Taylor improvements hurting Taylor?

jimklein · #1 05-31-2005, 01:39 PM

I was just wondering... do you think Taylor improvements has helped or hurt Taylor???

I mean, now we have within a short span:
-UV vs. Non-UV coating
-Poodle vs. monkey
-NT vs. Non NT
-ES vs. Fishman
-Revoiced vs. non-Revoiced
-Grover tuners vs. (ok, I won't get into that one...

But does all this change (not arguing if they are improvements or not) cause owner frustration & ultimatly less demand when selling or is this just normal for a constantly innovative company?

Serenity · #2 05-31-2005, 01:44 PM

I think help in general. I hear more positive than I do negative about the most significant changes....NT, Voicing........I think the ES has generally been good for Taylor too as long as you listen to your Taylor dealer and stay out of the forums to learn about it...

Ive not really heard much about the UV or Monkey Butt cases being a deal breaker.

I'd be surprised if they weren't selling more guitars this year than last. For me, ES hurts Taylor because all of the ones I have to try at my local shop have ES and I don't want one...but for many many buyers, the ES looks like a great little system.

wthurman · #3 05-31-2005, 03:41 PM

I think the NT doesn't hurt - although aesthetically I don't like it as much, it's pretty cool technologically speaking, and in the unlikely event I'll need a reset, I'll be glad if it's on a Taylor.

As for the ES, it's okay - I wish it wasn't quite so proprietary - one nice thing about the Fishman is that there are now at least two retrofits for it - Baggs and B-Band. I prefer the ES to Fishman, and the B-Band to ES - go figure. But its "stealthier" look, while still too much for those of us who want no extra holes, is a vast improvement.

I don't mind the rosettes, but think that they should do more with fretboard inlays on the various series - the old small diamonds on the 500 series were classy, and somehow I feel like the 700 should have something better, too. Doesn't have to be much - just something to set it off.

I think moving to ivoroid and away from the Cindy to something MUCH less complex on the 900 series was a mistake. I'd rather see them go back to rosewood or even to koa, and to maple on the 800 series. I can see changing the inlay, but how about something just as cool as the Cindy? Even the original 900 series inlay was nicer than what's there now, IMO.

All of these little 'cheapenings' have gotten more people grumbling that Taylors are overpriced a bit, and THAT may hurt them, but in the end, if it does what I want at a price I'm willing to pay, I'll buy it.

To that end, I've saved the best for last. While my exerience of the NT was that they sounded thinner in general (and this opinion was shared by lots of dealers and techs I talked to) there were many people who disagreed. Oddly enough, all of us predicted that the entire Taylor line would be revoiced to compensate. Coincidence? Maybe.

Either way, the Grand Concerts have had the most dramatic shift, IMO, with the Jumbos and Dreads next, and finally the Grand Auditoriums. In the case of the Grand Concerts, I think they're even better than the older GC's I've played. And the Dreads and Jumbos just sound more consistently like the best of what was produced before, and GA's just fill out a little bit. In any case, I think the revoicings were the best and most important thing Taylor has done for their line.

My main gripe is that with the advent of the ES, they hardly make a stock guitar that isn't acoustic/electric at the outset, which kind of cheapens the purity of the higher lines - it indicates a certain philosophy that is more in line with the T5 than with pure acoustic tone. But that's just my personal gripe - I can't go play a lot of Taylors before I buy them because I'd rather not buy them with electronics in them.

So that's my opinion, and applies only to me. I think Taylor is doing fine. I saw a quality control issue in latter 2003 that seems to have passed and been corrected. I also think that we need a big company that's always pushing its own envelope, if only to inspire other companies into doing more - things were getting pretty stagnant in the acoustic guitar world up until the 90's, and Taylor had a lot to do with waking up a lot of people.

Sheesh. Awfully big answer for saying so little.

Ah, well.

Wade

Anyway, this is all my opinion.

cotten · #4 05-31-2005, 04:35 PM

Short answer: if I were buying a Taylor for me today, I'd be looking for a good used one, perhaps from the 1995-2000 bracket. More music, less money.

cotten

Folkman · #5 05-31-2005, 05:45 PM

I own 3 taylors. a BB, 814ce, and 555. I bought them because of the way they sounded and their playability for my style of playing. The 814 has a fishman blender and the 555 and big baby had no electronics when I bought them. the BB ended up with a fishman SBT and the 555 ended up with a Rare Earth Blender. I didn't really care if they had an NT neck or ES or what kind of case. I fell in love with each one after playing them. The acoustic sound of the guitar unplugged was what was important to me. I also have a Guild D-25 and a Takamine EN 10c. I love the sound of those as well and use them for certain songs I play.

I guess to answer your question, none of the improvements or other items you mentioned made a bit of difference wether I bought a Taylor or not.

Folkman

DDfingerstyle · #6 05-31-2005, 06:32 PM

Just cosmetic, but I do happen to like the new inlays on the 814 better than the old. I just wish they would use real wood on the binding as opposed to "ivoroid" (I actually like the binding on the 714 better). Some of the other "improvements" I like. Some, I don't. However, overall, I'm sure the changes have helped Taylors "bottom line".

Fngrstyl · #7 05-31-2005, 06:42 PM

I don't feel that they are improvements as much as they are cost cutting measures, put forward as improvements.. just my opinion.

Jeff M · #8 05-31-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotten

Short answer: if I were buying a Taylor for me today, I'd be looking for a good used one, perhaps from the 1995-2000 bracket. More music, less money.

cotten

Yep.
I get the feeling Taylor is selling you less, but trying to convince you it is more.
Great guitars, but.....

MrKnobs · #9 05-31-2005, 07:29 PM

I'd like my Taylor more if I got to play it once in a while. The ES system worked for maybe a couple of hours before it crapped out. The guitar is back in CA now getting worked on.

Terry D.

pollajak · #10 05-31-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimklein

I was just wondering... do you think Taylor improvements has helped or hurt Taylor??? But does all this change (not arguing if they are improvements or not) cause owner frustration & ultimatly less demand when selling or is this just normal for a constantly innovative company?

Base on my limited marketing knowledge,
1) Any manufacturer is in business to sell new products. So, as long as it is successful to do that, it has helped itself.
2) This particular manufacturer has a major strategy to be innovative. Improvement is a characteristic of innovation.
3) The consumers who bought the old products, if do not like the new products, would keep the old products because they are good in their views.
4) The consumers who bought the new products because of the innovation, if do not know or care about the old products, would keep the new products.
5) Certainly, cost saving and self depending is one of business strategies.
6)When the competitors still cannot figure out how to do better or do differently, this manufacturer would still maintain strategic advantage.
Respectfully Submitted,

Stuart · #11 05-31-2005, 09:14 PM

It never ceases to amaze me that a company that sells over 70,000 guitars every year and is perhaps the most visible of all guitars on the professional stage, gets so much criticism from so many people. This threat is about 50% and 50% thumbs down. A lot of threads, even on this forum are mostly thumbs down. Taylor, the guitar company everyone loves to hate.

Jeff M · #12 05-31-2005, 09:18 PM

I think Taylor makes some wonderful instruments.
I believe they have been making some changes in those instruments for financial ie "business" purposes...which, as a business, is what they are supposed to be doing.
I am NOT a fan of Taylor's method of doing business.....but that is a seperate issue from the product.

flaggerphil · #13 05-31-2005, 10:59 PM

The only thing I haven't liked in the last few years was the changing of the 5xx's fretboard markers to dots. As someone else said, I think they should go back to the little diamonds and give the 7xx's something a little different, too.

I'd like to see more of their upper end guitars with binding of wood...maple, koa, BRW, etc. I've never liked the white colored plastic binding.

Other than that, I have absolutely no complaints. I just like Taylors.

Diagoras · #14 06-01-2005, 01:16 AM

I agree with the above poster, except that actually I prefer the dots.

I love the simple yet elegant look of the 500/700 series, and I would never buy any guitar with abalone.

Let's just say that rainbow-colored shiny stuff doesn't go with my decor.

SMan · #15 06-01-2005, 05:40 AM

It's a business. They are selling more than ever at high margins. Nothing wrong with that if you are part of the company or a distributor. Now will I buy a new one? No. But that's just me. Hardly anyone were playing Taylors when I purchased my first one. That's part of what I liked about them. I certainly don't fault them for being successful however! Too many choices out there to worry about what one company is doing!