Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Discussion of vintage Jazzmasters, Jaguars, Bass VIs, Electric XIIs and any other offset-waist instruments.
User avatar
øøøøøøø
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5984
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by øøøøøøø » Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:01 am

I suspect that more boomers are exiting the market than entering it.

They were certainly not the driver of the 2020 gear price explosion.

Millennials are now mid-life-crisis age, and are probably the bigger share of the market.

I doubt the average vintage guitar buyer now is obsessed with Buddy Holly (I’d bet more than a few are too young even for Weezer’s “Buddy Holly!”) but prices of ‘50s maple neck strats are still rising.

This is another reason to question the “things boomers like” descriptor as perhaps-truthy, but likely not actually true

User avatar
AwesomeWelles
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1163
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:46 am

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by AwesomeWelles » Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:11 am

Well put. I suppose when it comes to vintage musical Gear, Millennials are the new boomers indeed.

User avatar
sal paradise
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3596
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 12:41 am

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by sal paradise » Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:22 am

I’ve been obsessed with Buddy Holly since I was 8 years old. And I like Weezer :ph34r:

The irony is that now I’m mid-life crisis and have the means to spend 4 figures on a guitar if I want to, it’s only custom shop or things like Suhr or PRS that are affordable.

Knowing my luck I’ll finally pick up an old Mustang but it’ll be an ‘81 model.
I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion?

User avatar
cestlamort
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5175
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:01 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by cestlamort » Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:36 am

There might be some traction in looking at the greater context for post 80s/90s guitars etc to look at the internet as a driver of information/ consumption. Forums have certainly changed things irrevocably. Pre 2001 or so could be the dial up era…

(Goes off to listen to some Blog Rock)

User avatar
Larry Mal
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 19673
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:25 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by Larry Mal » Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:46 pm

øøøøøøø wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:01 am


They were certainly not the driver of the 2020 gear price explosion.

Millennials are now mid-life-crisis age, and are probably the bigger share of the market.

I doubt the average vintage guitar buyer now is obsessed with Buddy Holly (I’d bet more than a few are too young even for Weezer’s “Buddy Holly!”) but prices of ‘50s maple neck strats are still rising.

This is another reason to question the “things boomers like” descriptor as perhaps-truthy, but likely not actually true
Maybe, but I'm not talking about the price of gear, I am talking about what makes some guitars have a "vintage" cachet and according price. Because not every old guitar saw much of an increase.

For instance, some years ago I bought a 1979 Fender Lead 2 in pretty rough shape for about $700, I could probably hit that price again, and when I look at the overall prices, they look more or less the same.

I bought a 1977 Gibson Marauder in good shape for $1100, I could get that price again. I always get good deals on guitars, or I don't buy them, again no skyrocket there.

I bought a 1983 Gibson Challenger for around $700 pre-Covid, again no huge increase.

So my point is that while other generations might be more dominant forces in the market, what is considered "vintage" (which really should read "collectible") is still very much set by what the Boomers preferred. If it wasn't, you would see a big price jump on any older guitar, but you don't.

I also haven't seen a big price jump on the ES-125 guitars from the 40's and 50's.

You might say that those aren't collectible models, but I have to be honest with you, I had thought to find big price jumps on the "Dan Smith" era Strats, but I don't. My original supposition was that I would find big jumps there, but they are still cheap (and maybe I should buy that one).

So now I am realizing that it's also not scarcity that makes a guitar "vintage", because what is more rare than a Dan Smith era Stratocaster* with the Freeflyte vibrato? They only made those for like two years.

So it's not age, and it's not scarcity, so what is it that makes a guitar "vintage" and thus subject to high price hikes?

Well, it's canon- I've talked about it before. There is a canon of what guitars are "vintage" and it mainly seems driven by guitarists being associated with the instrument, that's why a Dan Smith era FreeFlyte Strat isn't "vintage" just old and unusual, because I can't think of any guitar players that are associated with it.

During the time that the very rare FreeFlyte Strat has been stagnant in price (if not an actual loss from what it cost new), your 80's Jem has seen a big jump in price.

So your Ibanez has seen "vintage" status (or at least pricing) as you note. Why did it get that but not the FreeFlyte Strat?

I bet the answer is Boomer guitarist Steve Vai. I mean, it's not like the man has ever had any hits or real radio play. I bet I would have a very hard time finding anyone under the age of 35 who is an active fan of Mr. Vai. No Millennial is nostalgic for what Steve Vai was doing in the 80s, that's for sure.
Back in those days, everyone knew that if you were talking about Destiny's Child, you were talking about Beyonce, LaTavia, LeToya, and Larry.

User avatar
Fuzzbuzz
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:43 am

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by Fuzzbuzz » Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:17 pm

I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, “vintage” is a fluid term. I personally think it’s silly to waste time trying to come with a cutoff for what is and isn’t vintage when every guitar and amp ever made will at some point become “vintage” in the hyperbolic way we as musicians use the term. Having subs by decade makes the most sense. 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s yada yada yada. Those incredible 1983 Squier bullets… vintage. 1993 peavey amp…. Sorry my dudes, it’s vintage. 2018 AOJM… is vintage by definition and will be a vintage instrument in 30 years.

User avatar
Larry Mal
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 19673
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:25 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by Larry Mal » Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:19 pm

I've posted this before, it's from George Gruhn, a man who knows the "vintage" market better than most. Here it is:

During the time I have been involved in the fretted instrument market from the early 1960's to the present time, the market has undergone fundamental change. When I started out the "folk boom" was in full swing. Groups such as the Kingston Trio, and Peter, Paul & Mary, and performers such as Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, and Tom Paxton were extremely popular and selling millions of records. Traditional Appalachian string band music and bluegrass were being promoted by groups such as The New Lost City Ramblers and folklore societies were actively promoting traditional music on college campuses in the Northeast as well as California. As a direct result of this movement, interest in vintage acoustic instruments was escalating rapidly. Prior to the folk boom vintage guitars were just considered to be old used instruments and were readily available for absurdly low prices. While vintage acoustics were going up in price at a rate of 20 to 25% per year during the folk boom, it is worth keeping in mind that they were starting from such absurdly low prices that in reality what was happening is they were going from almost no value to receiving some recognition. The finest pre-World War II vintage instruments were still selling for prices no more than and frequently less than the cost of an equivalent new one.

The market changed fundamentally in 1964 with the advent of the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and the whole explosion of rock-n-roll and R&B. Whereas when I started out the University of Chicago Folklore Society sponsored concerts featuring only acoustic music, by the mid 1960s they were sponsoring performers such as Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and the Butterfield Blues band with Mike Bloomfield and Elvin Bishop on guitar. Whereas during the folk boom I saw no market for vintage electric guitars, as soon as Mike Bloomfield starting playing with the Butterfield Blues Band I was deluged with requests for whatever Mike was using on stage. During this brief period it was my experience that the vintage electric guitar market moved in virtual lock step with whatever Mike played. As a result I was first inundated with requests for old Telecasters, but when Bloomfield switched to a 1954 Gold Top Les Paul, that's what everybody wanted. When he switched to a sunburst, the market followed within a matter of weeks. While there has been debate over whether it was Bloomfield or players such as Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, and John Sebastian who first promoted the market for sunburst Les Pauls, I remain firmly of the opinion that it was Bloomfield more than any other who triggered this market. There is no question that there were others such as Clapton who used a sunburst Les Paul as early or even earlier than Mike, but Clapton used a sunburst for only a relatively brief period of time and switched to other guitars such as his psychedelically painted SG, whereas Bloomfield stuck with the sunburst and was strongly identified with it. I did not see any great number of people requesting a guitar like Keith Richards', Eric Clapton's or John Sebastian's during the mid 196's, but I most certainly saw people paying very close attention to whatever Mike was doing. Although Bloomfield never had a hit record, he was idolized by guitar players.

Bloomfield never received an official endorsement from the Gibson company, but I remain of the opinion that he did more to revive interest in Les Paul models than any other player. By the time the Les Paul model was re-introduced by Gibson in 1968, Bloomfield's career was already on the decline but had it not been for Bloomfield, in my opinion, the Les Paul might not have been re-introduced when it was. Some players sell millions of records to the public but are relatively insignificant in influencing other players to imitate their style, whereas others may never have a hit record but influence tens of thousands of players. Bloomfield was one of these.

The advent of the folk rock era as typified by groups such as Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young caused a fundamental change in the vintage instrument market from 1970 through 1975. Prior to that time there had been a market for acoustic instruments and a market for electric instruments, but there was little crossover between the two. During the folk rock era the acoustic guitar market was heavily influenced by a great infusion of rock-n-roll money. Prices of vintage acoustic as well as electric instruments rose dramatically which was certainly good for dealers, but many acoustic collectors complained that they were being virtually shoved aside by the wave of rockers who were dominating the market.

From 1970 through 1975 Gruhn Guitars was known as GTR, Inc., and was a small business located at 111 Fourth Avenue North in a building measuring a total of 20 x 60 feet on one floor. It was a funky building with a leaky roof, termites that swarmed each spring, and a very funky heat and air system. The first fifteen feet were set up as a showroom while the rest consisted of repair, storage and an office. While the shop might not have been much to look at, the clientele was a virtual Who's Who of the industry, including clients such as Billy Gibbons, Eric Clapton, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, The Rolling Stones, Roy Acuff, Johnny Cash, and a great host of others. There were very few other vintage shops worldwide and certainly no Internet. The economy of the early and mid 1970s had its great ups and downs. There was a recession in 1970 when we opened the shop and a rather severe recession again in 1974, but the music market was thriving and baby boomers were buying guitars.

The folk rock era ended after 1975. The period from 1976 through the early 1980s was, in my opinion, one of relative stagnation in the guitar market. Many of the baby boomers dropped out of the market after they hit age 23 to 25. For well over two hundred years the musical instrument market had focused primarily on males of dating age from 13 to 25 years old, and on a smaller group of retirees who often played the music that was popular when they were of dating age. The music business from music promoters and record companies to musical instrument manufacturers placed little emphasis on trying to market to middle aged people. It was assumed that customers would buy from age 13 to 25 but that the typical male buyer would drop out of the market after acquiring an expensive wife, children, house, car, and upward mobility in a job. They were expected to work their fingers to the bone until they retired after which they could then take up hobbies.

Whereas vintage fretted instrument values had been escalating steadily from 1960 through 1975, from 1976 through 1983 they were relatively stagnant. The music market in general was very listless during this period. Whereas previously there had been an active folk boom followed by a rock-n-roll boom followed by a folk rock era, from 1976 through the early 1980s there were numerous musical movements in funk, punk, folk and pop, but none of them seemed to have much staying power either in volume of sales or duration of time. Whereas guitar had been the dominant instrument of 1960 through 1975, from 1976 through the early 1980's many bands de-emphasized or even eliminated the instrument. Generation X did not seem to embrace the guitar to the extent that the baby boomers had.

During this period I often was wondering if I was becoming the great expert on buggy whips after the invention of the automobile. It almost seemed that people didn't care about the instruments that were my great love. The economic conditions of the early 1980s when the prime interest rate rose over 20% and the dollar went sky high added to business woes. Not only was this a tough time for Gruhn Guitars, Inc., but companies such as Martin, Fender, Gibson and Guild suffered greatly. While Martin is a vibrantly strong company today, during the early 1980s they were on the brink of disaster. Gibson, Fender and Guild had been acquired by major holding companies. By the early 1980s these holding companies viewed their investment in guitar companies as a liability.

Starting in 1984 an unprecedented new phenomenon occurred which transformed the guitar business. Baby boomers re-entered the market when they had their mid-life crisis starting at age 40. No previous generation had ever done this. The market had always targeted the youth group and a smaller group of retirees. For the first time in history the market for both vintage instruments and high-end new instruments was dominated by middle aged buyers. I do not know of anyone who anticipated this development in advance, but it certainly had a profound impact on my business and obviously has revitalized the entire industry. Fretted instruments are obviously sold to people of all ages but from 1984 to the present the baby boomers have played a major role in shaping the market in a manner unprecedented in any prior time.

I have come to believe that the baby boomers are fundamentally different from any previous human generation. Boomers are the first generation in all of human history to grow up from birth onward with antibiotics. Penicillin was first introduced in 1945 and numerous other "wonder drugs" soon followed. As a direct result baby boomers are the first generation in all of human history to grow up with a full expectation of living to be at least 80 years old or more. This results in a fundamentally different attitude toward life in general than any previous generation. The parents of the boomers grew up in their youth with no antibiotics and also grew up during the Depression. They had a very different attitude toward money and mortality.

Economic ups and downs have been a fact of life since ancient Greece and Rome, but antibiotics were something new. Even in ancient Greece and Rome it was known that a person could live to be 80 years old or more, but if a Greek or Roman lived to be age 40, he did not assume that that was mid-life for him personally. He could get a cold, which would turn to pneumonia, and he would die, or he could stub his toe, get an infection and die. No one took life expectancy for granted. If one goes to a turn-of-the-century cemetery and looks at gravestones, one will note that even in 1900, half the tombstones are for children. Life expectancy in 1900 was barely over 40 on average (meaning that half didn't make it that far). The re-entry of baby boomers into the guitar market starting in 1984, in my opinion, was no coincidence. Baby boomers are the first human generation from Australopithecus to the present that would have been in a position to have a mid-life crisis such that they would want to go out and buy little red sports cars, tennis and racquet ball equipment, guitars and other toys when they hit age 40.

The guitar market picked up rapidly from 1984 through 1992 with prices escalating 20 to 25% per year during this period. Whereas guitars and other vintage fretted instruments were at least as good if not better than the stock market as in vestments from 1960 through 1975 and were certainly better than money in the bank, from 1976 through 1983 money in the bank or in the stock market would have been better than a portfolio of fretted instruments. From 1984 through 1992 the guitars and other fretted instruments again would have been better than money in the bank or most stocks. I saw a slow-down in the guitar market starting in 1993, particularly with high-end vintage acoustic instruments such as pre World War II Martin Ds. These instruments continued to be valuable, but prices actually deflated for a while, whereas the stock market took off like a rocket. In my opinion, this was a direct result of the life cycle of baby boomers who were now rapidly approaching age 50. Whereas they had a mid-life crisis at age 40, when they reached their late 40s they had the " Oh my god, I haven't saved anything for retirement and what am I doing with all this stuff?" crisis. At the same time the government came along and said "We would like to help you by setting up IRA, Keogh, and other tax deferred retirement plans for you." As a direct result of this demographic and psychological shift, money was diverted into the stock market dramatically driving up stocks, mutual funds, and real estate investment trusts but depressing other markets. After an initial downturn in 1993 and 1994, the guitar market gradually regained its strength but stocks, mutual funds, and real estate investment trusts continued to out-pace many fretted instrument investments during this period.

According to my "antibiotic theory of the market," the stock market crash starting in the year 2000 was right on schedule, since the oldest baby boomers hit age 55 in that year. At that point in their life cycle they were beginning to think about early retirement or at least living on some of the interest income they were accruing if not actually taking some of the principal. Unfortunately by this time the market fundamentals in the stock market had been driven so far out of line with net worth to earnings ratios that the market was no longer sound. The pundits who declared that the old style economy was dead and standard net worth to debt or net worth to earnings ratios no longer mattered were proven wrong. It is my opinion that as much as anything the market collapse was due, however, to the fact that in reality the market had been a Ponzi pyramid scheme supported by new money being injected into the market for demographic and psychological reasons rather than sound financial decisions. The 55-year-old baby boomers were no longer at their peak earning potential and were in fact looking over their shoulders seeing 35- to 40-year-olds getting the promotions rather than themselves. Had penicillin and other wonder drugs not been introduced starting in 1945, all of this might be different, but I for one am certainly thankful for these drugs because I know without them, I wouldn't be here today.

From 2000 to the present the investment market in stocks and mutual funds has certainly been troubled, but fretted instruments have done remarkably well. Some such as sunburst Les Pauls, Loar-signed F-5 mandolins and pre-World War II flat head Gibson Mastertones have doubled in price in the last two years. Fretted instruments in general from 2000 to the present have been a far better investment than the stock market.
Back in those days, everyone knew that if you were talking about Destiny's Child, you were talking about Beyonce, LaTavia, LeToya, and Larry.

User avatar
wooderson
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by wooderson » Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:05 pm

When I think 'vintage' I think of generations of production practices and styles. When it comes into vogue as a marketing term, along with "rock gods used X" it's about a (theoretically at least) higher standard of production in the '50s and '60s Fender and Gibson guitars compared to the '70s CBS and Norlin production, nitro vs poly, somewhat more artisanal production, etc..

Vintage doesn't really mean anything aside from 'from a previous era' (and the whole idea is a bit goofy) so I'm totally on board with bringing the dates closer and closer... but there are fewer clear lines to mark eras. CBS vs. FMIC, that's a clear line in the sand - but a 1987 Stratocaster and a 2009 Stratocaster and a 2023 Stratocaster are made by the same company with, generally speaking, the same practices. Values and desirability start to come down to individual model specs (AV62 vs AV65 vs. AO vs AVII vs Thin Skin vs etc.) over production year.

Late '90s Squiers, if reissued today, would be made with similar practices (production in Asia, same finishes - perhaps superior quality in the end, Squier is quite on the ball these days IMO).

User avatar
sal paradise
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3596
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 12:41 am

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by sal paradise » Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:42 pm

wooderson wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:05 pm
CBS vs. FMIC, that's a clear line in the sand - but a 1987 Stratocaster and a 2009 Stratocaster and a 2023 Stratocaster are made by the same company with, generally speaking, the same practices. Values and desirability start to come down to individual model specs (AV62 vs AV65 vs. AO vs AVII vs Thin Skin vs etc.) over production year.
This is a good point. After the shifts to mass production, it’s more models than years. It falls down a bit with Les Pauls due to all the weight relief etc.

Saying that, then you’ve got “desirable” or “rare” models. Even harder to arbitrate those :D
I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion?

User avatar
HarktheUmpire
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:54 am

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by HarktheUmpire » Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:30 am

wooderson wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:05 pm
When I think 'vintage' I think of generations of production practices and styles. When it comes into vogue as a marketing term, along with "rock gods used X" it's about a (theoretically at least) higher standard of production in the '50s and '60s Fender and Gibson guitars compared to the '70s CBS and Norlin production, nitro vs poly, somewhat more artisanal production, etc..
Yeah-ish. At the same time, the ‚vintage‘ label is no guarantee for quality. Cheap guitar brands of that same era produced barely playable guitars in big quantities with what would now be considered fairly artisanal production methods. Like Egmond, for example, whose guitars are known to spontaneously fall apart over the years, no playing required. Those are still, undoubtedly, vintage guitars, even if no famous recordings were made with them (that I know of anyway).

User avatar
øøøøøøø
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5984
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by øøøøøøø » Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:23 am

The idea that older instruments were made to a higher standard of quality is usually an illusion.

It’s often demonstrably not true—especially at the very low and very high ends of the market.

There are some instances where you could make a case (low production acoustics like Larson Bros, D’Angelicos, etc). But more often it’s magical thinking—not evidence—that lets us believe the older instruments were made better.

Someone mentioned “nitro versus poly” and that’s a great example—for nearly all the things that a finish is supposed to do, catalyzed polymer finishes are objectively superior.

They’re more durable. They don’t check or yellow as much. They can be applied just as thin (sometimes thinner in practice). They’re more stable over time, less-toxic, less flammable and (especially with low VOC formulations) safer for the environment. Nitro has the edge on spot-repairability, but a modern finish is less likely to *need* repair.

In order to believe nitro is superior, we have to go against reason. We have to subscribe to the idea that there is some quasi-mystical thing that can’t be explained by evidence that makes it better for instruments. That belief allows us to prize and even fetishize the shortcomings (the yellowing and checking) and ignore/justify the environmental and worker hazards of its continued use

No judgment from me… I also prefer the way it looks and feels! But this is a thoroughly irrational position, driven by emotion. It’s silly to try and engineer an objective justification (IMO)..

But “vintage guitar” culture is a bit like audiophile culture in that magical-thinking tendencies have been normalized—even romanticized (not to mention profitable) for a long time.

TBH we’ve probably got a pretty poor understanding of why people are drawn to these things—and that may even include, respectfully, Mr. Gruhn (when someone starts drawing links to pharmaceuticals as a means to explain demand for musical instruments, I start thinking I’d like to see evidence).

User avatar
Larry Mal
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 19673
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:25 pm
Location: Saint Louis, MO

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by Larry Mal » Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:09 am

Well, I included the entirety of Mr. Gruhn's writing because I found it interesting, but regardless of how you would view his theory on antibiotics, he certainly is an expert on the vintage guitar industry and has seen it develop over the course of his career. I feel pretty certain that if Mr. Gruhn says that it's his fellow Boomers that have driven the vintage guitar market and defined what is and is not a "vintage" guitar that we can certainly give his viewpoint some credence.

But, I also feel that I've contributed what I have to contribute at this point, other than to point out that while I do like older and interesting guitars, I specifically find models that are not in competition.

I can't afford a guitar like what Jimmy Page played, because association with musicians like himself puts that out of reach. But I also don't care about what Jimmy Page played. I can afford the guitar that Pete Shelley played, so I buy that instead.

Also, I figure there is a chance that Pete Shelley's guitar will appreciate in value, whereas I have to think that Les Pauls and such have to be at the top of their value. But who knows.
Back in those days, everyone knew that if you were talking about Destiny's Child, you were talking about Beyonce, LaTavia, LeToya, and Larry.

User avatar
sal paradise
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3596
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 12:41 am

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by sal paradise » Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:40 am

Pete Shelley was a big Gordon Smith user later in his career. There’s a great example of hand-crafted guitars, built to a quality standard in limited numbers, and not having much resale value.
I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion?

User avatar
øøøøøøø
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 5984
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by øøøøøøø » Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:52 am

I don’t think it’s in dispute that boomers drove the vintage guitar thing initially.

I just question whether they’re driving it now

User avatar
Embenny
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 10363
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 5:07 am

Re: Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

Post by Embenny » Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:09 am

That George Gruhn quote is really interesting. It's nice to hear the perspective of a used guitar dealer who witnessed those defining moments and trends.

I agree with Brad that the notion that guitars were "built better back then" is hogwash. It's actually among the list of static Boomer opinions that crystallized 50 years ago and has been repeated verbatim without taking another look around.

It was a completely reasonable opinion in 1975. CBS and Norlin changed a bunch of things and implemented a bunch of cost-cutting measures. Established models often got uglier, heavier, and QC was objectively worse.

But it's not 1975 anymore. For the entirety of my lifetime, Fender, Gibson, and a massive number of younger companies have been making guitars as well or better than the 50s/60s models. Many guitars that were outright dismissed at the time - like 1980's Japanese Squiers - have become desirable as the guitar community has collectively gone, "Oh crap, we were wrong about those, they are nice."

The nitro/poly debate was one that also crystallized around 1975 or so, because those early poly finished on CBS Fenders and Musicman guitars were problematic. A huge number of MM guitars had to be returned under warranty due to large-scale checking and flaking, and I think many of us have encountered a CBS guitar or two whose finish was tacky and gooey, either from improperly curing, or some type of chemical reaction after the fact.

But once again, by the 80s, companies were producing absolutely beautiful poly finishes that were more shiny and durable than nitro ever was. Other than a couple of dings from the 90s and early 2000s, my 1993 CIJ Jaguar looks shiny and pristine.

I'll admit that nitro has a different feel, especially when worn in, that I quite enjoy. But the majority of my guitars are poly, and I wouldn't prefer them any other way.

If quality was really the main criterion we used to judge old guitars, 80s G&Ls would be priced 5x higher than 70s Fenders. But Boomers weren't nostalgic for ASATs and Skylarks, even though they were made by Leo Fender with impeccable QC and finished in magical nitro. 70s Fenders look closer to 60s Fenders than G&Ls do, so they sell for way more.
The artist formerly known as mbene085.

Post Reply