New Taylor Archtop Guitars

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by RJVB

...EDIT: just saying that you'd need to be certain to budget for sufficient QC.

I own two Godins, used to routinely recommend Seagulls to my students when I was teaching, and IME that's never been an issue for any Godin product; haven't played any new Loars in a long time so I can't vouch for consistency - and they'd do well to take your hint, even if it means they no longer undercut Eastman's prices - but as you said the 1920's period-accurate neck profile can be daunting...

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Because they already do it successfully on some of their models that have unbraced backs. I personally think their unbraced back plates contribute to those models punching above their pay grade.

Nothing wrong with using the same process to form a top plate and then adding braces. It's been done successfully for years on some of the consumer arch tops.

But the role of back and top plates are very different... Use a good laminate for the back (in a flattop) and you hardly hear the difference (and you gain consistency). I just don't believe that's true for the top (assuming we're not talking about double-tops).

Even if an all-laminate construction is less penalising to the acoustic sound in an archtop than in a flattop I don't see why a brand known for its premium acoustic guitars would introduce a completely new family via that kind of budget model. I think they'd rather want to improve on the sound, or show that an archtop can sound at least as good as their other instruments (but be more appropriate for music styles that are currently underserved by their offering, OR maybe by referring to Maybelle Carter).

I own two Godins, used to routinely recommend Seagulls to my students when I was teaching, and IME that's never been an issue for any Godin product

I also own a Seagull, which cost me a bit more (new) than my (5yo) Loar archtop though the latter was probably about twice as expensive new. I can assure you that the finish on the Loar is overall a lot better. Seagull clearly cuts some corners by leaving the kerfing and braces in a rough state; the Loar is super clean on the inside. The Loar has a very slight fingerboard hump over the neck extension; I never noticed this on the Seagull but getting rid of fret buzz has been a lengthy trial and error process ... and the marker dots are off-centre which could mean that the entire fingerboard should have been discarded. I don't know how Godin can produce in Canada for the prices they ask (NB: they've moved part of their production to China!) but I can see 1 big difference. The people building the guitars aren't contractors who may also work for better paying brands; they're Godin employees and I wouldn't be surprised if pride in what they're doing replaces a good part of QC financing.

I have no idea how much Loar prices would go up if they were to improve their QC enough to prove their reputation wrong (supposing that hasn't already happened). But would it have to mean they no longer undercut Eastman prices, knowing that a feature-comparable new AR805 goes for prices these days that can also buy you a luthier build (or almost)?!

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by RJVB

But the role of back and top plates are very different... Use a good laminate for the back (in a flattop) and you hardly hear the difference (and you gain consistency). I just don't believe that's true for the top (assuming we're not talking about double-tops).

Even if an all-laminate construction is less penalising to the acoustic sound in an archtop than in a flattop I don't see why a brand known for its premium acoustic guitars would introduce a completely new family via that kind of budget model. I think they'd rather want to improve on the sound, or show that an archtop can sound at least as good as their other instruments (but be more appropriate for music styles that are currently underserved by their offering, OR maybe by referring to Maybelle Carter).

Although Taylor is known for it's high end flat top guitars, it's just as widely known for it's ability to bring innovative and lower priced offerings to the marketplace. The Taylor GS Mini by far their best selling guitar, and no one would accuse it of being a "high end" guitar.

Although Taylor certainly would be capable of developing and producing a demonstratively "better" arch top, the laminate arch top would fit well into their habit of bringing something different to the scene, especially as a way of introducing players to something a bit outside of what they have been previously playing.

Laminate tops have a lot to offer; they provide a robust mechanical plate that's almost impervious to cracks, are stable in climates that are subject to humidity fluctuations, offer the builder a perfect opportunity to develop bracing that hones the sound to its desired tonality, and most importantly, can be produced economically without the need or expense of contour carving an expensive billet of wood.

As far as producing a premium model, for Taylor it's all about numbers and there simply aren't enough arch top players to justify producing a high end arch top. If arch tops should shift into a higher popularity then I could see them giving some serious consideration to that, although I think it would still be based on the economics of not carving away a lot of expensive premium wood to make a solid wood top plate.

Some of those Taylor flat top models currently produced are great values, and I personally believe Taylor produces them as "loss leaders" to get players into the Taylor "family". Nothing wrong with that, and I see a Taylor "budget model" arch top as filling the same role.

Asa side note, Epiphone had the same opportunity to do all of this with the Olympic (and other historic models) and screwed that up by concentrating their efforts on "look" and not sound quality. Why in the world would you try to capitalize on a historic model and then provide a guitar with a big plastic box cut into the lower bout...
Too bad for that. I owned a 39 Epi Triumph so I know the heritage that they ran into the ground.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

...Epiphone had the same opportunity to do all of this with the Olympic (and other historic models) and screwed that up by concentrating their efforts on "look" and not sound quality. Why in the world would you try to capitalize on a historic model and then provide a guitar with a big plastic box cut into the lower bout...

Too bad for that. I owned a '39 Epi Triumph so I know the heritage that they ran into the ground.

There was a rumor practically from the get-go that Epiphone realized they dropped the ball big-time, and they were going to regroup and release a line of all-carved archtops more closely based on the historic New York models (such as your '39 Triumph and my '46 Blackstone); when they discontinued the ill-conceived Masterbilt lineup in short order and blew them out at bargain basement prices, it lent some credence to things. However, it seems they've taken a different overall direction - the result being a hodgepodge of generic student instruments, low-buck wish-I-had-a-Gibson models, some halfhearted would-be reissues of classic Kalamazoo offerings, a smattering of derivative midrange Pac-Rim stuff, and a couple high-end USA-built guitars. Shame, because I was really hoping that the new management at the parent company would seek to establish Epiphone as a marque with its own distinct identity and heritage - the New York-era Epis had a mystique all their own (one that is still revered by many jazzers), and in many respects they were Gibson's skunkworks during the Kalamazoo years (if you've ever played an Al Caiola Custom you'll see where the idea for the Lucille came from) - and while the re-introduced Riviera is a minimal step in the right direction, they've got a long way to go before they provide any real competition to Gretsch in the "new-stalgia" market...

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Although Taylor is known for it's high end flat top guitars, it's just as widely known for it's ability to bring innovative and lower priced offerings to the marketplace. The Taylor GS Mini by far their best selling guitar, and no one would accuse it of being a "high end" guitar.

From the product page of the GS Mini: Solid Tops Translate to Potent Sound.

Something to consider: Taylor archtops already exist - Martin Taylor (built by Peerless). Those set a "certain" standard. IMHO, if Taylor (the brand from this thread) were to introduce a cheap, all-laminate acoustic archtop they'd be accepting a de-facto position where they provide the entry-level Taylor archtops, and Martin Taylor the better ones.

Again, they wouldn't need to hand-carve (and voice) the tops (on their entire archtop line). I have no idea if a pressed solid top is just as good or bad as a laminate top but from a marketing point of view it's still a pressed top.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by RJVB

From the product page of the GS Mini: Solid Tops Translate to Potent Sound.

Something to consider: Taylor archtops already exist - Martin Taylor (built by Peerless). Those set a "certain" standard. IMHO, if Taylor (the brand from this thread) were to introduce a cheap, all-laminate acoustic archtop they'd be accepting a de-facto position where they provide the entry-level Taylor archtops, and Martin Taylor the better ones.

Again, they wouldn't need to hand-carve (and voice) the tops (on their entire archtop line). I have no idea if a pressed solid top is just as good or bad as a laminate top but from a marketing point of view it's still a pressed top.

Please note that I did not say the GS Mini had a laminated top.

"...it's just as widely known for it's ability to bring innovative and lower priced offerings to the marketplace."

I owned a mahogany topped GS Mini and it was a fine instrument, and was my "gateway" to owning a 322 presently. I purchased the GS Mini to be able to continue playing while I recuperated from a pulverized collarbone and ended up appreciating what Taylor could offer at that price point.

Taylor laminate construction has little in common with pac rim plywood. Each of the 3 layers is basically equal in thickness and tht translates to a whole nuther level of influence on sound.

I'm not a fan of pressed tops, as the natural tenancy of wood is to return to it's static structure. Forcing it to do something that it doesn't want to do can spell trouble acoustically and structurally over the long haul.

Sorry if I seem pretty opinionated on this stuff, but I've been building instruments and doing general woodworking for the last 40 years. I'm not trying to be argumentative, simply throwing some thoughts out based on what I know about Taylor's guitar lines and their ability to bring a marketing concept to fruition.

If Taylor made a budget-friendly arch top guitar it does not denigrate their branding. They are just as likely to try and accommodate newer players with solidly designed instruments that are more affordable as they are in providing upper level instruments.

Look at their $500ish offerings in the Academy lineup and you'll see "lower tier" instruments that still play like higher end Taylors, sound reasonably good, and incorporate their NT neck joint. They don't cut corners by epoxying the necks on and making basically disposable guitars.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by RJVB

...I have no idea if a pressed solid top is just as good or bad as a laminate top but from a marketing point of view it's still a pressed top.

Upright bass makers have been producing all-laminated instruments for the last century...

The New York-era Epiphone basses, as well as the Kay basses from the '40s-60s, are still highly prized by working players as much for their tone as their durability...

Many a postwar ES-125 or ES-150 did double-duty as both an acoustic and electric instrument - the best 150's could rival contemporary L-7 carved instruments for volume and tone...

Gibson's L-48, Guild's A-50, and Gretsch's New Yorker were mainstays of the better teaching studios (particularly in the Northeast US) well into the '60s, in the hands of teachers and students alike...

It's long been known that laminated archtop construction doesn't have the same detrimental effect on tone as it does for a flattop - and given Andy Powers' expertise I'm certain he could take things to the next level, while still keeping it affordable for the Working Joe/Jane looking for a secondary/specialty instrument...

[mrjop1975]

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

There was a rumor practically from the get-go that Epiphone realized they dropped the ball big-time, and they were going to regroup and release a line of all-carved archtops more closely based on the historic New York models (such as your '39 Triumph and my '46 Blackstone); when they discontinued the ill-conceived Masterbilt lineup in short order and blew them out at bargain basement prices, it lent some credence to things. However, it seems they've taken a different overall direction - the result being a hodgepodge of generic student instruments, low-buck wish-I-had-a-Gibson models, some halfhearted would-be reissues of classic Kalamazoo offerings, a smattering of derivative midrange Pac-Rim stuff, and a couple high-end USA-built guitars. Shame, because I was really hoping that the new management at the parent company would seek to establish Epiphone as a marque with its own distinct identity and heritage - the New York-era Epis had a mystique all their own (one that is still revered by many jazzers), and in many respects they were Gibson's skunkworks during the Kalamazoo years (if you've ever played an Al Caiola Custom you'll see where the idea for the Lucille came from) - and while the re-introduced Riviera is a minimal step in the right direction, they've got a long way to go before they provide any real competition to Gretsch in the "new-stalgia" market...

I currently still have one of the Epiphone Masterbilt Olympics in the honey burst finish with the pickguard installed. I pretty much got it for the Dave Rawlings factor, as well as the fact that my first picking style was Maybelle Carter's scratch, and she used a Gibson L-5 or L-7 from 1930 on. I agree there are things that they could have done a million times better though, but because of where I live, there just is not a lot of try before you buy, especially with an acoustic type arhctop. If Taylor could bring one to the market, or maybe Godin could do an acoustic version (and put a case with it as part of the price point), I would sell mine off in a heartbeat and not look back. The truth is, as had been stated before, not a lot of people have scene an archtop in person, much less played one. There is a distinct difference in tone even in the Carter scratch when I use the Olympic vs. when I have out my Guild. Just my own two cents worth to add to this thread.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by mrjop1975

...maybe Godin could do an acoustic version (and put a case with it as part of the price point), I would sell mine off in a heartbeat and not look back...

They did make one about 10-15 years ago - I own one - and while they were well-built, fine-sounding guitars in the Godin tradition, they weren't selling in the numbers they should have (especially given their low price). They do come up on the used market every so often - unfortunately not as often as they did a couple years back (those who own them are tending to hang onto them, with good reason) - but if you shop around they're well worth the search:

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

They did make one about 10-15 years ago - I own one - and while they were well-built, fine-sounding guitars in the Godin tradition, they weren't selling in the numbers they should have (especially given their low price). They do come up on the used market every so often - unfortunately not as often as they did a couple years back (those who own them are tending to hang onto them, with good reason) - but if you shop around they're well worth the search:

I should have grabbed a Peerless Martin Taylor while these were showing up on the used market a good prices a few years ago. Now, I can't find a single one in the used market and they are discontinued as Martin Taylor is off on another guitar product venture which I don't care for as much, based on specs.

Regarding some of the discussion here about price point and level of QC, I am curious as to why Godin can make high quality instruments at a reasonable price, while some others (not all...) seem to have QC issues at that price point. All the Godin and Seagull models I have personally seen were really good guitars. I have owned a couple of their nylon string Multiac models.

Tony

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

...Regarding some of the discussion here about price point and level of QC, I am curious as to why Godin can make high quality instruments at a reasonable price, while some others (not all...) seem to have QC issues at that price point. All the Godin and Seagull models I have personally seen were really good guitars. I have owned a couple of their nylon string Multiac models...

There are two old Latin proverbs - either of which, to a greater or lesser degree, conveys the corporate philosophy of every manufacturer out there:

Non multa sed multum
Fecimus propter possumus

The first translates literally as "not many, but much" or, loosely paraphrased, "quality before quantity"; a noblesse oblige, integrity-driven approach to guitar-making that usually finds itself comm,only expressed as "bang for the buck," "value per dollar," or even "not cheap, but a bargain even at twice the price," this motto appeared on a plaque hung over Frank Henry Martin's bed as a boy, was passed down to his son CFM III, and hung in the factory in 1920. There are a number of makers past and present that exemplify this ideal - Martin during its first 150 years, the aforementioned Godin family, archtop luthier Mark Campellone, Gretsch's MIJ Professional Series and Korean Electromatics, Halcyon, among others - and as you noticed, they just have a way of standing out from their peers totally unrelated to glitz (with the possible exception of Gretsch, but that's their trademark anyway )...

The second translates as "we do because we can": coasting on a no-longer-valid reputation, cheapening production methods/materials with no real benefits in value/QC/tone, discontinuing high-value/accessibly-priced instruments that represent a threat to their big-buck boxes, constantly chasing fads and market dead ends - borrowing from a famous movie of years past, "build it and they'll buy it anyway"; if you've been in this game for a while it's no secret who the relevant parties are, and/or which periods of production we're talking about, and by and large these are the marques I avoid...

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

The first translates literally as "not many, but much" or, loosely paraphrased, "quality before quantity"; a noblesse oblige, integrity-driven approach to guitar-making that usually finds itself comm,only expressed as "bang for the buck," "value per dollar," or even "not cheap, but a bargain even at twice the price,"

There really seems to be a contradiction in here, as if you're actually describing "quantity over quality".

Putting Godin and someone like Mark Campellone into the same category almost feels like an insult. I have a Seagull guitar, and I'd hate to suggest to any independent luthier that the insides of their instruments are as nicely not-finished as that jumbo of mine (or their fretboard inlays as well aligned).

[dkstott]

I own a Godin 5th Avenue acou archtop ascwell as the 5th Avenue jazz model.

I'll sell my froggy bottom guitar before I'd sell either one of my Godin.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by RJVB

There really seems to be a contradiction in here, as if you're actually describing "quantity over quality".

Putting Godin and someone like Mark Campellone into the same category almost feels like an insult. I have a Seagull guitar, and I'd hate to suggest to any independent luthier that the insides of their instruments are as nicely not-finished as that jumbo of mine (or their fretboard inlays as well aligned).

I think there might be a miscommunication going on here. I understood Steve's (as usual) informative reply not to say that what Godin and Campellone are doing as being equal in quality, but instead that both are creating standout quality within their respective price points. I believe Steve has too much experience with guitars at various price points (judging from his many informative posts) to claim that Godin guitars are the equal of Campellone. Godin doesn't have to be at the level of Camellone to be stellar within their targeted price point, but can still make a nice instrument at a very affordable price. Apparently (if I understand correctly), what the two have in common is stellar quality at their respective price points, so that would be the category Steve is apparently putting the two in.

Steve, please correct me if I am wrong.

Tony

[RJVB]

Just to be clear: I got Steve's point, but I had to read the statement twice to be certain I read what was actually written. That's why I said "it seems". I also didn't think he meant Godins and Campellones are equal in quality, I'm sure Steve is still far too lucid to even joke about such things

But stellar really isn't the term that my Seagull inspires...