Moderated By: mods
See, this is where your argument doesn't make sense. If you're a collector, then the dwindling numbers should make your stock collection all the more valuable. And then if you see guitars as tools, then you shouldn't care if people have modified them to better suit their aesthetic or tonal preferences.*Dice wrote: And, at this pace, there won't be many originals left in a few years.
Then again, I'm a bit of a vintage collector as well - and appreciate old guitars as functional art as well as tools.
And, screw the Rain Forest - we can always grow new trees. What we can't do is re-build vintage instruments, no matter how hard we try.
Why doesn't this make sense? I'm a collector - not an investor. I enjoy playing vintage guitars. I'm not trying to flip them for money. My motivations have absolutely nothing to do with money. I don't care about the value of my guitars. A nicely broken in vintage guitar with an original finish is something that can't be replicated - and the playing experience is unlike anything else I've come across. I take them out - I gig them - they ARE tools, but not the same as an old rusty hammer.Aeon wrote:See, this is where your argument doesn't make sense. If you're a collector, then the dwindling numbers should make your stock collection all the more valuable. And then if you see guitars as tools, then you shouldn't care if people have modified them to better suit their aesthetic or tonal preferences.*Dice wrote: And, at this pace, there won't be many originals left in a few years.
Then again, I'm a bit of a vintage collector as well - and appreciate old guitars as functional art as well as tools.
And, screw the Rain Forest - we can always grow new trees. What we can't do is re-build vintage instruments, no matter how hard we try.
*I will admit that some of the outright butchering is horrendous, but again, I don't really see guitars as sacred relics, vintage or not
Comparing a guitar to the Mona Lisa is silly. Even a very desirable guitar, say a 50s Les Paul, is nowhere near the price or value, and the comparison holds no real merit. I understand what you are trying to get at, and I think everyone (myself included) would hate seeing old guitars butchered with Floyd Roses, unneeded humbuckers, refinished in walnut stain, etc. But that's besides the point.Dice wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of those who "don't care" about the parting out of these old shortscales own mid 60s models? Maybe I'm the odd duck here, but there is some magic in those old guitars. My '75 Bronco doesn't have it - although it is a killer guitar. I suppose if that were my only shortscale, I wouldn't really care too much either. Something about the old worn Nitro and its very unique character and feel of each guitar as it has worn and broken in over the years make me think that they should be left alone and "respected." They survived 45 years intact... I can't see tearing them apart to make a quick buck, nor can I see routing out the body and pickguard to suit your "tastes."
Of course the Mona Lisa example is "Silly."Aeon wrote:Comparing a guitar to the Mona Lisa is silly. Even a very desirable guitar, say a 50s Les Paul, is nowhere near the price or value, and the comparison holds no real merit. I understand what you are trying to get at, and I think everyone (myself included) would hate seeing old guitars butchered with Floyd Roses, unneeded humbuckers, refinished in walnut stain, etc. But that's besides the point.Dice wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of those who "don't care" about the parting out of these old shortscales own mid 60s models? Maybe I'm the odd duck here, but there is some magic in those old guitars. My '75 Bronco doesn't have it - although it is a killer guitar. I suppose if that were my only shortscale, I wouldn't really care too much either. Something about the old worn Nitro and its very unique character and feel of each guitar as it has worn and broken in over the years make me think that they should be left alone and "respected." They survived 45 years intact... I can't see tearing them apart to make a quick buck, nor can I see routing out the body and pickguard to suit your "tastes."
Whether or not I own an original Fender has nothing to do with my stance that old guitars can be parted out. Hell, Blackie (Clapton's famous strat) was made from about three or more different strats. Would you say that playing that particular guitar is any less sublime than playing an intact model from the same era? If anything, it's probably better because Clapton chose the 'best' bits from multiple guitars. For me, at least, if I were going to buy an old Fender, I would not really care if it were unmodified or if it had accumulated some new parts or minor changes over the years. In the latter case, the price would probably drop quite a bit, making it way more affordable and yet still as playable.
Fenders are great guitars, I love them, but they are an amalgamation of parts. There is no more 'magic' in one constructed from different parts from the same era than one that has the same bits as the day it came off the factory line. They are not handcrafted precision-made masterpieces, they are a cleverly constructed take on a modern instrument. Their interchangeability is perhaps one of their greatest qualities, and I don't really get mad at anyone serving the market by selling individual components. I think your example of someone buying up an old intact model only to part it out and flip it is very uncommon, but again, that is their choice and if people want to buy those parts, by all means go for it.
I been playing long enough that I remember this stuff being junk and so my opinion hasn't changed much just because the value has gone up, since I never really liked these guitars to begin with. I remember when shortscale got Bronco fever and I just could not understand it. When I started playing I would try everything, especially affordable Fenders and there were tons of Mustangs you could get sub-500 and Broncos cost around 175-250 and I remember trying them and not being impressed especially in the case of Broncos, some mustangs are ok.Dice wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of those who "don't care" about the parting out of these old shortscales own mid 60s models? Maybe I'm the odd duck here, but there is some magic in those old guitars. My '75 Bronco doesn't have it - although it is a killer guitar.
The thing I like most about Fenders are the neck scale(25.5), when it comes to shape a lot of them especially vintage ones are too skinny. Now it's easy to get a big Fender neck so that isn't a concern. As for the feel of nitro that's an opinion, and one I don't share. It makes no difference to me on a Fender and I actually prefer a poly finish.stewart wrote:fender guitars are basically all about the neck, and let's be honest, nitro feels better.
Luckily they still carry that stigma, or they'd be worth even more than they currently are.jcyphe wrote:I been playing long enough that I remember this stuff being junk and so my opinion hasn't changed much just because the value has gone up, since I never really liked these guitars to begin with. I remember when shortscale got Bronco fever and I just could not understand it. When I started playing I would try everything, especially affordable Fenders and there were tons of Mustangs you could get sub-500 and Broncos cost around 175-250 and I remember trying them and not being impressed especially in the case of Broncos, some mustangs are ok.Dice wrote: Just out of curiosity, how many of those who "don't care" about the parting out of these old shortscales own mid 60s models? Maybe I'm the odd duck here, but there is some magic in those old guitars. My '75 Bronco doesn't have it - although it is a killer guitar.
To me almost every level of Fender guitar sounds the same. It could be new, vintage, American, Japanese, Mexican, Chinese, a Tokai copy, it doesn't matter. It's still gonna sound like a Strat. If you have a jag, change the pickups and electronics and your japanese jag will sound like most any other jaguar.
