# Gibson's Most Affordable Series Yet



## MarkThiel (May 6, 2016)

Gibson Announces Most Affordable USA Guitar in Lineup - hmmm, maybe for the kids just starting out?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Lets be honest, it's prob good enough for 90% of us.


----------



## MarkThiel (May 6, 2016)

Diablo said:


> Lets be honest, it's prob good enough for 90% of us.


Haha true, it's really what you do with it


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

From what I've seen, you can get a lot more guitar for the same money Gibson is asking. Those new Gibson guitars are pretty plain Jane, IMHO.


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Lets be honest, it's prob good enough for 90% of us.


Bingo. Hit the nail right on the head with that one.

I'm interested in the teal and the slim neck, because my Gibson's have the 50s rounded or melody maker profiles. I also just really like the funky pick guard design.

At $399, it'll be a great mod platform. I'll probably just wait until the less popular colours are being blown out for cheaper.


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> From what I've seen, you can get a lot more guitar for the same money Gibson is asking. Those new Gibson guitars are pretty plain Jane, IMHO.


Says the man with a sparkly Swart


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Nothing with P90s?


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

$399 USD, so by the time the conversion to CDN, plus HST, it will be about $600, plus or minus.

Does that really excite you?


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Tone Chaser said:


> $399 USD, so by the time the conversion to CDN, plus HST, it will be about $600, plus or minus.
> 
> Does that really excite you?


No HST out my way--so it may be a little cheaper...
(Just GST)


----------



## aC2rs (Jul 9, 2007)

I would certainly be interested in seeing the guitars in this line.
Maybe they represent good value.


----------



## jimmy c g (Jan 1, 2008)

if we wait a year people will sell them on kijiji for 850....


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Tone Chaser said:


> $399 USD, so by the time the conversion to CDN, plus HST, it will be about $600, plus or minus.
> 
> Does that really excite you?


Actually a lot more minus. $399.00 x 1.13=$450.87. If you wait for one of MF's 15% of deal and can pick it up across the border, it will be less than $400.00. Still overpriced in my opinion but if you really want something with Gibson on the headstock and don't care that it is still overpriced in comparison to the competition, go grab one.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> Actually a lot more minus. $399.00 x 1.13=$450.87. If you wait for one of MF's 15% of deal and can pick it up across the border, it will be less than $400.00. Still overpriced in my opinion but if you really want something with Gibson on the headstock and don't care that it is still overpriced in comparison to the competition, go grab one.



Actually no .
$400US = $530+ CAN and I think with these guitars at this price point trying a few before purchasing would be prudent.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Yeah, shame I can't get them through amazon.ca where all the gift cards are. Not being able to use GCs on either amazon website is ridiculous to me.


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

Steadfastly, do you get your US dollars for free?

My statement is just a basic extrapolation of what it may cost if and when it will be sold in Canada, at a store like L&M.

I look at the cost of everything required to make a "worthwhile" purchase. I often make mistakes, even when making a shrewd purchase that seems like a no brainer. I can easily take a $100 guitar purchase that would cost $800 plus new; add $400 worth of upgrades that were well purchased for less than half of that; do all the work and travel, make adjustments; and be lucky to get a "generous Kijiji offer" of $2-300 CDN, should I decided to sell. Hey, at least I had fun; I think?

If USD exchange is $1.32 or so plus the tack on to purchase, then it can be $1.37 or so. Crossing the border here involves tolls. Traveling an hour or more has a cost. All the might as well incidentals that cost USD, since I am visiting in the US kick in; and the bottom line is that everything costs so much more than your lowball $450 (CDN or USD, you did not specify). Your situation may be unique, as is mine. Others who live in Ottawa, Edmonton, the Yukon, Newfoundland, etc., are extremely unique.

Please give me a lesson in reality and economics, not forum talk and argument. I am not talking about a special sale when all the moons align; just straight forward easy purchase.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Bubb said:


> Actually no .
> $400US = $530+ CAN and I think with these guitars at this price point trying a few before purchasing would be prudent.


Correct. Thank you. I forgot the exchange in my equation. However, you only pay the tax on the US price and you can get the extra 15% off so the price in Canadian would be....$400 - 15%($60.00)=$340.00/.74 (exchange rate)=$460.00 Canadian plus a saving of approximately $30-40.00 on HST. That's why I have a hard time convincing myself to buy music gear in Canada.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Actually a lot more minus. $399.00 x 1.13=$450.87. If you wait for one of MF's 15% of deal and can pick it up across the border, it will be less than $400.00. Still overpriced in my opinion but if you really want something with Gibson on the headstock and don't care that it is still overpriced in comparison to the competition, go grab one.


A $400 Gibson is overpriced? One you've never played or even see in real life?

Reminds me of something a teacher once told one of my daft classmates...."son, were you born in a barnyard or a brewery?" which I presume is a Scottish expression.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> A $400 Gibson is overpriced? One you've never played or even see in real life?
> 
> Reminds me of something a teacher once told one of my daft classmates...."son, were you born in a barnyard or a brewery?" which I presume is a Scottish expression.


And you're saying it is................ and you have never played or seen one either?


----------



## Jayson (Jan 20, 2017)

I agree that with the change rate and actually getting these guitars across the border. If I wait until they're available in French Poutine Land, the mark up will place these guitars around the 550-600$ mark. 

As far as a modding platform goes, you can get a much more aesthetically pleasing guitar on an 
Ibby. Or even go for an Epi, even. put a few dollars more and you get a carved flame top.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> And you're saying it is................ and you have never played or seen one either?


Steadly, If they gave Gibson guitars away for free, I think you would find something to complain about. You obviously have a problem with the Gibson Brand. Yes or no?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Guitar101 said:


> Steadly, If they gave Gibson guitars away for free, I think you would find something to complain about. You obviously have a problem with the Gibson Brand. Yes or no?


I have been asked this by others. The answer is no. What I have a problem with is companies, whatever their name, marketing their products as better than their competition when they know they are not and charging a premium for it. I have worked for international companies that did just that. While not illegal, it is misleading and immoral. 

For those that know this but still want the brand name, whatever it may be, that is fine. However, not everyone has oodles of cash and when others support these erroneous claims and those who are new to musical equipment or have not gained this knowledge yet can get sucked into this kind of marketing. Because of this lack of knowledge they sometimes end up spending their hard earned cash for something they have been led to believe is better than what the competition sells, when it is not. If it was better, these big companies would print verifiable tests showing the comparisons between their products and the competition. They don't do this because that would expose their misleading marketing schemes. 

Gibson is likely the worst of them but Fender, PRS, Rickenbacker and others are guilty of the same thing. 

Don't take my word for it. Take some of these big name guitars and compare them to other similar products on the market. There are very similar lines that have similar and often better specs for the same price and often less.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> And you're saying it is................ and you have never played or seen one either?


based on what most guitars cost, yes.
$400 isn't a lot of buying power for new guitars.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> I have been asked this by others. The answer is no. What I have a problem with is companies, whatever their name, marketing their products as better than their competition when they know they are not and charging a premium for it. I have worked for international companies that did just that. While not illegal, it is misleading and immoral.
> 
> For those that know this but still want the brand name, whatever it may be, that is fine. However, not everyone has oodles of cash and when others support these erroneous claims and those who are new to musical equipment or have not gained this knowledge yet can get sucked into this kind of marketing. Because of this lack of knowledge they sometimes end up spending their hard earned cash for something they have been led to believe is better than what the competition sells, when it is not. If it was better, these big companies would print verifiable tests showing the comparisons between their products and the competition. They don't do this because that would expose their misleading marketing schemes.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I have to agree. The only time I'd pay for such things is if I was going to flip them for profit


----------



## Jayson (Jan 20, 2017)

I agree with Steadfastly on Gibson and Fender products. I have a Godin Icon (twin humbucker single cut) and outplayed prefer it over a LP standard, and I've outplayed a Strat that was worth more... on a split humbucker. I'm not saying that the other guitars weren't good, because they were. I'm just saying that I have a high quality hand-made guitar that can go toe to toe with any Gibson worth twice its price.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i dunno, but looking at their specs on the website, they seem like decent guitars. the custom studio special seems alot like the studio faded from years gone by, and about the same price adjusting for inflation. i don't know those pick ups, and the body wood is cheaper by far, so, not a _great_ deal, but a decent guitar just the same.


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

I just find it humorous that they were making fairly good, low cost SGJ, LPJ, Melody Makers, and the like. The MAP prices were up while first out, and prices dropped to clearance prices Those clearance prices were good enough for me to buy 5 Gibsons that were 2013, and 2014 models for a fraction of list, and the bonus of a CDN dollar at par. I still own two 2014 Studio Pro models and a 2013 SG 50's Tribute. The quality of the Studio Pro models was first rate, the Tribute was good for what I paid. Best Buy also gave me sets of strings and instrument cables to go with the negotiated price.

So they cleared out and publically said that Gibson was doing away with affordable guitars. A couple of years go by and they announce that the lowest priced Gibsons ever will be released.

I looked at some returned, 2015 Studio Faded Honey Burst LP models at the local Best Buy a few weeks ago. They looked and felt so cheap, that I didn't make an offer to pick them up to flip. The finish was poor on both, the set up was extremely poor on another. Asking price is over $1000 each. If I got the pair for that price, I really don't think that I could profit. Even if I got the pair for $600 plus tax, I feel that I would likely be stuck with them.

If the quality of the new models is as poor what I experienced with the low end 2015; who cares?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I have been asked this by others. The answer is no. What I have a problem with is companies, whatever their name, marketing their products as better than their competition when they know they are not and charging a premium for it. I have worked for international companies that did just that. While not illegal, it is misleading and immoral.
> 
> For those that know this but still want the brand name, whatever it may be, that is fine. However, not everyone has oodles of cash and when others support these erroneous claims and those who are new to musical equipment or have not gained this knowledge yet can get sucked into this kind of marketing. Because of this lack of knowledge they sometimes end up spending their hard earned cash for something they have been led to believe is better than what the competition sells, when it is not. If it was better, these big companies would print verifiable tests showing the comparisons between their products and the competition. They don't do this because that would expose their misleading marketing schemes.
> 
> ...


I don't get the point here although you've repeated yourself countless times on this forum. Why not just avoid Gibson instead of taking every opportunity possible to go online and start a thread or troll a thread or hope that the thread turns into hate on Gibson? I know you mentioned other manufacturers above but I don't buy it. The way I see it is you preach tolerance but you practice the opposite and you try to come off as the nice guy fighting against big business. I think you're just jealous of the nice guitars and of the people that own them. Let it go and you'll probably sleep better.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Jayson said:


> I agree with Steadfastly on Gibson and Fender products. I have a Godin Icon (twin humbucker single cut) and outplayed prefer it over a LP standard, and I've outplayed a Strat that was worth more... on a split humbucker. I'm not saying that the other guitars weren't good, because they were. I'm just saying that I have a high quality hand-made guitar that can go toe to toe with any Gibson worth twice its price.


 I remember when the ICON came out. I really liked it and still do but the neck is, unfortunately a little narrow for these big hands of mind. That is a very nice guitar you have there!



Scotty said:


> Yeah, I have to agree. The only time I'd pay for such things is if I was going to flip them for profit


And, I think, Scotty, that's where a lot of the negative comments come from. Some have made a few dollars flipping guitars over the years and when someone brings out the facts about products they have made or hope to make, it can hurt those sales and hurt them in the pocket book. I could be wrong but I have seen this happen a number of times in various circumstances.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> And, I think, Scotty, that's where a lot of the negative comments come from. Some have made a few dollars flipping guitars over the years and when someone brings out the facts about products they have made or hope to make, it can hurt those sales and hurt them in the pocket book. I could be wrong but I have seen this happen a number of times in various circumstances.


You have no idea what you're even talking about, just running your mouth.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> based on what most guitars cost, yes.
> $400 isn't a lot of buying power for new guitars.


I disagree. It is not a lot of buying power for Gibson, Fender, PRS, Ricks and some others.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> i dunno, but looking at their specs on the website, they seem like decent guitars. the custom studio special seems alot like the studio faded from years gone by, and about the same price adjusting for inflation. i don't know those pick ups, and the body wood is cheaper by far, so, not a _great_ deal, but *a decent guitar just the same*.


I don't think anyone would disagree with that. It is a decent guitar.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

I like the Firebird Model. 

I'd probably buy it. 

My sub 300.00 (new retail) Epiphone Wilshire is a great player. I take it to Jams all the time. It get noticed for being different, So far it's completely stock. 
If the Firebird Model is similar in construction, I'd probably get it. 

Although I'd have to really look at the neck joint. From What I'm reading online the joint is very flat causing really high action and difficult set-ups.

It'd be frustrating to buy a new product....any product not just guitars and have it difficult to use direct from the factory.


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

Meh...the Custom Studio looks like the Taylor solid-body model.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

vadsy said:


> I don't get the point here although you've repeated yourself countless times on this forum. Why not just avoid Gibson instead of taking every opportunity possible to go online and start a thread or troll a thread or hope that the thread turns into hate on Gibson? I know you mentioned other manufacturers above but I don't buy it. The way I see it is you preach tolerance but you practice the opposite and you try to come off as the nice guy fighting against big business. I think you're just jealous of the nice guitars and of the people that own them. Let it go and you'll probably sleep better.


Amen brutha!

I have religions come to my door and tell me they are better than all the others. Talk about false advertising - and how would one go about testing that, errrrr, 'fact'. Talk about marketing - Gibson is far from the worst transgressor. Maybe we should start calling out the bullshit religious brand-names by name. I can participate in that one! LOL

In fact, show me a company (one that doesn't sell goods only in Russia, North Korea and Cuba) that doesn't market their product and I'll show you a company that has gone under. That someone is just coming to this deep understanding of how the world works so late in their life kind of makes me laugh. Seriously!


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Jayson said:


> I agree that with the change rate and actually getting these guitars across the border. If I wait until they're available in French Poutine Land, the mark up will place these guitars around the 550-600$ mark.
> 
> As far as a modding platform goes, you can get a much more aesthetically pleasing guitar on an
> Ibby. Or even go for an Epi, even. put a few dollars more and you get a carved flame top.


No, for that price you get a photo of a carved flame top. But to some people that's close enough.


I remember a test I saw a utube a number of years ago. This guy tested 4 guitars, an Epi LP ($400), a Gibby Studio ($800), an LP Standard ($1600) and an LP from the Custom Shop ($3200). After exhaustive research testing every facet of the guitars, he came to a clear, concise conclusion.

He found the Studio was exactly twice as good as the Epi when he factored in all the details (most of which are ignored by others). It was exactly twice as good, not 1.998 times better, not 2.002 times better - EXACTLY TWICE AS GOOD. Then he found the same difference between the Studio and regular Standard: the Standard was EXACTLY twice as good as the Studio. Like, not 2.01 times better but exactly 2 X better. Then he really stunned everyone with his final analysis, where he found the CS was EXACTLY twice as good as the Standard. I was stunned but it was BY FAR the most exhaustive and complete comparison ever done on the internet on anything. EVER. His results were complete, thorough and could not be questioned or called into repute by anyone at the time.

I can't find the link right now but that really happened. You just have to believe me because no one here ever really wants to see the proof, they talk all of this at face value, right? Right? LOL


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

I'm still interested in these as mod platforms, but after doing some reading I'm amazed that Gibson didn't account for any tilt-back angle in their neck install.

I mean, that's set neck construction 101; something that Gibson basically wrote the book on in the world of electrics. Hell, I've seen basses with no tilt-back, but they all have bridges inlaid into the body to allow for the lower action needed.

Even on Fender instruments, you shim the neck in order to tip it in the pocket to allow for low action. Obviously that's not possible for these instruments, but boy did the engineers miss the mark on that design day...

And that's not just a little flaw. That's an inherent construction flaw, and it's a flaw that Gibson has known how to deal with for decades!

I love Gibson instruments and currently own three, but this is just ridiculous for them to overlook, even on a cheaper instrument.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

High/Deaf said:


> No, for that price you get a photo of a carved flame top. But to some people that's close enough.
> 
> 
> I remember a test I saw a utube a number of years ago. This guy tested 4 guitars, an Epi LP ($400), a Gibby Studio ($800), an LP Standard ($1600) and an LP from the Custom Shop ($3200). After exhaustive research testing every facet of the guitars, he came to a clear, concise conclusion.
> ...


 I call bullshit on that. I'd like to know just how he "calculated" exactly how many times better an instrument is from another. For example, a solid maple top vs photo flame on a maple cap has no value to the instrument in terms of sound. I don't care how good your ear is, I don't believe you can hear it. Not only that but it's esthetics only how do you put a value on esthetics? AAA top and nice binding it's not worth $1600 upgrade. It's the same principle that the automakers use. They soak you for the "good stuff" while making gobs and gobs of profit. Does not make the car twice as good as the basic one sitting next to it.
it's nothing but a marketing scam. 

and let's not forget, you've read somebody's opinion. It's not fact. just like the corporations and government today. They want us all to be sheep...get us all on the hook believing whatever bullshit they are selling. Don't want the public to use their own brains...can't make money on that


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Scotty said:


> I call bullshit on that. I'd like to know just how he "calculated" exactly how many times better an instrument is from another. For example, a solid maple top vs photo flame on a maple cap has no value to the instrument in terms of sound. I don't care how good your ear is, I don't believe you can hear it. Not only that but it's esthetics only how do you put a value on esthetics? AAA top and nice binding it's not worth $1600 upgrade. It's the same principle that the automakers use. They soak you for the "good stuff" while making gobs and gobs of profit. Does not make the car twice as good as the basic one sitting next to it.
> it's nothing but a marketing scam.
> 
> and let's not forget, you've read somebody's opinion. It's not fact. just like the corporations and government today. They want us all to be sheep...get us all on the hook believing whatever bullshit they are selling. Don't want the public to use their own brains...can't make money on that


What? You mean if I brought some proof, you'd more likely believe me? Funny, I've said the same thing to Steadly a number of times................


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

At this point, I kinda just wish Gibson would bring back the SGJ. That was a bang for the buck guitar. They weren't incredibly well received, but with a quick setup and a high gain amp, you could get some very tasty saturation.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

High/Deaf said:


> What? You mean if I brought some proof, you'd more likely believe me? Funny, I've said the same thing to Steadly a number of times................


 No I wouldn't believe it. I know what AAA maple costs I know the processes that go into it. You can't pull the wool over my eyes. Pun intended 

People can justify the extra expense to make themselves feel better all they want to. Just don't tell me that the value or worth is there, because it does not add up.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Ronbeast said:


> At this point, I kinda just wish Gibson would bring back the SGJ. That was a bang for the buck guitar. They weren't incredibly well received, but with a quick setup and a high gain amp, you could get some very tasty saturation.


On another forum they have a great thread going asking what would YOU do if you took over Gibson or Fender and ran the company. I would second bringing back the SGJ in its P90 glory.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Nice calculations there Steadly, which decade are you in?


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Scotty said:


> No I wouldn't believe it. I know what AAA maple costs I know the processes that go into it. You can't pull the wool over my eyes. Pun intended
> 
> People can justify the extra expense to make themselves feel better all they want to. Just don't tell me that the value or worth is there, because it does not add up.


I will briefly take my tongue out of my cheek.

You are right, I (or anyone else) can no more prove a guitar is twice as good ("exactly twice"?) than Steadly can prove they are half as good, or 1/10th as good, or exactly the same. Way too many variables involved. Primarly 'us', who all have different tastes and levels and want different things.

"Just don't tell me that the value or worth is there, because it does not add up." ........to you. Some people drink no-name beer, because, to them, the big marketer's product isn't worth the upcharge. Some people wear no-name jeans because the Levi's aren't worth it. Some people wear a Casio or cheaper because it keeps as good a time as a Rolex. What you want or I want are different. How you and I judge things is different. What's not worth it to one person is easily justifiable to the next. Vive le difference.

Enjoy your Rolex. Enjoy your Sleeman's. Enjoy your Levi's. I'll enjoy my Gibsons, thank you very much.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> I disagree. It is not a lot of buying power for Gibson, Fender, PRS, Ricks and some others.


Instead of just trolling, why don't you actually make a case for your argument sometimes?
What exactly is this $400 guitar lacking that others in the same price range have, that makes you consider it "overpriced"?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Bring back the Corvus!


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

mhammer said:


> Bring back the Corvus!



I actually wouldn't mind that. 
Chorvus III for me though


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

What about the Sonex?

Gibson Sonex - Wikipedia


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2017)

mhammer said:


> Bring back the Corvus!


And the Moderne.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Someone just listed a Gibson Victory on a FB sale forum - it looks like a Gibson Fireman (paul gilbert sig). I dig it.

Am I the only one that though that HD's "proof" post was entirely sarcastic and made up...?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Instead of just trolling, why don't you actually make a case for your argument sometimes?
> What exactly is this $400 guitar lacking that others in the same price range have, that makes you consider it "overpriced"?


Do I need to do all the work for you? It's not rocket science, Diablo.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Do I need to do all the work for you? It's not rocket science, Diablo.


You didn't answer the question though...


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Do I need to do all the work for you? It's not rocket science, Diablo.


I think the problem is you don't do any of the work. I certainly haven't seen you do any.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

there are things their guitar doesn't have, that you can get from others in that range. for example, a solid mahogany body, maple cap with a flamed or quilted veneer, and burst paint. not knockin anything, just stating a fact


----------



## Kenmac (Jan 24, 2007)

mhammer said:


> What about the Sonex?
> 
> Gibson Sonex - Wikipedia


Back in the late 70's/early 80's my main guitar was a Gibson Sonex 180 Deluxe.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> Enjoy your Rolex. Enjoy your Sleeman's. Enjoy your Levi's. I'll enjoy my Gibsons, thank you very much.


I bought a new pair of Levi's today. Love 'em but, ...why do the 511 slim all fit different depending on the color of the denim?
If it's the same 'model' and designation shouldn't they all be sized the same? Frustrating.


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> there are things their guitar doesn't have, that you can get from others in that range. for example, a solid mahogany body, maple cap with a flamed or quilted veneer, and burst paint. not knockin anything, just stating a fact


There aren't many guitars in the $400 range with nitro finishes; I can honestly only think of Gibson's having nitro finishes in that price range.

Gibson has a niche in the relicing/honest wear market. These guitars are for people who can't afford higher end instruments, but still want a guitar that is personal to them after 20 or more years of wear. These guitars are for kids (and kids at heart) who just want a beat to hell Les Paul like their heroes.

I can't think of any cheaper nitro finishes on the market; and poly relicing is less than inspiring.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

vadsy said:


> I bought a new pair of Levi's today. Love 'em but, ...why do the 511 slim all fit different depending on the color of the denim?
> If it's the same 'model' and designation shouldn't they all be sized the same? Frustrating.


There ya g0, bragging about your high-end purchases again. You must be rich, filthy rich. 

I can't really afford Levi's so I bought an offshore version - used drapes at Value Village. I understand I will have to do some mods to get them up to work correctly and I don't expect to get my money back out of them, but they're just as good as your fancy-shmancy 511 pantsy-pants any day of the week.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> There ya g0, bragging about your high-end purchases again. You must be rich, filthy rich.
> 
> I can't really afford Levi's so I bought an offshore version - used drapes at Value Village. I understand I will have to do some mods to get them up to work correctly and I don't expect to get my money back out of them, but they're just as good as your fancy-shmancy 511 pantsy-pants any day of the week.


It's just Marks Work Warehouse, nothing fancy and clearly the QC is terrible since they don't all fit the same. Levi's is basically the Gibson of pants. 

Nicely done on post #35. At that point I was reading the thread backwards and came across Budda's post first, I'm glad that I did or I would have been confused as heck with yours.


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

Not to further derail the thread, but the best bang for the buck jeans are "urban star" brand from Costco. They're like $15 and they expand as I expand


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Ronbeast said:


> Not to further derail the thread, but the best bang for the buck jeans are "urban star" brand from Costco. They're like $15 and they expand as I expand


This thread was doomed from the start,.. 

Regarding Urban Star, at the beginning they were great but at some point they switched manufacturers and kept the brand name. I bought these for work and the first round fit great but after a second go they didn't work for me.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> there are things their guitar doesn't have, that you can get from others in that range. for example, a solid mahogany body,* maple cap with a flamed or quilted veneer,* and burst paint. not knocking anything, just stating a fact


wear. These guitars are for kids (and kids at heart) who just want a beat to hell Les Paul like their heroes.



Ronbeast said:


> *There aren't many guitars in the $400 range with nitro finishes; I can honestly only think of Gibson's having nitro finishes in that price range.*


I think I would take the maple cap over nitro. I also doubt whether many kids care if the finish is nitro or poly.


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> I also doubt whether many kids care if the finish is nitro or poly.


Go on any guitar forum and search threads for relicing, you'd be surprised just how many disappointed kids there are; there's a reason that fender charges extra for nitro finished instruments.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Do I need to do all the work for you? It's not rocket science, Diablo.












your non answer is a great answer, actually.
it tells me all I need to know, which is, you have some bizarre hard on against Gibson and Fender as though henry J diddled you as a little boy.
heres the thing...when you were just knocking them for being expensive ie $4k + guitars, there might have been some merit to to it. So, then they come out with something very affordable, and youre still bitching about it. when you get nailed down to explain it, you give the response one would expect from a smug but stupid 13yr old. the kind of stupid 13 yr old that cant tell the difference between an Ibanez and a cheap copy of a PRS. PR Guitars









Id ask you to show us some pics of all the Gibsons you've owned that has lead you to this strange behavior, but....why bother.
lesson learned, i'll see you coming from a long way away next time.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Ronbeast said:


> Go on any guitar forum and search threads for relicing, you'd be surprised just how many disappointed kids there are; there's a reason that fender charges extra for nitro finished instruments.


Perhaps. From what I know, Nitro is also more difficult to apply to get it right so that would also add to the cost.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

well, bringing down the over all cost means compromises somewhere. the trick is finding a balance you can live with, or at least one that will work for you. everything i buy no matter what it is, is a compromise. robin leach don't hang out at my house, and probably none of you guys either. but even if someone was a secretly rich guy, he makes those same compromises only on a different scale.


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> Perhaps. From what I know, Nitro is also more difficult to apply to get it right so that would also add to the cost.


Nitro is arguably easier to apply than Polyurethane; each coat of Nitro melts into the previously applied coat. The reason Nitro isn't used more is because of chemicals that are banned in certain places and a longer curing time. Polyurethane is cheap and fast, but takes more finesse to apply. That's why Gibson gets away with their thinner "Hand rubbed" finishes. They apply one thick coat without any grain filler and then they send it off to cure. The finishes look like crap up close, but a hand rubbed nitro finish on a maple neck is an amazing experience.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Ronbeast said:


> Nitro is arguably easier to apply than Polyurethane; each coat of Nitro melts into the previously applied coat. The reason Nitro isn't used more is because of chemicals that are banned in certain places and a longer curing time. Polyurethane is cheap and fast, but takes more finesse to apply. That's why Gibson gets away with their thinner "Hand rubbed" finishes. They apply one thick coat without any grain filler and then they send it off to cure. The finishes look like crap up close, but a hand rubbed nitro finish on a maple neck is an amazing experience.


I'm wondering, wouldn't the hand rubbed finish make it more expensive in the long run and maybe not more "difficult" but it sounds more tedious than poly?


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> I'm wondering, wouldn't the hand rubbed finish make it more expensive in the long run and maybe not more "difficult" but it sounds more tedious than poly?


They don't do grain filling on their low end guitars, that's a time saver there. They do a single coat of Nitro, so that saves time and material. There is no finish sanding or surface prep for successive coats, so that saves money there. The finishes aren't meant to be pretty, and that gets a lot of people up in arms, but the guitars play and sound fine. The finishes on the SGJ for example are so thin that they don't even really follow the unwritten rules of nitro; my SGJ was in -40'c weather for about 3 hours, and then brought in the house without acclimating and it didn't do anything to the finish.

With Poly, everything shows up in your finish. Plus, it takes a lot more coats to finish the guitar. Then add in the fact that uneven grain filling will stick out like a sore thumb on a poly finished guitar and you've just added a bunch of steps to your prep work and finishing work. I seriously hate working with poly. I would rather do a simple oil finish on a guitar than to have to do a poly finish anymore.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Ronbeast said:


> They don't do grain filling on their low end guitars, that's a time saver there. They do a single coat of Nitro, so that saves time and material. There is no finish sanding or surface prep for successive coats, so that saves money there. The finishes aren't meant to be pretty, and that gets a lot of people up in arms, but the guitars play and sound fine. The finishes on the SGJ for example are so thin that they don't even really follow the unwritten rules of nitro; my SGJ was in -40'c weather for about 3 hours, and then brought in the house without acclimating and it didn't do anything to the finish.
> 
> With Poly, everything shows up in your finish. Plus, it takes a lot more coats to finish the guitar. Then add in the fact that uneven grain filling will stick out like a sore thumb on a poly finished guitar and you've just added a bunch of steps to your prep work and finishing work. I seriously hate working with poly. I would rather do a simple oil finish on a guitar than to have to do a poly finish anymore.


Thanks for that, Ron. 

I understand why you don't like poly and many agree with you. I just like the looks of ply and couldn't stand having the finish on my guitar checker on me. It doesn't always happen with nitro but often enough that I wouldn't chance it.


----------



## Ronbeast (Nov 11, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> Thanks for that, Ron.
> 
> I understand why you don't like poly and many agree with you. I just like the looks of ply and couldn't stand having the finish on my guitar checker on me. It doesn't always happen with nitro but often enough that I wouldn't chance it.


No worries. I myself am not completely against poly. Most of my instruments have poly finishes, since that's the norm these days; I just hate working with the stuff as a hobbyist. I've literally burned guitar bodies after grain filling, priming, block sanding, doing 5 colour coats, wet sanding, doing 5 clear coats and then on the last coat you get a humongous run that will completely undo 90% of your prep work. It's very tedious stuff.

Can't knock anyone for preferring poly. The finishes are built to last and to look mirror flat after years of use. There's a reason why not many manufacturers use nitro anymore, and it's the same reason that brands like Gibson and Fender have been able to monopolize on their nitro guitars.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Ronbeast said:


> Not to further derail the thread, but the best bang for the buck jeans are "urban star" brand from Costco. They're like $15 and they expand as I expand


I also fall into the "Wardrobe by Costco, body by Molson" category. SansaBelt FTW


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> I have religions come to my door and tell me they are better than all the others. Talk about false advertising - and how would one go about testing that, errrrr, 'fact'. Talk about marketing - Gibson is far from the worst transgressor. Maybe we should start calling out the bullshit religious brand-names by name. I can participate in that one! LOL
> QUOTE]"If you don't eat this, don't stick your pee-pee here, hate the right people & do everything else that the man in the funny hat - - but only this one particular type of funny hat - - tells you to do, then you'll get a free pass to an eternity of bliss in Imagination Land.
> 
> BUT....if you do ANYTHING, anything at all that the man in the funny hat forbids you'll be punished/killed/burn/come back as a turd etc."
> ...


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

I deleted Tapatalk from my phone & haven't been on here in a while. Good to know that I didn't miss a thing, still the same old $hit.

All companies engineer products to a price point in order to appeal to a vast range of buyers & corners are cut on the less costly products. Anyone amember those OEM tires that blew out on a bunch of SUVs & caused a bunch of rollovers a few years ago? Although they said Firestone on the side, they were not made to the same level of quality of "normal" Firestone tires in order to meet the price point that Ford specified.

Even back in the golden age, Gibson & Fender still made a broad range of guitars & amps that appealed to consumers with various budgets. Although Melody Makers, Juniors & Champs have some popularity now thanks to punk rockers, Leslie West & Layla, back in the day those were all student instruments. I'm pretty sure that most people lusted after Les Pauls, ES-335s, Strats, Twins & Supers. But $395 for a LP Custom (just the guitar - the case was an extra $47.50) when you make $50/week was a lot of coin. Even that extra $10-20 for a neck pickup in an Esquire could buy a lot of groceries.

FWIW here's a partial Gibson price list from 1959:
Price of a new Les Paul in 1959?

My point is, big effin' deal, there's nothing new under the sun. At least the student models back then still used good wood, were made in the same factory as the fancy guitars & finished by hand. Well, until CBS & Norlin entered the picture. But that's a whole 'nother thread derail.....


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Roryfan said:


> I deleted Tapatalk from my phone & haven't been on here in a while. Good to know that I didn't miss a thing, still the same old $hit.


well, you should come back, because you've contributed good content here many times.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Side note -

I had some of those tires on my Explorer.
The Firestone Decatur plant went on strike and the management and whatever hooker they could get off the street were building tires.
That batch made it to Ford and the rest is history.

Skilled labor isn't cheap and cheap labor isn't skilled.


----------

