"sorry about being critical" you say? "Critical" simply means you are considiering all possible outcomes, weighing gains against their costs. "Critical" is exactly what one should be when considering any instrument, IMHO!
To your point in your post, I personally think you've outline why one who loves the
playing (any instrument) more-often-than-not owns multiple instruments: for their
varying attributes. You like this guitar for this reason, and that guitar for that. Sure one guitar "can" serve all one's purposes, but given the possibility of multiple guitars to serve
different motives, then why not! Tone is in the ear of the beholder sounds cliche, but it still rings true. So why shouldn't an older 814 please one desire while a newer-voiced 814 satisfy another: guitars don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Your mention of your RT struck a chord with me. I know mine are considerably lighter in weight than their Taylor counterparts, and cannot help but think that contributes to their amazing liveliness, sensitivity, and sonic goodness (yeah, I said "goodness," so what
). But built as well as they are (recalling a conversation I had with Tim Luranc years ago), I am convinced that "lightness" offers
no deficits in structure or longevity. Am I that confident about other "light" guitars? ...not so much. But I still have guitars
other than the RTs to satisfy those other sonic cravings.
What a "problem" to have these days, to be able to worry about varying degrees of excellence when choosing between different great guitars. I say play em both, then decide which to keep, if not both. No shame in selling the one you are no longer enamored with, just like there's no shame in being enamored with both
Edward