• You're one step from joining Guitar Discussion Forum - The Fret.
    Create a free account to post, follow threads, and never miss an update.  Sign up free →

When is a guitar vintage?

Guitar Discussion Forum - The Fret

Help Support TheFret.net:

Jimi75

Jimi75

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
3,297
Reaction score
0
City & State/Province
Germany
What do you guys think - when is a guitar a vintage guitar?
Nowadays with massproduction in far east the serieses change quarterwise latest from year to year, but when is an instrument to be seen as a vintage instrument?

Is it even a question of a time period?

I have absolutely no idea.
 
I think you can get vintage license plates after the vehicle is 30 years old. Maybe that should be the standard for vintage designation.
 
I think it is a combo of factors. I agree with Spud that 25-30 years is kind of a general rule, as in cars. But in guitars, I think more is involved. A 25-30 year old Kramer may be vintage or classic at this point. A 25-30 year old strat or les paul is just that many years old at this point. Vintage may be further back for those classics in my opinion. Doesn't stop folks from using the term on ebay though.
 
I've always thought of vintage as something that was made in a time where methods were entirely different from today's mass production. Not just that they were produced that way, but that they represent something appealling in their construction that's absent in modern methods. An instrument that was a product of craftsmen as opposed to talented CNC machine programmers and operators. Paint that was painstakingly applied, finished, and buffed out, as opposed to modern production paint that goes on thick and requires little buffing after it dries. A lot of hand work, as opposed to a lot of machine work.

I think that there are modern "classics" being made as well. While technically not vintage (yet), they employ the same craftmanship of the vintage era that's absent to a greater degree in mass produced instruments of today.

I'm not commenting on the utility of one instrument made using one method or the other, just trying to point out the differences that make "vintage" instruments so appealing to many.
 
My view is that it is age plus desirability, which translates into elevated prices. I have a 1975 Stratocaster which I bought back then from someone who had owned it for 3 weeks (a story for another time). I never consider it anything but a good guitar to play, and these CBS Strats are notorious for being shoddy. Recently I noticed that these guitars are demanding from $2000 to $3000 on eBay, so all of a sudden I now have a 'vintage' instrument.

Notice I use the term 'desirability' without any implication of whether the guitar is a good instrument or not. Desirability just means enough people are willing to pay a handsome sum of money for one.
 
The worst thing is that I can remember it all starting. In about 1980 I could have bought a pre-CBS Strat for about £200 and a copper panel AC30 to play it through for about £75-100. In 1983, these items would have been out of my reach. I think the absurd prices for pedals are the worst.

Aeolian, if faced with a choice between a new Fender and a 1975 model, I suspect the new one would win hands down as well as costing about a third of the "vintage" item.
 
The vintageness is directly proportional to the number of fools with money.
 
This whole "vintage" market is largely a contrivance. Some things made many years ago command a high price because they represent true value. They are something very desirable that cannot be found in modern production. Other things made years ago are just...old. They are not desirable, and are just old and ordinary. Trouble is, everyone who who has something old, automatically thinks it's valuable simply because of it's age. To add to that, there's an ever growing cadre of gullible people who are willing to fork their money over for this pseudo-vintage old stuff. It seems to happen wherever there are people with more money than brains.

The smart money is in identifying and buying right now, those items that will become tomorrows true "vintage". A case in point: Has anyone besides me wondered why the early/mid production G&L guitars sell for such reasonable prices today? After all, they're Leo's creations made the old fashioned way - by hand. It's hard to imagine a regular production guitar available today on the used market that incorporates as many "old school" methods of construction as these guitars. They're built the way Leo used to build them at Fender in the 50's and early 60's, but with some modern inovations of the kind that made Leo famous in the first place.
 
Bloozcat said:
A case in point: Has anyone besides me wondered why the early/mid production G&L guitars sell for such reasonable prices today? /QUOTE]

Prices of G&L guitars and basses from when Leo Fender was still alive have gone up considerably in the last 2-3 years. Price one of the G&L Broadcasters as an example.

I have a couple of G&Ls, but I don't buy anything for collectibility, I buy to play. My guitar is a one of 25 that were made in 1999 to the specifications of a G&L fan site, so it is pretty unique. My L-2000 bass that I just bought used this week is from around 2002 because I just happened upon an incredible deal. I think both will at least hold their value, but I'm not planning on either on them commanding a lot of money ever.

Going back to 2006 I had two twin humbucker guitars; one is a 1976 Yamaha SG1500 and the other is a 1979 Gibson Les Paul Custom, I bought both of these guitars when they were new. By 2006 I decided that I really don't need the Gibson because the Yamaha is just a much better guitar. I sold the Les Paul for 3x what I paid for (but that is 1979 dollars to 2006 dollars); on the other hand the Yamaha is probably worth $700 today, but that does not matter because I probably won't part with it for any amount of money.
Click to expand...
 
We tend to associate the word "vintage" with value and that is not necesssarily the case. I use to have a number of Mercedes (1972 and older). All of them today probably would fall under the catagory of vintage, but that had no resulting impact on value. Throw in the word "classic" and the value went up, throw in the word "rare" and the value would go up yet again.

Guitars probably would work the same way, except for those models that were made over in the Asian market. Those are associated with mass production and although some may increase in value, I think it would be more a result of a limited run, than the actual age of the guitar.

So I agree that "vintage" probably is best defined by age, followed by type of production - but associating vintage with value might not apply.
 
To me, "vintage" describes a guitar that has earned its age the hard way. A guitar can only be vintage if its been through the highs of a crowded, hard fought show, and the lows that come with one where things just aren't going well. I think it has something to do with being soaked in beer and exposed to cigarette smoke in crowded, hole in the wall clubs, where the guitar is just as likely to be a musical instrument as a shield and convenient defensive weapon.

This is all hyperbole of course, but one thing I do know is that it can't be duplicated in a factory, on a brand new anything. "Vintage" shouldn't cost a bazillion bucks, either.
 
sunvalleylaw said:
I think it is a combo of factors. I agree with Spud that 25-30 years is kind of a general rule, as in cars. But in guitars, I think more is involved. A 25-30 year old Kramer may be vintage or classic at this point. A 25-30 year old strat or les paul is just that many years old at this point. Vintage may be further back for those classics in my opinion. Doesn't stop folks from using the term on ebay though.
Click to expand...


OG's Charvel 6 thread kinda hit on what I was saying. He stated there, (http://www.thefret.net/showthread.php?p=62822#post62822):

oldguy said:
Haven't check specs yet, but this should be around mid-80's. What I notice about it is the attention to detail..... it's very good overall. I did notice the wiring and pots were just average, I de-soldered and removed the mid-boost pot to free it up, I was surprised some tuner/cleaner and lots of turning fixed it. The Model 6 was built in Japan, and was supposedly Charvel's version of Jackson's Soloist, tho I suspect the Jacksons used better components. The Jackson/Floyd is top notch on this, tho, well built and works flawlessly (once I finally got it set up). The action and playability are really good, tho a pro tech guy could no doubt get it better, but it's definitely fun.It doesn't qualify as "vintage", IMO, tho.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was just pondering, and thinking about Spud's car analogy. I guess without knowing more about this particular guitar that I would liken this guitar to an '80s Nissan 300Z car. Like this: http://orlando.kijiji.com/c-Cars-ve...Z-V6-5-SPEED-FAST-GAS-SAVER-W0QQAdIdZ37243775 More than 20 years old. Very well built, excellent motor in that car (descended from Alfa's 6 cylinder motor), very different look that fits the time (bumper styles, etc angular look etc.), but maybe not truly "vintage" yet. I bet this guitar is a great performer and an excellent value but would not get that "vintage" label. In the car world, go further back past 30 years and you might find more vintage items, but not guaranteed at 30 years. Consider a 1978 Mustang (bleh!) vs. a 1965 or 68! I don't know enough about the guitar world in that era to say, but I bet the same would hold true. It is not just age.
 
it's vintage when its got enough war stories and battle scars to make it look 15 years older then it actually is.
 
Robert said:
To me, vintage is really old. That means from the 60s or earlier, just like myself. :D
Click to expand...

Wow Robert, I never thought of it that way! I'm vintage....

The thought is a little scary though. When does "vintage" turn into "antique"?
:o
 
Jimi75 said:
What do you guys think - when is a guitar a vintage guitar?
Click to expand...

Good question since the words "new" and "vintage" can appear together in the same sentence in regard to Fender guitars! Personally, I think paying big bucks for a new Fender that has had it's finish "pre worn" to look old is kinda silly. However, there is apparently a market for these "counterfeit relics" which in some cases cost almost what the "genuine" article would. I guess these guitars are of more interest to "speculators" than to actual musicians....

Forty years ago, we thought a battered and beat up guitar was worth LESS than a new one. To think of paying extra to have "used looking" axe was ludicrous...

Strange huh?

Dennis
 
Looking in the dictionary, vintage has mostly to do with wine; however, these could apply to guitars.

  1. representing the high quality of a past time
  2. old-fashioned or obsolete
  3. being the best of its kind
 
strumsalot said:
Looking in the dictionary, vintage has mostly to do with wine; however, these could apply to guitars.

  1. representing the high quality of a past timeQUOTE]

    That would be my definition. Are the 1970's Fenders "vintage"? Not in my opinion, not even after 100 years. If you go like "they're vintage after 25 years" soon we'll have american standard guitars costing US$ 10.000.

    Fender did a lot to make them much cheaper to produce thus losing the "high quality standard" they had previously. Still, I'm not saying that every 70's Fender is crap!

    Same goes for the old 70's Gibson Les Pauls that had that mahogany-maple-mahogany sandwich body and the big volute behind the headstock. The newer standard ones are built much closer in specs to the classic era (1958-60), specially the OVS. Should they be considered vintage in 25 years? Who knows...I can see some "vintage japanese Reissues" on Ebay already :whatever:

    Maybe you wanna call all them 25 year olders "vintage" but to me that just won't mean the guitar is great and has to have a .000,00 price tag.
Click to expand...
 
vintage?

Somebody once pointed out that the things that cost a lot of money are generally the things that were desirable when the guys who now have money didn't. For most people and things, that would be guys in their 50s now and the things they wanted, but couldn't afford in their teens and twenties. The problem is, of course, that there are more guys with money than there are vintage axes.

It gets confusing, though, when you look at the sudden incidence of Gen X millionaires, some of whom want stuff from way back in the 1980s and 90s.

For those of you who don't approve of "factory aging" on guitars, ask yourself this: Are you still buying your jeans stiff and breaking them in yourself or do you let the factory do that?

Here in the south, somebody pointed out that we buy peCANS, but we sell PeCAHNS. So, your guitar is old, but I will be glad to sell you this Vintage one, if you like.

NTB
not old enough to be rich yet
 
"Vintage" implies age, but, for guitars, it also implies some intrinsic special quality that makes it stand out in the eyes of the collector......................the '59 Les Paul for instance. I don't believe for a second that every LP made in '59 was golden. I'm more than sure that there were turkeys in the line but, turkey or not, '59's are commanding $250 K or better.

It's all hype and perception.


Will an acrylic BC Rich stand the test of time and be a vintage piece?
 

Similar threads

helliott57
happy to see the fret is back!
Replies
14
Views
536
stingx
stingx
R
My Guitar Herd
Replies
17
Views
1K
Alan
A
L
Where have all the Washburns nuts gone long time passing
Replies
2
Views
76
Tig
Tig
marnold
Dirt and Vibe
Replies
2
Views
481
RobGLA
RobGLA
Robert
How many guitars do you have?
Replies
7
Views
601
marnold
marnold

Latest posts

Back
Top