| Author |
Message |
Harry
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Hi everyone
Under the topic Miscellaneous is a part for free classifieds. I noticed this ad about the Ibanez Flying V that was offered for sale. The owner changed it as much as possible to make it look like a real Gibson: he put on a Gibson pickguard, a Gibson raised logo, he replaced the output jack "to the right place". The result:"It fools everybody at 15 feet". Now, did he upgrade or downgrade his V by doing so? Curious what you think about it. My opinion: the only one that really gets fooled here (and even at closer range) is the guy himself. I gladly would buy the V if it was in original condition. I'm pretty sure he eventualy will sell the hybrid to someone who is just looking for a good player (wich the guitar undoubly is) and who gives a s..t about originality. And even if the owner still has the original Ibanez parts, still there will be the extra hole he drilled in order to put the output jack "in the right place"....
From what point on do you guys think a guitar starts to loose value, from a collector's point of view? By having changed the pickups? By having changed the tuners? By having put on extra coil tap switches or/and in/out phase switches? By having removed covers from the pickups? Not to speak of the situation (this V's case) that various changes were made. From what point on do we take the decision that the guitar is too much beaten up that it's no longer valuable to us and leave it (with tears in our eyes)to be bought by someone who's just looking for a player's guitar? |
JohnS
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Harry:
My opinion is this: Value is in the eye of the beholder. But Monetary Worth and Value are two different things.
The "standard" for estimating "Monetary Worth" is that the guitar's highest value is attained if it's mint and 100% original.
Generally, this "highest" monetary value is paid by a collector who is focused on the rarity of such a specimen. Additionally, a collector is less likely to want the guitar as a player, because he doesn't want to take the chance of damaging something that is irreplaceable. Consequently, original parts, that may well be inferior to 3rd party accessories (pickups, tuners, bridges, etc.) actually elevate the monetary value.
If the guitar is not original and mint, everything else is a negative. This includes: non-original parts, modifications that call for drilling and routing, switches that don't work, even blemishes. To varying degrees, these factors chip away at the monetary value.
So, if you buy a '76 Korina V for $750, then add a Floyd Rose trem, extra pickup, change the nut, bridge and tuners costing $400, you will have a fantastic playing and sounding guitar. But you are not likely to get $1150, nor even the $750 you paid, for it. It may be worth that much to the owner, but not the rest of the world.
It amy seem strange, but the monetary reward is given for something that is a rarity: a pristine guitar that SHOULD NOT be so. It shouldn't be pristine because the guitar should have SOME damage/wear just from normal use. Or, it would have been modified to "improve" it. Instruments in this condition are very common.
On another tangent: If you can get a guitar back to original condition, then not too much harm has been done. Therefore, routing and drilling are no-nos. Non-original parts, even if better quality, are not considered "value-added" features.
Just my opinion. |
Mark Munchenberg
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Harry,
I agree with John on this. When enquiring about a potential purchase over the phone, if anything is changed from original, I often don't even go and see the guitar. The only exception is if the original parts are still with the guitar and can be retrofitted without leaving any trace of changes being made.
Most often I encounter upgraded tuning machines. Almost always there is new screwholes or some other change to the wood than can't be put back to original. When I tell the owner I am no longer interested he or she can't understand. They usually say "But the old tuners were unreliable. These new Super Tuno Whatevers cost almost as much as the guitar".
Its a real shame people don't understand that modifying a guitar will devalue it. Just look at all the late 50's'60's Fenders that got hot rodded in the '70's.
I am guilty of modifying an Ibanez guitar myself. My FG100 has Seymour Duncan's, a Schaller roller bridge and a Bigsby vibrato. I have done this as it suits the music I want to play on this instrument.
However I have been careful to keep all old parts and everything can be returned to original without any trace of modifications having been made.
One modification I find completely acceptable is the replacement of switches, sockets, and pots with high quality replacements such as Switchcraft or CTS products. Its a fact of life that these wear out with use or the effects of age. The guitar will still look stock and perform as originally intended.
I don't think a collector of vintage Ford Mustangs would get upset that the oil filter, fan belt and tyres have been changed.
Frets are an interesting one. From a collectors point of view the presence of original frets in good order is highly regarded. But lots of people get conned into refrets or fret levels way too often. If the job is well done I don't mind, but most often you see guitars with levelled frets that are so low they can't be crowned. A guitar in this condition is going to play out of tune no matter what you do with intonation, action, etc. The only solution is a refret.
So as a collector do you keep it original and out of tune, or do you refret it so it performs as originally intended??
Personally I would go for the refret if I intend to keep and use the guitar. However, I would find a skilled luthier and explain the importance of a refret that duplicates the original set up. For example if the frets extend over the binding, so should the new ones. And importantly on many Ibanez guitars, If there are tabs in the binding next to the fret ends, these must be retained.
Of course it goes without saying that the same fretwire should be used as originally installed.
Cheers,
Mark |
JohnS
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Mark:
How did you install the Bigsby without making holes?
You are more lenient than some regarding the replacement of switches and pots. Everybody has different tolerances, I guess. However, I think that a statement of "100% original" MUST include the switches. (I love ads that say "100% original, except...")
A refret is another situation to agonize over. I agree 100% with your philosophy. |
Mark Munchenberg
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
John,
The stock Ibanez trapeze tailpiece has 3 screwholes for fastening it to the side of the guitar, with one big hole for the end pin to protrude through.
Guess what?? So does a Bigsby. Exactly the same size holes in the same location!!!
The Ibanez trapeze tailpiece is not unique to Ibanez. It's a generic part that finds it's way onto lots of different guitars, so I guess the makers of it were smart enough to make sure it had universal application.
With regard to switches - of course I would prefer original switches in working order, but when you are looking at guitars over 20 years old, sometimes you have to be realistic.
If switches have been replaced with ones that don't look true to original I wouldn't buy the guitar, but if it looks stock I don't mind.
Sometimes a guitar with new switches will have the old ones kept with it. What would you do in this case John??
Cheers,
Mark. |
JohnS
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Mark:
I'm curious, if the holes hadn't of lined up would you still have put the Bigsby on?
What would I do if I got a guitar that had the old switches but had new ones installed? If it were a player, I'd play it. If it were a real collectible, I'd scrounge around for parts somewhere to bring it up to snuff with comparable/contemporary electronics.
Whatever the situation, I wouldn't sell it without making mention of the new stuff.
Actually, I'm in this exact situation at the moment with 2 guitars that have faulty toggles. One is very collectible and therefore not a player...so I'm waiting to find a "correct" switch. The other is an AS200 that has a replacement bridge already. So, I'll probably replace the toggle with something new.
Here's a question regarding scavenging parts to make a collectible guitar whole again. If you get a replacement part that is "correct", like a bridge from another of the same model...around the same year...certainly something that looks correct. How do you describe it? Can you say it's "100% original"?
Are we splitting a hair? Would you say the same if it were a '52 LP that you were paying $50K for? |
spiro
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
I agree with both of you on this topic... But my 2 cents has more to do with playability than originality.... Ibanez parts are hard to come by in good condition and most retrofit parts do not line up with your gibraltar bridge or your star backed tuners...... Now I have been restoring Ibanezes for a few years now and have found the following from a few different sources.. All Ibanez "metalware" from the 70's and even now is and was made by Gotoh (just look at the back of your star tuners and you will see the old gotoh logo "G") these parts completely retrofit all Ibanez guitars (bar the start tuners, one hole is left bare but new arent needed).. I have in recent purchases replaced all hardware with newer workable gotoh stuff... (I of course keep the original hardware safe...) i also replace all of the screws for new ones and put strap locks on all my guitars and more than likely replace the the pickups...
Now if i find an Ibanez in showroom condition and dont consider it a player, I replace all the parts that cannot be noticed eg. screws all round and maybe a pickup surround or a pickguard..
Does this mean that this guitar is not 100% original YES but if you can tell by all means I'll give in..
During the 70's all these parts were generic and were available to a host of manufacturers. These manufacturers are still making the exact same parts today.... I have in my possesion about 5 sets of tuners which are exactly like the Gotoh stars but without the stars on the back... they are in gotoh packaging and who knows what they are for. Ibanez was a bastardised company to begin with and still is today unlike the big american companies (pickups made by MXR or Maxxon to us. yes even the super 80's and 58's. edge tremolos made by gotoh to this day. Taiwanese guits are a different story)
And John you mentioned about getting parts from the same year or similar model and still describing it as 100% original. To you it may not be but to the next person how are they to know... That exact part was not made for that specific guit but was in abin with more than likely the part you are replacing it with.
I am sick and tired of people taking advantage of this 100% original thing (Ibanez mainly)
Just yesterday I walked into a store and there on the wall was a '79 artist 2622 in great condition except for the gold stuff of course. He says to me as I am picking it up off the wall "Hey thats a cool guitar its a steve Miller model and still has the running writing on the back plate" I asked him how much and he turns to me and says $2400. My eyes just lit up and I quickly put it back on the wall and was just about to walk out the door when he truned to me and said "they dont make em like that anymore" in which I turned around and said "especially not at that price" and he goes "what do you mean" For that amount I could buy a NEW AR2000 or a great condition LES PAUL custom (not that I would). yeah but that is a collectors item.... I said no its not and walked out....
why is it a collectors Item? because he heard the guy who sold it to him say it was a steve miller model or because he read it on the internet that all artists are worth big money? or because it is 100% original and has "the running writing still on it"
I started collecting Ibanez guitars because they were affordable and had so much to offer...
I am not going to pay $1500 for a PF230 in my life or $1200 for a pre lawsuit les paul but they are starting to sell them at that and people are paying the money.... why I dont know....
just look at the page below. This is a shop in Sydney who sells lots of collectibles....
I feel a bit of Romanitis coming on...........
http://www.guitarcrazy.com.au/ibanez.htm
Sorry if I sound upset but I went to all the shops in Sydney Yesterday looking to buy an early 90's rg and most were selling for close to a new ones price ie 1991 RG 570 for $900 with free rust on the trem (you've got to be joking) new they retail for $1400
that's my 2 cents worth...... |
garry
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
I agree with everything you've just stated Spiro!!
Here in Melbourne the prices have skyrocketed in recent times, particularly for archtops and semis.
Although l must say it was recently to my advantage, as last week l swapped my 78 GB 10 for one of the first Paul Reed Smith McCarty models in mint cond. Ironically the guy thought he was getting the better deal(maybe he was) because a new GB 10 is over $6000 and the McCarty $5000.
As much as l love pursuing old Ibanez guitars the bottom line for me is as a player they must be something l know l would use.
It's amazing this Hypocritical turnaround with a lot of the dealers. l can recall statement along the lines of "Japcrap" from the very same people who are now advocates for the same instruments.
l guess there's hope for us all!!
Cheers
Garry. |
spiro
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Garry thats right, about 5 years ago you couldnt sell someone an AS200 and now they are selling for the $2000-2500 mark second hand..... |
Mark Munchenberg
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
John,
At the time I put the Bigsby on, I wasn't all that clued up on collectability issues. As such if new holes were needed, I would have drilled them. If I was to do this now however, I would not drill the holes.
Spiro,
You are absolutely correct in everything you've said. Let's not forget that these Ibanez guitars were always a cheaper alternative to the US brands, albeit with comparable quality levels.
I think it's unbelievable that AR and AS models can now cost as much as Les Pauls and 335's on the secondhand market. They really shouldn't cost that much.
What is causing the escalation in price?? It can only be 2 things. An increase in demand or a decrease in supply.
I think we are experiencing an increase in demand fueled by 2 factors. The main factor being the spiralling costs of new guitars. More people are considering a secondhand purchase.
The secondary factor is us ourselves - Ibanez collectors. We are educating the market about the inherent value of Ibanez guitars by our actions and our words. We all talk to others about the virtue of our guitars. We brag about our collections. We talk to dealers. We run websites and discussion groups. We play the guitars live. The nett effect of all of this is that we influence the perceptions of others. We create more collectors and we have caused a lot of dealers to become opportunistic.
A decrease in supply has also been caused by us. All the guitars in our collections used to be simple cheap used instruments - nothing special. They would change hands over and over for less than their inherent value. Then we come along, snap them up and take them out of the general used market. We have created a new special interest market ourselves. This new collectors' market now has a lot more potential buyers with fewer guitars available at any one time. This pushes prices up.
The bottom line is that if a guitar you're considering is overpriced, don't buy it!! It is the fear of competition, of missing out that causes us to pay more and more for these guitars over time. If we all stuck to our guns and didn't worry about missing out, the guitars would be cheaper.
Ibanez guitars are great guitars. But they are not the best money can buy. They really shouldn't be costing as much as a Gibson. Gibson has had 100 years of tradition, marketing, and high profile usage to keep prices boyant. In contrast Ibanez has had 10 to 15 years as a "Japcrap" copy merchant, 10 years as a shred guitar maker, and a much lower market profile to keep its prices low.
Cheers,
Mark |
Graeme
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Mark,
your first paragraph totally contradicts your last one. Tradition does not gaurantee quality!
Gibson, Fender and other American manufacturers were basically the only options offered to players until the mid-seventies, therefore it is natural they monopolized the industry up until that point and were the standard by which all others are judged. However, there are always musicians that like to advance the status quo and reveal the limitations of the instrument.
As you say, marketing does play an important factor, but marketing didn't change the fact that during the 70's Gibson and Fender were producing some real dogs and forced some top players to pursue other Alternatives. Carlos Santana's Yamaha guitars were born out of his frustrations with the continual problems he encountered with Gibsons. Carlos played the Yamaha long after his endorsment deal had finished. The same can be said about George Benson's archtops which in no small way helped put Ibanez on the map long before the 80's Shredfest. George has stated many times how frustrating it was for him to always be taking his Gibson in for repairs.
Carlos has moved on to PRS a company relatively new to the market with one foot planted in tradition and the other focussed on Quality and innovation.
Also the world economy was a different beast 10 to twenty years ago Japan could produce a "comparable instrument" for half the cost back then, but times have changed and there new instruments are not only in the same range as their US counterparts, but sometimes higher because of the current value of the Japanese Yen.
This can't help but have an effect on the perceived value of secondhand instruments as well.
"I would challenge anyone (except a purist) to give Tangible evidence of quality difference in a top shelf Gibson or Ibanez made since 1978".
The above are the words of Pat Metheny a player of Ibanez guitars 15 years before his endorsement deal with Ibanez.
It is my firm belief that if it wasn't for the wake-up call from Ibanez, Yamaha and others in the late seventies, Gibson would still be making sub-standard instruments that showed no respect for a tradition they helped create.
Warmest wishes
Graeme. |
Seth
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Hi Guys,
Here's another quote from Mr. Metheny that addresses tone and sound quality. In response to an inquiry about which guitar he used on the duet album with Jim Hall:
"it is the ibanez pm-100 on that date; the blonde one. one thing i really like about the ibanez guitars is that i DON'T have to turn the tone control down too much to get a darker sound - those pickups are louder and much fatter sounding than the old gibson ones (although the vintage guitar purist types will no doubt continue to harp on me about how the 175 sounds "so much better" than the ibanez; which honestly is just pure hogwash - and that is coming from the person who loves that 175 more than anyone on earth)
the fact that you (and most other people) cannot tell the difference on this record and several others proves my point. hey, i don't sound defensive here, DO I???!?!!"
Spiro, Garry and Mark:
Ibanez prices are skyrocketing in the States as well. One U.S. dealer is selling a mint condition Lee Ritenour for $1700 and a near mint GB100 for $2300! You can buy a carved top Gibson jazzer for $2100 U.S. if you look hard enough (and don't mind wine red). Ibanez makes fine guitars, and the company deserves a lot more credit than some people give. However, the fact that Ibanez prices are creeping up into the stratosphere with Gibson is outrageous - not because Ibanez is inferior in any way, but because Gibson's prices are too high.
Seth |
Mark Munchenberg
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Graeme,
I think you misinterpreted my statements where I said "Ibanez are great guitars..not the best money can buy...shouldn't cost as much as a Gibson". In this I did not mean that Ibanez weren't as good as a Gibson. I simply stated that Ibanez is not the best guitar you can buy. Neither is a Gibson. The best guitars do not come off mass produced assembly lines.
Where I said that Gibson had tradition and high profile usage to keeps its prices boyant, I did not imply that this meant that Gibson is a better guitar. All it means is that 100 years of tradition, 80 years of great marketing, and widespread usage by professional guitarists guarantees a high level of awareness and demand for Gibson guitars. This keeps prices high.
In contrast Ibanez were generally looked upon as a copy guitar maker, a maker of fine niche products (GB10 etc), and later as a shred guitar maker. All this taking place in less than 20 years. It is not a long term consistent position in the market. As such Ibanez's image and brand values are somewhat confused and ill-defined in the general market place. Therefore demand for old Ibanez in the general marketplace was always less than for Gibson and as such prices were lower.
Things have changed in the last few years for old Ibanez guitars. All of us have wised up, bought up, and pushed prices up.
Regards,
Mark |
Aki.Rintamäki
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 7:15 pm: | |
You guys really have appreciable thoughts, You truly have thought of these issues.
I live in Finland, and old Ibanezes hardly show any prices getting higher. Although, every guitar here costs more because of small selling quantities and high import costs. And the used guitar market is not a big thing here, maybe because players buying and selling good guitars have used to do it internationally. And the fact that there really might not be a certain old rarish guitar available here You are looking for.
One thing about the Ibanez vs Gibson vs Fender thing. I suppose You have also noticed that only quite a few of even the big named guitar players ever think about their guitars too deeply. They mostly do not use their guitar because of its quality, but because of the image and the karma (?) that certain models have. (Or they got an endorsement offer from an eager manufacturer.) They digged on Hendrix when they were Young, so a white Fender Strat reflects their childhood idols. I would hardly have even turned in the direction of 2 x HB guitars if it wasn't for Robben Ford, or a finnish very nice pro guitarist Jarmo Nikku with his Tele Thinline '72.
If I could choose from two guitars alike, one being Gibson, the other being Ibanez, I would take the Ibanez. I would hate to be thought as a guitarist that has 'the Gibson' everybody likes to touch. Thinking that someone in the audience some day wonders about my guitar and maybe goes and finds out about the guitar he had never seen before, pleases me greatly. Finding out those things myself has been a great pleasure for me.
Actually, I'm not so sure I liked the Strat sound spectrum that much either. The first decent guitar I had was a Strat, and many bands I listened to in those years used Strats. Therefore a Strat has been the guitar I learnt to play and grew up with. But that's the way it goes; I don't blame anybody - not even myself - for searching the same kind of sounds than the players they like to listen to.
The australian guitar store.. unbelieveable! They ask 1295AUD for a MC300. There is an identical model with original case and Ibanez User Manuals in a store here in Helsinki going for 350$ or so. And I paid something like 300$ for my MC300, that is leaving to NY tomorrow to be traded for an AR300. Boy am I waiting in agony! I have been waiting since October. Guess who changed the plans of my friend coming to NY in the late September..
By the way.. have anyone of You ever tried or owned a Robben Ford Signature? I would be so anxious to hear about the feel and thoughts of that guitar! :o)
-Aki. |
Russellw (Russellw)
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 1:41 am: | |
An interesting topic. Maybe the real question is why do you collect? From my perspective it is a very simple thing - I love the instruments for their intrinsic values (the look, feel, sound) and not for their dollar worth and I want to play them because that's what they were made for!
I keep buying spare parts whenever I can get them so that I can keep mine as close to stock as possible but the day will eventually come I suppose when this isn't an option. Consequently my approach is largely a pragmatic one. I'm happy to replace pots with repro items (they are hidden anyway and usually work better) only if the originals are no good. Likewise I will replace cosmetic items such as pickup covers / knobs with repro or replated items to enhance appearance. I like the Mustang fan belt compaison made above - I think it epitomises the level of acceptability!
From a personal viewpoint I won't replace trems or tuners or pickups with non-original fitments even if they do improve the sound as this moves too far from originality for me - but when the world runs out of spare parts I guess I'll have to reconsider even that.
In the final analysis I would accept that a guitar is 100% original if it contains no parts that didn't come from the same era - and this includes parts still being made to the original design (knobs etc.).
I cannot see any value in an absolutely 100% original guitar with stuffed tuners, noisy pots, a worn Lo_Pro trem and frets level with the neck!! Might be great to look at but I reiterate my earlier position that these fine instruments were made to play and whether it's worth $10 or $1000 is only of relevance to the 'fiscal collector' anyway. |
Harry
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 5:49 am: | |
Hi Russell!
It's a matter of priorities, I think. It's like with cars: they were made to drive in, but a '59 pink caddillac that's totally worn has proven the purpose that it was once made for: transporting persons from A to B, see a lot of the World, making miles. But the looks of the same car that's in well-protected shape with no rust etc. will strike us more than the first one. It's like a relic from ancient times: the more complete and original, the more desirable. For me that goes for guitars too. An "upgraded" Ibanez (better pickups, better tuners, added switches, whatever) may be a better and more useful player than the original, but it has definitely lost its originality and therefore it's specific "aura".
Greetz,
Harry |
Aki.Rintamäki
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 7:33 am: | |
Hi again..
What about the following:
My AM255 has a Super58 for a neck pu. I opened the pickup because it had a loose wire inside. After opening I noticed how easy it would be to make the pickup use a 3-lead connector cable instead of just one. So, I made this 'enhancement' and replaced one pot with a series/parallel switch for the neck pu. All changes can be made invisible.
This enhancement improved the quality, value and usability of the instrument _for_me_, and that gave me a good reason to do it. How about more serious collectors? Would You pass on a modified pickup, even if the mod was made professionally?
I usually mod my guitars. Master volume master tone, a cap bypassing volume, and usually a different value for the tone cap are standard mods for my guitars. 2vol 2ton guitars has two extra holes to fill after these mods, but one can use a neck pu volume, the other can use a switch. All can be made back to original looking, so this is barely considered bad, right?
-Aki. |
Jorgen (Jorgen)
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 8:13 am: | |
I think that personally, I would be less interested in such a pickup, that has been "improved" as you call it.
It is still a step away from the original condition of the pickup, and should be considered a modification.
Of course, my interest also depends on the originality of the item in question.
For example:
I recently found and purchased an early ´78 Randy Scruggs Professional model 2671 with Vines.
The colour is brown sunburst, which is a rare colour on an already rare guitar.
The guitar has one miniswitch added, but done by a pro, barely visible...unless you already know that this guitar only had one miniswitch from the start.
In this case, I didnt mind that extra coilsplit switch and still jumped at the chance to buy this rare guitar and bought it.
Of course, I would have preferred it to be all original but in this case I made an exception...
Regards
Jörgen |
Gitfiddle1 (Gitfiddle1)
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 2:07 pm: | |
*steps up on soapbox*
Having a lot of experience in the automotive hobby, I find some interesting parallels in the guitar world. Let me start with some terminology and definitions.
Original: Just what it says. "As produced by the factory with no changed or modified components". Originality is judged solely on this criteria. The condition is secondary. (high market value)
Restored: This applies to any replaced parts, refinished components, rebuilt assemblies, or reconditioned items. The "correctness" of a restoration is judged by the quality of the replacement parts and rebuilt/refinished components. A "100 point" restoration is in every way identical to the factory-new, showroom condition. (highest market value)
Modified: Anything not appearing as original. (lower market value, except for radical customs and street rods)
Now obviously things are a bit different with guitars. We generally don't have casting numbers, stamped part numbers, or date codes to help us out. Fender guys will quickly point out the date codes on their pots, I know. And it's pretty easy to tell the difference between Super58 pickups and Dimazio's. But, can you tell if the Super58's are the original ones, or from a later model Ibanez? Does it matter?
A refinished guitar is devalued. A nicely done paint job on a car is a plus. Purists will check the color against the code on the ID plate to make sure it's "correct". If a refin guitar has been so well done as to appear original, is it still devalued? Tough question. If it was done to deceive (as in a faux flame-top Les Paul), I find that nauseating. If it was done to "restore" an abused guitar to it's original appearance, I find that a plus.
There is a huge aftermarket industry supporting automotive enthusiasts. Some of these "reproduction" parts are excellent. Some are not. We don't have that luxury with our guitars. Typically replacements guitar parts are functionally good, but not necessarily "correct" for restoration purposes.
So where are we? YOU decide! My personal feelings are mixed. I have "modified" a few guitars. Most often it's because they were screwed up by previous owners! But, I avoid (when possible) making irreversible changes to any guitar. Example: All my axes get Schaller strap locks, but I save the original lugs.
I have also done some "restoration" work on most that I've owned. My RS1500 had some replaced (wrong) screws in the trem. I found another complete Hardrocker and installed it in the guitar. Is it still "original"? No, not by the definition of "original". However, if I were to sell it, I would describe it as original since the replaced part is EXACTLY the same as the original. I would hesitate to use the term "restored" since to guitar folks, that implies a refin. Regardless of the terminology, It is now "correct" because all the components are "as produced".
To sum up; If you must modify, SAVE THE ORIGINAL PARTS !! Even if they're wasted, it might help the next owner find the right replacement. And it improves your chances of getting top dollar when you do sell.
*steps off soapbox*
Cheers
Steve |
Aki.Rintamäki
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 - 8:21 pm: | |
:o) Actually, I think atleast most of us share the major points and I really don't have anything to add, I just wanted to be a bit of a jackass here:
> Original: Just what it says. "As produced by
> the factory with no changed or modified
> components". Originality is judged solely on
> this criteria. The condition is secondary.
Guitars come equipped with strings from the factory. :o) Maybe a cool point to present to someone who is being way too picky on the originality issue, "if You find a 100% original 70's guitar, better change the strings already!"
:o)
-Aki. |
Russellw (Russellw)
| | Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:12 am: | |
Hi Harry -
To clarify a couple of points: I certainly wasn't suggesting that upgraded components (tuners, pickups, switches etc.) fall within my definition of original as I would take the view that if the manufacturer had meant it to be that way it would have been built that way. I was only referring to replacement with parts from the same era or that are still made.
I like Steves definition that as long as the components are 'as made' then you have maintained originality.
I've restored old Jags (a recreational pursuit for fools really) and other cars and the aim is always to maintain everything as original as possible. To achieve this end the restorer will haunt junkyards and other places to find the original item even if it isn't off exactly the same model (thank God for long part lives). There is no problem in this type of restoration with refinishes as long as they use original materials (e.g enamel not acrylic paints) and the colour is exactly matched to the factory specification.
I see no reason why we can't draw direct comparison with guitars and thus the aim should be to restore or repair to 'as made' standard thus retaining a playable (if not perfect instrument) that is faithful to the designer / builders intent.
Cheers
Russell |
Gitfiddle1 (Gitfiddle1)
| | Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 12:02 pm: | |
Aki,
Your point is well made. However, in the automotive fanatic (read that; anal) circles, even original tire, belts, and other "wear items" are coveted. I don't subscribe to this lunacy. I drive my cars, and I play my guitars! Tires wear, strings break.
Russell,
My gawd man, just driving and maintaining a Jaguar is work! Never mind trying to restore one. I am awed by your patience.
Cheers
Steve |
Johns (Johns)
| | Posted on Thursday, November 29, 2001 - 3:32 pm: | |
Russell:
Your Jag reference made me go searching for Triumph GT6 sites. It was nice to reminisce...but the car was horrible to keep running! |
Russellw (Russellw)
| | Posted on Friday, November 30, 2001 - 1:28 am: | |
John & Steve
Thanks for the reminder of how bad the pain is - I was actually just thinking about trying to pick up another late 80's Jag for a mild makeover!!
Mind you there are worse things any Triumph with the letters PI in it's name and anything with a Rover badge on it unless it was actually mad eby Honda in which case you wouldn't want it anyway!!
Thanks for the sanity check
Russell |
|
|
Thank you for supporting Ibanez Collectors Forum. Please help your favorite Ibanez guitar site as we endeavor to bring you the latest information about Ibanez custom vintage electric and acoustic guitars. Here you can discuss ibanez, guitars, ibanez guitars, basses, acoustics, acoustic, mandolins, electric guitar, electric bass, amplifiers, effect pedals, tuners, picks, pickups.
|