Is it just me? But... prices headed downhill!

[schundog]

I'm not very smart, I just ramble incessantly. My posts are the forum equivalent of a million monkeys banging on typewriters. That 111518 guy, on the other hand, has his poop in a group and is on a whole different plane from mere mortals. I dig his thoughts.

 

Here's a joke for you:

 

Two great white sharks swimming in the ocean spied survivors of a sinking ship. "Follow me son" the father shark said to the son shark and they swam to the mass of people. "First we swim around them a few times with just the tip of our fins showing." And they did. "Well done, son! Now we swim around them a few times with all of our fins showing." And they did. "Now we eat everybody." And they did.

 

When they were both gorged, the son asked,"Dad, why didn't we just eat them all at first? Why did we swim around and around them?"

 

His wise father replied, "Because they taste better without the shit inside them!"

 

 

Whew! Thanks, Jon! My faith in the immaturity of man is restored!

[Steiner]

I was anticipating an attorney joke.

 

I still enjoyed it!

[111518]

I'm not very smart, I just ramble incessantly. My posts are the forum equivalent of a million monkeys banging on typewriters. That 111518 guy, on the other hand, has his poop in a group and is on a whole different plane from mere mortals. I dig his thoughts.

 

Here's a joke for you:

 

Two great white sharks swimming in the ocean spied survivors of a sinking ship. "Follow me son" the father shark said to the son shark and they swam to the mass of people. "First we swim around them a few times with just the tip of our fins showing." And they did. "Well done, son! Now we swim around them a few times with all of our fins showing." And they did. "Now we eat everybody." And they did.

 

When they were both gorged, the son asked,"Dad, why didn't we just eat them all at first? Why did we swim around and around them?"

 

His wise father replied, "Because they taste better without the shit inside them!"

 

An attorney joke? All I've got is a one liner:

"I hear the housing market is so bad that real-estate lawyers are walking around with their hands in their own pockets."

 

Thanks, Jon:

I don't think I've ever read prose that conveyed a stronger image of the impression of tongue pressed against cheek, without using the words "tongue," or "cheek." No monkey work here, or in your interesting post. I'm glad that we can disagree and joke about it, and, hey, I'll take a compliment where I can find it.

 

Did I mention that I just got back from the beach in NC? No sharks, plenty of attorneys (sister and brother-in-law) and I finally got a chance to sample a couple of the Bell's beers that everyone here writes about. The Oberon was very good --nice, crisp summer ale-- but I think I liked the Two Hearted Ale better. Rich toasted malt flavor and hop-py. Or maybe it was just that the Oberon prepared me up to appreciate the Two Heart?

 

Actually, I have to confess that I, like many historians, feel a certain kinship with my colleagues in economics. I see myself as a historical materialist, and IMHO most neo-classical economists are ahistorical materialists. Only one letter difference.

[jjkrause84]

I'm also a historian (a newly EMPLOYED one, yahoooo!) but I deal mostly with things that blow up and kill people so while you might think I'm an EXPERT on economics (har, har) I'll stick to tanks and bombs and the like (did you know that in 1915 the French army began experiments with hydrochloric acid/cyanide-filled artillery shells? Cool stuff, huh? I still haven't found evidence of them being used yet but maybe they did later in the year....). As far as historical materialism goes....it has its merits. I find it especially important to bring students' imagination DOWN and rememebr that when you look at most of the great European revolutions (especially 1848) what you are seeing is NOT really a group of very angry people who want their ideas heard but a bunch of very hungry, disaffected people who really just want food. Sure there's a few political thinkers in the rabble (often leading it) but most people there would be too tired, weak, hungry, ignorant or marginalized to really care without having ideas put in their heads first. Just my opinion is all....

 

ANYWAYS, my contribution to the conversation at large:

 

I'm poor. Being a student for the past however many years (many...) will do that to ya. Now that I'm done I will still be poor for the foreseeable future and a 535 will be out of my grasp for sometime. Speaking in purely selfish terms: the longer Heritage remains a brand only for PLAYERS who are in the know the better. Let the collectors buy Gibsons. After all, the playability and tone of an axe don't matter much if you're not gonna play it, right!?

 

I'd strongly suggest listening to this lecture by Professor Elizabeth Warren on "The Collapse of the Middle Class". She's been studying bankrupcy for a long time and does a fantastic job mapping out spending and income for American famillies for the past 50 or 30 years (been a while since I watched it). It should open a lot of minds.

 

 

 

Personally I don't buy the whole "young people are entitled" hogwash. It just sounds like a bunch of old men making the same complaints old men have made from the dawn of civilization. I would propose two possibilities (neither work out well for people who accuse young people of being entitled):

 

 

A) Yes, they are entitled little brats. Now...why would they develop like that? That's right, YOU (or, if you're old enough, your children and their implied lack of parenting skills)! If the child has a problem first place to look is the parent.

 

B ) Young people are not entitled and in fact care and work much harder than older generations. Think of the percentage of young people in university who work now as opposed to 25 years ago. When I was an undergrad I was working 30+ hours a week as were many of my friends....this was NOT always the case in US universities. Young people give to charity and volunteer in numbers today which are staggering compared to even 20 years ago (a benefit of the information age, more than anything else, although the slow percolation of then-radical 1960s ideals into mainstream society does also play a role....yuppies buying organic is a great example and, to my mind, a form of success).

 

 

Anyways....I'm just a young firebrand out in the desert shouting at nobody...not to be taken to seriously by anyone (least of all myself! )

[Dick Seacup]

An attorney joke? All I've got is a one liner: "I hear the housing market is so bad that real-estate lawyers are walking around with their hands in their own pockets."

 

I literally laughed out loud!

 

Thanks, Jon:

I don't think I've ever read prose that conveyed a stronger image of the impression of tongue pressed against cheek, without using the words "tongue," or "cheek." No monkey work here, or in your interesting post. I'm glad that we can disagree and joke about it, and, hey, I'll take a compliment where I can find it.

 

The only part that I wasn't totally serious about was the monkeys and typewriters, and that was a reference to me, not you. I think the monkeys would do a better job than I do, as far as coming up with rational dialogue on a regular basis.

 

You and I agree on as many, or more, points as/than we disagree on, I bet. For instance, we both seem to think that state-sponsored corporatism[1] is Pure Evil and extremely caustic to the fabric of our society. I would not call myself a capitalist, nor a free-market libertarian[2]. I am a former disciple of Rothbardian anarchocapitalism who has seen the light and graduated to extreme left-leaning minarchism (I assert that if you can't use/control it directly, you can't own it and if you consume scarce resources to the detriment of society as a whole, you are liable to others). We disagree on the correct role of government (which I allow is a necessary evil for the protection of rights and property) but that just makes the conversation interesting[3].

 

You are articulate and well read, that much is obvious to anyone. I like the cut of your jib; your comportment. Just because we disagree on minor issues of no real importance doesn't mean we can't have a passionate, yet respectful, discourse. Does it?

 

Did I mention that I just got back from the beach in NC? No sharks, plenty of attorneys (sister and brother-in-law) and I finally got a chance to sample a couple of the Bell's beers that everyone here writes about. The Oberon was very good --nice, crisp summer ale-- but I think I liked the Two Hearted Ale better. Rich toasted malt flavor and hop-py. Or maybe it was just that the Oberon prepared me up to appreciate the Two Heart?

 

Did you visit my friend Rob? He is a terrible influence, having put me in touch with his personal sonic artisan. Tsk, tsk. I suspect that I will be spending far too much money on an amplifier that far exceeds my skills in the near future. Two Hearted Ale is my favorite Bell's brew. The Oberon is very good/refreshing in the spring when they first make it available, but by the end of May or first part of June I'm Oberon-ed out. Two Hearted is good all year round. I absolutely love hoppy beers, though. Their Lager of the Lakes is almost like a "Two Hearted Light," although it's not anywhere close to being a light beer. If you get a chance you should try some. Maybe I'll ship you some...I wonder if you can ship beer via USPS. Hrmm...

 

Actually, I have to confess that I, like many historians, feel a certain kinship with my colleagues in economics. I see myself as a historical materialist, and IMHO most neo-classical economists are ahistorical materialists. Only one letter difference.

 

I think most economists (academics?) are just making it up as they go along. They're honestly trying to do the right thing, but instead of adhering to the scientific method, their biases and predilections cloud their judgment. Benjamin Anderson was good about noting where his conclusions were colored by opinion, and then documenting the foundation for his opinion. Now there was an economist who could write well!

 

[1] As you know, Mussolini coined a term that seems to fit our current socio-politico-economic system quite well. Unfortunately, the imbeciles at Fox News and on talk radio have appropriated it for their own uses. Nothing drives me up a wall quite like hearing "fascism" being screamed repeatedly when the term these dolts are looking for is "socialism," or, as happens most frequently, "Democrat." The irony of Limbaugh, Hannity and that screaming shrew, whose name escapes me now, implying that the socialists are the ones in bed with the corporatists is thick enough to choke on. In my opinion, of course...and we have already established to the satisfaction of the court that I make less sense than a million monkeys who occupy themselves by banging on typewriters.

 

[2] I note that there hasn't been a true free market since at least the Dark Ages.

 

[3] And the best part is we haven't devolved here to the hackneyed "left v. right," "conservative v. liberal," "Democrat v. Republican[4]" (mostly false) dichotomies that have poisoned the public discussion for many decades.

 

[4] Because I wear my political stripes proudly, I have spent the last six months loudly exclaiming to all who will hear that The Problem is that there is no difference, really, between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties are held in thrall to the moneyed interests and corporate lobbyists. Therefore, the correct solution is to vote thus: No Democrats, No Republicans, No Incumbents and No Career Politicians. If we could accomplish that for the next couple of cycles, the powerful elite who have our country's throat in an iron grip will be broken and the people can go about cleaning things up...hopefully making sure we don't end up here again (although I have little faith in this happening).

[jjkrause84]

Therefore, the correct solution is to vote thus: No Democrats, No Republicans, No Incumbents and No Career Politicians. If we could accomplish that for the next couple of cycles, the powerful elite who have our country's throat in an iron grip will be broken and the people can go about cleaning things up...hopefully making sure we don't end up here again (although I have little faith in this happening).

 

I think you might grossly underestimate the power of money but every move towards adding extra parties is a positive step. I do seriously think if the US is gonna have a third party it will be Libertarian. There's tons of libertarians out there and, most importanty, lots of people who call themselves libertarian. That's all you need.

 

Ultimately, however, large bodies of human beings act in largely predictable ways under certain circumstances. For one they are ALWAYS and WILL always be led by someone (or "someones", as the case may be). Those leaders will naturally try to maximize their influence over their subjects. Some will do this with the best intentions, others with slightly less noble goals....in the end it is more or less irrelevant. This has been the story of Western government since the Early Modern period as social organization, wealth and technological advances allowed such a thing to happen. I see no way for it to stop now (or at least in the foreseeable future). I guess if there's a point in this mini-rant it's that getting rid of one elite will only give rise to a new one which, after time, will be utterly indistinguishable from the old. Sometimes this happens faster or slower (Russia in the 20th Century is the best example of how little things can change in certain respects) but, ultimately, we must still come back to human nature which is that the powerful will use their power to assert control (or at the very least influence) over those with less power.

 

Still, elevating political deabtes above a simple "yes/no" "A or B" question would be nice.

[mark555]

Anybody got any good fart jokes?

 

My wife Helen and I went to Liverpool for a weekend a few weeks back, and bought a mug for our daughter, on which was written...

 

"MY farts hospitalise small children"

 

But here's my bottom line: Buy a Heritage and never sell it, buy one or two more when they are cheap and don't sell those either, and buy a guitar for the right reason, which is of course because it's to play.

 

I thank you (as the old working men's club entertainers used to say).

[mark555]

an attorney joke.

 

A tramp is on the road side when a female attorney stops her Lexus to ask directions. The tramp asks the lady if he can help her with a few spare dollars , and tells her he is so hungry he could eat grass. "Jump in" says the lady, "the grass is three feet high at my place".

[111518]

Just because we disagree on minor issues of no real importance doesn't mean we can't have a passionate, yet respectful, discourse. Does it?

 

Jon:

Sorry if I misread a note of sarcasm. It's rare to find willingness to express real respect across ideological divides. Thanks. I absolutely agree in the possibility, the necessity, of respectful discourse.

 

I think we probably do disagree on some fundamental issues, even if we end up with some similar criticisms of existing society, and like the same ale. Although I find the "limitation to use" an interesting approach to the justification for private property, I still find the nexus of private property and individualism (what C.B. Macpherson dubbed "possessive individualism,") a contradiction of my reading of science and history. It seems to me that man is fundamentally a social animal; our accomplishments are the result of our ability to draw on accumulated social knowledge, to act collectively. To begin any system of ethics or natural law with the concept of the individual, seen as separate from society, is, it seems to me, to idealize in a way that runs against the basic reality of how we are born, nurtured, educated, organized spatially, and on and on. So, as you suggest, the immediate question should be ,,, why posit THIS natural law. What bias is involved? Why posit humanity as composed of unconnected individuals when that is so far from observed reality?

 

It seems to me that the primary purpose has to be to emphasize difference, and thus to justify the persistence of inequality. Of course people are not identical, but again, it seems to me that history and science demonstrate that most "objective" systems of differentiating people into a hierarchy of groups have proven in the end to be reflections of certain groups' need to justify their prestige and power, not differences of cranial capacity or other measures once claimed to explain white superiority, for example. If the members of a society were actually given the same standards of health, the same education, the same sense of opportunity, the same sense of cultural inclusion, etc. etc. etc. ... would there be the extreme difference of attainment that we see in society today and ascribe to differences of effort or character? I don't have any proof, of course, but I doubt it. Maybe this conception of humanity is as much faith as reason, but I think it is logically concurrent with life as a social animal.

 

I guess this brings me to my ultimate disaffection with libertarian philosophies. They tend to abhor power that threatens individual initiative, but they deny that power has already, at any historical moment, produced profoundly unequal societies. Given this historical reality, denying the legitimacy of the state only locks in place existing inequality. I think I could even live with market models of society if in fact everyone entered with the same number of beans and level of knowledge about how to trade them, but I've never read a libertarian who posits the necessity of establishing a fair starting line for the race --elimination of inheritance, provision of equal education and opportunity, etc. etc. Maybe such philosophers exist, but it does create a contradiction --how to organize society to undertake such a task without a state? Then we're back at the traditional Marxist fallacy that a powerful state would whither away. Seems to me one would have to be an enormous believer in social reconstruction to establish the preconditions for a system that truly tested the merit of the individual. Without that, I simply can't understand the ethical basis of the system, unless you believe in inherent difference, as Rothbart apparently did. So, for me, these ideas run aground both as they connect to human's place in nature and as a coherent system of distributive justice. Sometimes I think systems that seem very different bend together ... but I'm weird enough to challenge that basic notion of individualism. Divide and conquer, I'd say. Now, as to rights of expression and thought ... again, history and nature suggest any living system thrives on diversity ...here, I get to the same place as many libertarian thinkers, if from a different direction.

 

OK, gotta stop, and didn't even get to the state or to participation in politics. Thanks again. You've challenged me to come to a better understanding of libertarian philosophy and Austrian-school economics, which I have to admit I have not really differentiated from far right politics. And, writing helps clarify my thinking --even if this probably seems clear as mud to anyone foolish enough to try to read it.

[cod65]

um. 'power corrupts'?

 

'nuff said (from me)

[602a]

It seems the last three months the heritage price values are nose diving! I have been watching 150's only fetching 850-900 on ebay, then seen some rediculous low prices on some 555's and 157's as well going for 1100. Definetaly great for the buyers but not so much for us owners if we decide to sell or trade later.

 

Maybe it's just me but values seem to be taking a big dive real quickly. 6 months ago a good deal on a 150 would have been about 1100, and 157's and 555's about 1400-1600. I have a gibby semi hollow im going to be selling very soon to snatch another heritage with so I guess I cant complain because it looks like I will be able to get an awsome deal on a 555 im wanting to add to the herd. But it sure seems heritages should be headin in the up direction, even in this economy.

I know I may be crazy but i'm selling all my Vintage Gibsons and I'm buying Heritage for the future. It took me a while to see they are the real Quality Guitars built to pass on to Grand kids. I hate to see prices go down but true players have to stay ahead of the hard times. Collectors don't have this problem. YOU Can't own a 100k 59 Gold top and worry about the economy. I'm a Firefighter so I do worry about prices.

[Patrick]

I know I may be crazy but i'm selling all my Vintage Gibsons and I'm buying Heritage for the future. It took me a while to see they are the real Quality Guitars built to pass on to Grand kids. I hate to see prices go down but true players have to stay ahead of the hard times. Collectors don't have this problem. YOU Can't own a 100k 59 Gold top and worry about the economy. I'm a Firefighter so I do worry about prices.

 

May I ask, what are you selling???

[Thundersteel]

My reply to all the socio-political economic discussions:

 

I like ice cream!

[602a]

May I ask, what are you selling???

83 Custom Shop Les Paul

[GrandpaLarry]

"Heritage guitars have not yet hit their stride with affluent collectors. I expect that will eventually happen. I have personally seen one such case myself. I met a gentleman and his wife while waiting outside a local restaurant to be seated. He was showing some teenagers his newest toy. It was a brand new Ford Mustang Shelby Cobra . . . . which is, for all intents and purposes, an $80,000 Ford Mustang. I'm very familiar with the car and he caught my interest as well, so I went over to look under the hood as they were chatting. I was wearing my brand new, PSPIII tee shirt. As soon as he saw the tee shirt . . . the car and the 3 teens seemed totally unimportant to him. He shut the hood, turned off the car walked over to me and asked what I knew about Heritage guitars. Turns out he's a serious collector with 75 guitars . . . . . 6 of them Heritages. He had some work his company was doing up in Kzoo . . . walked into the plant and ordered a couple more."

 

Do you really want these guys getting into Heritage and driving up prices of used gear?

 

Look how they ruined the market for vintage Martin, Gibson,and Fender. These so called collectors are not musicians or players. They are collectors who see the instruments as commodities and drive prices out of reach of average musicians.

 

Let them diddle with their pre war D18's and Fender No-casters. I, personally, don't want them here.

[mark555]

GandpaLarry,

 

I agree with you 100%. You can't get a good older Gibson without paying stupid money for it now.

[Patrick]

GandpaLarry,

 

I agree with you 100%. You can't get a good older Gibson without paying stupid money for it now.

 

I guess I probably shouldn't post this response because I've been quite out spoken on this matter repeatedly in the past, as well as in this thread. But, unable to stop myself, here goes;;

 

Regarding paying "stupid money" for a good older Gibson, that probably does apply for the "used" Gibson guitars . . say from the late '70s on to the current models. However, there is nothing stupid about paying what some may feel are exorbitant amounts for a good vintage Gibson . . . . say from the '60s or earlier. Case and point:: I just bought a dead mint Heritage 1996 Johnny Smith . . . I'm talking time capsule condition . . . for $2,600. The list price on this model when new was over $6,000. By contrast, the Gibson Johnny Smith, when introduced in 1961 as a single pickup and then added a dual pup model in 1963, was introduced at well under $1,000. Today, you would be hard pressed to find one in "very good condition" for under $8,000. A dead mint single pup natural finish would fetch over $15,000. They are only going to continue to escalate in price.

 

The difference is that no one (almost no one) buys a vintage Gibson as a "tool of the trade" so to speak. They are purchased as art, collectables and investments. The approx appreciation of the Gibson Johnny is 15 times original list price. Nothing stupid about that. Does it gig better or play jazz better than a Heritage Johnny? Hell no!! Is it made better? Is it prettier? Hell no!! Will my Heritage Johnny be worth 15 times its original $6,000 price tag . . . $90,000 . . . in years to come? I would like to hope it would, but I highly doubt it. Would I trade my pristine condition 1996 Heritage Johnny Smith for an equally pristine mid '60s Gibson Johnny Smith? In a New York minute!!!

[pegleg32]

I guess I probably shouldn't post this response because I've been quite out spoken on this matter repeatedly in the past, as well as in this thread. But, unable to stop myself, here goes;;

 

Regarding paying "stupid money" for a good older Gibson, that probably does apply for the "used" Gibson guitars . . say from the late '70s on to the current models. However, there is nothing stupid about paying what some may feel are exorbitant amounts for a good vintage Gibson . . . . say from the '60s or earlier. Case and point:: I just bought a dead mint Heritage 1996 Johnny Smith . . . I'm talking time capsule condition . . . for $2,600. The list price on this model when new was over $6,000. By contrast, the Gibson Johnny Smith, when introduced in 1961 as a single pickup and then added a dual pup model in 1963, was introduced at well under $1,000. Today, you would be hard pressed to find one in "very good condition" for under $8,000. A dead mint single pup natural finish would fetch over $15,000. They are only going to continue to escalate in price.

 

Patrick (and others also) I'm actually curious about investing in vintage guitars from an investment standpoint. Has anyone done a comparison of vintage guitars with other alternative investments? Have they actually proved to be a good investment? It seems to me that on a scale of risky to safe investments, guitars would have to come in on the more risky side, so does the increase in value justify the risk? Will the future see similar increases or is there an upper limit, or even a bubble, in values? I'm familiar with investing in coins where, first scarcity, and second condition, is everything. Does anyone know the actual number of any particular guitar in existance? i.e. How does one determine what guitar is undervalued or overvalued? Thanks for any insight.

[mark555]

I can only speak from my own point of view. I would never buy a guitar for investment because I am just not in that position, but then again, I personally feel that a guitar is for playing.

 

Yes, it is down to supply and demand when prices of Gibson and Fender guitars from the fifties and sixties come into play, but I still say that the money for them is stupid. Lets consider what a guitar actually is, and when I see some of the current guitars on offer for the prices asked, I say yes, stupid money. Over hear in the UK the golden rule seems to be that what a guitar sells for in $ in the US, it is the same figure in £'s over here. I look at Gibson's present offerings and the Japanese are beating them hands down in bang for buck.

 

I am also dispassionate about vintage guitars, while understanding and accepting that the vintage market is as it is, I still think it's criminal that these guitars are not out there being played and listened to by audiences. I have had several guitars which have increased in value, but I have never bought them for any reason other than to play.

 

If I sound a bit on the sour side, perhaps I am, the only way my guitars will ever be vintage is by my not selling them. I really do not care if my 555 never hits a silly value, it was bought to play. On top of that, just because a guitar is a vintage piece, it doesn't mean it is automatically a good guitar, there's some real dogs out there.

[Patrick]

I can only speak from my own point of view. I would never buy a guitar for investment because I am just not in that position, but then again, I personally feel that a guitar is for playing.

 

Yes, it is down to supply and demand when prices of Gibson and Fender guitars from the fifties and sixties come into play, but I still say that the money for them is stupid. Lets consider what a guitar actually is, and when I see some of the current guitars on offer for the prices asked, I say yes, stupid money. Over hear in the UK the golden rule seems to be that what a guitar sells for in $ in the US, it is the same figure in £'s over here. I look at Gibson's present offerings and the Japanese are beating them hands down in bang for buck.

 

I am also dispassionate about vintage guitars, while understanding and accepting that the vintage market is as it is, I still think it's criminal that these guitars are not out there being played and listened to by audiences. I have had several guitars which have increased in value, but I have never bought them for any reason other than to play.

 

If I sound a bit on the sour side, perhaps I am, the only way my guitars will ever be vintage is by my not selling them. I really do not care if my 555 never hits a silly value, it was bought to play. On top of that, just because a guitar is a vintage piece, it doesn't mean it is automatically a good guitar, there's some real dogs out there.

 

Mark: Please accept my reply as direct, but not meant to be condescending or offensive . . . as that is not its' intention;;; It's obvious that you are indeed a player and not a collector . . . for you know nothing about the reasons that people collect guitars. Your rational is similar to comparing a 1961 Corvette GS . . . currently valued at $1.5 million US Dollars . . . to "just another car that was built to be driven". Or that a $.12 postage stamp that just sold for $240,000 due to its collectability was only meant to get a letter from point A to point B.

 

There is an entire community of people out there who are SERIOUS guitar collectors, as opposed to a guy like me who just happens to be fortunate enough to own a few nice guitars. There have been stories in the wall street journal about "yuppies" who took their entire portfolios out of stocks and bonds and put it into vintage guitars. Some of the most prominent collectors out there can't even play a guitar!! There are different reasons that a person buys a guitar. For you, its nothing more . . . or not too much more, than a tool to your craft. You my friend, are one of the fortunate ones!! You will never know the financial pain that is sometimes associated with buying that special guitar that you just gotta have. I envy you for that. However, you will also never know the joy associated with the hunt and conquest of that special guitar that you just gotta have. I pity you for that.

[Spectrum13]

Patrick & Mark,

 

You guys are both right. IMHO

 

Consider the 1961 Johnny Smith at $1000. That would be $7000 in 2010 $ and at $15,000 today it takes 50 years to double your money. Less cost of repairs / insurance.

 

A Heritage Johnny Smith for $2,600 having depreciated off list is a great price and COULD be worth $5,200 in 2010 dollars by year 2060.

 

Taking 50 years to double your "investment" is not a great return. Both instruments are/were produced in low numbers and were top of the line models built by the best builders of the day.

 

For both the collector or player, finding "right one" at the right price is a worthwhile destination. Should the purpose be a tool of the trade, chasing a specific tone for a project, a work of art, completing a collection, re-acquire something we regretted selling in our youth or something we always dreamed of playing and having.

 

It could also be ALL of the above.

 

One of the best perks of having a Heritage is being able to have 60's vintage quality built to order. Designing something that never existed back in the day and having it built. Having a one of a kind dream, investment, art, tone or whatever you call it, is pretty cool thing and provides a value to the creator, player and owner.

 

For the player, the tool could also be an investment. If i still had my 68 Goldtop that cost me $260 or my 61 Strat that cost me $100, that would have provided decades of enjoyment and a great return.

 

For the collector, the investment could /should also be played, admired and displayed.

[mark555]

Mark: Please accept my reply as direct, but not meant to be condescending or offensive . . . as that is not its' intention;;; It's obvious that you are indeed a player and not a collector . . . for you know nothing about the reasons that people collect guitars. Your rational is similar to comparing a 1961 Corvette GS . . . currently valued at $1.5 million US Dollars . . . to "just another car that was built to be driven". Or that a $.12 postage stamp that just sold for $240,000 due to its collectability was only meant to get a letter from point A to point B.

 

There is an entire community of people out there who are SERIOUS guitar collectors, as opposed to a guy like me who just happens to be fortunate enough to own a few nice guitars. There have been stories in the wall street journal about "yuppies" who took their entire portfolios out of stocks and bonds and put it into vintage guitars. Some of the most prominent collectors out there can't even play a guitar!! There are different reasons that a person buys a guitar. For you, its nothing more . . . or not too much more, than a tool to your craft. You my friend, are one of the fortunate ones!! You will never know the financial pain that is sometimes associated with buying that special guitar that you just gotta have. I envy you for that. However, you will also never know the joy associated with the hunt and conquest of that special guitar that you just gotta have. I pity you for that.

 

Patrick, Good to read your point of view, constructive debate and discussion is very enjoyable as far as I am concerned and I enjoy reading your to the point posts.

 

I am very aware of the serious collectors, and again, I can only comment from a personal point of view. I actually do enjoy vintage guitars, I have one or two friends who own very nice vintage pieces. Peteraltongreen owns some fabulous vintage guitars, but I am sure that he will be the first to admit, they were bought as working tools. I would love a couple of vintage pieces if they were right for me, a nice Epiphone Riviera has always been on my wish list. I think, having re read the threads, that I just think it is a real shame that some of the most sought after pieces in the world are not being seen and heard and not in the hands of those who love them for what they are.

 

But, and on a humourous note, everytime I have bought a guitar it has brought financial pain! On a more serious note, I have to treat guitars as working tools because I can't afford what I would really like to buy right now. The other side of that particular coin though, is finding out that there are fantastic guitars that you can buy and work with without breaking the bank.

[mark555]

While I am thinking about it, I bought my 555 for £800 five years ago. I could now sell it for £1200 minimum, so a 50% increase in five years. The speed of increase in value, will depend purely on how quickly the market catches on to Heritage as a brand. What real players are currently catching onto in the UK is that they can get a fabulous guitar with a vintage vibe and feel with superb build and beautiful timber for a realistic price. The market for Heritage guitars over here at the moment is very much for the used ones, which are seen (by those who know what they are) as exceptional value.

[111518]

Patrick (and others also) I'm actually curious about investing in vintage guitars from an investment standpoint. Has anyone done a comparison of vintage guitars with other alternative investments? Have they actually proved to be a good investment? It seems to me that on a scale of risky to safe investments, guitars would have to come in on the more risky side, so does the increase in value justify the risk? Will the future see similar increases or is there an upper limit, or even a bubble, in values? I'm familiar with investing in coins where, first scarcity, and second condition, is everything. Does anyone know the actual number of any particular guitar in existance? i.e. How does one determine what guitar is undervalued or overvalued? Thanks for any insight.

 

There is a regular column in Vintage Guitar (the mag) focused on guitars as an investment. I know they have a website where some columns are posted, but I don't know if this one shows up online. That column is the only place where I've seen ongoing quantitative analysis. As for record keeping, there are pretty reliable totals for most manufacturers in the golden-era of guitar production. Gibson wasn't always logical with serial numbers on guitars, but they kept separate records of total numbers of particular models shipped. Martin's records survive, and I think Fender's. D'Angellico kept a logbook in which he entered his guitars. So, not perfect, but there is a lot of information.

 

One thing I admire about my friend in the guitar business is that he always corrects people who made grand claims about how much a guitar has risen in value by pointing out: 1) you have to discount the "opportunity cost" of alternative investments, and 2) a guitar is worth exactly what you can find someone to pay you for it, and, if you need money in a pinch, actually cashing out can mean a very substantial discount off the prices listed in buyer's guides. Don't believe that the enormous prices you see listed for LP's and custom-color strats mean that those guitars are actually moving at those prices.

 

One other point, about the current state of the guitar market, also drawn from a roundtable in Vintage Guitar. (Included Gruhn, and John Jorgenson, and ... can't remember the third guy.) After the Nashville flood, there was speculation that repair shops would be overwhelmed with work, but it hasn't happened, because most of the players with their instruments in cartage storage were insured, and often based on appraisals substantially above current market prices ... so they are cashing in rather than trying to save and restore. There was also speculation that people trying to replace lost instruments would produce a bump in the market, but it doesn't seem to be happening. The participants suggested that the collapse of prices over the last few years has people reluctant to reinvest.

[mark555]

HI again, I keep adding thoughts as I think about them.

 

Another definition of investment is not what it achieves in return in and of itself, but what it allows you to do with the guitar personally with it. For example, as a working tool, my guitars have earned me more than their current value in gig money, but the 555 has never been gigged as of yet, the reason being that the right gig for that guitar has not come along yet, or to be even more specific, the right paying gig where I can be comfortable leaving it on a stage has not come along yet.