So, when do Performers, Jag-Stangs, Supersonics and Toronados qualify as vintage Offsets?

[Embenny]

Now those are some good points.

You can bypass the whole debate by flipping the order of the word and the year - that Jag-Stang inarguably was a "1996 vintage Jag-Stang," even if people wouldn't want to call it a "vintage 1996 Jag-Stang."

[Larry Mal]

OK, I'm about to get all esoteric on your thread and this will be one of my big ones, so I guess I'm going to really Larry up your thread here, Mike. But I'll have a point about it all.

Trigger warning: people get all upset when I talk about this shit. I'll be talking about Baby Boomers, and I'll be talking about how the electric guitar market is fucking bullshit, and so on. If you are the kind of person who gets upset about this stuff, go read literally any guitar magazine and your sense of equilibrium will be healed. They got an article on Joe Bonamassa and John Mayer. You'll be fine.

Anyway, some months ago I found this article written by George Gruhn called "Arrival of the baby boomers and their effect on the vintage market; the "antibiotic" market theory".

Now, George has his own points that he's making with his article, it's well worth a read (I'll quote it heavily), but I am mainly using George as what can only be an uncontested expert into the guitar market in general and the "vintage" guitar market specifically.

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.

This is true even now- remember, "vintage" guitars aren't valuable simply because they are old, they mainly have value because of nostalgia. That's why this 1955 ES-125 is only around $2000, while a replica of a 1959 Les Paul sells for four times that.

Back to George:

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.

But the guitar market is about to change:

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.

So we talk about guitar history quite a lot on here, and this is incredibly significant to me. The Baby Boomers stopped buying guitars, and then the guitar market contracted and slowed. Generation X, according to Gruhn, did not have the same relationship with the electric guitar, and also, we would not have had the deep pockets yet compared to the Baby Boom generation, which was older and wealthier at that time.

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.

George's article goes on for a little bit, it's well worth the read, but my point has been made by the quotes above.

Basically, the electric guitar market is exactly what the Baby Boom generation made it be.

I always talk about Norlin Gibson, but it's also true with CBS Fender and some of the other guitar makers. In the 70's, the narrative is that the quality slumped, and so the companies almost folded, then they re-organized around a new commitment to making guitars with all the quality of "how they used to be" and that saved them all.

It's all bullshit.

What these companies did that cost them so much was to stop making guitars that Baby Boomers were nostalgic about. They had seen Eric Clapton play a Strat, they had seen Keith Richards and his Les Paul and so on- see what George has to say about Mike Bloomfield above.

And Boomers were not nostalgic about the Fender Lead and the Gibson S-1. The guitar players they loved as kids did not play those.

So the guitar makers slowly learned the fucking lesson: Boomers buy guitars. They have more interest, more numbers, and more money.

To anyone who doesn't believe me, go into any Guitar Center and tell me the percentage of guitars that were first produced when Baby Boomers were young, let's say from 1950-1965 or so. It's going to be a stunningly high percentage.

So my point is, Mike, you ask about these other guitars and when they will be considered "vintage", and the answer is, they might not ever be considered vintage. Your generation and future generations might not ever consider them to be "vintage" but merely old, like those old potato bug mandolins that used to be popular a hundred years ago.

That is to say, they might be "old", they might be "collectible", they might have "historical interest" but they may never be what we know of as a "vintage" guitar, which as I say is only a marketing strategy aimed at Baby Boomers to sell them nostalgia for their childhoods.

Such a successful marketing strategy aimed at such a large demographic that it's become a standard, but I don't think it will apply to all electric guitars, and it may not even outlast the Boomers.

Because remember, "vintage" doesn't mean "old", it is a term that carries quite a specific meaning for one particular generation and everyone that has been influenced by the Boomers that have until very recently, completely dominated the guitar marker at the consumer, production, marketing and promotional media level.

[DiAmoroso]

Obviously what makes a guitar "vintage" is subjective, and each person has their different reasons for whatever their opinion on the subject may be.

Personally, this is the definition of vintage I subscribe to when it comes to guitars from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

2 : of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality : classic.

With that I think that the same rules don't necessarily apply to every guitar or brand. For some examples:

Only pre-CBS Fenders qualify as vintage.

Only Gibson Les Pauls made in 1960 and before are vintage. Everything else is a re-issue.

What I'm really looking for to call something vintage is that it should be built in the "golden era" of brand or model of a particular guitar, and that brand or model also must have significant importance to the landscape of the guitar world/market. Just because something is old doesn't make it vintage to me.

So with that, my answer is that I will never consider Jag-Stangs, Toronados, etc, vintage instruments. Regardless of age.

[Surfysonic]

I'd say Performers / Jag-stangs etc. will never really be vintage - at least not in the same way as original run Jaguars, Jazzmasters and Mustangs just because they were the original offsets.

I'd make a Marvel/DC golden age analogy - plenty of brilliant stuff came much later, and much of that is old now, but there's a clear distinction between golden age and silver age comics. (Not to say silver age is worse, just a distinctly less vintage vintage). Late 20th century Fenders are arguably becoming vintage in a silver age way.

Perhaps it's best to just say that "vintage" is a relative term.

The problem is that "vintage" is just a terrible term to use with guitars, "vintage" by definition implies a certain, specific year and that's absolutely not what the term is used for when we talk about guitars.

A 1970 Stratocaster has the vintage of 1970, for instance.

The world of comic books has a concept that would be far more useful with guitars, you have the "golden age" which Wikipedia is telling me is from 1938-1956, followed by the silver age, bronze age and modern era.

Science fiction uses similar concepts, with the "golden age" there being those very early pulp science fiction stories from before it was really taken seriously as a genre, and so on.

As a comic book collector when I was a kid up until my late '20s, I think Stephen_42 and Larry's analogies are spot on...or at least should be. Eventually, the guitar marketers and sellers will catch on to this more apt concept.

If going by that comic book-style analogy then, I sincerely doubt the value of guitars prior to 1980 will decline significantly. The horse has already left the stable. The post-1980 gear may increase over time so younger generations will get a chance to hunt for their birth year gear with the same fervor and expense, for good or ill.

I absolutley fell into the vintage/nostalgia/ego bottomless pit and I had found it very hard to distance myself or quell my purchasing desire for some time. Thankfully, there is definitely a hard wall between possibly attainable and absolutely unattainable. Sadly, my birth year Jazzmasters have crossed that threshold. Unless I liquidate all my gear, I might, just might be able to afford another refinished one like the one I ended up having to sell. Since I sold my pro refin'd (by former owner, not me) JM, they seemed to have increased in value by another $3k.

But...that's OK. After being fully caught up in the vintage gear bug, I watched an Anderton's hour-long video in early 2020 where the guys head out to California and get a private tour of the Fender factory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBDOdXEL3Jw. I've taken one of these tours back in 2018 but it wasn't until this video where Mike Lewis from Fender stated something in this video that made my brain finally click and readjusted my perspective regarding old vs. new guitar builds. He said something to the effect that the current guitar neck builds are done the same way as it was back in golden years, still with slight variations like in the old days, which is what he considered "magical". I remember from my 2018 Fender factory tour where it was mentioned that a lot of the machines used today are the same machines used back in the early days.

Basically, this has allowed me to fully, and appropriately, appreciate modern Fender guitar build quality. I absolutely love and appreciate my AO '60s JM. Sure, I wouldn't turn away a gift vintage guitar, but I'm no longer actively in the vintage guitar hunt. Yeah, it also doesn't hurt that I've been able to hold on to my '63 Jag and '66 Mustang.

Fortunately, I've scratched the vintage amp itch a few times over and am even now letting some of them go. I think now it's not so much a Holy Grail amp search as it's simply my love for old Fender amps, which to me, is maybe a healthier perspective, like folks who love old cars. The problem I'm working on is to reduce the amount of amps. Too many amps at this stage...

Funny, I always thought of my parents as being in the Baby Boomer generation when actually, they were probably just prior to the Baby Boomers - Dad was born in '39 and Mom was born in '40. I never thought of myself or people my around my age as Baby Boomers. I assumed I was in some group sandwiched between Baby Boomers and Gen X.

I just found another list via Google (I guess I can now start calling it "The Google" like other old fogeys) - I don't know if it's the end all, be all of generational classifications but it seems about right:

The Depression Era. Born: 1912-1921. ...
World War II. Born: 1922 to 1927. ...
Post-War Cohort. Born: 1928-1945. ...
Boomers I or The Baby Boomers. Born: 1946-1954. ...
Boomers II or Generation Jones. Born: 1955-1965. ...
Generation X. Born: 1966-1976. ...
Generation Y, Echo Boomers or Millenniums. ...
Generation Z.

Based on this, my folks were actually pre-Baby Boomer known as Post-War Cohort and now I'm in the Boomers II or Generation Jones(?), which I've never even heard of before. If I'm understanding this chart correctly, I guess I'm part of the bland & inconsequential generation...yay?

Unless the goal posts get moved, I humbly resign myself to being a Boomer II (Electric Boogaloo!). Not gonna lie - still wish I was in Gen X.

[andy_tchp]

About fifteen years ago I heard U2 on the oldies radio station. This is like that. Oldies?!!!! Vintage?!!!

'Peak' U2 was 34+ years ago - As 'fresh' as The Beatles or Beach Boys were in the year 2000...

[Embenny]

About fifteen years ago I heard U2 on the oldies radio station. This is like that. Oldies?!!!! Vintage?!!!

'Peak' U2 was 34+ years ago - As 'fresh' as The Beatles or Beach Boys were in the year 2000...

Every song becomes an oldie someday, bloody someday.

[Surfysonic]

About fifteen years ago I heard U2 on the oldies radio station. This is like that. Oldies?!!!! Vintage?!!!

'Peak' U2 was 34+ years ago - As 'fresh' as The Beatles or Beach Boys were in the year 2000...

Every song becomes an oldie someday, bloody someday.

Hah! I see what you did there! Man, I was in college when that album came out in '83 and I loved it. Lot of the songs still hold up for me.

[UlricvonCatalyst]

Mike Lewis from Fender stated something in this video that made my brain finally click and readjusted my perspective regarding old vs. new guitar builds. He said something to the effect that the current guitar neck builds are done the same way as it was back in golden years, still with slight variations like in the old days, which is what he considered "magical".

Cynical me says "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

He might equally have said "FMIC makes nothing whatsoever from the sale of used guitars, so only buy new, please."



Edit: To clarify: I'm in no way suggesting a brand new guitar can't be "magical".

[Shadoweclipse13]

That was a great read Larry, and guitar-specific, I agree with you. SO much, if not all, of the current guitar trends and styles are heavily influenced by Boomers. I think Mike's original post is wonderfully thought-provoking, but I also wonder if the term really matters. Jag-Stangs and Toronados might never be dubbed "vintage", but they are certainly classics in my book.

It won't change my life one way or the other to start applying a "vintage" label more liberally, but I think it's interesting to think our way through the various factors that are going into this phenomenon of continuing to celebrate the 50's and 60's, begrudgingly acknowledging the value of the 70's, and then pretending the 80's and 90's were practically yesterday.

This (and your mention of toys above that) is interesting. Guitars post-1980 might not be considered "vintage", but I feel like guitars and whether or not something is considered as such, at least in relation to a specific set of years, is a one-off category. It seems that everything else that can be considered "vintage" changes those years every so often. Pyrex made in the 1980s? Vintage. Star Wars action figures and toys from 1977-1983? Absolutely vintage.

[Larsongs]

What difference does it make really as long as it’s a great playing, sounding & looking Guitar.. Or Amp, or whatever..

I’ve owned Gibson Guitars from the mid ‘50’s with magical PAF HB’s.. They were great! Then they got too valuable to take out to Gigs or anyplace. I have had Vintage Guitars, Amps & Recording Gear stolen & have friends who had their Vintage Guitars stolen at Gigs during Breaks…

There is so much great Gear today that is somewhat reasonably priced & easy to replace… Yes, I sold my mid 50’s LP & ‘59 ES-335. I got a lot for them & now somebody else can enjoy them as much as I did…

I have some “Great” modern era Guitars & Amps.. I don’t want anything to happen to them but don’t worry about the theft or possible costly repairs so much.. They can easily be replaced for not Vintage prices..

[Surfysonic]

Mike Lewis from Fender stated something in this video that made my brain finally click and readjusted my perspective regarding old vs. new guitar builds. He said something to the effect that the current guitar neck builds are done the same way as it was back in golden years, still with slight variations like in the old days, which is what he considered "magical".

Cynical me says "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

He might equally have said "FMIC makes nothing whatsoever from the sale of used guitars, so only buy new, please."



Edit: To clarify: I'm in no way suggesting a brand new guitar can't be "magical".

Well, sure. I agree that particular observation by Mike was irrelevant as it's obviously bottom-lined influenced.

Still, the fact that a lot of the machinery for components and methods (for neck shaping) from the early days are still being used/applied. Hence said brain clicking and giving me a reality check re: vintage guitars vs. modern guitars. I now see modern guitars in a more appreciative light.

[Embenny]

What an interesting article. It certainly explains all the phenomena we bitch about regarding the guitar industry.

It makes me wonder what the next 10-15 years look like, as Boomers die or stop being able to play and their guitars get put on the market.

Maybe the price of a '59 Burst will even dip to a Squier-like $100k!

It does make me feel bullish about the "vintage Offset" market, though. They've only become desirable ND valuable in recent years, and clearly aren't boomer-driven like strats and teles. Lots of Gen X and Millennials saw their musical idols playing them, so maybe they'll become increasingly dominant, price-wise, as they rise and strats and teles fall, until they meet in the middle.

I agree though that we live in a golden age, where better guitars are available for less money than ever before. Used, "recent" Fenders and Gibsons are an incredible value proposition, and are where I've been spending most of my guitar budget lately. Made well, inspiring to play, easy to get your money back on, and far less expensive than an instrument of equivalent quality at pretty much any previous point in time.

Oh, and for anyone dying to satisfy that "vintage Fender" craving on a budget, buy an early-mid 80's G&L. Nitro finished, decades old, made by hand in Fullerton under the direction of Leo and George, and half the models even look like straight up strats and telecasters. I wish I liked strats and teles as much as Offsets. I'd just load up on G&Ls. Every 80's G&L I've ever bought has cost me "new MIM Fender" money but "pre-CBS Fender" vibes.

But Boomers never saw their idols playing a strat with a nipple on the headstock, so they're still available around the $1k mark.

[Larry Mal]

What an interesting article. It certainly explains all the phenomena we bitch about regarding the guitar industry.

It makes me wonder what the next 10-15 years look like, as Boomers die or stop being able to play and their guitars get put on the market.

Maybe the price of a '59 Burst will even dip to a Squier-like $100k!

It does make me feel bullish about the "vintage Offset" market, though. They've only become desirable ND valuable in recent years, and clearly aren't boomer-driven like strats and teles. Lots of Gen X and Millennials saw their musical idols playing them, so maybe they'll become increasingly dominant, price-wise, as they rise and strats and teles fall, until they meet in the middle.

Yeah, you know, that article really did fill in a lot of gaps for me.

As you well know, I have a fascination with Norlin Gibson and what that era (bronze era?) meant for electric guitar as a whole. And I've always maintained that the guitars aren't really worse than what came before or since, and what I've come to conclude is that Gibson had the idea that the guitar market would evolve with them just like it always had.

Up until the 70's and 80's, Gibson had adapted to changes in the musical instrument market successfully and they had also driven some of the changes themselves also. For instance, when the banjo was white hot, they were a part in the development of that instrument, when the archtop guitar was the big thing they were a huge name in that, later when the flat top became ascendant they were able to carve out a very successful niche for themselves, and of course they made a very successful transition into the world of the solid bodied electric guitar.

And in the Norlin years they were innovating the same as they ever had (which is to say with mixed success, that's how it goes). They were branching off whole new brands for themselves, the Sonex line, the Firebrand line.

They were addressing faults with their classic guitars, a clear example is the addition of a neck volute to three piece necks, which improved the strength of the necks- there's nothing superior about a single piece neck, really.

They were carving out a line of low impedance pickup guitars, and so on.

And then it all just collapses. The same thing was happening at Fender, and so on.

Us guitar players are always taught that the big names like Fender and Gibson just quit making the guitars with the same quality that they used to, but that's not really true. What they stopped doing was making the guitars be the same as they used to.

The Les Paul was the mini humbucker equipped Deluxe, with a multipiece body and neck, instead of what we know as the Les Paul Standard, with PAF pickups, a single piece (super fragile) neck and so on.

But as George Gruhn explained, when the Baby Boomers re-entered the guitar market, they didn't want the Les Paul Deluxe or the mini-humbuckers, they wanted the same guitars that they had seen Eric Clapton and whatnot play back in the day.

So this kicks off the vintage craze with electric guitars- well, at least some electric guitars. Remember that most of the guitar legends that Boomers looked up to didn't play Mustangs and Jazzmasters, so those guitars weren't part of the "vintage" craze (at least not at first).

All of the sudden the guitars that were like what Boomer legend guitar players played became part of the whole "vintage" guitar thing, but what happened simultaneously was that Gibson and Fender learned that they could make guitars that were very close to what they had made in their own past and this was going to sell to people that couldn't afford real "vintage" instruments or for whatever reason didn't want to but still wanted a vintage type instrument.

Now, this was also a godsend to Fender and Gibson, because as is well known, you can get a great guitar that's like a Strat or a Les Paul without having the name Gibson or Fender on the headstock.

But Jimi Hendrix didn't play a Greco, Duane Allman didn't play an Ibanez. So next thing you know, Gibson and Fender get to be gatekeepers of "vintage" and only they can really be that.

Which is why you see Gibson in the Henry J era and modern Fender scrap a lot of stuff they had been doing and revamp themselves into companies that by and large recreate their own past. And why would they not? It's profitable.

And you see companies like Parker, Ovation, Steinberger and so on basically try to go against the grain and fail. They still thought that the electric guitar was being developed, but they were wrong.

Now, there are still other guitar makers, that's for sure. A lot of them specialize in kind of niche areas, though- shredder guitars, jazz boxes, and so on. And while there are certainly small guitar makers, a stunningly large amount of them simply make what is supposed to be "better" versions of what Fender and Gibson make anyway.

So getting back to your point, the concept of what is "vintage" in the guitar world is very specific, very Boomer focused, since they were the ones that drove the whole concept anyway. Will your Toronado be considered "vintage" in ten years?

Well, probably not at the same level. The people that played Toronados didn't have anywhere near the cultural impact that the people that played Les Pauls to the Baby Boom generation did, simply because the numbers aren't there.

This can always change, I guess, but I don't see it happening. Frankly, there is just such an entrenched guitar culture at the moment and I just can't see it really changing very soon:



There has been so much repetition about "vintage is best" for so long that I can't see anything changing- too much money is invested in things being the way they are.

I mean, even me! I ordered some Kinman pickups for a Telecaster yesterday, and I am going to pull out the "vintage" type pickups that I had in there. I felt I had to have that "vintage" sound, you know?

"If you have a Telecaster," I would have said. "You really want to nail that vintage sound."

Why would I feel that way? Why would I have said that?

[s_mcsleazy]

reminds me of something my bandmate said once in a guitar shop "i don't want to sound vintage, i wanna sound like me"

[robroe]

How are my AVRIs ever going to be vintage? They can be 100 years old and reissue is still in the name