Expensive Acoustics. A waste of money? Or not.

CMW335 · July 2022

I have owned several high end modern and vintage acoustics and currently settled with a 1958 Gibson J-200. I have recently received some very lucrative offers for it from a couple of different people who tried it out when trading other guitars and I could not bring myself to part with it. I do think it’s an individual preference thing but of few the people who have played this J-200 2 of them have offered a lot of money and I turn have turned that down because of all the guitars I have owned I could not replace it with one of those without spending the same amount on a banner J45 or 60s D-28.

Dave_Mc · July 2022

jellyroll said:

I remember Jeremy Clarkson talking about a particular Porsche (a Boxter, I think) saying that it was great, fantastic, brilliant. But he wouldn’t get one because if he pulled up at the lights and the car next to him was a Carrera (or something, I’m not well up on Porsche models) he’d feel like he cheaped out.

I think of guitars a bit like that. Especially Gibsons. Yes, you can buy a great Mahogany sloped dread for a grand and it will sound fine and play well. But when the next guy shows up with a Gibson J-45, you’ll hear that yours isn’t a Gibson.

The problem with that is I've tried two J45s. One was great (I probably should've bought it). One was middling at best- at half the price I'm not sure I'd have wanted it!

Going back to the original question- that's really one of the big questions (alongside "How do I improve?") which plagues guitar, and probably all hobbies. I'm not sure there's a straight answer to it, as it'll be different for different people. A lot of good points have been made so far. I haven't worked out the answer yet either (and I'm not sure I ever will!)- plus I'm more of an electric guitar player anyway, so bear that in mind.

Trying to keep this as short as possible:

- More expensive guitars are usually better. On average. But not always. And some stuff is better value than others. And each guitar is different so you could get a particularly good or particularly bad example. I've tried expensive guitars which I didn't think were worth it- not that I couldn't hear a difference between it and a cheaper one, I mean I could, the cheaper one was better! But I've also tried expensive guitars which were worth it. Ditto with cheaper ones.

- I think you can do more to an electric guitar than an acoustic to improve the tone. I'm not saying that putting high-end pickups into a Harley Benton will turn it into a CS Gibson-beater, but it will get it a lot closer than it should, and a lot closer than the price difference! You can't really do this with acoustics (at least if you're talking about the acoustic tone).

- A lot of it depends on the tone you're after. If you're after something very specific, there might not be a "better value" version available.

- Cheaper guitars are better than ever. More expensive guitars seem to be getting more expensive all the time. That's not to say they're not worth it, but the expensive guitars are getting less worth it all the time. But there's still something about a good expensive guitar...

- A lot of it depends on how much money you have etc..

- The setup really affects how nice the guitar seems as well. It can be hard to know if it's a worse guitar, or just a guitar with a worse setup.

Dave_Mc · July 2022

bertie said:

with acoustics, 99% of the time, you most definitely get what you pay for

you dont "need" to spend north of £3k - something eastern European or Eastman will easily get you into "yes I can really notice the difference" land

I'm not that well up on Eastman, but agreed with the Eastern European thing- Furch and Dowina (there may be others I haven't tried!) are really good for what they cost. They feel like serious bits of kit. I've never tried any of the super-expensive boutique acoustics, so maybe they don't compare to them, but compared to the big names even at £2-£3k, they hold their own. EDIT: Just to clarify, I mean the cheaper all-solid Furches and Dowinas at the £600-£1000 mark can hang with those more expensive acoustics. The more expensive ones (which I have no experience with) are presumably even better!

Soupman · July 2022

I agree with @malcolmkindness - low to middle end guitars have been upping their quality over the last couple of decades - increased competition.

In a sense, high end guitar quality has nowhere to go! Yes, different wood combinations etc - the sound can be altered to taste, but the instrument is as good as it's going to get.

Dave_Mc · July 2022

Ahh I forgot "diminishing returns". That's also a pretty important point with the dearer stuff.

malcolmkindness · July 2022

Benm39 said:

malcolmkindness said:

"When it comes to acoustic guitars costing about £1,500 and upwards owners are definitely expecting a fully "hand built" guitar."

I really can't see how you can expect a "hand built" guitar for this price.
It is generally agreed that it takes an experienced builder about 100 hours to make a guitar, before you even consider the cost of the materials, then there is VAT and a case. In my experience a quality hand made guitar is impossible under £3000.

Brook are extremely good value, at around £2600 .

Yes they are. Being in Ireland, when I said "impossible under £3000" I should have said euro, which is about the same.

Lewy · July 2022

Acoustic guitar is a funny old business because one person's diminishing returns is another person's table stakes depending on what, how and where they play. It's not as simple as just saying "you don't need to spend more than £1000". Maybe you don't for a lot of uses but maybe you do for some niche ones. Let's take traditional bluegrass as an example. Fully acoustic, played with the ensemble around one or two mics. It's very rare you see the guitar player in that context playing anything other than a high end dreadnought. And these aren't dentists playing this music.... This is because there is a difference between the acoustic projection you get from a really really good dreadnought and a more standard one and that can be the difference between having an ok time and a great time as the player, and the rest of the ensemble. That's fundamental to that player, it's not "the last 2%" as people sometimes describe it. Worth noting that if you were in Bill Monroe's band, you played his pre-war Martin whether you wanted to or not, because that's what he wanted to hear!

boogieman · July 2022

You don’t need to spend big money, but often it’s just a personal choice. I’d always wanted a Martin because I love the way they sound. I’ve had several very good sounding and playable acoustics but only a proper Martin would scratch the itch. Was it worth it? Absolutely. It’s the sound I’ve always had bookmarked in my head as what a nice acoustic should sound like.

You don’t have to be a millionaire to own a decent acoustic if you go for a big brand name from someone like Peach; zero% finance is your friend here. I put down a deposit I could afford, the balance was £50 a month and I owned if after 24 months. Obviously that’s more difficult if you opt for a more niche brand

mgaw · July 2022

IME 2nd hand Santacruz is hard to beat

Tannin · July 2022

Lewy said:

It's not as simple as just saying "you don't need to spend more than £1000". Maybe you don't for a lot of uses but maybe you do for some niche ones. Let's take traditional bluegrass as an example. Fully acoustic, played with the ensemble around one or two mics. It's very rare you see the guitar player in that context playing anything other than a high end dreadnought.

Just so. Other examples are concert classical (where you have to fill a whole hall with the voice of one guitar, or even be heard against an orchestra) and flamenco (much the same applies).

In all three of these genres (each one is far too big and mainstream to be called a "niche"), acoustic volume is critical, and you can't sacrifice tone or playing qualities to get it. Result: it costs a lot of money for a suitable instrument.

However, in nearly every other niche or genre, acoustic volume really isn't an issue - either "not an issue within reason" for some things, or "not an issue at all" for many others. But, stupidly, we guitarists generally allow ourselves to be sucked in by the bluegrass model and talk about "more volume" as if it was the Holy Grail. And it's not. In the era of electronic amplification, most of the time, acoustic volume isn't even important, let alone critical. Tone, playability, depth, richness, subtlety, flexibility - all of these matter more.

I'll go further: many "really good" guitars are quite restrictive. There is a special magic in a really responsive guitar, particularly for fingerstylists, on the other hand, for many, many tasks, a super-responsive guitar is a pain in the arse. You get a much better, more balanced sound from a guitar with some natural compression. Some people (count me among them) even enjoy playing a 12-string strung as a 6 because the extra-heavy bracing often results in a delightfully even sound otherwise unapproachable without a studio's electronic trickery.

It's all about horses for courses. Yes, the bluegrass people have a valid point. But don't let that point obscure the many other virtues a guitar can have.

Blueingreen · July 2022

Danny1969 said:

I'm fine with cheap electrics, there's not a huge difference to me between a £250 electric and a 2K one. With acoustics though I can hear the difference. A friend of mine has a large collection of Martins, Taylors, Emeralds and similar and they sound so much better than anything I can afford. I actually sound a better guitarist on them which doesn't happen with electrics.

Early in my playing days I read that when you paid more for an electric guitar you were usually paying for better playability, when paying more for an acoustic you were usually paying for better sound. I've always thought there's a lot of truth in it. Cheap electrics are much better made nowadays and it won't be as true as it was.

Mellish · July 2022

The other two genres I know little about but the bluegrass guy, he's up against a banjo with its hard-as-nails sound, so he needs all the volume he can get

CHRISB50 · July 2022

Expensive acoustics tend to smell better too!

earwighoney · July 2022

Tannin said:

Lewy said:

It's not as simple as just saying "you don't need to spend more than £1000". Maybe you don't for a lot of uses but maybe you do for some niche ones. Let's take traditional bluegrass as an example. Fully acoustic, played with the ensemble around one or two mics. It's very rare you see the guitar player in that context playing anything other than a high end dreadnought.

Just so. Other examples are concert classical (where you have to fill a whole hall with the voice of one guitar, or even be heard against an orchestra) and flamenco (much the same applies).

In all three of these genres (each one is far too big and mainstream to be called a "niche"), acoustic volume is critical, and you can't sacrifice tone or playing qualities to get it. Result: it costs a lot of money for a suitable instrument.

However, in nearly every other niche or genre, acoustic volume really isn't an issue - either "not an issue within reason" for some things, or "not an issue at all" for many others. But, stupidly, we guitarists generally allow ourselves to be sucked in by the bluegrass model and talk about "more volume" as if it was the Holy Grail. And it's not. In the era of electronic amplification, most of the time, acoustic volume isn't even important, let alone critical. Tone, playability, depth, richness, subtlety, flexibility - all of these matter more.

I'll go further: many "really good" guitars are quite restrictive. There is a special magic in a really responsive guitar, particularly for fingerstylists, on the other hand, for many, many tasks, a super-responsive guitar is a pain in the arse. You get a much better, more balanced sound from a guitar with some natural compression. Some people (count me among them) even enjoy playing a 12-string strung as a 6 because the extra-heavy bracing often results in a delightfully even sound otherwise unapproachable without a studio's electronic trickery.

It's all about horses for courses. Yes, the bluegrass people have a valid point. But don't let that point obscure the many other virtues a guitar can have.

I have a toe in the flamenco side of things (I own 2 flamenco guitars) and things are a little different there to other types of guitar. There isn't really a tradition of mass produced flamenco guitars. There are a few small workshops that aren't single luthier workshops, but it's very small numbers (Bernal make 125- 150 guitars a year, single luthiers 1/10 or so) and they both started out as independent luthier workshops (Valeriano Bernal, Hermanos Camps, Hermanos Sanchis Lopes) and they are still owned by individuals (Bernal by the starter's nephew, the other two are run by the brothers in question) who build the high end models themselves. Also, there are mass produced instruments made by Alhambra, Esteve etc who mainly make classical guitars.

Some generalisations here, but I'd say for flamenco guitars the way things usually go is someone will start on a cheap classical first, take down the action as low as possible and install DIY tap plates or bought a Alhambra etc. For their next purchase they will choose an instrument from one from Camps, Bernal, Lopez or dip their fingers into the world of single luthier workshops. Until a few years ago, it was possible to buy a single luthier built flamenco guitar for not a huge amount, my custom built Pena Vargas wasn't much more than a Camps a few years ago (not any more though!).
Volume isn't everything for flamenco guitarists though, IMO the most important factor for flamenco guitarists the one that more obsess over is playability and how crisp/punchy/percussive the guitar is. Amplification is being used for live performance now days.

For those who don't know much about flamenco guitars, there are largely two types 'blanca', which will have a cypress back and sides, and 'negra' which will have a rosewood back and sides. The overwhelming generalisation is blancas are more percussive and are the go to instruments for accompanying a dancer or vocalist. Negras have more volume, but seldom seen for accompanying singers/dancers, and more seen to be the guitars of solo performers, they aren't as crisp in the rasguedos for supporting dancers/singers.

I don't believe volume for flamenco guitars is as critical as it is for bluegrass instruments or classical guitars.

Tannin · July 2022

Ahh, really interesting. It is a world about which I know very little.

I do toy with the idea of buying a flamenco or classical guitar and learning to play it a bit. One of these days I will probably do it. I'll ask advice here before I do.

ToneControl · July 2022

DavidR said:

Having just been perusing a review of a very nice new acoustic in this months Guitarist magazine, I was left wondering whether, with the market as it is, these expensive instruments are really worth it.

OK, they're extremely desirable and nice objects and maybe everybody's journey towards finding the acoustic right for them individually has to include owning one or two of them over the years, as funds allow. But your'e now looking at £3 to £4 K for a top mid-range instrument. If for example you ultimately decide that the instrument you need is e.g. a spruce top, rosewood back and sides OM the market is absolutely crammed with that format of instruments. And most other formats too. Exactly what more are you getting for £4K that you wouldn't get for, say, £800? OK, different, but better? Not really imho. With good builds, computer aided mass production, and a multitude of really top manufacturers around the world, it's at least a theory that you're just paying for bling, a name and the kudos of owning a Martin or Taylor or Lowden or Atkin etc.

In most of our hands, with a good setup, much of which you can learn to do yourself, you're really not going to get a radically better tone or enjoy playing more by virtue of having an expensive instrument. Even though you might choose to own one.

Even instruments in the £2-400 range are pretty darn good. Not all of them but lots.

These days, how good does good enough have to be?

In my experience, you need to pay minimum £2.5k - £3k new price to get access to the extra depth of sound and expression that are possible in an acoustic guitar. The ones that sound best to me are typically around £5k - £8k

It takes a lot more time to build a top level acoustic guitar, and AFAIK the skill levels needed are at a higher level too.
It should be possible to train up people in China and Vietnam to build to the same level, but generally you don't see high-level acoustic guitars being built there (with a few exceptions)

Lewy · July 2022

ToneControl said:

The ones that sound best to me are typically around £5k - £8k

Or to put it another way, a good violin bow. Many guitarists baulk at this sort of price but actually we're pretty lucky to be able to stand a chance of getting our hands on the finest examples of the instrument without having to look for benefactors!

slacker · July 2022

Cost is related to purpose, do you want an investment, a gigging instrument, something to play around a campfire or something to throw on it?

I played everything in coda last year and the sweet spot was around 2k.

I bought a Martin but still play my 40 year old Ovation as I leave it at the venue.

I've played quite a few acoustics over the years but one of the best was a 70s Washburn and I generally don't like Washburns.

Find a guitar within the budget you find achievable.

lustycourtier · July 2022

Best Ive ever played was a K. Yairi 00 about 10 years ago, but I also had an amazing mid 90s MIJ Washburn D12 a few years ago that was £200, built by....K.Yairi
Ive currently got a Martin 00016E that is up there. Proper solid woods, Nazereth built etc but is it 7 times better? no.

Jez6345789 · July 2022

I think with most things Guitar these days you can find really good value, especially at the sub £1000 mark with a really good functional well-built acoustic that sounds fine. All these guitars are made to a recipe that is largely based on the work of Martin/Gibson etc. Most are overbuilt to save on service or returns although there are gems if you search them out.

Likewise, with electrics, you then move into the world of Martin and Taylor think Gibson/Fender, in a lot of cases their budget guitars are not all that and you could happily get a better-sounding instrument jumping back to category one. The cost rise here is the same as in electric US brands with more expensive overheads, labour and of course marketing and branding. If you don't need the brand name then Eastman is going to do you well for a better standard of Asian production. You now have the likes of Furch and Dowina reaching bigger markets as well made in small shop builds from Europe which is nice to see at good value prices.

Martin and Taylor can these days empty your pocket all the way to 10k and have pushed into the small shop-built market of the specialists like Santa Cruz ,Bourgeois, etc

Lurking in the ethereal world you have the strange world of boutique solo shop Luthiers. Who seem to have caught fire these days, their pricing was similar to top-end Martin plus a bit, back in the day. Now with the advent of the TNAG effect their prices have probably doubled or tripled over recent years and their upcharges, on anything but the standard range of woods in most cases are stratospheric. Strictly for those with time to sit on a 24-month waiting list and money.

So in essence these days there are acoustics for all of us at whatever price you need these are some golden years for the acoustic guitar.

GTC · July 2022

Hmmm - I guess something is only a waste of money if it is something you never really wanted anyway, it is money you cannot afford to waste and/or you get nothing from the experience. As has previously been said, above a certain level it is all about incremental gains.

The more expensive instruments tend to be played less because they are considered too precious for general use. If a guitar has been set up correctly, a better instrument with like for like dimensions is unlikely to improve your playing. A lot more improvements in sound can be made by focusing on an individual player's technique. I remember the late Julian Bream recounting a conversation in a workshop he was hosting. One of the attendees said something like "it is all right for you - you've got an expensive guitar". Mr. Bream then picked up the attendee's cheap instrument and made it sing.

That being said, I've spent quite a lot on expensive custom acoustics and also bought quite a few cheaper ones over the year. In every category there have been some I've liked more than others - and some, if not getting played, I've moved on. Personally, I've never considered any one a waste of money because I've learnt something from it and often met some very nice and interesting people in the process.

However, I cannot say that the late Mrs. GTC was totally convinced by this philosphy

!!

boogieman · July 2022

ToneControl said:

DavidR said:

Having just been perusing a review of a very nice new acoustic in this months Guitarist magazine, I was left wondering whether, with the market as it is, these expensive instruments are really worth it.

OK, they're extremely desirable and nice objects and maybe everybody's journey towards finding the acoustic right for them individually has to include owning one or two of them over the years, as funds allow. But your'e now looking at £3 to £4 K for a top mid-range instrument. If for example you ultimately decide that the instrument you need is e.g. a spruce top, rosewood back and sides OM the market is absolutely crammed with that format of instruments. And most other formats too. Exactly what more are you getting for £4K that you wouldn't get for, say, £800? OK, different, but better? Not really imho. With good builds, computer aided mass production, and a multitude of really top manufacturers around the world, it's at least a theory that you're just paying for bling, a name and the kudos of owning a Martin or Taylor or Lowden or Atkin etc.

In most of our hands, with a good setup, much of which you can learn to do yourself, you're really not going to get a radically better tone or enjoy playing more by virtue of having an expensive instrument. Even though you might choose to own one.

Even instruments in the £2-400 range are pretty darn good. Not all of them but lots.

These days, how good does good enough have to be?

In my experience, you need to pay minimum £2.5k - £3k new price to get access to the extra depth of sound and expression that are possible in an acoustic guitar. The ones that sound best to me are typically around £5k - £8k

It takes a lot more time to build a top level acoustic guitar, and AFAIK the skill levels needed are at a higher level too.
It should be possible to train up people in China and Vietnam to build to the same level, but generally you don't see high-level acoustic guitars being built there (with a few exceptions)

I’ve just bought a Chinese built Guild acoustic. It’s extremely well put together and gives my Martin a good run for the money. The US version of the Guild is at least 4 or 5 times the price but it doesn’t seem worth that type of money in comparison for what you get. Might be different at the very top level of builds of course but the Chinese are extremely competent guitar builders.

Creed_Clicks · July 2022

Not sure of the year of it, but the best, or one of the best feeling acoustics I played was the Big Baby Taylor. It was an older one, and I had not heard of the model before. I thought it was some high end Taylor at the time.

Barnezy · July 2022

From experience I would say not a waste. The Collings I had and stupidly sold, was 10x better than anything else I’ve played.

Price obviously doesn’t guarantee a good guitar, but gives you a better chance.

bertie · July 2022

why would an expensive acoustic be any more of a "waste of money" than an expensive electric ?

why not simply ask "is an expensive guitar a waste of money?"

artiebear · July 2022

The OP asks a question then goes on to express a particular set of personal opinions as to why an expensive acoustic guitar is a waste of money.

There is no way to counter the OP's view than to state that, if you don't get it and really believe that a bit of bling and a name on the headstock is all you get as an upgrade on an £800 guitar, then only time and experience will help. Even better, go tell an experienced, successful, time served luthier that a decent set up on a lower end factory churned guitar will be every bit as good as the expensive stuff they are turning out and, if you make it that far, have a listen to what they have to say about their craft.

There is a hell of a lot goes into producing a high end guitar, even before the build has started, in terms of understanding the way each piece of material will react and how it will need to be worked to achieve the right results. CNC thinning hundreds of boards a day regardless of whether or not they may be fit for purpose and then turning them into guitar shaped things, is nothing close to actually selecting for tonal quality, and strength while excluding anything which does not meet the necessary criteria.

So my answer to the OP's question is, no not a waste of money, so long as you understand why you are paying the price and can get use from it as an instrument.

Strangely enough, one of my favourite and well gigged acoustics, doesn't have any bling and doesn't even have the makers name on the headstock, but would be eye wateringly expensive for some, but the maker has one hell of a waiting list because his customers know what to expect in terms of build and performance.

Tannin · July 2022

bertie said:

why would an expensive acoustic be any more of a "waste of money" than an expensive electric ?

why not simply ask "is an expensive guitar a waste of money?"

Because the starting point of the OP is that expensive electrics are a clear waste of money. Given that assumption, it is fair to wonder whether expensive acoustics are too.

I feel a bit torn on that starting point. On the one hand, I simply cannot see how it is possible to noticeably improve an electric beyond a certain point - that point being easily reachable on a budget of ... oh .. say £1000, £1500 tops, and sensibly achievable if you leave out the bling and use a single pickup for perhaps £500.

Let's face it, you need a decent fretboard, well-fretted, on a neck angled somewhere within a bull's roar of straight, a hunk of wood (or the other material of choice) to put the bridge and pickups on, and some tuning pegs. You don't even have to get the neck angle or the pickup height or the intonation right, as these are all user-adjustable. No need at all for carefully selected tonewoods, thinned to precisely the right depth, braced and shaved by a master of the art, and all so lightly built that physical integrity is at risk if it is not done exactly right.

On the other hand, I don't play electric, so what would I know?

And on the other, other hand, amps are a whole different game. I can see the need to spend pretty serious money on an amp (though not for some of the damfoolishness that infects the top end of any bespoke manufacturing. Cue hi-fi buffs.)

Barnezy · July 2022

bertie said:

why would an expensive acoustic be any more of a "waste of money" than an expensive electric ?

why not simply ask "is an expensive guitar a waste of money?"

This is why:
https://youtu.be/n02tImce3AE

Although many don’t want to believe it, most the tone of electrics comes from the pups and strings. The rest is there to hold the strings in tune.

In an acoustic, all the tone comes from the guitar, so materials and build quality are much more important.

The Collings I had was made of such high quality materials and the tuning done to the top was such high quality work, that the volume from it was almost unbelievable. The resonance would go on for ages when you plucked a string and when you played a chord, you could hear every note individually…… why did I sell it

bertie · July 2022

Tannin said:

bertie said:

why would an expensive acoustic be any more of a "waste of money" than an expensive electric ?

why not simply ask "is an expensive guitar a waste of money?"

Because the starting point of the OP is that expensive electrics are a clear waste of money.

he doesnt actually mention or refer to electrics in the OP, which was my point

Barnezy said:

bertie said:

why would an expensive acoustic be any more of a "waste of money" than an expensive electric ?

why not simply ask "is an expensive guitar a waste of money?"

This is why:
" that video"

Although many don’t want to believe it, most the tone of electrics comes from the pups and strings. The rest is there to hold the strings in tune.

oh dear god not that old chestnut again * yawn *

Tannin · July 2022

Opps! There was a thread in the electric section on a similar theme. I must have been mixing them up.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Expensive Acoustics. A waste of money? Or not.

Comments