|
Post by martin130161 on Jul 9, 2015 18:13:36 GMT
I've agonised for days over whether or not to start this thread, knowing full well what a potentially controversial and provocative topic it is (and one which, I am sure, has been debated to death on this very forum several times in the past. Nevertheless, the current (July) issue of Acoustic magazine has already resulted in many a conversation with like-minded friends and fellow musicians about a topic which I'm certain is as divisive as British politics! I'm going to try my very best here not to come down on either side of a very rickety fence, because I am genuinely interested in simply starting a healthy debate. But I suspect, right from the outset, that there is no definitive answer or outcome to the discussion...so let's just cut to the chase ? If you haven't already guessed, it's that perennial topic of 'boutique guitars' and the pricing thereof - sparked by the (to me, at least!) still stratospheric and prohibitive price of a 'stripped down' Greenfield... To put this into personal context, I have - for the past two years, and with still a further 18 months to go - been on Kevin Aram's waiting list for a hand-built classical guitar. Bearing in mind, this is a luthier with an international reputation, who has made guitars for the likes of Julian Bream, Carlos Bonell, Juan Martin, Forbes Henderson, Earl Klugh and many others. Yet for all of his expertise, craftsmanship, client base and undoubted reputation, the price of a new Aram is HALF that of a 'stripped down' Greenfield! And the same can be said of most other classical builders at the very top of their game: Simon Ambridge, Christoper Dean, Michael Gee et many als... Now factor in a great many of the other emerging steel string makers around, and the story is the same: prices way above and beyond their classical counterparts. My question - and I stress that it is a question, rather than an opinion - is: am I missing something here? We're not, after all, really comparing apples and oranges. If we do have to draw some kind of analogy, then maybe we're comparing pianos and harpsichords. But, fundamentally, there are many common factors at play: all these makers (whether classical or steel string - are 'one-man/one guitar at a time' operations; most have substantial waiting lists; all possess consummate luthiery's skills; there are many similar build stages involved - neither type of guitar is particularly easier than the other to produce... So where did it (the price differential) all get so crazy? Take into account another article in the same edition of Acoustic magazine: the profile of Jonny Kinkead. You could hardly dispute his level of experience and expertise, and his company 'ranks among the most prestigious guitar makers in the U.K.'. Take a look at his prices, though. Why aren't you charging 4k plus, Jonny - even allowing for no import duties? I heard a first-hand story this week about one American builder who - on the back of an 'endorsement' from a very famous musician - almost trebled his prices overnight. The ploy backfired on him, and he apparently lowered his costs again to something approaching a more realistic level. The person who told me this story has a very substantial collection of instruments, including a Manzer 'Pat Metheny' model - yet his most prized guitars (15 of them!) are built by a company charging £3k and under... I'm acutely aware of some of the points that will be made in the (hopefully!) lively debate to follow: eg 'golden age of luthiery' (I agree!), 'it's governed by what people are willing to pay'/'what a luthier chooses to charge', 'if you can afford and want the best, then why not' etc etc. And, as I began by saying, I don't particularly want to offer an opinion of my own, one way or another. Before turning this thread over to you folks, though, I will say that I feel very much that the current 'boutique guitars' movement - by implication - suggests that a lot of us are playing inferior instruments. 'A taste for the extraordinary...', 'you need to learn in (sic) a Volvo to really appreciate a Ferrari', 'the perennial quest for the best' - and those comments are all from Acoustic Editor Guy Little's foreword. So, having lit the blue touch paper, I'm going to turn this over to you lot now - and get some practise in on a truly wonderful (but probably distinctly average) guitar... ?
|
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,544
|
Post by davewhite on Jul 9, 2015 18:54:36 GMT
First off, I'd love to see a concise definition of a "boutique guitar" - one bought in Carnaby Street in the 1960's perhaps ? Well if you look at stringed instruments bought by professional musicians that play in orchestras - violins, violas, cellos etc, they will be paying anything from £15k upwards for handmade instruments regarding it as a vital tool for their trade - also tax deductable. They are primarily buying for quality of sound and playability and not much for bling/kudos and are happy to pay for craftsmanship, skill and the time needed to produce them. Classical guitars don't feature much there but professional solo performers of these will still probably be using the same criteria. Steel string acoustics are a different "beastie" altogether. Their origins in the US didn't come from the rich elite as a customer base but from the poorer end of society that wanted to make music and they were produced in great volumes with prices pitched accordingly. The "high end" steel string acoustic guitar market seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon and I suspect has a lot to do with fashion, bragging rights, power and status and also the "baby boom" generation who freely splashed their - and it turns out their future generations - cash to exercise this. The same phenomenon can be seen in the property markets, art world, expensive cars, wine, fine dining yada yada except these have a long history. That's not to denigrate the skill of makers such as Michael Greenfield but how do you put a value on it? Well how long is a piece of string - which is a question that can't be answered if you delve into Quantum Mechanics. The market and how much people will pay gives a "price" but this will vary with the vagaries I've outlined above - from £3k to £20k overnight when someone is "discovered" for exactly the same instrument or down to nada when the maker goes "out of fashion". How much is Raheem Sterling really worth - (a sore point with both Leo and me currently)? There are "values" in hard cash and also "values" in appreciating the craftsmanship and quality of each instrument and maker. Fortunately for makers such as me there are enough people out there that "value" in ways that resonate with me.
|
|
|
Post by earwighoney on Jul 9, 2015 20:01:38 GMT
The "high end" steel string acoustic guitar market seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon and I suspect has a lot to do with fashion, bragging rights, power and status and also the "baby boom" generation who freely splashed their - and it turns out their future generations - cash to exercise this. The same phenomenon can be seen in the property markets, art world, expensive cars, wine, fine dining yada yada except these have a long history. Virtual fist bump to you Dave. Nail on the head. *** I would extend Dave's metaphor to some nylon string guitars as well. The most famous flamenco brand Conde, some of their top end guitars are around the 10k mark and a few of their guitars I have played were really poorly made instruments, 1k instruments at best. I don't know a huge amount about classical guitars but there are some makers that seem to charge a huge amount eg Smallman, who's guitars seem to be a bag of ***** to my ears at least. In steel string guitars the counterpart of Smallman who charges roughly the same amount guitars have the same impact and I question the value of those guitars as well.
|
|
|
Post by jonnymosco on Jul 9, 2015 20:05:27 GMT
I haven't seen AG this month, but get the gist... there are also loads of guitar makers out there unknown on the 'golden age of luthiary' scene and their guitars are fantastic and not expensive, or not for sale because they are not in it to make any money.
There is a climate of exclusivity is best, but that's the same in any world: cars, watches, cigars, whisky - the guitar is no different.
Whatever you tastes or budget, at the end of the day though they should be just tools to get the job done.
Jonny
|
|
|
Post by thejamsinger on Jul 9, 2015 21:26:41 GMT
It's like anything in life an object is only worth what you or anyone else is willing to pay for it. I recently had a lift in a car that cost nearly £100,000 and when we were going down the motorway at 70mph I would not say it was worth £80,000 more than a new mondeo, but hey what do I know, someone was willing to pay it. If you've got the money and you like it go for it and who cares what anyone else thinks. If you don't spend it now, your nursing home will take it off you.
|
|
|
Post by lavaman on Jul 9, 2015 21:38:47 GMT
I haven't seen AG either, but at the end of the day I agree with jonnymosco, a guitar is a tool for making music - it's an air pump made from a wooden box. I haven't bought my guitars as investments, I bought them all to play music. Assuming that I had the cash, would I spend that much on a Greenwood? No. What's a fair price for a hand made guitar? Who knows? Whatever the market will bear. I suspect that us purchasers are currently getting a pretty good deal from most UK luthiers. I'd rather support them. Iain
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,994
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Jul 9, 2015 23:44:18 GMT
Great thread - I'm glad you did get around to starting it Martin! Good replies so far too! It's all relative though - there are plenty of players who would feel that spending more than £500 on a guitar would be bonkers. In general, there will be some juggling of personal tastes/specific needs/experience/expectations/cash availability etc, as with almost every other purchase, in order to come up with an acceptable compromise. I have been lucky enough to play (in some cases for extended periods rather than just a quick bash) a fair few guitars far more expensive than I would ever dream of buying - some were sublime, others didn't do it for me at all. Pretty much what I could also say about mid-price and lower cost guitars! You only have to look briefly through the thread titles of a certain US acoustic forum to notice how frequently the titles have the words to the effect of "What is the best guitar/pickup/amp etc....?". The instigators of many of these threads seem interested largely in just that - owning what is perceived to be "best" by others, rather than having a firm idea of what they actually want from the product bearing in mind the use to which they intend to put it. "Boutique" actually is quite an apt expression - the guitar world is just as subject to the vagaries of fashion as is the world of, er, fashion. Some of us would not be seen in anything but bespoke tailoring, but many of us are quite content with Primark, or possibly even M&S jeans. Why do some makers charge eyewatering amounts of cash for their work? Because people will, for good reasons as well as less good ones, pay it. And as a huge fan of the sound, relatively plain aesthetic, and vfm of many UK built instruments an editorial comment in Acoustic Magazine is not, even by implication, going to give me an inferiority complex over my choice of instruments! Keith
|
|
|
Post by ianlp59 on Jul 10, 2015 10:03:02 GMT
I am fortunate enough to own a number of high end instruments from a number of builders. The prices of these instruments varied very considerably. The price charged by a builder is surely reflective of the demand for that luthier's work and the willingness of people to fork out the dosh. Recently, I have taken to commissioning instruments from up and coming builders who don't have a massive waiting list or (yet) a stellar reputation with pricing to match. It seems to me to be the best way of getting great instruments at a reasonable price whilst helping the luthier to build his or her reputation. I do actually play all my guitars, that's what they were built for, and concur with Jonny Mosco that guitars are a tool to be used by the player. More expensive/exclusive does not mean better just less affordable to acquire. But, hey, you can't have too many guitars - and then there is the Romero banjo...
Cheers,
Ian
|
|
|
Post by jwills57 on Jul 10, 2015 11:14:48 GMT
Hello, Guitar Friends--Being an American and living in America and having followed the world of steel string guitars for a long time, this is an interesting topic for me (and dear to my heart, as well). I have been really lucky in life to own quite a few so-called "boutique" guitars and played many others. The market here has changed a lot in ten years, in that there are more luthiers moving toward elite status. But still it's worth noting that of maybe two hundred or so luthiers really aspiring to make a living at guitar building, maybe only twenty or so are commanding exceptional prices. I can think of many, many builders from whom one can still buy a wonderful guitar for under $5,000 US dollars. I might mention in this regard Ken Franklin, Pat Foster, Steve Kinnaird, Lance Kragenbrink, Brad Daniels, Jim Worland, Mark Hatcher. These are luthiers with whom I'm personally familiar. I'm sure there are dozens of others. And over here at least $5,000 will still buy a great Martin or Bourgeois or Collings or Huss and Dalton or Gibson. I think there's some kind of prejudice that if one is not charging north of $10,000, then the guitar won't be quite as good as an instrument costing that much. In my experience, having gone to lots of guitar camps and played lots of "boutique" guitars, this simply is not true. I can think of playing five or six instruments by "elite" makers, guitars costing $7,0000, $8,000 and more, that left me very unimpressed. I'm glad there are guys and gals who can charge $10,000 for a guitar and have a market; that's cool, that's capitalism. Most of those folks have spent a lifetime honing their skills, have earned the right to try to sell their guitars still such a price point. But there are other folks who have built five or six guitars and want $7,000, $8,000 per instrument. Not quite sure about that logic. But in the end the market will be the final judge. A final thought is that in America a luthier's location plays an important part in his/her pricing. If you live in California or maybe in a metropolitan area on the east coast, the cost of living can be easily twice or in some cases three times what the cost of living is in the Midwest or South. From that perspective luthiers in the former areas have to charge more just to make ends meet, which is understandable but not the same issue as whether their guitars are substantially better.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Jul 10, 2015 11:23:01 GMT
I'm very much of the view that the choice to spend money (or not) is entirely up to the individual.
That said, in my own case, I'd be a fool to spend megabucks on an instrument (like the Greenfield in this month's acoustic mag) because it's way beyond my ability to make the best of such an instrument, and I don't seem to have inherited the "keeping up with the Joneses" gene (or, for that matter, the keeping up with the Joneses money!), so I have no reason to go down the "boutique" instrument route.
I do have one or two guitars I am proud to own, and they're in the price bracket that some people would consider extravagant. There's no doubt that a poor instrument can hold back one's development as a player, but for my modest abilities, spending more than 2 or 3 grand would be a waste.
I've had the good fortune to play one or two of Ianlp59's guitars, and I can confirm that they are utterly beautiful, but in my hands, they may as well be wooden boxes from the local fruiterer. Ian, on the other hand can make them sing (or in the Romero Banjo's case, rattle and wheeze in a very high class banjoey way).
So, whatever the motivation of the purchaser, I'm sure the more expensive guitars represent value in someone's mind, and I am content that some luthiers can make a very good living from their art. I know many luthiers don't make a lot. I also think that some guitars represent incredible value for money (Brook springs to mind here - which won't come as a shock to anybody who knows me).
As for whether a high price signifies "best", I'm not convinced that price and value are necessarily directly linked. I played a Martin D45 the other day and I really don't know why it holds such a premium over a HD28 (or, in fact, a D35). But as a trend, I think it's plausible to say you're unlikely to get a guitar for £500 that is as playable, or sounds as good as a guitar costing £5,000. So there must be some sort of a link. But beauty is in the ear of the beerholder, and what sounds sublime to me may not sound as good to others.
I like this thread, Martin. Thanks for starting it.
|
|
Wild Violet
Artist / Performer
Posts: 3,557
My main instrument is: Symonds OM-14
|
Post by Wild Violet on Jul 10, 2015 11:54:55 GMT
I've had the good fortune to play one or two of Ianlp59's guitars, and I can confirm that they are utterly beautiful, but in my hands, they may as well be wooden boxes from the local fruiterer. I was thinking the same thing - amazing guitars in the hands of someone who can do them justice, which Ian certainly can, but I'm not one of those someones. I played a (forget the name, Krinklebottom or something) about 10 years ago that was a high end handmade American guitar. The owner was telling me how sensitive it was to humidity changes. He had three different saddles to choose from, depending on the weather. All I could think was "Man, what a PITA." I'd rather have spent the money on a plain D-28, which is still probably a better guitar than I will ever need.
|
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,544
|
Post by davewhite on Jul 10, 2015 12:16:57 GMT
I played a (forget the name, Krinklebottom or something) about 10 years ago that was a high end handmade American guitar. Did Madam have a Froggy Bottom in her hands perchance
|
|
|
Post by fatfingerjohn on Jul 10, 2015 12:34:27 GMT
I too think Dave's summary, repeated by Lynn above re 'fashion, power, bragging rights and status', hits many nails on the head. I've seen quite a few Emperor's New Clothes in my travels. For myself, the key thing surrounds your ability as a player. Without doubt my playing improved (or, hopefully, the ease of doing it and the sound produced) when I ditched an OK-ish guitar and bought a better one. But I'm not good enough to really get the best out of something which may be a 'must' for a very good player but would be wasted on me. The key basic features of neck profile, nut width, setup and good tone quality will suffice for me, at a price that I can afford/justify. Yes, I've had a chance occasionally to play something a lot more expensive which also has the basic qualities I need (and some which don't as well) but would be hard pushed to really differentiate at my skill levels in a blind test. I wouldn't in the slightest denigrate anyone who has paid a lot for a top of the range (price range as well) guitar and if they get something extra out of it, can afford it and it gives them great pleasure, then it's money well spent. I found the same when I played a lot of tennis, to intermediate standards. The difference between most £50 rackets and most £200 ones was huge. After that the law of diminishing returns set in. A £5000 racket still couldn't get me to regularly do a good topspin backhand ... John
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Jul 10, 2015 13:48:27 GMT
I could see this being a "provocative" topic on some forums, but this is a place blissfully free of the raging and outbreaks of hostility on so many forums. I can identify a lot with what you say Martin. My rection, more often that not, when I look at a review of a guitar in an acoustic magazine is to think "HOW MUCH???!!". It is, as has been said already, a lot to do with what price the market is willing to pay. I can how a small boutique operation of 1 or 2 people will be very limited in the numbers of instruments made in a year. If the market in general is prapared to pay £4k for their guitars and they are kept busy making them all year round I can see why they do that. They have living costs and want to provide pensions etc, and there is no benefit to them in cutting the price to £2k or whatever as they can't make more instruments to regain those lost profits. There will inevitably be a status accorded some brands due to the high price that in itself seems to be attractive to those that like to show off about what hugely priced possessions they have. There also does seem to be a spin off of higher prices for having a connection to big name musicians playing the products - which is mad. The extra amounts that people are prepared to pay for bling and trimmings on a guitar really does baffle me - particularly on batch produced factory guitars. Double the price for something that sounds very little different but looks all glossy and glittery seems strange and not really added value. I'd much rather pay extra for plain but better build than extra adornments of fancy looking woods. I spent a lot of fruitless weeks trying to find magic in batch made factory guitars in the £1k to £2k range, but they all seemed to be just upmarket versions in style and finish of the £600 instruments. Only a better built but basic specification guitar did the trick - still seems eye-wateringly extravagant to me even at just £2.5k or thereabouts - at least I'll never be at a better quality as a player than the guitars own quality. I do find that I am one of those dull people who look for the no trimmings variations on most things including cars, not just instruments - anyway, bottom line is if it doesn't sound better or feel better to play it's not worth paying the extra. Especially when played at my level! Mark
|
|
leoroberts
C.O.G.
Posts: 24,567
My main instrument is: probably needing new strings
|
Post by leoroberts on Jul 10, 2015 15:02:27 GMT
Something is worth what one person is prepared to pay for it. If I were a millionaire I'd almost certainly buy some super-expensive guitars just so that I can own one. Wouldn't matter to me that I couldn't do it justice: it would be mine. I already have instruments (DeFaoites) that are way beyond my ability, but so what? They make me feel good, sound great and are MINE Like ianlp59 I regularly play all my instruments - that's what they're for. And if I owned a Greenfield or an Olson or Somogyi (or all three if I was a multi-millionaire!) it'd get played just as much, and as poorly, as my others and I wouldn't feel in the least bit guilty about it.
|
|