Old school dudes...

[jinx]

I would like to hear about guitars of yesterday vs. today. Oldest guitar I've personally owned would be 80s guitars. I would like to think that todays guitars including cheapos are just better made. Any fun old guitar stories?

[Twisteramps]

I think the materials were better in the old days, but the quality could be hit and miss. Fender guitars, for example, weren't built by 'craftsmen' so much as an assembly line. I've played a few real 50s strats, and they weren't magic - they felt like (forgive me here, vintage fans) squiers. Also played an acoustic Gibson from the early 1900s... it was about like an airline guitar. The strats sounded killer, but the fretwork and fit and finish on a typical korean guitar nowadays is better imho.

Back then, brazillian rosewood was common, and woods were just better overall. I think if you had a korean or Japanese guitar built with top of the line woods you'd have a hard time discerning it from a USA.

Awaiting the flames...

Pete

[Norton]

I think the materials were better in the old days, but the quality could be hit and miss. Fender guitars, for example, weren't built by 'craftsmen' so much as an assembly line. I've played a few real 50s strats, and they weren't magic - they felt like (forgive me here, vintage fans) squiers. Also played an acoustic Gibson from the early 1900s... it was about like an airline guitar. The strats sounded killer, but the fretwork and fit and finish on a typical korean guitar nowadays is better imho.

Back then, brazillian rosewood was common, and woods were just better overall. I think if you had a korean or Japanese guitar built with top of the line woods you'd have a hard time discerning it from a USA.

Awaiting the flames...

Pete

I'll pour some water on'em.


You're right. The old guitars did not have good playablity.

[jinx]

seems like there were a ton of cheapos made of ply to.

[straycat]

50's strats are cool now back in the 60's they were just an old junky guitar.The new guitars ARE made better.The MIJ strats are much better made than the early USA ones.This is JMO but the fit and finish of the old strats was not all that good,bodies were cut a shaped by hand and lots of imperfections in the paint.Gibson was a much better guitar than a Fender back then.Leo Fender's best work was when he was at G&L.
The woods used back then were better.

[Accept2]

I think people confuse the good build quality that machines can provide as evidence that a guitar is good. The machines can make a guitar look exactly like a picture its given, but when you use shit woods, and have the guitar pretty much held together by a thick gloss finish, its more of a guitar-like-thing than a guitar. Alot of import guitars are being made of Nato and crap like that. They will be described as mahoghany, but the fact is, its Nato. In the 80s Nato Mahoghany was relagated to the absolute cheapest guitars, today its in almost all the import guitars. Of course guitars have improved in the low end, they are better than the low end of yesteryear, but some people still think just because its well put together that its as good as a real guitar............

[Strat God]

Vintage guitars had small frets and curved radius boards. Pickups were weaker too.....BTW- even guitars sold in Woolworth's had Brazilian Rosewood - it was used becuase of it's low cost and huge availability.

[Twisteramps]

Well, I think fretwork is a lot better too. I've played a few older guitars that wouldn't intonate properly no matter what you did because the bridge wasn't placed correctly. The 'student models' were pretty much a joke - I had a fender mustang from the late 60s for awhile, and it was terrible! Jackson and a few other companies put some changes in that made a huge difference for me anyways, like jumbo frets on strats, flatter radiuses and hotter pickups.

Regarding wood - I think the average wood they used back in the 'good old days' was probably as good as the best stuff they can find now. Taylor guitars built an acoustic out of an old warehouse wooden pallet to see if it could be done!

Pete

[lynchfan6]

Well, I have just two guitars from the late 80's. I have a USA Kramer nightswan and a BC Rich USA gunslinger or Assassin (I always thought it to be a gunslinger, but it has two pickups) Anyway, I find the playablility and action and tone to be just as great as my more current (90' s- 2000's models) USA or Japanese guitars. They both have wonderful necks, low action, feel really durable, are put together really well with awesome workmanship, and sound nice and full and warm. So I can't discern any major differences in quality, ease of play, or workmanship. My two cents!

[fett]

"No comment"

[Racerx2k]

I think over time, the quality in the price spectrum has flattened. I've had tons of guiyars over the past 27+ years, from the cheap to the pricey, and while I think that the quality of the cheaper guitars have DEFINITELY improved by leaps and bounds, it's the mid-priced, and in some cases, higher-priced guitars that are the same, or worse, not as good, as the older ones. Alot of short-cuts have been made, for the sake of the allmigty dollar. It's more about profit margins than integrity, these days.

[Phantom Hawk]

I'll have to agree with Twister, too. While the selection of wood was better 20+ years ago, I think the newer guitars are much more consistant in playability and quality.

[jgcable]

For the most part.. with exceptions of course... electric guitars under $600.00 from the late 70's through the late 80's SUCKED.

[Axewielder]

My 86 Dimas King V appears to not have a compound radius fretboard, while the new KV2's do (compound = better imho). But, the 86 has poplar wings (rare and sweet) while the KV2's have alder wings (common and boring).

[atomic charvel guy]

my best guitar, Elvis as you all know him, has only been setup twice since i have owned him, it never needs any work, and it's a charvel real parts strathead from hell. It torches any guitar i have ever owned, and i used to have a lot of them.