al heeley Posted March 9, 2008 Report Posted March 9, 2008 Looking thru a recent guitar mag I see the new taylor solid body electrics go thru a rapid price hike once they get into the custom special end with a fancy wood cap on. But does that make them better guitars for the money? You are talking about adding an extra $900 or so, nearly doubling the price of the plain old solid mahogany 'entry-level' version. In terms of tone, isn't it generally better to stick to a single solid piece? These are pretty thin body guitars, nonoe of your inch and three quarters nine and a half pounds of timber here. Are you really just paying (a lot) extra for the looks or is there really a good tonal quality to be gained here? Quote
zyonsdream Posted March 9, 2008 Report Posted March 9, 2008 some top woods can add a little snap or even warm up a tone a bit but overall they are used for looks. Go to a musci store and play one without a top and then pick the same model with a top and you will likely see little in tone gains. That being said, a good top can really set off a guitar in the looks department. Just my .2C Quote
Daniel Sorbera Posted March 9, 2008 Report Posted March 9, 2008 +1 90% of the exotic wood caps you see are for looks only. They may or may not help out the tone to varying degrees. Sorry to be so vague, but since none of this stuff can be proven people only have a vague clue as to what different "tonewoods" will wound like. and those new taylors are butt ugly. Just saying Quote
al heeley Posted March 9, 2008 Author Report Posted March 9, 2008 You are right Daniel, but then you set the bar pretty high with the beautiful instruments you turn out! Quote
WezV Posted March 10, 2008 Report Posted March 10, 2008 yeah, only seems to be a veneer on the new taylors and it is a lot of money for a veneer.. they even seem to be using it as a selling feature Ultra-exotic Tops Insetting the top also allows us to use gorgeous, exotic woods (like walnut burl used in high-end furniture design or luxury cars) that otherwise can¹t be used on electrics; it would require carving up a thick slab, which would be insanely expensive with woods of this aesthetic value. An inset top means we can cut a much thinner slice of wood. Quote
al heeley Posted March 10, 2008 Author Report Posted March 10, 2008 An inset top means we can cut a much thinner slice of wood... thereby charging you the maximum amount of money for our minimal expense, and no significant improvements in tonal quality. Mind you, if people are prepared to pay the extra for a fancy top then it's them that set the market prices. Quote
fryovanni Posted March 10, 2008 Report Posted March 10, 2008 Veneer caps are going to be for looks, but then again most are for looks anyway. Highly figured wood is going to be a wild card in structural terms (wood varies from piece to piece, but figured wood is radically different from piece to piece), so any change in the tibre of the insrument would unpredictable. Taylor choosing to inset veneer most likely reflects their increadable ability to pull off efficient tight manufacturing tolerances. They also strive for consistency in their instruments and using less of a variable material would increase consistency. With the current wood market being what it is, and highly figured wood becoming harder to source, and more expensive. It seems like they are taking a sensable approch, that will allow them to get more out of the highest grades of figured wood. Like it or not grading standards have been falling, as well as prices have been skyrocketing. Retail prices(and yes, dealers are getting thiese prices) have gone up to the $400+ dollar mark on say a 2" billet of top grade Quilted maple. Those billets would have probably not been as notable when supply was greater, but today they are rare, and given the demand on veneer(which would go further and yeild even higher retail value to the same bit of wood), you can count on that veneer market to pull more of these highest grade logs away from the larger form dealers (unless the dealers pay even more for those logs, bring the price higher yet). Mind you a manufacturer needs a lot of this material, and a steady supply. The $900 markup you would see in the retail price, is not going to translate 100% back to a manufacturer. Count on half of that going to the music store. Of the part that goes to the manufacturer, most would be attributed to the cost of finishing, extra machining, dealing with smaller quantities of a given model, possible rejects because of cosmetic flaws that may become appearant, and a portion would go to the top material itself. After all is said and done the manufacturer has to make profit, and I am sure they do(else Taylor would be out of business), but I suspect it is a very small piece of that $900 dollar retail pie. To me, it is simply amazing that these large manufacturers can pull off what they do at the prices they charge. I think the guitar market has jaded us to what instruments (other instruments in general) really cost. Pull the huge highly efficient manufacturers out of the picture, and supply the demand by smaller companies or more labor intensive hand built instruments, and you would see the prices we know skyrocket. FWIW, Peace,Rich Quote
JohnRossitter Posted March 10, 2008 Report Posted March 10, 2008 It's amazing what people will pay for. It's all a matter of preception really. People associate big bucks with better sound. My usual case in point is Warwick. Personally I love their design and sound, but it's not worth the price they ask for it. What irks me the most about Warwick is the fact that their prices sky-rocketted when they switched over to CNCs for the majority of the work. I understand from a quality control stand point why you would want to use CNC. I also understand from a cost savings stand point, but they are milking the consumer for every cent they can....which is their perogotive I guess, but I won't be buying anything from them. But that exclusivity is the double edged sword that keeps them in business. Actually that's why I started making guitars, because I wanted a Warwick, but figured I could make my own for the same money. Boy was I right...and wrong Quote
fryovanni Posted March 10, 2008 Report Posted March 10, 2008 John, I am sure there is a potential cost savings in using CNC equipment, but the equipment, programming, and people to operate still have a cost associated with it. I am sure that down the road there is a payback in better quality control, lower loss, lower warranty issues, and more reliable output. Still though the machines do not run themselves completely by any means, and keeping them in operation has a cost, especially if tolerances are to be kept very close. Same could be said about using pin routers and templates vs hand power tools vs stricktly non powered hand tools. Really though, these companies are producing and selling these instruments for a lot less than we could if it was our full time job. Granted what you see as a consumer is the retail price that includes costs and profit for the companies that sell them to us. Now if you take out the middle man, shipping costs, warrenty costs, overlook investment in production equipment, or the value of your time to make the instrument. Your cost of materials will be much lower than retail. Now if you try to make a living making and selling those guitars, try to pay off the cost of equipment to make enough to keep going, utilities, cost of the space you work in, pay taxes on your income. I suspect you would have a different view of these things(or that may be part of your "right and wrong" statement). I look at an example like Breedlove. They built a name on outstanding instruments. They were expensive instruments. They were going broke selling those wonderful instruments with high price tags. Then in comes the executives that took charge of management, investment, product lines, took some of the work overseas for lower cost operations (to be able to sell "budget" models), still allowing for the US plant to produce higher priced lines. Then the company is able to come back to life. I doubt the early days were extreamly inefficient, and they certainly knew how to build a fine quality instrument. It is a tuff business. However the backbone to being able to produce high dollar, high quality instruments, is the low dollar guitars that are not produced at those levels. People opt. to buy cheaper guitars, with the assumption lower end models are going to have similar quality (maybe that is true to an extent, but at those prices, you are not going to have a lot of ability to take care in controlling material or construction, unless the guy running the plant can figure out extreamly cheap but effective methods that will fit the tight budgets). I guess I feel kinda strongly about implying these companies are really jabbing us, because I have a LOT of respect for the factories that can produce good instruments, and stay in business. The people that run these factories are performing at a level few of us would be able to, and have done so in an industry that is tuff to say the least. Taylor is an inovator in the industry, and is always trying to do it better and more efficiently while maintainging very high quality standards. I give respect where respect is due. Now if you want to talk about retailers, maybe ones that sell instruments they buy dirt cheap(poor quality) to schools at HUGE markups. That is another story. Again just my take. A rant if you will No disrespect meant John , just conveying my thoughts on the subject. I began building for similar reasons, although a bigger part of my motivation was to be able to make just what I wanted. I never believed I would be able to build them cheaper. Today, even with the tools I have aquired and what not. I couldn't make guitars for a living and earn a wage I could live with, I am just not that efficient. Peace,Rich Quote
JohnRossitter Posted March 11, 2008 Report Posted March 11, 2008 John, I am sure there is a potential cost savings in using CNC equipment, but the equipment, programming, and people to operate still have a cost associated with it. I am sure that down the road there is a payback in better quality control, lower loss, lower warranty issues, and more reliable output. Still though the machines do not run themselves completely by any means, and keeping them in operation has a cost, especially if tolerances are to be kept very close. Same could be said about using pin routers and templates vs hand power tools vs stricktly non powered hand tools. Really though, these companies are producing and selling these instruments for a lot less than we could if it was our full time job. Granted what you see as a consumer is the retail price that includes costs and profit for the companies that sell them to us. Now if you take out the middle man, shipping costs, warrenty costs, overlook investment in production equipment, or the value of your time to make the instrument. Your cost of materials will be much lower than retail. Now if you try to make a living making and selling those guitars, try to pay off the cost of equipment to make enough to keep going, utilities, cost of the space you work in, pay taxes on your income. I suspect you would have a different view of these things(or that may be part of your "right and wrong" statement). I look at an example like Breedlove. They built a name on outstanding instruments. They were expensive instruments. They were going broke selling those wonderful instruments with high price tags. Then in comes the executives that took charge of management, investment, product lines, took some of the work overseas for lower cost operations (to be able to sell "budget" models), still allowing for the US plant to produce higher priced lines. Then the company is able to come back to life. I doubt the early days were extreamly inefficient, and they certainly knew how to build a fine quality instrument. It is a tuff business. However the backbone to being able to produce high dollar, high quality instruments, is the low dollar guitars that are not produced at those levels. People opt. to buy cheaper guitars, with the assumption lower end models are going to have similar quality (maybe that is true to an extent, but at those prices, you are not going to have a lot of ability to take care in controlling material or construction, unless the guy running the plant can figure out extreamly cheap but effective methods that will fit the tight budgets). I guess I feel kinda strongly about implying these companies are really jabbing us, because I have a LOT of respect for the factories that can produce good instruments, and stay in business. The people that run these factories are performing at a level few of us would be able to, and have done so in an industry that is tuff to say the least. Taylor is an inovator in the industry, and is always trying to do it better and more efficiently while maintainging very high quality standards. I give respect where respect is due. Now if you want to talk about retailers, maybe ones that sell instruments they buy dirt cheap(poor quality) to schools at HUGE markups. That is another story. Again just my take. A rant if you will No disrespect meant John , just conveying my thoughts on the subject. I began building for similar reasons, although a bigger part of my motivation was to be able to make just what I wanted. I never believed I would be able to build them cheaper. Today, even with the tools I have aquired and what not. I couldn't make guitars for a living and earn a wage I could live with, I am just not that efficient. Peace,Rich No offense taken at all man. I think we are probably both right to a degree. I don't think that companies like that are an evil empire or anything. There is a lot of good they do in the lower end instrument spectrum. However no Warwick is worth $5,999.99. Or a Chinese made NS Double Bass for $3,200.00. Thats just what companies do with branding. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.