Does Honest Player Wear Hurt The Value of a Rare and/or Desirable Guitar?

[crunchee]

Like the question says...provided that the player wear is honest play wear and the guitar doesn't look like it's been dragged behind a truck down a country road, and that the guitar hasn't been altered or modified to the point where it can't be returned back to stock condition? I started thinking about this after seeing some of the recent vintage Gibson acquisitions by HFC members, plus the fact that some actual '59 LPs do get loaned out by their owners on occasion, to be played by a lucky few. By extension, this question could also refer to recent premium/custom guitars like Shishkov and very late model custom ordered Hamer USA models. Also, is keeping a guitar in 'mint' or 'near mint' condition actually WORTH the trouble of keeping it hermetically sealed and untouched/unplayed? Is the value going to be affected to the point that such a guitar should NEVER be picked up and played by anyone? I know that there's tons of variables and possibilities at work here, especially depending on what guitar brand/model/version/year is being referred to. TIA!

[Studio Custom]

A museum piece/under-the-bed example of any guitar will always be worth more than a guitar with wear - honest or otherwise.

Which ironically maybe a sonic dog or overly heavy example, hence the lack of use.

How is that ironic?

People pay for condition, but the POINT of an instrument is how it sounds no? So it might be "mint" because it sonically sucks.

Ever notice how EVERY 1959 Les Paul is sonic nirvana? No one will admit they got a dawg.

[gorch]

Wear or mint or whatever, I think it all depends on the indivual offer. There's no rule of thump you could apply here. Certainly a used guitar, whether honestly worn off or wrestled, doesn't achieve a value to the point a new or mint guitar does. Except, it comes with a story of popularity. But, that would be a different factor.

[kizanski]

A museum piece/under-the-bed example of any guitar will always be worth more than a guitar with wear - honest or otherwise.

Which ironically maybe a sonic dog or overly heavy example, hence the lack of use.

How is that ironic?

People pay for condition, but the POINT of an instrument is how it sounds no? So it might be "mint" because it sonically sucks.

Ever notice how EVERY 1959 Les Paul is sonic nirvana? No one will admit they got a dawg.

Your assumption that "...the POINT of an instrument is how it sounds..." is the fault in your reasoning.

Guitars are built and bought for different reasons.

Some people buy instruments for sound, sure, but some buy them for looks, the way it plays, brand loyalty, price range...because they like blue.

Certainly, you could look in your own collection and find an instrument or twelve which are redundant, but there because you like the style alone. Or does every SS Hamer in your arsenal the electric equivalent of "sonic nirvana"? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but we both know you'd pay more for one with a day glow crackle clown puke finish (or whateverthefuck it's called) that was not as good a player (or did not sound as good) as one which happened to be in a more readily available, standard color.

Because you're a collector.

Some instruments play great but sound like shit and vice versa.

In either case, it's not irony. The better "players" receiving more wear is the natural progression. It's the what you would expect.

Let me put it this way: If you found a museum piece '59 Strat in some estate sale, fired it up, and it turned out to be SRV's wet dream, THAT would be ironic. That a great player received no wear and was stowed away and forgotten about.

[ARM OF HAMER]

Don't get me wrong: I've never gotten scared off of a guitar because of wear.

The '58 Esquire which I used to own was refinished before I bought it, and THAT paint had been worn through to the bare wood, and the wear in the fretboard was in the form of rutts which your finger could almost get lost in.

If there was ever an example of honest wear, this was it. But there was a reason for the wear. The guitar was a string bender's wet dream, and the pickup was possessed.

A few here have played it and know I ain't bullshitting.

That said, all of that wear effects the price, no matter how cool it looks or how great the neck felt because it had been "broken in" (putting it gently).

WOW! Thats a great looking guitar!..................love the wear and patina to the instrument! bet playing it was smooth as a babys back sides! May I ask why it was you let it go Kiz? People buy, sell, trade, for lots of different reasons so............ BTW I had those ruts on the fingerboard of my 78 Gibson L-5S I owned,it[And it was ebony!] it,still had the original frets [Very low but it played great with no buzzing anywhere] that IS one Cool old Fender. L-5S fingerboard.

[kizanski]

May I ask why it was you let it go Kiz? People buy, sell, trade, for lots of different reasons so............

I was into the vintage thing at the time, and then got back into cars.

Then sold the cars, bought more guitars...

Circle of stupidity, pretty much.

[ARM OF HAMER]

[gorch]

First thought:

When I see those ruts in the pics, it comes into my mind you'd better cut your finger nails next time.

Second thought:

It could have been extensive bending. What brand of strings are you using to create such abuse?

[Armitage]

I always dread the first ding. It can be heart breaking. I think that's part of the apeal of worn guitars. They're freeing.

[django49]

Reality sets in with some combination of "I am not worthy of that guitar" and "Wow, I really spent that much and I cannot bear to see the first ding". And it tends to get left behind, safe and sound, while a "lesser" instrument gets all the work. THe case queens are not NECESSARILY of lower quality, but they often fail to be "broken in enough" to let their potential shine through.

Yes, I have been guilty of all of that.

When I bought my '05 Dolphin II I went through EXACTLY the same thing. After two or three months of 'babying' it and incessantly polishing the polish I said damn the torpedoes and started taking it to practice and gigs. It just played and sounded too damn good to be left in the case or on display in my den forever. The thing rings out like a piano unplugged. Today, it is in great shape overall, but definitely with some signs of wear and tear; it doesn't bother me a bit. The guitar is doing what it is supposed to do, and so am I; I play the shit out of it!

Got that right! In many respects my '06 Dolphin is not the "best" I've got. But it is THE one I pick up when going out to play 90% of the time....It fits me, it makes me a better player and I have gotten to know just how to get all the sounds I want. So, it goes to crowded bar stages, out in all weather conditions (indoor and out).....I like to call it an extension of my left arm. It HAS picked up a little wear and bumps from mic stands, etc. I would have missed a lot had I left it behind in its case.

[ArnieZ]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment: Most working musicians are far from flush and consider their instruments tools to be used. Based on economics they may play an instrument to death that is only a fair example of the species. On the other hand a yo yo like myself has a bevy of really good instruments and most are pristine because they aren't played enought to look worn. Despite not being a working musician, or even a musician, I still have a pretty good idea about which guitars got it and which don't.

Player wear is just 1 of several things that might tip you off that an instrument is special. I certainly would not buy a guitar because it has a lot of player wear thinking that was key.

ArnieZ

[kizanski]

I always dread the first ding. It can be heart breaking. I think that's part of the apeal of worn guitars. They're freeing.

Agreed. For a while there, I had vowed "no new/mint guitars," and either sold or traded any that matched that description.

Others that I couldn't bear to part with stayed in the case, never to see the light of day again. I've since gotten over it, but it's still almost a deterrent to buying a "new" guitar if it's spotless.

Back in 2004 I ordered and received from BCR Music a brand new Robin Ranger.

I dinged the fucker pulling it out of the case the first time I ever touched it. Like a rookie.

[jerseystar]

I have played on many vintage guitars and in the main they are not as good as modern equivalents. This is because of modern production techniques. Everything is copied to the exact detail and the tolerances and variances that exist on vintage instruments are simply not present in modern guitar production. This was the very reason Hamer started in the first place! Guitar quality in the 70s was rubbish. Some were great and some were cricket bats.No one knew why.

As for play wear ..my take on this is the minty ones have never been played in. Every guitar has the potential to be 'the one' but depends on the owner does with it. Some will cosset it and never gig it. Others will play the fxxk out of it. Just depends..does this make each guitar any more valuable to the next one? I do not think so. No matter what you think in terms of the prices that are being charged for 'vintage' instruments it is down to demand and supply end of. We can all winge about that steve stevens for $£800 5 years ago..but find another? If you want it you gotta pay.. rejoice though ...that's the fun of the chase!

[hamerhead]

My 30th is a nearly flawless and absolutely stunning guitar in every way - the way it looks, the way it sounds, the way it plays. It has everything that the perfect guitar should have and begs to be played.

I'm afraid to take it out of the case.

[Hbom]

I tend to pay more for worn guitars than one that is new in the box. Case in point would be my newest acquisition. 1979 Sunburst. Plenty of honest wear and more than a few dents.

Now, if I had bought this new in '79, and I'm plenty old enough to have done that, I could of gotten it for maybe $700.00 or less. If I had been smart enough, I might of even picked it up for the mythical $350.00 in the late 90s or early 00s. But me, being the lesser smart one of the two brothers, I wait until 2015! Now everyone is starting to figure it out and I get to buy it well used and very played for quite a lot more than I should of payed.

But I think it's a good one, so to me it's priceless!

[ArnieZ]

My 30th is a nearly flawless and absolutely stunning guitar in every way - the way it looks, the way it sounds, the way it plays. It has everything that the perfect guitar should have and begs to be played.

I'm afraid to take it out of the case.

I understand the sentiment! My Artist Ultimate is in excellent shape but not blemish free. It's just too good to not play and every now and then I'm not as careful as I should be. The same holds true for all my guitars. I'm not really thinking that they will be as valuable to anyone else as they are to me. If I have to worry about playing them then they are worthless to me. If resale was going to be important then Hamer would not dominate my "collection "

ArnieZ

[kizanski]

First thought:

When I see those ruts in the pics, it comes into my mind you'd better cut your finger nails next time.

Second thought:

It could have been extensive bending. What brand of strings are you using to create such abuse?

If you're referring to my former Esquire, I doubt fingernail length or string gauge had anything to do with it. Certainly not while in my possession. I was't responsible for any of the wear.

The guitar was gigged constantly for 50+ years, and for good reason. It was one of the good ones.

BTW: REE-shard recalls it being "an off-white or a creme color," because I had had it refinished back to what was the original color before I had it re-fretted ...and then sold it.

[crunchee]

I once had an old mid-60's Silvertone (Harmony, Made in Chicago) Model 1454, which was a hollowbody single-cutaway bolt-neck thinline with three foil-topped DeArmonds and a Bigsby...from the description, that sounds like it shoulda been a better guitar than it actually WAS, as (among other things) the factory Bigsby was misaligned, and trying to put shims under where it was screwed to the body to realign it (and keep the high E string from falling off the treble side of the neck when I played) was a pain. I finally gave up and got rid of it, as it didn't really sound that great to me, either. Anyhow, it had deep divots in the rosewood fretboard, in the 'cowboy chord' area, but the original frets still had a decent enough amount of 'meat' left on them to not warrant a refret. In the case of Kiz' Tele, those divots were obviously from years of playing. In the case of my old Silvertone, I'm pretty sure that the divots were from a previous owner mashing their fingernails against the strings and fretboard in a death grip. Since then, I've modified my playing and kept my fingernails short (at least on the left hand), so I don't start doing THAT to my other guitars.