Can you tell the difference between a $200 and a $200,000 guitar?

……the wood or wood used on any guitar does not effect the sound produced ? That is just a marketing play as noted by one persons opinion here ? That doesn’t seem right to me ……I tried to play drums for 17 years and the wood used in the drum shells did make a difference . I would that ant unnelectrified stringed instrument that the wood , would make a difference . If I am incorrect please let mr know and why …… 

Being a guitar player since my teens and opening for many Big rock bands, I can tell you that I can't play a $200 guitar.....the $2,000 plays much easier and has better wood that sounds much richer...$200 for a guitar is throwing your money away. If I can't play it , You certainly won't be able to and it will sit in the corner as a piece of furniture.

it is simple: anybody saying that wood choice make no difference between instruments  contradict  thousand of years  of history of craftmanship and reveal he had no clue about what is the "timbre" concept in acoustic and his role in music ..😊

There are tremendous differences in the tone of acoustic and classical guitars.  @Kijanki summed it up pretty well.

with fine, completely hand made classical guitars, the clarity, warmth and depth of tone are completely different from cheaper guitars.  If you strum a chord, you can hear each individual note.  It all blends together into an undifferentiated sound with lesser guitars.  
 

the materials used are important, but the skill of the luthier is the most important thing.  
 

flamenco and jazz guitars are designed to be less resonant. Players want the notes to fade out more quickly, so each note does not interfere with the one which preceded it.  With a classical, you’re often playing 2 or 3 voices at the same time, and need the greater sustain. 
 

better classicals are also louder and project into an audience more. Unfortunately it’s rare now to hear great players without amplification, which masks some of the tonal nuances.

A  Stratavarius violin can sell for millions. A ‘50s Fender Strat in pristine condition can sell for half a million. Surely, these both are priced for their rarity. But also surely both produce amazingly, uniquely wonderful tone.

I have been a professional singer/songwriter for over 50 years accompanying myself on steel string acoustic guitar. Having owned many guitars, I currently play 2. A 1937 Gibson LOO and a fabulous slope shoulder dreadnaught that was custom made for me by a brilliant local luthier. Here in Portland, OR we a fortunate to have several nationally recognized great luthiers. Mine, Kerry Char, being familiar with my music and style, took a full year to design and build a very special instrument just for me. It is not 80+ years old like my Gibson but uses very special and rare 100 year old Brazilian rosewood (the king of tone woods) back and sides and beautiful and rare Alpine spruce for the top. 

I think of my Char guitar as priceless. In the high end acoustic guitar market, it would be priced in the $40-50K range. Beauty of tone of guitars in this range is generally superb. You do get what you pay for. For serious players, the difference is profound and clear.
However, the Stratavarius of acoustic guitars are mid 1930s Martins. I have seen these go for up to a half million. The work of the luthiers and their processes at Martin at that time are unsurpassed. Of course, rarity and collectibility greatly dictate value. But like a great old violin, age has a magical effect on the woods.

The tone of these old Martins is magic. The less rare ones can be found for around the price of those high end new ones. My ‘37 Gibson, while not up to the build of the ‘30 Martins, also has a unique and lovely tone. But I mostly play my modern Char. Its tone is bell-like and beautiful. I did have an amazing 1945 Martin. Keeping it in the family, I gifted it to my talented granddaughter. It has much of the ‘30s Martin magic. She deserves it more than I. These beautiful instruments become personal and precious.