1990's Taylor 914's, How Do They Compare To the Newer 914's?

[wisedennis]

The debate between the pros and cons of the NT neck is really hot!

Any more input?

Thanks

[310Taylor]

What is often overlooked about the nt neck is the full fretboard extension. Im not saying the 90's taylors do not have an extension, do they??

[OleGibby58]

How is the feeling different?

It is hard to be precise nor will I try. It is a 'feel' thing. To me the NT neck (I owned one, played plenty) feels 'chunkier' and does not fit my hand as well. I had two '95 510s and a '97 710 and those necks were very nice.

The dimensions of the necks may be the same as far as depth front/back or whatever but there was IMO a subtle change in shape I didn't like. Maybe shoulder, maybe a subtle shape thing, I don't know.

I've had a lot of guitars though quit the buying/selling thing about 10 years ago. I settled on the guitars that feel best to me, regardless of what the profile is called. They are actually quite similar in shape/feel: a '52 J-45, '53 LG-2, 2003 AJRI, and a 2000 AV'62RI Telecaster. Also have an '83 AV62RI that is a bit flatter in profile than these but so nice that it's a keeper. The Tele and AJRI are my main axes and honestly, the necks feel the same and visually are pretty close though of course different width, string gauge...

I don't mean to knock all newer Taylors. I like them. I just think the NT neck is different & for me the mid-90s Taylor necks were as nice as a neck can be. Taylors with NT necks can sound just great.

It should be obvious from all this that my hands don't like thick chunky necks like 'baseball bats' or 'boat' and I speak from experience there.

[Jarvis]

Originally Posted by Jim

I am a firm believer in the statement that the 1995 - 1999, or maybe 2000 model Taylors are their golden age. In addition to the points that have already been made about Taylor's cheapening of their entire line of guitars to keep profits up and guitars affordable, the 1990s ones are made from woods that I see as being consistently higher quality than the current woods used. In the past 15 years the quality of tonewoods available to Taylor from the international wood market has declined as the best trees get cut and lesser quality ones are all that are left. The current woods are still excellent, but the woods that used to be available were even better. Also, while it does not affect the sound, the 1990s Taylors were better protected with 5-ply cases that were actually made by Taylor at their El Cajon factory where they made their guitars. NT necks are another difference. Some people buy into the notion that they are better, but I am not sure I am ready to drink that Kool-Aid. Yes, they are easier to reset, but the original Taylor design was also bolt on and is not much more difficult to reset if it needs it, and I have three Taylors from the 1990s and none of them is showing any signs of ever needing a reset. So, the NTs can be reset in 5 minutes, while the original Taylor design takes something like 20 minutes. I don't see the hugeness of an improvement. What I do see is that as part of the NT design, Taylor stopped carving their necks out of a single block of high quality mahogany and switched to glueing together three pieces of mahogany - head, neck, and heel, to save money by getting more necks out of the same amount of wood. Yes it works well, but with those extra glue joints you have a more inexpensive guitar, visible joints, and less ability to vibrate because of the extra glue in the wood. YMMV, but for me I see the original Taylor design of the 1990s as the higher quality guitar.

Totally agree - having worked on more than 100 Taylor's I find the old ones better and also because the x brace are not forward shift ...you get a clearer tone that when it opens up sounds punchy too..plus a more stable top at the bridge area

The new Taylor's with their CV bracing is forward shift...with our high humidity climate here in Singapore I see a lot of swelling at the top below the bridge and whole lot of bridge lift starting from the pointed wings.

Though the Older 90s have lesser bottom end...I love the thinner neck profile and their punchy tone...plus the rosewood they use at that time ..had very lovely grain and color which is not found any more in even in their top of the line range ..

[jmbstudios]

Resurrection of a great thread.

I have a 1997 Taylor 914C and it sounds beautiful. When I took it to Taylor for a refresh back in 09 they polished it up and repaired a couple small cracks.

Best **** acoustic I have played. Other players agree. 1997 is in the thick of the Holy Grail Taylor's.

[wisedennis]

Lovely guitar
i like it

Originally Posted by jmbstudios

Resurrection of a great thread.

I have a 1997 Taylor 914C and it sounds beautiful. When I took it to Taylor for a refresh back in 09 they polished it up and repaired a couple small cracks.

Best **** acoustic I have played. Other players agree. 1997 is in the thick of the Holy Grail Taylor's.