Older Taylors vs. Newer

[1after909]

Even though I like the mojo and/or openess of a older instrument, I still can't say..in this case that Taylors earlier guitars are any better. I think that most of us would agree that we are now living in the newer "golden age" of luthiere. Todays builders, Bob Taylor included, have worked on, and studied the earlier guitars. Learned from them, and have taken new materials, made new innovations, and moved the art of guitar building forward into the modern age, Learning from the past masters, And not afraid to expand the horizons. Older Taylors better? Ask me in another 20 years....

[cpmusic]

Originally Posted by jonnyfishstix

UV finish - if it was so much better then everyone would be going to it cause its cheaper to produce. (or some form of it.) also you won't see a Les Paul with a bolt on neck made by Gibson. Reason being stronger more solid joint.

I won't pretend to know the minds of the people at Gibson or Martin, but I suspect that they still use nitro lacquer because of tradition, not because it's better. That's not to say there's anything wrong with nitro, just that it's expected on those brands. Taylor and other brands that are much newer don't have that traditional "handicap," and many of them have gone to UV or some other poly material. And that includes some of the most highly prized brands on the market.

The same goes for a bolted versus a glued neck. Aside of Taylor, the list of companies and luthiers who use a bolted neck on acoustic guitars includes Collings, Bourgeois, and Breedlove, all of which are no slouches in the business.

out of the 3 guitars as far as build quality though i always like how gibson still uses the dovetail joints and nitro finishes. it takes more time to do but in the end i feel is a more solid guitar.

That's your choice, and it's a valid one, but it doesn't mean that nitro and the dovetail are better than their modern counterparts. They're just different.

[Herb Hunter]

What is the difference in typical manufacturing cost between a dovetail joint and a bolted joint? Has it been established that the cost difference is significant? How have CNC machines reduced the cost of making dovetail joints? Is there a substantial difference between a dove tail and a pigeon tail?

[Poetmonk]

All i know is that when you need to repair a dovetail joint neck (remove the neck) the cost is much higher due to the process it entails. Unlike just screwing off the bolts and replacing. As with the difference in sound to the guitar, i believe it is of no difference. I own both.

[Chazmo]

[QUOTE=BruceP;1319861]

Originally Posted by jonnyfishstix

UV finish - if it was so much better then everyone would be going to it cause its cheaper to produce.

Kevin Ryan and James Olson both use a UV finish, and I doubt if it's because it saves them money.

Bruce, Johnny,

The UV finish cures in just moments when exposed to UV light. Nitrocellulose takes hours/days (I think??). I have also heard (though I'm not certain about this) that UV finish is more resistant to cold-checking than nitro. All other things being equal, this is clearly an improvement to the manufacturing process and to the resulting guitar.

You can be quite certain that if these guys believed UV gave an inferior sound to their guitars they would not be using it.

[bernaby]

Another reason Taylor gives for using the UV finish is environmental. Fewer Toxic materials outgassing into the air. California has some of the most stringent environmental regs in the country and this may have helped push him to make the investment in the equipment to switch over to the UV finish. It is possible that older manufacturers like Martin and Gibson do not want to spend the money to change over their finsihing equipment. When you are running a bussiness you have to figure return on investment. Perhaps when they get to the point where they have to start replacing some of that equipment they too will go UV. Who knows?

[Poetmonk]

[QUOTE=Chazmo;1321362]

Originally Posted by BruceP

Bruce, Johnny,

The UV finish cures in just moments when exposed to UV light. Nitrocellulose takes hours/days (I think??). I have also heard (though I'm not certain about this) that UV finish is more resistant to cold-checking than nitro. All other things being equal, this is clearly an improvement to the manufacturing process and to the resulting guitar.

You can be quite certain that if these guys believed UV gave an inferior sound to their guitars they would not be using it.

Very true about cold checking, but some guitars look cool with cold checking. I don't see it as something i would be afraid of, of coarse that would be my electric guitar Gibson side of me talking.
But with all the ways people take care of their guitars nowadays(humidifiers, humidified rooms for their their guitars) i don't think it would be a problem like the old day's. I don't even think that a Gibson Reissue would fade naturally like they did back in the day. Matter of fact, 50 years from now you will probably see more "used" near mint guitars on the market than the 50 year old guitars from the past that are for sale now. Live and learn. That's why they are expensive, because to find one in near mint condition is hard. No new guitar will bring those huge resale prices in the future like those old Martins of the past. Sorry. No matter what luthier built the guitar. Just my belief, the "Golden age" of all things is dead, but maybe we are in the "platinum" era of guitar making. Most people want the "Golden age". But with all the guitar makers nowadays making thousands of guitars a year that sound great, which makes a guitar less "Rare" . Who knows.