Acoustic Guitar Rating System Proposal

[moonlightluthiers]

This is surely not a new idea.  Nevertheless, nothing ventured nothing gained.  Comments critical or otherwise are most welcome.

1. Mint - factory fresh. Just taken out of the box and case. Never played. No marks on frets or anywhere else on the guitar. All hang tags present. Factory strings.
2. Mint - played. Very minimal but visible fret wear on frets. Hang tags present. Factory strings showing very minimal play wear.
3. New, played, unmarked. Visible play wear on strings, but no marks anywhere. Factory strings show visible play wear. Smudges around tuners. Hang tags present.
4. New, Played, marked. Sound hole area or pick guard has visible play wear on top. No other marks. Strings changed. Smudges around tuners. No hang tags.
5. Used played, marked. Handling scratches on top, sides or back. Strings replaced. Neck or frets have visible play wear. Tuners or gear head show wear marks or smudges.
6. Moderate play wear. Obvious scratches or dents on top, sides or back. No scratches through the finish. Visible handling marks around tuner grips. Scratches any where on sides, back, or neck.
7. Heavy play wear. Pick gouging in the top. Wood missing or through the finish scratches, gouges or dents on the top. Through the finish scratches on any surface.
8. Heat damage. Bridge is coming off. 1/32 inch gap at rear of bridge. Top badly domed above the reinforcing plate with brace deformation or glue failure. Neck warped.
9. Heavy impact damage. Top will not support any string tension. May have fractured or broken neck. More than 1/32 inch gap at rear of bridge or bridge cracked. Bridge is coming up or is nearly off. No open side or back cracks but has visible cracks. May have broken or loose braces. All wood intact.
10. Heavy structural damage. Top will not support any string tension. Fractured or broken neck. Bridge is off, in pieces, or missing. Top, back or side wood missing. Open top, side or back cracks or fractures. Broken braces.

[Hesh Breakstone]

What's this for?  It's impossible to thoughtfully comment without a view of the intended purpose, scope, etc.

[Mike Kolb]

All well & good to have a strict grading system but the problem seems to be that buyers and sellers will always 'skew' the grading system to suit their individual needs.  

This typically will surface in classified ads or Craigslist/eBay listings where, for example, the seller's vision of "moderate play wear" has no relation to what the buyer envisions.

Nothing beats an in-hand visual inspection of an instrument and I'm afraid trying to make (or heaven forbid...enforce) a "standardized" rating system is doomed to fail from the get-go.  

Well-intentioned but not workable. Just my two-cents.

[Russell Vance]

I'm OK with any attempt to better describe instrument condition, and can see a narrative as useful but only when accompanied by video or comprehensive and clear imagery to support specific references to conditions or problems. Otherwize the use of a narrative is and always will be here as in real estate and used cars, an invitation to sellers to practice creative writing. 

[steven gallagher]

Not to mention that "Mint - factory fresh" often equates to a very poorly set up guitar.

[Hesh Breakstone]

Roger that - great point!

[Frank Ford]

Tempting as it is to establish a coherent rating system, the big problem is the money.

It's all about the money.

The reasons for rating condition equate to collector value and/or resale, so the ratings will always be liable for abuse by those selling the items.

Sellers always want their stuff to be the best so it can sell for the most, so they will always be at least tempted to up-rate things.

When money is the primary factor, there will be high potential for abuse because:

It's always about the money. 

[Ned Knepp]

 As Hesh pointed out, it's hard to evaluate this list without knowing it's intended use. If it's intended to use in an individual shop it might work ok as long as the grading is consistent but, as mike pointed out, getting everyone to go along is a problem.

One of the thoughts I had when I read the list is that I would have a hard time sticking to it consistently. First of all, it seems to me like three of the first four are, for practical purposes, redundant. Another problem for me is that setting a hard definition doesn't work for me. The amount of damage/use I'm willing to accept depends on the instrument. If it plays well, sounds good and feels good, I'm a lot less likely to care too much about how it looks. If it instrument is the "right" sort, I'm willing to put up with a lot of superficial or even not so superficial damage. I guess that I'm saying that my evaluation criteria is more about function than looks. 

I couldn't care less if the instrument in question carries a hang tab or the original strings (would actually prefer if they were changed) or even if is shows some slight wear on the frets or marks/scratches on the pickguard. Smudges on the finish might make me think the shop wasn't taking a lot of time to wipe down instruments after they were handled but they wouldn't be a factor in my evaluation of the instrument. I assume that the guitar has been tried out by others before me so some signs that it's been played don't particularly bother me. 

There are points on the list that I think should not be included as individual items. The last three points are, in my opinion, part of a completely different list. This sort of damage  moves the instrument into the realm of  "needs extensive and expensive repairs" which is important to note but breaking these into three listings doesn't do justice to the potential range of thing that can happen to a guitar that would put it on this list. These three are, in my opinion both too detail and too broad to work as they are. This sort of thing really should be handled on a case by case basis. Since structural damage comes in a lot of different forms and all I can say is that any written or verbal description should be as detailed as possible about the damage in each case.   

In the short of it. I would say that any list like this is actually more of a buyer's list than a seller's list. As the man with the money, I'm the one evaluating the instrument and its going to be my personal list of what is and is not important that is used in this process.  Defining a list to hang on the wall might be a starting place or, at least, will give potential customers an idea of how you view your holdings but it's probably not going to be the list that's ultimately used in the evaluation for purchase.  

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. 

[Hesh Breakstone]

The best rating systems that I have seen and read don't try to pigeon hole instruments into some canned and predefined criteria.  You may see words like "excellent" or "EC-" offered but you will also see a thoughtful, detailed analysis of the specific instrument done by a repair person who has the thing in their lap.

I speak of Elderly Instruments web descriptions of their previously enjoyed instruments.  

This is not exclusive to Elderly, Dream Guitars and many others do this too, individual descriptions written by knowledgable people.

[Thomas James]

It all comes down to the specific interested parties. The Vintage Guitar Price Guide has a rating system and value explanation that are worth considering as a touch stone.

[Kerry Krishna]

As Frank says, 'It's all about the money' It's a good idea that would easily be distorted 4 times out of 5 for profit. Imagine though, getting a used guitar from online, and it's pedigree not being distorted in any way shape or form. 

It could never happen/