What price cosmetic perfection?

[Bob Johnson]

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?

 

[Ian Price]

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.

[Afghan Dave]

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.

[38thBeatle]

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.

[tomjackson]

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.....

[Ian Price]

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!

[Philly Q]

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.

[BigB]

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.

[WezV]

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 ;)

[BigB]

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)

[Bob Johnson]

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.

[dave_mc]

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.

[Frank]

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.

[Fourth Feline]

If 'cosmetic perfection' was really such an important issue , I am sure my guitars would have rejected me by now.

[kevinr]

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.