All Things Being Equal...

[Tucson Thump]

All interesting.

Makes me wonder .... how much does a guitar give and how much do you have to take?

 

[merciful-evans]

All interesting.

Makes me wonder .... how much does a guitar give and how much do you have to take?

Excuse me, but I just dont understand.

 

[John Beef]

If money was no object I'd have PRS build for me a 335, with some PRS twists. I like 335s but don't like Gibson or most of their neck carves. I'm a big guy and wish PRSi were bigger like a 335. I'd include the 25" scale, and the PRS lower cutaway for better fret access. It's not very common, but Les Paul himself had the Les Paul Signature in the early 70s that had a solid body Les Paul cutaway married to what was otherwise a 335 with cool electronics.

A little like this:

 

[László]

Speaking of Les Pauls...the UK Magazine Guitarist’s new issue has a big article and review of the “new” 2019 Les Paul line, which is of course the second 2019 Les Paul line.

The review mentions problems with finish on one of the guitars, and kind of random setups and very dry fretboards. And these are review guitars - you’d think a manufacturer would be pretty careful about the guitars they send out for review. But the article then goes on to gush about the “new” direction of the company.

You can imagine how critical they’d be if PRS sent out guitars for their review in that kind of shape.

I understand reviewers maybe wanting to give Gibson a break this early in the new administration, but coupled with the foolish “warning video,” I have to wonder.

It’s my understanding that the guy running Gibson came from Levi/Strauss. Yeah, so...a guy in charge of making pants, not guitars. Pants. As if guitars are pants.

Reminds me of when GM hired people to run it from Colgate-Palmolive before the bankruptcy, instead of car people. As if cars are toothpaste.

 

[pauloqs]

I have friends that work in a music store who usually give me a heads up when they get a new shipment in of guitars that I like. To be fair, my experience trying a bunch of the new ones is that the dry boards are no more. There were some dry fretboards among the first couple of batches, but they seem to have addressed the issues in the more recent batches. I've also seen some newer batches come with a felt over the pickguard nut to prevent it from dinging the finish.

As for PRS, I don't think their QC is infallible, but the chances of finding a less than perfect Core or higher is extremely slim. Their precision and consistency is what allows me to deviate from my trend of only buying instruments that I had the chance to play. I've bought most of my PRSi sight unseen because I wanted a specific color or wanted a lighter guitar and I'd do it all over again. I'll sometimes take a gamble from other guitar makers if I'm buying new, provided the seller has an outstanding return policy and will cover the return shipping. However, with PRS I'm even more inclined to take the gamble. I'm talking electric guitars. Regarding acoustic guitars, I never gamble.

 

[Mozzi]

So it seems that the majority wouldn't go for the 'vintage' instrument(s) that are perceived as the 'Holy Grail' of Guitar. This then leads to the question as why are these vintage Guitars perceived as the Holy Grail of Guitars and who decided that these 'Instruments' deserve that accolade. Is it because of their historic significance, the way they changed the musical landscape - mostly because these instruments where used by the artists that changed the landscape?

By the same token, a Ford Model T would be the 'Holy Grail' of car drivers because that vehicle transformed the landscape of travel. It doesn't matter that the 'newer' vehicles are far superior in every way, its the fact that this motor is associated with transforming the landscape (literally with all the roads that started to be built as more and more families could give up their former personal travel (a horse and/or cart) methods for a Car.

I know its not as simple as that because the Holy Grail of Violins is the Stradivarius which is a 'vintage' instrument. I don't know enough about them or other instruments to be able to say why it is or talk about the Holy Grail of instruments like a Saxophone, cello or oboe for example but does it make a difference if those instruments are 'classical' instruments compared to something more 'modern' with parts that can be 'improved' for one reason or another. Things like Pick Ups for example can be wound far more accurately and precisely and the whole 'set-up' can make an average instrument sound great and a great instrument sound average or even bad. An Electric guitar is only 1 part of the guitarists tool box these days and the pedals, amps, cabs and mics can all have an impact on how the instrument sounds.

In some ways, its more like the Car analogy than the Violin (although I have seen quite a few electric violin - Vanessa Mae has used these at times) where innovation and better understanding of everything that goes into making an Electric guitar and all the other Gear that contribute to its sound. Maybe that doesn't matter to some but without all those 'parts' in the first place, maybe the Electric guitar, certainly the ones perceived as Holy Grails would not have been perceived as 'great'.

Who got to decide that these electric guitars are the 'holy grail'? Is it their historic and rarity value that is the deciding factor? Is it because a 'famous' user was able to create music that no one had heard before - again though that was not 'just' the guitar but the whole rig that contributed to the sound of that music. If the majority here, assuming that these historic instruments had no financial value advantage, would rather have their PRS (or any other brand) for its playability, tonal and build quality and modern benefits (like locking tuners, coil splitting/tapping etc), then are those old instruments actually the holy grail or just historically important?

It also seems that we all have our own 'holy grail'. Whether its an instrument already in your collection or one that, if money was no object, you would buy or commission PRS to build. For some, even the option of a 'Holy Trinity' would be a very difficult decision. If you had to pick just 3 guitars to play for the rest of your life, your own personal holy trinity, would be incredibly difficult for a lot here. I have 5 PRS guitars and would struggle to decide which 3 I would keep as my 'Holy Trinity' or worse, which 2 I would have to do without, get rid of.

 

[Steve's addiction]

PRS all the way. If I want a vintage guitar, I'll buy limited edition/discontinued prs. I don't need no stinking gibson!

 

[Boogie]

Speaking of Les Pauls...the UK Magazine Guitarist’s new issue has a big article and review of the “new” 2019 Les Paul line, which is of course the second 2019 Les Paul line.

The review mentions problems with finish on one of the guitars, and kind of random setups and very dry fretboards. And these are review guitars - you’d think a manufacturer would be pretty careful about the guitars they send out for review. But the article then goes on to gush about the “new” direction of the company.

You can imagine how critical they’d be if PRS sent out guitars for their review in that kind of shape.

I understand reviewers maybe wanting to give Gibson a break this early in the new administration, but coupled with the foolish “warning video,” I have to wonder.

It’s my understanding that the guy running Gibson came from Levi/Strauss. Yeah, so...a guy in charge of making pants, not guitars. Pants. As if guitars are pants.

Reminds me of when GM hired people to run it from Colgate-Palmolive before the bankruptcy, instead of car people. As if cars are toothpaste.

I don’t see it that way, but that’s probably the entrepreneur in me. Products...widgets are widgets. Great business management transcends the widget. But before you go postal on me, you can’t substitute - or fake - passion and passion can’t come exclusively for the thrill of being successful. If you want your customers to be passionate about the product, you need people at some level that are fanatical about your widget. I don’t feel that the CEO needs to be a consumer of the widget to boldly lead and be successful. OTOH, they’d better have some executive management that is...

 

[László]

I don’t see it that way, but that’s probably the entrepreneur in me. Products...widgets are widgets. Great business management transcends the widget. But before you go postal on me, you can’t substitute - or fake - passion and passion can’t come exclusively for the thrill of being successful. If you want your customers to be passionate about the product, you need people at some level that are fanatical about your widget. I don’t feel that the CEO needs to be a consumer of the widget to boldly lead and be successful. OTOH, they’d better have some executive management that is...

I just don’t think musical instruments are widgets. If you don’t understand what the product needs to be to appeal to buyers, you’re not selling stuff.

And maybe other products can’t be treated as widgets, either.

I’ll give you an example: When GM was being run by the Colgate people, I attended a production meeting where the marketing director said, “We want to make (insert name of mid-priced blah product) ‘aspirational’. You know, this car used to be the choice of doctors.”

Well, you can position toothpaste with advertising, but not cars. He didn’t understand that.

I spoke out of turn and said, “Doctors drove them because they made house calls, and didn’t want to aggravate their patients. Now they’re driving Mercedes and Porsches. How do you think advertising is going to make them ditch their expensive Mercedes and suddenly “aspire” to driving a (insert name of blah model)? I’d think you’d have to improve the actual product.”

The guy got pissed at me, and I was lucky I didn’t get fired from the project, but I was proved right. BS = BS, and lack of experience with the product and the market segment it’s in matters.

Yes, GM and Chrysler had to deal with a bad economy in those years, but so did Ford, the Japanese and the European manufacturers. You can call it bad management, and a different non-car management team might have done better - we’ll never know - but the fact is that GM management wasn’t experienced in car manufacture. Or maybe I should say, key players weren’t. Maybe some were.

I’ve run both a successful law firm, and a successful music production company. Do you think I could run the bank you work for? That was a rhetorical question. Answer: Your bank would be looking for a bailout within a couple of months, because everything I know about banking could fit into a thimble.

The greatest companies in the world - Microsoft, Apple, Ford, PRS - were not founded by MBA ‘managers’. They were founded by visionaries who knew the product in detail.

I thank Providence for the Paul R. Smiths, the Leo Fenders, and the Ted McCartys of the world who followed through on a vision and succeeded. Oh, and Steve Jobs. You can throw in Bill Gates, Sam Colt, Eli Whitney...OK, there’s a mighty long list.

P.S., I have nothing against MBAs running companies. But they oughta know a hell of a lot about the product they’re making.

 

[matonanjin]

A PRS everyday of the week. Specifically, I think, a Special Semi-Hollowbody (should I ever make up my mind!)

Well, unless, all things being equal (i.e.,money is not a factor)?!?!?!

Unfortunately, a story. I played bass in a band in High School. A Fender Bass and I graduated in 1966. And shortly after I graduated I got married and sold my bass. I know it was Bass and I am now learning 6 string. But I still would love a Fender Strat from that era, maybe a '64 or '65?

Something like this?
Fender Stratocaster 1964 Candy Apple Red

 

[Tucson Thump]

Excuse me, but I just dont understand.

Some instruments play effortlessly and give many tones you can use. Other instruments you have to wrangle with to get what you want, they don't seem to work with you but once you find a common ground you can have something magical. My own experience is playing a SC/HBII versus a 1967 Gretsch 6120, or even a 594 with P-90s versus a 1965 SG with p-90s. Some guitars may have to be played hard to get the best out of them and others can cover most approaches.

 

[Casi1]

So it seems that the majority wouldn't go for the 'vintage' instrument(s) that are perceived as the 'Holy Grail' of Guitar. This then leads to the question as why are these vintage Guitars perceived as the Holy Grail of Guitars and who decided that these 'Instruments' deserve that accolade. Is it because of their historic significance, the way they changed the musical landscape - mostly because these instruments where used by the artists that changed the landscape?

By the same token, a Ford Model T would be the 'Holy Grail' of car drivers because that vehicle transformed the landscape of travel. It doesn't matter that the 'newer' vehicles are far superior in every way, its the fact that this motor is associated with transforming the landscape (literally with all the roads that started to be built as more and more families could give up their former personal travel (a horse and/or cart) methods for a Car.

I know its not as simple as that because the Holy Grail of Violins is the Stradivarius which is a 'vintage' instrument. I don't know enough about them or other instruments to be able to say why it is or talk about the Holy Grail of instruments like a Saxophone, cello or oboe for example but does it make a difference if those instruments are 'classical' instruments compared to something more 'modern' with parts that can be 'improved' for one reason or another. Things like Pick Ups for example can be wound far more accurately and precisely and the whole 'set-up' can make an average instrument sound great and a great instrument sound average or even bad. An Electric guitar is only 1 part of the guitarists tool box these days and the pedals, amps, cabs and mics can all have an impact on how the instrument sounds.

In some ways, its more like the Car analogy than the Violin (although I have seen quite a few electric violin - Vanessa Mae has used these at times) where innovation and better understanding of everything that goes into making an Electric guitar and all the other Gear that contribute to its sound. Maybe that doesn't matter to some but without all those 'parts' in the first place, maybe the Electric guitar, certainly the ones perceived as Holy Grails would not have been perceived as 'great'.

Who got to decide that these electric guitars are the 'holy grail'? Is it their historic and rarity value that is the deciding factor? Is it because a 'famous' user was able to create music that no one had heard before - again though that was not 'just' the guitar but the whole rig that contributed to the sound of that music. If the majority here, assuming that these historic instruments had no financial value advantage, would rather have their PRS (or any other brand) for its playability, tonal and build quality and modern benefits (like locking tuners, coil splitting/tapping etc), then are those old instruments actually the holy grail or just historically important?

It also seems that we all have our own 'holy grail'. Whether its an instrument already in your collection or one that, if money was no object, you would buy or commission PRS to build. For some, even the option of a 'Holy Trinity' would be a very difficult decision. If you had to pick just 3 guitars to play for the rest of your life, your own personal holy trinity, would be incredibly difficult for a lot here. I have 5 PRS guitars and would struggle to decide which 3 I would keep as my 'Holy Trinity' or worse, which 2 I would have to do without, get rid of.

I would consider these guitars to be historically important but this importance has ballooned to a mythical awesomeness that ain’t factually accurate. There are ‘59 LPs out there that are absolute duds but they sound like angels singing to the person who paid $400k for them. A guitar is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Mojo is mojo... either the guitar has it or it doesn’t. I think a lot of the holy grail-ness is based on which hero played the guitar in the past, which celebrity plays the guitar now, and the current scarceness of said guitar. When I bought my first guitar, I asked lots of folks why they chose a Strat, a LP, a PRS, etc... and the answer always was: Jimi, Clapton, Page, Billy, BB, etc. Then say only 1500 of said guitar was ever produced, then Joe and Slash start buying them all up. It’s a perfect storm. Those first PRSi from the 80s will probably be holy grails too if this scenario re-occurs.

I bought my first electric guitar because of Prince and I almost bought a Cloud guitar for a stupidly expensive price because I wanted to play what he played ... until I realized that the guitar didn’t fit me and didn’t sound or feel as great as my other guitars. So I will chase and play the right guitar for me. I won’t give up a guitar that’s right for me for a ‘59 LP that doesn’t play/sound/feel as ‘right’.

 

[Tosca]

Then there’s the real holy grail....

 

[Casi1]

Speaking of Les Pauls...the UK Magazine Guitarist’s new issue has a big article and review of the “new” 2019 Les Paul line, which is of course the second 2019 Les Paul line.

The review mentions problems with finish on one of the guitars, and kind of random setups and very dry fretboards. And these are review guitars - you’d think a manufacturer would be pretty careful about the guitars they send out for review. But the article then goes on to gush about the “new” direction of the company.

You can imagine how critical they’d be if PRS sent out guitars for their review in that kind of shape.

I understand reviewers maybe wanting to give Gibson a break this early in the new administration, but coupled with the foolish “warning video,” I have to wonder.

It’s my understanding that the guy running Gibson came from Levi/Strauss. Yeah, so...a guy in charge of making pants, not guitars. Pants. As if guitars are pants.

Reminds me of when GM hired people to run it from Colgate-Palmolive before the bankruptcy, instead of car people. As if cars are toothpaste.

I think this can be the case for anything though. The first SS models that came into my local shop had issues (mostly plastic parts) and the manager said ‘WTH... flimsy parts on a brand new $2200 made in US guitar ‘ etc. And I won’t type the rest. But catch my drift. I’m told that these early issues were one offs that PRS resolved immediately once notified.

I have two Gibson’s from the 2019 line and while I do believe the brand is recovering (I was impressed by the ‘return to basics’ approach), I did notice a difference in quality between the 2019 models made in 2018 and the 2019 models made in 2019. It was an odd split for 2019 but both models, in my opinion, were steps in the right direction.

Surely PRS wouldn’t send guitars off for review with issues, but I do think folks are going over these guitars with a magnifying glass because they know the status of the company.

 

[Tonart]

Then there’s the real holy grail....

They totally forgot to fret the thing. And to think people are complaining about modern SE QC issues.

 

[merciful-evans]

Who got to decide that these electric guitars are the 'holy grail'? Is it their historic and rarity value that is the deciding factor? Is it because a 'famous' user was able to create music that no one had heard before - .

IMO, It's entirely down to the fact that Fender Ts were the first solidbodies that were sufficiently affordable and conventional enough to attract new players. Its no accident that the most popular models are the oldest models. Those pretty much had to be the guitars that rock 'heros' would use. Gibson didnt even want to make a solid guitar. They had rejected some good designs submitted to them by outsiders (including Les Paul). The fact is they were compelled to respond to Fender's design.

So the guitar buying public (sheep) want what their heros used. If instead of Teles, Strats & LPs, it had been something else, then the 'something elses' would have been used by Clapton, Beck etc and everybody would have craved those instead. Yes they would have sounded different, but we all have to accustom to new sounds and would have done. If the Strat was newly introduced now, it would likely fail to even be a blip on the radar.

Holy Grail = timing and dumb luck.

 

[Mozzi]

@Casi1 And there is the point I was attempting to make - that it wasn't really the guitars that are the 'holy grail' but the historical relevance that has put them on this pedestal. Its their rarity too and maybe the fact that all the 'duff' ones didn't make it past the 80's when these instruments were just 'used' and people would 'mod' them or smash them up to copy the Who.

At some point during/after this era, these guitars became 'vintage' and somehow that 'vintage' on some instruments became more, became 'Holy Grail'. It really is like suddenly the Model T ford becoming the Holy Grail of motor vehicles despite the fact that a Ford GT is perhaps the pinnacle of Ford today. Forcing Gibson to go back to the 50's/60's as it seems the vocal guitarists want, is like forcing Ford to make the cars they did at the birth of the motor vehicle and not 'innovate' or deviate - even if it means a 'better' product (like changing the Headstock on LP's to improve stability and reduce the risk of breaking.)

I personally don't understand it! I get that these instruments have historical value - we live in a world where antiques and museum pieces are more expensive because of their rarity. A 58 Les Paul that has made it through the past 60yrs and the fact that its original does make it a museum piece and maybe the most 'desirable' like a Van Gogh seems to be (regardless of whether or not he was the 'best' artist, his paintings are adjudged to be worth the most). I still find it odd though that unlike Van Gogh paintings, you can still get a Les Paul. I know that there are a finite number of genuine 58 Les Pauls and even if you do make a perfect replica, it's still just a replica. I can understand a Stradivarius violin being 'special' because you will never be able to get a 'new' Stradivarius but anyone can buy a Les Paul, a Tele or Strat. I have seen quite a few comparison's of the Silver Sky and a 63/64 Strat (as people were desperately trying to find an issue with the SS) but couldn't find enough of a difference and actually some preferred the fact that all positions were usable whilst some Strat positions weren't 'great'.

In all honesty, that was what Paul and John Mayer set out to do - make a 'Strat' type guitar that not only John Mayer could use to replace his 63/64 strat, but anyone else could too without having to find stupid money for one that has a different headstock and one that setting up is a LOT easier thanks to better truss rod access. The point here though is that if its the sound, there are guitars that can match a 'holy grail', even beat it with more useable tones. Then of course you have other aspects like build quality, reliability, feel and playability - most importantly - accessibility as there are a lot of stores you can pop in and buy from. As JM says, he doesn't need to go looking for that unicorn guitar - a 63/64 Fender Strat but can pop into any PRS dealer and pick up a Silver Sky that not only delivers on the sound, but also on the quality and feel/playability just like his at home.

When All things being Equal, as the title of this thread is, it seems that no-one would take the perceived 'holy grail' so it makes me wonder whether these are actual holy grail instruments or museum pieces. Its like those that may want a Model T for their museum but wouldn't want one to actually drive. The only reason I see that people would take a 'Holy Grail' guitar if offered one is for its Financial value. I keep using the 58 LP - but that's because I don't like Teles or Strats but if I was offered either of these, I would take for their financial value only. No way would I swap any of my PRS guitars for any 'Holy Grail' guitar unless you bring Money/value into the equation. Of course I would swap one of my guitars in reality because I know I could sell it, get (or replace) my PRS and have money left over.

Incidentally, I loved Prince's music and was lucky enough to see him live. He used the cloud a couple of times but the sound he started his show with, using the symbol guitar was immense! He had such a big sound and it blew me away - and I have seen bands like Metallica, Motley Crue, AC/DC, Def Leppard etc as well as Joe Satriani and Steve Vai too. Whilst Prince could get away with the cloud and symbol guitars, I could not so was never interested in trying one myself.

 

[Casi1]

@Casi1 And there is the point I was attempting to make - that it wasn't really the guitars that are the 'holy grail' but the historical relevance that has put them on this pedestal. Its their rarity too and maybe the fact that all the 'duff' ones didn't make it past the 80's when these instruments were just 'used' and people would 'mod' them or smash them up to copy the Who.

At some point during/after this era, these guitars became 'vintage' and somehow that 'vintage' on some instruments became more, became 'Holy Grail'. It really is like suddenly the Model T ford becoming the Holy Grail of motor vehicles despite the fact that a Ford GT is perhaps the pinnacle of Ford today. Forcing Gibson to go back to the 50's/60's as it seems the vocal guitarists want, is like forcing Ford to make the cars they did at the birth of the motor vehicle and not 'innovate' or deviate - even if it means a 'better' product (like changing the Headstock on LP's to improve stability and reduce the risk of breaking.)

I personally don't understand it! I get that these instruments have historical value - we live in a world where antiques and museum pieces are more expensive because of their rarity. A 58 Les Paul that has made it through the past 60yrs and the fact that its original does make it a museum piece and maybe the most 'desirable' like a Van Gogh seems to be (regardless of whether or not he was the 'best' artist, his paintings are adjudged to be worth the most). I still find it odd though that unlike Van Gogh paintings, you can still get a Les Paul. I know that there are a finite number of genuine 58 Les Pauls and even if you do make a perfect replica, it's still just a replica. I can understand a Stradivarius violin being 'special' because you will never be able to get a 'new' Stradivarius but anyone can buy a Les Paul, a Tele or Strat. I have seen quite a few comparison's of the Silver Sky and a 63/64 Strat (as people were desperately trying to find an issue with the SS) but couldn't find enough of a difference and actually some preferred the fact that all positions were usable whilst some Strat positions weren't 'great'.

In all honesty, that was what Paul and John Mayer set out to do - make a 'Strat' type guitar that not only John Mayer could use to replace his 63/64 strat, but anyone else could too without having to find stupid money for one that has a different headstock and one that setting up is a LOT easier thanks to better truss rod access. The point here though is that if its the sound, there are guitars that can match a 'holy grail', even beat it with more useable tones. Then of course you have other aspects like build quality, reliability, feel and playability - most importantly - accessibility as there are a lot of stores you can pop in and buy from. As JM says, he doesn't need to go looking for that unicorn guitar - a 63/64 Fender Strat but can pop into any PRS dealer and pick up a Silver Sky that not only delivers on the sound, but also on the quality and feel/playability just like his at home.

When All things being Equal, as the title of this thread is, it seems that no-one would take the perceived 'holy grail' so it makes me wonder whether these are actual holy grail instruments or museum pieces. Its like those that may want a Model T for their museum but wouldn't want one to actually drive. The only reason I see that people would take a 'Holy Grail' guitar if offered one is for its Financial value. I keep using the 58 LP - but that's because I don't like Teles or Strats but if I was offered either of these, I would take for their financial value only. No way would I swap any of my PRS guitars for any 'Holy Grail' guitar unless you bring Money/value into the equation. Of course I would swap one of my guitars in reality because I know I could sell it, get (or replace) my PRS and have money left over.

Incidentally, I loved Prince's music and was lucky enough to see him live. He used the cloud a couple of times but the sound he started his show with, using the symbol guitar was immense! He had such a big sound and it blew me away - and I have seen bands like Metallica, Motley Crue, AC/DC, Def Leppard etc as well as Joe Satriani and Steve Vai too. Whilst Prince could get away with the cloud and symbol guitars, I could not so was never interested in trying one myself.

Yup, but I don’t think the holy grail guitars would have been holy grails if the new gen of heroes wouldn’t have made them so. Much of it is smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, a good guitar is a good guitar and what it’s worth is dependent on the buyer. If I happen to find a holy grail guitar than plays $397k worth of better than my PRS then yeah I will trade the PRS, lol. But it’s gotta play better and I gotta love it more.

As for Prince, the only guitar that I want to try is that Madcat... I have seen it (and that burnt up Gibson of his at Paisley Park, lol) but wasn’t able to play it. My crystal ball says that symbol guitar replicas will be available to purchase in the future... but no Madcat.

 

[Mozzi]

Yup, but I don’t think the holy grail guitars would have been holy grails if the new gen of heroes wouldn’t have made them so. Much of it is smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, a good guitar is a good guitar and what it’s worth is dependent on the buyer. If I happen to find a holy grail guitar than plays $397k worth of better than my PRS then yeah I will trade the PRS, lol. But it’s gotta play better and I gotta love it more.

As for Prince, the only guitar that I want to try is that Madcat... I have seen it (and that burnt up Gibson of his at Paisley Park, lol) but wasn’t able to play it. My crystal ball says that symbol guitar replicas will be available to purchase in the future... but no Madcat.

I agree. I can understand why the 'Holy Grail' guitars are museum pieces and, because of their rarity and historical relevance are as 'expensive' as they are but I would say these are only 'Holy Grail' guitars to collectors - more so if they have a connection to an artist - like the Beast that Bernie has or Greeny, currently being played by Kirk Hammet. We recently saw Gilmores Strat, a guitar that is far from stock, selling for a ridiculous amount. That is a 'Holy Grail' for a collector because of its significance to Pink Floyd fans. These are guitars though that will end up on display (whether public or not) or in a vault as an 'asset', an investment.

The main purpose of my original post though was to question what is a 'Holy Grail' and were the ones that people tend to call the 'holy grail' just holy grail guitars to collectors as an asset rather than as an instrument. Therefore are they right to be called an 'Holy Grail' because as soon as you take out their financial value, then few, if any, will actually be chasing these guitars - certainly wouldn't be the 'holy grail' guitar to them. Is your 'Holy Grail' guitar the Madcat for example? As much as I like Prince, I wouldn't buy a Madcat as I do not like Tele's or T-type guitars.

My Holy Grail could be vastly different from some else and it could be for different reasons - one of which could be value (as determined by the market rather than me) as an investment, could be because of its aesthetics wanting a PRS Dragon because you love the inlay work but not a player, it could be because of who owned it or even your idea of the 'perfect' instrument to suit your style - maybe a Private Stock PRS for example because no guitar offers 'everything' you want in one. If its all about playability, sound, functionality and aesthetics, then I would have to say I would swap one of my guitars for a Private Stock. I absolutely love my Hollowbody ii with Piezo, but if money no object, I could have a Hollowbody 594 with Piezo - something that would pretty much make my HBii redundant because the PS would have the same PU's (with independent volume and push/pull coil splitting that my HBii doesn't) and Piezo so it could replace HBii and my desire to get the stock Hollowbody 594 (without the Piezo). Picking the top and back, as well as neck (solid Rosewood? Maple stained like the Body?) the fretboard and headstock veneer, the inlays etc would make that guitar a 'Holy Grail' for me right now but if I owned it, would my Holy Grail change?

Everyone here could well have their own Holy Grail (either in their collection or in their head) - once you remove the 'financial' element. Quite a few here, inc myself, would opt to pick the 'perceived' Holy Grail guitars as determined by collectors if money matters but only to sell and buy their own 'Holy Grail' guitar. It was those comments that made me ask whether or not these are actually 'holy grail' guitars to musicians. Its clear that these guitars cannot be 'holy grail' instruments because most, if not all, wouldn't keep them but sell them to buy the guitars they actually want meaning that their 'Holy Grail' isn't the same guitar determined by the collectors.

Going back to the original concept, then I would swap my HBii for my current 'Holy Grail' guitar if money was no object - ie could commission PRS to build a HB594 with Piezo bridge. None of my guitars are 10 tops so there is the possibility of swapping any for a PS build version that money no object would be my 'Holy Grail' version. Point is, if we take money out of the equation, I expect everyone of us would have a different idea of what their Holy Grail guitar would be and it seems like the current idea of what a Holy Grail guitar is happens to be decided primarily by collectors and the financial value of these instruments rather than their value as an actual instrument so should they really be classified in that manner to musicians?

 

[Casi1]

I agree. I can understand why the 'Holy Grail' guitars are museum pieces and, because of their rarity and historical relevance are as 'expensive' as they are but I would say these are only 'Holy Grail' guitars to collectors - more so if they have a connection to an artist - like the Beast that Bernie has or Greeny, currently being played by Kirk Hammet. We recently saw Gilmores Strat, a guitar that is far from stock, selling for a ridiculous amount. That is a 'Holy Grail' for a collector because of its significance to Pink Floyd fans. These are guitars though that will end up on display (whether public or not) or in a vault as an 'asset', an investment.

The main purpose of my original post though was to question what is a 'Holy Grail' and were the ones that people tend to call the 'holy grail' just holy grail guitars to collectors as an asset rather than as an instrument. Therefore are they right to be called an 'Holy Grail' because as soon as you take out their financial value, then few, if any, will actually be chasing these guitars - certainly wouldn't be the 'holy grail' guitar to them. Is your 'Holy Grail' guitar the Madcat for example? As much as I like Prince, I wouldn't buy a Madcat as I do not like Tele's or T-type guitars.

My Holy Grail could be vastly different from some else and it could be for different reasons - one of which could be value (as determined by the market rather than me) as an investment, could be because of its aesthetics wanting a PRS Dragon because you love the inlay work but not a player, it could be because of who owned it or even your idea of the 'perfect' instrument to suit your style - maybe a Private Stock PRS for example because no guitar offers 'everything' you want in one. If its all about playability, sound, functionality and aesthetics, then I would have to say I would swap one of my guitars for a Private Stock. I absolutely love my Hollowbody ii with Piezo, but if money no object, I could have a Hollowbody 594 with Piezo - something that would pretty much make my HBii redundant because the PS would have the same PU's (with independent volume and push/pull coil splitting that my HBii doesn't) and Piezo so it could replace HBii and my desire to get the stock Hollowbody 594 (without the Piezo). Picking the top and back, as well as neck (solid Rosewood? Maple stained like the Body?) the fretboard and headstock veneer, the inlays etc would make that guitar a 'Holy Grail' for me right now but if I owned it, would my Holy Grail change?

Everyone here could well have their own Holy Grail (either in their collection or in their head) - once you remove the 'financial' element. Quite a few here, inc myself, would opt to pick the 'perceived' Holy Grail guitars as determined by collectors if money matters but only to sell and buy their own 'Holy Grail' guitar. It was those comments that made me ask whether or not these are actually 'holy grail' guitars to musicians. Its clear that these guitars cannot be 'holy grail' instruments because most, if not all, wouldn't keep them but sell them to buy the guitars they actually want meaning that their 'Holy Grail' isn't the same guitar determined by the collectors.

Going back to the original concept, then I would swap my HBii for my current 'Holy Grail' guitar if money was no object - ie could commission PRS to build a HB594 with Piezo bridge. None of my guitars are 10 tops so there is the possibility of swapping any for a PS build version that money no object would be my 'Holy Grail' version. Point is, if we take money out of the equation, I expect everyone of us would have a different idea of what their Holy Grail guitar would be and it seems like the current idea of what a Holy Grail guitar is happens to be decided primarily by collectors and the financial value of these instruments rather than their value as an actual instrument so should they really be classified in that manner to musicians?

Yup, and I agree with you, my opinion has always been that my holy grail is not someone else’s holy grail, lol. Your favorite PRS might achieve holy grail status to you but not to me and my holy grail guitar might not speak to you at all. ‘59 LPs and ‘62 strats have been deemed ‘holy grail’ by the masses based on this past hero/current hero/limited availability phenomenon. So someone else made it a Holy Grail guitar... but that doesn’t cut it for me. All ‘59s and ‘62s ain’t awesome but there are some awesome ones out there that are Holy Grail to lots of folks in the guitar playing community. And to be fair, did we expect to get a different response on the PRS forum? We’d need to ask this same question on the other forums. Most people here love PRS guitars (myself included) or we wouldn’t be buying in multiples, right? Are we surprised that most would take the as determined by others Holy Grail, sell it, then buy more PRS guitars?

I don’t know if the Madcat is my holy grail because I haven’t played it yet, lol. I think it’s all about perspective. That ‘59 LP that I loved? Its holy grail in my book because of my experience with that one particular guitar but the other ‘59 LP that had no sparkle and didn’t speak to me? Nope... I’d accept it and flip it to fund my real holy grail guitars (and a couple of houses in the Welsh countryside).

My current favorite guitar is an 80s Strat. Cost me half of what I paid for a used PRS Custom 24 and about a grand less than a SS. And it sounds (to my ears) just like that ‘62 Strat hanging on the wall at Dave’s. I wonder how many of these 80s strats I could buy with the $450k from the resale of the not so awesome sounding Holy Grail ‘59 LP....