Does anyone 'invest' in quality instruments?

Skip Edwards · Post by **Skip Edwards** » 28 Apr 2008 2:29 pm

I'm not up on the vintage gtr market, but, as a long time Hammond player, I can tell you that a B3 is a blue-chip investment.
I've got 3 of them, and they all have at least quadrupled in value in the last 10 years.
And I ain't selling...

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 28 Apr 2008 8:39 pm

Bill Hatcher wrote:I am constanly reminded that the instruments of what I consider the most collectible period for electric guitars the 50s and 60s will never be made again like they were. The materials are not as good and the craftsmen who made them are not longer here...

The run of the mill acoustic guitars up through the early '60s were also superior. From the mid '60s on, the baby boomers and the folk and rock crazes made the demand too much for the manufacturers to keep up with the same quality. So in that sense, vintage superiority is real, and not a myth. But that reality has lead many people to the knee-jerk belief that everything older is better, which is not always true.

Eric Jaeger · Post by **Eric Jaeger** » 29 Apr 2008 8:21 am

David Doggett wrote: The run of the mill acoustic guitars up through the early '60s were also superior. From the mid '60s on, the baby boomers and the folk and rock crazes made the demand too much for the manufacturers to keep up with the same quality. So in that sense, vintage superiority is real, and not a myth. But that reality has lead many people to the knee-jerk belief that everything older is better, which is not always true.

The question of what periods offer quality in acoustic guitars is really tough for most people to figure out. (I include myself in that). There is something of a blind worship of "vintage" instruments as superior to anything else. As far as I can tell, pre-1970 Gibsons and Martins seem to, on average, be pretty good, and most 1970s examples from both manufacturers seem on average to be pretty poor.

On the other hand, since 1990 there has been a real market for quality (and $$$) instruments, and a number of new manufacturers, many small, with a real passion for what they're doing. The result is, I believe, the best period for acoustic instrument production in history. There's a discriminating population of buyers and manufacturers whose competition is driving some really surprising quality.

In addition, there's a much better technical understanding of the engineering of acoustic instruments than there's ever been. The result is that many instruments have better tone and projection than they did fifty years ago.

As far as lower-quality materials are concerned, with the exception of Brazilian rosewood I don't think that's at all true. (OK, you can't make ivory bridges anymore). The existence of stable demand for high quality tonewoods seems to have resulted in a reliable and consistent supply.

On the other hand, I recently played a 1989 J-100 that was terrible. Clunky, dead... But I also recently played a new J-100 that was wonderful.

Go figure. This would appear to be a "you get what you pay for" business these days.

-eric

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 29 Apr 2008 8:44 am

Martin suffered in the '70s because they strengthened to tops of their guitars to lessen the impact of their 'lifetime warranty'. I recall going on a buying trip in 1992 to the Orlando Vintage Guitar Show, and my friend instructed me to look for '70s D-28s - he knew that he could buy them cheaply and still have a ready market for them back in London.

Thankfully, the scalloped braces are back, and Martin have learned a lesson.

Gibson, I believe, lost ground because of the Norlin ownership. Quality dropped noticeably, but they, too, have put that behind them. It's covered quite frankly in the '100 Years Of An American Icon' book.

Immediate post-CBS Fenders were good, because they were still assembling older parts, but the streamlining of the manufacturing process seemed to result in changes in body-weights and neck-profiles, as well as new finishes. A lot of 1970 Fenders were unsatisfactory.

All three of these makers had a big wake-up call with the advent of really fine Japanese guitars. I doubt we'll see them slip up again, as they'll never have the market all to themselves ever again!

The '50s and '60s were a golden age, but this one is, too, in its way.

Steve Norman · Post by **Steve Norman** » 29 Apr 2008 10:05 am

I think you buy a guitar to play,,but keeping the resell value in mind is a good choice. If you spend 700$ on a guitar center special,,play it a few years and decide to upgrade, you may not be able to re-sell for what you spent. I have a 58 gretsch I bought for 1,000$ in very used but good condition several years ago. I have had offers of 3k$ for it. I know I could at least get 2k$ out of it.

More importantly I have access to the 58 gretsch sound.

I would think re-sale value not investment value. You will have to care for these things, electronically and wood-wise.

Stephen Gambrell · Post by **Stephen Gambrell** » 29 Apr 2008 1:27 pm

I never MEANT to, just worked out that way...
I remember George Gruhn talking about how sorry the 70's, 3-bolt Fenders were---But he STILL charges collector prices for them. Guys like Gruhn, Tut Taylor, Stan Jay, the late Scott Chinery, and all those Japanese cats that used to hit all the guitar shows---That's what drove the vintage market up.