Why did Taylor Revert to the Old Numbering System????

[jrporter]

During a Q&A with Andy Powers, head designer and heir apparent to the throne when Bob leaves, I posed this question amid many other questions about the science of wood, shapes, and guitar building. If you thought it had to do with new computer software, you'd be wrong. If you thought it had to do with being able to better expand with innovation and technology, again you'd be wrong. When asked this question, Andy kind of sighed and said, "You know we had just made it too complicated. We reminisced about the simpler, older system and decided to return to it." So there you have it-straight from the top, or pretty darn close to it...

[lestergibson]

I was told by a dealer that Taylor believed customers were confused by the differing naming conventions and couldn't understand that a GA3, for example, was the same guitar as a 314ce but without the electrics are cut-away.  This was supposedly affecting sales of the G series as people were more 'aware' of the 3, 4, 5, etc. numbering system and tended to go for those.  I dunno, though...... I didn't have any trouble grapsing the concept. I also can't imagine that if someone is going to drop coin on a Taylor, that they wouldn't visit the website to get the skinny on what was on offer, specs, etc.

[cigarfan]

I was there when JR asked the question and I don't remember Andy saying anything about the customer. I think he was pretty clear ... the Taylor folks themselves were sometimes confused. Thus the change.

I am sure Taylor listened to their customer on this as well (as they normally do!). 

[Nomad]

I was there when JR asked the question...

Where did you guys get to do that? Taylor U?

[jrporter]

It was at the Acoustifest at Melodee Music in Sterling, VA yesterday. Great day. Cigarfan is absolutely right. He didn't mention customers being confused, and made it clear that it was the top echelon folks (although he didn't name names aside from himself) who were finding the separate nomenclature of numbers vs letters, pure acoustics vs those with cutaway to be getting overly cumbersome & confusing. Go figure....

[TaylorGirl]

It makes sense and is much easier. I'm glad they went back.

[thebigz]

I've been out of the game for awhile, just coming back.  So there is no more, for example, GS7?  Just a 716 now?

That is definitely simpler, although I had heard rumors that they were using different bracing for the pure acoustics

[BigSkyTaylorPlayer]

I was there too.......   Still kicking myself for not getting that 618......

I am glad they changed - I found it rather confusing as well.

[ctkarslake]

I'd love to hear their explanation about wacking-out the serial number system.  Not being able to tell the build year at a glance is just bogus if you ask me!

[PureTone]

The only advantage I see with the pre 2007 designation system is that some 12 strings will have fewer digits, such as a 556E rather than a GS5E-12. The T5 still has the -12.

Once the Nylon Series was phased with the Steel Strings, the -N was added.

Other builders have sequential numbers only, so there is no way to determine what year model a guitar is without a reference card and to find out what month, much less the day, the guitar was made would like require a call to the company.

There are other builders that have close to 10 digits in their model designations and 3 should be plenty to denote a series, string configuration and body shape.

A GS4CE is as simple as a 416CE, but a GSOSGTCE would complicate things.

The no C, no E 800 Series are significantly more $ than the XX8 models, but there's always BTO.

[jrporter]

The other negative I saw to the intermediary system was that it made similar guitars appear to be distantly related to those who were new to Taylor rather than showing the commonality of those say, within the 800 series. The old and now revived old system makes it easier to understand that an 814ce and a GA8 are actually similar with the exception of cutaway and electronics. One need not learn or realize the inherent relationships that exist between "pure acoustics" i.e GC, GA, GS, etc and the 812, 814, and 816. A cutaway denoted as "c" and/or electronics denoted as "e" are merely add-ons or subtractions within a single series of guitars...

[Nomad]

The other negative I saw to the intermediary system was that it made similar guitars appear to be distantly related to those who were new to Taylor rather than showing the commonality of those say, within the 800 series. The old and now revived old system makes it easier to understand that an 814ce and a GA8 are actually similar with the exception of cutaway and electronics. One need not learn or realize the inherent relationships that exist between "pure acoustics" i.e GC, GA, GS, etc and the 812, 814, and 816. A cutaway denoted as "c" and/or electronics denoted as "e" are merely add-ons or subtractions within a single series of guitars...

There were cosmetic differences, too, were there not? Inlays and such?

[mauisunset]

I'd love to hear their explanation about wacking-out the serial number system.  Not being able to tell the build year at a glance is just bogus if you ask me!

Yep...what he said.

[jalbert]

There were cosmetic differences, too, were there not? Inlays and such?

Yes. Inlays were simpler, and the binding was (for example) ivoroid on the Gx8 as opposed to flamed maple on the 800 series. I'm glad no one is accusing Taylor of raising prices--the GC/GA/GS/DN series were a great way of saving $$$ if you didn't need the extras. I think the switch to uniformity is a de facto price increase for the non-cutaway/non-electronic models.