Do looks matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nate_dennis
  • Start date Start date

How much do looks matter?

  • I won't buy a guitar that I don't like to look at.

    Votes: 35 51.5%

  • Looks are important, but not a deal breaker.

    Votes: 18 26.5%

  • Looks are used as a "tie breaker" between different guitars

    Votes: 6 8.8%

  • I couldn't care less what the guitar looks like

    Votes: 9 13.2%
  • Total voters
    68
moresound said:
An ugly guitar shows that it's been around the block. A pretty virgin guitar hasn't even been broken in yet.
Click to expand...

But there's a difference between "worn" and "ugly," though. You clearly find some wear and tear attractive, and on the right guitar (my white Ibanez Universe, for instance, which was beat to hell and back by a former owner) I do to. That doesn't make it "ugly" though. Far from it. :)
 
DrewPeterson7 said:
But there's a difference between "worn" and "ugly," though. You clearly find some wear and tear attractive, and on the right guitar (my white Ibanez Universe, for instance, which was beat to hell and back by a former owner) I do to. That doesn't make it "ugly" though. Far from it. :)
Click to expand...

True there is a big difference between worn and ugly. In fact some new guitars right out of the factory could be hoggin all the ugly.

I guess ugly is in the eye of the beholder.
 
You can always fix ugly guitars...use looks to get a deal...ugly is money in a buyers market.
 
Ugly to the truss rod but oh what the sounds she could make.
 
I've never bought a guitar purely because of it's looks, I have avoided a few because of their looks. I like my gear (all of it) to look good, maybe not beautifull but at least pleasing to my own eyes. I have to admitt I have seen a few guitars that were just so ugly I couldn't bring myself to even try them. I don't mean just the finish, some body styles are just too weird for me (no offense intended toward the metal players with their unusual shaped guitars.)
 
I found it interesting when Gibson, and now Fender put out a line of Paul's, and Strats that are "aged" looking. I saw a brand new Les Paul yesterday that was selling for $5500. Came from the Gibson Custom shop. Old, and road worn look. Even had dings, and chips. Was the oldest, and hardest played looking guitar on the rack. I played it for two hours, and was one of the finest playing Paul's I have ever held.
However, I wouldn't buy it. I like 'em shinny and new looking. Giving a guitar a look of "character" does not give it the actual character. That has to be earned from time on the road, and the experiences that go with that.
When I ordered my Warlock from the BC Rich Custom shop, it took them 2 months to get the specs right. It took them another 16 months to get the color, and finish right. Looks are important (IMHO). It should be every bit as inspiring in the studio as the sound of an instrument. On stage, it's a total package.
 
When buying an axe (basses too) I focus mostly on balance and playability. I can repaint it or rewire it no problem but if it's awkward to play or pulls on the strap funny because it's not balanced, I find them fairly miserable to play. I also can't fix those kinds of issues.
 
Toker41 said:
I found it interesting when Gibson, and now Fender put out a line of Paul's, and Strats that are "aged" looking. I saw a brand new Les Paul yesterday that was selling for $5500. Came from the Gibson Custom shop. Old, and road worn look. Even had dings, and chips. Was the oldest, and hardest played looking guitar on the rack. I played it for two hours, and was one of the finest playing Paul's I have ever held.
However, I wouldn't buy it. I like 'em shinny and new looking. Giving a guitar a look of "character" does not give it the actual character. That has to be earned from time on the road, and the experiences that go with that.
When I ordered my Warlock from the BC Rich Custom shop, it took them 2 months to get the specs right. It took them another 16 months to get the color, and finish right. Looks are important (IMHO). It should be every bit as inspiring in the studio as the sound of an instrument. On stage, it's a total package.
Click to expand...

yeah ....... that aged look is one of the strangest trends (to me) that I've seen in the world of guitars.
I want mine nice and shiny and then I try to avoid relicing it if I can.
:D
 
Relicing. WTF? Fake mojo.

Read the whole listing on the Jimmy Page #1 for $70k at Mark's Guitar Loft. I've spoken to him several times - he's about ten miles from here. He'll get it. He knows that market, fucked as it is.

The link is in the million dollar SG thread. Here's another - 2nd guitar down:

http://www.marksguitarloft.com/catalog.php?cat=new

This thing was sent back and redone 'cause it had a ding that wasn't authentic. I mean WTF? :eek:

Insane.


lou
 
If you have eyes and can see...looks are always the first deciding factor (consciously or subconsciously) for most folks...and everyone has different tastes, so what one person adores another may hate, and vice versa.

Some people like ‘em new and shiny, others like ‘em beat up…some like curves, others go for pointed angles….some like ‘em plain-n-simple, others prefer lots of decorations…etc...it's all good.
 
I bought my last guitar because of the way it sounded and the luthier who built it.

When I first saw this guitar 30 years ago I wasn't all that crazy about the way it looked, but it grew on me over the years and I like it fine now. It's very unique.
 
For me, pictures of groups with their guitars and basses were ever so cool when I was young and that's still one of the elements of pictures from the past and present that I like. But for some reason, I've never found that in actuality. I've never owned an instrument that I thought looked really cute. I've never even seen one that made me gush over it's looks. For years I'd get pictures taken of me if someone was about while I was playing, in the hope that they'd capture that classic shot, you know. And no one ever did. The best pictures may have had a guitar or bass in them but it wasn't that that made the picture likeable ! Even when I'd see guitars or basses in the shop window, it was the fact of what it was rather than it's look that got my heart a rumpin' and a thumpin'. I'll own and play any old shit.
 
What bothers me more than the idiotic "relic" trend is the willingness of guitar companies to give any old shmoe a signature model. Do the guys from Avenged Sevenfold really deserve sig models? What about that dumb lip-syncing kunt Avril Lavigne? For the one or two songs that she wears a guitar, I don't even think it's plugged in. Yet, she has a model. I know it's just business and there are idiots out there that will buy them, but fuck, save the sig models for people that made a difference.
 
moresound said:
Maybe a Daisy rock pink Greg model will fix you right up. :D





:cool:
Click to expand...

I already have a sig model Greg bass:
01-11penis.jpg
 
now, now......Avril is quit the piece of ass. I would give her anything she wants.:D

What really cracks me up is the lower end sig guitars. For $300 you can have a Mettalica guitar. Does anyone that buys these actually believe it's a real reproduction of the guitars they play? Does anyone that buys a Epi Zakk model honestly believe he would ever play such a hunk of crap?
 
Last edited:
Toker41 said:
now, now......Avil is quit the piece of ass. I would give her anything she wants.:D

What really cracks me up is the lower end sig guitars. For $300 you can have a Mettalica guitar. Does anyone that buys these actually believe it's a real reproduction of the guitars they play? Does anyone that buys a Epi Zakk model honestly believe he would ever play such a hunk of crap?
Click to expand...

Those are expensive wall ornaments.
 
Greg_L said:
I already have a sig model Greg bass:
01-11penis.jpg
Click to expand...

Yikes!!! watch it Greg you could poke an eye out with that thing.

Now is that the bass you play in the church band every Sunday morning?





:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top