Now hereās something i donāt understand (yet).
How is it that a guitar from the '50ās, will fetch around 100.000ā¬?
Have a look:
This all started last week, when i had a conversation with my teacher about how heās trading in a Gibson of his, for a Telecaster (played and owned by a know cult figure around here.), from the '50ās.
He didnāt disclose the price, but it came close to a small car, according to him.
Which lead me to the following question: are they really worth all that money?
If i have a look at this: 50ās Fender Factory tour then i canāt really understand the value theyāre going for now.
I mean, the productionprocess is mainly done by hand. No climatization (needed for the wood) etcā¦
Some would argue that the necks were shaped by Tadeo Gomez in that era, but during the 50ās he had employees who signed the necks they shaped with his intials. So there goes another argument for pricing, imho.
Pickups were wound by hand, so no consistency there, iām thinking.
So in all, i donāt get it.
And then thereās Rob Chapman, having something to sayā¦
It has nothing to do with their sound or playability. They are collectorās items. Same as classic cars or autographed pictures. A modern day toyota would probably beat a 63 corvette , but thats not why people buy them, common knowledge, not really a mystery.
Scarcity.
The Nocaster is one of those which will be rare because of the switchover between Broadcaster and Telecaster - itās a point in history.
'59 Les Pauls are scarce - something like 1700 LPs were made between '59 and 61, so they are priced accordingly. The fact that many of them were played by legends also increases the price.
As for sound, there are going to be differences. The woods used were often cropped from timber that had been standing round for decades; slow growing, super-matured stable wood that most luthiers would drool over.
The pickups were less āscientificā in their construction (no boffins were working out the minutiae) and were therefore often unique in their sound from one to another.
Whether anyone would notice the difference is another question.
Mostly though, itās just that mystique of something which is old. Clapton played this, Hendrix played thatā¦etc.
Joe Bonamassa sums it up - āI donāt buy guitars, I buy storiesā
Yeah itās cool if Jimi Hendrix played a guitar but itās still wood and metal to me. He could have achieved the same with any guitar. Iād rather listen to what he produced with the guitar than have a crazy expensive guitar on my wall. Not saying others are wrong, this is just my take
Obviously the 59 Les Pauls and similar are silly money dictated by a small market with deep pockets. However for me playing a vintage guitar makes me feel different in a way I canāt truly describe.
I used to own a 1920s Martin. It was terrible to play - it had bar frets and could probably have used a neck reset. Although I had guitars that were objectively better, every time I picked it up it felt special, there was a history, stories ā¦ it was an āoccasionā to play it (I had a Triumph TR6 and it felt similar, in every measurable way worse than a modern car, but I felt great when I drove it).
It was pretty much the only guitar I ever made a reasonable profit with, but I still regret selling it.
BTW, I would never suggest buying a vintage guitar to make a profit, however if you buy sensibly and look after it you probably wonāt lose your shirt when you sell.
I like Chapmans take and will add - people pay more for a Martin with veneer back and sides or a Taylor with veneer back and sides than a Yamaha full wood. Quality control may be tighter than Yamaha but a good luthier or a PLEK setup will cause it to equal the more famous brands. And Yamahaās FG800/FS800 series Sitka top with veneer back and sides will hold its own against any other wood veneer. Initially it was better workmanship but in these days where many other brands have caught up we are buying the socially accepted prestige that comes with the brand name.
