Old vs Vintage, the good and the bad

nick

I trawl quite a few forums and love looking out for the vintage gear that people often post. I've Youtubed myself to death watching clips on gear etc..

Found a few videos of George Gruhn talking about guitars and a few points I think need repeating:

1.) There is a MASSIVE difference between old and vintage. A vintage instrument is an instrument made pre 1965 according to some, I'd probably go so far as to say pre 1969. After that its just old.

2.) Old does not equal desireable or good. According to Gruhn the 70s and 80s were THEE worst time for musical instruments as people realised there was money in it and started making utter crap. He even went so far as to say the he would rather take an instrument made now, in 2012, than he would something made mid 70s. Apparently they've figured out how to make decent guitars again.

The most desireable amps are mostly all made pre 1965, all the Blackface fenders, JTM45 Plexis, Bluesbreakers, Tweed bassmans. Sure you can still find silverfaced amps as good as the blackface ones but these are as CBS started taking over and didn't have time to ruin the company yet. The later metal faced JMP Marshalls were good, but were definately second to say the plexis.

You seem to get quite a few people popping up with these 'vintage' 70s era Ibanez copies hoping they have struck the big time, but they are barely worth R3k or people showing off their mid 70s acoustics (made of plywood) as if the 70s was a brilliant era for acoustics plus they could have bought a 2012 Cort which would have been a far superior instrument.

I may be a snob but I think we need to understand the difference between the two, right.. flamesuit is on! ?

Reinhard

Some good points made.

Desirable eras:

Gibson electrics: Up to mid 60's. Even though there are some good instruments from 66-69, changes were made like narrower necks, different pickups etc. '69 is the cutoff where they started with 3 piece necks, volutes, harmonica bridges etc.

Gibson acoustics: The 50's ones seem to be THE acoustics for them. If I am not mistaken constrution methods on their acoustics changed in the 60's.

Fender amps: Should be good up to '69, the transitional models with the silver drip edge often have the blackface circuits.

Marshall amps: '69 is the cutoff for the plexis, but the early metal face ones seem to be held in high regard as well.

Vox amps: I'd say early to mid 60's are the desirable ones.

So with that in mind I'd say '69 is a good cutoff.

Maybe someone can chime in on the Fender guitar front.

arjunmenon

Reinhard wrote: Maybe someone can chime in on the Fender guitar front.

Below example made in 2012

singemonkey

I've said it before, since this is flamesult territory: Gibson guitars in the '70s are better made than the post 2000 models except for custom shop models. The problem with Gibsons in the '70s was that their model choices were weird (harmonica bridges. "The Paul") not that their quality was bad. Weight became an issue. It still is at Gibson. So now they just hollow them out. Gibson in the '90s represented an improvement, I feel. But current factory quality is lacking. The higher prices of Norlin Gibsons - especially those of lower weight like my buddy's awesome '81 wine red Custom, are therefore justifiable.

A note on the 3K Ibanez: Well-chosen example. Early 'eighties Tokais however often go for much in excess of their original selling price, Gibson custom-shop new prices, or the equivalent Tokai models today. It's not Unusual to see an '81 Tokai LS120 go for $5,000 or more.

Paul Reed Smith? Earliest examples are from the '80s? Basically hand made by the man?

Mesa Boogie combos with dove tail joints and basket weave grills? Late '70s.

Ernie Ball Stingrays? Late seventies.

In other words, this argument holds only if you're interested in the big players that put out their classic models in the '50s and '60s. While not as popular, other companies have since entered the market with wildly different "classic" periods. The collect-ability may not be as high, but prices for these items continues to increase above their more mass-produced successors. I would imagine, for example, that an early Parker Fly would be worth more than a current model.

And while vintage is usually better than old because of hand production methods due to the very small market in those days, it's also true that that quality is matched over and over again today - from Gibson and Fender custom shop models or hand-made replicas to boutique, hand-wired amplifiers. While vintage prices have continued to escalate with collectors entering the market, vintage gear is now no longer the only way to get that quality. In fact, that's the reason Japanese replicas came to be in the first place. So vintage gear is a nice thrill, but it's not actually improving on the gear you own - unlike in the '70s.

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote: And while vintage is usually better than old because of hand production methods due to the very small market in those days, it's also true that that quality is matched over and over again today - from Gibson and Fender custom shop models or hand-made replicas to boutique, hand-wired amplifiers. While vintage prices have continued to escalate with collectors entering the market, vintage gear is now no longer the only way to get that quality. In fact, that's the reason Japanese replicas came to be in the first place. So vintage gear is a nice thrill, but it's not actually improving on the gear you own - unlike in the '70s.

I'm not even convinced that vintage is better quality. A lot of vintage Martins don't have an adjustable truss rod, which can leave you with set up problems, and the neck profiles are inconsistent (my information is that for a while the guys making necks were given a minimum and maximum template and anything that wasn't too small or too large was OK - much the same way cricket umpires check the size and roundness of a cricket ball). I've seen some where the necks aren't symmetrical, though that might have been experimentation aimed at a "feature" (one that I've played with an asymmetrical neck is, for me, very comfy indeed).

Certainly for acoustic guitars I feel the golden era is right now. There are plenty of people building good quality instruments, and they all have different ideas about sound and so that gives us a good deal of choice. Brands like Taylor, Breedlove and Larrivee have amazing consistency of manufacture. At the higher end there are spectacularly good instruments available.

And then there's the matter of guitaring bang per buck. You can get a new Lowden for less than you'll pay for an "old" Martin and a good deal less than you'll pay for a "vintage", and you won't be getting a lesser guitar in terms of how it plays and the racket it produces.

singemonkey

Golden age for everything is right now. Point at any classic vintage instrument and you can get something as close as dammit or better without taking out a mortgage.

AlanRatcliffe

singemonkey wrote: Golden age for everything is right now. Point at any classic vintage instrument and you can get something as close as dammit or better without taking out a mortgage.

Exactly how I feel about it too. Wood isn't as good generally now, but construction quality and consistency is way up over the vintage models. So the top builders now who build to a quality level rather than a price point are generally making better guitars than the vintage models.

Reinhard

I think the original post was more on what constitutes "vintage" equipment as opposed to something just being old.

There was no mention of newer instruments being of inferior quality. Many feel that quality on modern guitars are much better compared to vintage models. Just on the acoustic front, there are so many small builders of exquisite quality that one really is spoiled for choice. Even Gibson who went through a terrible period with regards to their acoustic guitars are churning out some great acoustic from Bozeman. I know the LP std had some changes for the better around 2003. So we are lucky to again have high quality guitars from the big makers, even though they went through a slump. The big builders still have the occasional slips, I have even read some scary stories on people experiencing problems on new Martins and we are not just talking about the regular production models.

The problem with the modern "classic eras" is it is pretty much a niche market. You will get someone willing to dosh out big money on an EB etc. , but compared to the vintage market for the "classic brands" it is the equivalent of taking a leak into the Pacific ocean.

singemonkey

Yeah. Because the famous classics have values even to non-collectors. Modern classics like an Ernie Ball is more like the situation with buying a sunburst LP in the late '60s and '70s. The prices were higher than new LPs because players knew their virtues and wanted them. To collectors they were nothing.

DonRoos

nick wrote: You seem to get quite a few people popping up with these 'vintage' 70s era Ibanez copies hoping they have struck the big time, but they are barely worth R3k or people showing off their mid 70s acoustics (made of plywood) as if the 70s was a brilliant era for acoustics plus they could have bought a 2012 Cort which would have been a far superior instrument.

I may be a snob but I think we need to understand the difference between the two, right.. flamesuit is on! ?

Glad your flame suit is on, I think you are a snob ? It is relative to the manufacturer. Cort were not making guitars in the 60's and 70's so a 'vintage'' Cort is something from the 90's.

Your example of 70's Ibanez guitars is a bad example of this. They are a fairly young company compared to Fender and Gibson. If you visit the Ibanez Collectores World web site you will see that Vintage guitars are defined as guitars from the 70's (http://www.ibanezcollectors.com/forum/index.php). They started out making cheep imitations of Gibsons and only in the 70's started making some of their own guitars. And price is relative. My 12-String may only be worth R3000-R4000 now but I only paid R200 for it back then as they were some of the first great guitars to be made in Japan. An equivalent Fender or Gibson would have been much more expensive. A good investment and a great guitar. In my opinion and collecters all over the world a vintage guitar.

Flame suit on in anticipation of retaliation ?

nick

Flame suit is on!

Cort have been around since the 60s, I just don't know if they were releasing guitars with their name on the head stock.

I think we need to seperate vintage/old from a usable instrument. I have a 90s Yamaha which is probably plywood, its worth a coke and a packet of chips but it doesn't sound too bad. But it will never be desireable and get to 'vintage' status, it'll just get old. I have a late 70s Aria nylon string I bought for R80 including a case, perfect example of this.

As for people wanting to collect 70's Ibanii, you get people who collect McDonalds toys ?

Building guitars in the east (like Ibanez) came about when people were starting to do things as cheaply as possible as someone spotted a gap or a dip in the market. The hey day of instruments had passed and the market wass full of really mediocre instruments.

As early as the 1970's, musicians and collectors began to recognize the value of older instruments. The mass production of both acoustic and electric guitars in that era served to highlight the quality workmanship and materials of the older instruments. Historians, such as George Gruhn, helped to codify both the monetary value and sound quality of these guitars for both collectors and musicians.

From wikipedia, I know most people don't see it as a credible source.

singemonkey

George Gruhn works in a particular millieu of collectors. He's very knowledgeable but he too has his biases.

Your Yamaha may be plywood, but '70s Yamaha SGs such as the one played by Santana, were most certainly not, and most certainly collectable.

It is simply false to characterise Asian instruments as made with cheap, poor quality materials. That was certainly the case when Japan began making electric guitars in the late '40s. But, just as with their camera and car manufacturing, they rapidly ramped up their quality due to both domestic and international demand and were producing the best electric guitars in the world in the late '70s, forcing the USA to play catch-up.

People remember this, and still attribute high values to the best of those guitars.

So yeah. George Gruhn works in the heavyweight collecting division in which your characterisation is largely true. But other divisions exist. In fact some of them - like early PRSs - may represent a much better investment today with a much lower barrier to entry.

nick

singemonkey wrote: George Gruhn works in a particular millieu of collectors. He's very knowledgeable but he too has his biases.

Your Yamaha may be plywood, but '70s Yamaha SGs such as the one played by Santana, were most certainly not, and most certainly collectable.

It is simply false to characterise Asian instruments as made with cheap, poor quality materials. That was certainly the case when Japan began making electric guitars in the late '40s. But, just as with their camera and car manufacturing, they rapidly ramped up their quality due to both domestic and international demand and were producing the best electric guitars in the world in the late '70s, forcing the USA to play catch-up.

People remember this, and still attribute high values to the best of those guitars.

So yeah. George Gruhn works in the heavyweight collecting division in which your characterisation is largely true. But other divisions exist. In fact some of them - like early PRSs - may represent a much better investment today with a much lower barrier to entry.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Yamaha-SG-1500-6-String-Electric-Guitar-w-Gibson-HSC-1978-MIJ-Vintage-/221136307926?pt=Guitar&hash=item337cc046d6

Dont know the different models.. but the most expensive one on fleabay is $1000

singemonkey

Quite correct. That is not the most expensive model. ?

Reinhard

I remember seeing John 5's fantastic collection of old Ibanez guitars.

....... oh no wait, it was all vintage teles. ?

What it boils down to is this. Even the Asians who built all these fantastic guitars would rather import and collect vintage American guitars.

ZarK

Imho there have been eras where certain high-end Japanese-made instruments easily surpassed similar US-made counterparts with regards to quality...