Is the Look of the guitar as important as its features and playability for you ?

[Fireproof]

Most people would probably consider my guitars to be fugly as hell


I like weird s**t

Interesting. Post a pic of one of your favorite fugliest guitars…

 

[la szum]

All I know is it better have a motherfucking headstock gotdammit!

 

[la szum]

I think a LOT of guitars are bit too blinged out..... and it detracts from the lines and contours of a nice axe.
Some guys like their women with a lot of mascara and all done up Tammy Faye Baker style, so what do I know?

I do believe there is such a thing as trying too hard to be something, versus just naturally being something. Some
guitars, and those who build them, come off to me as trying too hard. Gaudy and overstated can be a thing, too.

Gold-plated toilets anyone???

 

[TSJMajesty]

I think a LOT of guitars are bit too blinged out..... and it detracts from the lines and contours of a nice axe.

Yeah, I like a nice top, with even lines, but some of the quilt tops are just too much.

 

[VegasGuitar]

1. Acoustic tone, volume, sustain.
2. "Feel," fit and finish. Hardware functionality.
3. Amplified sound through blackface Fender, and a Marshall.
4. Looks. Cannot accept 90% of the greens, and no pink.

 

[TSJMajesty]

Cannot accept 90% of the greens, and no pink.

I don't like a lot of the colors. I like colors that are natural to the trees the guitar wood grew from, like greens and browns.

 

[Devin]

Interesting. Post a pic of one of your favorite fugliest guitars…

Here's a couple

 

[Iron1]

I think a LOT of guitars are bit too blinged out..... and it detracts from the lines and contours of a nice axe.
Some guys like their women with a lot of mascara and all done up Tammy Faye Baker style, so what do I know?

I do believe there is such a thing as trying too hard to be something, versus just naturally being something. Some
guitars, and those who build them, come off to me as trying too hard. Gaudy and overstated can be a thing, too.

Gold-plated toilets anyone???

Totally agree. A quilt top with abalone binding...

 

[Fireproof]

Here's a couple

Ahh - those are the “cool” type of fugly! Nice.

 

[Jarick]

Yeah I think so, because I would very rarely pick up a guitar that looks awful to see how well it plays/sounds.

 

[DrewJD82]

I think a LOT of guitars are bit too blinged out..... and it detracts from the lines and contours of a nice axe.
Some guys like their women with a lot of mascara and all done up Tammy Faye Baker style, so what do I know?

I do believe there is such a thing as trying too hard to be something, versus just naturally being something. Some
guitars, and those who build them, come off to me as trying too hard. Gaudy and overstated can be a thing, too.

Gold-plated toilets anyone???

Yeah, my JEM is about as blinged out as I can get and even that’s a bit over the top.

 

[laxu]

Way back in the day I bought the Darth Vader of guitars: a 1989 Ibanez RG550. Black headstock, dark rosewood fretboard, black body, black pickguard, black hardware.

It played and sounded great after putting some S. Duncans in it, but I always hated how it looked. It didn't help the basswood body was prone to dings and flaking finish. I considered stripping the body and refinishing it several times but never got around to doing it. After having it for 15 years I sold it and replaced it with a green flametop Carvin C66 that I like so much more. Far better neck than the toothpick thin Wizard on the Ibanez.

So having the guitar look great to me is also important. I'm the type of guy who likes vibrant colors. Give me your sparkly purples, your swimming pool ocean sunburst quilt tops, gold Strats etc.

Similarly design matters. I wouldn't play some guitars because I loathe their visual design. If Fender and Gibson got something right, it's the overall aesthetics on their classic designs. At the same time, Gibson managed to also go the opposite way with the Dusk Tiger LP that is like the Peavey logo of guitars.

Now past visual design, I won't buy for example a guitar where I don't like the neck. I don't get along with many PRS neck profiles so I don't own one. Similarly 7.25" radius fretboards are a total no go for me.

 

[DrewJD82]

Once I've decided on what guitar I want (features, play-ability, whose name is on it, haha!), I definitely choose based on looks.
And my tastes do change. I used to love the look of Les Pauls, but now not so much.

I used to hate Les Pauls and especially Explorers. I thought Explorers were the ugliest, dumbest f*cking guitar on the planet. Now I love ‘em both!

 

[Baba]

I think there are plenty of guitars that look cool (to me) and also play great, that I don’t need to compromise.

But I certainly wouldn’t play a crappy or difficult playing guitar just because it looks cool.

Same.

Furthermore, I wouldn't play an awesome guitar that was ugly.

 

[andergtr]

to a point it is. i mean, i don't want the thing to look ugly, but the looks aren't top priority, either.