Yuku free message boards

Okay, I've cooled down.

Ironic that I only put my opinion in this thread to try and be the 'understanding middle ground' between two others. That worked!

I guess I'm not putting my point across very well but let me try one final time - in the interests of not being misunderstood and not for the sake of bickering!

Vincent, let me quote your last post and I'll try to clarify...

I think your prejudices are showing.....

Here is where I'm confused as you contridict yourself...

My concern is not that part laminate guitars can't sound good, as there are many examples of great ones. It's more that if this new model is supposed to emulate/be influenced by the D-42 it seems a downward step for it not to be solid in the way that the other Stanfords in the range have been.

You say your not concerned that laminate can't sound good then go on to say that its a downward step for it not to be solid. If you conceed that laminates can and do sound good, what is the advantage to having solid wood? The new model having laminates can only be as a step backwards if you believe laminates to be inferior to soild woods.

Vincent

Firstly, yes, I do think laminates can sound good.

My point of contention is that conventional wisdom and established guitar product lines, including that of Stanford, start at the bottom end price wise with the laminate models and work their way up to the solid ones. It's not prejudice of mine, it's something that I've observed.

Now, from what I've understood, and maybe I've missed the point here, the new Stanford D42 is a new addition to the product range which includes the PSD10, 20 and 28, etc. The further up the range you go, the apparent better spec you get. As the price goes up, they give you more. More would seem to include solid woods. What other factor, other than bling, justifies these more expensive models if not the solid woods? I am interpreting this according to the manufacturer's parameters!

From all the descriptions of Stanfords on here, they are greatly influenced by Martins. Therefore, if the new Stanford model is their tribute to a Martin D42 in the same way that their PSD-28 tips a wink to the Martin D28, then it surprises me that unlike the PSD-28 it is breaking with the construction specs already established.

I accept that there are high-end manufacturers using laminates to great effect. However, whilst a Martin laminate model may cost as much or more than an all-solid Blueridge or Stanford, overall that Martin is quite low down in THEIR range. The Martin range which includes the D18 and 28, starting at £1500 or whatever, goes up and up in price and doesn't suddenly peak with a laminate costing £3000.

I'm looking at the Stanford range as a kind of loose 'me and my shadow' thing with the Martin range. Martin model 'a' is represented by Stanford model 'a', etc. So by the time you get to D42, it doesn't seem logical that the Stanford doesn't follow suit.

That said, even if we forget the Martin comparisons and whatever prejudices there may be about laminates, most guitar brand tend to have, for example, distinct product ranges established whereby your entry level (call it Range A) is the £100 - 300 price range has solid top and laminate b/s, then a mid level (Range B) priced from £300 to £600 with solid wood all round and then Range C, £600+ which is all gloss, solid wood, whatever. (I'm just using these figures as rough examples, don't shoot me for that...). These ranges are established and marketed so people know where you place what kind of spec within your slice of the market. (Low end Epiphone £200, low end Gibson £700. Both low end, big difference in price.) Okay! So back to Ranges A, B and C...you established B as your solid wood, well-priced range. You have a new laminate model...where do you place it? Not in Range B! Cetainly not at the top end of Range B, because that's your solid wood range. I'm not saying Range B is superior to Range A, I'm just saying that you don't keep your potatoes with your toothpaste. (Well, I guess some may!). It defies the point of having different ranges!

If Stanford has come up with a new innovation then it deserves - for fairness to the customer and the product - to be part of a new product range rather than stuck into an existing one.

Okay, I know it was a long post...but do you feel any closer to understanding that I like laminate guitars but just don't understand why it's part of that particular Stanford range?!

I give money to charity, I try to be nice to people! And I won't be rude to you if you're not rude to me... Good night!

I think you are not getting what I'm trying to say. From your perspective, a laminated guitar is inferior to a solid wood one which is why it is lower in the food chain, so to speak. The reason why most major manufacturer's don't have a high end laminated b/s guitar is because of people's view that any guitar made with laminated wood is not as good as 1 made with all solid. If Martin would to release a D48 model using laminated back/side with all the trimmings and tried to sell it for $3000, most would wonder if they've fallen on their collective heads on the pavement outside and not give it a chance. Some would take it for what it is and give it a shot buy the majority of the Martin buying public would shake their heads and buy something lower down that is all solid.

The further up the range you go, the apparent better spec you get. As the price goes up, they give you more. More would seem to include solid woods. What other factor, other than bling, justifies these more expensive models if not the solid woods? I am interpreting this according to the manufacturer's parameters!

From the above quote, you can see where I get that you think laminates are below solid woods. Esp the line "More would seem to include solid woods." and the following line "What other factor, other than bling justifies these more expensive models if not the solid woods?" How about TONE!?! Isn't that more important than whether is made from laminates or solid woods? What makes a BZ RW b/s guitar worth $4k more than one with EIR RW b/s? The precieved better TONE!!!


Vincent, honestly, I do agree with you! I understand why that quote of mine makes it sound like I consider laminates inferior but I'm trying to look at it from the boundaries that the manufacturers seem to have put in place, ie, that you pay more to get solid woods. That's why I don't get if they're following the pattern they've established why they're suddenly not. But, like I said in my first post in this thread, 335 type guitars with solid tops don't normally do the job as well as the versions which have come out with solid maple tops. And tone is top of my list for choice of wood on a guitar, which is why my Larrivees are 03 series rather than the glossier, more blinged, (supposedly!) higher end models.

If you're ever in the UK, come round for a drink!