Are Taylors the Equal of Luthier-Made Instruments?

[Gary-N-LA]

At the risk of being bar-be-cued on this Taylor blog, do you folks think Taylors are the equal of luthier made instruments like Lowden, Santa Cruz, Goodall and Olson?  How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench?

I say this as a Taylor owner and as someone who is very likely going to buy another Taylor tomorrow afternoon - a BTO cuz I've friggin' fallen in love with it!!

[Jersey tuning]

I think Taylor's best instruments, including BTO's, are the equal of those from the smaller factory guitar makers like Santa Cruz, Collings, Bourgeois, Huss and Dalton, etc.  I wouldn't lump Olson or even Lowden in with the others, however, as now we're in a different arena, smaller operations producing anywhere from a dozen to a hundred instruments a year. Those smaller luthiers are usully constructing instruments on commission, with traits specific to the player.  While Taylor construction and playability is the equal of anyone, the playing experience is a bit more generic when compared with Olson or, say, Froggy Bottom, which produces around 100 instruments a year. 

Go into any shop with a large inventory of Taylors, or go to a roadshow. You can pick up any Taylor and strum a bit, fingerpick a bit, and they all sound great.  Of course you can drive a DN, GO or GS harder than a GC or GA, and there are many different tonal flavors from the myriad wood combinations.

Now go into a shop like Maple Leaf Music in Vt. which carries Collings, Froggy Bottoms and other higher end instruments.  Time I was there, they had 8 different Froggies. Each different model had to he played differently to bring out the best of the instrument.  And that best was really special.

The expression "Swiss army knife" that Taylor applies to its GA model really applies across the board.  I even found at the Woodstock Luthier Showcase that some single luthiers were showing beautiful but rather generic-playing instruments. Are they any "better" than Taylors? I don't know.

[MexicoMike]

Depends on what "equal" means…

Soundwise?  Well, that's totally subjective.  Since Taylor has a "sound," just as Martin does, it will depend on which sound you like which also varies with what you are doing with the instrument.  I haven't heard enough boutique guitars to make any sort of real conclusion but GENERALLY, it seems to me that the best known boutique guitar makers emulate pre-war Martins (many of them state exactly that) so they sound more Martin-like than Taylor-like.  So if you prefer the Taylor sound, a Taylor is "better."  If you prefer the Martin sound, one of the boutiques or an "authentic" series Martin is "better."

Construction -wise?  IMO yes, they are as good.  Of course there are differences in the construction - is one way "better" than another?  Depends on who you ask.  The Taylor neck design is really neat for when a reset is eventually necessary.  I'd call that aspect "better" though some makes - like Martin - would claim it's not as good sound-wise as a glued neck. 

IMO, a high-series number Taylor is as good a guitar as anybody else's "good" guitar; whether you prefer its sound to a boutique brand (or any other brand) is a totally different issue.  You'd have to play them both and make a decision.

[wooglins]

Depends on what "equal" means…

Soundwise?  Well, that's totally subjective.  Since Taylor has a "sound," just as Martin does, it will depend on which sound you like which also varies with what you are doing with the instrument.  I haven't heard enough boutique guitars to make any sort of real conclusion but GENERALLY, it seems to me that the best known boutique guitar makers emulate pre-war Martins (many of them state exactly that) so they sound more Martin-like than Taylor-like.  So if you prefer the Taylor sound, a Taylor is "better."  If you prefer the Martin sound, one of the boutiques or an "authentic" series Martin is "better."

Construction -wise?  IMO yes, they are as good.  Of course there are differences in the construction - is one way "better" than another?  Depends on who you ask.  The Taylor neck design is really neat for when a reset is eventually necessary.  I'd call that aspect "better" though some makes - like Martin - would claim it's not as good sound-wise as a glued neck. 

IMO, a high-series number Taylor is as good a guitar as anybody else's "good" guitar; whether you prefer its sound to a boutique brand (or any other brand) is a totally different issue.  You'd have to play them both and make a decision.

I think this is an excellent observation. 

[Jersey tuning]

I make an annual pilgrimage to a guitar shop on Staten Island, Mandolin Brothers.  They have hundreds of guitars on display, and allow the player complete access to their instruments. One room contains only D'Angelicos, golden era Martins and single luthier instruments.  Another contains boutique-ier operations like H&D, Collings, Lowden, Bourgeois, and Santa Cruz.  My BTO Taylor would fit in well in this room;  in fact favorable comparison with a Madi-Adi OM sized Bourgeois I really liked at Mandolin moved me to buy my BTO Taylor at a roadshow.

[Strumming Fool]

  How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench?

They're different animals that carry equal value depending on what you're looking to get out of a guitar . There are several brands that I truly admire, like Santa Cruz and Bourgeois, but I enjoy the consistency of my playing experience, regardless of which of the Taylor GAs below I pick up to play. Mind you, they all have different personalities, but there is a comfort in knowing that  none of these guitars will get in the way of my art. The build quality is excellent, and the playability is hard to beat. I love the Taylor tone, whether it's from the 90s or current. I look forward to Andy Powers further narrowing the gap between luthier-shop guitars and Taylor's "mass-produced" guitars, especially after test-driving a new 814 recently (take the name off the headstock, and that guitar may as well have been a one-off luthier's creation).

[jrporter]

  How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench?

They're different animals that carry equal value depending on what you're looking to get out of a guitar . There are several brands that I truly admire, like Santa Cruz and Bourgeois, but I enjoy the consistency of my playing experience, regardless of which of the Taylor GAs below I pick up to play. Mind you, they all have different personalities, but there is a comfort in knowing that  none of these guitars will get in the way of my art. The build quality is excellent, and the playability is hard to beat. I love the Taylor tone, whether it's from the 90s or current. I look forward to Andy Powers further narrowing the gap between luthier-shop guitars and Taylor's "mass-produced" guitars, especially after test-driving a new 814 recently (take the name off the headstock, and that guitar may as well have been a one-off luthier's creation).

I've played a few Huss & Daltons and Rockbridge guitars, but none made me want to ditch mine and sign on the dotted line. My 524 First Edition, in particular, is pretty hard to beat, in my estimation, regardless of how it was put together. Those with greater ears, playing skills and attention to detail might disagree...

[michaelw]

... How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench? ...

in terms of consistency & repeatability, there is no contest, imho

if a large scale builder takes the initiative, they can take the "stellar" 2 out of a run of 100 of the same model,
determine what makes them stand out above the rest, phase those changes into production, so that the "2 %ers" are the
norm & repeat the process, whereas a single builder does not have that luxury, even over the course of many decades -
a true one-man operation is a rare thing, from raw wood set to finished instrument & seeing that some finishes can take
several weeks to cure enough to be shipped out, variances in neck angles & carves, unless a CNC machine is utilized, &
a guitar built in such a manner is just that, a "one-off", which may be a good thing, but then again it may not if it is a "dud"

personally, i think you need to try out more makes & models of guitars

ymmv

[Jersey tuning]

... How can a factory-made instrument hope to compete with one made by one man on a bench? ...

in terms of consistency & repeatability, there is no contest, imho

if a large scale builder takes the initiative, they can take the "stellar" 2 out of a run of 100 of the same model,
determine what makes them stand out above the rest, phase those changes into production, so that the "2 %ers"
are the norm & repeat the process, 

ymmv

.

A great, great point, and the reason Taylor is so consistent.

However, not all wood sets are created equal. Is Taylor set up to vary the thickness and bracing of tops based on the grain or other factors, and do they "tap test" their tops?  I'd be even more impressed if this were the case.

[michaelw]

... However, not all wood sets are created equal. Is Taylor set up to vary the thickness and bracing of tops based on the grain or other factors, and do they "tap test" their tops?  I'd be even more impressed if this were the case.

tap test every single top on every single guitar
no, but neither does any of other large scale builders

if the independent luthier that one commissions a guitar from is not on the exact same book & page, in terms
of the tonal characteristics desired, then the end result could  be a very disappointing, & costly, one, imho

[mgap]

When I went for our Taylor factory tour I remember our tour guide doing the tap test, and then said they do tap testing.  At the end of production I saw a Taylor team member taping a finished (before it was strung)guitar, it looked like it might be a BTO.

[jerrytubes]

Do what? 

[Jersey tuning]

Do what? 

They put a soundboard on the floor and see if it can withstand the rigors of tap shoes.

A bridge grows in Brooklyn...........

Michael, please help..........

[michaelw]

They put a soundboard on the floor and see if it can withstand the rigors of tap shoes.

A bridge grows in Brooklyn...........

there are some builders that believe that's about the value of tap tuning
http://www.cumpiano.com/Home/Newsletters/Issues/twentythree.htm#So what's the

i can't say that i quite understand tapping the top/bridge before the guitar is about to the strung,
other than to verify that there are no vibrations from something loose, etc, unless one was going to
attempt to reshape one or more of the braces after the soundbox was completed (doubtful) -
Taylor has built so many guitars that "they know what works" & it was more than trial & error, as a
2 piece top can be glued 3 ways & orientated 4 ways, i think that the tops are thicknessed, glued,
flexed & if a couple more thousandths need to be taken off, then they are, as there may not be time
to do much more than that & top braces are pre-CNC cut, glued & basically cleaned up, as i don't think
that the braced tops are tuned any further, as that would require the use of a piece of equipment
that could measure & visually represent the nodal points & responses of the top, not unlike what
was used in the development of the ES systems, but this likely could  have been done on R Taylors

i do notice that the OP doesn't seem to be responding & i'm not here to "argue" about +'s or -'s, pros & cons -
i say, just get out there, play a bunch & buy what you love in whatever fashion makes one most comfortable,
no matter who makes it, how it's made, what it's made out of or where it's made, local mom & pop, big box or luthier ...

it'a all good

[Jersey tuning]

They put a soundboard on the floor and see if it can withstand the rigors of tap shoes.

A bridge grows in Brooklyn...........

there are some builders that believe that's about the value of tap tuning
http://www.cumpiano.com/Home/Newsletters/Issues/twentythree.htm#So what's the

i can't say that i quite understand tapping the top/bridge before the guitar is about to the strung,
other than to verify that there are no vibrations from something loose, etc, unless one was going to
attempt to reshape one or more of the braces after the soundbox was completed (doubtful) -
Taylor has built so many guitars that "they know what works" & it was more than trial & error, as a
2 piece top can be glued 3 ways & orientated 4 ways, i think that the tops are thicknessed, glued,
flexed & if a couple more thousandths need to be taken off, then they are, as there may not be time
to do much more than that & top braces are pre-CNC cut, glued & basically cleaned up, as i don't think
that the braced tops are tuned any further, as that would require the use of a piece of equipment
that could measure & visually represent the nodal points & responses of the top, not unlike what
was used in the development of the ES systems, but this likely could  have been done on R Taylors

i do notice that the OP doesn't seem to be responding & i'm not here to "argue" about +'s or -'s, pros & cons -
i say, just get out there, play a bunch & buy what you love in whatever fashion makes one most comfortable,
no matter who makes it, how it's made, what it's made out of or where it's made, local mom & pop, big box or luthier ...

it'a all good

So does Taylor deliberately choose top sitka sets with certain traits for its production models so the process of thicknessing, for ex, can be extremely predictable?  And for less-used topwoods like sinker, are they likely to spend more time thicknessing than when sitka is used?

Some luthiers prefer to join the back of the guitar to the sides last, after the top has already been joined.  While this provides more of the challenge to present a flawlessly clean assembly as seen through the sound hole (ie residual glue), those luthiers that choose this method feel they can fine tune the voicing of the instrument to a higher degree.  Does a process such as this unbalance the equation slightly in favor of Luthier-made instrumentsZ?