# 2015 Les Paul's leaked on Amazon



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

This is causing quite a stir over at MLP and AGF forums. I can't say I love the sig on the head stock. Ol' Les was probably pretty shaky when penning that one! Interesting nut though. From what I gathered in the threads (though I can't verify) the min-ETune is now standard equipment on all of 'em.
Discuss among y'selves...


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

There was a Les Paul Special DC with P90s that looked promising. Apparently *the link to the pix has now been removed*. I tried a few.


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Was it a true "leak" or an unofficial opinion poll - sort of a testing the waters thing?

So many companies have adopted the "leak" as a cheap test of the market (following the lead of our esteemed politicians).


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

bw66 said:


> Was it a true "leak" or an unofficial opinion poll - sort of a testing the waters thing?
> 
> So many companies have adopted the "leak" as a cheap test of the market (following the lead of our esteemed politicians).


Could be. If it is an unofficial poll the overall tone in the other forums is a giant thumbs down. I think the traditionalists have a major hate on for Henry J. I guess we'll see once the official unveiling happens.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I would have to get one in my hands to make an intelligent comment.


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

Robert1950 said:


> There was a Les Paul Special DC with P90s that looked promising. Apparently *the link to the pix has now been removed*. I tried a few.


They only have one vol and one tone pot and I thought the finish looked kinda sketchy!


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

Way to blingy for my taste - if you like it, crunch all you want ;-)


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

I'd like to see them bring back the SG Jr with a little more, just slightly more, bling than in 2013. Mostly around the neck, maybe just some binding would be nice and ditch the baked maple for rosewood on the fingerboard.


----------



## Toogy (Apr 16, 2009)

Hate the script on the headstock... would not want to buy one just for that! Call me a purist, but it just looks so bad!


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

The word "hideous" comes to mind.


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

Anyone else catch the supposed price hike? From $2999 MAP to $3879 MAP for a Standard. That's insane. 

http://reverb.com/blog/gibson-to-increase-prices-update-models-for-2015

Seems like Gibson is the Apple of the guitar world. Overpriced! I'll keep my older, less expensive Gibsons, thank you very much.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

dmc69 said:


> I'll keep my older, less expensive Gibsons, thank you very much.


Me too.
Well, one in my case--bought it used & modded, so it was rather inexpensive.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

dmc69 said:


> Anyone else catch the supposed price hike? From $2999 MAP to $3879 MAP for a Standard. That's insane.
> 
> http://reverb.com/blog/gibson-to-increase-prices-update-models-for-2015
> 
> Seems like Gibson is the Apple of the guitar world. Overpriced! I'll keep my older, less expensive Gibsons, thank you very much.


it's not news. you've been around here long enough to remember how those threads always go. they've raised prices on other stuff too. btw. check out how much explorers and vees are now. what we need is randy quaid from christmas vacation to get henry j and shake him up a little


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> it's not news. you've been around here long enough to remember how those threads always go. they've raised prices on other stuff too. btw.


Yeah I remember the other threads. I generally don't care about where prices were and I think I stayed out of those threads, but holy, is this price increase a shock. I understand adjusting for inflation, and small price increases etc... but I don't think a 29% price increase is going to attract a lot of business to their new model year. I made the overpriced comment because I was also watching the Apple thing today. Then I saw the prices of the phones, and just decided to say screw it. This just made it worse


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

A price increase along with those robot tuners on most of their models? I don't know what these guys are thinking. I tend to think their fan base are older guys -- who like the vintage models. And who can pay out the huge sums for these mediocre pieces of s**t. Why would they want the robot tuners on these anyways? 

You want a very reasonably priced guitar that can do the same thing? Chibson + upgrades. I've played them. Compared them to the real thing that are 20X the price. Don't listen to all the crap about these being unplayable. They are not. Double-blind test -- I'd say the Chibson is close to 90-95% -- sometimes just listening, you cannot tell. Workmanship and materials are still better in Memphis, but those guys sure know how to screw things up for a price that is just nuts.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

No disrespect to Les, but the scrawling on headstock is hideous.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

any info on that "metalic" nut ...?
Would that nut be available as a seperate item?

G.

PS ... I will demo my 1988 Epi Sheraton up against any new Gibson 335 anytime and I know I would choose the Epi.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Here's a patent app that Gibson submitted. Sure looks like what they have on there.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20140216230




GTmaker said:


> any info on that "metalic" nut ...?
> Would that nut be available as a seperate item?
> 
> G.
> ...


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

GTmaker said:


> any info on that "metalic" nut ...?
> Would that nut be available as a seperate item?
> 
> G.
> ...


Same here -- but with an Ibanez AS153. I compared it with a new USA-made ES-335 and I liked the Ibanez better. And for less than 1/3 the price of the Gibson!


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Chitmo said:


> They only have one vol and one tone pot and I thought the finish looked kinda sketchy!


I like the 1V/1T and I like the the way the mahogany grain showed through the finish and the neck had binding.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Consider the market they are trying to sell these products 'into'. Fancy finishes and auto-tune. I think its aimed at the 'more sizzle than steak' crowd. While I don't mind the fancy tops (some I like, some I don't), I don't see me every wanting auto-tune in any format. There is still the custom shop for the rest of us - although pricey they are.

On the other hand, for those that bee-aatch about how expensive Gibsons are................................don'tcha wish you woulda bought one last year, when they were cheap (by today's 'standards') by about a thousand bucks?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

lol @ "leaked"
"Oh noes! What if this highly sensitive information about green guitars fell into the wrong hands?? We could all be speaking Russian by this time next year!".


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Diablo said:


> lol @ "leaked"
> "Oh noes! What if this highly sensitive information about green guitars fell into the wrong hands?? We could all be speaking Russian by this time next year!".


Somehow "2015 Les Paul's temporarily posted to Amazon but subsequently removed for reasons unknown" seemed a bit "wordy" for the title However, I figured some people on a guitar forum would find it interesting. I didn't realize the term "leaked" was reserved for issues of national security. Glad you were amused.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Hamstrung said:


> Somehow "2015 Les Paul's temporarily posted to Amazon but subsequently removed for reasons unknown" seemed a bit "wordy" for the title However, I figured some people on a guitar forum would find it interesting. I didn't realize the term "leaked" was reserved for issues of national security. Glad you were amused.


Easy, pardner.
I wasn't making fun of you....just the whole drama of it.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

2 things i dont understand

1) why all the hate for robot tuners? i would argue they're one of the best innovations to our instrument than 95% of what has beeen introduced in the last 15-20 yrs. folks need to let go of the idea of the robot tuners emasculating you by making you feel as if you can't tune yourself. that's totally not the purpose of it. if it can be retrofitted to my studio pro w/o changing the holes in the headstock, i'll make a standing offer right now to pay market value for the newest incarnation of it from any one of you who wishes to sell me their unit. you can take my grovers as partial payment if you like. 


2) i don't get why folks can't comprehend the branding that is employed here, even after henry explained it as flat out as can be humanly possible. he found that raising prices increased his sales. wether anyone wants to admit it or not, it's established fact that people like exclusivity. they love boutiquey stuff. just like driving a fancy car or wearing lots of bling. it says "i'm doing better than the avg joe. i have enough stability to afford luxuries." nothing wrong or unusual. that's just people. 
so when you have a blingy item like an LP with a grade AAAA top on it, and you price it ridiculously high, more people will want to buy it. because it's exclusive. not just anyone can have one. just people of a certain quality...like me/you.
sure there are more of us seeing it for what it is and decide accordingly. but there are lots of people out there, who's means allow them to assign value differently than joe avg. and there are people who are actually taken in by the hype. but at the end of the day, the price is what it is. once it's been established, it's for the consumer to assign value to it according to their own standards. remember the rockatanski rule - speed costs money. how fast you wanna go?

also consider that the debate over their pricing puts their name and their products in front of alot eyes. as much as i don't like henry j, there's no denying the man knows his trade (business)
if the market ever changes and the time comes to drop the prices, you can be sure they will. but when they do it will be because it's good for gibson. not cause they had a sudden attack of righteousness. they are a business after all.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Well, not everybody likes the Boutique-y or "prestige" stuff.


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> 2 things i dont understand
> 
> 1) why all the hate for robot tuners? i would argue they're one of the best innovations to our instrument than 95% of what has beeen introduced in the last 15-20 yrs. folks need to let go of the idea of the robot tuners emasculating you by making you feel as if you can't tune yourself. that's totally not the purpose of it. if it can be retrofitted to my studio pro w/o changing the holes in the headstock, i'll make a standing offer right now to pay market value for the newest incarnation of it from any one of you who wishes to sell me their unit. you can take my grovers as partial payment if you like.


I agree with you here. I found those robot tuners to be quite cool. Tried it out in person at L&M and was very amused. No more having to crank the amp up to deafening levels to overpower the "shredders" just to tune. Strum, let it tune, and then play. 

May I also point out that volutes that strengthened the headstock to prevent headstock breaks were also looked down upon? I know the guitar industry is generally ass-backwards, but die hard Gibson people are adamant in keeping things in the stone ages. Just my observation. Good for people like me, who can score an LP Standard with circuitboard electronics, locking tuners, and neutrik jacks for a significant amount less.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> 2 things i dont understand
> 
> 1) why all the hate for robot tuners? i would argue they're one of the best innovations to our instrument than 95% of what has beeen introduced in the last 15-20 yrs. folks need to let go of the idea of the robot tuners emasculating you by making you feel as if you can't tune yourself. that's totally not the purpose of it. if it can be retrofitted to my studio pro w/o changing the holes in the headstock, i'll make a standing offer right now to pay market value for the newest incarnation of it from any one of you who wishes to sell me their unit. you can take my grovers as partial payment if you like.


I like the concept of robot tuners and have no issue with the technology. But they got to figure a way to make them less ugly. Most of the Gibson Robot guitars I've seen look like Hamer Slammers.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

I don't mind having the *option* to have robot tuners on the guitar, but to make them the default is what is strange. They add extra weight and it needs most likely an expensive rechargeable battery pack (I wonder how long it truly lasts). I am a bit surprised because the vintage crowd hates anything with a battery. Maybe Gibson is trying to branch out into the techy, millenial crowd. But they don't have $3k+ lying around for a guitar with cool moving tuners. :smile-new:

If you are like most guitar players and don't play in a multitude of tunings, I just don't see the need. Locking tuning machines are really good these days, and you shouldn't be that much out of tune to get the guitar in tune quickly using the old manual method ...


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Here's an article that describes Gibson's plan going forward...

http://reverb.com/blog/gibson-to-increas...n=rn091014

From the article...

Leading up to the release of its 2015 models, the Gibson Guitar Company has planned a series of changes to its guitar lineup including a general price increase across the board. Whereas MAP (manufacturer advertised price) for a 2014 Les Paul Standard with a normal flame top comes in at $2999, the 2015 equivalent will start at $3879, marking a roughly 29% increase.

In addition to the price increase, Gibson will drastically scale back the number of guitar models offered, including the discontinuation of a number finishes and top options on guitars like the Les Paul Standard. Gibson has also announced it will stop producing instruments with the less expensive Satin finish, meaning the end of such sub-$1000 models as the Les Paul Studio Faded.

Other changes include the expansion of the Min-ETune automated tuning system, which will be re-branded as "G-Force," as standard on almost all guitars. In celebration of the 100th birthday of Les Paul himself, all 2015 Les Paul models will feature a swirly "Les Paul 100" headstock logo marking a departure from the traditional Les Paul logo seen on the guitar for decades. As for actual specs, Gibson is updating the nut to a brass "Zero Fret Nut" and increasing the neck width on most models.

Gibson is, of course, no stranger to changing specs and price increases. This coming update, however, marks what is likely the most drastic change from Gibson USA in recent memory. Here at Reverb, we'll be keenly interested to see how this change impacts the used market. We very well may see an increase in prices on used SG and Les Paul Standards sooner rather than later, and we might also see a rush to swoop up remaining 2014 stock. For now, there are still tons of deals on Gibson guitars to be found throughout Reverb.

The following information was found on a Gibson page on Amazon.com which is no longer active:

"Gibson USA continues to raise the bar of Quality, Prestige and Innovation with the new line up of 2015 guitars. All Gibson USA guitars except for the Les Paul Supreme, Firebird and Derek Trucks SG will ship with the G-Force tuning system. Among many of the added features is the new Zero Fret Nut which is a patented applied for nut that has adjustable action capabilities. The new Tune-O-Matic Bridge features a hex wrench adjustment on thumbscrews for easy action adjustments. All guitars receive a professional set up with accurate intonation, and a new PLEK program with 27% lower fret wire. All models now have Pearloid Inlays and the fingerboard is a thicker one piece rosewood which is sanded and buffed with a new oil treatment for smoother and easier playability. To take it a step further Gibson USA has increased playing comfort by widened the neck and fingerboard by .050 per side. Sparing no expense, Gibson USA even changed the internal wires from 28 awg to 26 awg, along with a new and improved jack design and together they give you an improved uninterrupted signal. For 2015 Gibson will be producing gloss lacquer finishes and no more Satin or Vintage Gloss finishes. On top of all the upgrades Gibson USA did not stop there. They are now introducing a removable Les Paul pick guard with NO SCREWS NEEDED. In honor of Les Paul's 100th birthday all LP and SG guitars will carry the 100 logo on the headstock and a Les Paul Hologram on the back of the headstock for authenticity and tribute to the man himself. To wrap everything up, each 2015 Gibson USA guitar ships in a Gibson Hard Shell case."


----------



## Chitmo (Sep 2, 2013)

They're gonna go bankrupt, haha. What self respecting player would ever buy a guitar with "G-Force"? Man that's cheesy, Fack. I could complain about this garbage all day long! haha


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> 2 things i dont understand
> 
> 1) why all the hate for robot tuners? i would argue they're one of the best innovations to our instrument than 95% of what has beeen introduced in the last 15-20 yrs. folks need to let go of the idea of the robot tuners emasculating you by making you feel as if you can't tune yourself. that's totally not the purpose of it. if it can be retrofitted to my studio pro w/o changing the holes in the headstock, i'll make a standing offer right now to pay market value for the newest incarnation of it from any one of you who wishes to sell me their unit. you can take my grovers as partial payment if you like.


I guess I'm a ludite. As someone mentioned, the fact that I would get to 'pay extra' for them when I don't want them bugs me. And make no mistake, they are an up-charge on the guitar. Given the option, I wouldn't pay extra for an automatic transmission either. 

Much like auto-tune for vocalists in post-production, I would like to think it is unnecessary. To me, there are advantages to tuning manually - it's not like we don't have options for tuning in a noisy environment. This just strikes me as over-complication with little upside. A little too 'Rube Goldberg' for my tastes. 

Ten years from now, will some guitarist stop mid-show because he's out of tune - and he can't do anything about it because his battery's flat? Do you remember phone numbers anymore, now that they are all in your smartphone?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> I guess I'm a ludite. As someone mentioned, the fact that I would get to 'pay extra' for them when I don't want them bugs me. And make no mistake, they are an up-charge on the guitar. Given the option, I wouldn't pay extra for an automatic transmission either.
> 
> Much like auto-tune for vocalists in post-production, I would like to think it is unnecessary. To me, there are advantages to tuning manually - it's not like we don't have options for tuning in a noisy environment. This just strikes me as over-complication with little upside. A little too 'Rube Goldberg' for my tastes.
> 
> Ten years from now, will some guitarist stop mid-show because he's out of tune - and he can't do anything about it because his battery's flat? Do you remember phone numbers anymore, now that they are all in your smartphone?


Its not for everybody, that's for sure. but as you said, neither are automatic transmissions. but if Gibson can get say 10% of its customers to buy one, even if its in a stable of conventional LP's, its still a success.
I wonder if theres a stat for how many guitars the average guitarist owns?
I own about 10. If the right robot git came along, I could definitely find a home for one.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)




----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

Make no mistake about it. A lot of market research went into this guitar. It's geared to the 60 something baby boomer who has retired with a decent pension or with a bag of loot he accumulated through business dealings, real estate holdings or stock investments, and his house has been paid off years ago. He always wanted a Les Paul since he was plunking away on a department store Teisco in 1964. He may have put guitar playing on the shelf for 40 years, but " by god, I now have the time and I'm gonna get me the best!"

Maybe that alone justifies the shaky signature! If the buyer doesn't have one himself, he will in a few years.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

Krelf said:


> Make no mistake about it. A lot of market research went into this guitar. It's geared to the 60 something baby boomer who has retired with a decent pension or with a bag of loot he accumulated through business dealings, real estate holdings or stock investments, and his house has been paid off years ago. He always wanted a Les Paul since he was plunking away on a department store Teisco in 1964. He may have put guitar playing on the shelf for 40 years, but " by god, I now have the time and I'm gonna get me the best!"
> 
> Maybe that alone justifies the shaky signature! If the buyer doesn't have one himself, he will in a few years.


Totally agree with you here. But including the robot tuners is still a mystery. I don't think the baby boomer crowd would be the target audience for such a device. It has a battery that needs to be recharged!  Maybe it's the finance guys at work -- including it as default on this and other guitars will help recoup the R&D costs ...


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

ampjunkie said:


> Totally agree with you here. But including the robot tuners is still a mystery. I don't think the baby boomer crowd would be the target audience for such a device. It has a battery that needs to be recharged!  Maybe it's the finance guys at work -- including it as default on this and other guitars will help recoup the R&D costs ...


I don't think Gibson had anything to do with R&D. The Min E-tune system is made/developed by Tronical.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

dmc69 said:


> I don't think Gibson had anything to do with R&D. The Min E-tune system is made/developed by Tronical.


indirectly Gibson does support/direct it though.
A contract with Gibson would likely be the biggest thing to happen to that producer, and has even bigger implications to develop /saturate the market place by piggybacking on Gibsons marketing, brand, and distribution. 
I suspect the tail (Gibson) is really wagging the dog (Tronical).


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

Just looked up those tuners from Tronical. It's a German company based out of Hamburg. If you want to buy some tuners to retrofit your guitar, they have a bunch of templates and things to help you find the right one. Cost for international -- $299 + $30 shipping, or $329. USD. :sSc_eeksign: I will pass on that one. Better to spend it on better pickups -- or even a beater guitar to play on -- like a Chibson!


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Remember that a few years ago, Henry J introduced the revolutionary Firebird X - his attempt to drag the world of guitar playing Luddites into the 21st century, ensuring his place in history. It was like going into a community of old order Mennonites and trying to sell them a self driving electric car. Didn't exacting work. He still runs the company. Appears he is trying to do it, but more subtlety and over time.

Are Historics included? Given that these generate higher profit per unit, I wouldn't see why Henry would want to tamper with that line of products. But then again, it is Henry, isn't it.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Robert1950 said:


> Remember that a few years ago, Henry J introduced the revolutionary Firebird X - his attempt to drag the world of guitar playing Luddites into the 21st century, ensuring his place in history. It was like going into a community of old order Mennonites and trying to sell them a self driving electric car. Didn't exacting work. He still runs the company. Appears he is trying to do it, but more subtlety and over time.
> 
> Are Historics included? Given that these generate higher profit per unit, I wouldn't see why Henry would want to tamper with that line of products. But then again, it is Henry, isn't it.


HJ can't win. If he doesn't attempt innovation, ppl will say Gibson is stale and running on autopilot. But if you do, every now and then you're going to come up with a "New Coke" that will flop.
innovators occasionally fail.
i think it's a risk you have to take.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

Diablo said:


> HJ can't win. If he doesn't attempt innovation, ppl will say Gibson is stale and running on autopilot. But if you do, every now and then you're going to come up with a "New Coke" that will flop.
> innovators occasionally fail.
> i think it's a risk you have to take.


I think Gibson is stuck. The brand really represents an older, vintage philosophy. That is their strength. Look at how many different Les Paul models there are. And they probably make the most off of the reissues of their vintage historics -- 59, etc. They are cloning their own stuff!

Gibson has bought many companies and have tried to innovate. They bought Steinberger. That was an innovative company. The Steinberger GL guitars and TransTrem were revolutionary -- but way ahead of their time and never really took off. It didn't help that Gibson probably didn't know what to do with the company and drove it into the ground. Boomers still love their Strats, Les Pauls and no-battery pickups. Leave it to other companies to innovate in the 7/8 string guitars and metal world. 

In my opinion, innovation in the guitar world will happen at another brand. The Gibson brand is too strongly associated with the past. That is not to say that they can't make money doing what they're good at -- cranking out copies of their most successful past creations, and tailoring them to specific niches. I think it's just sad that they are resting on their laurels and relying on rich Boomers to buy their overpriced products.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

I think that's largely true. You could probably say the same of PRS as a company. They did their own spin on the guitar but then more or less stopped, from what I can see. Now it's about different flavours of finish, with varying degrees of bling. And they trade on a certain mystique, charging accordingly. These are companies whose appeal is largely limited to those who can afford to buy in.

But then again, very few guitar companies are innovating anymore. I think it's essentially a fairly conservative market, with little to no room for growth. And there's only so much room in the market for brands that are basically doing retreads of classic designs - namely, strats, teles, LPs, SGs. I think the kids today are making music with iPads and phones and it's more electronic than ever. Sure, there's still lots of 'em who are using old-school gear... but still, I do have to wonder how much longer the reign of the electric guitar will last.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Maxer said:


> I think....


well put, i agree, mostly. i think there are certainly other factors, but the above were worth mentioning. 


one other thing i think should be mentioned. this is something i have trouble getting my head around. 
a really nice guitar can be made very inexpensively these days, yet if you don't price it high, it won't sell. everyone will assume it's junk. alternately, i suspect that if you price a shit guitar high enough, lots of folks will buy it anyway.


----------



## ampjunkie (Jul 30, 2009)

High priced items like many Gibson Les Pauls clearly fall under what's known as a Veblen good. Check it out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

Basically its appeal is not the underlying product but its (usually) high price tag. Clearly Henry J knows a Veblen good when he sees one ...


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Not another green guitar! Please tell me they also come in red, black, burst and natural.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nope, only green, every guitar from this day on.
Green is to Gibson what black was to the Model T.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

When I think of the brand Gibson, I think of Les Pauls, 335's, 175's, J50/J200, SG's. 

When I think of the brand Fender, I think of Tele's, Strats, tweed's and blackface amps. 

Nothing in this list was invented inside of 50 years ago.

Could you imagine if the car business was like this - if a 'still-being-built' '57 chevy was outselling the new Impala or whatever? The guitar (music?) business is weird. No doubt about that!


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> When I think of the brand Gibson, I think of Les Pauls, 335's, 175's, J50/J200, SG's.
> 
> When I think of the brand Fender, I think of Tele's, Strats, tweed's and blackface amps.
> 
> ...


It would be kinda cool if the big car companies had the equivalent of the "custom shop" where you could order whatever make/model/year of car they ever produced with whatever options. Of course the price would be ridiculous but since I'm dreaming... it would be neat to see what people would gravitate towards in regard to style and options.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Hamstrung said:


> It would be kinda cool if the big car companies had the equivalent of the "custom shop" where you could order whatever make/model/year of car they ever produced with whatever options. Of course the price would be ridiculous but since I'm dreaming... it would be neat to see what people would gravitate towards in regard to style and options.


That woudld be cool.
currently all I can think of are the luxury manufacturers that allow for "bespoke" options in interiors.
or of course, hot rod shops like on Discovery channel.


----------

