OT: interesting ebay auction
hobart xaxinojo
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=359&item=3742584968&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
Sean S
> found this by searching ooo instead of 000
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=359&item=3742
> 584968&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
30K?!?!?!??! At that price, I sure hope he throws in the pick
holder attached to the top.
Sean
--
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys
typed on a million keyboards for a million years,
eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be produced.
Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.
Ra
> found this by searching ooo instead of 000
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=359&item=3742584968&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
You can sometimes get great deals by searching common mispellings
and variations such as that, for an item, because many other potential
bidders may not find the auction.
This doesn't appear to be one of those opportunities?
--
best regards,
Ra
----------------------------------------------------
http://surfpick.com
Lignum Vitae
----------------------------------------------------
Roger Hightower
something and gotten some feedback, right? Accepting only PayPal? Can you
say SCAM?
Roger
JOHNPEARSE
tuners don't look right for the year.
As to whether or not it will sell......?
As my dear old Papa would often say "It only takes one idiot with more money
than gumption."
IMHO the market is still reeling from the excesses of Chinery and Tsumura. Both
of them acquired VAST amounts of crap at hugely inflated prices, thereby
pushing prices through the roof and thus pricing good players' instruments
right out of the reach of the players who should be owning them.
Let's be serious. What should that guitar REALLY sell for? I mean, in the REAL
world? Let's see...replacement bridge, wrong shape and wrong saddle slot for
the year. Probably replaced tuners... Binding breaking down...Dumb pick holder
which will probably leave an annoying light-spot when removed from the
soundboard.
If you said between $3,000 and $5,000 you'd be right.
But no, thanks to the collector insanity it is very likely that some dork WILL
fork out $20,000+ for it, thus propagating the madness.
All the while many of today's fine luthiers are struggling to make a
living...building far better instruments that most of those commanding such
ridiculous prices.
And talking about ridiculous prices, what about that Godawful millionth Martin?
I've never seen such a tasteless instrument. If they'd just added a tassle or
two it could have passed as a Bombay taxicab!
....And it costs as much as a house?????
AAAAARRRGGGHHHH!
John ( I like a good rant from time to time) Pearse.
Joe Jordan
wrote:
There now. Doesn't that feel better?
Joe
Terence
that 0028 Koa you sold sometime back is on ebay as well!
--
Warmest Regards,
Terence
www.goodacoustics.com
www.goodacoustics.co.uk
"JOHNPEARSE" <johnp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040819120818...@mb-m27.aol.com...
JOHNPEARSE
That's a GREAT guitar!
I read the seller's reply to you but he's wrong, the guitar never was Hawaiian.
It was Spanish-style right from the get-go. Donald checked the records.
The bridge IS an original bridge from that period, from Donald's sore of bits
and pieces that he got from Deichman. The guitar had a crack in the headstock
which Donald went in and strengthened - you can just see it if you look
carefully at the headstock photograph. Now it's solid as a rock.
A superb fingerpicker.
Let's hope that it goes for a fair price to a player. I'd hate to see it ending
up in a glass case in a collection.
John Pearse.
Terence
--
Warmest Regards,
Terence
www.goodacoustics.com
www.goodacoustics.co.uk
"JOHNPEARSE" <johnp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040819174510...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Ashby
<snip>
>
> IMHO the market is still reeling from the excesses of Chinery and Tsumura.
Both
> of them acquired VAST amounts of crap at hugely inflated prices, thereby
> pushing prices through the roof and thus pricing good players' instruments
> right out of the reach of the players who should be owning them.
That is certainly true. But Chinery does have his admirers, including many
musicians and luthiers who sing his praises. They say he promoted the guitar
and elevated its stature. My opinion of him is neutral. To me he was just a
guy with a serious case of GAS and enough money to do something about it.
But You've touched on an issue I'm curious about. It's the problem of
collectors gobbling up guitars at inflated prices, thus preventing musicians
from acquiring them. Collecting vintage guitars has become fashionable in
recent years. And the big auction houses have gotten into the act.
Christie's and Sotheby's routinely hold guitar-only auctions, which was
unheard years ago. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Guitar prices
are market-driven, and free markets, like water, seek their own level.
There is a new creature emerging on the scene, and that is the
corporation-collector. I'm talking about Guitar Center. At the Christie's
Clapton auction last June they shelled out a staggering $3 million for only
4 guitars (including a 1966 00-21 that went for a paltry $90k). The prices
are high because these are celebrity guitars, but won't there be a ripple
effect that causes all guitars to inflate? Last year a Hauser classical
fetched $90k at Christie's. They have a photo of it on their website. It has
no celebrity value because the seller is undisclosed. I've always wanted a
Hauser, but at that price it's not likely to happen. That guitar is probably
sitting in a display case somewhere in a foreign country.
> Let's be serious. What should that guitar REALLY sell for? I mean, in the
REAL
> world? Let's see...replacement bridge, wrong shape and wrong saddle slot
for
> the year. Probably replaced tuners... Binding breaking down...Dumb pick
holder
> which will probably leave an annoying light-spot when removed from the
> soundboard.
I'd say between $3k to $5k.
> If you said between $3,000 and $5,000 you'd be right.
> But no, thanks to the collector insanity it is very likely that some dork
WILL
> fork out $20,000+ for it, thus propagating the madness.
Well, considering that a 1960's 00-21 recently sold for $90k at a Christie's
auction, shouldn't this eBay seller be able to get his Buy-It-Now price of
$30k for a 1940's 000-28? How much is the celebrity value really worth, if
anything?
> All the while many of today's fine luthiers are struggling to make a
> living...building far better instruments that most of those commanding
such
> ridiculous prices.
There are luthiers in this NG who will custom-build you a concert-quality
guitar at an affordable price. Is it worth the extra $85k to buy a Hauser? I
don't think so.
> And talking about ridiculous prices, what about that Godawful millionth
Martin?
> I've never seen such a tasteless instrument.
Maybe Guitar Center will buy it. I think that would be appropriate.
> AAAAARRRGGGHHHH!
> John ( I like a good rant from time to time) Pearse.
Ashby (me, too).
Doug
Ra
> Collecting vintage guitars has become fashionable in
> recent years. And the big auction houses have gotten into the act.
> Christie's and Sotheby's routinely hold guitar-only auctions, which was
> unheard years ago. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Guitar prices
> are market-driven, and free markets, like water, seek their own level.
It's not just a guitar related phenomenon.
Watch 'Antiques Roadshow'.
Painting after painting by artists you never heard of are valued
in the 100's of thousands of dollars.
All kinds of furniture and other collectibles are valued at
extremely exhorbitant prices.
Like you point out, these valuations aren't picked out of a hat,
they are established by what the 'experts' have learned that
these things are bringing at auction.
There is obviously a glut of people with more money than they know
what to do with, who are competing for anything and everything
within almost the entire range of collectible merchandise.
I guess players will have to be content with brands and models
that haven't appeared on the radar screens of collectors?
B McGhee
> >
> > IMHO the market is still reeling from the excesses of Chinery and Tsumura.
> Both
> > of them acquired VAST amounts of crap at hugely inflated prices, thereby
> > pushing prices through the roof and thus pricing good players' instruments
> > right out of the reach of the players who should be owning them.
>>>>>>>>>Exactly!
The greedy collectors, many of which wouldn't know how to even play
three cowboy chords, know the price of everything....and the value of
nothing.
There was an obnoxious self-proclaimed 'collector' on an earlier
guitar group (think Irish...), who couldn't satisfy his fetish for the
most beautiful expensive guitars, but from all accounts, could not
play worth a damn...all he talked about seemed to be how fascinated he
was with the guitar's sound when he played an open E chord.
Such individuals are a constant thorn in the side of folks who enjoy
playing, rather than simply hoarding, nice instruments.
Burle McGhee
George
oldsl...@hotmail.com (B McGhee) wrote:
I disagree
if one has the desire and means to own a guitar well above thier playing
ability I say more power to them
it is not like there is any shortage of wonderful instruments
George
Kenneth
Howdy,
Perhaps this is more dramatic in the world of fiddles, but the simple
reality is that there are two markets for (certain) instruments:
There is the collector's "work of art" market, and the player's "this
is a musical instrument" market.
Until we run out of playable instruments, I won't lose sleep over
it...
All the best,
--
Kenneth
If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."
Dr. Slick
> > > > of them acquired VAST amounts of crap at hugely inflated prices, thereby
> > > > pushing prices through the roof and thus pricing good players' instruments
> > > > right out of the reach of the players who should be owning them.
> >
Like how many people could tell a $10k guitar from a $90k guitar?
(Jeezus, forget i said that... )
But a celebrity guitar is something else really, like something
that belonged to Hendrix or something like that.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>Exactly!
> > The greedy collectors, many of which wouldn't know how to even play
> > three cowboy chords, know the price of everything....and the value of
> > nothing.
> >
> > There was an obnoxious self-proclaimed 'collector' on an earlier
> > guitar group (think Irish...), who couldn't satisfy his fetish for the
> > most beautiful expensive guitars, but from all accounts, could not
> > play worth a damn...all he talked about seemed to be how fascinated he
> > was with the guitar's sound when he played an open E chord.
> >
> > Such individuals are a constant thorn in the side of folks who enjoy
> > playing, rather than simply hoarding, nice instruments.
> >
I couldn't agree with you more.
There was the Luthier who mentioned that an irritating thing
about some of his customers was how he would create this custom guitar
for them, and many years later, they would show it to him and brag
about how flawless and scratchless and dingless it still was...almost
never really used! That would certainly piss me off if all my work
and sweat goes into someone's expensive guitar collection, never to be
played, but only hung on the wall or in a glass case somewhere.
Sad.
>
> I disagree
> if one has the desire and means to own a guitar well above thier playing
> ability I say more power to them
But you have to have the means, eh? I suppose it all works out
in
the end: If you can afford to buy into guitar collecting hype, then
so be it....you certainly won't starve.
> it is not like there is any shortage of wonderful instruments
> George
And most of them are under $3000 (gotta give me-self leeway for
that
Aloha Koa Goodall! hehe.)
And many of them are under $1000.
Slick
John Jones
> if one has the desire and means to own a guitar well above thier playing
> ability I say more power to them
> it is not like there is any shortage of wonderful instruments
> George
George: I agree, and many of us here could be said to be guilty of
just what you describe. I'm sure I don't get nearly the sound out of
my guitars some other players would be able to, so in that sense
they're above my playing ability.
John
JOHNPEARSE
I fully endorse the purchase of a fine instrument by someone who feels that it
is above their ability level at the time. Such an instrument will encourage
them to practise and thus develop their technique. For this reason I always
encourage my students to buy the best guitar they can afford.
What I rail against is the senseless escalation of top-grade instrument prices
by ill-informed 'investors'...and the dealers who prey upon them.
John Pearse.
George
john_...@berea.edu (John Jones) wrote:
every guitar i have owned was above my playing ability, from the 5$
Norma that was missing the high E string to my Santa Crus d-12
I enjoyed them all and they all brought me to a higher level of
musicianship
George
Mike brown
Hey George, on that basis I should be playing a shoe box strung with
elastic bands.
Ain't gonna though.
MJRB
Ashby
news:akhVc.777$Li....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Ashby" wrote
>
> > Collecting vintage guitars has become fashionable in
> > recent years. And the big auction houses have gotten into the act.
> > Christie's and Sotheby's routinely hold guitar-only auctions, which was
> > unheard years ago. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Guitar
prices
> > are market-driven, and free markets, like water, seek their own level.
>
>
> It's not just a guitar related phenomenon.
>
> Watch 'Antiques Roadshow'.
> Painting after painting by artists you never heard of are valued
> in the 100's of thousands of dollars.
> All kinds of furniture and other collectibles are valued at
> extremely exhorbitant prices.
>
> Like you point out, these valuations aren't picked out of a hat,
> they are established by what the 'experts' have learned that
> these things are bringing at auction.
>
> There is obviously a glut of people with more money than they know
> what to do with, who are competing for anything and everything
> within almost the entire range of collectible merchandise.
>
>
> best regards,
> Ra
> ----------------------------------------------------
> http://surfpick.com
> Lignum Vitae
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
Every antiques and collectibles dealer I know sees red at the mention of
Antiques Roadshow. The show teaches people that their $10 flea-market
trinkets are worth a zillion dollars. They never show the cases where some
sucker paid a fortune for something and got burned. On Antiques Roadshow
everybody's a winner. It's a fantasy.
>
> I guess players will have to be content with brands and models
> that haven't appeared on the radar screens of collectors?
>
I think we're starting to see some of that in classical guitar market. There
are blueprints available for most of the great guitars. Many luthiers today
are so skilled that they can build a Hauser or a Fleta model guitar that
competes favorably with the original. And they will sell it at an affordable
price.
The sad fact is that many of the finest guitars are sitting in display
cases. Segovia's guitar (an early Manuel Ramirez alleged to have been made
by Santos Hernandez) is in the NY Metropolitan Museum. Santos only made 300
guitars in his life, and Jim Sherry has 5 of them in his own museum (I bet
he'd be willing to sell one for the right price).
Chronic GAS has reached epidemic proportions, and there's no real solution
to guitar inflation. I would like to see a patronage system in place for
guitars that is similar to the way instruments are shared in the orchestral
world. Talented players, especially string players, are often awarded the
use of, say, Stradivarius or Guarneri violins or cellos to use for concerts
and recordings, or even for the duration of their tenure with a symphony
orchestra (Stradivari also made a couple of guitars, BTW, but they weren't
very good). Well-heeled collectors of orchestral instruments have learned to
show some civic responsibility. They know that fine instruments need to be
played. I hope guitar collectors will be as benevolent. An unplayed guitar
is just a hunk of wood (imo).
Ashby
misifus
> Every antiques and collectibles dealer I know sees red at the mention of
> Antiques Roadshow. The show teaches people that their $10 flea-market
> trinkets are worth a zillion dollars. They never show the cases where some
> sucker paid a fortune for something and got burned. On Antiques Roadshow
> everybody's a winner. It's a fantasy.
That's not what I've seen on the show. They often show
fraudulent and mistaken attribution. They also point out how,
for instance, a piece of furniture worth a certain amount might
have been worth much more if it hadn't been refinished or
modified. You know, it's the, "I know it says 'Stradivari', but
it was made in Germany a hundred years ago" syndrome.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rsei...@cox-internet.com
http://www.ralphandsue.com
Ra
> That's not what I've seen on the show. They often show
> fraudulent and mistaken attribution. They also point out how,
> for instance, a piece of furniture worth a certain amount might
> have been worth much more if it hadn't been refinished or
> modified. You know, it's the, "I know it says 'Stradivari', but
> it was made in Germany a hundred years ago" syndrome.
> -Raf
I'm surprised that you never see anything about stolen merchandise
on shows like that?
I saw a woman with one of those 'Conquistador' style helmets.
She found it stuck in the rafters of his attic, after he died.
She cleaned it up, with Windex.
They said it was worth $250,000.00
Fortunately for her, it was not a material that had it's
value destroyed by careless cleaning.
How did it get in those rafters? That's the fascinating part
of the story we usually don't hear. Was it stashed up there
years ago, because it was 'hot' ?
None of these appraisers ever seem to broach the subject of
stolen merchandise, at all.
Is it because they don't want to discourage people
from bringing these things to them?
thomas
1) If collectors are coddling rare and priceless artifacts, where's
the crime? Better that than having it slowly disintegrate while
playing Freebird in a dive somewhere.
2) Any name player who really "needs" a rare artifact for a
special recording or a concert can probably arrange for a
short-term loan from a collector. A lot of these guys love
to have their collections validated in the public eye.
3) And if it's not a rare and priceless artifact, where's the crime
if it does get hoarded? Who cares if Chinery was hoarding "crap"?
Do you really want his crap guitars? Think, man!
4) Collectors can't play? You don't know many collectors.
Professional guitarists are some of the most rampant
collectors out there.
5) Driving up prices? Bullshit! The prices of high-quality,
pro-level guitars are lower now than they have ever been in
your lifetime, adjusting for inflation. This is largely because
of collectors.
It is collectors who keep private luthiers in business. The
top dollar that collectors are paying for the work-of-art
luthier guitar draws more luthiers into the business. As a
consequence of collectors throwing money into the marketplace,
we have a multitude of first-rate luthiers in business today--
more than ever before--producing fantastic guitars at a variety
of price points.
This phenomenon has driven quality expectations ever higher
throughout the business, and that has filtered into factory
production as well. Student model factory guitars are better
today than they have ever been, and at lower prices. Much of
this trend can be traced back to the influence of collectors,
and the competition they have stimulated by injecting money
in at the high end. Gifted, hungry Asians entering the global
market at the low end are the other reason.
Great guitars have never been so abundant and so affordable
as they are today. And, in large part, we have the collectors
to thank for that.
We are living in the Golden Age of guitar production, my
friends. We baby boomers who can finally afford the toys
we craved as adolescents are the reason this market exists.
Things may never get this good for the guitar again.
Quit griping about the price of Hendrix's old Strat, and
go place an order with your luthier. He'll make you something
way better, and for less money.
oldsl...@hotmail.com (B McGhee) wrote in message news:<cc034c5c.04082...@posting.google.com>...
Ken Cashion
>These complaints about guitar collectors are utter nonsense:
I didn't follow the original line of thinking but I like this
topic because I collect stuff and I wanted to see how many points
presented here would apply to collecting in general. And I do have my
own point to make.
>1) If collectors are coddling rare and priceless artifacts, where's
>the crime? Better that than having it slowly disintegrate while
>playing Freebird in a dive somewhere.
It is theirs and they paid some amount of money for it to
someone who owned it. Buyer and seller are satisfied. This seems
important.
>2) Any name player who really "needs" a rare artifact for a
>special recording or a concert can probably arrange for a
>short-term loan from a collector. A lot of these guys love
>to have their collections validated in the public eye.
The validation point is a good one...it is called "pride of
ownership" and this will protect the investment beyond its intrinsic
value.
>3) And if it's not a rare and priceless artifact, where's the crime
>if it does get hoarded? Who cares if Chinery was hoarding "crap"?
>Do you really want his crap guitars? Think, man!
And if it Is a rare and priceless artifact, where's the crime?
Most people who can afford to accumulate such items think it is OK
even though they themselves don't collect.
Those who can't afford them and only lust after them, or place
their value in some sort of higher plane of cosmic indulgence are
being philosophical...philosophy often precludes the use of money to
satisfy a comodity market.
>4) Collectors can't play? You don't know many collectors.
>Professional guitarists are some of the most rampant
>collectors out there.
A lot of collectors archive for the future. Often the use of
them reduces the future value.
>5) Driving up prices? Bullshit! The prices of high-quality,
>pro-level guitars are lower now than they have ever been in
>your lifetime, adjusting for inflation. This is largely because
>of collectors.
I am not so sure that collectors affect the market as the
desire for the item by the number of collectors who want the item.
New guitars are generally competitive and are based on
material, labor, and cost of marketing. This can be adusted based on
others' desire to purchase, but generally isn't because someone else
will have one almost as good for less...maybe a lot less.
Often our perception of quality is related to what we can
afford and the best deal we can get. I think this biases a lot of A/B
testing once the tester decides he will put down his own money rather
than use some abstract and personal value system with him having
little finances involved.
>It is collectors who keep private luthiers in business. The
>top dollar that collectors are paying for the work-of-art
>luthier guitar draws more luthiers into the business. As a
>consequence of collectors throwing money into the marketplace,
>we have a multitude of first-rate luthiers in business today--
>more than ever before--producing fantastic guitars at a variety
>of price points.
I don't know about this other than I do know that "ready money
is Alladin's lamp." If someone has it, someone (many) wants it.
Commerce is the agreement in how to move the ownership of the money.
Without the money, there would be less commerce. I am calling all
transferrable records of wealth as money.
>This phenomenon has driven quality expectations ever higher
>throughout the business, and that has filtered into factory
>production as well. Student model factory guitars are better
>today than they have ever been, and at lower prices. Much of
>this trend can be traced back to the influence of collectors,
>and the competition they have stimulated by injecting money
>in at the high end. Gifted, hungry Asians entering the global
>market at the low end are the other reason.
I feel the "other reason" is the predominate one, but the
points are well made.
>Great guitars have never been so abundant and so affordable
>as they are today. And, in large part, we have the collectors
>to thank for that.
>
>We are living in the Golden Age of guitar production, my
>friends. We baby boomers who can finally afford the toys
>we craved as adolescents are the reason this market exists.
>Things may never get this good for the guitar again.
>
>Quit griping about the price of Hendrix's old Strat, and
>go place an order with your luthier. He'll make you something
>way better, and for less money.
But collectors are interested in provenance, as well as
quality...actually, they are probably interested in provenance more.
There is a big difference in having an item "like" and having "the"
item.
We have touched on an attitude about guitars because this is a
guitar group. My thoughts apply to near everything...guitars, yes --
but art objects, prehistoric pots, and the like. Yes, even to
endangered species...people, too, maybe.
Ken
Ra
> Student model factory guitars are better
> today than they have ever been, and at lower prices.
You were doing well until you said that.
I don't think many people will be cherishing today's student
guitars, in 40 years, the way so many people cherish the Gibson LGO today?
Myself included.
Ra
> My thoughts apply to near everything...guitars, yes --
> but art objects, prehistoric pots, and the like.
> Ken
I've got a couple of Chinese pots that I collected when I was heavily into
Asian art. One of them is this little tripod base thing from the neolithic period.
It fascinates me to think that some artist made this thing 5000 years ago..
and that people were using it around the 'house'.
kurt
>I've got a couple of Chinese pots that I collected when I was heavily into
>Asian art. One of them is this little tripod base thing from the neolithic period.
>
>It fascinates me to think that some artist made this thing 5000 years ago..
>and that people were using it around the 'house'.
And I bet his contemporaries never argued whether using it might
reduce it's value...say...5000 years in the future!
Kurt
kurt
Ken Cashion
>"Ken Cashion" wrote
>
>> My thoughts apply to near everything...guitars, yes --
>> but art objects, prehistoric pots, and the like.
>
>> Ken
>
>I've got a couple of Chinese pots that I collected when I was heavily into
>Asian art. One of them is this little tripod base thing from the neolithic period.
>
>It fascinates me to think that some artist made this thing 5000 years ago..
>and that people were using it around the 'house'.
Isn't it wonderful to handle such things?
I had the rare fortune to be handed an incense burner directly
from a PreColumbian tomb and I was asked to "finish the ceremony."
I stood apart from the others there and turned the burner
downwind and blew into the hollow handle. The ashes from the last
burning came out the vent holes around the hollow bowl where the
incense was burned and this ash went into the wind to be deposited
around this ancient site.
I was moved.
I share what few things I have with friends and when I teach
my history courses, at the appropriate time, I pass around a very fine
Honorius coin that was minted in Turkey but handled, buried, and found
in England.
Honorius had written the Romano-Britains that he would not be
sending any legions to defend them against the invading Angles,
Saxons, Jutes, and Friesians. This was in 410; by 423 coinage was no
longer used in Britain. His were the last coins used there as the
A/S/J/F helped usher in the Dark Age of ignorance.
I have each student handle the coin.
Cheers -- Ken
Ken Cashion
>"thomas" wrote
>
>
>> Student model factory guitars are better
>> today than they have ever been, and at lower prices.
>
>
>You were doing well until you said that.
>
>I don't think many people will be cherishing today's student
>guitars, in 40 years, the way so many people cherish the Gibson LGO today?
>
>Myself included.
I agree but the statement was a reflection of quality and
purchase price. The price is low because of the quanity produced and
the quanity produced will influence the desireability to collectors
later.
By the way, what did the Gibson LGO sell far "back then"?
(I am still waiting for the price to sky-rocket for my ply
Western Auto True-tone.)
Ken
GregD/oasysco
news:4128884b...@news.datasync.com:
That is too cool.
Greg
Jack Zucker
> "thomas" wrote
>
>
> > Student model factory guitars are better
> > today than they have ever been, and at lower prices.
>
>
> You were doing well until you said that.
>
> I don't think many people will be cherishing today's student
> guitars, in 40 years, the way so many people cherish the Gibson LGO today?
>
> Myself included.
It doesn't matter. The fact is that the Samick RL-3 I just bought for my son
is better than many Gibson or Fender guitars that are 3x the price. Whether
someone cherises them or not doesn't matter to me.
In fact, I disagree with Thomas' thread. I believe that collectors have
artificially priced fabulous guitars out of the hands of a jazz guitarist.
When I was 17 back in the mid '70s, I bought an L5 for $650. Back then, I
used to gig in the DC area and I'd see full time jazz players playing L5s
and super 400s. Most full time guitarists I know cannot afford to buy such
instruments. In fact, if you look around the Cleveland area at what full
time guitarists are playing, they are now playing samick and korean epiphone
guitars primarily. Not sure how it is in other areas...
Steve
"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote in message :
...> By the way, what did the Gibson LGO sell far "back then"?
> (I am still waiting for the price to sky-rocket for my ply
> Western Auto True-tone.)
>
> Ken
Not sure. But I bought a new J-45 for $165 with a cheap case in 1961. The
list was $175. The B-25 was about $25 dollars less!
-SteveYetter-
Steve
used cheap cast offs because their good stuff couldn't be replaced if they
lost them on the road for the wages they were playing for.
Now, THOSE guitars are collectable!
Market and music have never had much in common, except as artificially
connected exposure (commerce/advertising).
-SteveYetter-
Ken Cashion
wrote:
And I bet they swapped it for all they could get.
What would a bead necklace have been worth then? And
today...considering inflation and all.
Jerome K. Jerome had some funny things to say about the
then-current Staffordshire dogs and their future value. Only he was
being sarcastic when he wrote that in about 1880.
It has turned out that he was ridiculing us.
Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
Come take my courses...I deal in Context...theirs, not ours.
Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>"Ra" <use...@freetoys.com> wrote in message
>news:p5%Vc.13637$%n4.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> "thomas" wrote
>>
>>
>> > Student model factory guitars are better
>> > today than they have ever been, and at lower prices.
>>
>>
>> You were doing well until you said that.
>>
>> I don't think many people will be cherishing today's student
>> guitars, in 40 years, the way so many people cherish the Gibson LGO today?
>>
>> Myself included.
>
>It doesn't matter. The fact is that the Samick RL-3 I just bought for my son
>is better than many Gibson or Fender guitars that are 3x the price.
This is good to know. I am surprized that Samick doesn't
increase their prices. They wouldn't sell as many but then, they
wouldn't have to, would they?
>Whether
>someone cherises them or not doesn't matter to me.
Or would it to me...of course, I am playing a plastic guitar.
They are certainly in the collectible category and I have one that is
just admired by me. It occurs to me that these didn't sell in the
'50s because people thought they were toys.
I have an idea that I would not be able to buy these in such
good shape had not some collectors bought these strange plastic toys
and kept them safe all these years. They were $40 then and today,
with inflation, that would be $300, so I can figure that the value
above that is the "collectibility factor." In this case the
collectibility factor is about 60%.
>In fact, I disagree with Thomas' thread. I believe that collectors have
>artificially priced fabulous guitars out of the hands of a jazz guitarist.
I was in a hock shop when I was a lot younger and the guy had
a Martin and I asked how much it was. He said, "$200." I said, "That
is too much."
He said, "No, it is not! You only think that because you
don't have enough money."
I realized that something I couldn't afford was not overpriced
if there were others who would buy it for more.
>When I was 17 back in the mid '70s, I bought an L5 for $650. Back then, I
>used to gig in the DC area and I'd see full time jazz players playing L5s
>and super 400s. Most full time guitarists I know cannot afford to buy such
>instruments.
$650 in 1975 would be about $3,116 today, so I would expect
that the collectibility factor on the L5 is pretty high. That is what
they are worth. There are a bunch of things I can't afford because
somebody will pay more for them than I will/can. :o)
Those L5s and 400s appreciated faster than the players'
incomes. I know the feeling. The guitars have the proper commercial
price. The players don't have enough money.
>In fact, if you look around the Cleveland area at what full
>time guitarists are playing, they are now playing samick and korean epiphone
>guitars primarily. Not sure how it is in other areas...
I know a professional musician in L.A. who didn't hesitate to
sell an old Gibson archtop because someone offered him so much that he
would not have to play another gig for three months. He has a lot of
guitars and they all "make music fit for the ears of his paying
customers." (He says.)
I just had an interesting thought. There might be a couple of
guys with wads of money in their pockets watching a jazz musician
playing on a collectible and one guy would say to the other, "Jeez!
What a waste of a good guitar! The guy would sound just as good on a
Samick. He is not nearly as good as his guitar and the longer he
plays it, the worse it is going to look and sound. We need to rescue
that great guitar from more street abuse...how much money do you have
on you?" :o)
Ken
Ra
> Jerome K. Jerome had some funny things to say about the
> then-current Staffordshire dogs and their future value. Only he was
> being sarcastic when he wrote that in about 1880.
> It has turned out that he was ridiculing us.
> Ken
Dogs are another fascinating subject.
Humans have created the vast majority of breeds we have today.
At the time Jerome wrote that, the English Bulldog looked
almost identical to todays American Pit Bull.
Sadly, most of the breeding that has been done has disregarded
the health issues it has wrought, in favor of creating cute features
that might appeal to buyers.
Kurt Shapiro
"thomas" <tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:7d424f23.04082...@posting.google.com...
> These complaints about guitar collectors are utter nonsense:
>
I've seen here, rather, are reminders (often humorous) that an expensive
guitar is no substitute for quality musicianship.
> 1) If collectors are coddling rare and priceless artifacts, where's
> the crime? Better that than having it slowly disintegrate while
> playing Freebird in a dive somewhere.
Six of one, half dozen of the other to me. Straw man argument. Better than
either is to have the instrument played by a hard-working quality musician
who cherishes it. But at least if it's being played in a dive it's being
heard.
>
> 2) Any name player who really "needs" a rare artifact for a
> special recording or a concert can probably arrange for a
> short-term loan from a collector. A lot of these guys love
> to have their collections validated in the public eye.
And non-name players?
>
> 3) And if it's not a rare and priceless artifact, where's the crime
> if it does get hoarded? Who cares if Chinery was hoarding "crap"?
> Do you really want his crap guitars? Think, man!
No crime, just silly. Agreed. Who cares?
> 4) Collectors can't play? You don't know many collectors.
> Professional guitarists are some of the most rampant
> collectors out there.
Some can, some can't. Collecting is no substitute for fine playing.
> 5) Driving up prices? Bullshit! The prices of high-quality,
> pro-level guitars are lower now than they have ever been in
> your lifetime, adjusting for inflation. This is largely because
> of collectors.
Ridiculous. The low prices of high-quality pro-level guitars has absolutely
nothing to do with collectors. It is a result of the price of foreign
labor, poor countries' lax of environmental and workplace safety standards,
and advances in CNC technology.
>
> It is collectors who keep private luthiers in business. The
> top dollar that collectors are paying for the work-of-art
> luthier guitar draws more luthiers into the business. As a
> consequence of collectors throwing money into the marketplace,
> we have a multitude of first-rate luthiers in business today--
> more than ever before--producing fantastic guitars at a variety
> of price points.
This is a good point. I agree with this. It's great to see so many fine
instruments being made and real craftsman making a decent living. I'm glad
to see the renaissance of craftsmanship and support for it.
>
> This phenomenon has driven quality expectations ever higher
> throughout the business, and that has filtered into factory
> production as well. Student model factory guitars are better
> today than they have ever been, and at lower prices. Much of
> this trend can be traced back to the influence of collectors,
> and the competition they have stimulated by injecting money
> in at the high end. Gifted, hungry Asians entering the global
> market at the low end are the other reason.
>
> Great guitars have never been so abundant and so affordable
> as they are today. And, in large part, we have the collectors
> to thank for that.
I think it's the other way around. See my response to #5.
> We are living in the Golden Age of guitar production, my
> friends. We baby boomers who can finally afford the toys
> we craved as adolescents are the reason this market exists.
> Things may never get this good for the guitar again.
>
> Quit griping about the price of Hendrix's old Strat, and
> go place an order with your luthier. He'll make you something
> way better, and for less money.
>
Right on! Agreed.
>
> oldsl...@hotmail.com (B McGhee) wrote in message
news:<cc034c5c.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "JOHNPEARSE" <johnp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >
> > > > IMHO the market is still reeling from the excesses of Chinery and
Tsumura.
> > Both
> > > > of them acquired VAST amounts of crap at hugely inflated prices,
thereby
> > > > pushing prices through the roof and thus pricing good players'
instruments
> > > > right out of the reach of the players who should be owning them.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>Exactly!
> > The greedy collectors, many of which wouldn't know how to even play
> > three cowboy chords, know the price of everything....and the value of
> > nothing.
> >
> > There was an obnoxious self-proclaimed 'collector' on an earlier
> > guitar group (think Irish...), who couldn't satisfy his fetish for the
> > most beautiful expensive guitars, but from all accounts, could not
> > play worth a damn...all he talked about seemed to be how fascinated he
> > was with the guitar's sound when he played an open E chord.
> >
> > Such individuals are a constant thorn in the side of folks who enjoy
> > playing, rather than simply hoarding, nice instruments.
> >
> > Burle McGhee
Response to Burle:
Maybe more of a silly piddling annoyance. It's a little weird hearing
someone who can't play go on and on about their gear, but mostly it's just
boring.
Ra
> This is good to know. I am surprized that Samick doesn't
> increase their prices. They wouldn't sell as many but then, they
> wouldn't have to, would they?
Samick makes over half the guitars produced in the world...
or at least they did, until the recent expansion of other Asian markets.
They've got a lot of practice making guitars for the big names
and they put that knowledge into their 'house' brand.
I've got an all Mahogany Dreadnought that looks, sounds and plays great..
and I could sell it for $100!
> $650 in 1975 would be about $3,116 today...
$2317, according to the inflation calculator..
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
... but that is still pretty astounding.
Max Leggett
<kurtWITHOUTT...@hotmailNOSPAMTHANKS.com> wrote:
>"thomas" <tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
>news:7d424f23.04082...@posting.google.com...
>> These complaints about guitar collectors are utter nonsense:
>>
>I must have missed that thread. Who was complaining about collectors? What
>I've seen here, rather, are reminders (often humorous) that an expensive
>guitar is no substitute for quality musicianship.
I have a tendency to rant about opthamologists buying up '52 Strats to
show their street creds. Don't play them - they put them in display
cases. Check this out - http://displayandplay.com/ Evidently a $15
stand, which makes the guitar immediately accessible, isn't good
enough. Well, not if you display it in your office instead of
woodshedding it. I agree that people with money, which, unfortunately
does not include my good self, are keeping the boutique luthiers
afloat, and I think that's a good thing. I've read Vintage Guitar a
few times, and the sense I get from the articles and letters is that,
if they play much at all, they can wiggle a minor pent. As I don't
care about '52 flame top LPs, it's kinda moot.
>> 1) If collectors are coddling rare and priceless artifacts, where's
>> the crime? Better that than having it slowly disintegrate while
>> playing Freebird in a dive somewhere.
It's all part of a Rosicrucian ploit, the details of which escape me.
>> 2) Any name player who really "needs" a rare artifact for a
>> special recording or a concert can probably arrange for a
>> short-term loan from a collector. A lot of these guys love
>> to have their collections validated in the public eye.
In the classical world collectors loan their Strats and Amatis to
promising up and comers. Their should be more of that among guitar
colectors, _especially_ the non-playing ones.
>> Think, man!
I don't want to do that. I might get a headache.
>> 5) Driving up prices? Bullshit! The prices of high-quality,
>> pro-level guitars are lower now than they have ever been in
>> your lifetime, adjusting for inflation. This is largely because
>> of collectors.
No, it's because computerised manufacturing has enable companies to
turn out consistent first-rate products while cutting back on labour
and waste. Collectors drive up the cost of things like '52 Strats. Old
Epis and Gibsons are still very reasonable.
>> Great guitars have never been so abundant and so affordable
>> as they are today. And, in large part, we have the collectors
>> to thank for that.
Nah, lower labour costs and CAM. Roger Sandowsky's work doesn't filter
down to Ibanez - completely different manufacturing processes.
>> We are living in the Golden Age of guitar production, my
>> friends. We baby boomers who can finally afford the toys
>> we craved as adolescents are the reason this market exists.
>> Things may never get this good for the guitar again.
Oh, yeah, I agree 100%. FWIW, the price of double basses has come down
markedly, too. The advantages of CAM cover a wide variety of
instruments.
>> Quit griping about the price of Hendrix's old Strat,
Those are the only prices, by and large, that collectors inflate. I
think the cost of an original D'Angelico is out of line, but
understandably so. Plus you can get a D'Angelico reissue that's just a
great guitar for a very reasonable price. And I don't want Clapton's
old Strat, so it's kind of immaterial. It's just that, deep down
inside, after all is said and done, I think non-playing collectors
should be burnt at the stake to set an example. Not that I wish to
seem extreme.
Kurt Shapiro
is right up there with genocide and child molesting. What's extreme is some
rich fart who can't play going on and on about his '62 L5. I mean you don't
hear Benson going on and on about his guitar collection. Right?
I'm in favor of anything involving eating or burning the rich. And
collectors who can't play? There is no punishment that is too extreme.
"Max Leggett" <hepkatre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4128d2d8...@News.sprint.ca...
trat,
Michael Evans
fool" theory of investing. Namely, you are hoping
(speculating?) that someone even more foolish than
yourself will come along to pay you even more
than you did for the item. This seems to be
mostly prevalent in the art world where certain
works approach values now in the billions for no
particular reason other than someone has the money and
will pay. Guitars seem to have become "collectibles"
too in the past few years.
Is this bad? Well it is a distortion. Rather than the item
serving its initial purpose it has a greater value as a
collectible. For example, works of art become unavailable
because public institutions which might display the item
simply cannot afford them, although sometimes
you see even these places indulging in the greater
fool theory. Certain guitars which were
designed with a function in mind can no longer
serve that function because they are collectible
and thus too valuable. Some guitars (based on their
prices) seem aimed primarily at the collector
market rather than players. In a sense they
are no longer guitars and as they are
no longer worth having for the purpose of making music.
In fact I'm sure many collectors want their guitars
played as little as possible so they preserve their "mint" status.
While collecting can serve a useful purpose in documenting
a historical period in some area of endeavour, mostly
it seems to be a lame activity motivated by greed and the ego
satisfaction that some derive in owning something
that others want. It has definitely hurt the world
of guitar as it has distorted prices and taken
instruments away from players where they belong.
Anyway, just my view.
Mike
P.S. I own a guitar built by Mark Campellone - a Standard.
I purposefully bought the Standard (little ornamentation) so that I would
play it
and not worry about putting dings in it - which I have done.
His prices are very reasonable when compared with others.
"thomas" <tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:7d424f23.04082...@posting.google.com...
George
I love collectors
they put such a spotlight on some guitars and mandolins to create a
artifical market for these instruments
leaving dozens of equal sounding instrument to be sold at bargin price
beacuse they are not in vouge
I need to buy a 1920s gibson F4 mando before the collectors figure out
that these were the real gems of the gibson line
George
Ken Cashion
>"Ken Cashion" wrote
>
>> Jerome K. Jerome had some funny things to say about the
>> then-current Staffordshire dogs and their future value. Only he was
>> being sarcastic when he wrote that in about 1880.
>> It has turned out that he was ridiculing us.
>
>> Ken
>
>
>Dogs are another fascinating subject.
>Humans have created the vast majority of breeds we have today.
>At the time Jerome wrote that, the English Bulldog looked
>almost identical to todays American Pit Bull.
>
>Sadly, most of the breeding that has been done has disregarded
>the health issues it has wrought, in favor of creating cute features
>that might appeal to buyers.
While what you say sounds true, he was speaking of the
immobile dogs. Those that are glazed and sit on shelves and mantles
for the purpose of decorating the room. They might have strange spots
and eyes and noses of some unnatural color.
What my wife and I thought of them in England was that they
looked rather "vacant" and not at all intelligent. They border on
"ugly."
Later, when I read those Jerome K. Jerome comments, where I
believe he said they looked "addled," I saw that his Idle Thoughts
were similar to what I have in my Veering Mind. :o)
Ken
Ken Cashion
So in 43 years, the J-45 has gone up x10? That is more than
just inflation...they should cost $979 and I think they are more than
that. It must be because of all the collectors trying to buy up the
new ones. :o)
Ken
Wade Hampton Miller
>4) Collectors can't play? You don't know many collectors. >Professional
guitarists are some of the most rampant>collectors out there.
Yep, and they're often the ones who get offered stuff first.
I used to know the members of the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band slightly, and would
get to hang out with them and jam a bit backstage before and after their shows
when they'd come through Kansas City, where I lived at the time.
Jeff Hanna in particular was always looking for cool old guitars, but Fadden
and Ibbotson were always interested, too. Who had what cool old Martin or
Gibson for sale and how much they wanted for it was always a major topic of
conversation with those guys, at least whenever I was around them.
I've never met Marty Stuart, but even Martin acknowledges him as one of the
major Martin guitar collectors on the planet.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
Remove the "Howdy" to reply...
Steve
"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote:
>
> So in 43 years, the J-45 has gone up x10? That is more than
> just inflation...they should cost $979 and I think they are more than
> that. It must be because of all the collectors trying to buy up the
> new ones. :o)
>
> Ken
Ken, Ken, Ken,
You must learn to factor in the MARKET value, Grasshopper:
See, it's like this: J-45's got popular because they were cheaper than
Martin D-18's. THEN, somebody was seen on PBS TV with one (I think it
must've been Phil Ochs).
Of course then it was ratified, having been on the God machine an' all.
Pretty soon all the hippies began taking the Crazy Daisies off of them and
trading them in on real Martins.
Soon, anyone who knew anything realized they hardly ever needed neck resets
or even new strings (it wouldn't change the sound anyway).
Then it became very chic to play "just an old J-45" on your otherwise vastly
expensive Country video.
Welp, that really got the market poppin' and the price of J-45's went up to
about $2500, even crappy Norlin ones with pickguards so thick you could
slice sandwiches on them with a serrated knife and never hurt the guitar's
wood!
That kicked off The Vintage Market, as it came to be called.
Soon even old Hank the Gibson mogul noticed there was money to be made
selling reissues of old student level guitars that Country people had used
to de-emphasize their conspicuous Martin D-45 consumption.
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Too bad Phil Ochs didn't use an LGO, huh?
-SteveYetter-
Ra
> Welp, that really got the market poppin' and the price of J-45's went up to
> about $2500...
I've seen a number of vintage J-45's at reasonable prices.
There are a lot of Gibson models that go for more than J-45's.
Ken Cashion
So from this, it seems there is a surcharge on musical
instruments based on demand...and this makes collectors of all of us,
doesn't it? :o)
It might be OK to play a guitar like Och's but lets make sure
the admiration stops there and we don't try to mime his life.
Ken
Stan Fong
> When I was 17 back in the mid '70s, I bought an L5 for $650. Back then, I
> used to gig in the DC area and I'd see full time jazz players playing L5s
> and super 400s. Most full time guitarists I know cannot afford to buy such
> instruments. In fact, if you look around the Cleveland area at what full
> time guitarists are playing, they are now playing samick and korean epiphone
> guitars primarily. Not sure how it is in other areas...
I think that has do partially with the pay being better back then
relative to it's time. A $50-$75 gig back then was worth more than a
$50-$75 gig today. The sad truth is the pay most full time musicians
make, hasn't been proportionally adjusted to inflation. Most have to
teach to survive. But that's another topic.
Stan
Ken Cashion
>"Steve" wrote
>
>
>> Welp, that really got the market poppin' and the price of J-45's went up to
>> about $2500...
>
>I've seen a number of vintage J-45's at reasonable prices.
>There are a lot of Gibson models that go for more than J-45's.
I have a '55 J-50 I got old and played much, and a 2002 J-45
rosewood which I got new. I didn't buy the J-45 because it was the
best deal. I didn't need it at all so it fell into the "luxury
purchase" category and this means I don't have to justify why I bought
it...or even know why. :o)
During the 20 years I didn't touch my guitars, my $365 J-50
(bought in 1964) appreciated considerably...to the point that while I
wasn't looking, I found myself owning an expensive guitar.
Ken
Steve
"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote in message
...> It might be OK to play a guitar like Och's but lets make sure
> the admiration stops there and we don't try to mime his life.
>
> Ken
Yeah, poor ol' Phil.
I thought he was a better topical writer than Bob Dylan.
But I quit drinkin' a LONG time ago.
Nope, not gonna follow him down.
-SY-
Ra
What does it matter how high the price of a vintage Gibson goes,
when you can buy a brand new, all solid wood, Heritage or Hofner,
for about $2K? Still can't afford it? Get a used one, maybe with a ding or two.
Any decent player should be able to make either of those sing?
Ken Cashion
>I don't think collectors adversely affect players.
>
>What does it matter how high the price of a vintage Gibson goes,
>when you can buy a brand new, all solid wood, Heritage or Hofner,
>for about $2K? Still can't afford it? Get a used one, maybe with a ding or two.
>
>Any decent player should be able to make either of those sing?
Yeah, that is what I was thinking. Why should I have a really
good guitar when I can give anything I have to Al Sato and learn what
sort of music that guitar could really make.
I know that I fail my stuff much more often than they fail me.
It is a bad musician that blames his instrument.
Hey! That reads good! I am surprized that no one has ever
written anything similar. ;o)
I had Al play my G40 Plastic Mac awhile and I am sure it
thought it had been stolen. After a TX gathering and me letting good
musicians try my guitars, my guitars won't speak to me for a week.
Ken, with vindictive guitars.
Ken Cashion
Stan, I am not a musician (not an actual one) and I didn't
know the "stability" of gig fees. I know if the "gig" is a concert,
the price has gone way up.
I know that once I found a market for some of my writing where
the publisher recognized that there was a thing called "inflation," I
stopped submitting to five of his competitors. The others were paying
in 2000 what they had been paying in 1978.
There might be a lot of "arty" activities where the fees have
sort of been cast in concrete.
Ken
Mike brown
> >
> >It doesn't matter. The fact is that the Samick RL-3 I just bought for my son
> >is better than many Gibson or Fender guitars that are 3x the price.
>
> This is good to know. I am surprized that Samick doesn't
> increase their prices. They wouldn't sell as many but then, they
> wouldn't have to, would they?
>
The Samick Les Paul that my Grandson has is a very well made instrument.
Since I put a pair of DiMarzio pickups with series parrrrarrrrelll (bloody
spelchecker) switches in it, it sounds better than a Gibson LP, with a far
greater choice of sounds.
MJRB
Don Judy
Beautiful. Most of these objects are illegal and the result of breaking into
that same someone's personal burial ground. It's amazing how many
archaeologists have objects stolen from sites by "local looters".
dj
Don Judy
"Steve" <elr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:4UeWc.6907$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Yeah, but that topical stuff has a limited shelf life. And nobody ever
listens to "Changes" any more, at least not Phil's song.
"This is a land full of power and glory
Beauty that words cannot recall
If her power shall rest on the strength of her freedom
Her glory shall rest on us all
On us all."
"Come, get out of the way, boys
Quick, get out of the way
You'd better watch what you say, boys
Better watch what you say
We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port
And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short
So bring your daughters around to the port
'Cause we're the Cops of the World, boys
We're the Cops of the World"
>
Don Judy
I have a few of those myself and sympathize completely.
dj
Don Judy
> news:p5%Vc.13637$%n4.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > "thomas" wrote
> >
> >
> > > today than they have ever been, and at lower prices.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think many people will be cherishing today's student
> > guitars, in 40 years, the way so many people cherish the Gibson LGO
today?
> >
> > Myself included.
>
son
> is better than many Gibson or Fender guitars that are 3x the price.
> someone cherises them or not doesn't matter to me.
>
> artificially priced fabulous guitars out of the hands of a jazz guitarist.
> used to gig in the DC area and I'd see full time jazz players playing L5s
> and super 400s. Most full time guitarists I know cannot afford to buy such
> instruments. In fact, if you look around the Cleveland area at what full
> time guitarists are playing, they are now playing samick and korean
epiphone
> guitars primarily. Not sure how it is in other areas...
>
love to hear stories of good deals coming from working guitarists but they
shouldn't be so rare.
dj
Don Judy
>
Don Judy
"Stan Fong" <skin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:19d70d5f.04082...@posting.google.com...
professionals, supposedly. They are called professional instruments. And
they are priced for doctors, dentists, accountants... Gibson could sell
their slab guitars for Samick prices and sell lots and lots of guitars and
make just as much or more money. My feeling is they don't have the quality
controls to do it. Once the knowledge goes out to the general public that a
product isn't worth it they turn to something else. Gibson has avoided this
by avoiding selling to the great unwashed, as the intrinsic joy of owning
something special and paying too much mutes a lot of the critical mind's
ability to speak.
dj
dj
jeffb
>A lot of collectors archive for the future. Often the use of
>them reduces the future value.
<sigh> ok, here goes...
Future value defined by whom?
There is strong precedence amongst violin family collectors to see
that their investments are well and continuously played.
Ever play an instrument that sat unplayed for many years? Not much use
as a musical instrument is it? Did these builders devote their lives
to making superior instruments anticipating them to sit in glass
cases? I think they did not. If they wanted you just to look at their
work they would have painted you a fucking picture.
Anyone who places cosmetic condition above playing condition is a
museumist asshole.
jeffb
bc
GregD/OASYSCO
news:3tednXcW18w...@comcast.com:
What follows is my opinion mixed in with some facts...
It's all part of the Taylor-phenomenon... buyers expect their investment
to go up, not down. therefore companies like Taylor (and now maybe
Gibson) work very hard to ensure that the elitism of their line is not
diluted by eager beaver internet sellers, so they enforce minimums that
licensed sellers can sell for by spot-calling and pretending to be
customers, though that doesn't stop all dealers.
Additionally, Taylor doesn't want their product line to be perceived as
mass production, thus they keep it off the 'net to avoid descending into
craps with cheaper offerings like Takamine and others. Lastly, they
periodically raise prices to keep their product price as high as
possible, just as Gibson does.
To cater to lower-end tastes, Taylor created the Baby Taylor, then the
Big Baby, then a laminate something or another without creating downard
pressure on their main line of solid wood guitars. Gibson's done the
same thing with some products going for as little as $400-500, not to
mention the Epi line.
When I was a Taylor owner, I became immersed in the Taylor family mind-
set visiting discussion forums, talking to Taylor dealers, talking to
the guys at Taylor several times, and avidly reading the Taylor new
letters.
There was always an undercurrent of expectation form Taylor owners that
their purchase would become more valuable over time, not less so. I've
never heard that same expectation voiced from other instrument owners,
though it is the hope of us all.... I just never heard it as a mantra
from others like I did Taylor owners. It was as if the company implied
that buying a Taylor was an investment.
Taylor started off right in order to have at least a small chance at
making a pruchase of a Taylor count for something. Gibson has been
around too long with too much internet presence and too much variation
of pricing amongst its licensed dealers to have much of a chance of
making a go at it, but we'll see.
Greg
GregD/OASYSCO
news:Xns954E6CC4...@68.12.19.6:
Just in case anybody is wondering... "descending into craps" - I have no
idea what I meant by that and now am not sure what word I meant to type
instead of "craps", but I know "craps" wasn't it.
Greg
Max Leggett
wrote:
>No. It is not another topic, Stan. The new instruments are made for
>professionals, supposedly. They are called professional instruments. And
>they are priced for doctors, dentists, accountants... Gibson could sell
>their slab guitars for Samick prices and sell lots and lots of guitars and
>make just as much or more money. My feeling is they don't have the quality
>controls to do it. Once the knowledge goes out to the general public that a
>product isn't worth it they turn to something else. Gibson has avoided this
>by avoiding selling to the great unwashed, as the intrinsic joy of owning
>something special and paying too much mutes a lot of the critical mind's
>ability to speak.
Gibson advertise from time to time in the New Yorker. A pretty boy
model lounging on a designer sofa in an interior decorator's dream
holding a Les Paul flame top [usually] in a position that suggest he
can't play. The slogan? "When only a Gibson is good enough." I like
the New Yorker, had a subscription for years, but it's not a guitar
magazine. Go into the average guitar store and the consensus is that
Gibson is way overpriced, especially when compared tothe quality from
companies like Ibanez. So, yeah, Gibson are marketing, not a musical
instrument, but a lifestyle commodity to yuppies. That's ok. Lots of
used Gibbies at reasonable prices, and lots of Ibanezes, too.
Max Leggett
wrote:
>Anyone who places cosmetic condition above playing condition is a
>museumist asshole.
There's no point in holding back your true feelings - tell us what you
_really_ think.
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>
Yes, they are beautiful. They were made and sold as commercial
items. They are illegal (generally) because of the influence of
academia...the people who want to raid the tombs with dignity so they
can perpetuate their Indiana Jones reputations (tenure is nice) and
then fill thousands of unseen museum drawers.
Archaeologists studying the tomb have no more spiritual
significance to the past occupants than that of the looter...only the
looter is most likely related to the people who were in the tomb and
wants the commercial items to sell so they can feed his and the once
occupant of the tomb's family.
"It's amazing how many archaeologists have objects stolen
from sites by 'local looters'." I have always found this a real hoot.
:o)
I know quite a few archaelolgists who are working at
PreColumbian sites. I know their risks and I know their rewards. I
know folks at National Geographics who fund the last part of a
successful dig so they can advertise that the "research was funded by
the National Geographic Society." All the while, they know that if
there are not good picture opportunities, NGS isn't interested.
I had a lot more noble attitude about this business when I
knew a lot less about it...but then, it is most likely that way with a
lot of things. :o)
I had helped a national achaeologists and one morning he
handed me an Olmec earplug that he had just picked it from the ground
at a dig...it had rained hard that night. I was surprized and asked
if it was OK.
He said, "We appreciate what you did for us, and sure, why
not? We have several tons of that stuff and we are getting tired of
cateloging it and loading down the museum archives."
This is only part of an interesting story. ;o)
Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>So kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) says:
>
>>A lot of collectors archive for the future. Often the use of
>>them reduces the future value.
>
><sigh> ok, here goes...
>
>Future value defined by whom?
OK, here goes... :o)
Defined by whom?
Defined by he who approaches the current owner while holding
money in his hand. I have no idea why collectors purchase some of
the stuff they do.
>There is strong precedence amongst violin family collectors to see
>that their investments are well and continuously played.
>Ever play an instrument that sat unplayed for many years? Not much use
>as a musical instrument is it? Did these builders devote their lives
>to making superior instruments anticipating them to sit in glass
>cases? I think they did not. If they wanted you just to look at their
>work they would have painted you a fucking picture.
>Anyone who places cosmetic condition above playing condition is a
>museumist asshole.
Ahhh, yes, but those museumistic assholes have a lot of
guitars that you (and I) would kill for!
They have them; we want them but can't afford them. Anyone
who has a redundant guitar is a collector, I guess. I know I am. I
collect guitar junk.
Somewhere out there is a guy who would like to have one of my
guitars but he can't afford it. I hope he isn't thinking too badly of
me for having a G40 Plastic Mac in its case, in the closet...with its
provenance safely sealed in the case. :o)
And on a serious note -- how many of us routinely play every
guitar we have? And we who do not, are we not "hoarding" guitars and
keeping them away from those who would like to have them but can't
afford them?
And on another note, how many of us would immediately go out
and buy another guitar if someone gave us the money to buy it?
I could go on, but Andy Rooney, I am not.
Ken, The Perplexed.
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>
I think I have lost the thread of all this intrigue.
We need to define "collector" as more than "someone who has
the guitar we want and can't afford."
We need to define them in a manner that makes them as
villianous as some of us think they are.
Help!
Ken
Max Leggett
wrote:
> We need to define "collector" as more than "someone who has
>the guitar we want and can't afford."
> We need to define them in a manner that makes them as
>villianous as some of us think they are.
A 'collector' is someone who takes a good musical instrument, and,
instead of playing it, displays it. Not playing a musical instreument
means the instrument declines in its ability - the wood dries, the
neck warps - and eventually the collector's piece is no longer
playable. So 'collectors' are guitar murderers. And hanging's too good
for them.
Ra
> I think I have lost the thread of all this intrigue.
> We need to define "collector" as more than "someone who has
> the guitar we want and can't afford."
> We need to define them in a manner that makes them as
> villianous as some of us think they are.
> Help!
> Ken
Admit it Ken.
If you had 'Gates' money.. or even 'Oprah' money..
or Hell, even if you only had 'Fabio' money,
you'd have so many guitars, you'd need 4 extra bedrooms... just for guitars.
Ra
> A 'collector' is someone who takes a good musical instrument, and,
> instead of playing it, displays it. Not playing a musical instreument
> means the instrument declines in its ability - the wood dries, the
> neck warps - and eventually the collector's piece is no longer
> playable. So 'collectors' are guitar murderers. And hanging's too good
> for them.
Say what you want.. but one day, my massive collection of
Esteban guitars, will be worth a fortune.
jeffb
> And on a serious note -- how many of us routinely play every
>guitar we have? And we who do not, are we not "hoarding" guitars and
>keeping them away from those who would like to have them but can't
>afford them?
I regularly play everything I have. All three of 'em right now. I'm
not a collector, if something ain't gettin' played I pass it along to
someone who will.
> And on another note, how many of us would immediately go out
>and buy another guitar if someone gave us the money to buy it?
If it don't call out to me to make music on it I don't buy it.
Is there a time limit on this free money? I'm sure eventually I'll
come across something...
> I could go on, but Andy Rooney, I am not.
Close enough.
> Ken, The Perplexed.
Don't be, it's simple. Buy it to play not to create furniture out of
fine a musical instrument.
jeffb
bc
Don Judy
Yep. I was heavily interested in archaeology and started running into that
attitude, which is actually an understandable one, but no one compromising
their so called ethics in the least should be bitching about looters and so
on. However, archaeology is an important adjunct of anthropology as is
history, and I am interested as are many others how we have gotten "here".
One never knows what importance an object might have to future knowledge.
It's a tough nut all around.
dj
jeffb
Naw, that might be too...<ahem>...colourful?
jeffb
bc
Don Judy
"GregD/OASYSCO" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns954E7460...@68.6.19.6...
>
> Just in case anybody is wondering... "descending into craps" - I have no
> idea what I meant by that and now am not sure what word I meant to type
> instead of "craps", but I know "craps" wasn't it.
>
> Greg
wins. Now we need to define deeper pockets. That would be the money we have
now and the hit we take on lowering the price and whether we are losing
money, prestige, versatility, to the point of being wiped out by the wrong
play.
Gibson is not invulnerable and they know it. They got bought the last time
because they were in severe trouble.
dj
Don Judy
"Max Leggett" <hepkatre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:412a0fc1....@News.sprint.ca...
oldie and which I could not have gotten for $300 or a little less (we all
love barter here). I could not have gotten a comparable Gibson to the
"vintage" Epi for twice as much, but guess what. Right, I don't care.
dj
>
Don Judy
guitar chair I'll probably take the Epi Sheraton. If I play with a high
volume high energy blues band I'll probably take the Westone. But I always
have the Samick archtop w/floater with me because it can work well in those
gigs, it depends on the stage/playing area and the room and the guys I'm
playing with. BTW, playing the archtop as an acoustic with bluegrass players
drives 'em nuts, it cuts through the Martins like buttah and competes with
the banjo and mando well. It doesn't have the bass for rhythm chording, but
there's a bass for that low end.
I also have a lap steel in case anyone ever needs a really crappy lap steel
player, and a classical for those rare occasions like weddings and swap
meets. And a bass, for pickup jobs. And this ping pong paddle. And this
chair...
dj
George
hepkatre...@hotmail.com (Max Leggett) wrote:
So that makes them one step up from Kurt Cobain I guess
:-)
also please remove what ever groups your not reading this in from the
cross post
Thanks
George
Steve Perry
<mev...@utstat.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Collecting anything is typically based on "the greater
> fool" theory of investing. Namely, you are hoping
> (speculating?) that someone even more foolish than
> yourself will come along to pay you even more
> than you did for the item. This seems to be
> mostly prevalent in the art world where certain
> works approach values now in the billions for no
> particular reason other than someone has the money and
> will pay. Guitars seem to have become "collectibles"
> too in the past few years.
Nah, Mike, this is (in my opinion) too narrow a definition. People
collect things for all kinds of reasons, and sometimes this has nothing
to do with making money. I have a small collection of Indonesian
knives, kerises (some are the curvy-bladed ones, some are straight). I
got into them through a martial art I began studying. The people they
were made for are long-dead. The blades are very common -- used to be
most Indonesians got one as part of a coming-of-age ritual -- mostly
men, but some women, so there are literally millions of them around.
Some are rare and valuable, many are not. I became fascinated by the
pattern-welding done in the steel, the theory of magic connected to
them, and managed to buy a few. These probably won't ever be very
valuable, but that doesn't matter because it'll be my kids who sell
them after I'm gone.
Who gets hurt if I have half a dozen of these in my gun safe that I
take out and oil and play with from time to time? I get a lot of
pleasure from them, the great-great-grandkids of the original owners
got a little money for something they didn't really appreciate.
You are right: Guitars are like any other object that can be bought and
sold. They are worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for them. You
want George Harrison's axe, so do a lot of other people, and it's a
seller's market. Put it next to your Van Gogh ...
The old joke, if you can buy an expensive blues guitar with a
MasterCard, you don't deserve it, feels valid if you're a player; the
truth is there have always been people with more money than talent (or
taste) and they can buy what somebody else is willing to sell. That's
not going to change.
In theory, you could buy a guitar played by Segovia, then do a Who
number on it after you played a fumble-fingered version of Romanza in
front of your rich friends. I personally would be happy to see you shot
for it, but if you bought it, it's yours, and unless the property laws
go down the road to pure communism, you can do what you want with it.
That's how things work.
--
Steve
jeffb
>You are right: Guitars are like any other object that can be bought and
>sold. They are worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for them. You
>want George Harrison's axe, so do a lot of other people, and it's a
>seller's market. Put it next to your Van Gogh ...
All y'all who buy into this line of thinking are missing that the Van
Gogh has little function other than to hang around and be looked at.
I don't choose to live in the world where money reigns supreme and you
don't believe any other world exists.
Stewardship vs. Ownership.
Take your hands off the keyboard and think about that.
jeffb
bc
thomas
> artificially priced fabulous guitars out of the hands of a jazz guitarist.
> used to gig in the DC area and I'd see full time jazz players playing L5s
> and super 400s. Most full time guitarists I know cannot afford to buy such
> instruments.
I agree that collectors have driven up prices of the specific
models that they fetishize, but so what? Is this proof that
non-collecting players have been disadvantaged? I don't think so.
Today, you can buy an Eastman or a Hofner archtop--solid wood,
carved top, hand built--for even less than what you paid for
your L5, adjusting for inflation. Every bit as functional,
fine quality, and affordable. So where's the crime?
Anyone who fetishes a particular model of a particular
brand has a collector's mentality, and thus cannot be
posited as a victim of "the collectors".
Furthermore, I know a number of gigging guitarists who do
own Super 400s and the like, but who don't play them on the
gig. They can afford to own the guitars, but they would
rather take something cheap to the gig rather than risk damage
to their babies. So the collectors have created a different
attitude towards how people value their guitars, but
I don't see this conservationist mentality as a bad
thing.
Ken Cashion
wrote:
Nope...there are no easy answers. It is like bad-mouthing a
hungry bloke in S. Africa -- while we, who have never been hungry, are
standing in an American check-out line with a loaded grocery cart.
Somehow, that reminds me of the expression "the fury of the
non-combatant." :o)
I am interested in the historical aspects, as well, and I just
had a fellow staying with me who is doing work in Central American
relative to the Pre-Columbian environment during the last days of the
Mayan Empire. This, I found, all very fascinating. We had many long
conversations while sitting at the bar.
But I remember the time he and his crew were in the jungle and
were captured, blind-folded, had their hands tied behind their backs,
and spent six hours on their knees while angry kids pointed AK-47s at
their heads. The kids were awaiting their contact to tell them what
to do with them. That part of "research" didn't appeal to me much
though.
Later, during CIA debriefing, one of the research team was
asked if the kids were just "doing their duty or were they really
looking mad."
The guy looked at the CIA fellow and said, "Hey, Man! I have
been divorced. I KNOW what 'HATE' looks like!" :o)
When Congress passed the Space Commercialization Act, I told
my archaeologist bunch that if we were to commercialize space
technologies, we should reveal the locations of all the yet-unsurveyed
Mayan sites we had located so the pot hunters could strip the sites
and sell the artifacts. That is what I think commercialization is.
They told me that I sometimes over-simplify.
I do. :o)
Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>So kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) says:
>
>
>> And on a serious note -- how many of us routinely play every
>>guitar we have? And we who do not, are we not "hoarding" guitars and
>>keeping them away from those who would like to have them but can't
>>afford them?
>
>I regularly play everything I have. All three of 'em right now. I'm
>not a collector, if something ain't gettin' played I pass it along to
>someone who will.
I always say I am going to do that but I have too much pride
of ownership to think of them as a totally utilitarian item.
>> And on another note, how many of us would immediately go out
>>and buy another guitar if someone gave us the money to buy it?
>
>If it don't call out to me to make music on it I don't buy it.
>Is there a time limit on this free money? I'm sure eventually I'll
>come across something...
Funny. I have different sorts of guitars for different sorts
of music...and I never play only one type all the time. I also have
these because when I was doing concerts, I wanted to demo different
instruments and the sorts of music that sound particularly good on
them.
I sold one of my guitars to a collector in Wales (I live in a
Mississippi swamp) and he is putting out a CD demonstrating his great
guitars. He will be playing the sorts of music "that made them
famous."
I am flattered and very pleased that I had one he wanted and
he got it. It has a really good home and it will be around along
time. These guitars build up an equity in them so that each time they
sell, they go for a little more.
>> I could go on, but Andy Rooney, I am not.
>
>Close enough.
>
>> Ken, The Perplexed.
>
>Don't be, it's simple. Buy it to play not to create furniture out of
>fine a musical instrument.
There are those who collect cars and don't drive them, so I
guess there are those who buy guitars for the pride of ownership...for
their intrinsic beauty and it doesn't matter if they can make music on
them...they know the instrument can make music...it isn't necessary to
race a 1930 race car every weekend...or at all. Its application does
not qualify the car; its history does.
By the way, I saw a special on Leno's vehicle collection...now
there is something that isn't fair...I mean, I can drive as good as he
can...he shouldn't get to have all those great machines. How many can
he drive in a month? :o)
Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>
But would you chose them over Bernadette Peters?
Ken
Ken Cashion
This applies to all collectors or just the ones who have
things you can't afford? :o)
You sort of remind me of the people who want to take animals
out of the zoos and return them to the wild. The zoo animals live
longer and healthier lives.
I would bet that a collector would have a room that has better
environmental controls that our houses.
The working musician (up north) puts quite a strain on
guitars...and way down south in New Orleans, etc.
Ken
hobart xaxinojo
"hobart xaxinojo" <xaxi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0IqdnVxSnMc...@comcast.com...
> found this by searching ooo instead of 000
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=359&item=3742584968&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
>
>
well this thread took an interesting turn.
the bidding on the guitar ended at 14,099.99 USD and did not meet the
reserve which i suppose is somewhere near the buy it now of 30,000.00 USD.
30k seems like a lot for that guitar but ........
all the collecting and such just seems normal to me. there will always be
those - let's call them entrepreneurs - who attempt to make a buck on
things. i don't see it as a problem as long as it is all honest.
i've always tried to follow the axiom to buy what i like not what i think
will appreciate in value.
if that painting or guitar or watch or whatever you want is too expensive
then find another that isn't. in the next wave the thing you liked might be
worth something more than you paid. if not so what you still like it don't
you.
sometimes you and/or they get lucky and what you like gets liked by a lot of
other people. it is a natural progression as far as i can tell.
there is always the coulda woulda shoulda bunch - coulda bought that land in
hawaii - woulda bought that guitar but ....... - shoulda bought that stock
and then when they didn't never stop kicking themselves and hating them that
were lucky or skilled.
Ken Cashion
>"Max Leggett" wrote
>
>> A 'collector' is someone who takes a good musical instrument, and,
>> instead of playing it, displays it. Not playing a musical instreument
>> means the instrument declines in its ability - the wood dries, the
>> neck warps - and eventually the collector's piece is no longer
>> playable. So 'collectors' are guitar murderers. And hanging's too good
>> for them.
>
>
>Say what you want.. but one day, my massive collection of
>Esteban guitars, will be worth a fortune.
Danged! That is funny. How many would someone have to have
for them to really be of value...several hundred with contiguous
serial numbers? :o)
Ken
Ken Cashion
>"Ken Cashion" wrote
>
>> I think I have lost the thread of all this intrigue.
>> We need to define "collector" as more than "someone who has
>> the guitar we want and can't afford."
>> We need to define them in a manner that makes them as
>> villianous as some of us think they are.
>> Help!
>
>> Ken
>
>
>Admit it Ken.
>
>If you had 'Gates' money.. or even 'Oprah' money..
>or Hell, even if you only had 'Fabio' money,
>you'd have so many guitars, you'd need 4 extra bedrooms... just for guitars.
The "we" was not the Royal "we" but was my attempt to avoid
saying "you guys with the sour grapes." :o)
If someone offered me any guitar I wanted, it would take me
two weeks to figure out what that might be. I don't think I need any
more money. I can get in enough trouble with what I have.
I think I would like to have a slave though. One of them, I
could use.
Ken
Don Judy
> >I also have a lap steel in case anyone ever needs a really crappy lap
steel
> >player, and a classical for those rare occasions like weddings and swap
> >meets. And a bass, for pickup jobs. And this ping pong paddle. And this
> >chair...
>
> But would you chose them over Bernadette Peters?
>
> Ken.
That depends....
Ra
> >Say what you want.. but one day, my massive collection of
> >Esteban guitars, will be worth a fortune.
> Danged! That is funny. How many would someone have to have
> for them to really be of value...several hundred with contiguous
> serial numbers? :o)
> Ken
I don't know?
How many times do you have to multiply, times zero,
before you get to a substantial number?
John Sorell
t...@comcast.com:
Ping pong paddle...Bernadette Peters! The mind is reeling.
John
Steve Perry
<jeff...@REMOVECAPSshaw.ca> wrote:
Really? What world are you planning on living in, Jeff? This is the one
we have. Art is in the eyes -- or ears, noses, and fingers -- of the
beholders. You can decide what it is for yourself, but you don't get to
tell anybody else what it must be, or how they may dispose of it.
It amazes me that people hear the word "art," and all sense they have
about property goes out the window.
Art and craft go hand in hand. If I could build a guitar (I can't),
that sucker would be mine. My labor, with materials bought and paid
for. What I might do with it is my business. What the guy who might buy
it does with it? His business.
If you believe that your house is yours to own, and your son's if you
leave it to him, then you believe in Ownership. "Stewardship" gets
tricky when it comes to private property. Yep, we are all stewards of
the Earth because we live here and it affects us all, but a whole lot
of pieces of it have been claimed and fenced. That's our world.
You have to stretch some to include George Harrison's guitar in any
kind of public ownership. Somebody made it, it was theirs. George
bought it, it was his. Whoever buys it from whoever George left it to?
It's theirs. That's how it works. That's how it has always worked,
except in countries where they tried to do it otherwise and it
eventually died because it was terminally stupid.
You get into the questions of who decides what art is, and how it
should be kept. When does it leave private hands and become the
"public's?" You believe all a Van Gogh represents is something that
just hangs around to be looked at? Really? A lot of people would argue
differently.
Yes, I agree that a fine guitar should be played and not stuck in a
vault. But tell a Strad owner who paid a million bucks for it his
violin should belong to the public and see what kind of reaction you
get.
I agree with you -- everything is not about money. Some things,
however, are. You don't always get to choose which is which. Take your
hands off *your* keyboard and think about that.
--
Steve
George
tomb...@jhu.edu (thomas) wrote:
> jeffb <jeff...@REMOVECAPSshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:<n8eki0phg8r2ajju6...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > All y'all who buy into this line of thinking are missing that the Van
> > Gogh has little function other than to hang around and be looked at.
> >
>
this is a very short sighted view
art, all art, dance, music, ceramics, painting, sculpture is ultamitly
about engaging your mind
and I would bet that most Van Goghs suceed as art to far many more
people than guitar playing
also the painting is the equalivent of the music, the paint brush and
canvas and paints are the equalivent of the guitar
so again worshipping the guitar over the music would be like gazing
wantonly at a jar of brushes
George
Sleepy Fingers Jones
This is a kinda weird thread.
Just about all the surviving Stradivarius violins are owned by people
who play them regularly. I think there's maybe 2 in museums.
The collectors market makes no impact on the fine guitar market
whatsoever. This is because the guitars that are most collected are
not necessarily particularly fine guitars.
Jimi Hendrix's Strat is valuable because it was Jimi's Strat, not
because it is a particularly fine Strat. Same goes for Lennon's
Rickenbacker or Clapton's Brownie.
So the provenance of the instrument is more interesting than the
quality of it, hence the price tag and it's desirability.
There are vast quantities of good and great guitars being churned out
all over the world, both by factories and small workshops, every day.
The collector's market cannot hope to influence the price of good
guitars.
Fair enough, it can influence the price of rare guitars, but as a
guitar player, I couldn't care less about that. If I want to find a
guitar which sounds good (or great, for that matter), I can, and at a
reasonable price.
One of the most moving things I ever saw was a small collection of
prayer books which once belonged to Mary, Queen of Scots, in the
Gulbenkian in Lisbon.
They were just prayer books, but their provenance and history made
them important enough to make it essential (not least because she had
written notes in the margins) to take them out of circulation. They
would otherwise no doubt have been destroyed over time and a small
insight into our history would have been lost.
So I don't have a problem with people assuming stewardship over items
which have a cultural resonance, especially if this results in
interesting things being well looked after, nor do I believe that some
people's arcane interest in contemporary artifacts (like rare guitars)
interferes with our ability to make great music, and at a reasonable
price.
Pete
thomas
>
> Ridiculous. The low prices of high-quality pro-level guitars has absolutely
> nothing to do with collectors. It is a result of the price of foreign
> labor, poor countries' lax of environmental and workplace safety standards,
> and advances in CNC technology.
The Japanese were making guitars back in the 1960s--when Japan
was still Third World--and they mostly sucked. You could say
much the same about Italy in the 60s. So the enlarging global
production system alone cannot explain the recent improvements
in mass production quality. I think the increase in competition
probably explains some, but not all of the improvements.
CNC technology? Let's talk. I don't know much about that. I do
know that when the major manufacturers began to embrace tech-driven
mass production in the mid-60s, that is precisely when the market
began to perceive serious declines in quality. So what has changed?
I still suspect that the incredible improvements in quality that
we've seen over the past 20 years are significantly driven from
the demand side, but tell me more about CNC and why I'm wrong.
Why even invest in tech improvements without some input from
the demand side?
(Later on, maybe I'll bring up Fender's Relic series as
part of a counterargument....)
Chris Rockcliffe
Just about says it all Pete. Good post.
CR