Here's my 2 cents...
Although all guitar manufactures (maybe with the exception of pure customs) use machines and automation to some extent, it appears that Taylor takes it to the extreme. There may be some final finishing (painting, buffing, stringing), but for the most part Taylor guitars are mass produced much in the same way that lower end/lower priced guitars are produced in China. The custom shop probably takes a more hands-on approach, but by and large Taylor guitars, by virtue of their manufacturing process and pure volume, are more like commodities than guitars from other manufactures who use less machinery and more human effort in making guitars. I have to admit, that as much as I like my Taylor, I think that they are over-priced. I'm guessing that due to the extensive use of mechanical automation, the cost of manufacturing a Taylor is far lower than that of a Martin, Gibson, Guild, etc., and therefore their profit margins are likely much higher... something that I have no problem with. If they can find a way to build something that a lot of people want (and we obviously do) and to meet the market demand - and make a good profit - I'm all for it. I don't begrudge them at all. After all, a product is only worth what people are willing to spend on it.
On the other hand, machine manufacturing does make for a more consistent product, something that Taylors are known for, whereas Gibson, for example, seems to have some issues with consistent quality.
As much as I like my Taylor, my next guitar will probably be a Martin or another Guild. To me there is something more special about a hand-crafted guitar. I know that Martin and Guild also use some machinery for manufacturing - they have to otherwise their manufacturing costs would make them uncompetitive. But from what I understand, there is a lot more handwork that goes into them compared to Taylors.
I also agree with an earlier post - you'll see some guitar snobbery in any dedicated brand forum.
Now I will go play my Taylor...
Jim
Hi Jim,
Many have made the same argument that Taylor and other manufacturers utilizing machinery over human hands reduces cost. Well this is true for some products and applications, but is by
no means a universal truth. And I don't mean this to be directed at you as much as I'd say this is a common misconception that folks constantly repeat, simply because on the face of it it sounds right. And for less-costly or less-complex articles of production, it applies. But again, machine-over-manual is cheaper therefor more profitable is
no universal truth. Hear me out:
The cost of said machines is staggering. Staggering. Yes, in the 6 and 7-zero sums. No one but NO one in any corporate endeavor would make such a daunting capital investment when human labor, yes
unskilled labor
even in America and obviously overseas, is less costly. Yessir,
less costly than these very expensive machines that require enourmous up-front capital investment as opposed to vastly cheaper human costs (again, low-skilled labor).
But wait, this is just the cost of machines. The programming involved in making them do what we want them to do is enourmously expensive, both in software and the skilled humans who "make it happen." These are not "plug-n-play" desktop computers. Anyone who is daunted by something like Photoshop, a powerful program that makes desktop image-manipulation easy for the simple stuff, yet
still requires
serious training if one is offer professional results, illustrates how much work goes into a "machine product" that supposedly is cheaper. That machine product called Photoshop costs
vast sums of programmers, over years, in concert with hardware design and implementation to make the software useable, so that this simple guy behind the keyboard can make cheesy little changes in his pictures. That much work for a so-called "simple" program. How about industrial computer graphics and today's rage in CG movies and advertising? Take that illustration and apply it to manufacturing. Then add in the
countless hours
and costs of the R&D, all of it "lost" resources since those innumerable failures yield no marketable product. Very few think of the resources lost
before something comes to market. All too many folks simply say is: geeze that's overpriced! And it's echoed enough times that it becomes the common refrain. If one thinks that iPad or a Taylor is overpriced, one should consider the untold costs that were expended
before that sucker even made it to the showroom. I'll tell you who knows: the accountants and the CFO. And the engineers. And the designers. And perhaps even the cleanup crew who witnessed the constant failures coming out of those precious machines. The common misconception is "that CNC doohicky will do it cheaper" completely ignores the
vast amount of resources behind the hardware and software to make that CNC even exist, let alone make it
accomplish in the physical world what one dreams in one's head.
Now compound
all these costs to the very reality that with all these capital investments, one must
assume one will be successful not only now, but for
many years, or else it will all be for loss. Yeah, that's venture capitalism. All risk; no guarantees; just faith that you can make it.
Keep in mind this is my general reaction to all folks who say "that thing is overpriced" or "machines are simply cheaper than people" ...and I am not at all directing this to you. And the fact is, also, that it is true for
some applications: all the better, eh!
But to think that anything that is
finely crafted, from an iPad to Photoshop to a Taylor is simply done on machines because that'll yield the company more profit than hiring Sam, Joe, or Pablo is, IMO, not seeing the whole picture. And to mention Taylor's manufacturing process, replete with CNC and skilled humans, and lump it in with other far lower-quality guitars made overseas is egregiously oversimplified. And Taylor utilizing machines to "the extreme" as you put it, well, that's certainly your opinion. I'll let the
finished products of all parties speak for themselves.
Edward
