What price cosmetic perfection?

[Bob Johnson]

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

[CaptainDesslock]

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  :)