-
Was looking at some tele clones on TGP going for $5k+. I know I'll probably get schooled by the corksniffer crowd here but I just can't see paying that kind of dough for a tele clone. I mean come on...You can't tell me that you couldn't put together something similar out of warmoth or usa custom guitars parts for $1200 assembled?
Of course, there are guys over there and here who think it's perfectly fine to pay $500 for a paf repro pickup.
I don't flinch as much when an original strat or tele goes for that kind of dough because at least there's some history in it but a clone is just a parts guitar IMO.
-
06-13-2015 07:25 PM
-
The Telecaster is the most simple guitar to build. 5k for a Telecaster clone is pretty ridiculous unless it has a carved top and exoctic woods etc but still....
If I wanted a tele or strat I'd get one from MJT.
-
that's not the only thing that I struggle with though. I surely see the value of a Suhr Tele over something like a mjt, nash or other parts guitars and given that a nash can frequently be had used for $1400, it's not unreasonable to see a suhr tele go for $2200.
However, I can't help but think that you can can an amazing, top-shelf archtop for the same dough and the amount of work that goes into not only the materials but the hand craftsmanship of the archtop far exceed those that go into the tele IMO...
-
I bought an MJT strat 6 months ago and I was really shocked that the cavity on it was not painted with conductive shield, nor was the pickguard coated with alum foil. I was disappointed in several other of the finish details on it. I thought maybe this was just a one-off issue but a 2nd MJT strat had exactly the same issues.
Originally Posted by steves3972
However, i got my strat for $650 so it's not such a big deal...
-
I'm willing to believe these are better guitars ... on average ..
But yeah .... between diminishing returns and the Veblen effect .. I'm not in a hurry to spend that kind of money on a solid body
There's plenty of great guitars at much lower prices
Once the archtops get above $10K I feel the same about them .... although I may yet talk myself into buying a Citation or La Venezia or a Parker
These are toys for the folks who put more money away in their youth than me ... or make a whole lot more money
-
Kirn ... Nash .. and Danocaster have stellar reputations in the boutique S and T style market and there guitars new are under $3K ... last time I checked
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
Well, let's see there was a guy named Leo F. who had a company and thought he was going to die. A large telecommunications company bought the company, and almost ran the most profitable guitar company in the world into the ground, over the next fifteen yrs. They also changed the way the guitars were made, and where they were made, so one could reasonably ask "What does it mean to say that a guitar is a 'Fender' guitar?
After the telecommunications company bought the company, and after Leo F's non-compete covenant expired, he continued to build strat and tele--like guitars at the same original production facility. Leo F., being a cantankerous guy, thought he could improve his original models, and so changed various features---so these guitars probably could not be called 'Fender' guitars...in a Platonic sense (we all know that the 'right' to call something a Fender was sold when the company was sold). So are G & L guitars 'Fender' guitars?!--in a way they are--probably more so than the newer, arguably ersatz Fenders....but they DO sound and play different so maybe that's not right, either.
So, suppose we reverse-engineered an original magic Strat or Tele?!...I mean its just a piece of wood that is routed out, spray painted and lacquer finished with standard parts put on it, readily available from after market parts suppliers...but it doesn't have the magic "Freddie Tavares" or "Rose" mojo...or Leo F., magic fairy fender-dust or whatever it was that supposedly made the originals so great...
But wait a second, not all the original branded guitars were so great, either....some are better than others....each piece of wood is different...different grain patterns....so really one needs to play and listen to each guitar, and decide which one is better...but wait that doesn't account for prices that these command...frankly, most of these guitars are bought by emotionally-based Baby Boomers who want to relive their teenage years...now they can be cool, and play in a band, or pretend to play in a band, that they didn't have a chance to play in originally....you can be sure that these decisions are not based on clinical, A/B comparison type listening and purchases...now guitar users and purchasers are pretty conservative---some of this is simply that some classic designs are good for a certain reason.... other guitar purchasers/users/buyers think "Gee, how can I go wrong buying a Fender Strat...I can always sell it and more or less get (my 2nd-hand) price back"...there will always be someone, esp. someone who does not know his mind, who will prefer the safety and security, of a "name" on a guitar. Will buyers in 20 years still think these are cool?!....maybe so...but maybe not. Should I buy a branded name instrument that I know to be mediocre, because I believe that others will value it, to some degree? In the world of financial assets, that goes by the name of the "the greater fool theory of finance"---buy a company for $5 Million or $50 Million even if doesn't justify that price based on future cash flow, because I'll be able to offload to it some sucker for more than I paid....a game that has been played and fortunes have been doing this...but it's dangerous...because when "the music stops", you can be holding an overpriced piece of shnit.
So back to buying the 'reverse engineered' product....what exactly...makes one worth more than another?....if an amp is handwired using certain types of components---no PCB boards....lots of people believe these will sound better and different than reissues...but people might still value a Fender "reissue" amp more highly than a boutique "original build" spec. amp...probably the issues are several...will the boutique builder still be around in 20 yrs?....what is the track record for reliability?...one has to sort through minor differences in product differentiation? The issues are much smaller when buying a partscaster tele or strat...play it...if you like the way it sounds, buy it, and you'll probably be able to find one for almost nothing because of the irrational attachment to "brand names"....I know this might spawn an avalanche of responses from Fender tele or strat players....seems to me Eddie Van H. sounded pretty good with a frankencaster superstrat...and Eric C. sounded pretty good with a strat that he cobbled together from a bunch of cast-off parts--"Blackie..."
So, I guess my reaction is...let the boutique buyers have their fun....after a while, they seem to tire of their musical mistresses...and you'll be able to pick up the 2nd hand version of the boutique item for 40 cents on the dollar, assuming it sounds good, and plays well.
Or...find a partscaster tele or strat that sounds good...and customize it...add a thick/thin neck if you like...ground the cavities if that is your thing to reduce hum....though a good set of pickups, even single coil, should have negligible hum...play around with wiring combos..pu's if you that floats your boat...
I doubt anybody in the audience knows or cares what you play...so play on with something you're happy to play, and that plays well.
-
no, that's not true. Everyday there are still $5k-$6k strat and tele clones on TGP which are not selling for $0.40/dollar. Not sure if they're selling them but they sure are asking ...
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
some of them seem to be maintaining there value or even going for more used because of the builder's 2 or 3 year waiting list for new ones
If I had the scratch ... I'd jump on that merry go round just to see if they can deliver on their promises
But I'm happy with my little strat and tele collection .. for now ... LOL
-
One of the basic assumed theories of economics is that consumers are rational; however one of the first things they tell you in economic theory, relating to it being a 'dismal science', is that consumers are anything but rational. Why would someone buy a (genuine) Rolex watch when when something of far less cost will perform exactly that same task? I guess the answer is that people, who have the means, buy things for more than their utilitarian value alone.
-
a cheapo squire telecaster can be a pretty darn good guitar these days. Play one next to an American tele & you might have a tough time justifying the price difference. But then we always want a little more . . .
Decide how much $$$ you want to lay out & I'm sure you can find some sort of a semi-competent telecaster in your price range
then you can chase mods to your heart's desire.
-
it's more than that though. People are extremely brand name conscious and they say they know what they like but they really like what they know. So great guitars that aren't gibson or benedetto sit and language for pennies on the dollar while folks salivate over the bigger names. Like the tom painter I sold for $1600. It's blows away the big dollar boutique guitar I played with the same specs but which goes for $5k and yet anytime one of those shows up used, even for 2x what the painter was going for, folks fawn all over it and it's gone within minute. Originally Posted by wildschwein
-
You can buy superb Fender American Vintage Teles used in the $1500 price range, so IMO, anyone buying Pre CBS Teles for 10-30K, Fender Custom Shop Teles for 3-5K or Boutique luthier Teles for 3-5K is (as they call it in the car business) getting laid away.
-
Absolutely right about people liking "what they know". I think too that there is an implicit, sometimes explicit, belief that the brand name product buys status. This is implied by iim7V7IM7 in the Veblen effect reference. It is interesting though how there is a sizeable number of people on the guitar forums I visit who say that Norlin-era Gibson and CBS-era Fender products are extremely "poor" as compared with their preceding "golden" periods of manufacture. This may have some truth to it of course but those very brand name items predominantly from the '70s and early '80s still fetch pretty good dollars and are often marketed under the banner of vintage. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
i have a norlin 175 and it sounds much better than anything they're making today.
-
1989 isn't Norlin era Gibson... Henry J. bought 'em in 1986.
People may "like what they know," but I think liking things is more fun than constantly b*tching about things. There's so much guitar goodness out there to explore and like; why so many threads complaining about other people's guitar choices?
(It's all rhetorical... Happy Sunday AM)
-
I find it interesting (and also a bit unfortunate) how the conversation in this forum sometimes drifts toward how other people choose to spend their money on gear. Much of the conversation seems focused on this. Financial means and cost/benefit points in everything obviously differ between people in guitar gear, a house, a car, a meal out, a bottle of wine etc.. The cost/benefit trade-off point for one person is not the same as another. People have made different decisions in their lives and have made different trade-offs to weigh when making spending decisions.
Why apply your threshold to theirs? Would I buy a vintage Strat for $25k or a vintage Martin for $75k? Hell no! Would I buy a custom made Tele or Strat for $2-3k? Hell yes! Some others cost/benefit thresholds might lie somewhere else based upon their very valid criteria. But I am not going to sit here and judge the person who wants the 1961 Strat or 1932 Martin OM. If you don't think an item is worth it, don't buy it. If someone asks your opinion, by all means honestly give it. For the most part, I come here to celebrate others acquisition de jour. We are a heterogeneous community of hobbyist with day jobs, sort of pros with day jobs and pros who play for a living. The only thing that all of use have in common is a love of jazz music and guitar.
My $.02Last edited by iim7V7IM7; 06-14-2015 at 07:57 AM. Reason: Typo
-
If i price out parts, i could assemble anyone a top notch, holy shit this is amazing tele, for about $1200. So if i was in business, i could see 2k, maybe a bit more as fair, gotta get paid for the time and make a profit, especially those spraying their own finish...teles are easy to put together, but it done right, doesn't happen in an afternoon while you're swigging beers and listening to baseball on the radio either.
5k's a bit crazy...unless the assembler is actually a builder, making his/her own necks from scratch. A good neck is worth a lot...
As for the comparison of what you can get in an archtop for the same price, i don't really get the comparison...its like saying "man, i want some bbq," and somebody says "bbq? But you could get itallian for the same price!"Last edited by mr. beaumont; 06-14-2015 at 09:58 AM.
-
i agree with most of what you wrote jeff but the last sentence I disagree with mainly because i'm not talking about taste. I'm talking about craftsmanship and artisan quality. Nobody (at least not me) made a judgement on a tele's aesthetic tonal value relative to a 175 but in terms of craftsman ship I think it's pretty safe to say that they are not close, despite marketing hype.
Last edited by jzucker; 06-14-2015 at 10:07 AM.
-
If you're talking about bolt on, slap together per made components and *parts-casters*, then yeah . . I'd agree. But there are also mass produced 175-ish guitars that are similar to bolt on, slap together parts casters as well. Where's the greater craftsmanship between an Artcore and a Ron Kirn or a Michael DeTemple strat or tele? I'd say it's with the latter two . . . wouldn't you? Wouldn't you say that an Ibanez Artcore 175-ish guitar is as adequate to do the gig and make music as an inexpensive Warmouth parts-caster? Originally Posted by jzucker
Let's look at exactly what it takes to make an ES 175 . . . a real Gibson made original ES 175. Then, let's take a closer look at the videos of DeTemple and Kirn *crafting* a strat and/or a tele . . with almost every part hand crafted. Where's the marketing hype there? I don't see any.
The wood uesd for the tops and backs of a Gibson ES 175 are simply cut to a pattern, then sandwiched together in three layers with some sheet glue in between each, then put into a heat press to form an arch. How much craftsmanship woud you estimate it takes to accomplish that?? Kerfing is cut on a very automated machine. Tone bars, which do require a high level of skill, are shaped and glued onto the underside of the top. Rims are soaked and bent into shape. Then, the box is assembled. So the process of building the box is relatively childs play that you or I could be effectively trained to do in less than a month's time.
How different is the process of making a neck . . . between a tele/strat and a 175? . . . rolling a profile on it, inserting a truss rod, attaching a fretboard, installing frets etc.? Equal levels of skills and craftsmanship required on each. Attaching the neck and the body might be a bit more of a challenge on an arch top as related to proper neck angle. I can see greater skills required for that.
But, what's the difference in the craftsmanship needed to achieve a great aesthetic finish on a high quality tele and a high quality arch top? Equal levels of skill and craftsmanship required for either. What's the difference in the craftsmanship needed to install the electronics? Final set up?
No straw man arguments here. Facts are facts. Very high quality slab type guitars require just as much craftsmanship to execute flawlessly, as very high quality arch tops. Clones being not worthy of the costs? Ever check out what goes into making a '59 burst Les Paul clone, or a strat or tele clone by Gil Yaron?
-
"Very high quality slab type guitars require just as much craftsmanship to execute flawlessly, as very high quality arch tops"
not a fully carved one. yeah, some builders have their CNC's but you still have to graduate by hand.
get out your finger planes fellas!
-
Personally, I'm often content to stand on the sidelines and watch what happens when people take a leap; 5k Tele, 15k arch top, $600 for a set of NOS tubes, etc. things I might try, if I had more time and money, just to see if the difference is worth it.
Its all relative. Even though the best advice is to get back to practice and make the best use of what you have, humans often can't resist the siren song of some magical tweak that just might yield a certain something we're looking for, but without the otherwise hard uphill slog (anyone read "Outliers"?). I'm guilty of that more often than I care to admit, in many ways.
This discussion might be better suited to seeking out those who have taken the leap and asking them if it was worth it, than speculate, which just leaves us with a bunch of unchanged opinions and bad feelings, if not carefully expressed.
A good way to generate controversy is to speculate without investigating. No hope for agreement, but you get to chew the fat, which can be good, if that's all you want.
-
I wonder if some of the prices on new guitars comes from the fact that it is difficult to try and compare a bunch of them anymore. I live in a fairly large metropolitan area, San Diego, and not too long ago I could drive around to a bunch of stores and try the same model out in order to find a good one. Those shops have closed down. Now, there might be a premium put on a guarantee of a good one because a lot of people have to purchase sight unseen and don't have the time or stomach for going through the return process by mail. I really like the Nocaster RIs and while it is true that you can make an American Standard sound as good, for around $2K used I can have some level of confidence that I will get a good one. I will also have some level of confidence that I can sell it for what I paid.
Last edited by Encinitastubes; 06-14-2015 at 11:06 AM.
-
I'd agree with that. It does take more knowledge, skill and craftsmanship to achieve great tone by hand carving and graduating a sound board and back plate . . . not to mention a shit load more time and effort. But the comparison was being made to the ES 175, a laminate top and back guitar. (also considered to be a very high quality arch top). I probably should have stated that in the comparison I referenced. Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
I can't speak for anyone else but based on my experience, there are definitely some limits on what I would spend on a T-type guitar. Other than the neck carve, I don't agree that they take as much talent to build as a quality archtop and they certainly don't take nearly as much time to build (especially without a tilt back peghead). Given the remarkably plentiful and diverse supply of parts, services and complete guitars, it's hard for me to imagine not being able to find a great Tele of any variant type for under $2500 and probably less (maybe even significantly less).
Reply With Quote
I found this Ibanez rarity
Today, 03:05 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos