ShortScale.org

This listing is off Craigslist. $1800

Supposedly it has been barely touched and sitting in the case for about 30 years. Could be a nice pickup for someone.



http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/msg/1722614384.html

way too 'spensive for a 1972

How is a 72 different than a 69?

I've seen WAY more beat up mustangs than that sell for about the same price in music shops. That money for a desirable color scheme in a vintage fender in perfect shape sounds like a good investment.

69 has a blue headstock for starters

gold logo for seconders

Neither of those translate to added value to me....if it's the same chunk of wood with the same neck and electronics then the rest is mojo arrows.

If I was ever gonna go for a vintage Comp Stang (which I'll probably never be able to; certainly not for a while anyway) I'd only bother if I was getting a matching headstock. I know it doesn't add add anything to it technically, I just think it looks FAR cooler. If I was paying that much, I'd want a guitar that was perfect to me.

All opinions though.

What years did the Comp mustangs come with matching headstocks? What would a mint vintage Mustang like this one be worth?

matching stocks were something like 69-70, non-matching after that til some point in 73. i'd say that guitar is worth about $1200 max, and some might even say that's too much.

Nick wrote:How is a 72 different than a 69?

I've seen WAY more beat up mustangs than that sell for about the same price in music shops. That money for a desirable color scheme in a vintage fender in perfect shape sounds like a good investment.

i tend to agree with this, though it might depend on what the buyer is looking to do with the guitar. it's definitely not something you can flip quickly at that price, but i wouldn't be buying a guitar that pristine for those reasons.

In my opinion, condition means ALOT as far as value goes... I get a kick out of folks who compare the prices of things without taking into account each item's condition...many times a very clean example of a guitar can be worth (and sell for) TWICE as much as a similar guitar in lesser shape. The mint condition one for twice as much will usually have more interested buyers too. With that said, I agree a 69/70 with matching headstock is generally worth more, but based on the condition of this one I think the price is fair. If this WAS a matching headstock 69 in the same condition it would be LOTS more $$$.

well, personally i'd tend to be much less interested in a pristine guitar, i prefer them to have wear and dings. in fact, i have one almost exactly the same as the above (not pristine as such, but extremely good condition) and i've only gigged it once because i'm terrified i'll drop it onstage. if it was dinged up already i wouldn't give a shit. i'd perhaps even pay more for a bashed up one.

plus, compstangs are far less rare in the US than they are in the UK and that guitar is way more than one would expect to pay over here (where vintage fenders are generally much more expensive).

i think the problem with the more heavily dinged up vintage instruments is they're more likely to have been modified as well, and it is harder to decipher everything about them that has been changed when they're in lesser shape. not that this means they're an inferior instrument. collectors and even just enthusiasts really want something all original, and it's a lot harder to hide your mods on a really clean example of a guitar.

Why is a 69 Comp worth more? Simple... Its a first year of issue guitar.
If you want top dollar: 1969, Competition, Orange, Striped front and back, Mint

And as for condition, I love pristine, all original, guitars. I would expect to pay considerably more for pristine. But I have come to appreciate vintage guitars with honest wear as well (PLEASE, No relic'ed guitars!).

dots wrote:i think the problem with the more heavily dinged up vintage instruments is they're more likely to have been modified as well, and it is harder to decipher everything about them that has been changed when they're in lesser shape. not that this means they're an inferior instrument. collectors and even just enthusiasts really want something all original, and it's a lot harder to hide your mods on a really clean example of a guitar.

yeah, i get that viewpoint of course, i think i've just been spoiled with my duo-sonic, the neck is unbelievable and it comes from years and years of solid playing. for me that's something i'd pay extra for (the almost-dead frets are a mild downside though!).

Exactly. I like guitars that have lots of age and wear too, but the fact remains that a mint one would be worth more money, and a much rarer find. I have both types in my collection, and to be honest the worn ones are the best players... and as mentioned, more fun to play without worry of harming them. This topic is sort of near and dear to me, as i've been actively searching for an early (69/70) matching headstock Comp Stang myself. I personally like the red ones best, (especially when they fade a little to the cool copper color!) and although red the most "common" color, finding one in excellent shape isn't nearly as easy as finding a beater, and the prices go up considerably in relation to the overall condition. I've also found it to be true that the beat up ones are also usually the ones with changed pots, switches, pickups, etc. Which also diminishes the value. I've realized that the "value" many enthusiasts quote for a particular year or model of a guitar is often for a well worn one with potential issues as mentioned. If you want one with nice, clean, all original finish, original components and no issues, along with an equally nice original case, assorted goodies such as original tremolo arm, original bridge cover, owners manual, etc. the price goes WAY up, and you simply cannot find many to meet that criteria at any price. When you do, they are priced considerably higher than the more common "beaters" that trade regularly. It then becomes a matter of what you want... Do you pay up for condition, or do you settle for a more common lesser condition one for less $? Sure there are smokin' deals to be found if you're patient, but generally speaking... you get what you pay for...the nicer one you want, the more it costs.

While I agree the price is "up there" for the blue later one in question, if it's indeed in near perfect shape it puts it into a rare category, with not many out there in similar condition....and therefore increases the price accordingly. Bear in mind I'm a "new guy" here, and not looking to get into an argument, just stating my own opinion based on my own experiences in this fun little hobby we all share.

I'm slightly wary of minty vintage guitars. a guitar worn to hell from someone playing it is direct evidence that it's a good guitar. it never would have been played so much if it was a dud!

Mages wrote:I'm slightly wary of minty vintage guitars. a guitar worn to hell from someone playing it is direct evidence that it's a good guitar. it never would have been played so much if it was a dud!

While I agree with this in theory, some guitars don't get played very much through no fault of their own - for whatever reasons, their owners neglect them in a closet or under a bed somewhere for years at a time. I know of one wonderful Jaguar from the first year that basically sat unused from the early 60s until the early 1980s... it was practically in NOS shape, and it wasn't because it was a "bad" guitar (which that theory kind of implies) - it was because the original owner bought it, played it very little, went to Vietnam and got killed... and his family never had the heart to sell it.

It eventually went to the guy's 14 year old (in the early 80s) nephew - who had put huge dings and stickers all over it within six months of getting it.

The whole "relic" thing kind of amuses me. I don't mind honest relics, and something beat to hell and gone like Rory Gallagher's Strat is exceptionally cool IMHO... but it wouldn't have been IMO if it got that way from a belt sander instead of from honest wear... OTOH, even though I try to keep my guitars "clean", and not ding them up (although I do realize "accidents happen, and I don't freak out over them), I'm not interested in dead mint guitars without any marks either. Like some of you said, I'd be afraid to use the thing, and guitars are, to me at least, first and foremost musical tools to be played and used, and not just put into a glass case and looked at.

Phil O'Keefe wrote:The whole "relic" thing kind of amuses me. I don't mind honest relics, and something beat to hell and gone like Rory Gallagher's Strat is exceptionally cool IMHO... but it wouldn't have been IMO if it got that way from a belt sander instead of from honest wear... OTOH, even though I try to keep my guitars "clean", and not ding them up (although I do realize "accidents happen, and I don't freak out over them), I'm not interested in dead mint guitars without any marks either. Like some of you said, I'd be afraid to use the thing, and guitars are, to me at least, first and foremost musical tools to be played and used, and not just put into a glass case and looked at.

Yeah, the “relic� thing is interesting.

I really like guitars that show their history. If they’ve been falling over in practice rooms for the last thirty years then I want to see those dings and scratches and I’m never going to have it resprayed. If they’ve been sat in their case, under a bed, for thirty years then that’s great but I’m not going to pay any more for it.

The idea of purposefully relic’d guitars strikes me as stupid. Just imagine someone asking “So, this must be pre-CBS, yeah?� and having to respond with “Actually, it’s 2005 that I paid some guy to mess up�.

Phil O'Keefe wrote:It eventually went to the guy's 14 year old (in the early 80s) nephew - who had put huge dings and stickers all over it within six months of getting it.

That actually hurt me to read that

Mages wrote:I'm slightly wary of minty vintage guitars. a guitar worn to hell from someone playing it is direct evidence that it's a good guitar. it never would have been played so much if it was a dud!

I don't buy into this theory... While I agree a well worn guitar may indeed be a good indicator it was/is a good playing instrument, don't be convinced a mint one must be a dud just because no one beat on it. I have a 65 Musicmaster II that's worn, stained, and played harder than any one I've ever seen anywhere.. and it IS indeed an amazing playing, sounding, and feeling instrument... but i ALSO have a nearly dead-mint '69 Musicmaster II and a one owner/babied 66 Duo-Sonic II, and they BOTH play every bit as nicely as the beat up '65. In fact, the Duo-Sonic is quickly becoming my favorite guitar to play. I think many guitars, ESPECIALLY these "student models" were bought new for an aspiring young musician who may have quickly lost interest and the guitars end up stashed in a closet or under a bed in nearly new condition, for no fault of the guitar. The trick is to find them, as the thrashed ones seem to severely outnumber the minty ones 40+ years later.


beat up, smoked out, played hard 65...


Minty one owner 66...both started out the same color!