Treeline
New member
I gotta side with Buck
Well, sort of.
I love these brand loyalty "vintage" v. "real" discussions. They're entertaining, but they usually end up missing the point and seriously misinforming people.
I'm an acoustic guitar junkie. Thanks in part to an effective twelve step program, I'm now down to two guitars - the one I learned on (a '59 Gibson LG2) and a mid -80s old style Taylor 815C, which is a complete cannon. I've bought and sold Fenders, Gibsons, Alvarez, S. Yairis, Manuel Contreres and so forth. I don't claim an encyclopaedic knowledge, but I have learned a thing or two. And what I learned in a nutshell is that the constuction of an instrument is what makes it either OK or great. Materials are important as well, but their significance is secondary. How it was built is everything.
I have no problem believing that a particular older Yamaha could stand up to a fresh Martin. I categorically reject any comparison that Yamahas as a brand stack up to Martins as a brand; they do not because they serve different segments of the market and they always have.
But many older guitars have much of what we have come to recognize today as premium construction details: solid woods throughout, tight design and accurate intonantion. The real values to be found in modest guitars forty or fifty years old show up in the materials, but generally not in the design or construction. Yamahas were pretty good in that regard. They had no pedigree, much as an old Kay - but Yamaha had experienced luthiers building them, and their work product could - and at times did - rival the best in the world: But usually it did not.
The weaknesses tended to be in their necks, which had spotty quality control, sometimes questionable intonation, were built out of soft mahogany, tended to be slow (thick and cumbersome) and in the early years had poor truss rods - the necks became warped. Mostly fixable issues, but they could result in a painful instrument to play.
Yamaha is past those days today, and has been for years. Today the company is able to build absolutely as good or as poor an instrument as it chooses to. There is little or no inadvertance in any of the company's product designs these days. That translates into value for the consumer because of inherently high quality control standards.
But older guitars have a distinct advantage here. Assuming care was taken in their handling, and they were built of solid woods (or at least solid tops) their sound tends to improve with age. So a seasoned instrument can have a more complex sound than a new, or "green" instrument costing ten times as much.
Moral: Learn about lutherie, about guitar construction and materials. Know your builders. Learn when to recognize a nice piece of wood for what it is without regard for the nameplate. Don't be fooled by brand loyalty. And above all, listen. You might be astounded at what you really hear.
Well, sort of.
I love these brand loyalty "vintage" v. "real" discussions. They're entertaining, but they usually end up missing the point and seriously misinforming people.
I'm an acoustic guitar junkie. Thanks in part to an effective twelve step program, I'm now down to two guitars - the one I learned on (a '59 Gibson LG2) and a mid -80s old style Taylor 815C, which is a complete cannon. I've bought and sold Fenders, Gibsons, Alvarez, S. Yairis, Manuel Contreres and so forth. I don't claim an encyclopaedic knowledge, but I have learned a thing or two. And what I learned in a nutshell is that the constuction of an instrument is what makes it either OK or great. Materials are important as well, but their significance is secondary. How it was built is everything.
I have no problem believing that a particular older Yamaha could stand up to a fresh Martin. I categorically reject any comparison that Yamahas as a brand stack up to Martins as a brand; they do not because they serve different segments of the market and they always have.
But many older guitars have much of what we have come to recognize today as premium construction details: solid woods throughout, tight design and accurate intonantion. The real values to be found in modest guitars forty or fifty years old show up in the materials, but generally not in the design or construction. Yamahas were pretty good in that regard. They had no pedigree, much as an old Kay - but Yamaha had experienced luthiers building them, and their work product could - and at times did - rival the best in the world: But usually it did not.
The weaknesses tended to be in their necks, which had spotty quality control, sometimes questionable intonation, were built out of soft mahogany, tended to be slow (thick and cumbersome) and in the early years had poor truss rods - the necks became warped. Mostly fixable issues, but they could result in a painful instrument to play.
Yamaha is past those days today, and has been for years. Today the company is able to build absolutely as good or as poor an instrument as it chooses to. There is little or no inadvertance in any of the company's product designs these days. That translates into value for the consumer because of inherently high quality control standards.
But older guitars have a distinct advantage here. Assuming care was taken in their handling, and they were built of solid woods (or at least solid tops) their sound tends to improve with age. So a seasoned instrument can have a more complex sound than a new, or "green" instrument costing ten times as much.
Moral: Learn about lutherie, about guitar construction and materials. Know your builders. Learn when to recognize a nice piece of wood for what it is without regard for the nameplate. Don't be fooled by brand loyalty. And above all, listen. You might be astounded at what you really hear.
rpe
NM - Land of Excrement
Yamahas............
I'm an old fart so you may not want to hear from me but I bought a Yamaha FG-340 II in 1979 for $185. It's sounds better every year. Eight years ago I added a piezo under-the-saddle pickup and preamp. It sounds fantastic, has a moderate action, beautiful woods and I wouldn't trade if for anything. It boils down to what you are comfortable with, what you can afford, and if you're playing in the living room to your loved ones or recording in a professional studio. I've been playing acoustics and electrics for 35 years, this arguement will never be settled. Suffice it to say that old Yamahas can be real bargains. All this excitement has worn me out, gotta go take a nap.
don't ever stop strummin'
rpe
I'm an old fart so you may not want to hear from me but I bought a Yamaha FG-340 II in 1979 for $185. It's sounds better every year. Eight years ago I added a piezo under-the-saddle pickup and preamp. It sounds fantastic, has a moderate action, beautiful woods and I wouldn't trade if for anything. It boils down to what you are comfortable with, what you can afford, and if you're playing in the living room to your loved ones or recording in a professional studio. I've been playing acoustics and electrics for 35 years, this arguement will never be settled. Suffice it to say that old Yamahas can be real bargains. All this excitement has worn me out, gotta go take a nap.
don't ever stop strummin'
rpe
LocusLarsen
New member
Ya I never said that it wasn't a good guitar, just that it cant compete with Martin...As far I know, yahamha never made it in to the high end market of guitars. Sure a 60 or 70's Yamaha will be better built than anything up to maybe a grand today because it had a chance to age, and I think people cared or something back then, I don't know....But my D41 will age with me, I'm only 21, I don't want someone elses guitar, I want MY guitar...Taylor had no boom, Gibson was too, I dont know really, it just wasn't me (but I got a LP), Fender doesn't make acoustics (hahah! laugh don't write)
But in 20 years a Martin new today will kick the shit out of that Yamaha. Even if it is 50 or 60 years old at that point.
But in 20 years a Martin new today will kick the shit out of that Yamaha. Even if it is 50 or 60 years old at that point.
LocusLarsen
New member
I m replying to my previous post for all of you
I know, Fender owns Guild..........but that wasn't for me either.
I know, Fender owns Guild..........but that wasn't for me either.
CDT-sHaG
New member
i've played martins, taylors, huss and dalton's, santa cruz's, gibsons, larrivees, bourgeious (sp?), breedlove, etc...
I don't have treeline's knowledge of acoustics, but i'm learning (after playing 20 years you'd think i'd know something)
i always played in bands up until a few years ago, and gear was the last thing on our minds as long as what we had worked.
i don't have any explaination as to why my 1980 fg335, all laminate as far as i know, sounds so good.....no idea.
it defies the laws of common sense lol..
can laminated tops age? is that possible?
i know it's doesn't compare 100% to the above mentioned brands...but i swear it is about 90%.
if i put some bright, medium gage strings on it, it will run you out of the room with volumn if strum it or play it hard....it never tops out.
if i fingerpick it, i can hear each note clearly (i use fingertips, no nails or picks)....harmonics, fake and real, are crystal clear.
on quick measurments, it has a 1-11/16 nut. neck thickness at the nut is about 3/4"-7/8" and it is a round profile. i don't know how to measure the radius.
I'm just blabbing on because i'm determining now whether i want a new martin, taylor or larrivee for my main performing guitar, and none of them blow away my yammy.
I don't have treeline's knowledge of acoustics, but i'm learning (after playing 20 years you'd think i'd know something)
i always played in bands up until a few years ago, and gear was the last thing on our minds as long as what we had worked.
i don't have any explaination as to why my 1980 fg335, all laminate as far as i know, sounds so good.....no idea.
it defies the laws of common sense lol..
can laminated tops age? is that possible?
i know it's doesn't compare 100% to the above mentioned brands...but i swear it is about 90%.
if i put some bright, medium gage strings on it, it will run you out of the room with volumn if strum it or play it hard....it never tops out.
if i fingerpick it, i can hear each note clearly (i use fingertips, no nails or picks)....harmonics, fake and real, are crystal clear.
on quick measurments, it has a 1-11/16 nut. neck thickness at the nut is about 3/4"-7/8" and it is a round profile. i don't know how to measure the radius.
I'm just blabbing on because i'm determining now whether i want a new martin, taylor or larrivee for my main performing guitar, and none of them blow away my yammy.
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
I gotta weigh in here. I have several Martins, a 1974 D-41, a 1955 000-18 (drool!) and a 1971 D-35. All wonderful guitars with distinct personalities BUT, I recently picked up a Taylor 25th anniversery XXV-GA and I have to say as an overall instrument, it smokes the Martins. I've had the Martins since the mid '70s and I love them all but if I could only have one (thank god that I don't have to decide) it would be the Taylor. I can't comment on the particular Yamahas, I bought my son an Yamaha APX6 acoustic/electric a few years ago and I even giged with it and while it was not bad and very handy playing live (active electronics & EQ made it easy to dial in a decent tone that could keep up with a rock type band at live volume levels), as acoustic guitars go, it was no Martin let alone a Taylor. This is a factory picture of the Taylor as I don't have any pics of my very own baby yet.
Attachments
JR#97
New member
Nobody really answered my question, so I'll ask again! How do these old Yamaha's compare in playability to more recent guitars?
Also like to add that familiarity with a guitar can really make a good guitar great and an average guitar workable. I have an old Korean piece of poop that I can make sing with certain tunes just because I know it's sweet spots etc. Anybody else plays it and it sounds like the piece of pooh that it is. On the other hand, I recently played a $2500 Taylor and I just sounded sadly over equipped. I also played a Gibson that felt similar to my regular guitar and it sounded liked the $2000 price tag.
Also like to add that familiarity with a guitar can really make a good guitar great and an average guitar workable. I have an old Korean piece of poop that I can make sing with certain tunes just because I know it's sweet spots etc. Anybody else plays it and it sounds like the piece of pooh that it is. On the other hand, I recently played a $2500 Taylor and I just sounded sadly over equipped. I also played a Gibson that felt similar to my regular guitar and it sounded liked the $2000 price tag.
Treeline
New member
Hey, Track Rat
I know what you mean about that Taylor. Man, it just smokes. Makes the Martins seem pale in comparison. Too bad, eh? Tell ya what - make it easy for the Martins. Just send 'em all to me for safekeeping. I'll make sure they're not embarrassed or anything, and I'll be sure to exercise them on a regular basis.
-------------------------------
Particularly that tired old 000-18. (drool, drool)
I know what you mean about that Taylor. Man, it just smokes. Makes the Martins seem pale in comparison. Too bad, eh? Tell ya what - make it easy for the Martins. Just send 'em all to me for safekeeping. I'll make sure they're not embarrassed or anything, and I'll be sure to exercise them on a regular basis.
-------------------------------
Particularly that tired old 000-18.
(drool, drool)
CDT-sHaG
New member
well in my case:
the only guitar i've ever played that felt like my fg335 was a guild dv52-hg dread....the guild had a little fatter/deeper neck radius though...but the feel of the gloss on the neck and everything was about the same.....mines old so a lot of that gloss is gone and it's between a satin neck and a gloss now..
if mine could be set up (truss rod is stuck) it'd play perfect..from the nut through the 5th fret it's great..after that you better get your squueze spring out and strengthen your hand lol...light strings make it much easier...which is what i do if i'm not recording with it...
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
As much as I appricate the offer Tree, I just couldn't do that to you. That's just too much to ask of a bro.
CDT-sHaG
New member
gotta be carefull
i got the serial number for this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=911484761
serial number: 30416233
the serial search at yamaha guitars yields this information:
Date: April, 16
Years: 1963, 1973, 1983, or 1993
Unit #: 233
the fg335 model specs from same site has these specs:
Year(s) Sold: 1977-1981
Original MSRP: $ 193.00
Top: Spruce
Back / Sides: Mahogany
Neck / Fingerboard: Nato / Indian Rosewood
Tuners: N/A
Electronics: None
Finish: N/A
Description: Acoustic Guitar
hmmmmm....
i got the serial number for this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=911484761
serial number: 30416233
the serial search at yamaha guitars yields this information:
Date: April, 16
Years: 1963, 1973, 1983, or 1993
Unit #: 233
the fg335 model specs from same site has these specs:
Year(s) Sold: 1977-1981
Original MSRP: $ 193.00
Top: Spruce
Back / Sides: Mahogany
Neck / Fingerboard: Nato / Indian Rosewood
Tuners: N/A
Electronics: None
Finish: N/A
Description: Acoustic Guitar
hmmmmm....
LocusLarsen
New member
I'll tell you what...I sold my taylor ONLY because I when from more of a lead/rythmic sound to more of a straight forward rythem. And I am sorry, but for RYTHEM, Taylor can't even stand in the same room. I ditched the band thing a while ago and need a full sound. But taylor does mix well with other instruments. I still love them. And one day if I can afford to have both I will.
TheGuitarMan
New member
rhythm*
LocusLarsen
New member
thanks, I didn't think it looked right.
philboyd studge
New member
Well, for all you Yamaha guys, here's another one:
highlight acoustic guitars then type Yamaha in the search and a FG-160 for $125 will kick out.
http://www.recycler.com/asp/Class.asp?iC=12000
btw, most Californians know about the recycler ads, many good deals pass through there.
highlight acoustic guitars then type Yamaha in the search and a FG-160 for $125 will kick out.
http://www.recycler.com/asp/Class.asp?iC=12000
btw, most Californians know about the recycler ads, many good deals pass through there.
Buck62
噛んでくれ
Yeah, there's this ad....
10/09 Yamaha FG-160 acoustic guitar and hardshell case. Bought new in 1972, and been in storage for 25 years. Price: $125
But there's also this ad....
10/03 ACOUSTIC guitar, Yamaha FG-150, like model Country Joe played at Woodstock, tight action, great sound, hardshell case. Price: $300
What's the point?
10/09 Yamaha FG-160 acoustic guitar and hardshell case. Bought new in 1972, and been in storage for 25 years. Price: $125
But there's also this ad....
10/03 ACOUSTIC guitar, Yamaha FG-150, like model Country Joe played at Woodstock, tight action, great sound, hardshell case. Price: $300
What's the point?
Buck62
噛んでくれ
BTW, if you type in the word "Yamaha", there's 11 guitars up for sale.
If you type in the word "Martin", there's 15 guitars for sale.
It seems that Martin owners dump their guitars at a rate of 40% higher than Yamaha owners.
Hey... it's your website, with your numbers.
If you type in the word "Martin", there's 15 guitars for sale.
It seems that Martin owners dump their guitars at a rate of 40% higher than Yamaha owners.
Hey... it's your website, with your numbers.
foo
Active member
At the risk of sounding like Dubya:
"That's fuzzy math young man . . ."
IF there are 100 Martins and 15 for sale that's 15%
If there are 22 Yamahas and 11 for sale, that's 50%
(My Math teacher would be proud!)
I've been lurking on this thread since it started - the whole point here is tone and more specifically price/tone is subjective.
A similar thread about 6 months ago had someone getting seriously upset because he insisted his Seagull was the best sounding acoustic guitar available.
But he didn't play anything *expensive* when he bought it simply because he couldn't afford more than the Seagull or guitars in a similar price range.
For the money, Yamaha guitars from the 70's that have been played a lot are a great deal. They do sound great. I've played several of them and would recommend them for that price range.
But I don't own one because I was lucky enough to get a great old Martin for a very good price before things got out of hand.
Would I take a 70's Yamaha over my old Martin?
Of course not - but only because I've never found one that I liked better than the Martin, and I've played many acoustic guitars.
foo
"That's fuzzy math young man . . ."
IF there are 100 Martins and 15 for sale that's 15%
If there are 22 Yamahas and 11 for sale, that's 50%
(My Math teacher would be proud!)
I've been lurking on this thread since it started - the whole point here is tone and more specifically price/tone is subjective.
A similar thread about 6 months ago had someone getting seriously upset because he insisted his Seagull was the best sounding acoustic guitar available.
But he didn't play anything *expensive* when he bought it simply because he couldn't afford more than the Seagull or guitars in a similar price range.
For the money, Yamaha guitars from the 70's that have been played a lot are a great deal. They do sound great. I've played several of them and would recommend them for that price range.
But I don't own one because I was lucky enough to get a great old Martin for a very good price before things got out of hand.
Would I take a 70's Yamaha over my old Martin?
Of course not - but only because I've never found one that I liked better than the Martin, and I've played many acoustic guitars.
foo
philboyd studge
New member
Buck62 said:Yeah, there's this ad....
10/09 Yamaha FG-160 acoustic guitar and hardshell case. Bought new in 1972, and been in storage for 25 years. Price: $125
But there's also this ad....
10/03 ACOUSTIC guitar, Yamaha FG-150, like model Country Joe played at Woodstock, tight action, great sound, hardshell case. Price: $300
What's the point?
The point is that the $125 guitar will likely sell.
"just like Country Joe played at Woodstock"..........sheesh........John Sabastion played a Harmony Sovreign there also, in fact I played my old Harmony Sovreign at a concert to 13,000 in the '70's. My thinking was that in a sea of really cool guitars, why not play something like the Harmony and make a statement. I don't think that way any longer. I feel better playing something that looks good, is well made and is fairly expensive.
For the past 6 or 7 years my live stuff requires nylon string guitars for the most part and was happy with the Gibson Chet Atkins solid body nylon I was using but got a gig where I had to have a nylon guitar that was acoustic electric. So I bought a Yamaha, I don't remember the model. Though is sounded ok and the electronics were fair I ended up selling it after a season cause I felt cheap when I played it. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Out here it's all about being on time and having a good look.