Taylor Quality Control

[Stealyerface]

So I am a member of another Forum, and I actually traded the guitar of that Forum's namesake as part of the deal for my sweet new Taylor BTO Mahogany GA.

The topic came up in the other forum, that for the money, this other guitar was far superior to both a Martin and a Taylor, and that the quality of the builds, in his words, "Taylors don't even compare in quality".

Now, I realize that when you own a certain brand, you certainly have less of a tendency to be an unbiased observer, but my personally owning a Gibson, Martin and a Taylor, I try and have a fair assessment of all the brands, and their high and low points.

I had to do a reset on my Martin, but being a 1954 version, I figured a neck reset 58 years later was not a real put-off.  If I could have tracked down the original receipt from my grandmother's house, when she bought it for my dad on his 8th birthday, they probably would have done it for free... but either way, Dave Nichols did the reset and helped with the saddle, and I felt that it was worth doing...

My Gibson, knock on wood, has been trouble free, with no issues, and the fact that I am waaaaaay too OCD when it comes to the guitar probably lends itself to their easy lives.  Humidified closet where they all live, and in the cases when not being played.  No exceptions.

I have explored my new-to-me Taylor from the headstock to the strap button and cannot find any breach in the quality, or construction that might lend to any negative comments about it.  The only thing that I can definitely see, is that there are fish-eyes in the gloss finish, but they are under the finish, if that makes sense.  By that, I mean I can see them, hundreds of little teeny bubbles that seem to be between the wood and the finish coat, but you can't feel them like you could on a car's finish.  I am not sure if it was sprayed at a temperature that allowed the bubbles to be there, or if there was something wrong with the gun, but either way, I am under the impression that it does not take away from any sound or performance, it is just something that is in the finish.

Other than that, all of the joints, the bindings, the hardware, etc... seems to be very, very nice, and I am not sure that there is much to complain about.

I was going to take the poster to task on a side-by-side between the two guitars, but it would immediately be case-dismissed when we got to the tuners.  The tuners of the other brand guitar (it was a 1967) were imports from Japan, and were closed-tuners that we horrible.  I mean, just awful.  They switched them out a year or so later, obviously when they realized their mistake, but these horrid mechanisms versus the Gotoh 510's are not even close. 

Again, I realize that folks are quite passionate about their guitars, and sometimes to the point of going a bit off the deep end, but I have to say that so far, I feel the Taylor stacks up pretty elegantly against the competition, and aside from the gloss finish issue, I can't find anything to be really upset about.

Anyone else have any reports of finish troubles, or these fish-eyes that I see on mine?

~syf

[timfitz63]

I have found some finish imperfections on a few of my Taylors, but nothing that exceeds the threshold of my OCD.  In truth, you have to scrutinize the finish to find anything untoward on mine.  And their UV finish seems to be pretty durable, based on my experience.

Frankly, I've been generally impressed with Taylor's quality control and their willingness to fully correct anomalies under warranty.  But they do have a pretty hard-line attitude about their warranty and when it is no longer in effect.  Not trying to seed another discussion about that particular topic; just sayin'...

[Louis]

That" don't even come close " comment is way out of line in my opinion ,and when guys like Paul Mc George Strait, Taylor Swift and countless others have them your not gonna come and tell me they don't have quality . I was at the Factory in April and watched the quality control person for about 20 min going over the guitars. before I went to the factory I went into a guitar place in Ol"town San Diego and mentioned to the owner that we were going to the Taylor factory and he says " oh ya the guys who make guitars by machines " I never answered back cause it wouldn't of been pretty, but I'd never buy anything from a guy with that attitude . They had on employee who had to practice on old scapes of wood for 3 months before they would let work on the real thing .As soon  as we started the tour the Host said "go ahead and take all the pictures you want , we have nothing to hide here ". Myself I go on stage with My 2 Taylor's and I don't call down any one else's brand .

[Stringband Eric]

Have owned tons of guitars over the years.  Have had bad new guitars from most of the big names.  Even have owned a couple of small shop guitars that had problems when brand new.

Of all the guitars I've owned, Taylor is the most consistent in quality.  And very high quality, IMO.  And when push comes to shove, and have to grab a guitar to take onto a stage, the odds are it will be a Taylor.

At a festival this winter, had a similar conversation with a guitar builder.  He had obvious contempt when I mentioned Taylor.  Knew pretty quick I'd never do business with him. Which wasn't difficult as his guitars didn't do anything for me.

[Edward]

It speaks of utter ignorance, if not abject dishonesty, when one feels the need to bash brand x in order to somehow elevate brand y.  More than poor logic, it's obnoxious to my sensibilities.  There are many brands that I laud that don't fit my personal tastes, and when a discussion inevitably arises as to which is "better," I hold fast to objective facts, as well as personal preferences, when discussing them.  ...and then there are these maroons.  I make it my personal mission to avoid business (or otherwise rewarding) those who continue blindly as these folks clearly do.  They will eventually suffer the fate of their own ignorance, arrogance, and overall poor business practice.

Edward

[guitarsrsoawesome]

I've probably mentioned this before in another thread but I think it will serve this thread well, too, that I've been to both Taylor and Martin Road Shows, and even brought my GS mini into a Martin Road show a couple years ago because I didn't want to leave it in the hot car, and at both shows the hosts said they loved all types of guitars, and admitted to having each others' brands in their own arsenals. 

It's significant to me how level headed the folks that work for these companies are and how they appreciate all instruments, by any maker, while the end users can get so provincial.  For me it's sad how limiting that attitude can be.  There's such a wide array of tones, feel, aesthetics, etc., available across so many luthiers, why would any one become so brand loyal so as to limit the opportunities to appreciate what the entire guitar making community has to offer?

[Christhee68]

It's significant to me how level headed the folks that work for these companies are and how they appreciate all instruments, by any maker, while the end users can get so provincial.  For me it's sad how limiting that attitude can be.  There's such a wide array of tones, feel, aesthetics, etc., available across so many luthiers, why would any one become so brand loyal so as to limit the opportunities to appreciate what the entire guitar making community has to offer?

I was about to say the same thing. I bet if you asked Chris Martin IV he would have great things to say about Taylor, and I know Bob Taylor speaks highly of Martins.

[tbeltrans]

It seems from my observations that there are those who really are "in the know...", those who want to be and try to appear as if, and those who really don't care one way or another.  For some reason, for those who want to appear as if they are "in the know", it seems easier to put the "other guy" down rather than build the "other guy" up.  I don't know why that is, but that seems sadly all too common behavior to me.  Just because somebody builds guitars does not mean that s/he is "in the know" at all.  That person may do so in complete isolation or not yet have much experience.  For some people, building a guitar from a kit once may be enough to claim that person "builds guitars".  Just because somebody works in a music store does not mean that s/he is "in the know".  It seems to me that Chris Martin and Bob Taylor really are "in the know" based on who they are in the industry, and they know (and probably don't care) that other people realize it.  They don't need to put anybody down to appear as if they are "in the know", and I am glad to read in this thread that neither does.

All that said, I tend to avoid people who feel the need to put somebody or something else down to prop themselves up.  It makes no sense to me why one brand has to be "bad" in order for another to be "good", but there seem to be quite a few people for whom it makes perfect sense.

As for Taylor guitars being largely (or completely???) machine made, I would think that would make for very consistent quality, but then what do I know?  I don't work at Taylor, nor do I build guitars. Oddly, internet forums are full of people who "know" this kind of stuff without having done either of these things. I would be reluctant to pass myself as some sort of "expert" after having read an article or two or maybe a web site on the subject.

The only problems I see with my 1997 Taylor 912c are those inflicted on it by the previous owner.  Fortunately, none of it is structural damage.  The strap pin was removed from where the neck joins the body (the side of the heel??) and an attempt was made to put it on the bottom of the heel, which split the heel a little bit so it was repaired.  None of that had anything to do with Taylor, I am sure.  I took the guitar to somebody who was able to restore it to the way it was supposed to be, so all is well and any damage is hardly noticeable.

Tony

[timfitz63]

Like probably most others on this forum, I've played other brands.  Being partial to 12-strings, I had wandered into The Fret Shop here in Huntsville a week or so ago, and somehow a Martin D12X1AE found its way into my hands.  I played it a bit, thinking to myself, "Sounds pretty good!"  Realizing the D12X1AE was essentially Martin's analog to the Taylor 150e, I pulled one of those off the wall to A-B them.  And here's what I learned (again):

Martins are fine guitars; and the only thing keeping me from owning one is that I prefer the brighter Taylor tone and design aesthetics more.  Same thing happened a few years ago when I A-B'd a Martin D-18 against a Taylor 510 to figure out which Sitka/Mahogany Dreadnought I preferred.  In the end, I preferred the Taylor tone and aesthetics, but acknowledge that I could just as easily have wound up with the D-18.