ShortScale.org

This is me with my 1936 Supertone 220, made by Harmony in Chicago:



It's a simple guitar - all birch, thick neck with a little steel rod, painted faux inlays and binding, stamped tailpiece, canvas bracing. Adjusted for 74 years of inflation, it cost $44 when new.

It sounds good, especially for music of that era. The intonation in all registers is perfect; the neck is totally straight. It has survived all its years with only 1 small crack.

This is a 1934 Martin D-28:



It has become the standard of greatness by which all dreadnought guitars are judged. Today, they cost at least $35k. Originally they were $28 - $444 in today's money.

Today we have CNC machines, automation, the ability to import lumber at low costs, light-cured adhesives, polyurethane, and decades of know-how in making guitars. Why is it then that American made guitars of today can not be had for less than $1000 in most cases? Even if you were to purchase imported guitars at the inflation-adjusted costs of these old examples, they would be poorer quality. Why is this?

none of this shit makes sense. fuck.

they took our jerbs, etc.

The type of lumber used in guitars now considered "classics" is way more money today then it used to be. Lumber in general is more expensive because we have better stewardship and international rules about managing hardwood lumber.

American labor is more expensive now then it used to be, but so is the cost of living.

The prices of classic models in the vintage market influences the price of re-issues. So you see the more accurate recreations of classic models correspond to the vintage market price, i.e. a burst re-issue costing more than a Custom, eventhough the Les Paul Custom was historically the more expensive model. In the vintage market bursts go for more than Customs.

Most guitars are the same price if not cheaper when you consider the current standard models(The result of cnc and modern production). The problem is nobody compares a 1956 Stratocaster to a New American Standard which is much cheaper when adjusted for inflation. The same thing with Burst Les Paul and the current Les Paul standard. The current standard is cheaper. Also today you have discount retailing and a smart shopper can find deals on list and retail prices. This was not the case 50 years ago. You paid what the price was set at most of the time.

Just get Joe Walsh to sign your $150 guitar = profit.

Then you don't have to waste 80 yrs to get the coin.

stewart wrote:they took our jerbs, etc.

jcyphe wrote:Most guitars are the same price if not cheaper when you consider the current standard models(The result of cnc and modern production). The problem is nobody compares a 1956 Stratocaster to a New American Standard which is much cheaper when adjusted for inflation. The same thing with Burst Les Paul and the current Les Paul standard. The current standard is cheaper. Also today you have discount retailing and a smart shopper can find deals on list and retail prices. This was not the case 50 years ago. You paid what the price was set at most of the time.

But if you look back to the 20s-40s, the prices were dramatically lower than the current standards. Gibsons started at around $250 in today's money - nobody domestic touches that these days. I know it was the Depression, yatta yatta, but you can't tell me that some increased labor and supply costs here and there justify a 10x price increase. Plus we have CNC machines!

if you're talking about gibson and other such guitar makers, you're paying for the brand. blame marketing for the increase.

Yeah, you can really only look at the big three because CMIC has been gone for years. But even looking at catalog guitars there were dramatic increases between even the 20s-30s and the mid 50s.

I can understand the first-generation electric guitars carrying a premium because the mass production mechanizations were not in place yet, but acoustics jumped dramatically around that same time.

There are really only a handful of makers world-wide who are on par price/quality wise with makers in the 20s-30s. Eastman and The Loar are good examples.

Like the creation of the middle class, economic emergence of the baby boomers and demand possibly being more than the speed of production.

Will wrote:There are really only a handful of makers world-wide who are on par price/quality wise with makers in the 20s-30s. Eastman and The Loar are good examples.

They're also on par with the style.

I realise you're talking about to archtop companies but in conversations like this I always feel it's a shame that the topic isn't far from 'why does a good 60s style guitar cost more than it originally did in the 60s' rather than 'why are there so few reasonably priced innovative guitars rather than endless 60s copies'.

Artist use. The pop star was the renaissance man of the 20th century. You didn't have guitars with this status until the '50s or so because the popular singing guitarist was viewed differently, and even then it was much more niche than it is now (where it's practically rite of passage to want an SG because of so-and-so or a Jazzmaster because of whats-his-dick).

If you really think about what your saying(20-40's) it makes no sense. The cheapest guitar you could have made was in America not anywhere else. Besides the fact that America had access to cheap materials and resources unlike Europe, the guitar and instrument making was an old world craft. Most of The American guitar companies were started by dudes with European roots in instrument making.

Then you add the facts of different if non-existent labor laws, the fact that there was huge wave of immigrants to work cheap, that materials were cheap and plentiful and you realize why an American guitar could be made on the low end. Made in the USA didn't mean anything back then because where the hell else would it have been made for cheaper.

There were tons of guitars produced in the 20-40's because guitar was a commoners instrument and there was the Hawaiian music crazy and various folk booms. However Rock and Roll and mainly the British changed rock and roll into this lofty culturally significant phenomenon. The electric guitar is now valued by what it is as a status symbol post rock and roll.

Dollar for dollar if you play music guitar is still way cheap, compared to any other serious instrument. There are tons cheap well made guitars today, to imply there isn't is nonsense. Budget guitars are better than they have ever been, even if their designs are boring their playability is good.

It also makes sense why Japan supplanted the budget makers when they did. They were rebuilding post WWII and needed to sell anything it didn't matter what but guitar was one of the many goods they made. Add to that the Japanese appreciation of instrument making, of craftmenship, and of fads and gizmos and it makes sense why they quickly went from crafting poor imitations to serious instruments with fresh ideas or great respect and tradition.

Fair enough.

Point is, I don't see why a new Gibson J-45 should cost more than 4x as much as an original given that they are the same thing.

Will wrote:Fair enough.

Point is, I don't see why a new Gibson J-45 should cost more than 4x as much as an original given that they are the same thing.

The average salary in 1942 was $1800. A J-45 cost $45 dollars. You need to look at the whole picture.

who is that guy? he looked high on drugs

I'm going to go ahead and wager that people who were building guitars in the 20s - 40s weren't making a comfortable middle class living off of it. this was before the rise of the american middle class which brought with it an increase in quality of life/cost of living and subsequently a rise in the minimum people would work for. anything made in USA today is much more expensive because it wouldn't be worth it to an american worker to work for less. they have a family of kids to feed, SUVs to fuel, wardrobe's to fill, and 300 channels of HDTV to watch.