Opinions, beliefs and knowledge.

[American Red]

Beauty.
How do you define it.
Is it best left to pictures, or can words describe it?

What, in your opinion, is the best looking "production" guitar in the Taylor line up.

This excludes their BTO and Reserve series.

What combination of woods bring out the beauty for you?

Which one races your heart?



please select the appropriate subforum & a title more specific to the topic in the future

[Strumming Fool]

I only own one production model, a 514, and that was modified as well. If Taylor offered the current 914 without the cutaway, that would be it for me! (I'm still tempted, even with the cutaway, because they're so-o-o-o-o-o pretty!)

[ataylor]

I'm a big fan of the new 700 series.

I'm not a fan of cutaways on guitars though. Would love to see some 700s without cutaways/electronics. (Very much like that new 12-fret reserve...)

[Cindy]

As the saying goes...beauty is only skin deep. Taylor makes some luscious looking guitars, but my preference in a guitar's beauty is its tonal quality. And I LOVE the tone of the 3xx and 4xx series. I also love the looks of dark ovangkol--especially if the back is flamed ovangkol. *drool*

Just for looks, I like the tobacco burst and/or honey burst.

[cigarfan]

I'm a big fan of the new 700 series.

I'm not a fan of cutaways on guitars though. Would love to see some 700s without cutaways/electronics. (Very much like that new 12-fret reserve...)

+1 ^^ 712 12-fret

But I would want to modify it back to the Cedar top it used to have. 

If I really had my choice it would be a GC7 12-fret with all the beautification features of the new 700 series. But then that wouldn't really be a production model would it. Shucks. Nevermind ...

[Ted @ LA Guitar Sales]

Beauty.
How do you define it.
Is it best left to pictures, or can words describe it?

What, in your opinion, is the best looking "production" guitar in the Taylor line up.

This excludes their BTO and Reserve series.

What combination of woods bring out the beauty for you?

Which one races your heart?



please select the appropriate subforum & a title more specific to the topic in the future

Easy, the current Cocobolo Presentation series. If I could have it in a 12-fret (hint hint) I would get one with a Drednought body and never look back. 

[American Red]

Ted.

Thank you for your help!
My Brother is sure to enjoy the LH 214e you procured for him for Christmas.

The Cocobolo Presentation series is one I keep looking at.

Don't be surprised if sometime after the New Year you get another call from me..

Awesome service..
Ferrari


 

[theguitarguru]

The best looking line in Taylors production has to be the 900 series. I prefer the 914. Now, my favorite combination tone wise is walnut/sitka

[craigb]

For me it's all about the sound, the beauty in a guitar is it's sound and how it touches me.  If you have a fine sounding guitar and it looks good too that's great but first and foremost it's has to be a guitar's sound.  If I want something to hang on the wall and look at I'd buy a picture

[American Red]

I have sound reasons for asking about beauty.
Not to rag, but when you spend $$$$.$$ you want a little more than the normal volume and tone.
So, craigb, what wood combination do you recommend for sound? 

Walnut sounds nice.
Sitka spruce sounds nice.
What if it were all Sitka Spruce?
Probably not so nice.

I agree with you, just give me one that sounds nice..

But does it have to be pink?
Ahh, what does it matter, it sure does sound nice..
Hmm does that really say Hello Kitty on the Pick Guard?

Sorry, just struck me as funny.. :-)

My Question is "Can't I have both?"
An awesome looking guitar with an awesome sound?

So, what is your favorite?

[American Red]

As the saying goes...beauty is only skin deep. Taylor makes some luscious looking guitars, but my preference in a guitar's beauty is its tonal quality. And I LOVE the tone of the 3xx and 4xx series. I also love the looks of dark ovangkol--especially if the back is flamed ovangkol. *drool*

Just for looks, I like the tobacco burst and/or honey burst.

Now Cindy did a great job of adding value to her opinion.
She gave a good example of tone and a wood that has a lot of depth, then made a suggestion for bringing out the beauty with a few optional finishes.
This is her favorite.
I tend to agree with her..
Simple, straight forward and readily available. Also easily affordable.

[mcookoc]

i have a gc-5. i like everything about it, sound, looks, size, slot head, short scale.

[craigb]

For me sitka and sapele (Larrivee L-02) and cedar and blackwood (Taylor 416) are doing a great job of sounding very good, they both have a different sound/tone but are very pleasing to my ear and between them cover the styles and techniques I play.

I personally prefer my guitars to be visually understated, a guitar would have to have a stunning sound  for me to consider a "pink" guitar but I wouldn't rule it out entirely  .  If you can achieve sonic and visually beauty at a price which is acceptable that's great but for me the sound has to come first.  I have played some very beautiful looking guitars that didn't sound as good as they looked, I have also played some fairly plain looking guitars that didn't sound too good either.

Can you have both?  sure you can if that's what you want and there's no problem with that.  The first question in your post was "Beauty. How do you define it?" and in my view sound and tone is how I define beauty in a guitar, looks are not irrelevant but are secondary.  But each to his own

[American Red]

For me sitka and sapele (Larrivee L-02) and cedar and blackwood (Taylor 416) are doing a great job of sounding very good, they both have a different sound/tone but are very pleasing to my ear and between them cover the styles and techniques I play.

I personally prefer my guitars to be visually understated, a guitar would have to have a stunning sound  for me to consider a "pink" guitar but I wouldn't rule it out entirely  .  If you can achieve sonic and visually beauty at a price which is acceptable that's great but for me the sound has to come first.  I have played some very beautiful looking guitars that didn't sound as good as they looked, I have also played some fairly plain looking guitars that didn't sound too good either.

Can you have both?  sure you can if that's what you want and there's no problem with that.  The first question in your post was "Beauty. How do you define it?" and in my view sound and tone is how I define beauty in a guitar, looks are not irrelevant but are secondary.  But each to his own

Totally understand and agree..
I know with KOA, the most beautiful pieces are not necessarily the best tonally, yet I have played quite a few that sound awesome.

What I believe many of us are looking for is something more than just a music box.
A total package.
Something to inspire us.

Ultimately, form vs function.

Ultimately Function.

But, ultimately we want more than just function
 

[briguysm]

I think visually, I really love the 600 series. I always go back to them when looking at production guitars. I'm mesmerized by the big leaf maple.

Now, I've recently also become a huge fan of rosewood (the Breedlove I've been borrowing is rosewood and red cedar), and the 800 series IR/Sitka Spruce provides a nice balanced sound with full deep lows and nice clean highs.

However, as far as the "we want to get both" deal....I'm not sure, for my taste at least, it exists in production. That's why I had to go the BTO route when searching for my dream guitar.

I do love many of the tone wood combos found in many of the Taylor production guitars out there, and I also drool over some of the visual treatments on the higher end models and/or the highly figured woods of other models. However, usually the ones that are guitar versions of super models just sound good instead of incredible...and the ones that play like Dean Martin sings just end up looking pretty regular.

Honestly, if I had found a guitar that "had it all" for me, I would have bought that instead. I completely agree with your unwillingness to compromise when spending $$$$$. You shouldn't heartily spend on a guitar, only to wish it had X or Y.

This is what I do with everything, though. When searching for a car, I wanted something I could put a family in, could use to haul gear, didn't cost a fortune to buy or to maintain (so, no luxury mumbo jumbo), got decent gas mileage, looked awesome, would be comfortable for road trips, and was a blast to drive. I searched for 2 years test driving and researching different cars before finally placing an order for what I wanted. To say that I'm satisfied with my purchase would be an understatement. If I had won that 500mil Powerball...I would still drive the same car I have now as a daily driver. Because I found a product that was perfectly balanced (in my opinion) between cost, versatility, driving enjoyment, efficiency, looks, and reliability.

I would love to find that same kind of balance in a guitar. Although it's not difficult to find a great sounding guitar at a reasonable price, it seems that any time you add visual effects to a guitar, the price skyrockets. Such is life, I guess.