Scorched wrote: I wasn't crazy about the tone, but I think it would fit my purposes well.
Has anyone got experience with these or would you recommend something else?

I don't really know the guitar, but with all of the amazing variety we have on the market these days, I cant for the life of me imagine why you would start looking at a guitar that you already know you don't like the tone of.
I'm not saying they are bad guitars. But there are millions of guitars around, and I dont think it'd be hard to find one that ticks the same boxes as this guitar, as well as the box of "Crazy about the tone"...if you know what I mean.


You say it would fit your purposes well? What are your needs? That's probably a good place to start.

Cort are usually good value for money, but IMO the best bang per buck in acoustic guitaring in these parts right now is the Taylor Big Baby. Get a good condition second hand BB and you'll be well in. They're not much too look at, mind, but they play and sound pretty good.

Get something with a tone that you can at least live with. It's harder to change the tone of an acoustic than of an electric.

If you must have a Cort 100f then don't get too hung up on the model number. Look at Cort dreadnoughts with a solid spruce top and laminate back and sides. Check out Tanglewoods in the same style and price range too.

I've had one. It was ok. Could have probably done with a bone nut and bridge and new tuners.

Shibbibilybob wrote:with all of the amazing variety we have on the market these days, I cant for the life of me imagine why you would start looking at a guitar that you already know you don't like the tone of.

I'm with shibillibillibiillib-nana-bofana-bob here. Don't fall to GAS.

I have one currently, it's my only steel-string acoustic. It's not a "bright" sounding guitar, but I find mine to be warm and it has decent clarity. I've just moved to 11s strings on it, little easier on the fingers and cuts down a bit on the bottom end (of which it has much...). I bought mine in 2009 second-hand for R1,500.

If I played more acoustic I may consider a guitar with a cut-out, and maybe a little more "jangly" sounding. But as an all-round guitar I love the Cort, and would keep it rather than upgrade.

The feel and playability are nothing like a Taylor, but I'm pretty happy with my Cort. And it's bassy enough to sound decent in a baritone tuning, even if the string tension is shocking

@peter while that may be true in general, I have played dismally awful Taylor's and martins (although some of the martins may be due to those biblically old strings they insist on leaving on the guitars at Marshall Music.... Every strum kicks up a cloud of rust as old as the ark itself) and I've played superb lower end brands like ibanez, cort, takamine, and even an SX that blew my hair back.
I think that it has to do with the fact that acoustics are finicky little buggers.... Every little shave of wood makes a difference... And sometimes you land up with a dud.

I guess that's why it's important to play the instrument before you buy it.

No @OP why on earth would you want to get w guitar you aren't crazy about?? If you're looking for an acoustic, my suggestion is for you to either go into a store and just ask the clerks which ones fall within your budget and play them thoroughly without paying attention to brand and model and choose the one that sounds best.

Otherwise if you're ok with travelling, get onto gumtree, junkmail, OLX and whatever else and find some great deals (play before you buy!)

Just remember that if your budget is low, you're not going to find yourself with a Taylor or Martin in hand.... You may not get a solid top or sides but again that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Chocklit_Thunda wrote: @peter while that may be true in general, I have played dismally awful Taylor's and martins (although some of the martins may be due to those biblically old strings they insist on leaving on the guitars at Marshall Music.... Every strum kicks up a cloud of rust as old as the ark itself) and I've played superb lower end brands like ibanez, cort, takamine, and even an SX that blew my hair back.
I think that it has to do with the fact that acoustics are finicky little buggers.... Every little shave of wood makes a difference... And sometimes you land up with a dud.
.

I'm sold on cheap guitars, my Cort Curbow served me fantastically for ten years, and my Cort acoustic makes me pretty happy. I've just had experience playing Taylors that have an effortlessly easy action, so while they may not sound better they are much easier to play. But I also take your point that its about setup. Mabe I need to bite the bullet and get my acoustic set up properly.

[/quote]

I'm. Mabe I need to bite the bullet and get my acoustic set up properly.
[/quote]

Do IT! Even a fantastic guitar can be ruined by a shoddy set up. If you haven't your guitar set up in a while, there is absolutely nothing better you can do for it. Always comes home feeling like heaven ?

Chocklit_Thunda wrote: I think that it has to do with the fact that acoustics are finicky little buggers.... Every little shave of wood makes a difference... And sometimes you land up with a dud.

More likely at the budget end where QC is less stringent. Which is why if you play enough cheapos you'll find one that is really good.

With old guitars though, the neck will eventually move (less of a problem with brands - like Taylor - with bolt on necks) and this will generally result in a higher action and a need for work on the guitars. Which is why you find old Martins and such that play like dogs.

Cheapo guitars can be problematic here because they need more work to strip down. In some cases the glue used in the neck joint is so nasty that the only option is to steam the whole neck block out and adjust that. And if you have to go to such lengths on a guitar then it's probably not worth the expense.

These days good brands have very high consistency. You don't get many dud new Martins, Larrivees, Taylors, Breedloves etc. Back in the allegedly golden era standards were more relaxed (or harder to maintain) and so you get quite a lot of variance. Martin crafstmen, at one time, were given a pair of gauges for neck profiles - the neck had to be bigger than one of the pair and smaller than the other. So necks were not consistent etc etc.

NOW is the golden age of acoustic guitar making.

X-rated Bob wrote:

Chocklit_Thunda wrote: I think that it has to do with the fact that acoustics are finicky little buggers.... Every little shave of wood makes a difference... And sometimes you land up with a dud.

NOW is the golden age of acoustic guitar making.

Right NOW! I am currently building my own African Blackwood OM at Casimi Guitars, and watching those guys work is absolutely amazing.
Matthias Roux knows his wood so well, and seems to know just how to shape it (remove a little here, there, keep tapping, listen to response, remove a little wood here, a little there...)

I could never previously understand why Taylor could charge say R20000 for a perfectly good guitar with say Sapele solid sides and back, and a spruce top, but the same guitar made by a handmade luthier would be closer to R60000.
Well, having watched these guys at work, and played their custom guitars, I understand completely!

so i'm going to agree with bob and say you won't find better bang for your buck than a taylor big baby. and i suspect that a good second hand one will surprise you by being cost-effective too - if you can pry one from some poor unsuspecting sod's cold, dead fingers. the only reason i don't still have mine is because i traded up to my current - and in all likelihood happily ever after - larrivee.

the big babys just have so much presence. unless i much miss my remember-guess, they're 3/4-size, laminate back and sides, and a solid spruce top. the tone is sprightly and full, and the guitar has a surprisingly big sound. when compared to my dad's 647-yr old dreadnought aria and martin d-1, the big baby just shone. big bonus: ebony fretboard. put 12s on that puppy and you will not be disappointed. under any circumstances.

anyhoo. just a thought. use it, don't use it.

but if you're buying new, the best advice you've had so far comes from chocklit_thunda. go to a good few stores. have a budget in mind. play a good few guitars - regardless of brand. pay attention to the entire playing, listening, feeling experience. then make your decision. if you're buying 2nd hand, hit the web, be prepared to travel, and always, always play before you buy.

good luck
dh|

domhatch wrote: unless i much miss my remember-guess, they're 3/4-size,

7/8 body, full scale neck.

X-rated Bob wrote:

domhatch wrote: unless i much miss my remember-guess, they're 3/4-size,

7/8 body, full scale neck.

aaaaah. so close.

I agree fully, Bob.
With guit makers like those you mention, most of them are hand made and worked on individually for extended periods if time, where the luthier involved has enough time to teak and adjust to get it just right.
When you have a factory spewing out 1 million acoustics a day you're gonna have a lot more inconsistencies. There's not time to shave down the bracing in a dead spot or voice the top leaving plenty of bland sounding guitars being sent out.

And also the woods are not as carefully selected.

Also the big baby is majestic! It doesn't sound thing or weak for a small sized guitar.

Chocklit_Thunda wrote: I agree fully, Bob.
With guit makers like those you mention, most of them are hand made and worked on individually for extended periods if time, where the luthier involved has enough time to teak and adjust to get it just right.
When you have a factory spewing out 1 million acoustics a day you're gonna have a lot more inconsistencies. There's not time to shave down the bracing in a dead spot or voice the top leaving plenty of bland sounding guitars being sent out.

And also the woods are not as carefully selected.

I'm saying that quality and quantity are not mutually exclusive. Larrivee aren't Takamine when it comes to quantities, but the days when Jean Larrivee and a couple of appies could do it all are long gone. Larrivee use a lot of computer controlled manufacture (though they insist on fitting the necks by hand) but also produce very good quality instruments. And they are very fussy about their wood.

X-rated Bob wrote: I'm saying that quality and quantity are not mutually exclusive. Larrivee aren't Takamine when it comes to quantities, but the days when Jean Larrivee and a couple of appies could do it all are long gone. Larrivee use a lot of computer controlled manufacture (though they insist on fitting the necks by hand) but also produce very good quality instruments. And they are very fussy about their wood.

Design is an important part of improving this quality. There are design decisions that work well for small scale production but not larger production, and vice versa. Leo Fender understood this, and this is why cheap telecasters are easier to make then cheap Les Pauls (rather, why a cheap Les Paul resembles a tele - slab body, bolt on neck etc.)

Taylor and Larrivee have been very clever in using CNC and other production line techniques to make high quality, mass produced instruments.

The Cort Earth 100F is actually a great guitar and sounds absolutely amazing, It is great value for money. I have no clue why people generally have a bad opinion of Cort but in my experience they have been fantastic. I would put the experience down to bad quality strings or ones that have not been changed for years and poor setup on the neck and bridge. This particular Cort of mine is over 10years old and has a better sound than most guitars double or even triple its price range. It even sounds better than some gipsons and taylors i have played on. Take care.