Taylor Gs Mini - Built To Last?

[abelville]

I realize not enough time has gone by on these to really tell, but, in your opinion, do you owners see them as a long term instrument being that some supports used on larger instruments (bars etc..) are missing?

Thanks!!

Al

[blue4now]

good question, I have one and it does appear to be solid, I suspect that Taylor knew they would sell a ton of these and would therefore have to build them to last.

[Bikewer]

As much as I can tell by peering inside of mine, the construction seems quite robust. These are designed around medium-gauge strings, after all.

[roadman]

built to last..? I would suspect the amount of time playing it and how vigorous your attack would have the most to say about it's lifespan...I know that if mine should fall apart I'd do all I could to repair it or buy a new one...because that's how much I love it....

[Herb Hunter]

Originally Posted by abelville

I realize not enough time has gone by on these to really tell, but, in your opinion, do you owners see them as a long term instrument being that some supports used on larger instruments (bars etc..) are missing?

Thanks!!

Al

The GS Mini has a lifetime warranty; it is built to last. The convex back makes bracing unnecessary and has been an accepted design for decades. In the late 1960s, I bought a German 12-string Hoyer that was made with an arched back and no braces. There are guitars costing more than $12,000 made that way, though instead of having a flat laminate back that is shaped into compound curve though heat and pressure, the backs are carved into a bowl shape from solid wood.

My Taylor Big Baby has a back constructed in the same way as the GS Mini. I've had it for something like 8 years and it is holding up just fine.

[Dru Edwards]

I'm with Herb (^). Taylor wouldn't put out a guitar that wouldn't last ... assuming you take care of it. If you do get a 'lemon', you've got the warranty.

[Marley]

I fully expect mine to literally last my lifetime. Both of my 97' Baby Taylors are perfect and have a lit of mileage on them. Just need to take care of them which is not hard to do.

[rorymac0]

I'd say so .. very sturdy
I'm not the best at looking after guitars (same as I wasn't with vinyl) and my Taylors have had a bit of a hammering. My favourite acoustic is a Larriveé and when I was playing this morning I knocked into the handbrake of my bicycle and left a nick that'd probably make it unsellable .. although I don't (really) care about that cos I tend towards a keeper and not a seller.
Made me think though and possibly the more you revere a guitar the more likely it is to get damaged.
My mini GS has had cats climbling all over it and it even fell clean off the worktop once and it just looks nicely aged now, whereas the Larriveé looks pristine with an obvious accident.
My two year old son once knocked my Gibson SG over in its stand and the neck snapped clean in two .. I araldyted (yeah I know ) it back together and it plays + sounds perfectly but is worth peanuts as it is. Guess it depends what you want a guitar for but I'd say the mini GS is robust for sure.

ps .. if I was wanting say a 60's strat or 50's acoustic I'd want it to look like it was that old .. not a fan of pristine old guitars. My 72 strat looks just like Rory Gallahers and it's not worth much comparably with a perfect model. I personally think the more an old guitar has been bashed about and looks like it the better so I'm gonna start soon with the Larriveé (ouch) !

lol

[Lash]

The durability these guitars has been proved by my son. He has trashed guitars within a few months with his aggressive style. He can't keep his hands off my Mini and it still looks and sounds like a guitar.

[J.Pearce]

The nt neck, reduced tension due.to shorter scale, the arched laminated back. All point to a guitar that'll stand up well over time. The satin finish and the unbound edges may pick up a few knocks. But nothing to worry about in terms of the stability of the guitar. I'm a pretty aggressive strummer and mine still looks new a after 2 months of daily playing.

[Brian85]

The only thing Ive seen is that the top wood is very soft and I put a long dent into it with just my fingernail. I don't really care though because I think the eventual wear and tear will give this guy some nice mojo.

[andyi5]

Not difficult to put a ding in a spruce top guitar - it's a soft wood and that's what allows the top to vibrate well. However I think the Sapele back and sides would be more hardwearing than a lot of other more expensively finished guitars.

On the whole the GS mini appears to be superbly constructed for the long term. However, it's still a new instrument so no one can really predict all possible shortcomings at this stage. One thing (that is implied in the OP) is the lack of bars. Not on the back but on the lower bout of the top, the lack of cross bars has allowed the top to swell and caused some bridge lifting problems in areas of very high humidity.

[mcoliver77]

Originally Posted by andyi5

Not on the back but on the lower bout of the top, the lack of cross bars has allowed the top to swell and caused some bridge lifting problems in areas of very high humidity.

Interesting as I live in a place where 65-80% humidity is the norm. And I've been told similar accounts of bridge lifting from different dealers about the GS mini here. Personally, saw two with the bridges being glued back on.

On my mini, I noticed the sharp corners of the bridge "wings" start showing some "daylight". Researching about it points me to sources saying something about these areas having no glue intentionally, as how taylor does it.

Not being sure if that's accurate, I've put some thirst hippos in the case and leave another pack inside the body during storage. I replace them every couple of weeks when they start turning to mush. So far I'm not seeing an increase in the "lifting" in the 4 months I've owned this guitar.

Awesome little "sound machine" btw.