Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:07 am
Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:33 am
Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:02 am
Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:14 pm
Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:33 pm
Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:00 pm
katefan, if you ever want to sell that guitar, let me know. i love it. that is my favorite g&l to date.Katefan wrote:Interesting question and a good point... I too can't think of anything I like better of the old over the newer.
The main reason I'm a fan of Leo-era instruments is the fit and finish of early G&L's match that of his early instruments plus as you point out they have added improvements. IMO, they pick up where Leo left off when he sold Fender to CBS. High quality materials, precision engineering & manufacturing w/ attention to detail... Nitro cellulose lacquer having been used on the necks, early G&L models (at least) have naturally 'aged' the same as vintage Fenders. Well-played instruments have the same look and 'worn in' feel.
I recently picked this 2nd body style SC-3 for $700 NZ including a hard case, an extra set of G&L pickups and a bunch of Leo-era parts. The body has been refin'd natural but the neck looks near identical to the maple cap neck that was on my '66 Telecaster and it feels great. This guitar can get Tele & Strat sounds + it has all the later Leo improvements - MFD pickups, sealed tuners, DF Trem bridge, Tilt neck, enlarged strap buttons, etc... What more could you want??
Speaking of basses - here's an early 80's model that has alot of mojo and is probably is a great player...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-1981-G-L-L-2000-SERIES-E-BASS-VINTAGE-MOJO-/280944870691?pt=Guitar&hash=item41699e8523#ht_500wt_951
Great week, Brock -
Cheers,
KF
Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:03 pm
Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:53 pm
louis cyfer wrote:on that base, the seller claims '81 when the neck stamp is clearly '82.
Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:40 pm
Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:54 pm
Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:17 pm
Katefan wrote:Perhaps. I think folks get hung up too much on price and that if its more 'worn' its not worth as much. The 'collector' paradigm I believe fosters this. Also, too that there's a level playing field (pun intended) with all instruments being equal - they're not . No two are the same. In my experience the beat up looking ones are usually the exceptional playing and sounding ones.
Cheers,
KF
Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:36 pm
louis cyfer wrote:Katefan wrote:Perhaps. I think folks get hung up too much on price and that if its more 'worn' its not worth as much. The 'collector' paradigm I believe fosters this. Also, too that there's a level playing field (pun intended) with all instruments being equal - they're not . No two are the same. In my experience the beat up looking ones are usually the exceptional playing and sounding ones.
Cheers,
KF
there is a reason those guitars are really worn. they played and sounded great, so they were played more. i am suspicious of any instrument that looks pristine after 30 years. also ,imnsho, with instruments, aging makes them better, as the molecular structure changes over time. but this only happens when it goes through the constant resonating that comes from being played. a guitar that sits in its case for 30-40-50 years, and stays in mint condition, basically is like a new guitar, not really having player value, just collector. i would love to own a 50's strat or tele, but only if it's a totally beaten up layer's guitar.
Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:27 pm
Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:12 pm
Katefan wrote:Perhaps. I think folks get hung up too much on price and that if its more 'worn' its not worth as much. The 'collector' paradigm I believe fosters this. Also, too that there's a level playing field (pun intended) with all instruments being equal - they're not . No two are the same. In my experience the beat up looking ones are usually the exceptional playing and sounding ones.
louis cyfer wrote:there is a reason those guitars are really worn. they played and sounded great, so they were played more.
Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:35 pm