Heritage Website

[Gitfiddler]

If true, dropping the H525 is a bad idea. 

[Millennium Maestro]

The Eagle Classic is the only Jazzbox in the 2018 product line, no Ebony etc... Essentially making anything else a Custom at a premium.  I f you have the money they will build you anything you desire including a 525 I am sure.

[DetroitBlues]

I never look at asking prices on Reverb, I look at sales history.

but I think on average there is an increase in used value.

while the guitars aren’t made in the old basement, they still use the same machines and tools in a more climate controlled and brighter workspace.

[HANGAR18]

On 8/8/2018 at 10:07 PM, DetroitBlues said:

I never look at asking prices on Reverb, I look at sales history.

but I think on average there is an increase in used value.

while the guitars aren’t made in the old basement, they still use the same machines and tools in a more climate controlled and brighter workspace.

I'm so hard up for actual cash right now that I've got 7 guns posted for sale on Armslist and I'm trying to think up a couple of really over the top sales pitches to go with two guitars I'd post on Reverb. Two guitars which I said I'd never sell. (1 Heritage and 1 PRS) I'm hoping that the used value of mint condition original era Heritage guitars has increased enough for this idea to work.

 

[High Flying Bird]

4 hours ago, HANGAR18 said:

I'm so hard up for actual cash right now that I've got 7 guns posted for sale on Armslist ...

I hope you have your collection locked up in a proper safe.  Some dumbass down here had their pistol stolen from their car at night a few weeks ago.

[rockabilly69]

On 8/6/2018 at 5:44 PM, HANGAR18 said:

They need to be Plek'd just like Gibson't need to be Plek'd. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Oh, and does this mean my original owner era Heritage guitars are going up in value?

I own two of the so called original owner era guitars that I love, but as a collector, I would steer towards the best built ones and the verdict isn't out on that yet. I think people on this forum hold all of their heritage employee friends near and dear and that clouds their vision on what makes a collectable/desireable guitar. And typically models that shoot through the roof are from eras when the guitars were built best ie prewar Martins and Gibson, late 50's Golden era Gibsons, pre CBS Fender. Although some fine Heritage guitars have been built at 225, calling original owner Heritage guitars Golden Era is kind of comical to me, because from my non biased point of view I see the new guard is taking steps for higher quality.

[deytookerjaabs]

Comical? 50's Gibsons beyond high end flats/arches/mando's aren't fetching top dollar for their build quality. Period, it's not even debatable. Ironically, the best built 50's Gibsons are comparably cheap.

 

I love vintage but vintage kool-aid is the biggest joke of a drink that keeps getting sipped. Vintage solid body guitars are the quirkiest damned instruments in the history of electric guitars, almost nothing has come close since that era..nothing. 

[Kuz]

Let's just say the verdict is DEFINTELY not out yet.  I heard direct from some sources close to Hertiage at PSP that Heritage is struggle to make quality guitars.  The ONLY sources stating the quality is better is ONE dealer (and that may currently bei the only dealer ordering Heritage guitars right now) and the Heritage Company itself..... both are definitely biased for obvious reasons.

No, I won't go into it any further or out the source, but I will say that some of the stuff I heard was uttering dumbfounding and scary.

One person who took the tour said they heard a quote "we are just getting started and learning how to run a business and build guitars again".

I have no need for another Heritage, but if I did, I would definitely wait till a lot of things get ironed out.

Just my opinion, and my .02. 

[Yooper]

I think the Golden Era is an apt label. We will likely never see many models produced again. I wouldn't be surprised if Millies, Prospects, H-525's etc. eventually become marginal collectors items by their unique qualities, rarity, and sentimental value. 

Maybe not to the degree of certain old Gibsons and Fenders, but they will have a place in the history of guitars.

Or so says a guy with one Gibson, one Fender, and four Heritages.

[Vanschoyck]

Did anyone who toured the factory this year get a chance to try a new one out?

 

[HANGAR18]

11 hours ago, High Flying Bird said:

I hope you have your collection locked up in a proper safe.  Some dumbass down here had their pistol stolen from their car at night a few weeks ago.

 

Correct security rating appropriate to the value of the contents, fire rated, unmovable without wrecking the house it is embedded into. (And that only applies if you can get past the dog and the guy who owns the safe.)

 

[TalismanRich]

4 hours ago, Vanschoyck said:

Did anyone who toured the factory this year get a chance to try a new one out?

 

Yes, a couple...  and they played very well.    One was the blue Mille Pro from last year, the other was a 535.   The 535 seemed to be very solid and was in no way inferior to my 535.
Several others from the tour were trying out guitars both before and after the tour.

 

Pressure and I spent about 2/3 of the tour talking with Derek, the new floor manager.   There were a number of things that he pointed out that make much sense,  like campaigning a group of 535s, then doing a group of 150s.   He mentioned that he went to their wood supplier and actually complained about the inconsistency of the wood they were receiving.   He's also rearranging things from a manufacturing perspective to make it flow down the line in a more logical manner, rather than than going back and forth in a haphazard way.   They are looking at every part of the guitar to see where things can be improved, from wood to binding to finishing.

 

 

[Gitfiddler]

31 minutes ago, TalismanRich said:

Yes, a couple...  and they played very well.    One was the blue Mille Pro from last year, the other was a 535.   The 535 seemed to be very solid and was in no way inferior to my 535.
Several others from the tour were trying out guitars both before and after the tour.

 

Pressure and I spent about 2/3 of the tour talking with Derek, the new floor manager.   There were a number of things that he pointed out that make much sense,  like campaigning a group of 535s, then doing a group of 150s.   He mentioned that he went to their wood supplier and actually complained about the inconsistency of the wood they were receiving.   He's also rearranging things from a manufacturing perspective to make it flow down the line in a more logical manner, rather than than going back and forth in a haphazard way.   They are looking at every part of the guitar to see where things can be improved, from wood to binding to finishing.

 

 

This is good news, Rich. 

Was there any mention of Heritage seeking out lighter weight Mahogany for H150/H157 models?

 

[deytookerjaabs]

Huh..

 

The wood on my H150 and on other Heritage's I've owned is the best part. The mahogany is seriously hard, not that soft super young stuff that dents easily which you see on many brands today, especially higher priced "featherweight" custom shop guitars. It's dark red, tough, and feels the same as my old Gibsons do, while making a super strong neck that still has a medium carve to it. Sometimes they get heavy though (mine is a hair under 9lbs), but at least it's not sacrificing quality for the sake of weight. I'll take a good cut of dark red tropical hardwood mahogany with a little bottom to it over the other stuff. The maple is top shelf too, usually looks domestic and is also rock hard. The rosewood is a super dense cut that feels and looks superb too, as is much of the rosewood I've seen on past heritages from the 90's and 00's. So, the wood is the last thing I'd change. 

And, the finishes? That's the best part! Super thin yet high gloss lacquer without any bogus treatment to it, usually solids sprayed perfectly and great symmetry on 'bursts etc. The attention to detail in the sanding of the finish is obvious. 

 

Eh, whatever. 

[TalismanRich]

Mahogany seems to be a big issue these days, as Honduran Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) is on the CITIES list.    Because of this, other species have been used from Africa etc.     There is a source of the Swietenia macrophylla, however that is not CITIES listed.   It comes from plantations in Fiji, where the British planted the trees after WW2.   Its completely sustainable, and it now being used by various other guitar makers (Taylor, Gibson, etc).    

For now, Heritage is using the old stock, but this looks like the way things will go in the future, if you want that particular wood.   Otherwise you will be looking at African mahogany (different genus) or Sapele or Sipo.   I don't think Heritage is going that way for the long term.

They continue to buy rosewood, and are doing the documentation for it to comply with CITIES restrictions.    I'm surprised that they aren't dong more ebony to bypass the rosewood issues, especially since that's usually  been used on the higher end models (555, 157, Mille).

I think they understand that skimping on the wood is the wrong way to go for their target market.

 

[rockabilly69]

2 hours ago, deytookerjaabs said:

Huh..

 

The wood on my H150 and on other Heritage's I've owned is the best part. The mahogany is seriously hard, not that soft super young stuff that dents easily which you see on many brands today, especially higher priced "featherweight" custom shop guitars. It's dark red, tough, and feels the same as my old Gibsons do, while making a super strong neck that still has a medium carve to it. Sometimes they get heavy though (mine is a hair under 9lbs), but at least it's not sacrificing quality for the sake of weight. I'll take a good cut of dark red tropical hardwood mahogany with a little bottom to it over the other stuff. The maple is top shelf too, usually looks domestic and is also rock hard. The rosewood is a super dense cut that feels and looks superb too, as is much of the rosewood I've seen on past heritages from the 90's and 00's. So, the wood is the last thing I'd change. 

And, the finishes? That's the best part! Super thin yet high gloss lacquer without any bogus treatment to it, usually solids sprayed perfectly and great symmetry on 'bursts etc. The attention to detail in the sanding of the finish is obvious. 

 

Eh, whatever. 

I've seen quite the opposite than you have Mr jabbs. I remember weighing every heritage 150 that was in one dealers here and none were under 9 1/2 lbs and most were close to 10lbs! And I've seen seriously crappy finishes on the backs of some H150s that actually looked milky. And we all now of the infamous fret and nut work. I'll stand my by comical statement! 

[HANGAR18]

16 hours ago, rockabilly69 said:

I own two of the so called original owner era guitars that I love, but as a collector, I would steer towards the best built ones and the verdict isn't out on that yet. I think people on this forum hold all of their heritage employee friends near and dear and that clouds their vision on what makes a collectable/desireable guitar. And typically models that shoot through the roof are from eras when the guitars were built best ie prewar Martins and Gibson, late 50's Golden era Gibsons, pre CBS Fender. Although some fine Heritage guitars have been built at 225, calling original owner Heritage guitars Golden Era is kind of comical to me, because from my non biased point of view I see the new guard is taking steps for higher quality.

Which year of Gibsons was that where they seemed to randomly slap together whatever pieces of Maple they had laying around for the top of a Les Paul, to include even three different pieces with three different wood grains and you never knew where the seams were going to wind up? Maybe those Gibsons sounded great, but Heritage never did any unsightly silliness like that.

[deytookerjaabs]

3 hours ago, rockabilly69 said:

I've seen quite the opposite than you have Mr jabbs. I remember weighing every heritage 150 that was in one dealers here and none were under 9 1/2 lbs and most were close to 10lbs! And I've seen seriously crappy finishes on the backs of some H150s that actually looked milky. And we all now of the infamous fret and nut work. I'll stand my by comical statement! 

 

Oh, they can get up to 12lbs, when the dealer I gave lessons at ordered 4 or so 2 were normal but the other two were straight up at least 11+. But, still, to me it's cheap when you get the variants/growths of "mahogany" that are lighter in color and aren't as hard just for the sake of saving a pound, at that point IMO it's barely mahogany and these days a lot of "mahogany" guitars are built with that stuff.. I got lucky when I picked up my H150, most were around 9.5lbs or a bit under. The guy told me mine was 9.2lbs but it's under 9 on my scale, head scratcher. Hell, 9-10lbs is normal for 50's Les Pauls, it's just the other half of them were under 9lbs. 

It's all relative to me though. If I play my 'bird for a set, which is a feather, my 7.5lb ES feels heavy. Sometimes I cringe at the featherweight fad you see these days, weight was never a big consideration of mine until I found guitar forums. 

[Conneazoo]

11 hours ago, deytookerjaabs said:

 Sometimes I cringe at the featherweight fad you see these days, weight was never a big consideration of mine until I found guitar forums. 

Yup. Heavy guitars rock. I've found guitar forums and weight still is of no consequence for me. But then again, I'm still not whining about hauling a 4x12 cab around either.

 

[Yooper]

I'd like to see a blindfold audio test where someone can discern between an 8.5 lb. guitar and a 9.5 lb. guitar. Wonder why there aren't any.

Pickups, picks, strings and touch make more of a difference in sound than weight. There's good reason for the preference for lower weight. I get that. I'd rather hold my 8.5 than my 9.5 for long periods.

Then again.

Jerry Garcia wasn't exactly a svelte fitness enthusiast. His guitar weighed over 13 pounds.

Play what you like, and what speaks to/for you.

[JeffB]

My H150 is heavy for a guitar.

4.8kg, about 10.58lbs.

All things considered, its not all that heavy compared to other things.

 

[Vanschoyck]

4 minutes ago, JeffB said:

My H150 is heavy for a guitar.

4.8kg, about 10.58lbs.

All things considered, its not all that heavy compared to other things.

 

So true. My car weighs more than that.

[JeffB]

6 minutes ago, Vanschoyck said:

So true. My car weighs more than that.

yep.

4.8 kilos isnt very heavy. I did think it was for a while, not so much now.

[HANGAR18]

3 hours ago, Yooper said:

I'd like to see a blindfold audio test where someone can discern between an 8.5 lb. guitar and a 9.5 lb. guitar. Wonder why there aren't any.

Pickups, picks, strings and touch make more of a difference in sound than weight. There's good reason for the preference for lower weight. I get that. I'd rather hold my 8.5 than my 9.5 for long periods.

Then again.

Jerry Garcia wasn't exactly a svelte fitness enthusiast. His guitar weighed over 13 pounds.

Play what you like, and what speaks to/for you.

 

As for testing different guitars of different weight, I like the idea of measuring the sustain I get from guitars. I should be able to hold a chord for about 30 seconds. The concern is that if a solid body guitar weighs 13 pounds like an Epiphone I used to own, the primary concern is that weight may be the result of high water content still in the wood. A solid body with a lot less water will (as the theory goes) allow the body to vibrate more and not act like a vibration dampener. Thus, the guitar won't sustain so much. Of course this assumes that you are not getting pickups with a strong magnetic field too close to the strings and then the magnetic pull upon the strings is killing the sustain.

Some guitar manufacturers deliberately reduce the water content of their body wood before building the guitar while others give the water content of the wood absolutely no thought whatsoever. Billet wood for body blanks can take 100 years for the water to evaporate and for the sap to crystallize naturally. But, using a kiln to carefully heat the wood can speed up the process. ie "Kiln Dried". Every tonewood supplier will kiln dry their wood before selling it to an instrument maker. But the question is, what is the moisture percentage in the wood when you are ready to build a guitar out of it? When a guitar is really heavy, I always wonder how much of that is from water.

[Gitfiddler]

I have no scientific  or marketing evidence to support this, but generally speaking, don't customers of high end guitars prefer a lighter weight instrument?

If Heritage is to compete at that level, then weight is simply another consideration...in addition to high quality hardware, pickups, fretwork, fit and finish.