So I know a cork-sniffer.

[lars]

All of this brings up an interesting idea:  what if there was a guitar shop that was completely pitch black inside? Only the employees had night vision goggles, and everyone that came in just had to play the instruments/amps/effects that were set before them. It would be interesting to see what kind of combinations of "tone" would be chosen as sounding good. How many tube snobs would accidentally like a solid state amp? Would a joyo or behringer overdrive be able to hang with an original Klon? Probably.
It's amazing how much of an effect our eyes have on what we hear. If you never see that NOS bumblebee cap in that Les Paul, is it really there?

[movinginslomo]

There are people for anything manufactured, that assume price = quality. The more you pay, the better the product, as more hand labor has been put into the product. That something machine manufactured with cost in mind is never going to be as good. I however am happy with whatever works for my needs and doesn't crap out or not work as needed. I WILL buy the cheapest tuners that stay in tune, the cheapest strings that don't break and have decent quality. They work. Would I sound "better" on expensive boutique stuff? Maybe a little, but who would notice that? "The top end on that matchless is impeccable over your mostly stock blues jr....." Most average people would simply go "wow you play good" and those are the people you should be playing for. But those "price = better" people are always going to be that way, and why not let them think their money is going to "good" use. Sure they could be using it for charity, but the effort required to get them to pry open the wallet is not worth it. Now this probably opens up a whole discussing on rich vs. poor hahaha which especially in the US is something we TOTALLY aren't over saturated with daily haha (sarcasm)

[Muadzin]

I'd love the idea of a dark room music store. There is so much confirmation bias in selecting your gear where your preconceived ideas color your perceptions where only a true blind test can bring in objectivity.

There are also too many people wedded to the idea of the most expensive = the best. Or the most hyped = the best. The latter is of course always rubbish, the former does have some merit to it, as something more expensive usually tends to have better build quality and better components. Then again price is not just determined by build quality, demand also factors into it. And you can only stuff so many components and man hours into a pedal that the total manufacturing cost can only go up to a certain point. A $200 pedal built by someone who loves to build pedals with quality components is probably better then a $30 pedal built by Chinese peons working long hours in unsafe factories for chump change. A $2000 pedal on the other hand will not have the qualitative jump over a $200 pedal that would warrant spending the extra money. At some point you're just paying for marketing and hype mostly and then you'd be no better then all those women who spend $1000 on a pair of designer heels.

Also, when you drop that much money on a single product you tend to become a little apprehensive on using it. What if it gets damaged or stolen? And gear not being used is just expensive paper weight.

[pickdropper]

I WILL buy the cheapest tuners that stay in tune, the cheapest strings that don't break and have decent quality. They work. Would I sound "better" on expensive boutique stuff? Maybe a little, but who would notice that? "The top end on that matchless is impeccable over your mostly stock blues jr....." Most average people would simply go "wow you play good" and those are the people you should be playing for.

I think that's a completely valid way to buy things.  If you are happy with the cheapest functional parts, then that's fantastic.

Conversely, I often think it's worth getting better made (ie: better materials + workmanship = more expensive) parts simply because I enjoy interacting with them more.  There are certainly cheap tuners that work fine, but I can appreciate if they turn a little smoother, have higher turn ratios, are locking, have a nicer finish, etc.  Other than the finish, I think most of that would stand up to the darkened music store test. 

I think it's important to differentiate appreciation for well made things vs. voodoo mojo with scientifically dubious claims.  IE: the difference between nice tuners and a $300 single crystal copper guitar cable.

FWIW, I'm the same way with things outside the guitar industry, like tools.  I can really appreciate a precision made tool if it functions nicer than a cheap one.  All of this is despite the fact that there are people significantly more talented than me that make better things with cheap tools than I can with expensive ones.

[Muadzin]

I think that's a completely valid way to buy things.  If you are happy with the cheapest functional parts, then that's fantastic.

Conversely, I often think it's worth getting better made (ie: better materials + workmanship = more expensive) parts simply because I enjoy interacting with them more.  There are certainly cheap tuners that work fine, but I can appreciate if they turn a little smoother, have higher turn ratios, are locking, have a nicer finish, etc.  Other than the finish, I think most of that would stand up to the darkened music store test. 

I think it's important to differentiate appreciation for well made things vs. voodoo mojo with scientifically dubious claims.  IE: the difference between nice tuners and a $300 single crystal copper guitar cable.

FWIW, I'm the same way with things outside the guitar industry, like tools.  I can really appreciate a precision made tool if it functions nicer than a cheap one.  All of this is despite the fact that there are people significantly more talented than me that make better things with cheap tools than I can with expensive ones.

While I fully understand, as guitar tuners (or tools) are a long term investment, it begs the question, at what point does one draw the line though? Let's say that cheap generic brand X tuners are the basic decent model tuners. Next in line is tuner brand Y, which are tune a little better, a little smoother and they cost twice as much, I assume that would be acceptable to you. But what if they cost three times as much? Or four times? Ten times? 

Me, I set a price range and check what's available within that range. And what offers the best mix of quality and price in that range, that I go for.

[pickdropper]

I think that's a completely valid way to buy things.  If you are happy with the cheapest functional parts, then that's fantastic.

Conversely, I often think it's worth getting better made (ie: better materials + workmanship = more expensive) parts simply because I enjoy interacting with them more.  There are certainly cheap tuners that work fine, but I can appreciate if they turn a little smoother, have higher turn ratios, are locking, have a nicer finish, etc.  Other than the finish, I think most of that would stand up to the darkened music store test. 

I think it's important to differentiate appreciation for well made things vs. voodoo mojo with scientifically dubious claims.  IE: the difference between nice tuners and a $300 single crystal copper guitar cable.

FWIW, I'm the same way with things outside the guitar industry, like tools.  I can really appreciate a precision made tool if it functions nicer than a cheap one.  All of this is despite the fact that there are people significantly more talented than me that make better things with cheap tools than I can with expensive ones.

While I fully understand, as guitar tuners (or tools) are a long term investment, it begs the question, at what point does one draw the line though? Let's say that cheap generic brand X tuners are the basic decent model tuners. Next in line is tuner brand Y, which are tune a little better, a little smoother and they cost twice as much, I assume that would be acceptable to you. But what if they cost three times as much? Or four times? Ten times? 

Me, I set a price range and check what's available within that range. And what offers the best mix of quality and price in that range, that I go for.

I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer to that.  Value depends on how much it means to you.  Some folks would rather spend more money because they appreciate the level of precision and are willing to pay for it.  I don't really understand why people care if somebody wants to spend more for quality, even if the law of diminishing returns has kicked in hard.  Your tuner example is a good one and a great example of a supply vs demand curve.  You might sell 10,000 of them at twice the price and only 1000 of them at 4x the price.  There's a sweet spot as far as manufacturing capabilities, consumer demand, current economic status, etc... 

I'll give another example.  A friend of mine is into astronomy.  He bought a stand for one of his telescope used for about $10k.  The quality of the parts and the craftsmanship is undeniable.  The company that builds them, makes them in small quantities as well, so there is very little economy of scale.  Basically, it's for a hardcore hobbyist that wants the best, costs be damned.  Now, I wouldn't spend that kind of money, even if I could afford it because it's of little interest to me.  But I still recognize it's well built and he really enjoys it.

I have a different friend that's really into cycling.  He does amateur races and has spent a small fortune on a bike.  He could certain get to any destination he wanted in a cheap bike, but he enjoys the better built bikes.

I think folks that are really into their hobbies often go off into the deep end a bit.  If it brings them happiness and doesn't cause them financial ruin then that's cool.

[Aleph Null]

My father always made a distinction between "quality" and "value" which I have found to be very useful over the years. "Quality" is the objective merits of something, the craftsmanship, the construction, etc. "Value" is it's usefulness to me. For example, a Ferrari is a higher quality car than a Miata. It is objectively higher performance. However, the Miata is probably a better value for me; I'm not going to the track on weekends, I'll never reach the top speed of the Ferrari, I'll save money on insurance and maintainance, etc. There's no point in paying for all that extra quality if I'm not going to benefit from it. The calculus for most value will vary from person to person. This is why I have no issue putting a Warmoth neck on a Squier body. The neck dramatically improves my experience of the guitar. The body just holds all the other parts together.

The cork sniffers I know are using gear as a pillar to hide behind. Not having the perfect piece of gear is an easy excuse for being a mediocre musician.

[alanp]

As far as the OP goes, I'm too cheap and stingy to be a corksniffer

[pickdropper]

My father always made a distinction between "quality" and "value" which I have found to be very useful over the years. "Quality" is the objective merits of something, the craftsmanship, the construction, etc. "Value" is it's usefulness to me. For example, a Ferrari is a higher quality car than a Miata. It is objectively higher performance. However, the Miata is probably a better value for me; I'm not going to the track on weekends, I'll never reach the top speed of the Ferrari, I'll save money on insurance and maintainance, etc. There's no point in paying for all that extra quality if I'm not going to benefit from it. The calculus for most value will vary from person to person. This is why I have no issue putting a Warmoth neck on a Squier body. The neck dramatically improves my experience of the guitar. The body just holds all the other parts together.

The cork sniffers I know are using gear as a pillar to hide behind. Not having the perfect piece of gear is an easy excuse for being a mediocre musician.

I would tend to define quality and value similar to the way you do.

And yeah, quality of gear has nothing to do with quality of musicianship.  I know musicians that are fantastic that have very modest gear.  I also know musicians that gig with pricey equipment because they enjoy playing it.  And I know folks that are downright terrible players but have amazing guitar collections.  There's no qualifying exam for buying gear.

[movinginslomo]

The cork sniffers I know are using gear as a pillar to hide behind. Not having the perfect piece of gear is an easy excuse for being a mediocre musician.

The sad part is the guy I'm referring to in the OP is a great player and doesn't need to be a corksniffer. He'd sound amazing on a budget squier through like a blues jr.

[GermanCdn]

EDIT - going to stay out of this one.  Leave me and my 10 top corks alone.

[pickdropper]

EDIT - going to stay out of this one.  Leave me and my 10 top corks alone.

I would be curious to know what you typed.

I'd also be curious why you would be made to feel bad for having a collection of very nice guitars.  Most folks around here would kill for that.

There's nothing wrong with appreciating nice things.  That's entirely different from making pseudo-scientific claims.

[GermanCdn]

The only thing I ever feel bad about my guitar collection is that fact that they don't get played nearly as much as they deserve to  .  That and the odd time I calculate the replacement cost if I had to do it again.

The essence of the $30 - $300 and $300 - $3000 argument falls apart when you realize that they simply aren't targeted for the same audience.  You absolutely get more bang for your buck going from absolute beginner gear ($30) to workman/touring quality gear ($300) than you do going to the next level ($3000, and for this argument, I'll cover guitars not pedals, as there isn't a pile of $3k pedals out there).

Personal example.  I love PRS guitars (easy brand to pick on, cause they tend to polarize).  I love 10 tops (and other people love plain tops, no issue with that).  I won't compare them to Epis or LTDs or what have you - those are both good guitars and I've had a pile of them too.  But you simply can't compare them.  Supereasy example, when I moved to Europe, I put all my gear in storage in the same facility.  Know which guitars didn't need truss rod adjustments/fret filing/electronics cleaning/other work when I got back out of the 40 I put in storage?  My 3 Core model PRSs.  In fact, they were still tuned to pitch.  I spent a month working on all of the other guitars to get them back to playing shape, which I fully expected to do.  There is difference in quality of builds. 

Now, all of my PRS collection (currently 24, I simply can't bring myself to sell off any more) are Core models.  I've had the opportunity to hang out with a guy who has a similar collection to mine, only his collection is all Private Stock Models (figure average price 4X what mine are).  And you know what?  They do sound better, they do play better, they look WAYYYYY better (and looks are part of what you're paying for at that price level).  They're better instruments, plain and simple.  And I'll likely never own one, cause I can't justify spending that kind of money on a single guitar.

And that's where the order of magnitude comes into play.  $10,000 guitars are really not meant to be gigging guitars.   Generally because they're investment quality instruments, and don't need to be exposed to the risks of freak accidents happening at the local church or bar you're playing at (and for the record, I've had more gear damaged at churches then bars).  Same reason you don't see Ferraris in a snow storm.  Doesn't mean a Dodge Caravan is better.  Doesn't make the Caravan a bad option either, they're just different vehicles.

[Aleph Null]

The only thing I ever feel bad about my guitar collection is that fact that they don't get played nearly as much as they deserve to  .  That and the odd time I calculate the replacement cost if I had to do it again....

I wouldn't accuse you of being a cork sniffer. A cork sniffer would "need" the PRS instead of just "enjoying" it. A cork sniffer would site the "mojo" and "vintage correct" build instead of the "quality of craftsmanship".