Are Vintage Instruments Harder To Maintain?

[Rexsblues]

It’s in the title. In general, are vintage guitars more sensitive and difficult to maintain than new ones? Do they have more trouble with staying in tune and intonation?

[gfirob]

My guitars range from 1932 to 2003 and the newest guitar (a Martin OM) is generally fussier with seasonal changes and humidity than the older ones. Keeping in mind that all of them have been made stable from whatever old cracks or issues they may have brought to the table as a result of their long lives, including neck sets which most of them have had. But all guitars are going to need care and work over their lifetimes and the longer the lifetime the more issues are going to need to be addressed, especially neck issues. But once you fix them they should be as stable as a new guitar IMHO, even though most older guitars are built lighter than new guitars on average.

I have always found it odd that many people would prefer new replicas of older guitars (Waterloos instead of Kalamazoos, for instance) even when the older ones are cheaper, because of this idea that new guitars will be problem free and older guitars are wracked with issues. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for your guitar sooner or later because they are made from wood...

[charles Tauber]

It depends upon what you define as "vintage". Early 1900's? Late 1800's? 1970's?

Owning very old instruments is like owning a century home. Like a century home, you can't just go down to the store and buy another identical antique guitar. Consequently, most feel a certain responsibility to preserve that heritage.

Like century homes, antique instruments often contain components and materials that aren't readily available or in use anymore. For example, hand-engraved ivory tuning machine buttons. If the buttons crack or break, for example, they aren't replaceable, usually short of commissioning someone to hand-make a custom replacement. The idea of simply replacing a set of tuning machines that don't work very well - and never worked very well - is anti-preservation of heritage - just as replacing a grand stained glass wood casement window with a modern vinyl window is on a century home. Replacing that cracked/warped authentic tortoise shell pick guard isn't going to be easy.

Antique guitars are often fitted with bar frets, versus modern tang frets. Bar frets come with their own maintenance issues and are more difficult to work with - read, cost more.

And the list goes on and on, just as it does with a century home. Like a century home, for many people, antique guitars are a labour of love to preserve a piece of heritage. With a century home, if you are just looking for a nice place to live, one is generally better off with a newer home. Not that a newer home won't require repairs and maintenance, but in doing so, one isn't usually concerned with preserving a piece of history. Antique instruments are similar.

I don't consider a 1970's Martin "vintage", though many might. The issues you'll have with that are somewhat different than an early 1900's or late 1800's instrument. The issues you'll most commonly face are cracks, neck resets, tuners that don't work, bridges that weren't properly located, fret issues and bowed necks, not much different than modern instruments.

[Rexsblues]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

It depends upon what you define as "vintage". Early 1900's? Late 1800's? 1970's?

Owning very old instruments is like owning a century home. Like a century home, you can't just go down to the store and buy another identical antique guitar. Consequently, most feel a certain responsibility to preserve that heritage.

Like century homes, antique instruments often contain components and materials that aren't readily available or in use anymore. For example, hand-engraved ivory tuning machine buttons. If the buttons crack or break, for example, they aren't replaceable, usually short of commissioning someone to hand-make a custom replacement. The idea of simply replacing a set of tuning machines that don't work very well - and never worked very well - is anti-preservation of heritage - just as replacing a grand stained glass wood casement window with a modern vinyl window is on a century home. Replacing that cracked/warped authentic tortoise shell pick guard isn't going to be easy.

Antique guitars are often fitted with bar frets, versus modern tang frets. Bar frets come with their own maintenance issues and are more difficult to work with - read, cost more.

And the list goes on and on, just as it does with a century home. Like a century home, for many people, antique guitars are a labour of love to preserve a piece of heritage. With a century home, if you are just looking for a nice place to live, one is generally better off with a newer home. Not that a newer home won't require repairs and maintenance, but in doing so, one isn't usually concerned with preserving a piece of history. Antique instruments are similar.

I don't consider a 1970's Martin "vintage", though many might. The issues you'll have with that are somewhat different than an early 1900's or late 1800's instrument. The issues you'll most commonly face are cracks, neck resets, tuners that don't work, bridges that weren't properly located, fret issues and bowed necks, not much different than modern instruments.

Perhaps I should be more clear. For my purposes I’m discussing vintage guitars from the 40s-60s. In my particular case, I’m looking at player-grade instruments that have been repaired, had neck resets, etc.

[rpguitar]

Generally, once a vintage guitar's issues (if any) have been tended to, they don't require any more care than a modern instrument.

A big assumption is that one is caring for one's guitars adequately to begin with, and many people don't. The primary care parameter is stable humidity, which requires active monitoring and maintenance in most environments and climates.

I own guitars from most decades from the 1920s to present day. They all have recently installed or dressed frets, good neck angles, and any cracks are long since repaired and stable.

They are all kept out (not cased) in a room maintained at 40-45% humidity year round. Some are dead stable all the time, while others go a few cents sharp or flat with a 5% humidity swing. I don't find that age is a good predictor of that behavior.

[kiva238]

Originally Posted by rpguitar

Generally, once a vintage guitar's issues (if any) have been tended to, they don't require any more care than a modern instrument.

That's the answer.

But, unless you are prepared to spend the time and money to tend to the vintage guitar issues, just find one that's had a recent neck reset, frets polished up and cracks stabilized. Many guitars from the period you're interested have already had this kind of attention and come with fewer surprises to the buyer.
I'd take a chance on a 1930's Golden Era that needs lots of work. For a 1950's or 1960's guitar, I prefer the work to be done before purchase yielding essentially an instantly playable instrument without any major issues or surprises.

My 1937 D-18 purchase spent over nine months in the shop and cost more than $2k to get perfect. My 1951 000-28 was ready as soon as it arrived and I had the strings tuned up. Just saying. . . .

[redir]

I've got a '94 Mercedes Benz that has been on blocks for the last year. But when she's running boy does she run great. Same kind of thing. The old home might be a better analogy and I've got one of those as well. Just a week or so ago we started prepping the porch for painting and one wet looking spot lead to more rotten wood which required the replacement of main structural beams and a patch to the roof. You'd never know it my just looking at it till you prodded around.

[DesertTwang]

Originally Posted by Rexsblues

It’s in the title. In general, are vintage guitars more sensitive and difficult to maintain than new ones? Do they have more trouble with staying in tune and intonation?

I have very limited experience with vintage instruments. Based on my sole vintage guitar, an Olympic Epiphone from 1933, I can say this: That guitar seems to be completely impervious to anything. It has not changed in any way since I got it a few years ago, unlike my modern guitars, which change all the time. Either they dry out, or they get a swollen belly from too much humidity, or they need a neck reset, or the action changes, etc...

[1Charlie]

Old, beat-up Gibsons and Kalamazoos are my thing. I own seven, dating from 1931 to 1949.

Only one has ever had the neck reset. Several more are close to needing one, but may have been that way for decades.

Mostly what I have had to get repaired are loose braces and worn bridgeplates. All have their original frets and are sweet players.

Most have a little belly behind the bridge, a few have had the bridge shaved to lower the action, some have repaired cracks.

But they all have two things in common:

1. They sound just terrific.

2. Even with the original tuners, they stay in tune better than any modern guitar I have ever owned.

[zombywoof]

My guitars range from 1932 to 1951. And I have owned many of them for a whole lot of years. As already noted, once existing issues are taking care of the answer is no.

[Tony Burns]

Not really I have a guitar from the 1850's and its good to go -
Id say give them a bit of extra care -their not replaceable -
and use low tension strings -

[WordMan]

I’ll add my voice. I’ve had many old guitars and currently have ones from 1930 to 1966. They are stable and fine and have not needed anything more vs newer guitars. One is from 1938 with no truss rod and plays great.

If a guitar has had a lot of work, it may be because it’s a guitar that needs a lot of work. A neck reset, easy crack repairs, decent tuner changes - fine if done well. If big patches and such, if the repairs are old and clearly stable and the guitar is priced accordingly.

My recommendation would be to start on a Harmony or Kalamazoo, reported as in great condition by a reputable dealer. They are MUCH cheaper vs Martins, Gibson’s, etc, so worth paying up a bit to ensure you’re not getting a guitar with issues - I.e, from a few hundred bucks to maybe a bit over a thousand. Each make can be great guitars and a great way to understand if you believe old wood works for you.

[1Charlie]

Originally Posted by WordMan

I’ll add my voice. I’ve had many old guitars and currently have ones from 1930 to 1966. They are stable and fine and have not needed anything more vs newer guitars. One is from 1938 with no truss rod and plays great.

If a guitar has had a lot of work, it may be because it’s a guitar that needs a lot of work. A neck reset, easy crack repairs, decent tuner changes - fine if done well. If big patches and such, if the repairs are old and clearly stable and the guitar is priced accordingly.

My recommendation would be to start on a Harmony or Kalamazoo, reported as in great condition by a reputable dealer. They are MUCH cheaper vs Martins, Gibson’s, etc, so worth paying up a bit to ensure you’re not getting a guitar with issues - I.e, from a few hundred bucks to maybe a bit over a thousand. Each make can be great guitars and a great way to understand if you believe old wood works for you.

Kalamazoos are an acquired taste. Most are ladder-braced. The tone is very fundamental. Loud, but without overtones.

I love them, but they are vastly different from Gibson-labeled X-braced guitars coming out of the same factory in the 1930’s.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by 1Charlie

Kalamazoos are an acquired taste. Most are ladder-braced. The tone is very fundamental. Loud, but without overtones.

I love them, but they are vastly different from Gibson-labeled X-braced guitars coming out of the same factory in the 1930’s.

All true. But some sound amazing, and I use my archtop for slide, too, which is wonderful.