Official Luthiers Forum!

Hey Everyone,

Those of you who have sold guitars, are people buying based on looks mainly? Would they consider a beautiful sounding guitar, even if the fit and finish was not top notch? Or, would they rather have a mediocre sounding guitar that looked like a million bucks?

I guess when someone commissions a guitar, they must trust that it will both look and sound beautiful. But which one is the stronger desire, looks or sound?

Just wondering.

Jeff

I think for most part they want both. That said, I know a guy and go to his shop and visit here in OK, near Tulsa, who if took apart guitar if you could, and looked inside, would just say this can't sell. His braces are thick and tall all the way through. He makes brace scallops with a belt sander. The joints in X braces not always tight. Someone said, and I agree no one could build and get good sounding guitar with those thick big braces. Heavy as heck. Until I went to his shop, he never put a radius on top or back. Kept having problems with the back seam splitting. Some of that was he ran a heater in area of store/shop that ran full blast and no humidity control, so no radius caused him a some humity cracks. I gave him some dishes and that helped him. He did start also thinning braces some. Long story short, look good outside, not to good inside, but he has good tone and sound (maybe those are same thing, I am not a musican) He has a pretty good client base and is back logged. Several from guys in the Grand Ole Oprey and that hall of fame. Go figure. All the deflection jigs, fancy tools, engineering of weight and stuff, when talk to him about those things, he has no idea of what talking about. No bandsaw, his tablesaw is old and not real stable, bench jointer from GMC or some less expensive. He just builds them and they sell consistantly. I guess it has to be for him and all he builds for tone/sound and bulky so will never break. I am thinking we and I sure do, get into the MIT syndrome and how to engineer things with fancy stuff and depend on that to much and when do, not get the sound. Weird. Wish I could sell as alot of us do to some of those he sells to. He had electric at Farmaide I helped him with very little though. He builds a harp guitar too, and concert player of those has one of his harps that has ordered a second one from him (write up in todays Tulsa World) This guy bought a fancy one from a maker in Canada, who is more happy with this guys, shall we say less fancy and cool looking one. I guess the pros still want sound first. As they say beauty is (or can be) only skin deep. I would still rather build good looking and with sound both first though

Honestly, I think it's both. People want a highly playable, really great sounding guitar, but the standard for fit and finish is getting consistently higher on factory guitars, so if you want to sell your guitar for $1000, you're going to have to at the very least match, and probably beat the factory folks (Larrivee, Taylor, Martin) in terms of fit&finish. If you're selling for less, you might settle for less, but if you're paying big bucks, you want everything to be perfect.

I agree with Stan and Mattia. I think both are usually big considerations. I've had experience with both aspects being the judging factor, though not by the same clients. I built a commission for a guy that I KNEW was going to be very skepticle. It was a very good exercise for me as everything had to be perfect. The guitar sounded great but to me looked even better. Like Stan, I have a better eye than ear. So when I delivered it, the client took it out of the case and started playing it. Didn't even look at it first. Not so much as a glance at my spot-on miters. Kind of broke my heart. But he said it played perfectly. Intonation was better than any guitar he had ever played. He was just blown away by the sound. Good news I guess.
Had another client the pulled the guitar out of the case and said, "man, this is beautiful". Kept looking at it, looked, and looked. He probably had it in his hands for ten minutes before he even strummed a chord.
Two years ago at Healdsburg I was at the table of a very famous builder. I wanted to see her work up close and personal. Upon VERY little inspection, I saw a run in her lacquer. I didn't feel it was my place to say anything but I kind of hung around looking at others. I was very unimpressed by the attention to detail. While I was there someone pointed out the run in the lacquer to a friend and the builder heard them talking. Her response was that she builds them to sound great, not look great. I'm sorry, but when a builder is commanding $7000 per, they should do both in my opinion.
Bottom line for me, both are important. To me, looks are important because I come from a visual art background. But we can't forget what the purpose is for these works. They are instruments made to make music. And hopefully, do so very well.

I think everyone is right! But I sort of see it in several different catagories:

1) PLayers
2) Collectors

In the Players catagory you have several sub-catagories...those that can play, those that think can play and those that wish they could play.

In the Collectors you have mostly one but you could break that one into two...those that have no musical talent and love collecting, and those that can play very little but realy consider themselves collectors.

You also have a third catagory Players who are Collectors that don't play much anymore.

I won't go into the finite differences here but each market is a little/alot different. Know your market.

Players who can realy play look for tone,intonation, overtones, Harmonic complexity, sustain, projection, balance, and probably looks last.

Collectors look for pretty...their eyes can tell pretty their ears can't hear the difference in any of the above.

Just starting out you want to build the prettiest guitars possible because they may not sound that wonderful - you need something to make it sell. If they are pretty they will sell. When you get in the higher price range I think everyone expects the guitar to be both Toneful and Beautiful. But remember what one person is looking for or what they consider "toneful" may not be the next guys definition. That's why you try to build to the customer and not just cookie cut all your guitars. The touring artist probably cares more about functionabilty and reliablity than looks - certainly about tone, projection, etc. But if it didn't look pretty would he have considered it?... But then again Look at Willie Nelson's old Martin it's a bit beat up but he loves the tone. I doubt he cares much how it looks.Dave-SKG38453.4009027778

_________________
Dave Bland

remember...

"If it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood"

I think it's a little more complex than player vs. collector, or looks vs.
tone. After all, every builder and every player is unique, with their own
personal collection of priorities, abilities, quirks, and preferences.

If you're displaying instruments in a setting where they are visually
compared to others, the shiniest and most gaudy will usually get the first
look. My nightmare is to have my Healdsburg table next to Grit Laskin or
Harvey Leach! My style is so plain and Shaker-like that my guitars would
simply disappear next to the highly-decorated ones those luthiers/artists
build. I think this explains why some builders emphasize highly-figured
woods that may not be the most structurally sound. A straight-grained,
quartersawn piece of wood is probably the best tonewood, having the
best stiffness-to-weight ratio and greatest stability, but it doesn't catch
the eye the way a wildly-figured skew cut board will.

Some years ago, I took four guitars to a show. Two were finished with
padding lacquer by me, two were sprayed by a professional finisher. The
ones I finished were lovely but not mirror-shiny; they had the typical
warm gloss of French polish. Tonally, those two were at least the quality
of the sprayed guitars. At the end of the show, I still had the two that I'd
finished and cash for the two sprayed ones. 'Nuff said.

Players tend to associate appearance with quality -- the more chrome,
the better the car, right? If a builder spent lots of time on appearance, he/
she must have spent even more on the joinery and tone; at least, that's
the common assumption. In reality, there's no connection at all. The
builder may be a great woodworker but not have access to modern
finishing equipment, or may be committed to using an environmentally
safe finish that doesn't give the high gloss/clarity of lacquer. Check out
Fred Carlson's instruments: great construction quality, great tone,
fantastic creativity, but Fred won't use lacquer and chooses not to use
much inlay. They often look sort of unfinished next to more highly-
polished instruments. That's his choice and I pity the players who
overlook them because of they aren't shiny.

There's also the whole problem of hearing with your eyes. We all develop
biases (though we call them first impressions), and if we like the
appearance of an instrument, we want to like the sound. It's a rare player
who can separate the two. I'm lucky to have a great player as a friend. I
often take him my experiments to play and comment on. He's so into the
sound that he sometimes won't recognize a guitar that he played a week
before -- until he picks it up and plays it. Then the tone and response
engage his memory: "Oh yeah, I remember this." He's the exception
and is incredibly valuable to my progress as a builder. But don't count on
finding people like him at shows!

I also find that touring players have totally different priorities than either
studio musicians or recreational players. They are generally most
interested in durability and set up; less so in subtle tonal characteristics.
One veteran player, under contract to Taylor, told me that he loved one of
my guitars but "If something happens to my guitar, Mr. Taylor will send a
new one in the morning." For this professional, knowing that he'll always
have a guitar to take on stage is crucial and I can't compete with any of
the production companies in that regard. One player who has several of
my guitars never brings any of them when he plays in my town. (I could
kill him!) He won't tour with an instrument that he relies on for recording.
Different priorities ...

Finally, I've NEVER heard a builder, famous or beginner or anywhere in
between, seriously say anything like "I build them to sound great, not
look great." As a joke, sure, embarrassed about a flaw, or lampooning
salesmen's talk. But not seriously. When I go to Healdsburg or Newport, I
always want to take my best work. Unfortunately, my best is usually sold
and in the customer's hands before the show. I try to allow time to make
instruments just for important shows, and when I do it usually pays off,
but the customers come first. As a result, I (and other builders)
sometimes end up showing experiments, or not-quite-ready-for-prime-
time instruments, or good guitars that have been to a few shows and are
getting a little beat. I don't apologize for them but I often explain the
situation. I might even say that I build for tone rather than appearance,
but I do so with a smile.

Great stuff Rick. Glen's guitars for most part I think end up on stage or touring. So the extra weight and looks I guess to players are not the main concern. One thing, he is trying as am I everytime to get the look to be as good as the sound. Plain or not flashy I think can be really pretty. I give my guitars away as that is my thing. I will still strive with every part of me though to make it look and sound as if I was in your guy's class and selling them or taking them to shows. Just a personal thing of why work at something if not giving it everything you can. For free or a million. To that end, I am going to try and make more building seminars, take classes and videos along with information here. I need to get some faster and alot better. I also need to start selling some for a little profit in some venues, so I can pay for the other stuff. Last year over 7K out in stuff and just a few buck in repair and little over cost on a couple of guitars. I just don't want my work to become untenable and it is closing in on that if I don't improve in area's of my concern. Others don't notice it much, but I do, and doing some things better and some faster will improve in looks and sound. Voicing is an area I really want to go and learn. As I am not of your and many others skill, ear and things, when I "tap tone" and stuff it sounds to me like hitting a piece of wood. Heck I could hit a wall and sound the same to me. I am starting to pick it up, but need to go with someone and hit a bunch of wood and know what to listen for. I don't know what "nodal pts" (is that right term) on guitar is or how to find them and if found what to listen for. Rick Love your guitars. I am going to start building dulcimers. My wife plays and they to me are a cool instrument and can sell well at the festivals

Very good points Rick. You're right about each and every player/buyer being different.
As to the "tone not looks" comment, had I not heard it with my own ears I wouldn't have believed it myself. And she didn't say it with a smile or in any way joking. I was floored. I've had many conversations with many other very well respected builders and evidently this builder has sort of gotten that type of reputation as of late.

Rick... I think your comments are great. I also had a thought to share.

I think something that might be overlooked by many builders ... especially ones aiming at the collector market is "future value".

If you are an up and comer and I am a collector and can spot the fact that you are doing good work and want to bring one of your guitars into my collection one of the things I want to ** KNOW ** is that you are going to be more respected and in shorter supply in the future.

This will drive up the value of my instruments (presumably) and make the buyer look really smart when he tells my friends.... "Kragenbrink... yeah, I bought my first one of those 10 years ago for only $2,500. Now look at them...."

   Seriously. I think that if you want to build the VALUE of your instruments it will take good work (obviously.. both sound and fit and finish) and a dedication to building your brand that will be the combination you need to reach the higher levels of this craft.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

At the end of the show, I still had the two that I'd finished and cash for the two sprayed ones. 'Nuff said


Good post Rick, but if I may toss in a few points:

Given the choice of 4 guitars pretty well equal in tone, power, and playability, would you not expect the buyer(s) to choose the ones with the nicer finish? I would!

And that sums it up; the buyer looks for both; some will look first, listen later, some the opposite. But sooner or later, both are taken into account. My older work was rough by today's standards, but they sounded and played great, and in the Bluegrass world, they get beat up so quick, and a beat up guitar is something to be proud of anyhow, that it wasn't a problem. My early prices also reflected this fact. Players flocked to me, despite knowing they weren't getting a cosmetically perfect masterpiece. As my prices went up, so did the need for more attention to detail. I still don't build a flawless instrument, but I'm up to, and maybe slightly above, par for my price range. Nice, yes, but flawless, no, but then again, nobody does build the flawless instrument. Nobody.

As for the lady selling a guitar with a run in the finish for $7000, that is crazy! I've never sold a guitar for much more than half that, and I'd never think of letting one go with a run. Much less displaying it at a show! Less than perfect miters, maybe yes, but that's at 1/3 that cost. For 7 large, I, and any buyer, should expect to at least not have a glaring run staring at you. Everyone gets a run every now and then; we all do; but they are so easy to sand out in the levelling stage, that leaving it is a very, very poor sign of workmanship.

Mario--good point. I wonder, if Rick had brought four "satin" finish guitars to that show, would he still have sold two? Maybe.

Paul W.--We, of course, don't want to name names here, but I'm pretty sure I know of whom you speak. Actually, she's had the reputation of less-than-perfect workmanship throughout her career. However, she was one of the very first women in North America to do the hard work of establishing herself in the hand-made lutherie business, and I think that's worked in her favor. Famous-named people buying her instruments didn't hurt, either. She is, though, respected by many of her peers for her intellegence and creativity, and I think that has impressed her customers as well.

Imperfections aren't something I'd easily accept either, as a builder, but as a musician, if it sounds good and feels good, it is good, right? Dizzy Gillespie's trumpet, anyone?

Carlton

Mario makes some excellent points. I recently found a shop in town that is carrying a few luthier built guitars and I hot footed it over there to check it out. And ... not to name names.... but they had a few acoustics and they all had cosmetic problems. Stains bled onto the back strip and weren't scraped off, binding was a little thin in spots, the x brace was cloth wrapped (not a truly awful thing, but not what I think most of us would do...) The insides had a considerable amount of glue squeeze-out. Frankly, this was not something I would give to someone as an example of my best work..

They sounded ok... As good as any of the name brand production stuff he had hanging on the wall.....

There were 4 by this builder hanging on the wall and 2 had sold tags on them. They were asking about $2,500 a pop for them.

Not that I will go home and lower my standards, but I wonder how fussy we all are. I really work hard for cosmetic perfection as well as good tone.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Carlton, Based on your description, we're most likely thinking of the same builder. And yes you are certainly correct that she has added a LOT to the craft especially to women in the craft. I feel badly that I even brought it up because my intent was not to belittle another builder. What I was thinking as I was typing was this: since there are buyers that look for sound and there are buyers that look for beauty, there are also builders that do the same. Where I think we all fall into the "make it as beautiful as I can as long as the sound doesn't suffer" camp, there are a select few that build for sound and looks are secondary.
I'm sorry for hijacking this thread into a "faults of other builders" because that was not my intent at all. We all have our faults. Mine probably measure 10 times all of yours combined.

Paul, I don't think you steered the thread into a "faults of other builders" direction. I understood why you stated it, and everyone here enjoys knowing that not all other builders build flawlessly.

We are too often led to think that hand built means flawless, and that is not always the case. Yes, the best I've ever seen were indeed hand made, and these instruments were incredible(I shook physically, when I first studied Michael Lewis' archtop at the ASIA gathering of 2000, it was THAT nice), but there are plenty of examples of just plain nice, and not over-the-top workmanship in our hand built camp, too, and it's always good for everyone to keep that in mind.

for the most part, if we don't point out where we goofed a little and fixed it, nobody will ever know <g>. It's healthy to know that we don't need to give up because our wood purfling miters have a gap that a razor blade would fit in.

But when it comes to the finish, man, that's an area that really pays dividends if you can get it right. When someone sees an instrument, what is the first thing to meet their eye? The finish. Not everyone has an ear good enough to discern between a good guitar and a great one, and fewer still can get the most tone from a guitar while playing it. But everyone's eyes(well, nearly everyone's) can see a smooth, glossy finish. Everyone has seen a window, and how smooth it is, and everyone has seen chrome on a car, and a really shiny something or other, therefor everyone has a point of refference when it comes to a shiny surface. Everyone knows what dead level and wet-looking glossy looks like. Arghhhh! <bg>

It doesn't help our cause that the $300 Asian guitars in every store have a killer smooth and glossy polyester finish, now does it? Yes, they leave it extremely thick, but Joe Average on the street doesn't know that; all Joe knows is that the $300 guitars at Wally's Guitar Shop look realy nice. Our trick, therefor, is to have our instruments look as smooth and as glossy(or more if we can), yet keep the finish thin to not muffle everything.

Tall order....

For those of you just starting out, and wondering what to concentrate on, tone or looks, I say to definately concentrate on tone! If you can make a killer sounding guitar that has cosmetic difficulties, the smart folks will say "yeah, his workmanship is a little rough, but it will only get better as he builds more; but listen to this thing!". That, friends, is how I got here.
Building a guitar that is cosmetically right on, but sounds like a wet noodle will get you no where fast. Tone is much more elusive than a great finish and pretty abalone. Just head to Wally's Guitar Shop in Everytown USA, and look over the shiny $300 guitars....then play one or two.

"But when it comes to the finish, man, that's an area that really pays dividends if you can get it right"

I totally agree with this statement. I used to do quite a bit of custom leatherwork, and when I would make mistake in the tooling, it would drive me crazy until I got the finish on it. I don't know what it is, the mistake is still there, but it either looks better or is not as noticeable as it is without the finish. On the guitars I'm working on now, I really concentrated on trying to get a level, scratch free finish on them. The mistakes are still there, and believe me there are plenty of them, but they just don't look as bad or as noticeable with a good finish on the guitar.

Would someone tell me how to do quotes in the little box thingy. I can't seem to figure it out.

find the post you want to "quote" then click on the quote icon on the far right hand side of that post.

That will begin a new message with the old one "quoted" in a box.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Thanks Brock

In short, from a dealer's perspective; if they see stuff online, it's all about the looks. If they come without seeing it online, they tend to buy more with their ears.

For example, one chap saw something online he liked, came around, played a load of stuff and bought the one the liked online, even though we all thought another guitar better suited his style. He just didn't like the aesthetics of the latter.

On the other hand, we had another guy come around just to try stuff out and ended up buying something which was much more expensive but killer sounding. It was also a guitar with what I would consider poor level of 'fit' although the finish itself was flawless. I'm talking about purflings and rosette neatness, glue slop etc.

I think that the insides of the guitar should be neat but there is no need to be excessively so. Minor Glue slop I would allow for; rather excess glue which was wiped than too little. However picked out purflings for example are not.

BUT, it all depends. As we know several established names have detailing which I have heard described as 'quaint'. IMHO as long as they look presentable and sound good, that's good enough for me.

Warmest regards,
Terence

[QUOTE=Pwoolson] I feel badly that I even brought it up because my intent was not to belittle another builder. [/QUOTE]

Paul, I never thought that that was what you were doing. You're just wondering why, when so many are struggling to achieve high standards of craftsmanship, anyone would lay down $7K for a guitar by a maker who doesn't seem to care about that. It puzzles me, too, and it addresses the original question here: Do people buy with their eyes? Obviously, not always. But, from what others have said, yes, they do, sometimes. Frankly, I think buyers are seduced more by the "mojo" of an instrument. What secret combination of factors comprises that "mojo" varies from person to person, and even varies within each person as time passes. That's been the case for me, as a buyer, over the years. And from what I've observed, I'm not alone.

I think the best we can do as builders is to find our level of comfort as craftsmen (or to keep striving for it if were not there, yet), and put as much of our own "mojo" into each instrument as we can.

For those who want to see what the "best-of-the-best" looks like, go directly to Jeff Elliot's table at Healdsberg, or, if he's there, John Monteleone's table at the ASIA Symposium. It don't get no better 'n that! Now, as far as the perfect SOUND goes, you're on your own!

Carlton

Since finish seems to be very important, do the water-based KTM-9 ptoduce the quality finish that the traditional laquer finish produces? Assuming the same person applies both.

[QUOTE=bob J] Since finish seems to be very important, do the water-based KTM-9 ptoduce the quality finish that the traditional laquer finish produces? Assuming the same person applies both.[/QUOTE]

I recently saw a Don Williams guitar that had a KTM-9 finish. There quality was as good as anything I've seen.
Except, perhaps, a Sergie De Jounge french polish I saw once. The finish did not look exactly like lacquer but that is not necessarily bad.

I have just finished buffing a guitar finished with USL from target coatings. It is a beautiful finish. Every bit as clear and glossy as a nitro that I have ever done.

I have found that for a lot of buyers it's not just falling in "love" with the instrument but the builder as well. How many of you have become friends with the people you have sold guitars to? I know it's been a lot for me. One of my customers/friends is ordering his fourth guitar from me. I know eventually he will buy a fifth.
A guitar is a piece of art that makes music.When someone buys your "art" they are buying it the way you do it, and if that means drips and open mitres then so be it. For some people that's what makes it "hand made". Personally that's not my style.