Guitar naming Pet Peeve, or maybe Rant of the Day

[Brad Little]

It annoys me no end when a guitar company (Gibson and Martin come to mind) put a misleading date in their model name. Two examples I've run across recently, Martin 00-17 Authentic 1931 and Gibson Aj historic 1936. The Martin was made in 2018 and the Gibson in 2021. Then there's a company, don't remember which, that markets "Vintage" models, again all recent issues. I guess they're trying to highlight the golden age of their instruments, but it still irks me. Definitely a first world problem!

 

[tonepoet]

Another marketing tool, I guess, to try to sell new guitars, since they make nothing from "vintage" market sales.

Veering slightly:
And as for the "Vintage" market, to me it is The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. I mean, who is setting these prices that people claim these old used guitars are worth? (My 2 cents worth on the subject)

 

[chazmo]

It annoys me no end when a guitar company (Gibson and Martin come to mind) put a misleading date in their model name. Two examples I've run across recently, Martin 00-17 Authentic 1931 and Gibson Aj historic 1936. The Martin was made in 2018 and the Gibson in 2021. Then there's a company, don't remember which, that markets "Vintage" models, again all recent issues. I guess they're trying to highlight the golden age of their instruments, but it still irks me. Definitely a first world problem!

I'd agree with you, Brad, if those "Authentic 19xx" Martins weren't so damn beautiful/amazing.

 

[Minnesota Flats]

Thought this was gonna be a thread complaining about BB King's "Lucille", Clapton's "Blackie", etc..

I actually find the proliferation of "signature" models, all slathered with autographs to be more annoying than the model designations mentioned by the original and subsequent posters.

But I'll give Les Pauls a pass. That case is pretty unique.

 

[tonepoet]

I actually find the proliferation of "signature" models, all slathered with autographs to be more annoying than the model designations mentioned by the original and subsequent posters

Yes, I recall when I wanted to do something to modify my first Stratocaster. A black MIM with white accessories. I was crazy about Stevie Ray Vaughn's sound. So, I got a Fender catalog with models specs listed. I saw that the SRV signature model ($1,100 at the time in 1995) had Fender Texas Special pickups and jumbo frets. So, I ordered the pickups (I think about $140 then) and had a luthier refret my MIM Strat with jumbo frets ($175 then), I saved myself money and gave the MIM guitar (bought new for $269 on sale) a different sound and a different feel for far less than the $1,100 they wanted for the SRV model.

Then I went for black accessories and a maple veneer pickguard and Sperzel locking tuners.

 

[Rocky]

It is annoying. I think Gibson started with that crap in the late 80's when they came out with the Les Paul Classic with the awkward
"1960" engraved on the pickguard.

 

[twocorgis]

I'd agree with you, Brad, if those "Authentic 19xx" Martins weren't so damn beautiful/amazing.

I agree Charlie. My D18 Authentic 1939 is a truly amazing guitar, silly name or no. But see below

I actually find the proliferation of "signature" models, all slathered with autographs to be more annoying than the model designations mentioned by the original and subsequent posters.

I long had a disdain for "signature" models, until I bought and played my D18 David Crosby Signature back in 2010. Still probably the best mahogany square shoulder dread that I've ever played, and it has some fierce competition from my D18 Authentic 1939, and even my D40 Traditional. Ultimately, I think I'm going to sell the D18A, but only because the D18DC has a drop in saddle and adjustable truss rod. Those two features make it a lot easier for my luthier to work on. Now I'm just waiting for the used market to get a little better.

 

[Rocky]

I'm fine with signature models if they offer something different that the standard run-of-the-mill instruments - more than just a flashy paint job. Like a Elliot Easton Gretsch has a different scale length, and bigsby than what was standard at the time.

I find 'double signature' instruments, like a Zakkkk Wyldddde Les Paul, a little ridiculous. And of course there are 'endorsement whores,' like Diamond Darryl, who would stick his name on anything, before or after he died.

 

[Walter Broes]

I don't mind putting a year before the model name if the guitar is in fact a reissue, and the company has done their homework.

It does bug me when they get it wrong - both the Fender and Gretsch custom shops have developed a habit of putting a "year X" on guitars that don't match the model's specs for that year at all.

 

[GGJaguar]

both the Fender and Gretsch custom shops have developed a habit of putting a "year X" on guitars that don't match the model's specs for that year at all.

Yeah, my Custom Shop Jaguar is listed as a '63 on the build sheet, but the actual specs make it a transitional Jaguar from late 1965. I have no idea how they came up with 1963.

 

[twocorgis]

I don't mind putting a year before the model name if the guitar is in fact a reissue, and the company has done their homework.

It does bug me when they get it wrong - both the Fender and Gretsch custom shops have developed a habit of putting a "year X" on guitars that don't match the model's specs for that year at all.

Yeah, my Custom Shop Jaguar is listed as a '63 on the build sheet, but the actual specs make it a transitional Jaguar from late 1965. I have no idea how they came up with 1963.

One thing that you can say about the Martin Authentic series is that all of them are exact copies of guitars that are in the Martin museum.

 

[Harp Tail]

I actually find the proliferation of "signature" models,

You are absolutely correct about the "flood" of signature models only meant to extort more money from naïve consumers... can someone please explain what Dee Dee Ramone or Tash Sultana may have added to the development of their respective instruments?

I admire Rick Beato vast knowledge but his signature model seems to differ from any other twin cutaway Les Paul Special only for the Pelham Blue finish..

 

[Brad Little]

Thought this was gonna be a thread complaining about BB King's "Lucille", Clapton's "Blackie", etc..

I actually find the proliferation of "signature" models, all slathered with autographs to be more annoying than the model designations mentioned by the original and subsequent posters.

But I'll give Les Pauls a pass. That case is pretty unique.

I agree, for the most part. I think there are some "Les Pauls" with little connection to Les Paul, but overall, yes, I'd also give a pass to the Martin Roger McGuinn 7 string as it seems to be more than a regular "name a guitar after me" endorsement.

 

[Harp Tail]

there are some "Les Pauls" with little connection to Les Paul

Les Paul never cared much for humbucking pickups, so most LP's connection to Mr. Polfuss is a bit weak...

 

[walrus]

Not mine...

 

[GGJaguar]

One thing that you can say about the Martin Authentic series is that all of them are exact copies of guitars that are in the Martin museum.

My Martin CS18-12 is not an exact copy of the 1929 Ditson 12-fret dreadnaught in the Martin museum, but it is heavily based on it. Actually, it's a bit more playable than the original since the neck profile, while roundly chunky, isn't gigantic like V-neck boat neck on the Ditson. So, sometimes compromises are okay.

 

[twocorgis]

My Martin CS18-12 is not an exact copy of the 1929 Ditson 12-fret dreadnaught in the Martin museum, but it is heavily based on it. Actually, it's a bit more playable than the original since the neck profile, while roundly chunky, isn't gigantic like V-neck boat neck on the Ditson. So, sometimes compromises are okay.

That I wasn’t aware of, but slotheads with 1 7/8” nuts aren’t my thing anyway.

 

[adorshki]

Another marketing tool, I guess, to try to sell new guitars, since they make nothing from "vintage" market sales.

Veering slightly:
And as for the "Vintage" market, to me it is The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. I mean, who is setting these prices that people claim these old used guitars are worth? (My 2 cents worth on the subject)

There is a Vintage Guitar Bluebook:
https://bluebookofguitarvalues.com/

 

[tonepoet]

There is a Vintage Guitar Bluebook:
https://bluebookofguitarvalues.com/

Gotcha, but who are they and why are they the authority? IMHO, these type of "vintage bluebook" sites only jack up the prices and keep good used guitars out of players hands.

 

[Bill Ashton]

If that "Bluebook" is the same one as edited by the son or grandson or the original publisher, I personally take it for zero. I found so many mistakes in what appeared to be that kid's first work years ago, and I am certainly no expert, that I have never trusted him since...it was like grandpa (or Dad) said, "Here, do this book, I have no interest but its a money maker so start learning." Uh, no...

But sadly, it is a standard...of sorts.

For me, a 19xx Gibson J-45 that looks like it was dragged behind a pickup truck, is no $5,000 guitar...if it was abused, its less than "used."

And I am unanimous on that!