#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But I'm also a collector of vinyl records, so perhaps my standards are different. "Mint" in the vinyl world means a sealed record that was never opened, let alone played. As soon as the sleeve has been opened, the record album is no longer mint, by definition.
__________________
"I've always thought of bluegrass players as the Marines of the music world" – (A rock guitar guy I once jammed with) Martin America 1 Martin 000-15sm Recording King Dirty 30s RPS-9 TS Taylor GS Mini Baton Rouge 12-string guitar Martin L1XR Little Martin 1933 Epiphone Olympic 1971 square neck Dobro |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry the Monk beat me to it. There is no such thing as an "absolutely 100% perfect condition" wooden instrument. People who seek such will always be disappointed. I said mint or near mint - not perfect. I don't agree that taking guitars out of the case causes swirl marks. The finish of the guitar would partially dictate this but about half of my guitars are Nitro and the other half catalyzed urethane all get the same treatment and all look great. If they do get small swirls (very rarely), those are easily buffed out. My performance and studio guitars remain near-mint and - to most people - would seem about perfect. Guitars aren't record albums or comic books to be kept hermetically sealed and viewed from afar. They are built and meant to be played over and over and .....
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I’d gladly take 100 dents, chips and scratches on the body of a guitar to save it from one dent, chip or scratch on the back of the neck. I don’t beat my guitars up but also I really don’t stress over cosmetic minutiae, but I do love the feel of a blemish free neck. Fwiw, I almost never hang my thumb over the neck, it rides along the back of the neck 99.9% of the time so maybe that has something to do with my preference.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I have purchased a few used guitars over the years and they were priced quite a bit less than a new equivalent model due to being used and having a few dings. I wouldn't expect a used guitar to be without a few cosmetic flaws. I purchased my then 10 year J-45 off Reverb for what I felt was a very reasonable price. The seller meticulously posted all kind of pics making sure to show the various dings and I just figured that I would have probably accumulated as much if I had owned it for 10 years.
Dings on a nice guitar = nice guitar less $$$.
__________________
=================================== '07 Gibson J-45 '68 Reissue (Fuller's) '18 Martin 00-18 '18 Martin GP-28E '65 Epiphone Zenith archtop |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
I don’t mind dings, just sellers who say they can’t be photographed
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As much as I tried, could not pick the light up enough to notice on a photo. Finally I mentioned to the owner that there was a reflection, and where the ding could be seen if he looked hard enough. He was fine with it, and now loves the guitar. This can definitely happen to a non-professional iPhone photographer.
__________________
Tom Martin Custom Authentic 000-28 1937 Martin 1944 00-18 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Guild F512
Quote:
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I see no redeeming qualities for dings, scratches, and other damage on a guitar. I see it as a sign of not caring enough to take care of an expensive instrument. There are plenty of great sounding guitars out there with few of these de-valuing marks. If they didn't care enough to protect it, did they humidify it when needed, perform/pay for maintenance, or avoid having keys/pocket in their pocket when playing, etc.?
I don't believe in "Mojo", so there's that too. |