What price cosmetic perfection?

[PhilKing]

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!

[BigB]

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.

[Prawnik]

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.

[Bob Johnson]

Golden rule - the customer is always right.

 :)

[MDV]

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?

[JDC]

if it plays well and sounds good I don't care how it looks so long as it ain't ugly

[BigB]

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...

[jibidy]

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.

[HTH AMPS]

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.

[BigB]

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.

[BigB]

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:

[Philly Q]

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.

[Ratrod]

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.

[dave_mc]

A knot in the wood like this perhaps:



Not quite Rhythm in jump! I kind of like the look of it.

hehe

[Ian Price]

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."