Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: Bob Johnson on March 18, 2010, 06:22:13 PM
-
Hi Guys,
A luthiers forum that I read and occassionally contribute to has just had a really interesting thread running on the cost of and the customers demand for cosmetic perfection.
The basic premise was that customers now regard cosmetic perfection as the major indicator of quality and responding to that demand adds a considerable cost to guitars, when they a built on a "one off" to order basis, without actually adding to the functionality.
This forum is a very broad church so I thought I'd punt the question out to you; Is cosmetic perfection a major requisite and do you see it as an indicator of the quality of the instrument?
-
I don't place much importance on cosmetic perfection. I do like my guitars to look a little beaten up though - I don't have any guitars with fancy flame tops, MOP inlays etc etc.
The only guitar that could sway me to get anything particularly fancy would be a Modern Eagle.
-
If it is a custom build it should be "my idea of" perfect... that's non negotiable.
Wood has variation built in - no two flame tops can be the same - but I would want the final say as to which timber was used.
If a great tone wood plank was on hand yet looked bad but could potentially sound awesome, I hope that its use would be suggested to me by the luthier.
If I choose to value looks over tone, it's my money at the end of the day.
Off the shelf is another matter.
l love to find that "ugly duckling" that sounds like a Swan.
-
To an extent I would equate the quality of the finish to the care taken generally though I wouldn't get obsessed if, say, there was a minor blemish or imperfection.The chances are that after 6 months there would be at least one ding that would take the sheen off things somewhat. I'd be far more concerned with playability and tone though.
-
I like a guitar to look right, but certainly not having cosmetic perfection. But may be a guitar looking right is my own version of that.
I really like the finish I did myself on a strat, it's thin nitro and looks right to me, to anybody else it might look a bit amaturish, but I like the vibe of it.
I don't like fancy book matched figured tops and PRS perfection, but I do like Fender Custom shop Nocaster perfection.
I guess being perfectly un-perfect is just as bad.....
-
I don't like fancy book matched figured tops and PRS perfection, but I do like Fender Custom shop Nocaster perfection.
+1, couldn't have put it better myself!
-
If "cosmetic perfection" means, for example, a perfectly bookmatched flame maple top rather than a less-pretty one which sounds just as good, then I'm not really bothered.
But I'm taking "cosmetic perfection" to mean "attention to detail" - no file marks on the fingerboard, no off-centre inlays, no wonky pickup rings, no specks of dust in the paint, no chewed-up screw heads. None of those things affect playability much, but they indicate a sloppiness which may also be there in places you can't see.
If you're paying a substantial amount of money, I think it's fair to expect perfection, or something pretty close to it.
-
Huuu well... Kinda depends on how you define "cosmetic perfection".
If it's about fancy shmancy flamed maple tops, uber-arty inlays, gold plated hardware and the like, then I couldn't care less. Err, wait - I do care, in fact : I just don't want anything like this on my guitars. I want a f... music instrument - you know, something I'm gonna play music with -, not a piece of overdecorated woodwork to hang on my wall. If that matters, two of my fav' guitars ever are the Telecaster and the Les Paul Jr - very raw stuff, yes.
Now if it's about build quality, then it's something else, and I'd be less confident in the overall build quality of a guitar where dots or pots don't line up evenly. I don't mean this would make the guitar sound bad by itself, but given that lutherie is about 1/10 mm precision, I wouldn't trust a "luthier" that's not even able to do a proper job on such things.
-
i think the issue bob is getting at is that it can be a lot harder to get that perfection when you are working on one of a kind, handmade instruments.
factories get to prototype things before putting them into production... a custom builder doesnt have that luxury - so its one of the reasons the process doesnt always stop when you first get the guitar the way it would from a factory
personally speaking, my guitars are almost totally handmade ... it it does soemtimes show in some details. In many walks of life that would be desirable but on guitars they are often expected to be CNC perfect. its obviously what i aim for but i dont always achieve it 100% ... i still think i achieve it as well as (and maybe even sometimes better than) people like john birch or tony zemaitis. These guitars scream 'handmade' - and i dont think anyone particularly minds that ;)
-
These guitars scream 'handmade' - and i dont think anyone particularly minds that ;)
If you're talking about your #1, then I wouldn't mind, indeed 8)
-
Your right Wez; that was the point of the question.
Most of the responses on the forum I refered to weren't related to fancy flame tops or inlays, they mainly were concerned with high gloss polyester finishes, maybe a little wobble or gap in the binding or a small knot somewhere in an otherwise perfect piece of timber (does it really matter?).
Also the apparent contradiction arising from the fact that some of the most desireable vintage instruments; and that included guitars, banjos, mandolins and violins, almost all had minor imperfections because they really were hand made i.e. without the routers, sanders and planing machines that we all use today.
-
if it's over a certain price i'd expect it to be perfect (or at least as close as possible), as long as that didn't detrimentally affect either the tone or playability.
under a certain price, I'm willing to forgive more.
Would i pay more for something which is more cosmetically perfect over something which plays and sounds the same (which is of the exact same quality, in other words, bar cosmetics)? That's more difficult. Would depend on the guitar and how badly i need or want that style of guitar- if it's a guitar which i would use occasionally for a certain tone, i imagine I'd go for the cheaper option.
and a lot of times perfection (the mass produced idea of it, anyway) can feel sterile and actually "worse" than the more handmade feel, anyway.
-
I'd rather have a battered telecaster that I can throw around and drop on the floor without worrying about it losing value. I've got no time for "museum piece" guitars, all mine are working instruments and if I knock another chip off the finish then I don't really care.
-
If 'cosmetic perfection' was really such an important issue , I am sure my guitars would have rejected me by now.
-
Like everything we buy, car, motorbike the house that we live in it is expected to get what we pay for, you pay big money(PRS etc) we expect to get quality everywhere not just the sound, I for one don't mind low build quality if I pay a low price, if it sounds good and plays well, if I pay big money I expect it all.
-
Most of the responses on the forum I refered to weren't related to fancy flame tops or inlays, they mainly were concerned with high gloss polyester finishes, maybe a little wobble or gap in the binding or a small knot somewhere in an otherwise perfect piece of timber (does it really matter?).
If I picked up a £500 guitar off the shelf and it had a flaw like the ones you'd mentioned, it wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker. I'd be able to decide, there on the spot, how much it bothered me.
And I take Wez's point about Zemaitis and John Birch. But presumably most people buying them would have an existing interest in those particular brands, so they'd have a reasonable idea what to expect.
But if it's a custom-ordered guitar, costing maybe a couple of grand or more... I expect the builder would discuss something like a knot in the wood at the outset to see how the customer felt, so hopefully that wouldn't become an issue. On the other hand, if a problem arises during building, even a minor one like the flaw in the binding you mentioned.... I don't mean to be rude, but I think that's the builder's problem to sort out; it's not something the customer should be expected to accept just because it's a one-off guitar.*
(* I know you're not suggesting they should just accept it. Just making a point. :) )
-
An interesting question.
My guess is that cosmetics is the most easily noticeable feature of a guitar, so "cosmetic perfection" is seen as a mark of the care and attention given to the instrument.
If you are paying top whack for a new guitar, then, unless you want a relic,I expect most customers won't accept, say an orange peeled finish, or wonky inlays, regardless of the method of contruction.
Is a CNC routed Tele body any better/worse than one routed by hand? Certainly you won't be able to beat the accuracy of the CNC machine.
One problem mentioned above, is obviously with any custom ordered guitars, is that the you can never be 100% certain how the final instument will sound/play etc until it is finished, although of course this is why you rely on the experience and skill of the luthier.
-
Incidentally, the few build quality of the few Zemaitis guitars I've seen has not been stellar...
In fact one of the tell tale signs of a Zemaitis fake (and there are plenty of them) is that build quality is too good!
-
If 'cosmetic perfection' was really such an important issue , I am sure my guitars would have rejected me by now.
:lol:
-
I'm with Philly Q on this one. Great post mate!
-
knot in the wood... is this a rhythm in jump, dancing close to you kind of thing? o_O
-
i love imperfection and rough looks on guitars... i DON'T like at all those instruments (like most PRS to be honest) that do everything in their power to claim they're more expensive than your car... i hate baroque things!
-
knot in the wood... is this a rhythm in jump, dancing close to you kind of thing? o_O
A knot in the wood like this perhaps:
(http://www.vintageandrareguitars.com/media/products/main_9162.jpg)
Not quite Rhythm in jump! I kind of like the look of it.
-
Wood imperfections are funny things .....one man's fault or blemish is another man's feature
In truth flame and quilt are faults in the wood - and dont get me started on spalted wood
I certainly wouldn't use quilted maple in a neck and have to be cautious using heavily flamed neck wood to a certain extent.
Obviously you dont want a knot that will loosen, or fall out or cause any distortion of the piece of wood, and as an instrument maker you try to avoid any potentially troublesome timbers
In furniture a knot or burl can be the most attractive feature (once again providing it isn't affecting the integrity of the wood) - I've seen people staring at the "fault" as a thing of beauty.
Some companies have kind of set the benchmark for what we expect in a guitars woods and how they look.
PRS were certainly a trendsetter over the last 20 years, and now nobody will accept flame unless it's a "10" top
I chuckle as I recall one customer who wanted some work doing - a new top on his guitar
He brought me a picture of the kind of thing he wanted - a picture from guitarist magazine of a quilted top on a reviewed guitar.
So we got a piece of very pretty quilted maple and fitted to his guitar and finished it all off.
It did look stunning , but there was a problem.......
The customer wanted the exact piece of wood that was on the guitar in the magazine picture - with EXACTLY the same grain pattern.
Had to explain that proper flame and quilt were natural features and quite random - not applied like a painted on pattern and therefore chances of finding the exact same pattern were nil.
I am pretty exacting on finishes and have been a thorn in the side of all the paint finishers that I have used, and have grown to learn what my finishers are damn good at and where their weaknesses lie.
-
Like everything we buy, car, motorbike the house that we live in it is expected to get what we pay for, you pay big money(PRS etc) we expect to get quality everywhere not just the sound, I for one don't mind low build quality if I pay a low price, if it sounds good and plays well, if I pay big money I expect it all.
The quote really shows what the luthiers on the LinkedIn forum were talking about; the inextricable link in the customers perception between finish and quality. Thanks Kevin.
You can buy guitars relatively cheaply that have perfect cosmetic finishes but are made out of stuff you wouldn't make a pallet out of. It's cheaper for them to give you a perfect finish than it is to use good quality timber and hardware.
Where custom guitars are concerned (and by that I don't mean a Fender or a Gibson with a custom sticker on the headstock) cosmetic perfection costs you a much larger percentage of the overall price of the guitar. A multi-stain finish like the one on my avatar (it has a matching headstock) will cost you over £450.
A few people have commented that if you pay £2000 pounds for a guitar you expect perfection; the point is that you are getting a £1550 guitar with a good make up job.
Thanks for all the comments. I think I'll post a link to this thread on the other forum and let the guys see for themselves what the community think.
-
Bit late to this, but it's a real interesting thread.
My first reaction to your original post, which hasn't changed while reading, is that I might possibly be a luthier's dream ... (except, at the moment, I won't spend that much on a single guitar!! :lol:)
Personally, I'm after an instrument, not a piece of furniture.
That's not to say that I disagree with other folks who want their perfection on an expensive jobbie, it's just that I don't view it in quite the same light.
I've yet to spend over a grand on a guitar. The most expensive one was just under, and it has some serious "who the f*** was doing this fretboard?!" eccentricities (it's a Gibson :D). But the thing is, it plays and sings like a dream, and even if you were watching me from the front row, only I would know about the scratches and dents in the fretboard.
I saw all these issues when I was evaluating it, and I was surprised by the "workmanship" that got through, and was even worried that my wife, who was with me, might see the marks and think it was a bit naff for the price of the thing... but it was absolutely obvious it that was a stunning guitar in my hands (to me and to her), and it would have been foolish to pass the thing up because of some marks that didn't really affect its worth, to me, as an instrument...
Now, if I came to one of you guys to build me a beast, I know that you probably wouldn't even let me see a fretboard like this particular one - if it went like that, you'd curse yourself or whoever had done it, and put it right. Conceivably, if it had happened near the end, and fixing it could drastically change the nature of the instrument, which was already proven - I'd imagine you'd want to consult with me along the lines of "look, this has happened, we got some options, one of which is fixing it, but the sound/feel might change..."
If I was going for custom build, I'd be hoping for the "instrument" bits of it to be glorious (the feel and playability, etc), and the cosmetics of it to be "pleasing". I'd have already checked out the builder's work, and would have some idea of the standard to expect. I'm not into flashy finishes, or at least, not that much, so I'd be speccing up a guitar that cut that side of the cost down to obtain an instrument that felt and played like a million dollars for as cheap as could be managed.
So for me, I'd want to spend on the guitar, and pay the minimum for the cosmetic perfection (knowing that most of you guys are going to take a fair bit of care over how it ends up anyway :D)
... Hope that helps :D
-
My take on this is, admittedly, contradictory. I nearly always buy pre-used guitars which will naturally have some playing wear - I can accept that because I'm getting the guitar cheaper than if it was new. Additionally, I'm also pretty tough on my guitars so they get beat up fairly quickly.
However, if I was to go the custom route and spend upwards of £2000, then I don't think that any blemishes are acceptable. If the binding was a bit wonky, I'd consider that unacceptable - same with frets that have not been finished correctly, any lacquer runs, inlays that are sloppy with excess filler, a poorly matched 'figured' top, pickup surrounds that are not squared up, poorly cut nut etc...
Then when the guitar was absolutely perfect, I'd be gigging the snot out of it and it would get some serious playing wear. You can't win with customers like me, ha ha :lol:
-
I don't care much for fancy tops and inlay work. Plain maple and regular pearl inlay is fine by me.
I care for attention to detail. Well made stuff. Smooth sanding, tight paint job, good fretwork, well cut nut and the way it feels.
-
My take on this is, admittedly, contradictory. I nearly always buy pre-used guitars which will naturally have some playing wear - I can accept that because I'm getting the guitar cheaper than if it was new. Additionally, I'm also pretty tough on my guitars so they get beat up fairly quickly.
However, if I was to go the custom route and spend upwards of £2000, then I don't think that any blemishes are acceptable. If the binding was a bit wonky, I'd consider that unacceptable - same with frets that have not been finished correctly, any lacquer runs, inlays that are sloppy with excess filler, a poorly matched 'figured' top, pickup surrounds that are not squared up, poorly cut nut etc...
Then when the guitar was absolutely perfect, I'd be gigging the snot out of it and it would get some serious playing wear. You can't win with customers like me, ha ha :lol:
I realise that I may have lead the discussion off track a little in places. The references to dodgy binding, the odd chisel mark etc were really in connection with a lot of very high priced vintage guitars that were about fifty-odd years ago; they did have these kinds of "faults" but are still very highly prized today in an age where appearance seems to have taken precedence.
In the example I gave about the cost of a multi-stained high gloss polyester finish the guitar would have sounded and played just as good or possibly better in an oil or wax finish at a fraction of the cost but would it be as acceptable to the customer?
The feeling among most of the luthiers on the forum was that customers these days are obsessed with appearance because they see it as a primary indicator of the quality of the instrument.
So it's possible to get a situation where luthier A is making higher quality instruments than luthier B but luthiers B's guitars have a better finish so they are perceived to be of higher quality, get better reviews and therefore do more business. This forces luthier A into adopting the same philosophy driving up the price of his instruments with no real benefit, other than the percection of quality, to the customer.
The possible exception to this was a violin maker who thought that the exact opposite was the case with violin players. :?
-
Golden rule - the customer is always right.
-
I really don't care. One of my best guitars is a 1960 Les Paul Special that I got for $500 because the body had been stripped down to the wood and it had a Badass bridge (also the dealer thought it was a junior with an added pickup! - this was in the days before ebay). It's a great guitar, really resonant and the neck still had the original TV yellow finish. I had a friend make me a Les Paul standard many years ago, he had made a great job, with a really nice faded sunburst finish, and on the day before I was collecting it, he was putting the studs into the body and slipped with the hammer and put a crescent shaped dent into the top behind the tailpiece. It never bothered me (though he was gutted about it). About 7 years ago I had to have it renecked because the neck had twisted and couldn't be brought back. I had the body chambered at the same time, and Will Scott (the guy who was repairing it) decided to steam out the dent as he was refinishing it anyway. So now it looks perfect, but it isn't something that I was really bothered about. In many ways an imperfection adds character to a guitar, and certainly with older instruments I would never want a cosmetically perfect guitar, because it would mean that it was never played and it would really make me feel like it must have been a dog and no one wanted to play it!
-
Your right Wez; that was the point of the question.
Most of the responses on the forum I refered to weren't related to fancy flame tops or inlays, they mainly were concerned with high gloss polyester finishes, maybe a little wobble or gap in the binding or a small knot somewhere in an otherwise perfect piece of timber (does it really matter?).
I don't like high gloss polyester finishes, and I wouldn't care about little "imperfections" like the one you mentioned - FWIW, even low/mid cost factory-built instruments can have this kind of defaults - as long as the instrument is well built, sounds fine and plays fine.
-
Also interesting how consumers seem to place more of an emphasis on cosmetics more than they did in the past.
If you look at vintage Gibsons and Fenders the frequently had blemishes in the finish, came out the wrong color, or featured mistakes in construction (for instance, I saw a 'Burst that had the fret markers in the wrong position.) If the mistake was not too outrageous and did not affect functionality, the guitar passed inspection, went out the door and was sold.
If that were to happen on a new Gibson, the doctor, attorney, hedge fund manager or whatever would howl so loudly that Henry J himself would be able hear the outcry.
To continue discussing old Gibsons, consider the phenomenon of "flame." In Elder Days, the elves working in Kalamazoo were not looking for "flamed" maple for use in the most expensive guitar tops. If flame happened, it happened. The assembly line had production targets to meet and Gibson did not charge a premium for this. You even see vintage Les Paul standards with non-bookmatched tops, so that one side is flamed, the other not.
Of course, today "flame" is the primary determinant of a guitar's price, especially if it is a Gibson or PRS, and the doctors, attorneys, and hedge fund managers who buy these things spend inordinate amounts of time discussing qhat kind of flame is most desirable, the flamey qualities of their guitars, etc..
Personally, I am not that crazy about it, but do not care much either way.
Then there is the "tobaccoburst Les Paul Standard, which was probably the result of the Gibson paint shop not wanting to change colors just to shoot paint on Les Paul Standards, so they painted them in tobaccoburst. Imagine the reaction of today's attorney who ordered a "lemonburst," "honeyburst," iced-tea burst" "orangeburst," "Tak burst" or other bursty Burst to add to his collection and got tobacco. In 1959, you bought what Gibson made and you had the right to like it.
-
Golden rule - the customer is always right.
:)
-
Hmmmm
I think you know what I think. I like guitars to look cool, but as our extreme and in depth discussion on guitar tone and mechanics outweighs our discussions of asthetics significantly.
That said I know that you know that I've ummed and ahhed over tops and bevels and cutaways and whatnot, but it pales to the performance of the guitar.
All told its not a big deal to me. That the guitar sounds good and plays well are extremely important and what I fuss over the most. That it looks good is secondary, and not what I think most people go to luthiers for. Yeah, you expect it to look good, but youre in it for personally tailored sound and playbility, no?
If you want pretty then there are slews of production guitars that can suffice.
If you want a guitar thats tailored to your tastes, sonic and ergonomic, then you go to someone that can build it, and I think its unreasonable to expect that someone work on that instrument for 100+ hours with hand-operated/held tools and require CGI-looking asthetic perfection.
I blame photoshop. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people on forums (including here) drooling over computer-enhanced guitars. Its no good for expectation management when the likes of PRS marketing department let people expect (supposed) high end guitars to be those that look like Industrial Light and Magic made them. I always thought they were the best sounding, best playing, mos reliable ones, not the prettiest; maybe I'm just not keeping up with the times?
-
if it plays well and sounds good I don't care how it looks so long as it ain't ugly
-
If you look at vintage Gibsons and Fenders the frequently had blemishes in the finish, came out the wrong color, or featured mistakes in construction (for instance, I saw a 'Burst that had the fret markers in the wrong position.) If the mistake was not too outrageous and did not affect functionality, the guitar passed inspection, went out the door and was sold.
If that were to happen on a new Gibson, the doctor, attorney, hedge fund manager or whatever would howl so loudly that Henry J himself would be able hear the outcry.
Mmm... Saw a Fender CS Tele in a local shop last year, was about €2000 (don't remember exactly but...), and you could see the routing hole underneath the control plate - the gap was at least 3mm wide.
Of course, today "flame" is the primary determinant of a guitar's price, especially if it is a Gibson or PRS
What to say...
-
I don't mind cosmetic things, Its more about the playability and sound for me.
However if I was getting a custom build then I would want it to be pretty much perfect.
-
My take on this is, admittedly, contradictory. I nearly always buy pre-used guitars which will naturally have some playing wear - I can accept that because I'm getting the guitar cheaper than if it was new. Additionally, I'm also pretty tough on my guitars so they get beat up fairly quickly.
However, if I was to go the custom route and spend upwards of £2000, then I don't think that any blemishes are acceptable. If the binding was a bit wonky, I'd consider that unacceptable - same with frets that have not been finished correctly, any lacquer runs, inlays that are sloppy with excess filler, a poorly matched 'figured' top, pickup surrounds that are not squared up, poorly cut nut etc...
Then when the guitar was absolutely perfect, I'd be gigging the snot out of it and it would get some serious playing wear. You can't win with customers like me, ha ha :lol:
I realise that I may have lead the discussion off track a little in places. The references to dodgy binding, the odd chisel mark etc were really in connection with a lot of very high priced vintage guitars that were about fifty-odd years ago; they did have these kinds of "faults" but are still very highly prized today in an age where appearance seems to have taken precedence.
In the example I gave about the cost of a multi-stained high gloss polyester finish the guitar would have sounded and played just as good or possibly better in an oil or wax finish at a fraction of the cost but would it be as acceptable to the customer?
The feeling among most of the luthiers on the forum was that customers these days are obsessed with appearance because they see it as a primary indicator of the quality of the instrument.
So it's possible to get a situation where luthier A is making higher quality instruments than luthier B but luthiers B's guitars have a better finish so they are perceived to be of higher quality, get better reviews and therefore do more business. This forces luthier A into adopting the same philosophy driving up the price of his instruments with no real benefit, other than the percection of quality, to the customer.
The possible exception to this was a violin maker who thought that the exact opposite was the case with violin players. :?
I know exactly the point you're making there Bob, I've been through this myself with the amps I build. Some people are happy to get existing amps rebuilt (saving costs, but compromising on aesthetics), while others will want the amp to look a certain way (thereby driving up the price unnecessarily). To have custom faceplates and head-cabs made adds considerable cost to the amp with no benefit to the way the amp sounds.
The solution? - offer both options.
-
Where custom guitars are concerned (and by that I don't mean a Fender or a Gibson with a custom sticker on the headstock) cosmetic perfection costs you a much larger percentage of the overall price of the guitar. A multi-stain finish like the one on my avatar (it has a matching headstock) will cost you over £450.
A few people have commented that if you pay £2000 pounds for a guitar you expect perfection; the point is that you are getting a £1550 guitar with a good make up job.
I'd rather go for a £1550 axe with no make up.
-
Golden rule - the customer is always right.
I have to disagree. The customers if quite often wrong and need to be educated. Then he's always right, even if he's wrong :mrgreen:
-
A few people have commented that if you pay £2000 pounds for a guitar you expect perfection; the point is that you are getting a £1550 guitar with a good make up job.
I'd rather go for a £1550 axe with no make up.
Surely the key thing when going custom is to have the choice - get the £1,550 guitar (and only pay £1,550 for it!), or pay the extra few hundred for the fancy top and finish, if that's what you want.
I've never had a custom guitar built, but I assume all this stuff would be discussed and made clear at the outset.
-
Golden rule - the customer is always right.
I have to disagree. The customers if quite often wrong and need to be educated. Then he's always right, even if he's wrong :mrgreen:
I often advise my customers to go up a string gauge. Many players believe heavier string gauges make the guitar harder to play and darker sounding. In fact it will allow less neck bow and lower action, better tuning stabillity and more sustain. Admitted, bending will take a bit more effort.
You can put 9's on a hardtail Fender scale guitar but really, anything else is better off with 10's or more.
Haven't had any complaints yet.
-
A knot in the wood like this perhaps:
(http://www.vintageandrareguitars.com/media/products/main_9162.jpg)
Not quite Rhythm in jump! I kind of like the look of it.
hehe
-
Just doing some reading up on some t-style makers. A quote from Chihoe Hahn would go well on this thread:
"When you buy something today, you sort of look at it and you inspect it for any imperfection, and if you find any imperfection, you sort of summarily reject it—I think that’s generally how things are today. And that gives people a sense of quality, perfection in the execution. And what I try to do in the guitars, my aesthetic goal, is to straddle the line between manufacturing perfection and “handmade.” So that the person can get the sense of superior quality, but it retains that human element."
-
Just doing some reading up on some t-style makers. A quote from Chihoe Hahn would go well on this thread:
"When you buy something today, you sort of look at it and you inspect it for any imperfection, and if you find any imperfection, you sort of summarily reject it—I think that’s generally how things are today. And that gives people a sense of quality, perfection in the execution. And what I try to do in the guitars, my aesthetic goal, is to straddle the line between manufacturing perfection and “handmade.” So that the person can get the sense of superior quality, but it retains that human element."
That's a well put together summary of the luthiers dilema. I think most of us small volume guitar makers have the same philosophy but it's a very difficult balancing act
-
If you want pretty then there are slews of production guitars that can suffice.
If you want a guitar thats tailored to your tastes, sonic and ergonomic, then you go to someone that can build it, and I think its unreasonable to expect that someone work on that instrument for 100+ hours with hand-operated/held tools and require CGI-looking asthetic perfection.
I know this is an old thread, but I found it terribly interesting. I thought part of someone spending so much time building a custom was to bring out perfection in every sense. I know the Legra I received was a flawless fuzz-factory filled wonderland of glittery goodness, and I'm pretty sure you had the same level of excitement when you got yours.
I can't seem to understand the appeal of chipped and dented instruments. If I spent moolah on a sports car I wouldn't call the dent I got from bumping it into a stop sign a piece of "character," same applies to my guitars.
different strokes for different folks i guess :)