AlanRatcliffe
For those in doubt... Comparison between an original '59 burst & new '59 historic burst.
Worth the difference in price (approximately R3mil)? Probably not, but it does go some way to showing why some are willing to pay so much more for the real thing. Old wood rocks!
djpauw
Whoa!
The difference is not even subtle... you can CLEARLY hear it.
I don't have R3mil though... anyone know where I can get some 50 year old mahogany planks? ?
dee
Oddly enough, I was reading something similar yesterday, although the discussion was about original 50's Strats, vs. 50's Strat reissues, but it came down to the same thing. Age seems to do wonders to a guitar's sound.
Keira-WitherKay
yes age is the factor that has more influence on the tone than we sometimes tend to think........
it's mysterious and magical how old instruments just seem to have more tone... with electrics and especially even more so with acoustics
i know there's a scientific reason for it but i like to believe in the mystery of it.....
you know that the old wood was better cos the air was less polluted when it grew... no global warming to upset the seasons in areas in which the trees naturally grow..........and many other mysterious reasons led to better tone....
then the magic of owning a guitar that has been played and gigged for hundreds of gigs...and had a "soul" instilled in it for 30/40 yrs ...we all taught wood is a living thing so yeah maybe it's got room for some soul there .... heheheh yeah i know all mumbo jumbo but i like it ........
and yeah i watched the clip and no comparison even to my non electric guitar oriented ears.........
and yeah as for finding old planks of vintage wood.......i do know of some classical guitar luthiers that still have wood from way back and storing it still for the future....
yeah vintage guitars have a vibe of their own.....
peace and light
Keira
AlanRatcliffe
To be fair though - not all old Gibson and Fender guitars are created equal. The one shown is a good example by any standards - even the old ones.
Keira-WitherKay
ps i forgot to mention i thought the pick up maker made a huge biz marketing flaw by allowing the comparison test.........
i would have thought if he had compared the "new replacement 59 pups with a new gibsons pups his new pups would have prob stood out head and shoulders.......... as a fab refit ... however this comparison leads me to think the pups don't quite cut it ...cos yes i know it's the guitar that make sthe difference but the pups are what he's selling or hoping to .......... but after hearing that i was left thinking wow great original 59 but not thinking about when i should rush out and order a set of replacement 59 pups .......
so bad advertising in my mind.......
dirkv
TO be honest, i WAS one of those guys that didn't understand the appeal of vintage guitars but i think the wet spot in my pants has proved me wrong! OMG! I want a '59.
What a beautiful sounding guitar, yes, the technology on the new guitars is a bit more advanced but it does not even come close to how it was originally meant to sound. I am eating a huge slice of humble pie and walking out the room with my head hung low (door closes quietly)
nick
Thats not even the same sport ?
AlanRatcliffe
Keira WitherKay wrote
ps i forgot to mention i thought the pick up maker made a huge biz marketing flaw by allowing the comparison test.........
Ah - The '59 is the "Holy Grail" of Gibson guitars and no-one reasonably expects a new guitar to quite compare. Even if the newer guitar were better, many simply wouldn't believe it, even if they heard it. However - note how the difference between the two is much narrower plugged in than it is acoustically. That says a lot for the pickups that they can make a newer guitar sound closer to an old one and they will sell thousands based on that.
chris77
I dont know if I read it, heard or dreamt it, but what I have always thought is that its because of the sap in the wood drying and eventually crystalizing that old wood sounds better. This makes the wood denser in some ways but also opens up microscopic capilaries that gives it a more airy and thus more resonant and tone-rich character. Sound's wave structure flows through the wood as this takes place and shapes it to allow the most natural transference of energy through the wood. This is then why you often hear people saying that the more you play a guitar, the better it sounds over time. So theoretically two guitars from the same plank and made to the same spec will sound different if one is gigged for 30 years and the other one is kept unplayed on display. Any thoughts on this?
Tokai-SA
WARNING:
Never play your Les Paul "Historic" R9 or for that matter any other Les Paul alongside a real 59. ?
AlanRatcliffe
Are the good old guitars better because they were played, or were they played and looked after because they were the better guitars of the time? ?
Everybody has their theory. There's a company in the US that people pay to subject their guitars to intense low frequency vibration - supposedly accelerates the "ageing process" and "lines up the cellular structure", but no hard scientific evidence that it does anything. Some smaller, boutique manufacturers only use old growth wood and make great guitars - but is it because the wood is old, or because the craftsmen have more skill than the production line builders? Or do the woods just dry out thoroughly with age? There's no real way of knowing for sure.
I believe that wood quality is no longer the same. Wood is grown faster now and cut down sooner. There are more fertilisers used in growing and both environmental pollution and average temperatures are higher. However, trees are bred to grow faster and with more consistency - and maybe consistency does away with the spotty quality of wood in the past, but we have less of a selection for the knowledgeable woodman to select from. There used to be enough wood for a luthier to simply choose and use only the best.
guitarboy2828
Alan, I'm sending you my Psychologist bill.. I'm traumatized... :/ That guitar is just to wonderful, my poor brain can't comprehend it... ☹ Anyone got one for about R3000??? ?
aubs1
Well, everyone has said it all.
Surprise, surprise!! They were both strung with 9s !!!!!!...... ?
PeteM
There's nothing like an old gibby ? BTW I use 9s on my 330 - I don't feel so bad now.
Jack-Flash-Jr
aubs1 wrote
Well, everyone has said it all.
Surprise, surprise!! They were both strung with 9s !!!!!!...... ?
Haven't gotten round to the sound argument yet. Still trying to figure out the 9s. When I walk past a guitar strung with 9s there's involuntary bends.
aubs1
Jack Flash Jr wrote
aubs1 wrote
Well, everyone has said it all.
Surprise, surprise!! They were both strung with 9s !!!!!!...... ?
Haven't gotten round to the sound argument yet. Still trying to figure out the 9s. When I walk past a guitar strung with 9s there's involuntary bends.
Hi JFJ....was referring to a previous post about the diffs in tone.
http://www.guitarforum.co.za/guitar-gear/gibson-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/105/
Jack-Flash-Jr
aubs1 wrote
Jack Flash Jr wrote
aubs1 wrote
Well, everyone has said it all.
Surprise, surprise!! They were both strung with 9s !!!!!!...... ?
Haven't gotten round to the sound argument yet. Still trying to figure out the 9s. When I walk past a guitar strung with 9s there's involuntary bends.
Hi JFJ....was referring to a previous post about the diffs in tone.
http://www.guitarforum.co.za/guitar-gear/gibson-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/105/
Cool thread thanks. I was just wondering why they went for 9s in the GW clip based on exactly your thread. Plus my problem is although I'm not exactly heavy handed I find that 9s bend too easily and therefore a 1/4 bend often ends up semi or even full by mistake, or worse - I bend when I don't mean to at all... I found that stranger than the quality diff between the guitars which although huge is kind of expected.
aja
Jack Flash Jr wrote
aubs1 wrote
Jack Flash Jr wrote
aubs1 wrote
Well, everyone has said it all.
Surprise, surprise!! They were both strung with 9s !!!!!!...... ?
Haven't gotten round to the sound argument yet. Still trying to figure out the 9s. When I walk past a guitar strung with 9s there's involuntary bends.
Hi JFJ....was referring to a previous post about the diffs in tone.
http://www.guitarforum.co.za/guitar-gear/gibson-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/105/
Cool thread thanks. I was just wondering why they went for 9s in the GW clip based on exactly your thread. Plus my problem is although I'm not exactly heavy handed I find that 9s bend too easily and therefore a 1/4 bend often ends up semi or even full by mistake, or worse - I bend when I don't mean to at all... I found that stranger than the quality diff between the guitars which although huge is kind of expected.
I have the same problem, especially on barre chords. I bend some I dont want to by mistake
PeteM
Each to his own heh!
I find I have better control on bends with 9's- I can be more subtle. (Actually I use hybreds which have thicker bass strings.)
