Input please on the Ibanez thermo guitars

I went to the guitar store to buy strings and I did the thing one should never do if one isn't in the market for a new guitar and played some of them, and now I'm head over heels in love with the Ibanez ACV11 Artwood thermo-aged guitar.

I almost bought it on the spot, but I thought I'd ask here what you all think. I have a bad habit of buying weird things that end up being more of a pain than if I'd bought something more normal (like my Pentax dSLR). And I was holding out for a Taylor or a Martin, but man, that thing plays sooooo nice and it's a fraction of the price of either of those.

Thoughts, anyone?

https://www.ibanez.com/usa/products/model/artwood_vintage/

Here's a review:https://www.premierguitar.com/articles/24289-ibanez-introduces-artwood-vintage-thermo-aged-acoustics

My thoughts.

"Thermo-Aged" is just typical Ibanez gimmicky buzzword marketing. Everyone is doing it now to try and capture the same susceptible demograpic that relicking does with electric guitars. Nothing about the process is particularly unique to Ibanez.

Here's Cort's spiel for the same thing. "Using a special process that we call ATV (Aged To Vintage) we treat the solid sitka spruce top to give it that big and open tone of a decades-old, highly-sought-after acoustic. This torrefaction process delivers that amazing tone to you right out of the box".

Now I'm not anti-Ibanez per se as my very first electric was an Ibanez, but that was back in the days when Ibanez's profile and standing was even lesser than Cort's is today relative to the long established names who spend a big on marketing spin, and Ibanez were Japanese made quality then, but at the equivalent of a Cort price today.

Ibanez have changed in the intervening 46 years since I bought that SG. Lots of [u]expensive[/u] big name celeb endorsment backed by marketing spin to milk the wannabe associative status crowd for all its worth. Someone has to pay for that. Inarguably Ibanez can still make a good guitar, but only if one moves signifiicantly up into the higher bracket IMV. I've examined a few Ibanez both acoustic and electric as I was thinking of buying myself, but haven't been pleased with either the quality or value at equivalent pricepoints in direct comparison with i.e. Cort or Yamaha or Takamine and other up and comers out there like Harley Benton. I'm an early adopter, and refuse to pay a premium just for a name which meets with peer approval. That and that the satisfaction of paying much of that premium for celebrity endorsment marketing is pretty much all you're getting for it.

That said.

My 'one of life's lessons' take is, if [u]you[/u] can afford it -or want to save to do so if that's necessary and within the realm of reason in doing so, [u]always[/u] [u]buy what you really want[/u] that is designed and intended to do the task [u]you want of it[/u] no matter what it is. Motorbike, bicycle, car, sailplane, boat or guitar. But having said that, that doesn't mean it has to be a name to fit that criteria, [u]unless[/u] that's an important aspect of what is important to you. It isn't to me, but I get that some people get stuck on headstock label association.

[br]So my advice considering your original target of a Martin or Taylor would be, before you press the Ibanez buy button on impulse, give yourself some cooldown time. It'll still be available to buy next week/month/year if the lust you're feeling for it right now persists.

[br]Ultimately it's your money and your decision. If you can afford it, what you spend it on if it brings you pleasure rather than regret is no-one's business than your own, nor should it matter what others 'think' (approval or disapproval).

Thank you for the great info!

I'm guessing that guitars are like pianos, yes, in that two guitars that are "identical" are not identical? Or would any guitar of the same model play pretty much the same?

We're digressing now, but it's your thread and if you don't mind?

Here's what I've learned from the experience over the past three years this time in 2017 when I bought that initial instrument after such a lengthy hiatus. Since, I've been fortunate to have buckets of time and resources available to me, but most importantly persistent unflagging motivation derived of everyday enjoyment picking up the instrument.

A decent playing and sounding instrument can be had for not a lot of money these days.

Ultimately, once that base criteria is met, how any instrument sounds musically comes down to two primary factors IMV, individual tonal preference/bias subjectivity notwithstanding. The skill/capababilty of the person playing it, but importantly, much more so that what tonewood it's constructed from, [u]the ergonomic fit of the instrument to the person playing it[/u] which facilitates and enhances the former. If an instrument doesn't fit right, it doesn't matter what illustrious name graces the headstock or exotic tonewood it's made of, the player's performance will lack that je ne sais quoi that is self-evident when playing an instrument which does.

So first most for me, I'll pick an instrument which feels good in the fretting hand and to the body English to play. I genuinely don't care whose name is on the headstock. I will care about build quality, finish and to a reasoning degree in how performance will be affected, its construction/components. But I'm a realist in that I'm fully aware neither tonewood nor price amenability without spending on a Taylor or Martin will present as limiting or displeasing factors to my demonstrated performance from any instrument for some time I expect. I think (have observed) this holds true for most of us who've been playing less than a decade, or who aren't professional performing musicians.[br][br]In an acoustic, you'll know it when you experience the right combination for you of scale length, neck profile, fingerboard radius, fret size, nut width, string tension (scooped bridges) and action when all are adjusted. Marry that with the overall right body shape, size, width and overall guitar length for you, and that's a guitar you'll love to play [u]every day[/u]. Then be concerned about what it sounds like to you, if you find its tone pleasing and what you're wanting prioritised over the spec. spin. [br][br]I know I labour the point, but ergonomic fit is so much more than just an aesthetic which screams lust at you or a hypothetical tech spec. which speaks to mind and ego. Owning and playing an instrument which is the right ergonomic fit [u]with you[/u] is like being with your soul mate every day vs spending time with the sexiest most beautiful or richest person on the planet who can provide you with anything material beyond your wildest expectation, but with whom you have little else in common for want of a more apt analogy.

Originally Posted by: manXcat

We're digressing now, but it's your thread and if you don't mind?

In an acoustic, you'll know it when you experience the right combination for you of scale length, neck profile, fingerboard radius, fret size, nut width, string tension (scooped bridges) and action when all are adjusted. Marry that with the overall right body shape, size, width and overall guitar length for you, and that's a guitar you'll love to play [u]every day[/u]. Then be concerned about what it sounds like to you, if you find its tone pleasing and what you're wanting prioritised over the spec. spin. [br][br]

I don't mind and yes, this. This is how I felt when I played that guitar, which is why I was tempted. It sounded amazing but it felt... just right, which I agree is far more important.

but I think I may go for the electric acoustic cutaway model instead... I need to investigate to see if it has the same dimensions, etc. Unfortunately, right now I'm in a small town with only one guitar store, but it is probablyl worth the two hour drive to Portland (ME) to play a few different versions.

One thing I didn't like about the ACV11 was that the neck looks like plastic, even though it's not. But I loved how small and light it was.

And thank you for taking the time to respond!

A pleasure. I hope, sincerely, you find that guitar for you. You will if you're aware, discriminating and patient.

Acoustic with an integrated preamp, pickup and instrument port is good. If I have to have only a single acoustic [u]for my purposes[/u], it'd be an e-acoustic.

Yeah, the lack of a built-in pickup was another thing that made me hesitate. The balance between playability and features... but I agree that playabillity should always be first.

UPDATE: I bought it. Loving it so far. Mostly I didn't want to go down the rabbit hole of endless comparisons, etc.

Thank you for the input!

Congratulatiions. NGD. I'm excited for you.

Decisive is good faith83. Ownership will reveal all in time.

I checked out the interesting specs (e.g. short scale, soft V neck but with a rather wide nut), features and more about that particular instrument later in depth out of the combination of curiosity and self-information adding to my knowledge base. It's a good looking guitar, well appointed with lots of appealing features.

Which colour did you choose? The Antique Natural Semi-Gloss?

If it doesn't work out, you'll know and learn from the experience. If it does as I surmise it assuredly will the way it still excited and spoke to you reassured when you handled it a second time so that it pressed the in-store buy now button, lubbly jubbly!

A picture in its new home would be good. A show and tell to share the excitement is something we all enjoy. Go on. You know you want to. = ]

I went with the black. I am not a fan of the natural wood look -- feels too generic to me.

I'm going to add a pickup to it at some point, but for now, it's crazy light, and the V-neck is a dream for barre chords.

Thank you again for all your help!

Congrats Faith. You went with your instincts. Good for you. Enjoy, now let's get a pic for us to see. [br][br]

moe