What would be your definition of "vintage" guitar?

So, I've posted this thread on the lespaulforum, and as I expected, I got a huge load of bullshit and corksniffery in return (it's funny how that board is one of the best and more resourceful internet fora I've ever joined, and at the same time it is irritatingly full of idiots among the good members.

Anyway, this is a more civilized place to discuss this matter...

we often see guitars referred as "vintage", but the term is often confused and doesn't seem to have a precise definition when it comes to instruments.

What exactly do YOU consider a "vintage" guitar? How old and which characteristics must it be/have?

I think a guitar is "vintage" if it is at least 20 years old and of a series that has been discontinued or at least essentially modified, so that you can't buy a new one anymore, except for reissues.

Of course, there will be good vintages and bad vintages, just like wine.

For example, many people don't consider Norlin era Gibsons vintage. I do.

"Vintage"......IMO at least twenty-five years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomman

"Vintage"......IMO at least twenty-five years old.

---

More or less what I think...

A 1990 Strat "vintage?"

To me, a "Vintage" guitar is one built in the USA before CBS bought Fender and Norlin bought Gibson, circa 1965.

I would also say that "vintage" is a shell game designed to dupe people with money, that there are thousands more vintage guitars for sale than were actually built, and that no 1963 Fender is actually a better musical instrument than, say, my Warmoth/EMG/Callaham partscaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silent j.

...that there are thousands more vintage guitars for sale than were actually built

---

An undeniable fact for sure. I myself could easily assemble such a forgery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silent j.

A 1990 Strat "vintage?"

To me, a "Vintage" guitar is one built in the USA before CBS bought Fender and Norlin bought Gibson, circa 1965.

---

Not just "any" 1990 guitar, of course.

I myself recently bought an early 90s guitar of a series that has been discontinued after few units were produced, and yet I think of it as non-vintage or maybe I'd say semi-vintage... :hmm

The term vintage is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as:

—used to describe a wine usually of high quality that was produced in a particular year which is identified on the bottle

—used to describe something that is not new but that is valued because of its good condition, attractive design, etc

—used to describe something that has the best qualities or characteristics of the things made or done by a particular person, organization, etc.

So, I think it has less to do with the instrument being an "antique" and more with it being particularly good or rare, though not new. I tend to think more or less like that...

This is an interesting question. I don't know that there is a simple age at which a guitar becomes "vintage".

Over on the Everything SG forum, for example, a vintage SG includes those instruments made up through 1969. I don't know why those dates were chosen, though. My guess is that those years represent the period of the original construction techniques. Incidentally, the 1969 cutoff obviously excludes my 1974...not that I really care!

I know this isn't much of an answer, unfortunately. I suppose I'd say it needs to be a combination of age and the era/build of the guitar that truly defines it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KennyF

The standard acceptable definition of the term "vintage" does not apply to the Gibson crowd. It should, but doesn't. This has little to do with anything, other than, the inclusion of some, at the exclusion of others, for the purpose of creating scarcity, which is directly connected to a given instrument's value, in terns of actual monetary value, or egocentric exclusivity, or collectable desirability. The term is defined within their own circles and is adhered to by most within those circles. The obvious remedy for those who disagree, is to simply not involve yourself in that particular circle, which is what I do. While I find the discussions of vintage Gibson guitars to be very interesting, I have no interest in ever owning one.

The bottom line is, I have "no horse in that race". In fact, my mindset on guitars as a whole, is that of a "player", for the sole purpose of being inspired to create music, and has absolutely nothing to do with money or ego. I know what the instrument means to me and the value of that is priceless...

---

I think that's exactly the way I feel and think.

you see, I opened the very same thread over at LPF and I myself asked the mods to close it, as I got few real thoughts and a lot of stupid corksniffing, which I find childish and the thread was going nowhere anyway...

You answered your own question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by de Melo

Not just "any" 1990 guitar, of course.

I myself recently bought an early 90s guitar of a series that has been discontinued after few units were produced, and yet I think of it as non-vintage or maybe I'd say semi-vintage... :hmm

The term vintage is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as:

—used to describe a wine usually of high quality that was produced in a particular year which is identified on the bottle

—used to describe something that is not new but that is valued because of its good condition, attractive design, etc

—used to describe something that has the best qualities or characteristics of the things made or done by a particular person, organization, etc.

So, I think it has less to do with the instrument being an "antique" and more with it being particularly good or rare, though not new. I tend to think more or less like that...

---

I'd have a hard time calling calling a guitar made in 1990 "vintage". I think it takes a little more than time that and it does imply some exclusivity and "cork sniffing". I think it's really a silly term how we use it.

Sure but that's what I think. I asked what the others think, there's no right answer here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KennyF

Like I always say... Somebody who is hellbent on kickin' your ass, doesn't discuss it with you. They just kick your ass... With that in mind, let the guitar do the talkin' and be humble and classy about it... :salud:

---

http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/g...or/TheDuke.jpg

:salud:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by de Melo

...

... a wine usually of high quality that was produced in a particular year which is identified on the bottle

So, I think it has less to do with the instrument being an "antique" and more with it being particularly good or rare, though not new. I tend to think more or less like that...

---

I think this gets the closest to the issue. For me, keeping in mind that originally the term described wine, a vintage guitar would be one of very high quality that was produced for a relatively short time. The classic example is the Les Paul Standard from the late 50's, but there are a lot more. This would not be exactly the same as a collectible guitar which, for me, would be any guitar that is interesting or unusual in some way (shape, colour, context, quality). So you could have a well-made Supro that would be collectible but not necessarily vintage.

That's as far as I got and, having just re-read it, it sounds like a pile of cork sniffin' bullcrap, :laughing:. I am just trying to make sense out of the whole thing. Personally, I like guitars that are players and I couldn't care less about vintage or collectible (or "investment grade," a term that really makes me wretch). Old guitars are fun and full of nostalgia, but a good luthier can make you a guitar just as good if not better. One exception to that is older acoustics which get better with age. Electrics don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc W

I think this gets the closest to the issue. For me, keeping in mind that originally the term described wine, a vintage guitar would be one of very high quality that was produced for a relatively short time. The classic example is the Les Paul Standard from the late 50's, but there are a lot more. This would not be exactly the same as a collectible guitar which, for me, would be any guitar that is interesting or unusual in some way (shape, colour, context, quality)...

---

exactly...

And you're right, vintage guitars that aren't collectible or investment items can be excellent players and full of mojo...

Regardless of definition, I think caring about it is just plain silly. It's a collector's concern, so it's just about buying and owning things, which has nothing to do with making music.

Hmmm I now disagree.

I think there's a certain magic to instruments... They aren't just tools to some of us. I can enjoy the history and (cannot think of other words to describe) mojo of an old guitar without sniffing any cork or thinking about collecting or reselling it...

I realize that my view of "vintage" is highly subjective, and maybe you can relate.

When I was 14 in 1976, Strats were ubiquitous, clitoral--every c**t had one. My sense of time is warped, and it just seems like yesterday that those big headstocks and 3 bolt necks were everywhere. So those guitars just don't seem "vintage" to me. And that is ridiculous on my part.

And yet, I'm just not into vintage. The prices are obscene, and modern instruments sound just as beautiful to my cloth ears.

I'm a musician. All the magic in my favorite instruments I put there myself, through careful consideration and tweaking and hours of playing. I don't give two nickels for how rare it is... In my experience, when it comes to industrial objects, "rare" means "everybody hated that color." :laughing: Hell, talk about rare... My Strat is the only one like it in the whole wide world!

Not being able to hear The Emperor's New Guitar doesn't mean you have inferior ears, ch willie. And refusing to see the 70s guitars that were supposedly so bad that they started this whole "vintage" line of bullshit (now grown to elephantshit proportions) as now "vintage" in themselves is no failure of judgement.

We all combine sensory information to arrive at our conclusion about everything, because we don't really hear with ears or taste with tongues... we do all that with our brains, and inside the Magic Gray Goo, vision rules. (In a dog it's smell, in a spider it's touch... we evolved a huge visual cortex.) So we all more or less hear, in part, with our eyes. Vintageosity is the triumph of eyes over ears.

silent j said

"Regardless of definition, I think caring about it is just plain silly. It's a collector's concern, so it's just about buying and owning things, which has nothing to do with making music."

and de Melo said

"I think there's a certain magic to instruments... They aren't just tools to some of us. I can enjoy the history and (cannot think of other words to describe) mojo of an old guitar without sniffing any cork or thinking about collecting or reselling it..."

Remember the old breath mint ad "STOP, you're BOTH right!"

The whole vintage guitar phenomenon is definitely a collector concern and it is about buying and owning things. Most players don't care squat about such things. They just like good instruments.

At the same time, however, as de Melo says, there is definitely a certain magic to many guitars and it doesn't have to be a 1959 LP to have magic. It can be a 1962 Silvertone. I am old enough to remember when old Fenders, for examples, started to become ... interesting. Strats were not even 20 years old when I was 20 and I have fond memories of 1950s and early 60s Fenders. I guess I was in the second generation of guys to play Fenders and the older ones just seemed to feel better than the newer ones (and there were more quality changes to come, we all know). Perhaps we were just projecting, but I remember owning a few and loving the feel of an older Fender.

It was also more than just Fenders of Gibsons. Unusual or odd-ball guitars are big thing now, but I remember the first time I played a plastic-bodied Supro through a small tube amp. WOW! And it looked so cool, so... non-mainstream (it was the 60s).

I am rambling now, but I do get both points. All players like good guitars because they are tools but we can also appreciate their history and mojo without using phrases like "investment grade."

Note to willie: didja notice I got the correct Greek singular (phenomenon)?

great question... no simple answer. I have a 43 year-old Gibson J-40 acoustic guitar. By several definitions it could be considered vintage. It is 43 years old, and they haven't made a J-40 in probably 20 years. It was a budget model when new - I paid $269 for it with higher end tuners installed (and strap button). I just think of it as an old friend who has helped me write some decent songs... It has great neck and is in decent shape, but probably hasn't gone up in value that much.

the other part of the discussion always amazes me. There is the "My guitars are tools and I don't bond with them" group who thinks people like me wear silk pajamas and sniff corks (I don't wear pajamas :up and the only corks I own are on the handles of fishing rods).

Then there are folks like me who appreciate the beauty of a well-built guitar. I love the looks, the smells, the sounds... they are more than just a tool to me - they are a blend of art, craftsmanship and more than just a sum of a bunch of parts. No apologizing for it - I'm glad I've had the opportunity the last ten years or so to build a small collection of really nice guitars, and a wife who appreciates me enough to encourage me. I can't play worth a darn, but could care less. I play enough to enjoy myself, and smile whenever I go in the man-cave and grab a guitar. Good enough for me.... don't care what you think... :da (said with a smile)

Just to clarify: that "tools vs. sex object" argument always comes up, and it's both reductio ad absurdum and a false dichotomy. I am emotionally "bonded" to my guitars. I'd be sad to lose any of them, some more than others. But it's not because of how they look or what they are: it because of what they do.

I think that whole tough-guy routine - "it's just a tool, like a gun or a dog, and as a manly two-fisted sort I don't get excited about them" - is just as big a bullshit line as, "well, I have two of these because one can never be played, ever, and a long tenon plus oil & wax Clownface caps and rusty pots sound better, and I can hear it."

Anybody who plays appreciates a well-made instrument. But placing collectors value above the actual sound you make, thinking that the next set of pickups or a known-real '59 Tele is the thing that will make you whole or light up your playing... that's silly.

Because collection value is not inherent. It's an agreed-upon value, a quality that defines groupthink. You decide that something is valuable not because it has any value to you, but rather because the larger group agrees to its value.

I own one Strat, a lowly partscaster with no alder, no rosewood, no sunburst, no nitro (except on the pickguard) and active pickups (and everybody knows those are horrible). The neck pocket is routed slight deep and the neck is shimmed. It has locking tuners and block saddles with graphite inserts. There's not a single thing "vintage"'about it, and I probably couldn't sell it for even a 1/3 of what I've put in it. It has zero collectors value. But its value to me cannot be estimated, and when I play it nobody says, "Ugh. Is that mahogany?" What I usually hear is either, "those aren't really EMGs, are they?" or, "You play real well."

The value of that guitar, to me, is that I sound good and feel good playing it. If playing a vintage guitar, whatever that means, is what you need, then vaya con dios, amigo. ​it just doesn't light me up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc W

Note to willie: didja notice I got the correct Greek singular (phenomenon)?

---

Ha ha. yussssssss!

I tend to find comfort in things over time--if you broke my morning coffee mug, you would become my mortal enemy.

Guitars are that way too. If you can make it sound good and it plays comfortable, you're golden. You start to become attached over time to guitars like that. You may love a guitar when you first get it, but with the right guitar, it goes deeper over time, and it becomes almost a security blanket because you know that guitar and you have some history with it. Damn I love a guitar.


Why don't I marry it?

To me, vintage means a guitar that's older than I am (currently 30). I like the romaticism of the idea of an instrument that's seen more years than I have.

Boy - I'm glad it didn't become a discussion about "rare"

I could go on about that one too........ Uncommon Vs rare - big difference IMHO

Vintage should probably be something not only with some years on it (a number to be discerned by the objective eye, much like beauty, in the eye of the beholder), but should have something "Special" about it. A color/scheme, wonderful feel, sound, Grain to the wood or something along that line. An old turd is still a turd. Albeit, sometimes a COOL old turd none the less.

Yeah - I don't know.........I am stupid.......don't listen to me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankJohnson

...An old turd is still a turd. Albeit, sometimes a COOL old turd none the less.

Yeah - I don't know.........I am stupid.......don't listen to me!

---

I guess that means it will be just a turdcaster :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by de Melo

I guess that means it will be just a turdcaster :D

---

HAhahaha - the funny thing is - I was just speaking in generalisms -

I like that cedar strat - would love to hear it.
I have a mid 70s Sigma Hollowbody I have asked about - no one seems to know much about the actual model.

I consider it "a little" older, and uncommon - I don't call it vintage, collectable, lawsuit or rare.
(It IS very cool looking, plays and sounds good)

thats just me though -

Another way to look at it...the term "Vintage" hails from wine-making.

Perhaps, for a guitar to qualify as "vintage" it should be be kept unplayed and left in a bottle for a long time. Come to think of it, some people do that, but the bottles are called, "display cases."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankJohnson

HAhahaha - the funny thing is - I was just speaking in generalisms -

I like that cedar strat - would love to hear it.
I have a mid 70s Sigma Hollowbody I have asked about - no one seems to know much about the actual model.

I consider it "a little" older, and uncommon - I don't call it vintage, collectable, lawsuit or rare.
(It IS very cool looking, plays and sounds good)

thats just me though -

---

I wasn't talking about my recently bought strat either, it's a bit too young indeed.

I was thinking about what the les paul guys talk about when I opened this thread.

Holy Toledo, let's not start down that Les Paul road! This way lies madness.

I read the LPF thread, & w/only 21 replies it hardly got heated. You accused a member of cork-sniffery in post #16; a member, I might add, who had fewer than 100 posts at the time & had only registered just over a month before. Not to be rude, but it seems like you went looking for a fight, imo, but the thread fizzled out after a day & a half w/only 136 views.
Sorry, I am just calling it as I see it. Not actually a "huge load of bullshit and corksniffery", is it?

1 - I didn't "go looking for a fight" there. The fact that I myself asked the moderation to close the topic shows that perfectly. Read the thread again and you'll see that I actually posted a seriois thread and later walked away from a childish fight.

2 - that member you say I "accused of corksniffery" not only started flaming by telling me rudely to "do a search", but then replied again yelling with capslock on, repeating and defending the olden LPF chansons that sound indeed like corksniffery, all that "only a xxx year Gibson is vintage, all the rest is crap as we all say here since 1492 D.C." stuff, and I myself told him that it was funny to see that kind of behavior from a member with so little time of registration. It was funny indeed.

3 - Compare the replies from both fora. It was the same thread. Here we got many replies, all of them serious and well humored. Do you think the replies there were nice? Seriously? I got no more patience for that kind of play, friend. That's why I ran out of patience and requested a closing to the thread. I like this place exactly for the lack of that childish behavior.

By my posts here at TFF you might have noticed that I am no troublemaker, nor did I say anything in my last post in this thread to start a Les Paul crowd bashing, so I'd much appreciate if you didn't bring any more alien forum stuff in here without all the circumstances, partner. It's never a good idea, as many people can't read it over there, and will misunderstand the context.

Last time it happened, it didn't end well and I almost lost a good friendship with a TFF member I do like as a friend, same as I do you and others here, due to a lame misunderstanding.

Thank you.

Gentlemen, let's remember who we are and bestow the dignity upon one another that each of us deserve. We've each got our own level of discrimination when it comes to taste and our own views of how that taste can best be fulfilled. While our passions may vary (guitars, cars, firearms, motorcycles, music, you-name-it) I think we're big enough to appreciate and respect one another's opinions. While the OP may have posed a provocative question, it was asked with the best of intentions. Let the flame wars among corksniffers and wannabees ravage those other forums.

I really don't care one way or the other about the definition of "vintage" among guitar players/collectors. I was merely pointing out what I saw to be an inaccurate & unfair portrayal of what transpired over at the LPF. And I simply don't like for anyone to urinate on my footwear & then tell me it is in fact precipitation.
Regardless, you can read the thread & for yourself what went down right here:
Vintage or just old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71818

I really don't care one way or the other about the definition of "vintage" among guitar players/collectors. I was merely pointing out what I saw to be an inaccurate & unfair portrayal of what transpired over at the LPF. And I simply don't like for anyone to urinate on my footwear & then tell me it is in fact precipitation.
Regardless, you can read the thread & for yourself what went down right here:
Vintage or just old?

---

I will not continue this argument, since Phantom pointed out exactly what this is. And if I may say so, I will not let this good thread be deviated as you are, willing or not, doing.

Inaccurate and unfair? HAHA... I'm the one who requested the closing of the thread because it was going nowhere, mister. If you like that kind of behavior, that's up to you. I don't.

I MYSELF asked the mods to close that topic (and they did) over there exactly to avoid this kind of BS, and it has nothing to do with our discussion here. I hate flaming and internet cockfighting. Please stop, ok?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomman

Gentlemen, let's remember who we are and bestow the dignity upon one another that each of us deserve. We've each got our own level of discrimination when it comes to taste and our own views of how that taste can best be fulfilled. While our passions may vary (guitars, cars, firearms, motorcycles, music, you-name-it) I think we're big enough to appreciate and respect one another's opinions. While the OP may have posed a provocative question, it was asked with the best of intentions. Let the flame wars among corksniffers and wannabees ravage those other forums.

---

Excellent point. Thanks.

I think one thing that may have contributed to the tension in the thread in the other forum was the very first response de Melo got was somewhat of a rebuke admonishing him to do a search.

I do understand the feeling when a poster asks a question that has been covered before...just peruse Strat-Talk and witness the Rosewood vs. Maple threads! Nevertheless, I can see how the response de Melo received could create a sense of getting a slap-down.

(By the way, not bashing Strat-Talk...just making an observation.)

I'll shut up, now, so as not to further stir the pot or create additional tension, here.

Have a nice day!!!:biglaugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smitty_p

I think one thing that may have contributed to the tension in the thread in the other forum was the very first response de Melo got was somewhat of a rebuke admonishing him to do a search.

---

It wouldn't take a ouijia board to figure out that the response he got came from a relative newbie who spoke out of turn. I think anyone w/just a little bit of awareness could see that.
I'm going to give you a pass this time, de Melo. Do not respond to this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71818

It wouldn't take a ouijia board to figure out that the response he got came from a relative newbie who spoke out of turn. I think anyone w/just a little bit of awareness could see that.
I'm going to give you a pass this time, de Melo. Do not respond to this post.

---

So, I'm being threatened here? Don't respond?? Or what? I just did respond, Sir. This is the first time I've seen a mod deviate a thread and threaten a good member.

Even my replies to you were more respectful than yours, Sir. I don't accept such threats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by de Melo

So, I'm being threatened here? Don't respond?? Or what? I just did respond, Sir. This is the first time I've seen a mod deviate a thread and threaten a good member.

Even my replies to you were more respectful than yours, Sir. I don't accept such threats.

---

That is strike two. If you continue to disrespect the mod staff here at The Fender Forum, you will be given a time out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71818

That is strike two. If you continue to disrespect the mod staff here at The Fender Forum, you will be given a time out.

---

I am not disrespecting anyone. I am only asking to be treated fairly. If I am punished because of that, it's not my problem.

I NEVER disrespected you here, sir. The thread was going pretty well until this argument started, and not by me.

I'm done with this, anyway. Let's keep on rocking.

That's fine, just move along then. Let's have no more generalizations about the Les Paul Forum or it's members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 71818

That's fine, just move along then. Let's have no more generalizations about the Les Paul Forum or it's members.

---

Like I said. Let's keep rocking, pal :Banjo:

Certainly, bub

Back to the topic...Vintage vs. Rare. That was a great distinction. Viewed through the eyes of another subject near and dear to me it became clearer. Modern cars are better in every way ( except maybe looks) than those of my childhood, but some of the old ones brings serious money now. But lets look at that: A 1963 Plymouth Fury 4 door sedan isn't worth a lot just because it's vintage. A 1967 Mustang Fastback brings serious money. They built a lot of each, and I'll bet that more Mustangs survived than 4 door Furys. so the Fury is rarer.

I guess it's because I can release my inner Steve McQueen ( my exact lookalike, BTW ) that the Mustang is coveted. It has a performance heritage, looks, and it's the car we all wanted when we were teenagers.

I reckon guitars are the same way to some extent. Some just have a certain image we bond with.

Then there's the player vs collector vs the wannabee line of logic too. I have a guitar I would never sell, but not because it's rare or special to anyone but me. It has lots of great memories of playing with Mikey. But other than that, I do really look at guitars as tools. Just like in the shop, I can't tell you how many screwdrivers, pliers and wrenches I've collected over the years, but there are some that never get used and then others that are my "go to" tools. I just like them better. I'd guess maybe that's where the "Player" mentality lives.

Collectors are easy, they collect. Their objective is to possess and perhaps flip for fun or profit.

Wannabees...We seem them all the time. As I've always said, it takes a lot of practice and hard work to not suck, but anybody with a keyboard can brag about his "tone". I believe that a lot of these guys are the ones that keep the "mojo" threads going. Do you ever get the feeling that some of these "I have the best guitars" guys are just waving their gentleman's sausage in your face saying "mines bigger!" ? I do.

Ah, but the forums are the CB radio of the new millennium, and just like "Foxy Beaver" generally never turned out to be what she portrayed herself on the airwaves, you have to take what you read on the internet with a pinch of salt.

My $.02, all IMHO and YMMY, and I welcome and respect differing and diverse opinions.

In an ideal world, I would own that left handed 50s Les Paul that Paul McCartney plays, and it would never need any parts replaced. Of course, I'd buy a couple of pre-70s Les Pauls for backup. I know he has some reissues now, and I don't know whether he's still playing the 58 or his 59 live. I am not well off, and I'd never be able to afford a vintage instrument. And that's perfectly okay with me. If I can't use it everyday. take it everywhere. and put my own nicks into it, I don't want it. In fact, I would have such a problem with a "vintage" guitar, because with every absolutely necessary part change, it would be less virginal. I'd be afraid to play it live. I would treat it so cautiously that I wouldn't play like I normally do and would feel inhibited. It would be best to put it on display and forget about it as a playable instrument. Same if I had a pre-CBS Fender. I like new and shiny, something I can take good care of and keep it looking good for a long time and still be able to play it a bit hard without worrying about it taking thousands off the price every time I damage it or it wears out.

All the relevant postings here point out that "vintage" is not as simple a term as we might think. It's commercially driven, driven by cock showing contests, driven by the desire to have the best of the best, as though "vintage" always means "best." "Vintage" is a slippery word. Better to forget the category altogether and just focus on the production. But real life doesn't work that way. These things are so ingrained, things we apply to guitars that permeates our thinking in other aspects of our lives.