Opinion on 70s and 80s Japanese guitars (Fender, Yamaha, Takamine etc)
Jay
extolled the virtues of Japanese factory steel strung guitars such as the
above, before production was moved to Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, China
(possibly in that order?).
I just wondered what you guys made of this - is it true that the Japanese
guitars are generally really good - and also how they compare to the 'good'
budget guitars of today - not the same makes, but for example Simon and
Patrick et al.
Thanks for any info.
J.
JS
I'm a confirmed Yamawhore; Yamahas from the 60s through the 80s are
consistently excellent. They did miracles with plywood; the tops are
lightly braced, and very responsive. I like the smaller bodies,
especially; they respond to JLD installs really well.
Approximately 110% of them need neck resets, which is no picnic--that
ain't hide glue in them dovetails! When I reset them, I convert them
to bolt-on.
JS
Ken Cashion
>I recall an article in one of the guitar magazines a few years ago which
>extolled the virtues of Japanese factory steel strung guitars such as the
>above, before production was moved to Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, China
>(possibly in that order?).
According to the Cashonian Economic Coriolis Principle, that would be
the sequence. <g>
>I just wondered what you guys made of this - is it true that the Japanese
>guitars are generally really good - and also how they compare to the 'good'
>budget guitars of today - not the same makes, but for example Simon and
>Patrick et al.
>
>Thanks for any info.
>J.
During the 1970s, I bought maybe 10 new Yamahas. Most were in the
lower price ranges...like FG-120s and the like. These were made in
Gakki, Japan, in one of the old, old manufacturing plants. I think
they were making pianos there then.
They had 100% control of all woods and they had learned a lot about
light plywood and other cheaper, but good hardwoods. Their pianos
were good and they were lighter than most other pianos but played very
well...so I assume they also understood good bracing procedures
without converting a light top or sound board to a slab.
One I bought in 1972 came back to me at the first of last year when
the owner died. I enjoy this guitar a lot and it has a great
sound...and it is maybe the lightest guitar I have. I did have to
reseat the saddle though. It had lived 34 years in very dry Kansas.
The red label Gakki Yamahas were, and are, absolutely great guitars.
Ken
Kevin Hall
comparison with the current top contenders. Tough.
The Japanese invasion started really rolling in the mid to late 60s when
Yamaha introduced models like the FG-140 and 180. In very short order those
killed outfits like Harmony stone dead. The Harmony Sovereign was up 'til
that time the first choice of pickers who wanted a sturdy, relatively well
made flat top which had a passable sound. When the FG-180 arrived, even
though it was all ply as opposed to the solid woods in the Harmony, it
sounded better ( to most ears), played easier, and was much more
cosmetically 'slick'. It was certainly better built.
While not really great guitars, those early models from makers like Yamaha
in particular did represent outstanding dollar value, and they held to that
theme for a couple of decades. It would be very difficult indeed to find
another instrument which offered a better combination of sound, playability
and reliability for less money during that same period.
As time went on the Japanese builders tried to move up-market, and had
several spectacular failures in the upper price range. Yamaha offered some
beautifully made all solid instruments in the FG-1500 and up series, all
made with outstanding materials, but they fell far short of being first
rank guitars due to some silly design errors. Tops buckled, necks
separated and generally they just did not offer a similar bang for the buck
as did their less costly counterparts.
In the late 70s or early 80s I was involved in the development of a then-new
series of all solid wood guitars from Yamaha. That line started with the
modestly appointed mahog. and spruce L-5 model and progressed through the
still plain rosewood and spruce L-10 though to the much more ornate (
gharrish to many eyes) L-25.
The bottom two of that series, roughly equivalent to Martins' D-18 and D-28
in materials and appointments ( L-5 and L-10) were perhaps the greatest
bargains ever offered in an all solid instrument. They came in very good
hard shell cases and were modestly priced. Unfortunately they did not do
well in the market and didn't last long.
The line was modified as production moved from Japan and gained flashy trim
while losing the original character.
In the few years immediately before production started moving to Korea,
Taiwan etc. and away from Japan, the folks at Yamaha were determined to
make acoustic guitars which would compete on an even footing with the best
in the world. They repeatedly targetted Martin with new models, and sought
the advise of individual independent product consultants like myself in each
major market area.
During that time they were a delight to work with, since they responded
swiftly and accurately to suggestions based on sound judgement and
experience. Having worked for Martin in the 70s I found the Japanese
attitude in that area a delightful change.
These days many factories around the globe are utilizing modern
manufacturing technology to produce some remarkable instruments at very
affordable prices. In the 'budget' category which the original poster asks
about, I think the main factor for consideration is the same now as it was
then; is the end result a good buy for the price? In many cases it is
indeed.
Just as in the 60s, 70s and '80s there are some very good values available
today, and there are some dreadful junkers on the shelves. Overall, I'd
have to say I think that the 'average' budget priced guitar of the current
day is a superior instrument to a similar one from the 60s through 80s.
KH
"Jay" <m...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qjqhi.14364$p8....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Wade Hampton Miller
>
> That's a lot like trying to rank prize fighters who lived 50 years ago in
> comparison with the current top contenders. Tough.
>
America snipped.)
>
Germane quotes:
>
> While not really great guitars, those early models from makers like Yamaha
> in particular did represent outstanding dollar value, and they held to that
> theme for a couple of decades. It would be very difficult indeed to find
> another instrument which offered a better combination of sound, playability
> and reliability for less money during that same period.
>
> As time went on the Japanese builders tried to move up-market, and had
> several spectacular failures in the upper price range.
Most of us playing professional quality instruments back then simply
didn't even consider Asian-made instruments as a viable option. I
know I stayed away from them entirely with guitars, but then bought a
superb quality handmade Kentucky mandolin, from their high end Nagano
Prefecture plant, that I still own.
Kevin continues
>
> These days many factories around the > globe are utilizing modern
> manufacturing technology to produce some remarkable instruments at very
> affordable prices. In the 'budget' category which the original poster asks
> about, I think the main factor for consideration is the same now as it was
> then; is the end result a good buy for the price? In many cases it is
> indeed.
>
Yep. No question about it.
Kevin concludes:
>
> Just as in the 60s, 70s and '80s there are some very good values available
> today, and there are some dreadful junkers on the shelves. Overall, I'd
> have to say I think that the 'average' budget priced guitar of the current
> day is a superior instrument to a similar one from the 60s through 80s.
>
>
I don't think there's any question of that.
Personally, I find the online swooning about the general wonderfulness
of Japanese-made Yamahas, while grounded in SOME reality, largely to
be exaggerated triumphalism. Much of it is self-congratulation for
having had the foresight and sagacity to buy one of these guitars
while other Americans, mired in prejudice against the Japanese,
didn't.
There's a small (very small) grain of truth in that, but it's blown
out of proportion. It's turned into an online Amen Corner, really,
where fans of these guitars post about how great they are, and others
chime in.
I'm something of an aficionado of good-sounding cheap guitars,
frankly. While the Yamahas certainly have their good points, if I had
to choose between Japanese-made Yamahas from that era and modern
Seagulls, if the choice was strictly about musical merits ninety nine
times out of a hundred I'd choose the Seagull.
Maybe 999 times out of 1000.
Hope that makes sense.
Wade Hampton Miller
Chugiak, Alaska
Tony Done
I'm a big fan of some of the Japanese "quality" name electrics from that
period, like Tokai, Fernandes, Burny, Greco, Matsumoku brands etc, but I've
always been unconvinced about the acoustics. I would only buy one of those
only on a strictly comparative basis with a modern one at the same price.
This in particular would include the neck angle question - that is, can the
action be set enough? Perhaps Kevin will comment on this, but I've always
assumed that an cheap old guitar is at less risk of a rapid and deleterious
change in geometry than a cheap new one, but that is the only possible plus
I can see for a vintage Asian guitar.
Tony D
anyt...@contractorcom.com
In the late '70's I had an Aria Pro Les Paul copy. The pickups were
poor but apart from that everything about it was spot on - very well
made indeed. A mate of mine still has a Yamaha dread from the same
period and he plays it every day.
The thing about the Japanese (and any Asian production, come to think
about it) is that they've been at it a long time now and anything that
has survived from the '70's will probably go on for ever with a bit of
TLC, just like a European or American one.
At the price level of Simon & Patrick, Seagull etc, it doesn't really
matter where it comes from, what matters is if the build quality, tone
and playability satisfies you, and only you can decide that - the
country of origin of the guitar is irrelevant.
Pete
Stephen Calder
I have one of each. A 1975 Takamine F360 (copy of a Martin D28, made in
Japan) and a 2005 Blueridge BG-40 (a copy of a Gibson J-45, made in China).
Comparison recordings I just made of the same fingerstyle piece played
on each guitar will be available here shortly (within a few days).
My opinion is that the Takamine has more evenness between bass and
treble. The Blueridge bass is a little fatter.
I love both guitars but what doesn't show in the recordings, in which
they sound very similar, is the volume the Blueridge puts out compared
to the Takamine. The Blueridge is a little lighter in weight.
The guitars are hard to compare on a value-for-money basis. I paid much
less in real terms for the Blueridge (counted as hours worked to earn
it) but it's at least as good as, and better than, the Takamine,
especially if you like a big sound and a rich bass. I got the Blueridge
late last year, so it's not reached its full potential yet.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Ed Edelenbos
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:4686...@news.eftel.com.au...
> Jay wrote:
>> I recall an article in one of the guitar magazines a few years ago which
>> extolled the virtues of Japanese factory steel strung guitars such as
>> the above, before production was moved to Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, China
>> (possibly in that order?).
>>
>> I just wondered what you guys made of this - is it true that the Japanese
>> guitars are generally really good - and also how they compare to the
>> 'good' budget guitars of today - not the same makes, but for example
>> Simon and Patrick et al.
>>
>> Thanks for any info.
>> J.
>
> I have one of each. A 1975 Takamine F360 (copy of a Martin D28, made in
> Japan) and a 2005 Blueridge BG-40 (a copy of a Gibson J-45, made in
> China).
>
Not to be obtuse, but I'd expect the two to be pretty darned different just
based on the vastly different designs. The D28 and J-45 are both *called*
dreadnaughts but there are some pretty big differences between them...
slope vs. square shoulder, scale length, and bracing being the most obvious.
Ed
Mike Brown
I don't think you can generalize as much as to say "all Japanese" or
"all anything".
I have a Japanese made Washburn 12 that I bought in about 79 or 80 that
is a wonderful guitar. I've also owned several Yamahas that were very
good. I personally don't care for Fender (I've owned one) or Takamine
(never played one that I liked) acoustics, but that is only a personal
observation.
Some of the new Chinese made acoustics are excellent for the cost. I
have three, a Cort, a Washburn, and a "Nashville" metal bodied tricone.
It's only by playing a particular guitar that you can decide whether
"it" (not another one of the same model) is any good, they all (even
expensive American makes) vary greatly guitar to guitar.
MJRB
Ken Cashion
Wade, one reason the Yamahas sounded so good was that the elitists
were saying a Jap guitar was crap and only a Martin or Gibson was
worth any body's time. So many guys who didn't know any better wasn't
expecting much from the Japanese guitars; consequently, they were
surprised to find them far better than the American elitists had been
saying.
Many of us learned that the elitists were bad-mouthing Jap guitars
because they were not American made and they wanted everyone to think
their American guitars were better than they really were...by
comparison. (And I think they were feeling a little threatened by
this changing market. And this still continues.)
So when we looked at guitars at a dollar-for-dollar, sound and quality
per dollar, yes, we were very impressed. Time has not changed that. I
knew what cheap guitars felt and sounded like because I was playing
Harmony back then...it was about all I could afford.
So, yep, folks like me were real impressed to find that the elitists
had been pulling our chains and the Japanese (Asian) guitars were
great buys. This hasn't changed.
>I'm something of an aficionado of good-sounding cheap guitars,
>frankly. While the Yamahas certainly have their good points, if I had
>to choose between Japanese-made Yamahas from that era and modern
>Seagulls, if the choice was strictly about musical merits ninety nine
>times out of a hundred I'd choose the Seagull.
>
>Maybe 999 times out of 1000.
>
>Hope that makes sense.
Not withstanding the other generalities...Wade, the Yamahas of the
1970s WERE the Seagulls of their day. Or worded the other way around,
the Seagulls of today were the Yamahas of the 1970s...the best sound
for the buck.
Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
Stephen, your mentioning of cost relative to hours worked to attain
it, is something often overlooked when talking about guitar prices
then and now.
Even using an inflation calculator doesn't mean much if we don't know
what the average income was when the money was at that rate.
Once I saw the price of things back when, related to the cost of a
loaf of bread. The calculator would have said that a guitar in 2007
would have cost a the same as 2,000 loaves of bread in 2007 and a
similar guitar purchased in 1920 would cost the same number of loaves.
This puts the price of the commodity at a more understandable level.
Ken
anyt...@contractorcom.com
wrote:
Certainly in the UK the cost of guitars has gone down hugely. I
remember seeing Vox 'Teardrop' guitars in a local music store at well
over£100 in 1972.
Cou can get a (much better made) Squier for £120 these days.
Even a half-way decent acoustic costs something like the average
weekly wage in the UK - back in the 70's it was nearer a month's
worth.
Pete
Wade Hampton Miller
That's not in dispute.
A couple of points, though - once the Yamahas and the other Asian
imports killed the low end American-made guitar industry, the
remaining guitars still being made in this country were only the
professional grade instruments: Martin, Guild, Gibson, and for a while
Mossman, Gurian and LoPrinzi.
Gibson's many appalling guitars built during the Norlin era aside, in
terms of quality and tone, the plywood Yamahas don't compare with the
pro grade American guitars from that time.
Great bang for the buck, sure. Towering musical achievements that
will stand unchallenged through the ages - hmm, maybe not.
I understand the enthusiasm for the Japanese-made Yamahas, and think
it's fine. But I stand by what I wrote about the online inflation of
their reputation.
Now, I know that championing many of these inexpensive instruments is
a passion for you, and don't have a problem with that, either (not
that you'd LISTEN if I tried to change your mind!!)
But, honestly, I don't have a canine in this conflagration, and don't
care either way. I'm personally detached on the subject.
And what I wrote and stand by is that they were great in their day,
and they're still fine for what they are. But I've never been
impressed enough with any I've ever played to want to buy one.
Hope that makes sense. When all is said and done, I'm not sure that
there are really any major points of contention between us, we're just
seeing it from different perspectives.
Ken Cashion
<WadeIn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ken, yes, the Japanese Yamahas were good guitars for the money.
>That's not in dispute.
>
>A couple of points, though - once the Yamahas and the other Asian
>imports killed the low end American-made guitar industry, the
>remaining guitars still being made in this country were only the
>professional grade instruments: Martin, Guild, Gibson, and for a while
>Mossman, Gurian and LoPrinzi.
Yep...competition does that a lot with most everything. I remember
when Sam Walton advertised that only American-made products would be
in his stores. He is dead. <g>
>Gibson's many appalling guitars built during the Norlin era aside, in
>terms of quality and tone, the plywood Yamahas don't compare with the
>pro grade American guitars from that time.
We agree. They weren't supposed to. And they didn't. They were an
option and in truth, they didn't have to be as good as they were to
accomplish the same market take-over.
>Great bang for the buck, sure. Towering musical achievements that
>will stand unchallenged through the ages - hmm, maybe not.
Two different things there. I agree with both statements.
>I understand the enthusiasm for the Japanese-made Yamahas, and think
>it's fine. But I stand by what I wrote about the online inflation of
>their reputation.
And Wade, I was not disagreeing with you. I was explaining why that
reputation became so good...we bottom feeders were being told by our
idols that they were junk. So we started listening for ourselves and
found that they weren't junk.
I believe that if we had been told that they were good market values
and sounded pretty good for the money, and if we were short of cash,
buy one...their reputation would not seem to be so grandioso now. They
simply exceeded expectations because of what we had been told by the
Gibson and Martin owners.
There were a lot of snobs working in music stores back then and they
weren't too ready to be honest about their competition. (Maybe things
haven't changed all that much.)
>Now, I know that championing many of these inexpensive instruments is
>a passion for you, and don't have a problem with that, either (not
>that you'd LISTEN if I tried to change your mind!!)
Oh, I'd LISTEN! <G> Wade, you are correct about my thinking that
music has value and it costs. The better the music, often the more it
costs. Some people cannot afford the best, but now they do not have
to wait until they have the money to buy the best. They can get very
good sound out of a cheaper guitar...if wisely selected.
If sound and dollar are considered in a purchase, (and I think they
are) at some point we decide that there are too many dollars needed to
acquire a particular sound...there is too many bucks asked for the
bang.
But we know that people pay lots of money for a guitar that does not
necessarily sound better than a less expensive guitar. They are
buying something unassociated with the sound the guitar is to make.
Point is...it is obvious to consider the cost of the sound, and some
instruments will give more sound per buck than others. This is what
makes me appreciate most (if not all) cheap guitars...or not-so-cheap
used ones. It is also the knowledge that I paid $200 for my last new
guitar (I had gone in to buy some picks) and I could have just as
easily have paid $4000 for a new one. But I have an idea that the
music I would generate would not sound 20 times better on the more
expensive one.
The newsgroup has discussed this no end, but the facts don't change.
When some guy pays $7000 for a hand-built, he might have rather had
someone else's made for $8500 but he just decided to get the cheaper
one. <g>
>But, honestly, I don't have a canine in this conflagration, and don't
>care either way. I'm personally detached on the subject.
>
>And what I wrote and stand by is that they were great in their day,
>and they're still fine for what they are. But I've never been
>impressed enough with any I've ever played to want to buy one.
>
>Hope that makes sense. When all is said and done, I'm not sure that
>there are really any major points of contention between us, we're just
>seeing it from different perspectives.
Yep. And the scary thing is that the things I have learned about many
of my hobbies is still true about music. We model designers said that
a good sailplane flier could swap models with you and then out-fly you
with your own model. The camera that I thought was limiting me, could
be borrowed by a better photographer and it would produce images
superior to mine.
And Wade, you could play on my FG-140 and I would realize that all
this time, I had been holding the guitar back...that there was lots of
music in the box that I just could not get out. <g>
This would lead me to believe that the FG-140 was a better guitar than
I needed. Probably is. <g>
Ken
Kevin Hall
D-28-based design and a J-45 clone are like comparing a piano with an organ.
Both may be great instruments in their own sphere, but the designs were so
different that the results lead them in two different directions.
When offshore manufacturers 'copy' prominent US and other designs they often
mix and match major design criteria like scale length and bracing types in
ways which are inappropriate for the overall body shapes involved.
For instance, part of the problem with Yamahas' high end experiments in the
FG-1500 series years ago was that they used their own body shapes but used a
mish-mash of Martin scales with the very light Gibson style bracing. Brace
placement was all wrong for the broader bodies and longer scales, with very
predictable results.
Any reasonably accurate repro of a J-45 would be expected to have slightly
less 'bite' up the board and somewhat warmer ( muddier?) bass than a good
copy of a D-28, but if the copier starts messing about with mix-and-match
scales, bracing and other critical specs, all bets are off.
The '75 Tak is likely to have back and sides built of wood of the dreaded
ply tree, while the Blureridge may well be all solid, so again we have an
unfair comparison.
KH
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:4686...@news.eftel.com.au...
jtougas
monkeys to jump on the keyboard and write:
>I recall an article in one of the guitar magazines a few years ago which
>extolled the virtues of Japanese factory steel strung guitars such as the
>above, before production was moved to Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, China
>(possibly in that order?).
I have a mid-70s-ish Yamaha small dreadnought that sounds much better
than it should - laminate woods and all.
--
jtougas
"listen- there's a hell of a good universe next door
let's go" - e.e. cummings
Kevin Hall
retail consumers are not aware of them.
Many of the names with which we are familiar are not really manufacturers at
all, merely 'house labels'. That is, companies like Fender, Washburn,
Saga et al decide to market a particular type of guitar in a given market
area, then they go shopping for the best price from one of the many
manufacturing plants in Asia and they make a deal for this seasons'
production. Next year they may well switch manufacturing plants and even
countries for the production of a supposedly identical model at more
favourable terms or price.
For instance, for a period in the mid to late 70s Fenders' 'F' series
flat-tops were made in the same plant as Martins' 'Sigma' line, and were
virtually identical in major aspect with the exception of cosmetics and
labels.
If one year the production is in a well run plant in say Japan, and the
following year the same make and model is jobbed out to say a Korean or
Tiawanese outfit which may or may not be as careful with things like climate
control, seemingly identical instruments may in fact be worlds apart in
overall quality and longevity.
That situation was going on all the time I was actively involved in the game
in the 70s and 80s, and it is still going on today.
A major problem with Asian production is humidity. Instruments made in the
same factory but at different times of the year can vary hugely in moisture
content and so in stability. Every North American importer of offshore
instruments has been through the mill with this issue over the past 40 years
or so. As a general observation, the Japanese factories were the first of
the offshore outfits to recognize and respond to this problem, and as each
new Asian manufacturing area came on stream they responded in varying
levels.
I was involved with Washburn, Yamaha and briefly Hohner in Canada as a
product consultant during the late 70s and early 80s, and all had their
brushes with drastic humidity problems. I remember well Washburn getting
shipments in of instruments which looked reasonably good at first but
rapidly shrank, back-bowed and became practically unsaleable in a matter of
weeks in the Canadian warehouse. The folks at Washburn in the US and the
Canadian distributor at the time ( Boosey and Hawkes) reacted swiftly and
demanded that the offshore manufacturer control ambient moisture during the
manufacturing process, making it clear that they would switch suppliers
swiftly if the manufacturer did not comply. The offending instruments were
either rejected outright, repaired and sold at a reduced price or sold off
as seconds to repairshops which did the required work and sold them as
'scratch and dents'. This kept the name brand unsullied and protected
retail customers from buying potential 'bombs' at full pop.
Other importers may or may not have responded as vigorously to similar
problems.
I believe that in those days Yamaha was the only offshore-based distributor
which owned their own manufacturing facilities outright, and that gave them
much better control over the finished product. It also gave them a vested
interest in doing it right.
As manufacturing costs escalated in Japan, they were quick to expand into
cheaper labour zones like Korea and Taiwan but again they maintained control
of the plants themselves. Don't know if the situation remains the same
today.
Many of the newer makes and models are coming out of China and places like
Indonesia, and again humidity questions are coming into play. China is a
huge place, and some factories are in tropical areas in which relative
humidity is very high for much of the year. Others are in areas with
climates similar to that in parts of North America. That makes it much
easier ( and less costly) for them to regulate climatic conditions inside
the plant, and so if I had to place a bet on longevity and stability of the
Chinese instruments my money would be on those produced in those factories.
The same basic issues have plagued offshore production for over 40 years
now, but it seems that many distributors, particularly those in N.America
have to learn the lesson the hard way over and over again.
Retail buyers can protect themselves by looking past the cosmetics when
shopping. Examine each candidate instrument carefully for signs of
shrinkage in joints, sinking tops, necks back-bowing etc. Check that fret
ends do not protrude from the sides of the fingerboard. That's a sure sign
that the board is shrinking and if it is, chances are good that further
damage may crop up in future.
A rippled or corduroy effect in softwood tops is another tell-tale sign of
humidity loss. Of course these things can be aggravated by conditions in
the store, but they do give a clue that the instrument may well have been
assembled in 'wet' conditions and may well give trouble down the line.
These things should be checked regardless of country of origin, but they
are more likely to be found in offshore products than domestic.
All the best,
KH
KH
"Mike Brown" <rock...@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
news:4686fa83$1...@news.chariot.net.au...
Ed Edelenbos
"Kevin Hall" <timbe...@webhart.net> wrote in message
news:138fh0i...@corp.supernews.com...
> There are problems with buying 'brand name' offshore instruments, and
> most retail consumers are not aware of them.
>
> Many of the names with which we are familiar are not really manufacturers
> at all, merely 'house labels'. That is, companies like Fender,
> Washburn, Saga et al decide to market a particular type of guitar in a
> given market area, then they go shopping for the best price from one of
> the many manufacturing plants in Asia and they make a deal for this
> seasons' production. Next year they may well switch manufacturing
> plants and even countries for the production of a supposedly identical
> model at more favourable terms or price.
>
Without arguing with you... I think Saga is a different beast. They are
the manufacturer of their brands (Blueridge, Durango, etc.). I think most
of the "traditional" American brands, Wahsburn, Fender, even Harmony
(again), and others are shopping for offshore manufacturers (like you
suggest) like they have done for years and years.
> For instance, for a period in the mid to late 70s Fenders' 'F' series
> flat-tops were made in the same plant as Martins' 'Sigma' line, and were
> virtually identical in major aspect with the exception of cosmetics and
> labels.
>
I think (but could be very wrong) the late 70's to the mid 80's was the big
buildup era for Samick. It is very likely (again, *I think*) that both of
these models (and a plethora of others) came out of the Samick plant. I
forget the exact years (and where I read it) but I remember reading for some
period of time Samick was the biggest guitar (and maybe musical instrument)
manufacturer in the world. Sometimes in the late 80's they came out with
guitars with their name on
them in the US and followed with pianos and violin family instruments and
whatever other instruments they had been manufacturing for other companies
for years. One of the owners in a local shop very enthusiastically showed
me some guitars he had gotten in with the shop name on them. It was as
though I had knocked the wind out of his sails when I asked if they were
made by Samick.... even though he said they were. This was in the mid 90's
or so.
Ed
Don
>
> - Show quoted text -
My first "good" guitar was a Yamaha L10. I was delighted with it and
played it for many years. As even more of a novice than I am
presently, I lacked the experience to recognize its faults. The top
was seriously over-braced and it was relatively "dead" compared to the
Martin designs it was "interpreting." But it was _such_ a serious
improvement over my FG-180, which in turn had been an improvement over
the (gag!) Bruno "Conqueror" that was my first steel-string (My
fingers still wake up with screaming nightmares of the Bruno and its
Black Diamond strings). But I loved that L10. I used it to court my
first wife and 20 years I gave it to my daughter of that marriage and
her mother gave her a cassette tape of love songs I recorded with it
during our long-distance courtship. Kirsten lives in Germany and the
German climate is not kind to acoustic guitars. It has deteriorated,
and Kirsten doesn't play as much as she used to. I'd like to get it
back, because I know some people who say than can "fix" that model -
no doubt with some judicious brace scalloping. But of course I can't
- it means too much to my daughter. Nice guitar, great for what I
paid, and a reliable warhorse for 10 important years. I play better
instruments now, but I wouldn't mind having that one back.
Don
stv
Without having read any of the replies to this yet, I can site a few
examples of some very good stuff from that time.
Lopers' songwriter/guitarist Dave McConnell has a Yamaha dread from
that era, and it has aged VERY well. It has a screw-mount bridge that
probably keeps the sound from its absolute best (IMO), and because of
that one we hear from other folks who play Yamahas, a number who have
the FG series guitars from that time that sound really good and are
healthy and robust. When we record Dave's songs, we generally use
other guitars than the Yamaha, but it's still one that provokes/
inspires his writing a -lot-.
Dave also has a "lawsuit" Takemine D-28 copy (which I'll be putting up
on eBay soon, actually) which doesn't sound Martin-like, but is a very
nice-sounding guitar.
As for contemporary PacRim instruments... The S&Ps seem to be
exceptionally good. It's tough to compare any instrument with years
of playing time on them to new instruments, but my own view is that
many of the '80's Japanese guitars are a good deal better than PacRims
have been for a while now. Takemine's top range may be an
exception...
An awfully lot of folks play them and love them. I haven't much
affection for their acoustic sound, but they seem to excell as
electric/acoustic stage instruments.
If that sounds to be 'all over the place,' I confess, it is. ;-)
I couldn't say that -in general- the earlier Japanese guitars were
better than later ones, but a lot of individual ones were.
When they began, the Japanese had a lot to prove, so there are some
very nice instruments from that time. In the last few years,
manufacturing processes have become quite automated and market
penetration came more from low-cost manufacture and distribution than
from making solid and great-sounding instruments, so it's my view that
the overall quality has decreased.
stv
--
steve V johnson
The Culchies, Irish traditional music The Lopers, original
acoustic music
CD, "Bruscar Bán" now at CD, "Ghosts Like Me" now
at
http://www.OSSIANUSA.com http://cdbaby.com/Lopers
and and
http://cdbaby.com/Culchies http://profile.myspace.com/thelopersband
Tom from Texas
> It's very tough to compare such different designs head to head. A
> D-28-based design and a J-45 clone are like comparing a piano with an
> organ. Both may be great instruments in their own sphere, but the designs
> were so different that the results lead them in two different directions.
>
> When offshore manufacturers 'copy' prominent US and other designs they
> often mix and match major design criteria like scale length and bracing
> types in ways which are inappropriate for the overall body shapes
> involved.
>
> For instance, part of the problem with Yamahas' high end experiments in
> the FG-1500 series years ago was that they used their own body shapes but
> used a mish-mash of Martin scales with the very light Gibson style
> bracing. Brace placement was all wrong for the broader bodies and longer
> scales, with very predictable results.
>
> Any reasonably accurate repro of a J-45 would be expected to have slightly
> less 'bite' up the board and somewhat warmer ( muddier?) bass than a good
> copy of a D-28, but if the copier starts messing about with mix-and-match
> scales, bracing and other critical specs, all bets are off.
>
> The '75 Tak is likely to have back and sides built of wood of the dreaded
> ply tree, while the Blureridge may well be all solid, so again we have
> an unfair comparison.
>
> KH
Kevn,
The Blueridge BG-40 is laminated back and sides. The BG-140 is solid back
and sides. Both have solid tops.
--
Tom from Texas
(The Tom Risner Fund for Deserving North Texas Guitarplayers is not liable
for any slander, hurt feelings, pointless moaning, or achy-breaky heartache
any
post under this name should cause. Yall want some easy cash or sympathy...
ya can kiss my grits!! )
Ken Cashion
wrote:
Don, I know the feeling. They become old friends. I got the FG-140
back. I wanted it back but I just didn't want my friend to die for me
to get it.
Ken
Don
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 12:35:22 -0700, Don <dc.erick...@adelphia.net>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ken:
Ouch! That's too high a price. I've toyed with the notion of getting
my daughter a better player and offering her a swap, but I expect
she'd be hurt that I wanted it back. The thing has a lot of mojo for
her.
Don
anyt...@contractorcom.com
wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:49:14 -0700, Wade Hampton Miller
That lot would be love-15 to Ken, I guess.
P
anyt...@contractorcom.com
wrote:
I really don't get all this stuff. When I'm in the market for a new
guitar (which is not often, seeing as I have so many of the damn
things...:-)), one of 3 things happen:
1) I start thinking about money and appointments and order one from a
luthier-this has happened twice....erm, no, this has happened 3 times
and is possibly going to happen again shortly.
2) I go shopping and buy one I like - or my wife buys me one I have a
passing fancy for at Christmas. I wish she would do the same thing
with someone like Claudia Schiffer but you can't have everything.
3) I get lucky and someone I know has one he/she want's to get rid of
- that I like.
Other than that - I really can't be bothered with body sizes - they
either play and sound well or they don't.
Pete
porc...@aol.com
> I recall an article in one of the guitar magazines a few years ago which
> extolled the virtues of Japanese factory steel strung guitars such as the
> above, before production was moved to Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, China
> (possibly in that order?).
>
> I just wondered what you guys made of this - is it true that the Japanese
> guitars are generally really good - and also how they compare to the 'good'
> budget guitars of today - not the same makes, but for example Simon and
> Patrick et al.
>
> Thanks for any info.
> J.
1970sPenco guitars were very good guitars for he money then, and some
of them still make nice guitars today. They were pretty close to
being direct Martin and Gibson copies. I have both a Penco small
bodied 6 string and a 12 string dread. The 12 string needs a nec
reset, and its probably more economcal to buy a new guitar. But its
sounds good, and used to be very playable. The small bodied 6 string
sounds good, but not as good as a real Martin. I dont think you can
generalize too much. I think you need to play a guitar and judge it
on its own indvidual merits. My 6 string string aged better tehn my
12, but the 12 has been played a whole lot more, becasue the 6 is
pretty much redundent - a good quality camping trip knock about guitar
cause its not as nice as the Martin, guild, Gibson and Kalamazoo are.
Wade Hampton Miller
>
> Without arguing with you... I think Saga is a different beast. They are
> the manufacturer of their brands (Blueridge, Durango, etc.). I think most
> of the "traditional" American brands, Wahsburn, Fender, even Harmony
> (again), and others are shopping for offshore manufacturers (like you
> suggest) like they have done for years and years.
>
wrong about Saga owning its own manufacturing facilities.
I've been a Saga home dealer since 1984, and a good friend of Saga's
President and sole proprietor Richard Keldsen for longer than that.
So far as I'm aware the only time Saga owned a plant where Saga
employees built instruments for the company was for the three years or
so in the mid-80's that they had the one facility in the Japanese Alps
where they built their most expensive mandolins.
And that was five or six guys building mandolins by hand in a building
that was about the size of a post-WWII Levittown one story slab
house. When I visited, I was surprised by how small it was.
Even during that brief period when they owned that place, the
overwhelming majority of instruments that Saga sold under its various
brand names were built under contract by jobbers.
When the yen rose sharply against the dollar in 1985, it was no longer
profitable for Richard to own a factory or even have any instruments
built in Japan at all, so the change to Korean production (which had
already begun in a small way) accellerated. Within a year or two no
Saga instruments were built in Japan at all, and there's never been
another Saga-owned production facility. Not that I'm aware of,
anyway.
If there has been it's been the merest blip in the history of the
company.
The mainstay of Saga's business practice has ALWAYS been to use
subcontractors to build the instruments, and the processes described
by Kevin in his post are a precise description of what Richard's had
to deal with over the years.
The only company I can think of whose Asian factory matches the
business model you suggested for Saga is Takamine: that's an American-
owned company that owns its Japanese factory and has Japanese
employees. I know that for certain because I talk with Takamine's
product manager once and a while.
I've also heard rumors (no more than that) that Gibson owns its
Epiphone production facility in Korea, but I'm kind of dubious on that
one, particularly since so much Epiphone production seems to be coming
out of China these days.
But Takamine does fit the US company-owned Asian factory model you
proposed for Saga.
Saga does not.
Hope that clarifies matters.
Wade Hampton Miller
tried posting it, but it still hasn't shown up where I can read it.
(Usually they show up pretty fast.)
That happens sometimes with Google newsgroups - stuff can just
disappear into the void, for whatever reason, and never be seen again.
Since I put some effort into it I saved it for just that reason, and
will now attempt to re-post. Hopefully it'll get through this time.
If some of you can see the first attempt even though I can't, my
apologies for double posting.
whm
Ed Edelenbos wrote:
>
> Without arguing with you... I think Saga is a different beast. They are
> the manufacturer of their brands (Blueridge, Durango, etc.). I think most
> of the "traditional" American brands, Wahsburn, Fender, even Harmony
> (again), and others are shopping for offshore manufacturers (like you
> suggest) like they have done for years and years.
>
>
And without arguing with you, Ed and with all respect, you're dead
wrong about Saga owning its own manufacturing facilities.
I've been a Saga home dealer since 1984, and a good friend of Saga's
President and sole proprietor Richard Keldsen for longer than that.
So far as I'm aware the only time Saga owned a plant where Saga
employees built instruments for the company was for the three years or
so in the mid-80's that they had the one facility in the Japanese Alps
where they built their most expensive mandolins.
And that was five or six guys building mandolins by hand in a building
that was about the size of a post-WWII Levittown one story slab
house. When I visited, I was surprised by how small it was.
Even during that brief period when they owned that place, the
overwhelming majority of instruments that Saga sold under its various
brand names were built under contract by jobbers.
When the yen rose sharply against the dollar in 1985, it was no longer
profitable for Richard to own a factory or even have any instruments
built in Japan at all, so the change to Korean production (which had
already begun in a small way) accellerated. Within a year or two no
Saga instruments were built in Japan at all, and there's never been
another Saga-owned production facility in any country. Not that I'm
Joel Tepp
>I recall an article in one of the guitar magazines a few years ago which
>extolled the virtues of Japanese factory steel strung guitars such as the
>above, before production was moved to Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, China
>(possibly in that order?).
>
>I just wondered what you guys made of this - is it true that the Japanese
>guitars are generally really good - and also how they compare to the 'good'
>budget guitars of today - not the same makes, but for example Simon and
>Patrick et al.
>
>Thanks for any info.
>J.
>
There are several names from that era that haven't received much focus
here yet.
Takamnine made it's reputation with Martin and Guild copies. The jumbo
Guild style 12 string and the Martin D-28 copy (f-360S) both had solid
tops and are very useful instruments. In addition, they have held
together better than the red label Yamahas of the same era.
There are two other makers of that time who made solid top guitars
that I believe are worth paying attention to. Yasuma and Yamaki. One
of the two, I've forgotten which, was imported into Canada but
apparently not directly into the US. I see them around Seattle from
time to time but more often can find them in B.C. when I'm up there.
I have a rosewood Yamaki dreadnought that used to be my favorite
"beach guitar" until I took a really good listen to it. Now I
consider it too nice for the beach. Well, bless the scratched up and
well used Seagull that came along in a yard sale to fill that gap.
J
Ed Edelenbos
"Wade Hampton Miller" <WadeIn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1183334006.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Thanks Wade... I stand (or sit actually) corrected.
Ed
Kevin Hall
I don't remember Taks being around at the time the FG-180s etc. hit the
shore. Don't recall having them in stores here ( Canada) until the early to
mid 70s actually. It's possible they were at it before then, but I didn't
run into them even though I was working in the trade at the time.
Yamakis were exactly the same product as the 'Mansfield' labelled guitars,
with the distributor using the old 'protected territory' trick to get two
dealers in the same area flogging the same product under different labels.
Most of their early solid topped models used western red cedar for tops,
supplied by my old friend the late Bill Lewis.
Bill sold container-loads of that BC cedar to 'em, and pretty much started
the frenzy for solid cedar tops on steel strings in the late 60s. Many of
those early tops blew up because manufacturers and individual luthiers
tended to brace them as if they were spruce, and because at that time very
few of us were aware that cedar requires at least double the clamp time
spruce does when using the same adhesives.
The Mansfield/Yamakis were very lightly braced, and produced impressive
tone but were very prone to premature folding.
KH
"Joel Tepp" <joel...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dopg83pq5160bnod7...@4ax.com...
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:32:54 GMT, "Jay" <m...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I recall an article in one of the guitar magazines a few years ago which
>>extolled the virtues of Japanese factory steel strung guitars such as the
>>above, before production was moved to Taiwan, Korea, Indonesia, China
>>(possibly in that order?).
>>
>>I just wondered what you guys made of this - is it true that the Japanese
>>guitars are generally really good - and also how they compare to the 'good'
>>budget guitars of today - not the same makes, but for example Simon and
>>Patrick et al.
>>
>>Thanks for any info.
>>J.
>>
>
>
>There are several names from that era that haven't received much focus
>here yet.
>
>Takamnine made it's reputation with Martin and Guild copies. The jumbo
>Guild style 12 string and the Martin D-28 copy (f-360S) both had solid
>tops and are very useful instruments. In addition, they have held
>together better than the red label Yamahas of the same era.
And with good reason. Those Yamahas were built very light. I wonder
if the company actually intended that they be playing 35 years later.
<g>
>There are two other makers of that time who made solid top guitars
>that I believe are worth paying attention to. Yasuma and Yamaki. One
>of the two, I've forgotten which, was imported into Canada but
>apparently not directly into the US. I see them around Seattle from
>time to time but more often can find them in B.C. when I'm up there.
>
>I have a rosewood Yamaki dreadnought that used to be my favorite
>"beach guitar" until I took a really good listen to it. Now I
>consider it too nice for the beach. Well, bless the scratched up and
>well used Seagull that came along in a yard sale to fill that gap.
I have the old Silvertone that has been all over the world with me but
a couple of years ago, I was going to go on a drive-about and would
end up in Key West. There would be some hot cars involved and
questionable motel rooms and bars.
I just couldn't expose the Silvertone to that, though I once did, and
worse. It had over the years become to valuable to me.
I bought a new cheapo Fender flat top and gig bag to take instead. It
wasn't much -- but then, it didn't have to be.
Ken
Tony Done
I've always thought that the only advantage of an old cheap guitar over a
new cheap guitar, apart from mojo, is that it's geometry is less likely to
change drastically in the medium term, because of the climate considerations
you mention. So provided it has good geometry when you buy it, and you don't
abuse it with over-heavy strings or inappropriate environment, it is likely
to stay that way for quite a while. That do you think?
Tony D
Joel Tepp
wrote:
>And with good reason. Those Yamahas were built very light. I wonder
>if the company actually intended that they be playing 35 years later.
><g>
>
My conspiracy theory is that Yamaha execs sent those tens of thousands
of guitars over here and then sent their nephews and cousins to the
states, trained in the art of neck resets.
I have a favorite cartoon in my file at the office. It shows an
exective in his office, leaning over a speakerphone and yelling
"What's wrong with you people in quality control? Our products are
lasting forever."
J
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 10:01:12 -0500, Ken Cashion <kcas...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>And with good reason. Those Yamahas were built very light. I wonder
>>if the company actually intended that they be playing 35 years later.
>><g>
>>
>
>My conspiracy theory is that Yamaha execs sent those tens of thousands
>of guitars over here and then sent their nephews and cousins to the
>states, trained in the art of neck resets.
That is funny. And if it is a good progressive company looking to the
future, there could be some truth to it. <g>
>I have a favorite cartoon in my file at the office. It shows an
>exective in his office, leaning over a speakerphone and yelling
>"What's wrong with you people in quality control? Our products are
>lasting forever."
I think with that complaint, it is a very old cartoon. <g>
Ken, who is on the third weed eater in a year.
Ed Maier
>
>
> Ken, who is on the third weed eater in a year.
I used to have that problem too, until I learned those spools could be
rethreaded.
:-) :-) :-) :-)
Ed Maier
Ken Cashion
I am reminded of the Aggie who had a chain saw but didn't like it. He
took it back and told him that he was unhappy with it. It was too
much work and didn't cut that good any way.
The sales guy says, "Well, lets see what the problem is."
He gave a pull on it and it started immediately.
The Aggie jumped back and yelled, "WHAT'S THAT NOISE!?"
Ken (and now the Aggie jokes begin. <g>)
Misifus
The most unkindest cut of all. <g>
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rafse...@suddenlink.net
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
levi
> For instance, for a period in the mid to late 70s Fenders' 'F' series
> flat-tops were made in the same plant as Martins' 'Sigma' line, and were
> virtually identical in major aspect with the exception of cosmetics and
> labels.
Hi Kevin,
Can you provide more history (privately if you wish) on the Fender F
series
production? I'm sort of an afficianado, I guess -- my first guitar
was an F-65
from circa 1974, and I've managed to acquire three more of them, plus
an F-75,
an F-85, and two F-80-12s to boot. Yep, I noticed the small
differences in construction, finish, and most importantly, sound (now
I search out only the
"old" ones like my first one) and realized that the manufacturer had
been
changed. If memory serves, my 1st F-65 had a "Made In Korea" sticker
on
the back of the headstock - weren't Sigmas made in Japan during the
80's?
Thanks!
anyt...@contractorcom.com
My first acoustic was a Fender. I wouldn't have the first clue what
the model was. It was a dread.
Nor have I any idea what happened to it. I suspect I flogged it to
someone in order to buy the next whatever it was I wanted.
I had a lot of fun with it though. If I played it now, I'd prolly
think it was an absolute dog. I wonder how many of us would feel real
pain playing our first guitars?
Pete
Kevin Hall
the time I was working for Martin ( '76/'77) several of the Sigma models
were being made in the same plant as some of the F series. Seems to me it
was one of Shiro Arais' operations at that time.
KH
"levi" <le...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:1183498872.5...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
levi
I wonder too. A good setup can make a huge difference.
I hung on to mine. Some kind of mojo or something.
There are deep grooves all up and down the fretboard, the
bridge is cracked (and probably can't be replaced because
the top is plywood) . Occasionally, some folks have found
it to have a surprising sound and feel when they played it.
Sadly, a strap accident let it fall to the floor one day last
year and some of the internal bracing popped loose. The
cost to fix it is far more than it's worth, even counting
emotional attachment. It hasn't hit the rubbish bin yet, tho.
Mike Brown
I went through a similar experience, then I bought a Kawasaki two stroke
model which is still going well with only the replacememnt of the line
guard.
MJRB
hank alrich
> I wonder how many of us would feel real pain playing our first guitars?
1959 Silvertone Deadknot - a finger's thickness, strings to frets, by
the 7th fret. $29.95 w/chipbaord case. Real, actual pain.
But at least it sounded awful.
--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
hank alrich
> Ken, who is on the third weed eater in a year.
Lease Sorell pasture.
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>anything wrote:
>
>> I wonder how many of us would feel real pain playing our first guitars?
>
>1959 Silvertone Deadknot - a finger's thickness, strings to frets, by
>the 7th fret. $29.95 w/chipbaord case. Real, actual pain.
>
>But at least it sounded awful.
You still have it?
You want to sell it?
Just joking...but barely.
My True Tone, from that great guitar emporium of South Texas, Western
Auto, was everything it was supposed to be. Even with the best
strings available from the drug store (Black Diamond -- unwrapped
third), it still sounded good...I thought.
At least it was a guitar and I could do G, D7, and C...for a little
while.
My second guitar was a God-send from the PX at Lackland Air Force
Base...a beautiful, Harmony Broadway arch top.
("God-send" would be a good name for a product.)
Ken
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>
>> Ken, who is on the third weed eater in a year.
>
>Lease Sorell pasture.
That is a thought, but I would have to check Google first. I would
have to look up "sheep alligator eat." (I am not concerned with the
sheep eating alligators.)
Ken