Jazzpunk Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Hi guys, Hope this doesn't stir up anything but just wondering if there was a general consensus as to what years are most desireable when hunting for a used Heritage? Older better? Newer ones more 'refined'. I didn't see any info on this subject when a did a search so I'm assuming it's really down to the individual guitar but just thought I'd ask.
brentrocks Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 i would just look for the one that catches your eye....i have always been a fan of the "STINGER" on the back of the headstock on the older Heritages, but that is just me i dont think older means better, i have had old and newer.....they are all good ;D....just find the one that suits you ;D
Kuz Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Personally I believe the attention to detail in finish blemishes is generally better with the newer Heritages. With that said there are still great early Heritages and maybe more one piece backs for solid bodies in earlier Heritages. Weight of Heritage guitars is pretty inconsistent (if you get freaked out about weight of guitars, which seems to be a more modern concern) from year to year, so I would ask for a weight estimate from the seller if weight is a concern.
cosmikdebriis Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Hi guys,Hope this doesn't stir up anything I wouldn't worry about that... > Anyway, Good question... No... Really good question 8) Unfortunately I don't think there's a definitive answer. I suppose there's Plek and Pre Plek but someone else will have to tell you more on the dates on that one and how much it is used? Personally I like a vintage feel to a guitar but that's certainly no guarantee of quality. I also like second hand guitars, partly because they're older but also because (hopefully) any fret issues etc will have been sorted by the previous owner. I should imagine, in time, "vintage" Heritages will develop a following and their values will rise accordingly. The best advice though must be, buy the guitar that feels and plays best.
fxdx99 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Say, do you guys think that the necks are getting thicker on more recent Heritages? I've only 3 data points, not all the same model - an 02, 05, and 08, but the neck thickness increases with each year.
Kuz Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Say, do you guys think that the necks are getting thicker on more recent Heritages? I've only 3 data points, not all the same model - an 02, 05, and 08, but the neck thickness increases with each year. Randy, remember during our tour how Ren said he preferred a thicker neck for more mass (he said gave more tone) and better neck stability & more resistant to twisting? I know the trend during the "shredding years" (to me the "dark years) of guitar was for the thinner neck. Well, now people want modern vintage guitars so the pendulum has swung to the beefier necks. A few people also tried to label Heritage as having unstable twist-prone necks in the mid-90s (something that I have never personally experienced or seen anything to show a higher % of Heritage guitars with unstable twist prone necks) but a movement toward beefier necks would stabilize the necks and help eliminate this fabricated stigma of Heritage unstable necks. SO in short answer YES and my more recent necks are the beefiest. But I look for thicker necks when shopping and order them that way so I might not be the most unbiased person on neck thickness.
cosmikdebriis Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 From a structural point of view, the way to stop a length of wood from "twisting" would be to laminate it. The Japanese did a fair bit of this back in the 80's as I recall. I even saw some very early "cheapie" Japanese guitars with plywood necks (not that I'm a fan) ;D I suppose, to some extent the fret board acts as a laminate so maybe a thicker fret board helps. From a tonal point of view, all that glue involved in laminating seems to be a bit of a "No No". I wouldn't be surprised if that was mostly hype though. All of my solid body Heritages have very stable necks. None are particularly slim. On the other hand I have some 70's Yamaha SG's with slim necks that are as stable as anything I've seen. Maybe they use a different genus of mahogany? Or possibly they just make a very tight tennon (they are also long tennon).
squawken Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Doesn't the twisting also have something to do with any moisture in the wood? I think the drying process of the wood may be important. We learned about the drying process, and how critical PRS believes it is in their process of building.
cosmikdebriis Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Doesn't the twisting also have something to do with any moisture in the wood? I think the drying process of the wood may be important. We learned about the drying process, and how critical PRS believes it is in their process of building. Sorry... Very much so... But I'd kinda taken it as read that properly seasoned wood was used. Having said that, I suppose nothing should be taken for granted Whilst we're on the subject of wood... It's worth noting the "quality" of wood can be very different, even in the same genus, from tree to tree and even along the length of the same tree. In "mass produced" guitars this can be a prime reason why one will sound different to another (not to mention be heavier/lighter). It's as good a reason as any for buying a hand made guitar. Hopefully those guys will select the best woods. I own an "employee" Patrick Eggle guitar where one of the guys made his own instrument. I like to think he found the best wood in the store for it. It certainly has a certain something about it. :wink: There's no substitute for an experienced luthier selecting the best woods... After all... That's why we own Heritages isn't it.
yoslate Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Sorry... Very much so... But I'd kinda taken it as read that properly seasoned wood was used. Having said that, I suppose nothing should be taken for granted Whilst we're on the subject of wood... It's worth noting the "quality" of wood can be very different, even in the same genus, from tree to tree and even along the length of the same tree. In "mass produced" guitars this can be a prime reason why one will sound different to another (not to mention be heavier/lighter). It's as good a reason as any for buying a hand made guitar. Hopefully those guys will select the best woods. I own an "employee" Patrick Eggle guitar where one of the guys made his own instrument. I like to think he found the best wood in the store for it. It certainly has a certain something about it. :wink: There's no substitute for an experienced luthier selecting the best woods... After all... That's why we own Heritages isn't it. May be folklore or myth...maybe not.... On the tour, Ren talked about the boys going up into northern Michigan and climbing trees to select wood. As a believer in The Power of Myth, I'll choose to believe it.... I've also heard, from a magical amp cabinet maker friend of mine, that Henry's people have developed a really fast, pressurized method of "drying" wood for their guitars. I don't know any of the particulars, but Ken thinks the method is bogus and will, over time, yield guitars that will twist, crack, and pop binding. He thinks guitars that are being built in Nashville now will present real quality issues over time.
Mikenov Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I saw the "how things are built" show on the Gibson process. They showed that very machine. They have a huge pressure kiln that can supposedly dry mass quantities of wood. It can dial in the exact % of moisture you need present in the wood when done. I wouldn't say its bogus. I would say with anything done in volume you might find some consistency issues. Like a microwave, are the planks on the outside the same as the ones on the inside? I don't know the answer but it does make me curious.
cosmikdebriis Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 it does make me curious. Me too... Does anyone know if this is a long term "tried and tested" method of drying wood (and I don't just mean for guitar manufacture) or if it's a new process? I've gotta say that if I was thinking of buying a new Gibbon... which I wasn't... Then I probably wouldn't... If you know what I mean Imagine buying one of those uber expensive re issue Gibbons... only to end up with a $8500.00 banana.... (that was a kinda play on words) Is that an "investment grade" banana you have over there in the corner ;D I prefer the rather bizarre image of Heritage monkeys erm... luthiers up trees in a secret location in Michigan selecting tasty morsels of prime mahogany... ;D I'm afraid the whole thing is getting a little surreal (even for my twisted sense of humour):police:
Steiner Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Kiln drying has been in use for decades. I remember housing lumber being treated in the 60's. I also recall Martoon guitars advertising they let their wood stand a number of (6 or 7?) years before use. That was why they didn't need truss rods - oops, mine needs one... Kilns work but one always has difficulty applying mass-production science to nature's splendor. There's lots of variation to be accounted through T_O_M bridges and truss rods and so forth. It gives us something with which to tinker . Cosmik - you're going to need a few cases of room-temp ale before you see anybody in Northern Michigan cutting Mahogany. It's protected, along with the Wisconsin Rosewood. ;D
cosmikdebriis Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 It's the "pressurised" kiln drying I'd not heard of. I just wondered if it was a new process? As for the Heritage Mahogany thefts... ;D You'll have to blame Yos for starting this malicious rumour :-X Perhaps they sneak around, under cover of darkness :police: :police: :police:
yoslate Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Me too... Does anyone know if this is a long term "tried and tested" method of drying wood (and I don't just mean for guitar manufacture) or if it's a new process? I prefer the rather bizarre image of Heritage monkeys erm... luthiers up trees in a secret location in Michigan selecting tasty morsels of prime mahogany... ;D "luthiers up trees in a secret location in Michigan selecting tasty morsels of prime mahogany..." That would be "bizzare"...on a number of counts.... And it was the pressurizing aspect of the kiln drying process Ken had no faith in. His theory is that time is a component in the drying process that shouldn't be reduced beyond a certain point.
cosmikdebriis Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 "luthiers up trees in a secret location in Michigan selecting tasty morsels of prime mahogany..." That would be "bizzare"...on a number of counts.... It's a nice, if a bit unlikely, thought though... ;D His theory is that time is a component in the drying process that shouldn't be reduced beyond a certain point. I agree... That's the bit that had me worried.
squawken Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 PRS also has a kiln, but if I remember correctly, they still let the wood sit for considerable time after the kiln. It seems the "drying of the wood" is the longest part of the building process.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.