[EEELLL]

Hello!

I'm about to buy an acoustic guitar and wanted to hear if you had recommendations. I see it as an investement so I'm looking at the really pricy ones.

I tried a Martin D-28 and i really liked that one, it was a bit bassy though. I liked the fact that it was so loud, since i don't use a pick, do you have any experience with that model???

Also, how are the Gibsons versus the Martin models. The jumbos look very nice but I haven't tried one...

Thank you.

[dadfad]

Personally I prefer Gibsons to Martins (I have several of both), but it just depends on personal preference and the sound and feel of the instrument you're looking for. Taylor also makes some pretty nice guitars (I also have one Taylor, but again I prefer Gibson.) The Gibson J-45 or J-200 are both nice guitars (I slightly prefer the 45 style myself.) And welcome to GTU.

[BByrdman]

Although those guitars are out of my price range, or I should say over my allowable spending limit imposed by my wife, either the Martin D-28 or comparble Gibson model like J-45 would be a great choice. There is a post on the first page of the acoustic forum, right here, titled "High End Acoustic" Check it out for more info. DADFAD is very familiar with the Gibson line, so you should get a reply from him on this as well. Like I said, either way you would not be making a bad choice, it will come down to what feels and sounds the best in your hands.....

Damn, He beat me to it.......LOL

[rickc]

I'm just wondering. You say you are looking at this as an investment. Would that really be the case ?. I mean you'd presumably have to keep it in mint condition ( which you probably would anyway ) . But, how can you be certain that you would at least break even financially. My point is, what kind of return could you expect in say twenty years ?. Is a good Gibson, Martin etc. like a vintage wine that will just naturally accumulate value or is it dependent on a kind of accumulation of use. Do guitars have to be regularly played in order to sustain their value, or , if you just kept it in it's case ( which would be criminal ) would it appreciate in value more ?

I am hoping that you guys will know , because if I get the right information , I might be able to use it as leverage with my wife, when I eventually pluck up the bottle to tell her that I am buying a J45.

[dadfad]

It's hard to say and the answer can only be based on past history. Vintage Gibsons and Martins (and a few others) have risen dramatically in value over the last few years (ten or fifteen). Guitars I've paid several hundred dollars for (old "used" Gibsons and Nationals which became "vintage" ) are now worth thousands. Even a relatively recent purchase of a fairly expensive vintage guitar (five or six years ago) where I paid around $7000 is now worth over $14000. Is it a fad? Part of the "collectible" fad of people wanting momentoes of a "better and simpler" time and place? Like with vintage cars and toys and everything else? Hard to say. A well-made guitar will generally not deteriorate with age and use, in fact they often become better. A nicely patterned "spider-webbing" (finish cracks and crackles) actually adds to the value of most vintage guitars. The sound actually often improves with age as they "open up." They don't have to be in perfect or "mint" condition. The one I mentioned worth $14000 now has had several repairs done to it.

Nowadays more guitars are being made and sold than years ago (especially during the Great Depression when very few were sold and many guitars from that period are among the most valueable). But not exclusively. Gibsons from the fifties and sixties are worth more than they cost (even adjusted for inflation) sometimes by a factor of x5 or x10 even. But it's hard to say if that will always be true say twenty or more years from now. If a typical upper-end guitar follows the way the market has gone in the past, it will probably first decrease slightly in value over the first few years (five or more) and then start to move back up again.

If I were looking at guitars as PURELY a financial investment (and collectible-guitars were the highest yielding investment one could make during the last year by the way) I would buy vintage guitars as opposed to new ones, but IF (a big if!) things hold now and in the future as they have in the past, new upper-end guitars like Gibson and Martin (Taylor is too young to have any track-record) SHOULD (again, a big should ) increase in value over the long-term.

Anyway, I think EEELLL used the word "investment" in more of a sense buying a good of high-quality because it will continue to give usefulness for a long time as opposed to an actual "positive return on money out-laid" sense, like a stock or bond. Like "investing" in a pair of well-made but expensive boots as opposed to simply buying ten or fifteen pairs of cheap shoes over the same span of use-time.

[The_buffalo]

How about the Guild D-55? Never tried one myself, but I know they used to have a pretty good reputation. (Before they were bought out by Fender, that is).

[dadfad]

How about the Guild D-55? Never tried one myself, but I know they used to have a pretty good reputation. (Before they were bought out by Fender, that is).

Guild used to make some pretty nice guitars (up through the 70s anyway). Not bad now, but not what they used to be (but then what is? ). Nice strong rich tone, and their old 12-strings were pretty nice and still kind of sought after. Not real expensive guitars either when you find one. In the $700 to $1000 range will get you a pretty nice old Guild usually. I have an old '71 Guild D-40 myself. Not as nicely decorated as the higher D-numbers, but sounds great. My only complaint about it is it sounds too pretty for blues!

[guitarfret18]

I used to have a Martin D-28 and it is a really great guitar if you dont want to spend alot of money on a guitar. I highly recommend the martin moneywise.

[gashed]

I don't have much knowledge of high end guitars because I'm scared to even play one in a music store because if I break it, I buy it, and I can't afford it. But I have a Fender 6 string that I only paid 220 dollars for and I am completely satisfied with it. It sounds wonderful, has an Ebony body with mother-of-pearl inlays, and has a built-in tuner on the preamp. I honestly don't see the point in spending thousands of dollars on a guitar unless you just have an endless supply of cash to throw away and are doing it because you can. Even if you are a professional musician, the only people that would know the difference between a 2 to 4 hundred dollar guitar, and a 2 to 4 thousand dollar guitar, are fellow professionals, and chances are you're not playing to impress them, you're playing to entertain non-musicians.

[jones991]

need i say more....

[tenn_jim]

Well, first of all...what are you going to be playing? While that may sound elementary, if you plan on playing classical, it would drive my selection toward a different guitar than if I were planning to play bluegrass. Also, if you are playing acoustic guitar in a rock band, tonal qualities may not be as severe as if you are playing classical. Also, are you planning to record with this or just perform on stage. Again, on stage a guitar needs to have different qualities than in a studio.

Having said that, I have a Martin D18 circa 1955, Gibson J45 circa 1957, a Grammer original (one of the few made by the original Grammer Guitar Co., and recently purchased a Taylor 910. Each guitar has its own redeeming qualities. The Taylor and Gibson are both equipped with electrics and make great stage instruments. The Martin is one of the few original D18 models left around and has great sound qualities for country and bluegrass...also works well for ballads and folk songs particularly in a studio environment. The Grammer has the best finger action with the small neck (1 5/8 at the nut) which makes it similar to the Gibson. After playing for the past 55 years, (yes, I'm older than dirt), I found that a collection of different instruments work best for me.

I recommend you begin to establish a collection of acoustic guitars for your own use based on your music genre and environment. If you are starting out with the club environment, get a Taylor or Gibson because you'll have to have amplification. Probably, today, the Taylor is the best overall buy. As you move into a studio session, get yourself a Martin. Even though many argue the Taylor is as good in the studio, I have found them to be a little pitchy, especially if you have to capo up. At any rate, play it over and over before you buy. Even between guitars of the same make and model, there are unique differences caused by the wood, strings, fretting, nut and bridge. When you find one that fits your hand, body and ear...buy it.

Good Luck.

[tenn_jim]

Well, first of all...what are you going to be playing? While that may sound elementary, if you plan on playing classical, it would drive my selection toward a different guitar than if I were planning to play bluegrass. Also, if you are playing acoustic guitar in a rock band, tonal qualities may not be as severe as if you are playing classical. Also, are you planning to record with this or just perform on stage. Again, on stage a guitar needs to have different qualities than in a studio.

Having said that, I have a Martin D18 circa 1955, Gibson J45 circa 1957, a Grammer original (one of the few made by the original Grammer Guitar Co., and recently purchased a Taylor 910. Each guitar has its own redeeming qualities. The Taylor and Gibson are both equipped with electrics and make great stage instruments. The Martin is one of the few original D18 models left around and has great sound qualities for country and bluegrass...also works well for ballads and folk songs particularly in a studio environment. The Grammer has the best finger action with the small neck (1 5/8 at the nut) which makes it similar to the Gibson. After playing for the past 55 years, (yes, I'm older than dirt), I found that a collection of different instruments work best for me.

I recommend you begin to establish a collection of acoustic guitars for your own use based on your music genre and environment. If you are starting out with the club environment, get a Taylor or Gibson because you'll have to have amplification. Probably, today, the Taylor is the best overall buy. As you move into a studio session, get yourself a Martin. Even though many argue the Taylor is as good in the studio, I have found them to be a little pitchy, especially if you have to capo up. At any rate, play it over and over before you buy. Even between guitars of the same make and model, there are unique differences caused by the wood, strings, fretting, nut and bridge. When you find one that fits your hand, body and ear...buy it.

Good Luck.

To be fair, I'd never let amplification dictate what guitar you are gonna buy. I'd use the pickup in my Gibson only as a last resort. And why do you think the Taylor is the best buy? You don't really justify that statement.

The reason I mentioned amplification was dictated by the assumption that this individual was starting out in a club environment and in my experience, clubs in the U.S. tend to need amplifiers for the acoustics. However, both the Gibson (which was my favorite guitar for years) and the Taylor work well as pure acoustics. They just seem better at reproducing the pure tones with amplifiers than the Martin in my experience. I personally rated the Taylor a little better value based on the acoustic volume and tone values, but that is purely a personal preference. If you read my comments, I ended with the statement that the final choice should be based on the individual's ear...

Let's face it, when you pay the costs today's instruments demand, all of them are "great" pieces of equipment. We could argue forever on our individual unique tastes - after all, that's what makes us individuals. I sure as hell wouldn't want my singular recommendation to be taken literally. If I had listened to the critics 50 years ago, I probably would have taken up piano. lol.

[dadfad]

Yes, purely an individual choice based on use, preference and (maybe most importantly) the "feel" of the instrument. Short-scale/wide-neck, or long-scale/thin-neck, or whatever feels best. And the sound it produces. I generally prefer the tonal qualities of Gibsons for what I'm into (although I also own both Martin and Taylor). Taylor does have excellent electronics when you plug in, although I prefer mic'ing whenever possible. It really comes down to the individual. Try out a number of guitars in your price/quality range and make your decision as to which seems best for you to fill the biggest "niche" you have going for you. No single guitar is the do-all and be-all for every style and situation. In the future you'll probably want to add other guitars to supplement other styles and playing situations. For now just choose the one that covers the most and feels best in your hands.

And to Tenn_Jim, welcome to GTU. Join the ranks of us old-coots at GTU (there are a few of us here). Pull up a stool and grab a cold beer!

[AlanHB]

I really like Matons. E80C's in particular. My dad's one and I swear it's the best acoustic guitar I've ever played. Taylors and Martins are also great guitars, but for the money I just can't go past a Maton. I am an Australian however, and support Australian guitar brands.

[matt_theripper]

As far as pickups and electronics go, I far prefer to have a guitar with pickups as without, just for convience sake. Makes tuning easier, or did until I got an Intellitouch Tuner. Makes it easier for when you go to open mic nights too... less trying to get a mic set up just right to pick up the guitar, then balance the volume, etc... I don't think you loose that much tone when you have an electronics system in a guitar...when you aren't plugged in anyway...

That being said... in a studio setting or a more full acoustic gig, I would definately rather mic than plug in.

[tenn_jim]

And to Tenn_Jim, welcome to GTU. Join the ranks of us old-coots at GTU (there are a few of us here). Pull up a stool and grab a cold beer!

Thanks dadfad. At least we don't have to hide behind chicken wire here like some gigs I played many moons ago.

Now, here's a question...is a Dobro a true acoustic?

[matt_theripper]

And to Tenn_Jim, welcome to GTU. Join the ranks of us old-coots at GTU (there are a few of us here). Pull up a stool and grab a cold beer!

Thanks dadfad. At least we don't have to hide behind chicken wire here like some gigs I played many moons ago.

Now, here's a question...is a Dobro a true acoustic?

How do you mean "true acoustic"? The tone is amplified less by the wood and more by the resonator put into it. But it still rarely uses amplification... so...?

On that note... I love squarenecked Dobro's.

[tenn_jim]

And to Tenn_Jim, welcome to GTU. Join the ranks of us old-coots at GTU (there are a few of us here). Pull up a stool and grab a cold beer!

Thanks dadfad. At least we don't have to hide behind chicken wire here like some gigs I played many moons ago.

Now, here's a question...is a Dobro a true acoustic?

How do you mean "true acoustic"? The tone is amplified less by the wood and more by the resonator put into it. But it still rarely uses amplification... so...?

On that note... I love squarenecked Dobro's.

So, what makes a guitar classify as acoustic? Is it the "non-electric amplification"? The original requirements for the Opry was no electric amplification allowed so the Dobro became the amplified guitar. Back then, the banjo and fiddle were the lead instruments on stage with the guitar simply providing the rhythm. The Dobro used as a steel guitar occasionally took the lead.

Matt, you must be an old bluegrass kind of guy.

[dadfad]

I'm pretty much of the same mind. If you don't plug it in (or use a battery pack! ) I'd call it an acoustic instrument. I have two old National metal-bodies (a '37 and a '38) and they really punch out the sound. I have to sort of lay back a little when playing with others so not to over-power them, but I love 'em. They can quack out a tune like a trained duck!