

Leo Kottke did most of his early recordings with Gibson B45's and Martin D-28's. The Bozo came later.

Eric Clapton used standard factory Fenders and Gibsons for many years.

Clarence White- Owned Nobles and Whitebooks but did the majority of his recordings with D-18 and D-28;s.

Doc Watson came to Gallaghers later. Did his important early work with J-45s and D-18s. Was discovered playing a Les Paul in a dance band.

[12FanMan]

Originally Posted by Simon Fay

I see this topic come up quite often. I have been meaning to make a post here specifically about this and just share my thoughts on the subject since I am a builder and am probably coming from a different perspective

I know that there are sometimes debates about what constitutes a "handmade" guitars. It is really quite easy to show that this is really just an argument of semantics. To avoid all confusion and carry on with a good, healthy discussion. I will confine my comments to "artisan-made" guitars.

An individual luthier is somewhat unique in the world of artists as our work needs to have both functional and aesthetic appeal. I can think of other fields such as architecture that blend the lines like lutherie does. I often hear from some builders how they are all about tone. Well not me, I am all about the total package. I want my guitars to both look and sound great - neither one is really more important to me and if either one of those elements was sacrificed, then I would find little enjoyment in what I do. Half the fun for me is creating something that looks beautiful and the other half is creating something that sounds beautiful.

How come you never see people comparing a one-off sculpture with a mass-produced one? I see people trying to "justify" their most recent purchase by saying how much better their new handmade guitar is compared to a Taylor. Or I see people talking about how handmade guitars don't sound better enough to warrant the extra cost.

The truth is that you can find some wonderful factory guitars. And there is not a single player in the world that is "too good" for a nice Martin or Taylor. But there is added value and meaning when an individual pours themselves into creating an instrument. And that is why we use the term "handmade" because it is generally accepted as communicating that the object was made by an individual and not a factory. I most certainly believe that most artisan-made guitars will find themselves in a higher tonal and aesthetic league than your average factory guitar, assuming the luthier is competent at his/her work. But I also believe that if you judge the work of such a guitar on a purely utilitarian perspective, you will fail to see the true worth and value of the instrument.

Whether a handmade guitar is worth the money is entirely up to you. That said there is a law of diminishing returns - at a certain point, you have to appreciate the value in owning something that is made by a skilled luthier and you have to appreciate that luthier's aesthetic design and tonal goals to find the instrument enticing enough to buy.

There is no room for "Best Bang for the Buck" mentality in a New York art gallery and there is no room for it when you are shopping the very high-end handmade market.

Happy New Year's,
Simon

---------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you're still on this forum or not, but here goes:

I recently bought a 12 string yammie via mail order. I then took it to a local luthier for setup. He only charged me "$30 US dollars." I paid him $100. Though his work was worth even more, he still was reluctant to take it.

I just sent him your post (quoted above) to encourage him to know that there are those of us "out there" that appreciate the precision he has achieved through 40 years of work and craftsmanship.

Yes...I know the your post was registered long ago, but it still rings true. Very true. There are too many people who think it's somehow treasonous for a skilled technician (artist, actually) to charge a fair price for the work of a skilled luthier. Though I can't afford a hand buiit guitar at this point of my (almost retired) career, I don't begrudge their fair compensation for a job well-done.

[rounder]

I never bought a custom guitar, but here goes for what it's worth.

I like bicycles and have bought two custom frames from a well known builder. One was made of steel and one of titanium. Both of them were built for me. Both times I was fitted for the bikes and I was able to describe what I wanted. Along the way, I was able to pick out exactly which components I wanted and bought them myself. I was able to discuss progress with the builder and see pictures of the bikes in the various stages of being built. The results were great and I love both of them. I have about $4,000 in each bike. Today, comparable new bikes with Chinese made carbon frames that you can buy in shops anywhere go for over $10,000. I know people who have bought them. To me, the whole experience of going through the custom process was great. I learned a lot, and ended up with two good bikes that I still love. I liked the whole process.

I can see why someone would want to go through a boutique builder for a new guitar and end up with something that looks and plays great. But, there is also something to be said for buying a guitar from an established builder who is also capable of building great guitars and builds a lot of them. I bought three and I love them.

[Robin, Wales]

@ Rounder ^^^^^

My dream bike, if I could ever afford it, would be to take the train to Northern Italy and pick up a Colnago Arabesque frame in red and chrome ordered as a custom build from the workshop. Have it fitted with a Campag group set and then ride it home across the Alps, through France and back to Wales.

Regarding guitars: Sometimes the timbre we may want isn't going to be found in a luthier build, because it is a very specific "off-the-shelf" timbre. One that we have heard thousands of times on records and at gigs. So we buy a J45 because it sounds like a J45, or a D-18 because it sounds like a D-18.

I'm lucky in that my favourite instruments are my plywood ones. They are pragmatic and sound bloody great to me. I don't need a beautiful, rich sonerous guitar. But I sure do appreciate players who can make such melodious instruments sing. A custom guitar would be wasted in my hands.

I would like a custom built bicycle though.

[Yrksman]

Evri……beautiful part of the world

[conecaster]

Originally Posted by El Conquistador

A recuring theme on acoustic guitar forums is, are luthier built (handbuilt) guitars worth the extra money that one normally has to pay for them? The arguement for handbuilts are usually things like the luxury of customization to persoanl specs and better tone and playability, while the arguement for manufactured guitars is, they are just as good as handbuilts for far less money. This is an attempt to bring a different perspective to the issue.

A great luthier, who used to work for Martin, puts it this way. The difference between a manufactured guitar and a hand built is "the intention of the builder". While a manufacturer may have very skilled workers, it is the manufacturers intention to build a commericial guitar, ones that can be produced in very large quantities as similar as possible one to another at the lowest cost so that they can be offered at the lowest price point and designed to have the least chance of repair returns in order to mazimize their profit. This is the manufacturing model.

On the other extreme, the intention of a single person shop to to make their guitars for a very few people, each being unique to each intended player, at whatever cost each guitar requires with full attention given to sound and playability of each guitar rather than to future repair issues. This is the handbuilt model.

Here are a couple of links that illustrate this difference in "intention".
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/docum...our%20Part%201

http://www.baranikguitars.com/building.php?bpage=1

What stuck me about the Martin video is when he introduces the guy who has been doing the Kerfling for 42 year, "best kerf lining guy in the world", but, that's all he does. Also,
he shows the huge stack of really nice Alpine Italian, but, what any builder will tell you is that each one of those pieces is unique so the bracing station needs to respond to each piece and alter the bracing to match the individual piece of wood, which would be too expensive and too dependent on each employees skill level in a manufactured model.

Am I saying that all luthier built models are superior to all manufactured models, of course not. With all the new luthiers out there, lots are going to be too inexperienced or simply untalented to ever make a great guitar. Likewise, with all the guitars that come out of the Martin factory (their term), many are bound to be exceptional. But, I thought these 2 documented processes was indicative of the differences between the two.

I like the statement you quoted, "Intent"

As a guitarmaker of nearly a half century I look at it as a percentage of market Vs creating demand for a new market.

Manufacturers have a different economic model. If we are fair about it we have to admit there would be no guitar market if not for the lower cost instruments that make the instrument accessible to a wider population.

Individual guitar makers are competing in a very small cross section of the overall market. Different people have varied backgrounds and attract guitarists for different reasons. If you are attracted to flat pick style you might want to make Dreadnaughts, if you are a classical player you probably will aspire to build the best sounding classicals, etc......

Often the individual maker is squeezed by their ability to acquire market share. when there are 1000s doing what you want to do it becomes more difficult to find buyers.

The individual guitar making boom started in the 1960's. There were few people making guitars when I started in 1976. If you took a guitar out to show, people would react with amazement. Now if you show a guitar you are asked if you know about other guitar makers.

I decided 30 plus years ago that I wanted to be identified for instruments that bear my creative stamp and not concerned about the holy grail lust that is out there for what is already known.

If we look at what is important using three factors, Quality of craft, Quality of Materials and Design, which is most critical?

I have been focused on design all of these years, it does not mean I have no understanding of how to make guitars of many aesthetics but ultimately its the creative design aspect that separates one entity from another, its the same for a manufacturer as it is an individual maker.

If we look back over history it has been meaningful innovation that has furthered the art form and driven musical aspiration.

There were mando orchestras so people could hear the band. The Martin aesthetic began in the late 1920's by expanding the steel string guitar into a larger, more cello tambour, sound. When more vol was desired there was the resonator cone to increase vol for lead instruments. In classical guitars over the last 50 years there has been a direction towards high strength to weight ratio in top design, literally putting air into tops to increase amplitude.

So, at the end of the day, what can we as makers do to offer a new creative aesthetic to move the ball forward.

For me, the intent is to not just fill the market with another guitar like what is already there, its to design something that attracts musician creatively and inspires, something that can not be acquired elsewhere.

That starts with guitar design and now has expanded to the Go AA amplification system I have been working towards for 12 years. It is time people can rely on their guitars to deliver at higher vol when needed and still be great acoustic instruments.

Your post is well done, It is a question close to all of us making guitars.

[broy]

I have a Gibson J45 that just went back to the shop for a second time for manufacturing issues... first a finish blemish (bad enough to send it back) and the second time was for a bridge lifting up. It's fixed, and I still love the guitar but it has me rethinking where to focus my next round of GAS.

Was thinking I wanted the Gibson fixed bridge Hummingbird, or Martin D-18 Authentic - but having dealt with these issues, (and hearing about the Martin binding issues) I'm re-thinking. Right now I'm focused on a Kopp Bird, thinking that would get me the bird I want but with more re-assurances in the quality of the build. Not sure on the D-18, probably still get the Martin because I really want one, but I'm wary of spending that much and still having issues.