- This topic has 8 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Played last night with my Irish songwriter mate at his house.
He has a 7-8 year old Taylor 8 series in Maple/spruce cutaway
I took my SCGC F cutaway, maple/German with 2 month old SCGC Light tension strings.
He paid about what I paid for our guitars on the used market.
This is a perfect example of “It’s not the woods, It’s the BUILDER”!!
The Taylor was not even on the same planet as the SC.
The Taylor was tinney with NO bass, very “High Hatty” and had no sustain or intonation. no comparison to the EQ factor of the SC F.
The Taylor has been well taken care of and had new JP strings and a recent setup.
All the above just confirms my belief that Richard and Crew create very special guitars. -
-
-
I have played three Taylor’s I though about owning: a Koa Cedar Model, and the six and 12 Strings Leo Kottke models. Over the years, I have played a few SCGC dogs, just dead in the water. The used market is the best way to go these days.
-
My all time favorite 12string was my 1993 LKSM. I often was curious about the 6string LKSM. They are birds of a different , tone, feather ,color. Thank goodness for the many different spices available for our senses.
Just picked up a steal oh the deal 1993 VA German spruce/Hawaiian Koa with 42 style bling . Thank goodness for great used played in to their ultimate sensorial bliss .
-
-
I’ve got a not-quite-twenty-year-old 312ce that I received in trade for some woodwork.
It’s a perfectly ok guitar. Not great but it plays well and is ergonomically comfy.
When I first got it, I hoped it’d be sort of OM-ish, with a lot of balance, but it *is* biased towards higher frequencies. Acoustically it sounds ok but not great (“great” being defined by my SCGC OM cutaway and its siblings).
Plugged in is another matter – it came with a Fishman Onboard Blender in mono; that died and got replaced by a stereo version. It sounds *great* amplified, which came as a surprise. My OM also sounds great amplified, but the Taylor’s lower value and relative replace-ability mean that it gets used for shows where there’s greater risk of loss or serious damage (e.g., the biker bar in town here, which is fun to play, but dayum I’ve seen too many instruments broken by stumbling drunks).
They all have their place. Keep playin’ ‘em and you’ll figure out what works.
-
Taylor has an entirely different design ethos than SCGC. It’s not worse or better, just different.
Taylor seems to focus on neck design/ease of play and then make the sound boxes (bodies) as identical as possible from unit to unit across a model range.
This is a good way to go if you’re building thousands of instruments a year rather than hundreds.
SCGC being smaller can focus on the entire instrument, take more time per instrument, source more unusual (small quantity) woods. The result is a wonderful sounding instrument every time.
Daniel
-
Maple is so easy to make look good but sound “bleh” – SCGC seems to do maple very well, and I seem to be drawn to their maple guitars far too easily –
I just kinda realized that its been so long since I played a Taylor (other than in crowded halls at shows) that I really can’t say anything one way or another, other than I really have no interest in making an effort to try them –
-
Taylors are voiced for their ES2 electronics, no boomy bass is their forte. For most unplugged acoustic players, they are not first choice. Their new Grand Pacific models are the latest attempt to attract acoustic players, they got out of the pure acoustic only market ~2008.
I picked up a 2007 GA5 acoustic last year as a kick-around, traded it recently for a Furch walnut/sitka OM, came to my senses, one of my better moves. 🙂
bert
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.