Am I alone in not giving a fuck about wood grain, matched flame maple tops, quilt, knurly walnut, etc? I think I might be. It seems people lose their shit over how wood looks on a guitar. Yeah great it looks nice and all but I don't get it. My coffee table looks nice too. Slap some paint on that bitch and go.
Woodgrain
- Thread starter Greg_L
- Start date
DM60
Well-known member
I think there are two types of guitars, those that get the job done and those that not only sound great, but are also a work of art. Hey, you are a utility guy. Nothing wrong with that.
But I can see where people, especially in acoustics that like a well crafted guitar. I would if I could afford one, but it also would have to sound great as well.
But I can see where people, especially in acoustics that like a well crafted guitar. I would if I could afford one, but it also would have to sound great as well.
Mr Clean
AKA Teddy Wong
You're not alone. I like a nice looking guitar but it's not the be all and end all. Sound and playability comes first and foremost for me. I couldn't give a toss for the grain of the wood though.
I have 2 very nice sounding acoustics. They play well and record great. Colour wise, I don't like them.
I've had this for over 20 yrs and I still don't like the colour of the thing. Nice grain though.
- 
I have 2 very nice sounding acoustics. They play well and record great. Colour wise, I don't like them.
I've had this for over 20 yrs and I still don't like the colour of the thing. Nice grain though.
- A painted guitar can't be a "work of art"?
Paint or no paint has nothing to do with being well-crafted.
DM60
Well-known member
I have to assume if one is concerned with wood grain, and they put a heavy paint on it, then they wouldn't worry about it.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
You're not alone; the most important thing is how it sounds. Saying that, as Thom Yorke once said:
"sometimes the best thing you can do with a guitar is look at it"
Basically, there's no harm in getting the choosing the one with the beautiful looking wood grain all other things being equal. If you're the sort of people who thinks wood grain looks nice of course!
Guitars are both a tool and a work of art in one. I wouldn't compromise on it being useful for the sake of it also being art but you might as well make it as asthetically pleasing to you as you like.
Weren't you lusting after a fancy flamed maple top on a Les Paul with a strange dark grey burst a couple of weeks ago, Greg?
"sometimes the best thing you can do with a guitar is look at it"
Basically, there's no harm in getting the choosing the one with the beautiful looking wood grain all other things being equal. If you're the sort of people who thinks wood grain looks nice of course!
Guitars are both a tool and a work of art in one. I wouldn't compromise on it being useful for the sake of it also being art but you might as well make it as asthetically pleasing to you as you like.
Weren't you lusting after a fancy flamed maple top on a Les Paul with a strange dark grey burst a couple of weeks ago, Greg?
But you implied, or I inferred, that you think A) a painted guitar is just a tool with no artistic merit, and B) a well crafted guitar has wood grain.
I disagree with both of those statements. Do you think a painted guitar is more poorly crafted or less artistic? How does wood grain make one guitar better than another? My position is that a painted guitar can be plain utilitarian like you said, or extremely "artistic", and wood grain has nothing to do with how well a guitar is put together. Take away the subjectivity of personal preference, and wood grain has nothing to do with anything. And I'd argue that wood grain is not "artistic" at all. It's not like a luthier has anything to do with how a tree organizes it's grain. All he does is pick pieces that he thinks look good or looks good together. I guess that's slightly "artistic" in it's own right, but again, the tree is the actual artist here.
Yeah, but it wasn't flamed. It was just a painted Silverburst. There was no grain showing at all.
I agree with everything you just said. I like a balance of sound, playability, and looks. I'll sacrifice a little looks all day long for sound and playability, but I'm not interested in a butt ugly guitar even if it does sound and play well. But for me, woodgrain has nothing to do with looks. I can take it or leave it. None of my guitars, not a single one of them, shows any woodgrain on it's top. My cherry SG shows a little, but not enough to factor into my decision for buying it at all. I got that guitar because it's just awesome.
So in your mind, take a plain top guitar, say it's stained. A stained plain top with little to no grain is a lesser guitar to you?
DM60
Well-known member
So first, lesser guitar is very subjective. I buy low end guitars that get the job done and could careless about name, just playability, and good construction. As one moves up the price points, then these little things start to add to the value of a guitar. Value is what people will pay. If people care about the wood grain, and the guitar has a premium price, then it matters.
Whether you agree or not is totally irrelevant as you are not the intended consumer of such a guitar (since you don't care). But for those paying the extra bucks, it is a selling point to get the most from the guitar.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
How about this for a fancy bit of Les Paul shaped guitar. There's certainly some woodgrain on the back but they've gone into metal etching on the front!
http://content.andertons.co.uk/2/1/images/catalog/i/xxld_72461-tmpEDC0.jpg
http://content.andertons.co.uk/2/1/images/catalog/i/xxld_72461-tmpEDC0.jpg
Yes, I get all that. I'm just trying to figure out what you're actually saying because you've been kind of cryptic and vague to me up to this point. I just didn't understand you.
I know that some people put monetary value on fancy woodgrain, and maybe or maybe not, rightfully so. Beauty is in the eye of the wallet holder. I just don't believe that a guitar with fancy grain is automatically a "better" guitar.
There are some non-essential cosmetic elements that I do enjoy though. Like binding. Particularly neck binding. I like the way it feels and looks.
Lol. That's gross.
You make a valid point though about paint hiding bad wood. That's a real possibility. I tend to think that a naked plain top is probably really good wood because the maker is distinctly not trying to hide it, even though it may not be very attractive. Like this Custom Shop Les Paul. I know you hate Les Pauls, but this CS R8 is most likely a very high quality guitar in all aspects of construction. I say most likely because you never know with gibson, but it's probably really well built. It just has a plain top.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
That depends if you think a better looking guitar is a better guitar and better looking a purely subjective.
I don't like binding on a guitar, despite the fact that my tele has binding on both the body and the neck. My next guitar isn't going to be bound despite having a top put on it which is going to be cool.
Actually, I think how a guitar looks does have a bearing on how "good" it is. A good guitar has to make you want to play it. I played an amazing tele in a shop before I got my current once. I wasn't on my list but the guy convinced me I should at least pick it up and have a play 'cos it was so nice. It was nice, one of the nicest feeling guitars I've ever played on - wasn't even thinking about playing; the music I was thinking of was just happening... unfortuntely it was mint green with cream binding - it looked like something from an ice cream parlour. It also has a fake f hole stenciled onto the body and a couple of other hideous '50s Cadilac style adornments. I will always remember it as the nicest guitar I will never want to own.
JDOD
therecordingrebels.com
Its also about 5 grand!Lol. That's gross.
I don't hate Les Pauls. I just think they're overpriced and uncomfortable to play sitting down.
Lol. Right. I do not understand the fake f-hole thing. I'll take wood grain over goofy graphics any day.
DM60
Well-known member
I am cryptic in that the question was really about perceived value. Use to be supply and demand drove most prices. But in today's market, perception (drives demand) plays as large a role as supply now does. Once you get past a base level, then perception of value takes over.
I know you know all of this, but when talking about price, you really can't exclude these factors from the conversation.