re: If you were upgrading your acoustic, what would you get?

quote:

---

As do many other reputable manufacturers—such as Martin. I should clarify: when I say "laminate" I mean a guitar with a laminated back and side and a SOLID WOOD top, such as my Taylor 110 (Sitka spruce). I am not, for purposes of this discussion, referring to guitars that are completely 100% laminate-made.

I just received my copy of the Taylor 2013 product guide and they discuss the use of laminates in their lower-end guitars. They're straightforward about laminate vs. 100% solid wood construction, basically stating the obvious:
• Building guitars with laminate backs and sides allows them to offer nice guitars at a lower price point (this, in so many words, is their production and marketing philosophy regarding laminates—whether you agree with it or not).
• All things being equal, solid wood construction is preferable (well, duh) particularly as the guitar ages.

I'm sure any player would agree that if you have the money, a solid wood guitar is the way to go. Not much argument there. But to say that all—or specifically, Taylor— "back/side laminate" guitars are cheap or of poor quality ... well, I'd dispute this as would many other Taylor 100- and 200-series players.

In the end, the proof is in the playing—if you play a 110 and like it, it's a great guitar. If not ... you put it back on the rack and play something else.

---

My point is that you can find quality solid wood guitars for the price of their laminates. Sure, Taylors and Martins will have solid construction, but some of them also sound like laminate guitars. That's not to say all of them are bad, but I have played a Taylor that made me question the owners sanity when he told me what he paid for it.

My whole point was to caution the OP against several people who have implied, intentionally or not, that Taylor only makes really good guitars. They certainly have higher quality control than some other brands, but that only goes so far.