I know cost cutting must occur somewhere to have different price points.
I always assumed it was more of the 'bling' being added or left out as opposed to quality or function being sacrificed.
Kind of seems (hope i"M missing something and am just wrong here) that the 3xx series is the red headed stepchild of hte Taylor line.
Always appears that it gets the shaft when it comes to new designs, bracing, or whatever.
Why does the academy series have an armrest while the 3xx doenst?
What am I missing? Seriously...I want to know.
The "cost cutting" you are referring to across the entire line is due largely to appointments and features: finish, inlays, binding, tuners, etc. And the big differentiator between the 100/200 and the 300+ line is country of manufacture and back/sides solid vs lam. There is zero sacrifice made to
build quality in any Taylor that I have seen, down to my "lowly" Baby Taylor I bought in '99.
The 300s have always been the "entry level" of the full-solid guitar line. From its inception, it was the simplest in appointments and features, had a satin finish, and offered the buyer the "full build" of the Taylor solid-wood guitars at a lower price. Kind of like buying a BMW 3series with vinyl interior. FWIW, I've never heard anything disparaging toward the 300s, but rather the opposite: of how they offer so much tone, build, and overall value in a "yeoman's" package, kind of like the working-musician's guitar.
The build process of the Academy's arm rest is very simplistic ...
not at all the same as the full armrest that the higher-end Taylors receive. Look at Taylor's website (or google up the difference) and you will see that it's a fairly inexpensive process given how the Academy line is built. The full-boat process is time consuming and thus more costly.
Edward
