Bulldog 2008-09-06 06:30:33
Just returned from my local GC and a very, very quick session with the new
110. Clearly a disappointment… The neck felt awkwardly thick for a Taylor
and moreover it is the first acoustic guitar I can ever remember where a
strap button was mounted on the upper side (a cheap button at that). Why
they did not mount it on the base of the neck is really beyond me…
Cosmetically, the guitar was a full size version of the Big Baby with body
binding. The tone was absent with very little volume projection. Clearly,
not my cup of tea. I had to put it back on the stand quickly…
“If you dont know where you’re going, any road will take you there.”
Foldedpath 2008-09-06 06:30:37
I’m not normally one to defend Taylors, but in this case I think that’s
just a question of “traditional guitar culture” vs. practicality.
Earlier this year I finally got my $4,500 custom semihollow archtop guitar
(Holst K250). It has the strap button in exactly the same location as the
Taylor 110. It keeps the strap away from any possible contact with your
fretting hand, which can sometimes happen with a treble-side installation
on the heel. And the guitar doesn’t tilt away from you, like it does if you
put the button in the end of the heel (not that there’s much heel to work
with anyway, on a Taylor). This location allows the builder to place the
strap button where the guitar will be perfectly balanced, front to back.
The 110 has laminated sides, so there is no special concern about damaging
the wood. And I assume there is some kind of reinforcing block under there
(if not, it’s a really stupid design).
It just doesn’t *look* right, because it’s something more often seen on
electric guitars. Maybe we have to get over those preconceptions? 😉
P.S. sorry for the nitpicking on the strap button. Aside from that (and
this may be just a pet peeve of mine about strap button locations), it was
a good review!
Walterlane 2008-09-06 15:34:22
The other day I was in a music store and looked over this guitar. I
too was shocked by how bad it is. It looked, sounded and felt awful. I
think Taylor has done itself a disservice by associating its name with
such an inferior instrument. Though I’m sure it was wood, the finish
actually felt like some kind of cardboard. The sound was tinny and
reminded me of the sound of the old department store cheapies.
Mkarlo 2008-09-07 00:50:20
But we aren’t their intended market for this guitar. It’s the very young
demographic that can’t afford the higher end stuff, but would feel like they
own the Grail if they can get a $500 guitar with “Taylor” on the headstock.
And they tend to like “that sound” too.
Walterlane 2008-09-09 01:41:00
Good point, but the thing is for around $500 there are so many and
better choices, for instance the Epiphone DR-350SM (formerly the
PR-350SM) an all solid wood, spruce top, mahogany body guitar. For a
starter, I’d recommend they look at the Epi DR-200s with solid spruce