Hudson Guitars

[Deleted]

mickeyz wrote about the Hudson Little Wing

"The Hudsons are suppposedly made in the same factory as the Guild GAD series -- I had one of those for a while, nicely built guitar. Too big for me -- I've switched to parlor guitars because they're a better fit my body/age.

To me 699 pounds for a Chinese-built retailer-spec'd guitar is kind of outlandish. I know they're trying for a higher-end bracket, but still. That's approaching real money... for a no-name brand"

They were started by George Ösztreicher, the original founder and designer of the Tanglewood Guitar Company. I heard they were built in the same factory as Tanglwood. They have a good pedigree. I agree it's wise to be wary of Chinese guitars. There are plenty of good ones around. MM Blues, MM Blues 28, MM Lightnin for example. They're hardly a no name brand.

www.hudsonguitars.com/about

www.hudsonguitars.com/

Read more: michaelmesser.proboards.com/thread/8163/which-parlour?page=2#ixzz3b1WWGa39

[Deleted]

Like I said, the Guild was a very nicely built guitar. I paid 400 euros for it. WITH a really nice case. So I'm not saying the Hudsons aren't well-built. The information about them being built in the same factory comes from a review of the Little Wing I found -- but being built in the same factory doesn't really mean all that much. Chinese factories are often HUGE places with thousands of employees.

There's no comparison between having the Guild name on the headstock and the Hudson name. There just isn't. While Guild has become a member of the Fender brand family (it's possible there's no longer even a Guild factory still operating in the US, but there still was when I bought mine), it IS an actual guitar brand built by ACTUALLY MANUFACTURING guitars. And yes -- a brand name really does add to the price/value of a guitar. Especially when you're trying to resell your guitar. (I sold my Guild for 500 euros.)

"Brands" like Hudson, Tanglewood, Eastwood, Republic, Paramount, et cetera simply are not the same. It's fully possible the guitars are well-made (most of my guitars were made in China or Indonesia, so I'm not a snob that way), but let's face facts here - they are products of someone in England, Europe, Canada, the US etc. picking guitars from a catalog, choosing a specification/quality level, and -- hopefully -- inspecting and setting up the guitars, and weeding out the duds before selling them on in their markets. Very few of these people ever actually go to China to see the factory, let alone stick around to oversee the build process (which I suspect companies like Guild, Epiphone, etc. are more likely to do, at least during the development of a new model).

I imported a guitar from China last year -- it cost me 40 euros! It would have cost half that if I'd bought 10 or more! The shipping, however, cost 100 euros and the customs duties added another 50 euros -- all in all, not worth it. The guitar wasn't terribly made, and I was able to fix the few problems with it, although the time I spent fixing it would have obliterated a reseller's margins.

So again, I'm not saying the Hudon isn't a good guitar. It might even be a great guitar. But "Hudson" has never, as far I know, had its own factory and built its own guitars. I find that kind of price for no-name brand Chinese-built guitar unreasonable. That's just my personal opinion.

I do recognize, of course, that over time, these brands start seeming like the real deal -- once they've been around for a while, especially. Obviously the Hudson brand couldn't still be in business if they specialized in selling crap. But even a well-chosen brand can seem "real" -- look at the Paramount guitars being sold in Germany these days. Those are simply re-badged Aiersi guitars. But doesn't that "Paramount" name SOUND like it should be a real brand? Other companies (like Fender and the Guild brand) do an end-run around the problem by simply buying up the brand name -- the new Recording Kings and Regals are a good example of that. Fender's reputation as an acoustic builder is awful --that's why they bought Guild.

Anyway, this is what I like about the Michael Messer guitar concept. Michael already IS an established "brand" (albeit as a musician). And he's putting his own name and reputation on the line with the guitars he sells.

Oops! I do go on, don't I? I don't mean to start a fight over this -- I find it to be an interesting discussion that's all (it's sort of related to the work I do, I've done a lot of research into this.)

[mikenewport]

It is an interesting discussion, so if I may...

I learned to play on an Eko Ranger, one carefull owner, the other 20 didn't give a sh#t !!! It give me and the gang a good opportunity to learn some basics off each other and on our own. It was playable and sounded pretty good to me. Then came the Takamine's and Yamaha's.

A lot of the lower cost guitars out there fall into the above category with exceptions. Roll on several decades

I like to have and I am fortunate to have, several of those £700- £800 guitars all solid wood a Busker and an MM resonator. I am particularly fond of their variance and different voices. What could I have bought for around £4000 that would give me what I have?

I think the dividing line for me falls between the well made instrument and the also rans in each price range. I have no passion for the name on the headstock. There was a period ('70's ?) when people used to tape over the name on the headstock. I'm not a collector and have never considered a guitar for it's resale value, only for the voice that it will provide.

Now if I were to win the lottery I would go to a luthier like Julian Meyrick round the corner and say please make me one like this then hop across the channel to Mike Lewis and say... but am I a good enough player to warrant this, probably not.

Final point to make is that all the dross, crappy guitars that are out there in the guitar supermarkets take their toll on the forests so when and when does the clean up start? or is it going to be decide by the name on the headstock and the price on the tag. Martin and Taylor seem to be at the forefront but then they should be shouldn't they.

Mike

[Deleted]

May 25, 2015 8:55:20 GMT mikenewport said:

 I'm not a collector and have never considered a guitar for it's resale value, only for the voice that it will provide.

Every time I buy a guitar, I think "this is it! this is the one! oh! sing my heart! I have found the guitar of my dreams!"... but time goes by, my interests change, my attention turns to a younger, sleeker model...

Since I really don't like to have larger numbers of guitars on hand (I have nine at the current time, just sold two, bought one, fixed up an old beater parlor I had lying around...), I prefer to resell guitars once I'm no longer using them. So "resale value" for me just means recovering as much of the purchase price as I can -- so I can build up the bank for the next guitar purchase. The Guild was a rare instance where I sold a guitar for more than I paid. Usually I'm able at least to break even.

No way I can ever justify spending 2000 or 4000 (pounds, euros, dollars, whatever) on a guitar. I'm just not that good of a guitarist.