JustKid Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Ok. Here is the question: you have 3 absolutely same guitars- one regular production, second one signed by some star persona, third one owned and signed by the same star. Which one brings more money? As simple as that. Thats the only reason for me to buy this guitar and, obviously, to keep the signature. Otherwise you could find one for half the price.
cynic Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Ok. Here is the question: you have 3 absolutely same guitars- one regular production, second one signed by some star persona, third one owned and signed by the same star. Which one brings more money? As simple as that. Thats the only reason for me to buy this guitar and, obviously, to keep the signature. Otherwise you could find one for half the price. So one mint guitar, one scribbled on guitar, and one beat up scribbled on guitar. More of MY money gets spent on the mint example. See, it ain't so simple *Edited to add that even if condition is equal, I'm paying more for the non-scribbled on guitar.
JustKid Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 You missed one important condition in the beginning: "3 absolutely the same guitars". See, back to simple
cynic Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 and you missed my edit....back to not so simple My point being that autographs, IMO, reduce value TO ME. I doubt I'm alone.
DBraz Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Having made arrangements to take possession of Nathan's Ted Nugent-signed Cali, I find myself conflcited over whether or not to remove the sig. I can appreciate Ted's contribution to music, but not to the extent that I need his sig on my Cali. If it proves to have the requisite mojo (I mean, it does have a regular-oriented head stock and a blade style switch, after all) then I'm thinking Ted's sig needs to go.I'd get rid of it too Jim.
mc2 Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 and you missed my edit....back to not so simple My point being that autographs, IMO, reduce value TO ME. I doubt I'm alone. Depends on the particular guitar and the particular autograph. If it was THE guitar that THE person signing it used as a main player at some point in their career....and if the owner had some degree of success or respect...then yeah, the signature is OK. Again, I prefer Sigs to be on the rear or hidden.....but other people like them on the front, usually to show to others. If it was Lita's Salt or Pepper Standard going in a showcase....signature on the front.
cmatthes Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Having made arrangements to take possession of Nathan's Ted Nugent-signed Cali, I find myself conflcited over whether or not to remove the sig. I can appreciate Ted's contribution to music, but not to the extent that I need his sig on my Cali. If it proves to have the requisite mojo (I mean, it does have a regular-oriented head stock and a blade style switch, after all) then I'm thinking Ted's sig needs to go.The closest Ted has come to Hamer was an acknowledgement of Hamer as one of the brands of top quality instruments used in the studio at the time he was making his instructional video. Mike Lutz played a Hamer bass at that time. Charlie Huhn played Hamers on stage when he was in Ted's band. Get rid of the signature on the Californian. If it was a Byrdland, Les Paul, or a PRS it would be different, but even then it would not be the same as owning one of those guitars that has belonged to someone like Ted Nugent. Or like that time he was in that band, Damn Yankees...I think like, half the band played Hamers!
RobB Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Having made arrangements to take possession of Nathan's Ted Nugent-signed Cali, I find myself conflcited over whether or not to remove the sig. I can appreciate Ted's contribution to music, but not to the extent that I need his sig on my Cali. If it proves to have the requisite mojo (I mean, it does have a regular-oriented head stock and a blade style switch, after all) then I'm thinking Ted's sig needs to go.What does the sig matter, then? You’re just gonna refinish it and put in a switchcraft toggle, anyway.
Hbom Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Having made arrangements to take possession of Nathan's Ted Nugent-signed Cali, I find myself conflcited over whether or not to remove the sig. I can appreciate Ted's contribution to music, but not to the extent that I need his sig on my Cali. If it proves to have the requisite mojo (I mean, it does have a regular-oriented head stock and a blade style switch, after all) then I'm thinking Ted's sig needs to go.The closest Ted has come to Hamer was an acknowledgement of Hamer as one of the brands of top quality instruments used in the studio at the time he was making his instructional video. Mike Lutz played a Hamer bass at that time. Charlie Huhn played Hamers on stage when he was in Ted's band. Get rid of the signature on the Californian. If it was a Byrdland, Les Paul, or a PRS it would be different, but even then it would not be the same as owning one of those guitars that has belonged to someone like Ted Nugent. I picked that guitar up for Nathan. The seller claimed that Ted had played it on stage in Anchorage, and that he won it in a radio call in contest. It should make a pretty nice guitar with or without the signature.
jamminpete Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 Having made arrangements to take possession of Nathan's Ted Nugent-signed Cali, I find myself conflcited over whether or not to remove the sig. I can appreciate Ted's contribution to music, but not to the extent that I need his sig on my Cali. If it proves to have the requisite mojo (I mean, it does have a regular-oriented head stock and a blade style switch, after all) then I'm thinking Ted's sig needs to go.The closest Ted has come to Hamer was an acknowledgement of Hamer as one of the brands of top quality instruments used in the studio at the time he was making his instructional video. Mike Lutz played a Hamer bass at that time. Charlie Huhn played Hamers on stage when he was in Ted's band. Get rid of the signature on the Californian. If it was a Byrdland, Les Paul, or a PRS it would be different, but even then it would not be the same as owning one of those guitars that has belonged to someone like Ted Nugent. I picked that guitar up for Nathan. The seller claimed that Ted had played it on stage in Anchorage, and that he won it in a radio call in contest. It should make a pretty nice guitar with or without the signature.I don't like signatures on guitars but if I remember correctly the one with Teds signature was removable. If tha'ts the case I would probably keep the sig. Unless it really bugs the crap out of you and you plan on keeping it forever. But you never know later you may want to sell it. Leave it up to the next buyer if they want to remove it or not.
devrock Posted March 27, 2015 Posted March 27, 2015 and you missed my edit....back to not so simple My point being that autographs, IMO, reduce value TO ME. I doubt I'm alone. In a lot of cases, I would probably agree with you; however when I met Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Steve Morse, John Petrucci, Billy Sheehan, Mike Keneally, Stu Hamm, Dave LaRue and others, back stage at a G-3 concert back in '01, and got to hang out with them after the show, and later when they all signed a couple of new Ibeenhads (a Jem, and a Satriani model) you wouldn't believe what those signatures did for the value of those two guitars...Those two guitars got me a LOT of dough. It really boils down to who signs it, and will their signature hurt or help. As for where it's signed, well in this case the signatures were all over the backs of the headstocks and the front of the bodies. And WHAT A SHOW! I think that's something completely different, given that those guys have a huge, die-hard following and are only identified with Ibanez guitars (Personally, I STILL wouldn't pay an extra cent for said guitars). Lita? If it was a signed BC Rich, then I'd MAYBE argue otherwise. A Hamer? No. (And, yes, I KNOW she loves Hamers...)
Dasein Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 It amazes me how many people think an autograph of any artist somehow justifies a higher price. I remember a guy trying to sell a cheap Jackson import on ebay for the longest time that had a Friday the 13th graphic and signed by the cast of one of the LATER FT13th movies (like #8). He wanted like 6 grand for it. Laughable. Unless it's someone on the level of, say, John Lennon, autographs are usually worthless, IMO. Otherwise, wipe it off.If Hendrix himself offered to autograph my guitar I'd decline - if he offered me his guitar autographed vs his guitar not autographed I'd take the not --- it would be just enough for me to know he held my guitar or I owned one of his.Basically I'd introduce him to my wife - even let him give her a hug -- but if he stripped off the trunks and wanted to get jiggy in the hot-tub I'd take my lady outta there so damn fast it wouldn't be funny.Message: don't let other musicians sign your guitars... and stay out of hot tubs.
diablo175 Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Having made arrangements to take possession of Nathan's Ted Nugent-signed Cali, I find myself conflcited over whether or not to remove the sig. I can appreciate Ted's contribution to music, but not to the extent that I need his sig on my Cali. If it proves to have the requisite mojo (I mean, it does have a regular-oriented head stock and a blade style switch, after all) then I'm thinking Ted's sig needs to go. What does the sig matter, then? You’re just gonna refinish it and put in a switchcraft toggle, anyway. Only if it already has the mojo. Otherwise, it's going back on the block.
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 The way I look at signatures is:It is something that makes that guitar unique.Maybe you like Ted Nugent, maybe you don't. But you have proof Ted Nugent signed it.If you met Ted Nugent, you might or might not be star-struck. You probably wouldn't walk up and kick him the balls or flip him the finger without at least talking to him.And if you talked with Ted Nugent, it would probably be a story you'd at least tell a few friends.So what would it take to get a guitar with Ted Nugent's signature on it completely on your own? Well, you'd need connections. You'd have to know someone who knows Ted, who has enough credibility with Ted to get him to sign your guitar for you. That's some social status. Or you'd have to know where Ted will be, and get access to him. Even if you don't give a crap about Ted's celebrity, there are probably at least a dozen people just about everywhere you go who do. So you have to get past them, and get past the people Ted uses to keep those dozen ore more people from bothering him, and THEN convince him signing your guitar is a worthwhile effort, worthy of his time. He can probably get several thousand dollars for an hour of his time at various functions, why should he spend 2-3 minutes of his time making small talk and signing your guitar for free? So that represents social capital, too.So even if Ted Nugent does nothing for you, his signature represents some social capital that you throw away by wiping it off.His signature isn't worthless. It may have no value to you, but it has value to someone, or else celebrities wouldn't sign objects for fans.So I'd leave it on. I'd leave a signature on a guitar even for someone I didn't like, like U2 or Tom Petty or the guys from Oasis.If you leave it on, you at least have a story. And you can always decide to wipe it off later, or not care if it smears when you get a little sweaty playing it.If you wipe it off, you may regret it later, but by then it will be too late.I'm the cautious type. I try not to do things I might regret for nothing. Keeping it on costs nothing, wiping it off gains nothing. I don't see any value in the effort of cleaning it off.
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 But I also wouldn't pay a premium for a guitar signed by anyone short of a small handful of my favorite artists (Tommy Shaw, Rik Emmitt, James Young, Dann Huff), and not much of a premium even for my favorites.
mc2 Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 All a moot point now.....seller dropped the price to $2500 !!
Studio Custom Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Finally photos of the rear to confirm it's a bolt on.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.