How do we define a "dud" when it comes to high end guitars?

[jco5055]

This question is inspired by me reading old threads discussing various brands like Suhr, Anderson, Caparison. For example, in an old thread discussing Suhr someone mentioned Caparison in relation to Suhrs, and the general consensus was "you may have to go through 3-4 Capas to find a good one, while with a Suhr you could buy blind since 99% of the time it will be good."

How exactly are we defining good/duds and the like? Is it much more blatant levels of bad/uneven frets and such, or is it more like vibes/sounding dead acoustically or what not?

For context, Iet me tell you about some high end guitars I've played:

Sugi- I think 5 total guitars, if I include two J Customs made by them. Only 1 (a rainmaker) seemed to wow me
Anderson: Played countless, and most have been great guitars, but the first I ever played (an Angel in Ft Lauderdale) didn't do anything for me
Suhr: Also plenty between Guitar Center Manhattan, and Chicago Music Exchange has had a few Moderns, and none of them wowed me.
Vigier: Played I think like 4 or 5 (mostly in Paris) and all seemed good, but one really stood out and I didn't want to put it down.
Carillion: Only played one, but didn't really do anything for me.

Now all of these, when I mention them not wowing/doing anything to me, there was nothing wrong with them at all in terms of construction, frets, playability etc. It just seemed some had a "fun factor" for me while others didn't. I guess I just feel most likely the case where barring specific specs I do like, I can't just order blindly and guarantee I'll love a guitar without playing it first, but I feel like other people (if not most) seem to be able to.

What say you guys? Are my examples above more just a preference thing, or is these the "duds" we refer to when we talk about brands consistency etc?

 

[nightsprinter]

My criteria is pretty simple: if the typical desired setup specs don't result in a clean playing guitar, it's a dud. And yeah, if it doesn't play great and feel good, why bother.

If I want something I need to do a full fret level and recrown/polish on immediately, have to move the bridge a few 64ths of an inch to have even neck alignment, or have to correct anything geometrically, might as well buy a Gio.

 

[budda]

Your examples are preference imo

A dud to me means no sustain. You play a note or a chord and its gone. Manufacturing issues like sunken bridges, poor finish work, bad frets, twisted necks etc will result in duds and should be immensely less common on high end guitars.

 

[wakjob]

I worked in two different "boutique" guitar stores. I quickly learned that the price tag means absolutely nothing... other than maybe build/material quality. I've picked up guitars that I could never afford that sounded like they were made of cement, strung up with rubber bands. Just totally lifeless and uninspiring.

It's a preference. And also experience. You'll like what you like in the end.

Best strat sound I recorded was with a $79 Squire Bullet that had a plywood body. Was it high build quality? No. But it had a wicked tone & vibe! Sonically it was the furthest thing from a "dud", but it was also far from a professional investment.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

General construction and building issues usually what flags a "dud" for me. Where corners are cut, where issues were hidden, obviously signs of rework, etc. The type of stuff you tend to see on cheaper OEM builds were just getting the thing out the door "good enough" is the goal.

Anything that can be quickly or easily corrected in a setup isn't an issue, so long as it's not the rule. There was a builder who did great work but always needed nut shims, like on everything, so I wasn't as forgiving when relating issues.

I try to stay away from the esoteric stuff, we all like and dislike stuff because we're weird artsy fartsy musicians and take instrument choices personally.

 

[phillybhatesme]

Is the neck straight?
Do it play good?
Lean back, press down on the tone wood.

 

[Fox Dieane]

There's the obvious stuff like neck-twist, poorly treated woods, etc...

Most expensive guitars (some outliers of course) are generally *made* well, but wood being wood and organic effects things. I won't get into the tone-wood debate, but every single guitar made out of even the same type of woods can sound in-the-room drastically different. Doesn't matter if the tracked guitar sounds identical to another, if it just feels weird, then it's weird to me. I've played countless Gibsons for example, and most sound pretty decent when recorded. But some of them feel and sound dull acoustically, which makes me not like the feeling of playing it. The *obvious* dud is the guitar that you payed $2400 for, has sharp fret ends, bumpy paint, microphonic pups, and has tool marks all over it... But sometimes bumpy paint or sharp fret ends can be overlooked if the guitar sounds and resonates in your hands properly. One of my favorite guitars is some RD paulownia bodied sack of trash kit-guitar painted with rattle cans and a vinyl "skin." I don't know how to word it in text, but the literal way some guitars transmit vibrations into your hands is more important to me than something that can be fixed like sharp frets or orange-peal paint.

All the power to you if you don't want to accept a poor QC guitar, but if it sounds and feels good vibration-wise then I'm usually a happy camper. Perhaps a bit enabling, but I personally like the issues to be something I can fix vs something *nobody* can fix. I've played a lot of high end guitars that had immaculate frets, played great, and sounded fine on tape... But it just *felt* yucky in my hands while playing... It sounded dull/warm/outright unappealing to my ear. When you don't like the sound/feeling in the room, it doesn't matter if it sounds great on tape. It's just uninspiring to play and the damn thing just sits there collecting dust.

 

[Screamingdaisy]

How exactly are we defining good/duds and the like? Is it much more blatant levels of bad/uneven frets and such, or is it more like vibes/sounding dead acoustically or what not?

IMO, a dud is a guitar that sounds like shit.

If we're talking high end guitars, fit and finish issues like fretwork should be a non-issue.

I think if you're picking up a high end guitar and expecting a "wow" moment you're probably going in with the wrong idea. Most of the time what you're getting is an instrument with top level fit and finish and professional level hardware. If (for example) you can appreciate the difference between a cast vs machined bridge, you'll be more enthused about getting your hands on higher end instrument. If details like that don't matter to you, they probably won't blow you away.

That said, you have to take into consideration the store you're in. If all the guitars are out of tune, poorly maintained, mile high action and year old rusted strings....

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Generally I break it out into three tiers.

The first being true lemons, 'duds,' if you will. These guitars have something fundamentally wrong with them; you cannot repair these instruments within a reasonable amount of time and expense. These are, in my experience, very uncommon on high end instruments and each one imo should be a major mark of shame against whatever company vomited them out.

Then there's the QC trainwrecks. This is the 'I can fix her' bucket. Someone dropped the ball on these guitars; but a shop tech or enthusiast should be able to sort them out. Shoddy fretwork, bad nuts, shipping damage, finish flaws, wiring issues, etc that should cause the guitar to be sold as a B-Stock. IME these are also thankfully pretty uncommon and are usually marked as second stock instruments where I've found them or at least notably discounted. I don't think I've encountered one of these yet and thought "Man, I need to file this brand for later so I can remember to side-eye them the next time I go guitar shopping." I actually usually will look for these to score a better deal.

The last tier is the SSO special. These guitars probably should not have passed QC but were "close enough, who's gunna notice a tiny little toolmark under the clear at the 23rd fret?" or something like that. Something insignificant enough that someone could conceivably walk into the store, play it, buy it, enjoy it, track something with it, and not realize it's there; but obsessive guitar nerds like us will pick apart and blow up. These are I think somewhat common because collectively we are very particular people in regard to this particular thing and there are many, many opportunities for things to go wrong during the process of a guitar being built, shipped, and sold. Like Max said earlier the key here is whether this is the exception or the rule because everyone's got these, you've all seen them regardless of price point.

Notably, none of the criteria for any of these tiers include 'vibes'. I assume if a guitar is otherwise ship-shape and I just don't gel with it, it simply was not meant for me. I dislike the way it plays, but maybe it was built with a different style in mind. I dislike the way it sounds, but maybe I just don't like the pickups / toanwoodz / mojo this particular guitar has and it'd be more at home with someone trying to do something else with it. Maybe it's better suited for a different setup than the one I like, the list can go on forever. If the bones are good I chalk it up to simply not being a good fit.

So tl;dr, I'm gunna go with 'when there is something non-trivially wrong physically with the guitar that will require effort to fix- or worse,' final answer. Criteria does not change at all as the price tag goes up, just my willingness to accept it.

 

[nightsprinter]

"The SSO Special".

lmfao

 

[Screamingdaisy]

Worth pointing out that higher end doesn't mean better sounding.

Higher end may mean better wood, finish, fretwork, QC, hardware, pickups, more road worthy, more modern (ergonomics), more authentically vintage spec. etc... but none of that guaranties it'll be a better sounding guitar.

 

[Riverview]

You should feel what you pay for the guitar is worth it when you play it .

It should also be defect free , especially if it’s above the 2500-3000 price range . Some people are more picky than others , but I don’t want any blemishes in the finish , lopsided pickguards , or anything wrong on the neck .

 

[slippityslaps]

General construction and building issues usually what flags a "dud" for me. Where corners are cut, where issues were hidden, obviously signs of rework, etc. The type of stuff you tend to see on cheaper OEM builds were just getting the thing out the door "good enough" is the goal.

Anything that can be quickly or easily corrected in a setup isn't an issue, so long as it's not the rule. There was a builder who did great work but always needed nut shims, like on everything, so I wasn't as forgiving when relating issues.

I try to stay away from the esoteric stuff, we all like and dislike stuff because we're weird artsy fartsy musicians and take instrument choices personally.

I have a beginner question! What does OEM stand for?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I have a beginner question! What does OEM stand for?

Original Equipment Manufacturer

Basically the big factories that churn out stuff that's later rebranded.

 

[ArtDecade]

Tender Surrender is played on a cheap MIJ Stratocaster that Vai bought off the rack.

 

[Moongrum]

Tender Surrender is played on a cheap MIJ Stratocaster that Vai bought off the rack.

now people lose their god damn minds over mij fender haha.

 

[ArtDecade]

now people lose their god damn minds over mij fender haha.

Fender Japan are well made instruments and you can be assured that 99% of them are going to sound fantastic. And they will cost 4x less than a used Suhr. LOL.

 

[Crungy]

@Screamingdaisy

Speaking of situational awareness of where you are shopping....They weren't high end, but some midrange Ibanez guitars at Music Go Round surprised me last year.

I went there to check out an S Six6fdfm that looked awesome, setup was so bad I didn't want to gamble on it. On to an S7320 with some active Seymour Duncan's. Sweet! Wrong. It was even worse playing than the first one.

They were probably fine and I could have straightened them out, but I wasn't interested for what they wanted for them.

Ultimately walked out of there with an RGA7 w/Blackouts for $400 because it played and sounded great.

 

[ArtDecade]

A great setup and some fretwork can make a cheap instrument compete with anything out there.

 

[Moongrum]

Fender Japan are well made instruments and you can be assured that 99% of them are going to sound fantastic. And they will cost 4x less than a used Suhr. LOL.

oh yeah not a knock on them, just the mysticism that goes on around them like anything else Japanese online lol.

And to which I also agree to:

A great setup and some fretwork can make a cheap instrument compete with anything out there.