This is a hostile take-over of the m-factor blog!
Seriously, mr Wilhelm as graciously let me contribute to his blog, so I though I would just I would give it a go.
Since was just surfing some good ol' guitar porn (try www.vintagenationals.com for a start), and I do love some of those guitars that are now know as "vintage". Which is basically an old guitar that some people thinks have superior sound or other qualities compare to their modern counter-parts? Hence, you have a distinction between "old/used/crap" and "vintage". For people that are into collection vintage instrument, the condition of the guitar is essential for determine the value of the instrument, "mint" being the highest grad and bringing the premium prices. I can understand this, as you will be more for an instrument that looks new. Just like you would pay less for a used car with worn paint and long mileage on it.
So far, so good. But, then you get to the so called "reissues". Let's use the Gibson Les Paul as an example. The Gibson custom shop* produces reissues from the 50's Les Paul, which will cost you from 20 000 NOK and up. A 50's Gibson Les Paul is considered the most collectible guitar in the world, and mint species are going for up to 2 000 000 NOK, so I can clearly see the marked for a reissue at an affordable price.
But this is the part I don't get: If you get some dude to take a Les Paul reissue guitar, scratch the paint with a razor, put the metal parts in acid, file down through the paint in some places and generally just give the guitar a good beating, the price of the guitar is doubled or tippled. Because it is now "aged", i.e. looks like it has been played a lot. Why? A 50's Les Paul drops in value as it gets worn. And a reissue guitar that has gotten its wear from playing also drops in value. Why is that? It doesn't make any sense at all.
And, here is the great part; I once saw I guy selling a used "aged" Les Paul reissue. And the condition? "This guitar has a little playing wear, apart from the aging done at the factory..." Does that increase or decrease the value?
Anders
*Can you call it a "custom” model when the mass produce it? But that's another discussion
Sunday, May 13, 2007
"Vintage" or "aging"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Gee, that was a long post to make one, tiny point. Oh well.
It's quite the scam, isn't it? I guess some factors involved in the making of reissues actually improve the instruments, such as the choice of wood. Of course; being that I'm into Ibanez, BC Rich and Fender guitars, this does not matter that much to me (as long as Fender keep using the 70's style headstock for some strats). New guitars are just fine with me - I'd rather chip the paint myself.
Ibanez has issued two of the most ridiculous reissues ever - both signature models. The first - a Joe Satriani reissue, where the neck is worn just like Satriani's favorite late 80's JS model. We're obviously talking about significant wear and tear here, and guess what: unless you play the exact same way as Satch, those grooves and whatnot in the neck are gonna seriously mess up your fingering. The second one is of course the Vai DNA issued a few years back, where the paint included some of Vai's blood - hence the DNA. Now I don't know about you, but I don't think having a femtomolar of Vais blood in the paint job of a guitar is gonna do anything to channel his spirit or convey his mad skillz to your playing.
Of course the Vai DNA had a ridiculous price tag....
Would you buy a "new vintage" guitar from Gibson or Fender, by the way?
......cause the reissues are a completely animal altogether.
I would consider a "custom shop" Fender or Gibson, if they had the right spec's (i.e. better wood, better electronics, different construction) and the price jump from the standard models isn't too large. However, I wouldn't buy on that had
- Only cosmetic improvements from the standard model
- A model that has been "aged" and the price inflated
So, if you by "new vintage" means a guitar that has been scratch, etc to look "aged", I wouldn't buy it unless it was heavily discounted due to the wear... (unlikely).
I did see one Fender Strat that has been "aged"; don't know if it was a signature model with "wear" exactly on the same spots as the player, or if it was just randomly aged. Anyway, it didn't even look real. It looked like somebody had used a wood file on the neck on a completely new guitar. Which is basically what they had done.
I know - some of those Fenders are just vile to look at. And they come in three classes - just plain "old" i.e. heat-treated, slightly messed up, and FUBAR. They've got other trade names for it, but you know what I mean.
Guess I looked at the FUBAR version...
....Dude......it's something I've always wondered about; do you need to use a can opener when changing the "strings" on your pre-WWII rustbuckets?
*grin*
No, you don’t. Does your bat winged costume get tangled in the strings when you change strings on your B.C. Rich Warlock?
You should know that open slotted pegheads is the most beautiful design ever made, and it's what God Almighty meant that all guitars should have.
End of discussion. Both the "changing stings on old rustbuckets", but more important, the "intelligent designer" discussion.
...All the time, dude, all the time.
By the way; that's my black NJ Neck-Through BC Rich Warlock with a Widow headstock, 24 frets of metal fury and a face-melting floating trem, thank you very much.
Post a Comment