Tell me why you love your Taylor...

[geetarman]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

Own a 1999 814ce.

This is pre-NT neck and Pre-ES pickup.

I run it into a Fishman Aura Preamp (made with the same kind of pickup and an 814ce).

I love Taylors for their playability. The tone is good to if you find a nice one.

I've never had a better amplified tone than with the above setup.

Too funny I also have a 99' 814ce except I run mine through a Mama Bear sounds and plays great. Gotta love those mid to late 90's Taylors!

[tac5]

I bought two 2003 Fall LTDs through my dealer. One is a 914c with rosewood and engelman spruce, the other a 914c with flamed maple and sitka spruce. They are different but both stellar in tone and playability. Also, needless to say they are beautiful works of art. They have surpassed every guitar I have ever owned in every respect. I have K&K pickups in both.

[SlidePlayer03]

I have a 1996 914 Grand Auditorium. Cindy inlay. Like it a lot but do not love it. Got a McPherson 3 years ago and love it. Stays in tune better, plays up and down the neck better, sounds richer.

[sfletch]

It plays really well. It stays in tune. The ES is pretty decent.

I added a John Pearse armrest - which really helps with the lack of bass.

My current acoustic is a 414CE.

This is my 4th Taylor. I've had 2 312CE's and 1 410 (in which I installed a Sunrise and a K&K).

I had a Martin 000-28h that was amazing.....except for the toothpick neck....but it really sounded better than any Taylor I've played. However, the Taylors are just workhorses...they are there, solid, reliable....get the job done.

I appreciate that.

[PedalFreak]

I've owned the following: 412ce, 714e, GA3, NS32c and 2x Baby Taylors. I still own the 714e and NS32c.

I love both of these. But the reason I like Taylors: very focused sound, great clarity. Also, the bolt on neck system they use is genius. 20 minutes I can reset my neck. And, despite what many think, IMO a great bolt on neck system is a much better design than a set neck. A good Bolt on neck acoustic has a very tight fit, and you have wood on wood. A traditional set neck: I've seen them at the Gibson & Martin factories use shims in them. So you have the neck, glue between the dovetail and the shim, then more glue to hold the neck in place. No wood to wood sound transfer. Plus the bolts ensure a tight fit between the two.

[pickaguitar]

lmfao

[SkippyD]

I've got an old Lemon Grove era 510...bought it new in the mid 80's. Of all the acoustic guitars I own it is the one I probably play the least. It never "mellowed out" over the years. When I bought it I loved the way it played but wasn't big on the brightness. The salesguy assured me it would mellow with time. Well I'm still waiting! I will say that the brightness does work if I'm looking for an acoustic to work in a dense rock track and I just need something rhythmically "strummy" to kinda work with the hi hat...but other than that I don't use it for much. Just has a brashness that I can't seem to get rid of(no matter what strings or set up I've tried)

One thing I will say though...the top has gotten a beautiful orange tint over the years.

[Kevbo599]

Hey SkippyD,
I've got a Santee era 510 from 1989 (love the neck) and mine is more boomy than bright. Have you tried having a bone nut and bridge put on yours? I did that with my 614ce and it really mellowed it out.

[Hard2Hear]

Have owned a 412CE, NS32ce, 714CE, 514CE, 615CE, 814C(E), and 2 T5's.

Still have my 814C(E), (E) because it has a K&K system installed. I don't care for the ES system. The 814 is just the perfect balance of playability, tone, and volume for me. The 615 was an absolute cannon and I wish I still had it. It was louder than almost any guitar I have heard. They are all amazingly easy to play, which is why I have always been drawn to them over the Martins and Gibsons I have also owned.

One person said right when they said the tone does not change over time on a Taylor like some other guitars. Something in the way these are built or the finishes they use, I don't know. But they seem to stay very consistent over time, where my other acoustics have had noticeable change.

[SkippyD]

Originally Posted by Kevbo599

Hey SkippyD,
I've got a Santee era 510 from 1989 (love the neck) and mine is more boomy than bright. Have you tried having a bone nut and bridge put on yours? I did that with my 614ce and it really mellowed it out.

The original bridge and nut are bone on mine...I think it's just a case of "it is what it is" at this point.

[Jazzydave]

I might turn this next question into it's own thread for the sake of exposure...but I wonder how many of the higher end acoustics are built in comparison to other "mass produced" companies like Martin, Gibson, etc. Taylor gets a bad wrap in some circles due to their incredible volume of guitars built...but they also have a ton of lower-mid level models that sell like hot cakes.

If Gibson's numbers included their Epiphones (I assume they don't), theirs would be pretty high as well I presume.

[NeuroLogic]

I currently own a 1992 912–Cindy inlay & a new GS 5. I've also played a number of R Taylor's. They are very good guitars but, not at the same level as Applegate & Lowden. Taylors do not match the “Exquisite” quality of sound available from the high-end boutique builders. It seems to me that there is too much automation techniques in even the R Taylor's to do so. They are made with a very high level of accuracy and look beautiful. In the lower and middle price range they're impressive.

[Whogo]

The very best Taylor I have ever played was a Baby from years ago that one of my students had. Wonderful loud, woody tone that I have never heard in another Taylor after 23 years of picking them up and putting them back down.

[PedalFreak]

Originally Posted by Dave Owens

I might turn this next question into it's own thread for the sake of exposure...but I wonder how many of the higher end acoustics are built in comparison to other "mass produced" companies like Martin, Gibson, etc. Taylor gets a bad wrap in some circles due to their incredible volume of guitars built...but they also have a ton of lower-mid level models that sell like hot cakes.

If Gibson's numbers included their Epiphones (I assume they don't), theirs would be pretty high as well I presume.

Last I heard here are the production numbers:

Taylor: around 325 guitars a day
Martin: around 300 a day
Gibson: 75 a day (only Gibson Acoustics)

I was told by each of these companies that the number of guitars per day includes guitars that are started and finished. So they are not completing 325 guitars a day.

I've been to Taylor and Gibson's factories, never Martin. Taylor guitars way of building guitars is great IMO. Quality control and consistency has to be very high. I'm a dealer for all 3 of these brands, and Taylor's are the most consistent. We're one of their largest dealers, so we see a lot of their guitars, and they're the only guitar company that I'd feel safe buying one of the internet and know what I'm going to get.

[Jazzydave]

Originally Posted by PedalFreak

Last I heard here are the production numbers:

Taylor: around 325 guitars a day
Martin: around 300 a day
Gibson: 75 a day (only Gibson Acoustics)

I was told by each of these companies that the number of guitars per day includes guitars that are started and finished. So they are not completing 325 guitars a day.

I've been to Taylor and Gibson's factories, never Martin. Taylor guitars way of building guitars is great IMO. Quality control and consistency has to be very high. I'm a dealer for all 3 of these brands, and Taylor's are the most consistent. We're one of their largest dealers, so we see a lot of their guitars, and they're the only guitar company that I'd feel safe buying one of the internet and know what I'm going to get.

...and that's one of their major selling points. They're incredibly consistent. On the other hand, that's what hurts them as well in a way. There are very few "magical" ones like you find with the other companies. Then again, some people think they're just about all magical!