Old is gold?

[YasunBey13]

Would you prefer new year model guitars? Or is older models better? What do you prefer. Cause I want to get a guitar but theres many diff model years 2000s, 90s, 2017s I dont know what to choose from.

[Rosewood99]

There is no one answer to your question. Depends on the guitar.

[Mycroft]

Depends on maker, model, style of music, budget, woods, and a number of other variables to winnow it down from the billion or so guitars out there.

[1Charlie]

Go play a bunch from different eras and the answer will come to you.

[ChalkLitIScream]

The relatively recent innovations lead me to believe the best guitars are those that were just made..and will be until wood supply and quality run out.

Ryan Guitars comes to mind. All the little details to make the top as light as possible are really quite innovative

[YasunBey13]

Martins, Guilds? I'm just saying in general I know it can get specific but the overall do we get new guitars or old ones?

[tbeltrans]

Here are two examples from my own experience that would lead to opposite conclusions:

1. My 1917 Martin 0-18. Martin made MANY changes to this model over the years, from switching from Brazilian rosewood B/S to mahogany, to narrowing the fretboard, to adding a pick guard, etc,.etc. For this model, the newest version I would want is the early 1917 models before they switched away from Brazilian rosewood and did all that other stuff, which is the model I have. So, for me, in this particular case, older is much better, and I feel very fortunate to own one.

2. My 2016 Taylor 914ce. The changes that Andy Powers did to this model, make it far better for me than the earlier versions. I once had one from 1997, supposedly the "golden years" for Taylor according to some folks. I sold it because I just never bonded with the sound. In this case, newer is better for me.

In both cases, I say "for me" because clearly, for both these models of guitar, many people like later versions in the case of Martin, and others like the earlier versions in the case of Taylor. The changes in both cases by the maker are very real, but whether they are "better" or not is a matter of personal preference.

Tony

[YasunBey13]

Originally Posted by tbeltrans

Here are two examples from my own experience that would lead to opposite conclusions:

1. My 1917 Martin 0-18. Martin made MANY changes to this model over the years, from switching from Brazilian rosewood B/S to mahogany, to narrowing the fretboard, to adding a pick guard, etc,.etc. For this model, the newest version I would want is the early 1917 models before they switched away from Brazilian rosewood and did all that other stuff, which is the model I have. So, for me, in this particular case, older is much better, and I feel very fortunate to own one.

2. My 2016 Taylor 914ce. The changes that Andy Powers did to this model, make it far better for me than the earlier versions. I once had one from 1997, supposedly the "golden years" for Taylor according to some folks. I sold it because I just never bonded with the sound. In this case, newer is better for me.

In both cases, I say "for me" because clearly, for both these models of guitar, many people like later versions in the case of Martin, and others like the earlier versions in the case of Taylor. The changes in both cases by the maker are very real, but whether they are "better" or not is a matter of personal preference.

Tony

Thank you I have a better understanding now.

[slopeshoulder]

Please, step back from the Abyss. Infinite number of opinions on this. I bid you good luck in your endeavor.

[DenverSteve]

I advise that you not worry about anything except how the guitar sounds to you and buy one that makes your toes curl.

[Pickcity]

Originally Posted by paulzoom

There is no one answer to your question. Depends on the guitar.

This is really all there is to it. As a majority, I would probably prefer a new one, but not always...It depends on the guitar, 110%.

[tippy5]

Some guitars are astonishing new. My 2016 Martin 000-18 was very 3D like lush Martin tone, upon arrival. I have a J 45 TV that needed a few years to develop deeper tones. My Goodall also has opened up after 7 years.

I wonder if your garden variety, solid wood acoustic has an average length of tone? Is it 2 years, 20 years? I have no idea. Then you have James Taylor mention about his Gibson going dead on its tone after all the decades.

Is it just less water in the wood? Is it all the glued joints crystallizing tightly?

Then there's Trigger. Willie's old faithful. Nice sound. Low sustain.
I wonder what Sabicas or Andrés Segovia thought about tone degradation compared to mechanical wear?

Maybe the last 30 years of luthiery has evolved to a longer useful period?

[devellis]

Seems like there are two issues to consider. One is the impact of the aging process and the other is advantageous innovations. The former tilts the scale toward preferring older guitars and the latter toward newer ones.

I'm not sure that I completely trust the former on time scales that are applicable in most cases. I do think guitars open up somewhat with time and playing but I think (but certainly don't know for a fact) that whatever changes occur tend to be larger at the beginning of a guitar's life and progressively diminish. So, I don't necessarily expect a 15-year-old guitar to have benefited from, say, its last 5 or 10 years in any way I'd notice. Some guitars don't seem to change very much at all with time while others do (again, just a subjective impression here). Also, whatever changes occur aren't necessarily improvements, although sometimes they may be.

"Innovation" can be a good thing or a bad thing. Martin and Gibson both went through periods of building guitars more robustly to avoid warranty claims. Most people don't consider those "innovations" as improvements. More recently, Martin has changed instruments in ways that essentially undo some of their earlier changes. A lot of these newer guitars strike people as improvements. The D-18 is an example of a guitar that many consider to have improved substantially in recent years as a result of some changes Martin put into place. Similar changes to other models have followed.

So, my point is that some guitars are better in their newer models than older while some others may be better in their older models than their newer ones. One thing that remains pretty true is that used guitars are often a better value than a brand new one. If you feel comfortable determining the condition and playability of a used guitar, getting one of those instead of the brand-new equivalent can save you some money with little down-side (the absence of a manufacturer's warranty being the chief disadvantage). Short of the advantage of buying used, the best guide, as always, is to try a bunch of guitars in your price range and buy what you like best. If you can't try before you buy, then work with a reputable dealer or private party who will take the time to give you an honest sense of the guitar's virtues and vices.

[Silly Moustache]

The passion for vintage instruments is due to the general perception that an older ones sound better.
I don't discount this. They will also have or need higher maintenance.

The quest for a "vintage" sound is the reason for the torrification fashion, because it emulates a matured top sound.

Newer non torrified makes/models will often sound/feel "tight" or a little harsh at first, but will open up with playing. Adirondack is generally thought to need some years whereas sitka less but this is infinitely variable depending on your playing style.
Note that a new instrument played in by you is more likely to respond better to your style.

[Nymuso]

Old is gold to me only to the extent that used guitars are not as expensive as new instruments. A "vintage" guitar or one that Elvis might have touched is of no interest to me whatsoever.