Expensive Acoustics. A waste of money? Or not.

stickyfiddle · August 2022

I’m not sure watches are a great analogy because every great watch should be identical to any of the same model other than there serial number, while it’s inevitable that acoustic guitars have their own character even genuinely identical in physical dimensions, because they’re made of wood.

I agree with @tannin on the Aussie thing though. Matons are a bloody bargain at local prices, but more expensive everywhere else. Likewise Atkin are amazing value in the UK but the yanks haven’t heard of them because they’d cost 1k more over there and then the economics don’t stack up in a market mostly obsessed with Martin & Gibson for those styles.

guitarjack66 · August 2022

Mercedes300 said:

You could say that a cheap digital watch tells the time just as well as a £10,000 plus Rolex. However there is still a waiting list for some Rolex watches. Like a quality acoustic, they are a handmade item that is a pleasure to own, A handmade acoustic is one of the few items you can still buy that uses the build techniques that were developed decades ago, and can be clearly be seen on close examination if the instrument. Signs of hand tools will be clearly seen in the construction (unless it is a Taylor!), and it is this hand made factor that is part of the appeal to me. The other item that is still available today, and is built with very old, labour intensive methods, is an English shotgun they are, and have always been, the best in the world. The price you would need to pay for one (or probably a pair, if they were from a top maker would almost make a high end acoustic seem cheap. However, a good shot with a £500 gun would probably hit just as many clays as a shooter with a made to measure shotgun. I for one, hope that there will always be manufacturers who build up to a standard, rather than down to a cost. Weather it is wrist watches, acoustic guitars, or shotguns. If you can't appreciate that approach, you would probably be much happier living in Russia or China!

The same China that makesa large amount of the world's guitars and it's parts? Arguably even some of the best!

Supportact · August 2022

Jez6345789 said:

... 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.

I think this just about nails it. You can get some pretty decent acoustic guitars for your money at pretty much any level these days. Worth/value then tends to depend on budget and requirements. You don't have to spend tge earth.

As far as the value of the high end stuff goes, it reminds me of a chat i had with a friend who makes dresses. Mostly fancy stuff for weddings and special occasions. One of her dresses would cost upwards of £2000. I said to her that that that seems like a lot of money for a dress.

But she explained that it could take her over a month working long hours to make one. She did all the designs herself from scratch. She'll do a number of fitting sessions with her client to make sure it's perfect. The raw materials are the best and can be hard to find. She has overheads, and tax to pay. She's self employed so no paid holiday or sick pay. After she explained all this the dress seemed like a good deal.

We both know someone could pay a fifth of the price and get a great dress they would be totally happy with. But some people (enough people) want what she does.

Dave_Mc · August 2022

Mercedes300 said:

You could say that a cheap digital watch tells the time just as well as a £10,000 plus Rolex.

That's not true, the cheap digital watch probably tells time better!

(Not saying almost all the other stuff in the watch isn't (much!) better with the Rolex, of course, but the actual main aim of the thing is actually worse! It'd be like buying a much more expensive guitar which sounded worse, but where everything else was nicer!)

bertie · August 2022

Dave_Mc said:

That's not true, the cheap digital watch probably tells time better!

actually not so, a good digital probably would. But a cheapo is about as good as a sun dial

Dave_Mc · August 2022

bertie said:

Dave_Mc said:

That's not true, the cheap digital watch probably tells time better!

actually not so, a good digital probably would. But a cheapo is about as good as a sun dial

Well, it depends on how cheap, I guess. You could argue that, compared to a Rolex, almost anything digital is cheap! I mean even with digitals at £100 (or quite a bit less) you're getting orders of magnitude more accuracy than most mechanical watches... the digitals are quoting second error rates per month, while most mechanicals are quoting per day, aren't they?

guitarjack66 · August 2022

I wear a £10 digital watch and it does all I need it to. I am guessing you could get a cheaper end acoustic that the same could also be said about. What does seem to happen though is that once you get some experience on acoustics you realise that your lower end guitar is not going to produce the same sound as your favourite acoustic songs done by professional musicians,regardless of how well you play it. At least this is how it appears to me.

MSedg · August 2022

stickyfiddle said:

Likewise Atkin are amazing value in the UK but the yanks haven’t heard of them because they’d cost 1k more over there and then the economics don’t stack up in a market mostly obsessed with Martin & Gibson for those styles.

Funny enough, I was in Coda the other day and was told by one of the sales guys that at least half of all their internet sales of Atkins head stateside - despite there now being a reasonably large selection of Atkins in stock at US retailers (e.g. CME). They’re catching on….

crunchman · August 2022

guitarjack66 said:

I wear a £10 digital watch and it does all I need it to. I am guessing you could get a cheaper end acoustic that the same could also be said about. What does seem to happen though is that once you get some experience on acoustics you realise that your lower end guitar is not going to produce the same sound as your favourite acoustic songs done by professional musicians,regardless of how well you play it. At least this is how it appears to me.

I set my digital watch when the clocks changed in March. It's lost 3 seconds since then.

bertie · August 2022

Dave_Mc said:

bertie said:

Dave_Mc said:

That's not true, the cheap digital watch probably tells time better!

actually not so, a good digital probably would. But a cheapo is about as good as a sun dial

Well, it depends on how cheap, I guess. You could argue that, compared to a Rolex, almost anything digital is cheap! I mean even with digitals at £100 (or quite a bit less) you're getting orders of magnitude more accuracy than most mechanical watches... the digitals are quoting second error rates per month, while most mechanicals are quoting per day, aren't they?

just think of how many things in your house use digital "clocks" - and how often you have to change/reset them

Personally Ive 4 or 5 things where I have to constantly reset the time (microwave, heating thermostat.......) and some (Smeg cooker) I dont touch

that's what I was getting at

some things more equal than others etc etc

crunchman · August 2022

bertie said:

Dave_Mc said:

bertie said:

Dave_Mc said:

That's not true, the cheap digital watch probably tells time better!

actually not so, a good digital probably would. But a cheapo is about as good as a sun dial

Well, it depends on how cheap, I guess. You could argue that, compared to a Rolex, almost anything digital is cheap! I mean even with digitals at £100 (or quite a bit less) you're getting orders of magnitude more accuracy than most mechanical watches... the digitals are quoting second error rates per month, while most mechanicals are quoting per day, aren't they?

just think of how many things in your house use digital "clocks" - and how often you have to change/reset them

Personally Ive 4 or 5 things where I have to constantly reset the time (microwave, heating thermostat.......) and some (Smeg cooker) I dont touch

that's what I was getting at some things more equal than others etc etc

That's not necessarily price related though. My watch was around £25 and it's accurate to better than 1 second per month.

I'm sure that I got lucky with that, and I could order another supposedly identical one today, and it might only accurate to 20 seconds per month. It's a bit the same with guitars though - especially at the mass produced lower end of the market. They will vary more than the watches as they are made of wood, which is inherently variable.

bertie · August 2022

oh I give up

BillDL · August 2022

If only Thomann sold Harley Benton watches

Tannin · August 2022

bertie said:

oh I give up

Yep. Best you sell your old-fashioned guitars and buy a nice Emerald.

Davy · August 2022

Mercedes300 said:

You could say that a cheap digital watch tells the time just as well as a £10,000 plus Rolex. However there is still a waiting list for some Rolex watches. Like a quality acoustic, they are a handmade item that is a pleasure to own!

Rolex are not hand made. They're mass produced, factory-built watches more akin to a Martin than a Collings, Santa Cruz or single luthier build. They churn out somewhere in the region of a million a year. And the digital watch will generally be a far better time keeper though a Rolex is a much nicer piece of jewellery to own.

bertie · August 2022

Patek Philippe is what you be wantin' in the "single luthier" comparison

stickyfiddle · August 2022

MSedg said:

stickyfiddle said:

Likewise Atkin are amazing value in the UK but the yanks haven’t heard of them because they’d cost 1k more over there and then the economics don’t stack up in a market mostly obsessed with Martin & Gibson for those styles.

Funny enough, I was in Coda the other day and was told by one of the sales guys that at least half of all their internet sales of Atkins head stateside - despite there now being a reasonably large selection of Atkins in stock at US retailers (e.g. CME). They’re catching on….

Good to know. I did mention them to mulitple dealers when I was looking at fancy dreads on a couple of recent trips.

crunchman said:

guitarjack66 said:

I wear a £10 digital watch and it does all I need it to. I am guessing you could get a cheaper end acoustic that the same could also be said about. What does seem to happen though is that once you get some experience on acoustics you realise that your lower end guitar is not going to produce the same sound as your favourite acoustic songs done by professional musicians,regardless of how well you play it. At least this is how it appears to me.

I set my digital watch when the clocks changed in March. It's lost 3 seconds since then.

My Tudor will happily lose a minute if I put it down for 24 hours in the wrong orientation. Keeps good time if you wear it though.

Davy · August 2022

bertie said:

Patek Philippe is what you be wantin' in the "single luthier" comparison

Nope, the single luthier comparison would be Philippe DuFour, Roger W. Smith, John and Stephen McGonigle etc. Pateks are more akin to Collings though Collings are roughly 1000 per year whereas Pateks are 60,000 or so per year.

Dave_Mc · August 2022

bertie said:
just think of how many things in your house use digital "clocks" - and how often you have to change/reset them

Personally Ive 4 or 5 things where I have to constantly reset the time (microwave, heating thermostat.......) and some (Smeg cooker) I dont touch

that's what I was getting at some things more equal than others etc etc

Ah yeah, I guess that's true. I was just talking about watches where- like @crunchman - I only really need to reset them when the time changes. As opposed to the mechanicals where you really need to reset them every couple of days- though maybe that's an indictment of the cheap mechanicals I tend to buy! But even the really expensive ones are quoted as being within a few seconds a day I think...

Also... kind of embarrassing... I sort of misread "digital" as "quartz"! Not sure how that happened, I guess some kind of Freudian slip. So to be clear- what I said about accuracy there, I was comparing quartz analogue to mechanical. I haven't had a digital watch for years, lol.

Image: /plugins/EmojiExtender/emoji/fb/smiley.png

I haven't noticed any of those appliances as going out too bad, but I'm not really looking that closely either. I mean, I only turn the microwave on when I use it so I don't even set the clock on it!

bertie · August 2022

Davy said:

bertie said:

Patek Philippe is what you be wantin' in the "single luthier" comparison

Nope, the single luthier comparison would be Philippe DuFour, Roger W. Smith, John and Stephen McGonigle etc. Pateks are more akin to Collings though Collings are roughly 1000 per year whereas Pateks are 60,000 or so per year.

ah that's a lot of waches for a £100k - £300k price point - Smiths and Pateks cost about the same tho ??...................... as for $5m for a Dufour, I'll need to earn a few more brownie points for one of those

Lewy · August 2022

bertie said:

Davy said:

bertie said:

Patek Philippe is what you be wantin' in the "single luthier" comparison

Nope, the single luthier comparison would be Philippe DuFour, Roger W. Smith, John and Stephen McGonigle etc. Pateks are more akin to Collings though Collings are roughly 1000 per year whereas Pateks are 60,000 or so per year.

ah that's a lot of waches for a £100k - £300k price point - Smiths and Pateks cost about the same tho ??...................... as for $5m for a Dufour, I'll need to earn a few more brownie points for one of those

I think they average about £30k based on the company's estimated turnover.... that's still seems like an unusually large production number for such a luxury item. Not sure I'd want one if 60,000 other people a year were getting one too! That's 6 for every Bentley made a year.

I'll stick with my 60 times more exclusive Collings

Dave_Mc · August 2022

bertie said:

Davy said:

bertie said:

Patek Philippe is what you be wantin' in the "single luthier" comparison

Nope, the single luthier comparison would be Philippe DuFour, Roger W. Smith, John and Stephen McGonigle etc. Pateks are more akin to Collings though Collings are roughly 1000 per year whereas Pateks are 60,000 or so per year.

ah that's a lot of waches for a £100k - £300k price point - Smiths and Pateks cost about the same tho ??...................... as for $5m for a Dufour, I'll need to earn a few more brownie points for one of those

I'd kind of want an atomic clock for that kind of money...

guitarjack66 · August 2022

bertie said:

Davy said:

bertie said:

Patek Philippe is what you be wantin' in the "single luthier" comparison

Nope, the single luthier comparison would be Philippe DuFour, Roger W. Smith, John and Stephen McGonigle etc. Pateks are more akin to Collings though Collings are roughly 1000 per year whereas Pateks are 60,000 or so per year.

ah that's a lot of waches for a £100k - £300k price point - Smiths and Pateks cost about the same tho ??...................... as for $5m for a Dufour, I'll need to earn a few more brownie points for one of those

There are watches that cost millions? Ridiculous. No wonder our species is doomed.

Mellish · August 2022

Just wondering what the OP makes of this.

When he started his thread he had Martin, Taylor, Gibson, Lowden in mind, not H Samuel

Pjon · August 2022

Dave_Mc said:

bertie said:

Davy said:

bertie said:

Patek Philippe is what you be wantin' in the "single luthier" comparison

Nope, the single luthier comparison would be Philippe DuFour, Roger W. Smith, John and Stephen McGonigle etc. Pateks are more akin to Collings though Collings are roughly 1000 per year whereas Pateks are 60,000 or so per year.

ah that's a lot of waches for a £100k - £300k price point - Smiths and Pateks cost about the same tho ??...................... as for $5m for a Dufour, I'll need to earn a few more brownie points for one of those

I'd kind of want an atomic clock for that kind of money...

Sharp Atomic Clock - Atomic Accuracy - Never Needs Setting! - Jumbo 3" Easy to Read Numbers - Indoor/ Outdoor Temperature Display with Wireless Outdoor Sensor - Battery Powered - Easy Set-Up!! : Amazon.co.uk: Home & Kitchen

£114 seems a bargain. ::D

The people spending huge amounts on watches aren't doing it to tell the time, they are buying jewellery and the badge is all important. But I'm sure we all know that.

bertie · August 2022

Mellish said:

Just wondering what the OP makes of this.

When he started his thread he had Martin, Taylor, Gibson, Lowden in mind, not H Samuel

looking at the budget, Ratners might be more in order

Dave_Mc · August 2022

Mellish said:

Just wondering what the OP makes of this.

When he started his thread he had Martin, Taylor, Gibson, Lowden in mind, not H Samuel

Pjon said:
Sharp Atomic Clock - Atomic Accuracy - Never Needs Setting! - Jumbo 3" Easy to Read Numbers - Indoor/ Outdoor Temperature Display with Wireless Outdoor Sensor - Battery Powered - Easy Set-Up!! : Amazon.co.uk: Home & Kitchen

£114 seems a bargain. ::D

The people spending huge amounts on watches aren't doing it to tell the time, they are buying jewellery and the badge is all important. But I'm sure we all know that.

I meant my own atomic clock, not just one that's radio-linked to the atomic clock!

But yeah definitely, I realise you're not just paying for the accuracy. I do struggle, though, to get my head around paying for a much more expensive way to get something which tells the time worse. (To be clear, I'm not saying I dislike mechanicals, I do like them, there's something cool about them, just not at £5k!)

DavidR · August 2022

Mellish said:

Just wondering what the OP makes of this.

When he started his thread he had Martin, Taylor, Gibson, Lowden in mind, not H Samuel

Its a free world! The discussion about horology reveals quite a bit about the psychology of purchasing actually.

The husband of one of our friends was once the Financial Director of a large Audi/VW franchise chain in the SE. He used to say that the decision making process of expensive car purchase was perceived as an essentially irrational process within the industry. Otherwise, of course, everyone would just by a VW Golf.

If people want to spend multiples more that's up to them. My question was, would that be a waste of money? A clearly rhetorical question, the answer to which depends on your circumstances.

Perhaps I'm just on a mission to point out that excellent guitars are now available at a much lower price point than previously.

I bought a used BMW 3 Series in 1995. It was without question the best car I had owned until then. The 3 Series was a game changer at a time when lots of cars still had bits of posh cardboard holding the radios in. But 10 years later many car manufacturers had incorporated the higher spec feature of the 3 series into their own line up. It raised standards across the car industry. These days, you will find many of the add-on features of a BMW incorporated within the standard spec of e.g. a Ford or Hyundai.

If your strapped for cash, don't stint yourself for the BMW because you think it will be so much better. It ain't.

Similarly Guitars. imho.

very much an e.g. ............

Martin 012-28 Modern Deluxe Acoustic Guitar - Andertons Music Co.

Furch Vintage 1 OOM SR Guitar with Case (projectmusic.net)

Blueridge BR-341 Parlour Acoustic Guitar | Hobgoblin Music

Or clocks!

:-)

Mellish · August 2022

@DavidR ; - yes, it is a free world.

But if it was me and my thread, and I'd asked about guitars and got told about watches, clocks and cars - well, I'd ask for my money back I think

I am joking by the way, hence the emoticon

ToneControl · August 2022

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Expensive Acoustics. A waste of money? Or not.

Comments