What so important about the year of the guitar?

David Kellogg · Post by **David Kellogg** » 27 May 2009 8:16 pm

I have a Mullen D10 Royal Precision and get asked what year is it? One guy said it was too old as it's a 1998. Isn't a 98 RP the same as the last RP made before the G2 came out? Many guitar companies have models that last a few years and stay exactly the same, right?

David Nugent · Post by **David Nugent** » 28 May 2009 3:13 am

David...I believe age is irrelevant (unless the particular item in question has been discontinued and parts are no longer available.) A ten year old "bedroom" guitar would have more appeal for me than a one or two year old unit that had seen life as a road guitar. Condition and history should be the primary determining factors, not age IMO. My main guitar is a PRE RP Mullen which had minimal use before I purchased it and looks and plays as well as the day it left the factory.... (BTW..I believe Mullen is still manufacturing the Royal Precision, it is being shown as currently available on their website.)

Jerome Hawkes · Post by **Jerome Hawkes** » 28 May 2009 4:15 am

because people read (and thus believe) all the stuff they hear on forums and from musicians that say this version is better, those are not. over time, this starts to affect the used market - sometimes there is truth, sometimes just what they've heard.
i remember back in the 80's, you couldnt get $400 for 70's bullet truss rod Fender guitars, now they are suddenly bringing $2-3K - everyone said they were junk, heavy, thick finish, sounded like crap - now they are desirable because some famous rocker was seen playing one in a video or something.
steel players, unlike guitarist (who never want anything past 1969), seem to welcome the "new" versions and toss out the old as inferior technology (except with P/P guys)

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 28 May 2009 7:33 am

One guy said it was too old as it's a 1998.

Tell that "guy" that even the '88 was a pretty good guitar.

Calvin Walley · Post by **Calvin Walley** » 28 May 2009 7:46 am

just my 2 cents

but i would not think that you can sell a guitar made in 98 for the same price as one made in 08
after all it is 10 years older and that has an effect on the value
of course the value will depend on things such as how much it was played and so forth

A. J. Schobert · Post by **A. J. Schobert** » 28 May 2009 7:54 am

I have been thinking about getting an older guitar myself, from the 80's, don't know if I actually will.

I would think the only time the age is important is when you have to list it for sale.

Bill Lowe · Post by **Bill Lowe** » 28 May 2009 8:04 am

I would sure like to know if I am buying a 6 month old guitar or a 15 year old guitar. It makes a difference to me. Not saying one is better than the other but I would still like to know how how old it is.

Bill Miller · Post by **Bill Miller** » 28 May 2009 10:50 am

It seems like a pertinent question to me. No one is going to tell you accurately how many hours of playing are on a guitar. The age alone doesn't tell the whole story but since pedal steels are very mechanical and loaded with moving parts they are subject to wear. Depending on how they're stored lacquer guitars show signs of aging whether they're played or not. Also, manufacturers alter designs from time to time. Eg. my Carter has 'Body Contact Technology' but the preceding year the Carters didn't have that feature. It may make a difference or it may not, but it's normal for a buyer to want to know how old the instrument is. And unless a particular guitar has vintage value you won't get as much for a ten year old one as for a nearly new one in most cases.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 28 May 2009 10:55 am

I've never owned a pedal steel guitar newer than 1978!

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 28 May 2009 11:47 am

It's a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACT that guitars made prior to 1990 sound better than guitar made after that year.

Calvin Walley · Post by **Calvin Walley** » 28 May 2009 11:57 am

Mike

bet that they also have more wear on them than one made in 2005

David Kellogg · Post by **David Kellogg** » 28 May 2009 8:59 pm

Guess I could have been more specific. I was really talking about a closet guitar VS new and same model. You could put both in the showroom and nobody would know the 10 year difference.

Calvin Walley · Post by **Calvin Walley** » 28 May 2009 9:39 pm

sorry David

its still 10 years older

Bill Ford · Post by **Bill Ford** » 29 May 2009 4:49 am

Calvin Walley wrote:sorry David

its still 10 years older

But, If they both play, and are mechanically the same, it comes down to looks, and price/personal preference. I have owned two "bedroom" guitars from the same person(both owned and played in the same time period)one played to death and beautiful, the other one (1982 MSA)mechanically perfect with a few battle scars. I still have the latter, plan on keeping it until I can afford a new Williams.

Bill

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 29 May 2009 7:25 am

Condition, condition, condition: Those are the three predominant characteristics determining a guitar's value. As said earlier, a 1985 under-the-bedder is preferable to a 2005 beater that's been rode hard and put up wet.

One glaring exception is the GFAO factor - "Go find another one." I traded a Mullen in excellent condition for a 1964 Emmons guitar that badly needed restoration. My rationale was that I could easily obtain another Mullen guitar with a phone call, whereas a first-year Emmons, after restoration by Mike Cass, becomes a museum piece. But those situations are the exceptions, not the rule.

John Bechtel · Post by **John Bechtel** » 29 May 2009 6:40 pm

A lot of people are also under the false-belief that ‘who’ owned the instrument previously also adds or detracts from it's value! Hog~Wash!

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 29 May 2009 6:46 pm

When I read "the Year of the Guitar" I thought the Chinese were changing their calendar.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 30 May 2009 9:17 am

but i would not think that you can sell a guitar made in 98 for the same price as one made in 08
after all it is 10 years older and that has an effect on the value

Musical instruments do not all depreciate in value with age. As noted before, some vintage models can increase in value - constantly.

A 1966 Precision Bass...a very "vanilla" instrument...cost around $300 new. Depending on condition, they're now worth $3,000-$9,000 depending on color, condition, etc.

That's just a single example. Many musical instruments are collector's items...some of the most valuable are never even played, just stored in controlled-humidity environments on display. OThers DO get played.

A friend of mine has several pre-WWII Martin D-54 guitars (those of you who know what those are may now wake up after passing out....) - they were a grand or so in 1938. 15 years ago they were $100,000. Now (I don't have a current price guide, so I'm guessing) they might be a half-million in near-mint condition.

The reason? They are 1) The finest examples of production instruments from a big-name company, 2) they are VERY rare (only 91 were made), 3) they are very ornate, with beautiful and precise inlay work, 4) they are both beautiful AND great players, and 5) they are one of the "holy grails" of musical instruments - along with things like Lloyd Loar-signed Gibson F-5 mandolins from the 1920's.

Do they sound better than a D-28 from the same period? Not that I've noticed (and I've had the rare treat of playing both - there are not many prewar D-45's you can TOUCH, much less have the owner hand you and say "play it tonight" at a GIG.) FWIW a D-28 - essentially the same guitar but less ornate - will run around $50k.

Some products are considered "used" when old. Others are considered "vintage". The first group depreciates in value; the second increases.

It often has nothing to do with playability or sound, either. Vintage Les Pauls (1958-1960) have their value judged by 1) condition/originality, and 2) the flame of the maple top. More flame= more $$. All this is figured without even plugging one in!

Amps can be classified "bizarre" in the collector market - a dead-mint, never used, still in the shipping box 1958 Fender Bassman is worth tens of thousands of dollars (maybe MORE) - yet if you plugged it in it would probably blow up from aged filter capacitors and/or crumbling insulation. Yet another dead-mint one that has been serviced for playing - 3-prong power cord, new filter and bypass caps and a few other replaced parts (like probable speaker reconing) would be infinitely more valuable to a player, but to a collector it'd be worth maybe 10% of the value of the "original" one.

Steel guitars are unusual in that there are very few "collectable" models. Bigsbys, push-pulls, a few early Shobuds...that seems to be it.

I find it funny that my '63 Fender Jaguar is worth thousands and would be devalued by half if I put one visible screw hole in it, yet my '63 Fender 1000 is worth about $1000 or so, and likely *increased* in value because I added knee levers!

You have to understand the collector mentality - many instruments are like coins, early baseball cards, vintage cameras ( I collect some Leica camera equipment, where there are many similarities to instrument collecting).

So "10 years old" is totally irrelevant as a general term regarding instruments.

Go to a bookstore and find a copy of the Vintage Guitar Price Guide - it'll give you a good idea of what I'm trying to explain.

Mike Perlowin RIP · Post by **Mike Perlowin RIP** » 30 May 2009 10:10 am

Jim, what you say regarding vintages 6 strings is true, (although I think you meant to say D-45 rather than 54, and a new D-28 being with $5K rather than 50)

The reason this does not apply to most steels, is that they are products of technology, and as the technology improves, the instruments get better and capable of doing more things, which means the players can do more.

One example is the tunable split. My 2 older MSAs did not have them. (They do now, thanks to the wizardry of Dr Jim Palenscar.) The Millennium does. Once I got the Milly I started incorporating the possibilities offered by the splits into my playing. Now I can't live without them. I wouldn't want a guitar that didn't have them or in which they couldn't be installed.

It's like cars. Some cars are extremely collectible, but nobody really cars much about one from 1998.

(Edited to correct a type. I accidentally wrote that I can't LOVE without the tunable splits.

)

Billy Carr · Post by **Billy Carr** » 30 May 2009 10:25 am

One thing I consider in used guitars is the wood age. Aged wood bodies for PSG's can sometimes have a major effect on tone/sustain. New guitars are like new vehicles. Drive one off of the lot and now it's used. Same way with guitars. Buy one, now it's used. Used but usually fine. A 10 year old guitar that's been taken care of and maintained will probably be a super deal for a player that knows how to service it and keep in shape. One of the best sounding guitars I've ever had was a D-10 95' model Carter that had been set up and BCT added to it. I still think the wood in this guitar played a major factor in its tone. A little light oil on moving parts and a little TLC can prolong the life of most any PSG a long time. Service, service and service, in my opinion, is the secret to maintaining a nice guitar regardless of the age.

The Steel Guitar Forum

What so important about the year of the guitar?

What so important about the year of the guitar?

Age

Mullen

more specific

psg