Vintage doesn’t mean better [discussion]

Vintage guitars can be great. They can also be terrible.

Even from reputable and legendary manufacturers, you can get absolute duds, even from their “glory days” or “golden era”.

Even the best, most astounding, heavenly vintage instruments with all the magical aura and tone imaginable have the same issue: value. The astronomical prices of these instruments becomes itself a hindrance to their enjoyment.

When every scratch, every ding, every hour of fret wear lowers the resale value of an item the price of a brand new car, it’s harder to play it like you mean it, like it should be played, with unrestricted creativity and abandon.

Not to mention their inherent cantankerous nature due to 40, 50, 60 years of use contributing to compounding structural and electrical issues all the more likely to result in entire components needing replacement, further lowering the value.

Moreover, vintage specifications just aren’t always better, especially from the perspective of playability. I think everyone can agree Leo Fender got the Stratocaster bridge pickup dead wrong in 1954, let alone things like the super round fretboard radius and sharp blocky neck heels.

Unless there is just one particular instrument that I can personally confirm is ineffably, supernaturally wonderful and unique, and isn’t literally the cost of a brand new luxury car, than I could never justify buying a vintage guitar. There are so so so many incredible guitars being made today for a fraction of the cost, with more options and better features, and with none of the stigma around modifying them to your needs and personality.

submitted by /u/logicalpretzels
[link] [comments]