# Why are Gibson USA Guitars so expensive?



## Wileyone (Jul 23, 2011)

Is it the quality? The Tone? Or is it all just a myth?


----------



## Cups (Jan 5, 2010)

All of the above, plus we'll pay what they ask.


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

Are they? The name is a part of it, but go find something comparable to a standard-line Gibson for less money. They're really not that expensive when you think about it until you get into the custom shop stuff. Just my opinion.

my Monty Bluesmaster cost 3 times what I paid for my used les Paul standard - it blows the Gibson away, but it bloody well better.


----------



## Wileyone (Jul 23, 2011)

Cups said:


> All of the above, plus we'll pay what they ask.


You sound like a clone for Gibson.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

and it's always been that way, long as I can remember anyway. Even in the mid 70's a new LP had a price tag about 3 times that of a new Strat. 
They are built with more expensive wood, the set neck is more labour intensive, the buckers cost more to build.......but you pay for that name. It's like driving a Cadillac instead of a loaded Chevy


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

It's mostly the name and the marketing you are paying for when comparing them to guitars of similar quality except for PRS which are just as bad when it comes to pricing.

Lately, Gibson has been offering some LP's at a more reasonable price but they are pretty much a stripped down model and are still a bit overpriced for what you get in comparison to the competition but again, you have to pay a bit extra for the name and the marketing. It costs Gibson a ton of money for all the advertising they do. Most of their competition spends a miniscule amount in adertising and marketing in comparison to Gibson. Someone has to pay for that.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Problem is, have you taken a _close_ look at the full range of regular production "Gibson, Made in U.S.A." guitars lately? Remember, that includes everything from the Melody Maker line, through the LPJ, Special, and Tribute models, and up to the Standard series. Without intending any disrespect to owners of some of the "lower end" models, Gibson has been putting out some stuff recently that doesn't even come close to matching one's expectations of what a Gibson should (or used to) be. I know they've had periods where QC was rightfully called into question, but it seems they're putting out more & more stuff lately that merely carries the name...but none of the legacy.


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

I just bought 3 older Gibsons for under a grand each, a 1977 RD, 1978 RD, and a 1980 Firebrand 335 S. They sound better and play better than my 2013 LP Custom, 2013 Firebird, and my beloved 2003 standard goldtop. Maybe it's just me, but I'm shopping vintage from now on.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

Have you checked out Fender pricing lately??


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

They are certainly pricey. Maybe they'll start making them over seas, so people can afford them.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

adcandour said:


> They are certainly pricey. Maybe they'll start making them over seas, so people can afford them.


They already do. It's called Epiphone!


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

adcandour said:


> They are certainly pricey. Maybe they'll start making them over seas, so people can afford them.


The Standard line & above is definitely pricey but there's a host of entry level models now that most folks could afford. My earlier point though was that many of those models strike me as being "a Gibson" in name only, lacking that "quality" feel that many earlier ones seem to have. For the most part, you're charged big bucks by Gibson these days for the details (e.g. binding, inlaid logo, gloss finish, etc.) but I'm not always sure you're getting your money's worth. 

Pick up an Orville for instance - any Orville, not just ObG but one from their standard line - and the quality and attention to detail is _immediately_ apparent. You can actually _feel it _when you pick up one of those instruments so, unlike modern Gibsons, you don't have to "find a good one". I honestly don't think there's a dud in the bunch amongst the Orville guitars and yet people happily pay 2-3X more for the Gibson USA "equivalent".


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

b-nads said:


> ...go find something comparable to a standard-line Gibson for less money.


See post above. A person can pick up an Orville by Gibson for 1/2 the cost of Gibson's equivalent model...


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Wileyone said:


> Is it the quality? The Tone? Or is it all just a myth?





Cups said:


> All of the above, plus we'll pay what they ask.



actually, that's not it at all.* it's branding. there is no more to it than that.* i know there are lots of guys who own gibson guitars, and would love to think the price they paid buys them anything more than just branding. however that is simply not the case, no matter how may people with gobs of money wish it were not so. 

you see, there is a guy named henry juszkiewicz. he is ceo of gibson. he said it himself, right on television for the entire world to see. and yet here we are still, among the many who are unable to face the truth. 
he said (paraphrasing)
"we found that when we raised the prices, sales increased. so we increased prices until sales began to drop off, and we stopped there" _that's it. that's really all there is to it_. it's not pricey wood, or craftsmanship, or union wages, or distribution, or any of other other justifications strewn about the web every day. it's just branding. henry realized that most of us believe the old myth of "you get what you pay for". and the other myth that brand labels identify you as a better person/player than the next guy. if you think i'm wrong, spend 5 minutes counting all the gear ads that use adjectives which are truly useless for quantifying anything tangible about said equipment. the gear market runs on a mix of 90% hype, 10% real. when even one person can step up and show scientifically that a gibson guitar is better than *all* other less expensive ones, then this post will be proved wrong. until then it's hype and nothing more.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Smaller builders usually sell their US made guitars at a price that just recovers cost. I have some build sheets for Washburn US Custom Shop guitars and thats what it cost them to build. They make all their money in their import lines. While some may say the US made ones are expensive, you actually pay for what you get and its the imports that have the huge markups. Gibson and Fender have simply tweaked this pricing model so that they make profit on all of their lines not just imports. They use the Custom shop mostly as a profit center to do this. I am sure some of their low end US models are sold at cost recovery, but most of the models have to turn a profit. When you are in debt as much as those guys, you have to plan to get out of it. If the smaller builders did that they would simply be forced to stop US production because people dont want to buy those guitars in large numbers at a high price......


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

I remember buying my first Les Paul, a Studio model and thought to myself that I might be crazy buying this for the same price as I paid for my American Standard Fender Strat and Telecaster. The thing is though I've always wanted one so if I wanted one I had to pay. After a couple months I really enjoyed noodling around on my Studio and thought to hell with it and bought a Les Paul Traditional as well. For me it was the hype, nothing more. I wouldn't say a Gibson is a better guitar over a Fender, Gretsch, PRS etc but they do come with a lot of hype. That hype sells a lot of guitars for Gibson.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

Wileyone said:


> [h=2]Why are Gibson USA Guitars so expensive?[/h]


So trolls will have something to talk about.

:sFun_dancing:


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

branding, myth (mojo), prestige.

Although I think Gibson does have some USA models that are a reasonable value. Studios, tributes, the fadeds etc.


----------



## DrHook (Oct 28, 2013)

Diablo said:


> branding, myth (mojo), prestige.
> 
> Although I think Gibson does have some USA models that are a reasonable value. Studios, tributes, the fadeds etc.


Agreed, I think the traditional faded was an excellent guitar for the money, and I love my 50's tribute with P90s, the studios to me become worth it when they hit the used market.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

The prices are apparently getting a boost come March 1st.


----------



## waynev (Jan 18, 2014)

EXACTLY - My thoughts are that even the most very expensive guitars from the guitar mass production factories prolly cost at a maximum $500 to build, including parts, materials and labor, what builds up the to selling price from there is the layering on of marketing hype costs, profit etc.

I'm not sure about the cost/price model of boutique guitars built by hand builders though.




cheezyridr said:


> actually, that's not it at all.* it's branding. there is no more to it than that.* i know there are lots of guys who own gibson guitars, and would love to think the price they paid buys them anything more than just branding. however that is simply not the case, no matter how may people with gobs of money wish it were not so.
> 
> you see, there is a guy named henry juszkiewicz. he is ceo of gibson. he said it himself, right on television for the entire world to see. and yet here we are still, among the many who are unable to face the truth.
> he said (paraphrasing)
> "we found that when we raised the prices, sales increased. so we increased prices until sales began to drop off, and we stopped there" _that's it. that's really all there is to it_. it's not pricey wood, or craftsmanship, or union wages, or distribution, or any of other other justifications strewn about the web every day. it's just branding. henry realized that most of us believe the old myth of "you get what you pay for". and the other myth that brand labels identify you as a better person/player than the next guy. if you think i'm wrong, spend 5 minutes counting all the gear ads that use adjectives which are truly useless for quantifying anything tangible about said equipment. the gear market runs on a mix of 90% hype, 10% real. when even one person can step up and show scientifically that a gibson guitar is better than *all* other less expensive ones, then this post will be proved wrong. until then it's hype and nothing more.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

sulphur said:


> The prices are apparently getting a boost come March 1st.


I wonder if that's to cover the increase in exchange rate (increased buying power of USD, decreased buying power of CAD), or over and above it?


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

You think? You can buy USA built Gibson faded new for around $450 bucks but it is like playing a 2x4 piece of lumber.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

deadear said:


> You think? You can buy USA built Gibson faded new for around $450 bucks but it is like playing a 2x4 piece of lumber.


That has not been mY experience at all.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Diablo said:


> That has not been mY experience at all.


You like those new cheap gibsons? I've tried a couple, I'll take the epi for the same price.


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

StevieMac said:


> See post above. A person can pick up an Orville by Gibson for 1/2 the cost of Gibson's equivalent model...


I agree - Tokai as well. I should have been clearer...I meant comparing Gibson to custom builds.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Orville, Orville by Gibson, Tokai, Burny, Edwards, the list goes on...


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> you see, there is a guy named henry juszkiewicz. he is ceo of gibson. he said it himself, right on television for the entire world to see. and yet here we are still, among the many who are unable to face the truth.
> he said (paraphrasing)
> "we found that when we raised the prices, sales increased. so we increased prices until sales began to drop off, and we stopped there" _that's it. that's really all there is to it_. it's not pricey wood, or craftsmanship, or union wages, or distribution, or any of other other justifications strewn about the web every day. it's just branding. henry realized that most of us believe the old myth of "you get what you pay for". and the other myth that brand labels identify you as a better person/player than the next guy. if you think i'm wrong, spend 5 minutes counting all the gear ads that use adjectives which are truly useless for quantifying anything tangible about said equipment. the gear market runs on a mix of 90% hype, 10% real. when even one person can step up and show scientifically that a gibson guitar is better than *all* other less expensive ones, then this post will be proved wrong. until then it's hype and nothing more.


The thing that debunks your theory is that Gibsons were expensive before Henry J.

Gibsons, simply put, are the Harley Davidson of the guitar world. People will always pay.


For the thread starter...if you think Gibsons are expensive, go to ESP website and fill out a form for your build. Check the price at the end...and fasten your seatbelt before you do.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> The thing that debunks your theory is that Gibsons were expensive before Henry J.
> 
> Gibsons, simply put, are the Harley Davidson of the guitar world. People will always pay.
> 
> ...


Agree with all of your post.

windering why everyone a always singles out gibson for these discussions, and not sure why others like Fender get off so unscathed? They have plenty of over priced abused looking case queens as well.

- - - Updated - - -



Budda said:


> You like those new cheap gibsons? I've tried a couple, I'll take the epi for the same price.


Sure, some of them.
and that's not knocking * some * epi phones. There's a market for both.

btw, didn't you just get a blingy PRS? Not exactly the best bang for your buck either, really, if value is the main point.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> you see, there is a guy named henry juszkiewicz. he is ceo of gibson. he said it himself, right on television for the entire world to see. and yet here we are still, among the many who are unable to face the truth.
> he said (paraphrasing)
> "we found that when we raised the prices, sales increased. so we increased prices until sales began to drop off, and we stopped there" _that's it. that's really all there is to it_. it's not pricey wood, or craftsmanship, or union wages, or distribution, or any of other other justifications strewn about the web every day. it's just branding. henry realized that most of us believe the old myth of "you get what you pay for". and the other myth that brand labels identify you as a better person/player than the next guy. if you think i'm wrong, spend 5 minutes counting all the gear ads that use adjectives which are truly useless for quantifying anything tangible about said equipment. the gear market runs on a mix of 90% hype, 10% real. when even one person can step up and show scientifically that a gibson guitar is better than *all* other less expensive ones, then this post will be proved wrong. until then it's hype and nothing more.





smorgdonkey said:


> The thing that debunks your theory is that Gibsons were expensive before Henry J.


Gibsons were expensive before Henry--but after him they became more expensive.

Other companies have done the same thing--it's a prestige thing--the company isn't selling a product as much as it's selling prestige.

(Incidentally, my Gibson was bought used, and was also modded before I got it, so the price came down quite a bit, and then the store reduced that price as well.
I paid less for my Les Paul than either my Iceman (Which was also used) or Mustang (old unsold stock-but not previously owned)
Although I did pay a little more in a sense as I did some mods as well.)


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> actually, that's not it at all._* it's branding. there is no more to it than that.* _ i know there are lots of guys who own gibson guitars, and would love to think the price they paid buys them anything more than just branding. however that is simply not the case, no matter how may people with gobs of money wish it were not so.
> 
> you see, there is a guy named henry juszkiewicz. he is ceo of gibson. he said it himself, right on television for the entire world to see. and yet here we are still, among the many who are unable to face the truth.
> he said (paraphrasing)
> "we found that when we raised the prices, sales increased. so we increased prices until sales began to drop off, and we stopped there" _that's it. that's really all there is to it_. it's not pricey wood, or craftsmanship, or union wages, or distribution, or any of other other justifications strewn about the web every day. it's just branding. henry realized that most of us believe the old myth of "you get what you pay for". and the other myth that brand labels identify you as a better person/player than the next guy. if you think i'm wrong, spend 5 minutes counting all the gear ads that use adjectives which are truly useless for quantifying anything tangible about said equipment. the gear market runs on a mix of 90% hype, 10% real. when even one person can step up and show scientifically that a gibson guitar is better than *all* other less expensive ones, then this post will be proved wrong. until then it's hype and nothing more.


There you go again..............using reason and facts!:sSig_goodjob2:


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Because someone has to pay for the Gibson tattoo on the posterior of those "ne'er say die Gibson lovers".


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i don't want to give the impression that i think they're guitars suck. i really dig most gibson models. and i have never played one that didn't play well and sound good. and it's totally true that fender is in many ways, waaaayyyyy worse, but somehow get called on it way less. other companies like, taylor for instance, _almost_ never get called on it. why is that? but it's also true what i said about gibson and branding. for me personally, there is a limit to how much i feel justified spending on a guitar.
hanging a les paul supreme on my shoulder would be like puttin lipstick on a pig, much as i really dig how they look


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> i don't want to give the impression that i think they're guitars suck. i really dig most gibson models. and i have never played one that didn't play well and sound good. and it's totally true that fender is in many ways, waaaayyyyy worse, but somehow get called on it way less. other companies like, taylor for instance, _almost_ never get called on it. why is that? but it's also true what i said about gibson and branding. for me personally, there is a limit to how much i feel justified spending on a guitar.
> hanging a les paul supreme on my shoulder would be like puttin lipstick on a pig, _*much as i really dig how they look*_


Pigs with lipstick or Gibsons?


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Pigs with lipstick or Gibsons?


I chuckled. Saw a gibson flying v supreme
tonight, that was pretty cool.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Funny, the people who have the nice Gibsons seem to like them a lot. Maybe when you get to a point in life where you can afford the things you want, you suddenly lose the abiliy to tell that you've bought an inferior, overpriced guitar?

Or maybe there are some really amazing guitars coming out of the Gibson nashville shop if you know how to pick them.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I own three Gibsons and think they're all pretty good guitars. I have an 02' LP Std, an 08' SG Std, and an 09' J-165. I suppose neither one is perfect and the SG is a ltttle "pedestrian" perhaps but there's something very special about the other two. I'd have a hard time justifying purchasing an R9 (which I'd love to have) but I'll put the 165 up against any acoustic out there ............... and the LesPaul is exactly what it's supposed to be, the look, the sound, the feel. Strapping her on is like some guitar-god ritual.

Having said all that, my Strat gets 90% of the work these days.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Steadfastly said:


> Pigs with lipstick or Gibsons?


well you know, a time and a place for everything.... hahahahahaha sometimes a little from column a, sometimes a little from column b.




Milkman said:


> Funny, the people who have the nice Gibsons seem to like them a lot. Maybe when you get to a point in life where you can afford the things you want, you suddenly lose the abiliy to tell that you've bought an inferior, overpriced guitar?
> 
> Or maybe there are some really amazing guitars coming out of the Gibson nashville shop if you know how to pick them.


 my whole point is not that they're inferior, just more expensive than they should be. and i agree with your other point about affording them, and said as much in my initial post. those who can afford them, often enjoy the sense of exclusivity and perceived superiority created by the boutique branding. it seems we are mostly in agreement here. i think your next observation also has a ring of truth to it as well - when $$ is less of an issue, certainly it changes the value of everything you buy with it. i just kinda took that for granted as being something everyone understood. certainly if i had a kajillion dollars, wearing pearls (swine though i be) would be less of an issue. 

the thing is, i get it. rock and roll, music in general, is supposed to be gritty and raw and emotive. so the idea of enjoying brand labels somehow comes off as plastic or phony. in the rest of life no one cares if you wear calvin klien or louis vitton or whatever. but somehow when you do that with music people aren't so accepting of it, as if it detracts from their authenticity or something. i think it shouldn't be that way, but it seems that's how it is.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

adcandour said:


> They are certainly pricey. Maybe they'll start making them over seas, so people can afford them.


Gibson has done some wide-ranging help-wanted ads recently, looking for people to fill many different positions on their production floor in Nashville. Significant experience or skill not required. In addition, some of their 2014 model changes make their guitars easier and cheaper to manufacture. So it seems that they're ramping up production of offshore-quality guitars at home, and still charging stiff prices for many of them.


----------



## Brennan (Apr 9, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> my whole point is not that they're inferior, just more expensive than they _*should*_ be. and i agree with your other point about affording them, and said as much in my initial post. those who can afford them, often enjoy the sense of exclusivity and perceived superiority created by the boutique branding. it seems we are mostly in agreement here. i think your next observation also has a ring of truth to it as well - when $$ is less of an issue, certainly it changes the value of everything you buy with it. i just kinda took that for granted as being something everyone understood. certainly if i had a kajillion dollars, wearing pearls (swine though i be) would be less of an issue.
> 
> the thing is, i get it. rock and roll, music in general, is supposed to be gritty and raw and emotive. so the idea of enjoying brand labels somehow comes off as plastic or phony. in the rest of life no one cares if you wear calvin klien or louis vitton or whatever. but somehow when you do that with music people aren't so accepting of it, as if it detracts from their authenticity or something. i think it shouldn't be that way, but it seems that's how it is.


Not to single you out (your post is quite reasonable), but it demonstrates the problem with these arguments: the word "should". Gibsons certainly _*could*_ be less expensive, but should they be? Do we as consumers have a right to a big name guitar for the same price as a lesser known or less popular brand? Of course the big names mark up their prices a bit, people are willing to pay for a name (for reasons ranging from vanity to re-saleability) and they cash in on it ... that's what capitalism is. But people arguing against the practice always come off as if they've somehow committed some horrible crime against humanity by trying to leverage their name to make a profit ... if the name means nothing, why be so passionate in speaking out against it? 

The simple fact of the matter is, Gibsons cost what Gibsons cost because that's what the people buying them have decided they're worth. Market dictates cost. Always has, always will.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

Brennan said:


> Not to single you out (your post is quite reasonable), but it demonstrates the problem with these arguments: the word "should". Gibsons certainly _*could*_ be less expensive, but should they be? Do we as consumers have a right to a big name guitar for the same price as a lesser known or less popular brand? Of course the big names mark up their prices a bit, people are willing to pay for a name (for reasons ranging from vanity to re-saleability) and they cash in on it ... that's what capitalism is. But people arguing against the practice always come off as if they've somehow committed some horrible crime against humanity by trying to leverage their name to make a profit ... if the name means nothing, why be so passionate in speaking out against it?
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is, Gibsons cost what Gibsons cost because that's what the people buying them have decided they're worth. Market dictates cost. Always has, always will.




^ Please take your logic and reason elsewhere,this is the internet damn it !
It serves no purpose here .:acigar:


----------



## Brennan (Apr 9, 2008)

Hahah, sorry. 
I'll go back to my corner now. =P


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

yeah! what he^^^ said!!! hahahahaha


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I find *Rickenbacker to be quite expensive also*


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Cups said:


> All of the above, plus we'll pay what they ask.


Some of us wont. There are much cheaper alternatives with high end quality. I wont pay double for a name


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Milkman said:


> Funny, the people who have the nice Gibsons seem to like them a lot. Maybe when you get to a point in life where you can afford the things you want, you suddenly lose the abiliy to tell that you've bought an inferior, overpriced guitar?
> 
> Or maybe there are some really amazing guitars coming out of the Gibson nashville shop if you know how to pick them.


OR the people who love their good or maybe not so good Gibson copy have never compared the quality and price to an Elitist, Orville or other excellent Japanese made instruments like Greco, Burny, Tokai etc. My guess is, that if these were all hanging side by each during the consideration, it might be a different story when you have MANY hundreds left in your pocket by NOT buying Gibson. I'm talking enough cake to buy a nice amp to go with it. Unfortunately for us, we only have a few choices unless you want to import from Japan or scour kijiji, Ebay etc.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i'm starting to wonder about this topic. it never fails to bring the butthurt, and in the end doesn't solve anything. 


greco, burny and tokai have made some nice stuff _in the past_. but i don't know if i'd put them on par w/gibsons above the lpj level, other than more bling. there are still nice ones to be had in japan, if any of you happen to be going there, but you'll find the prices are pretty high because folks know what they are now. i know this is the case, because my wife and daughter were in osaka a couple summers ago, and i had her check for me. 

truth is, there are alot of very nice guitars out there to be had by alotta manufacturers. right now, the guitarist is living in a golden age for gear. never before has so much quality been available at prices as low as they are right now. guitars and amps in nearly every conceivable configuration, at (usually) somewhat reasonable prices. it IS annoying that gibson, prs and fender custom shop has taken the branding thing to such an extreme, because they do make nice stuff and we'd all like to have one or three. and if i was a session guy, sure, i'd have me a sweet looking LP or something. why not? one should have nice tools. but rocking the living room, the beagles (my only fans) don't care what i play, and so far, no one's asking me for an endorsement. hahahaha


----------



## stringer (Jun 17, 2009)

I think this is a great thread. My 2 cents. A little off topic, but for some they may go hand in hand. Just the other day my wife was telling me how the new ceo of a popular rolling paper company came to make record profits for his company. His secret....he raised the price of the rolling papers... and then when no one complained he raised them again.... and still when no one complained he raised the price again. So I say keep complaining, especially online. These things have a way of gaining momentum and may reach the ears of Gibson and co sooner rather than later.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

They are the price they are because that's what they charge.
and you pay it.

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guit...ar-chairman-and-ceo-henry-juszkiewicz-538839/


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

stringer said:


> I think this is a great thread. My 2 cents. A little off topic, but for some they may go hand in hand. Just the other day my wife was telling me how the new ceo of a popular rolling paper company came to make record profits for his company. His secret....he raised the price of the rolling papers... and then when no one complained he raised them again.... and still when no one complained he raised the price again. So I say keep complaining, especially online. These things have a way of gaining momentum and may reach the ears of Gibson and co sooner rather than later.


There is a lot to be said for that way of increasing profits. There is a company I know well that does the same thing. However, you do need to look at the long term. When the economy is in good or even half decent shape, raising prices can often be done without any reprisals but if the economy in general or in that sector goes in the tank, people start looking at what they are paying for goods and services and often go elsewhere if they realize they are paying top dollar for goods or services they can get elsewhere of the same quality. 

Essentially, what I'm saying here, is that it can work in the short term but if you want longevity, the increases cannot be to sharp or they will come back to haunt you in the end. 

That is what has happened to many North American companies. They may still be getting their price but they have lost a large market share because other companies have come in and offered the same goods at a lesser price and have captured a chunk of the market. That's why there are so many copy cat companies selling Fender, Gibson and PRS style guitars and making a decent profit at it.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

I grew up in the 80's and back then everyone wanted a Trans Am. Not everyone could afford one and a lot of people opted to buy just plain Firebirds as a close alternative. Sure nice cars but they weren't a Trans Am. That's how I feel about Gibson Les Paul's. Sure there are a lot of nice alternatives out there but there just not a Gibson Les Paul. Love them or hate them there truly is only one Gibson Les Paul, and for that you have to pay. It's all about the hype.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I bought a Kramer American Series Pacer Deluxe in 1987 and it was $1395 plus tax. Same price for one of the Gibson Les Paul Studios with the nice nitro finish today - 27 years later. Only then, I didn't get a case included with the Kramer.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Scotty said:


> OR the people who love their good or maybe not so good Gibson copy have never compared the quality and price to an Elitist, Orville or other excellent Japanese made instruments like Greco, Burny, Tokai etc. My guess is, that if these were all hanging side by each during the consideration, it might be a different story when you have MANY hundreds left in your pocket by NOT buying Gibson. I'm talking enough cake to buy a nice amp to go with it. Unfortunately for us, we only have a few choices unless you want to import from Japan or scour kijiji, Ebay etc.


Maybe, but I've had some of column A and some of column B and at the end of the day, I'm happy and content with that.

Why do people freak out so much about the price of Gibsons? What about PRS, Rickenbaker, Gretsch, et cetera, et cetera?

Forget about comparisons. Ultimately when money is no object, you see a LOT of Gibbies. Yes, diminishing returns blah, blah, blah.

Maybe all those great players are deluded.

Is a Porsche worth five times what a Hyudai costs?

Maybe not. 

Can you get as good a car as a Porsche for much less coin?

Some folks will say yes.

I'm not among them.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Milkman said:


> Maybe all those great players are deluded.
> 
> Is a Porsche worth five times what a Hyudai costs?
> 
> ...


Not deluded, just hadn't truly considered alternatives. 

Like the porche. You are getting lost in tech gloss.
And yes, there ARE better cars that eat Porches in every conceivable way for less. Those that aren't can be built that way. That's even more fun...I'm not a fan of turnkey showroom stuff. It doesn't impress me. Sleepers do


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Just get the best you can afford--that may or may not be the most expensive you can afford, but it should be the best you can afford.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Scotty said:


> Not deluded, just hadn't truly considered alternatives.
> 
> Like the porche. You are getting lost in tech gloss.
> And yes, there ARE better cars that eat Porches in every conceivable way for less. Those that aren't can be built that way. That's even more fun...I'm not a fan of turnkey showroom stuff. It doesn't impress me. Sleepers do



Just FYI, Porsche is consistently number 1 in quality.

I don't own one, but I will.

A souped up Trans Am doesn't compare IMO.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Just FYI, Porsche is consistently number 1 in quality.
> 
> I don't own one, but I will.
> 
> A souped up Trans Am doesn't compare IMO.


Cars and guitars. They seem to go together. How about a BMW745 or 750? I know it's a different type of car but that would be my choice for top of the line but at $100,000.00 or so it's way over what I would pay.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

There's a level of refinement you get in a high end sports car that would be very difficult to equal with modifications made to lower quality cars.

I'll use the cork sniffers mantra and say that if you can't feel the difference, save your money and buy a front wheel drive sedan.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

If I was a good cook (or even if I just realllllly enjoyed cooking), I would have a great set of knives. Instead, I have some cheap off-shore henkels that are good enough. I'll pay lots for good whiskey but can't be bother to drop more than $20 for a bottle of wine. To each his own - there are a hundred ways to justify not buying a highly-regarded (hyped, whatever) product. And very few ways to justify buying it.

But in my experience, once I've personally justified spending the money on the purchase, I have no regrets and never look back. I bought a Les Paul Custom in '78, haven't looked seriously at another one since. And say what you want about Norlins - if it was good enough for RR, I can get by with one.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

High/Deaf said:


> And say what you want about Norlins - if it was good enough for RR, I can get by with one.


The stuff I heard about Norlins all ended up being thrown out in the trash after I tried them. I owned one for a while and every other one that I have tried has been great. I don't like the idea of a pancake body but all Norlin era didn't have that. The volute is held in high regard by all people who would like to take the weakest link out of the traditional headstock design but maligned by some purists. 

I always buy things with quality and price in mind and find the acceptable product based on the level of both of those. I don't need soup that is sold in stainless steel cans but stainless steel exhaust system on a car? Probably worth it.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I'm not sure if this has been said yet, but very likely the management at companies like Gibson are paid much, much more than some of their competition and someone has to pay for that.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> And say what you want about Norlins - if it was good enough for RR, I can get by with one.


I love my Norlin era Les Paul (the only Gibson I have)
The volute is a great idea.
And it does have the pancake body--so what--I love the way it plays and sounds and feels.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Milkman said:


> I'll use the cork sniffers mantra and say that if you can't feel the difference, save your money and buy a front wheel drive sedan.


I will say that there is no way that you won't feel the difference in a Porsche. 

On the roads in Canada, make sure that you wear a nice custom fit mouthguard like they use in the NHL because any little tiny thing you hear or minute bump you feel in your mass produced car will take your teeth out in a Porsche...and rattle the piss out of you too. The engines sound fantastic though!


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

zontar said:


> I love my Norlin era Les Paul (the only Gibson I have)
> _*The volute is a great idea.*_
> And it does have the pancake body--so what--I love the way it plays and sounds and feels.


It's an excellent idea. If I owned a Gibson without a volute, I would always be afraid of it falling over. Sometimes, without the volute, that's all it takes to snap the headstock.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Yep, I've never really seen a downside - except that "it isn't the way they used to do it......".


A salute to the volute!


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

...and I only bought one of them new so it was the only one that was 'expensive'.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> It's an excellent idea. If I owned a Gibson without a volute, I would always be afraid of it falling over. Sometimes, without the volute, that's all it takes to snap the headstock.


That's all it takes to snap one with a volute... volute or not, please be afraid of your guitars falling over.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

gtrguy said:


> That's all it takes to snap one with a volute... volute or not, please be afraid of your guitars falling over.


Yes, but the fall has to be more severe with a volute. That's why they are used, to strengthen the neck.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

FWIW having a headstock snapped off my ES330 from a minor fall, I can't help but wonder if volutes might have saved it. In doing research, I found many companies specializing in broken Gibson headstocks use volutes in the repair. Stewmac sells both thin synthetic and wood pieces for volutes so whether they are effective or not, they are popular for repairs and builds.

And if you look at the comparatively sever angle of Gibson headstocks, there is a very thin area where the headstock jons the neck which is exasperated by the cutout for the truss rod, so a little reinforcement would probably be beneficial. For a chuckle, I've read some testimonials where guitar players swear the instrument sounds better after the repair.

Personally, I find peace of mind in that many guitars over a wide price range are constructed with a glued on headstock as part of the design.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

waynev said:


> EXACTLY - My thoughts are that even the most very expensive guitars from the guitar mass production factories prolly cost at a maximum $500 to build, including parts, materials and labor, what builds up the to selling price from there is the layering on of marketing hype costs, profit etc.


Ok... let's assume that $500 number is reasonable. What's a reasonable mark up for the manufacturer to make a profit? The distributor? The mom and pop retailer? Keep in mind they all have overhead they need to cover beyond wages- utilities, benefits, taxes... Or should it just be sold for what it cost to make in raw materials and wages?

These discussions are pretty pointless in my opinion... basically an excuse to argue.


----------



## buzzy (May 28, 2011)

bluzfish said:


> And if you look at the comparatively sever angle of Gibson headstocks, there is a very thin area where the headstock jons the neck which is *exasperated* by the cutout for the truss rod, so a little reinforcement would probably be beneficial. For a chuckle, I've read some testimonials where guitar players swear the instrument sounds better after the repair.


I didn't realize that area would become so annoyed. Exacerbated? :smile-new:

(Just teasin' you. My posts are often full of silly mistakes.)


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Why are Gibson USA guitars so expensive?

Why do fans show up at Leafs games?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Milkman said:


> Why are Gibson USA guitars so expensive?
> 
> _*Why do fans show up at Leafs games?*_


Well, if you didn't know the history, you could say it's because they are finally winning more than they are losing but Leaf fans will show up no matter how the team is doing.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

buzzy said:


> I didn't realize that area would become so annoyed. Exacerbated? :smile-new:
> 
> (Just teasin' you. My posts are often full of silly mistakes.)


O, yah? Ya wanna fite? C'mon. Puddemup, puddemup!!!


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Why are Gibson USA guitars so expensive?
> 
> Why do fans show up at Leafs games?


Not to mention that they have among the highest ticket prices in the league. Excellent analogy 

Both the Leafs and Gibson will charge as much as they can get away with. If I was running either of them, I'd be doing the exact same thing.


----------



## buzzy (May 28, 2011)

bluzfish said:


> O, yah? Ya wanna fite? C'mon. Puddemup, puddemup!!!


Very witty, as usual.

Feel free to use me as a heavy bag. My comment was inappropriate. I apologize.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

buzzy said:


> Very witty, as usual.
> 
> Feel free to use me as a heavy bag. My comment was inappropriate. I apologize.


Actually I laughed when you pointed that out. No apology necessary. I don't take my self that seriously.


----------



## Wileyone (Jul 23, 2011)

In my "humble" opinion the best "Gibsons" were not made by Gibson they were the so called "copy" Lawsuit Guitars made in Japan between 1978 and 1982. Tokai, Greco, Burny etc, they were making outstanding Guitars while Gibson was trying to rest on it's laurels. Same thing for Fender. It's not always true but sometimes the "copies" are much better than the so called originals.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

That's what I alluded to earlier, that there are other options.

I have four LPs and they're all MIJ, but I also have a few Gibsons too.

I've always thought, if it's too much, don't buy it.
If we had unlimited funds, we'd all have a room full of Gibsons, admit it.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Are Gibsons so expensive? No more so than any other guitar. A $300 guitar is expensive if money is tight. Are they worth what they charge? That's debateable. Some might think that Porche's are worth the coin....and Leaf tickets. And let's not talk about Harleys 'cause those other motorcycles are just cheap imitations. Right? Right. As far as having a room full of Gibsons if funds were unlimited....I doubt it. The closest I have to a Gibson is a lonely Epi SG from around the early 90s. I have copies....including a 'lawsuit' guitar or two, but no Gibson. Why? 'Cause I don't particularly want one. I do want a 1954 Harley Servicar....c/w tow hook and readable signage and that puppy costs about the same as 10 average Gibsons.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

sulphur said:


> That's what I alluded to earlier, that there are other options.
> 
> I have four LPs and they're all MIJ, but I also have a few Gibsons too.
> 
> ...


It's certainly not true in my case. I might have one or two but there are better and nicer guitars out there, PRS, for one. 

I I had unlimited funds, I wouldn't have a roomful of Godins but I would have a number of them. Then, again, I'm a player and not a collector so I would only have ones that would get playing time.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

If I had unlimited funds I would have a room full of Gibsons as well as Fenders, a few PRS models, a couple Gretsch guitars as well as a number of other brands. I would truly buy only the best of the best.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> there are better and nicer guitars out there, PRS, for one.


May I be so bold as to ask what this opinion is based on? How many of each brand have you owned? Which models were they? 

Or did you just dig this onion up in somebody else's garden?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Roryfan said:


> May I be so bold as to ask what this opinion is based on? How many of each brand have you owned? Which models were they?
> 
> Or did you just dig this onion up in somebody else's garden?


I can appreciate PRS guitars aesthetically but I have yet to play one that really caught my attention. There's something about the balance that feels strange to me.

I know they make some absolutely stellar instruments but I'd rather have a Gibson or Fender.


----------



## Cartcanuck (Oct 30, 2012)

I haven't been around the guitar world long enough to bias myself for or against any manufacturers. I have my strat and love it, and I really want a Les Paul. 

But it doesn't surprise me to hear the head of ANY company say that they are charging as much as their customers will pay for their product. WAITAMINIT!!!! You mean a company is in business to make as much money as they can? Say it isn't so! Someone call the cops!!!!! I mean, seriously, you would never catch a company controlling the prices for their products around the world, restricting discounts, releasing new models so quickly that previously models have barely even seen their first recharge, and convincing people that they are the coolest thing around when research will show that competitors can do so much just as good as better (*cough*APPLE*cough*). 

Seriously. Would you expect any company to come out and say, well, we market tested our widget and we sold 1000 units at $5.00 and 5000 units at $10.00 so I think we'll sell them for $7.00 because we are nice people who like angel farts and hobbit hugs. If people stopped buying the guitars the prices would come down, just like if people stopped buying i-culturized toys in mass quantities the price would come down, and similarly if people restricted their consumption of gasoline to 50% of what they use today, the price would come down. 

It's not because Gibson is the big evil company. Profit drives business. If you will pay me more for what I sell at a higher price, I will happily sell it to you. 

Now, I'll go back to playing my used Strat and will keep building good will with wifey until a great deal on a used overpriced Gibson Les Paul comes my way. And when I'm ready for it, I won't complain about the price.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

So have we all come to th consensus that no guitar should cost more than $500., and any that do are the work of the devil/ greedy exploitive capitalist pigs?

lol


----------



## Cartcanuck (Oct 30, 2012)

Yup. And I in turn need to be a greedy exploitive capitalistic pig in order to earn enough money to buy one


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Cartcanuck said:


> I haven't been around the guitar world long enough to bias myself for or against any manufacturers. I have my strat and love it, and I really want a Les Paul.
> 
> But it doesn't surprise me to hear the head of ANY company say that they are charging as much as their customers will pay for their product. WAITAMINIT!!!! You mean a company is in business to make as much money as they can? Say it isn't so! Someone call the cops!!!!! I mean, seriously, you would never catch a company controlling the prices for their products around the world, restricting discounts, releasing new models so quickly that previously models have barely even seen their first recharge, and convincing people that they are the coolest thing around when research will show that competitors can do so much just as good as better (*cough*APPLE*cough*).
> 
> ...


So do tell why you are willing to pay hundreds or thousands more for a name and perhaps a finish colour or choice of wood grain?
Your money sure...but why burn it? 

I don't get why people are so bent at having a NAME. Its totally absurd. I only see the reason if you were a professional musician...like a mechanic needing snap-on tools....wait, no, that's overpriced junk too


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Well Stead, looks like there's no point in debating when you're dead set against the idea, either way.

Everybody drives. some have nicer cars than others.
Do you have a hate on for someone driving a Porche, or for the Porche itself?
I don't think that you have to be a professional driver to warrant owning one either.

If somebody can afford something, so be it.


----------



## Stonehead (Nov 12, 2013)

Gibson sold out years ago and are just cashing in on the edifice of a once great instrument company. They build cheaper instruments using expensive labour and charge a premium so you can have the name on your headstock. People on forums just like this one will argue instruments made in the USA are superior to most if not all others, which in my opinion is complete BS. Its pure marketing that drives the cost of these instruments up and there's no end to the line of people willing to lay down their hard earned cash for one. As I've always said "pay what you want play what you want makes no difference to me". Lets face it, musicians are an very emotional lot and are subject to the marketing prowess of the big manufacturers who understand this and exploit it. If you got the dough spend it on what you want. 
Its like the humerous old Fender line "Whats the difference between a Mexican Fender and and American one?" Answer "Mexican Fenders are manufactured & assembled by Mexicans in Mexico. American Fenders are manufactured and assembled by Mexicans in America." well... i though it was funny.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Stonehead said:


> They build cheaper instruments using expensive labour


Not based upon what I have read that the workers make.

Now licenses, permits, taxes, benefits and insurance? I bet it is quite a sum.

Add that to the salaries of the people who don't build guitars and the 'wow' factor surfaces.


----------



## Stonehead (Nov 12, 2013)

What I was referring to was the fact that the American labour is much higher than that of say Mexico, China Indonesia, Korea etc... One of Gibson's biggest marketing features is not the instrument itself but where it is made, "Right here in the good ol' US of A". That branding is synonymous with quality, craftsmanship, and the fact your supporting a real down home American company. Its all designed to make us feel better about our purchases so we'll spend more money on a product we "believe" is better. This is a Gibson thread so we're picking on them but the same could be said for other companies as well. In the end it doesn't matter just buy something your happy with and try to see past the marketing hype.

For the record I have in the past owned several Gibson LP guitars and still own a ES339.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Maybe not expensive by North American standards, but compared to offshore, I imagine it would be many times more.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

"In summary, Gibson USA guitars are expensive because the public will pay for them."

the rest is fluff for those who like to argue. Having met the owner of the company, saw, heard and felt his passion for his craft, PRS will probably get most of my money. I have tried suhr and andersons, also nice and I have yet to find the one that makes me stay up late thinking of how to buy it.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

This thread will never reach an amicable agreement. There will always be people who feel that US quality trumps everything else in the world, even when Japanese quality has always been better. (automotive, electronics or musical instruments) Some people fall for the "US-made is automatically better" perhaps in part due to the bubble that envelops that country is in part due to their media and beliefs...which unfortunately affects our thinking across the border. 
Craftsman against craftsman...I know where I see _consistency_...and it is not Gibson. Actually, the most beautiful tops/finishes I have ever seen have been on Greco LP's. Better than any G product


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Scotty said:


> This thread will never reach an amicable agreement. There will always be people who feel that US quality trumps everything else in the world, even when Japanese quality has always been better. (automotive, electronics or musical instruments) Some people fall for the "US-made is automatically better" perhaps in part due to the bubble that envelops that country is in part due to their media and beliefs...which unfortunately affects our thinking across the border.
> Craftsman against craftsman...I know where I see consistency...and it is not Gibson


Question's been answered, I just posted it. 4 pages and there it is, in summary. The question is not what guitar is worth $5k or what country builds the best. It was "why are gibson guitars so expensive?" And the answer is "because people pay that much for them". 

/thread


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Budda said:


> Question's been answered, I just posted it. 4 pages and there it is, in summary. The question is not what guitar is worth $5k or what country builds the best. It was "why are gibson guitars so expensive?" And the answer is "because people pay that much for them".
> 
> /thread


A discussion forum is for anyone to contribute their thoughts. There is no true answer.


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

I do not think that they are... 

Great guitars are dirt cheap compared to just about any other hobby type activity ...

check out camera lenses, race car parts ... or anything else we typically like to get into 

Back in high school every kid on my street had a Lamborghini countach poster in their bedroom 

of all my school chums perhaps one can actually afford such a car... and does not have it because he worked for his DOUGH 

but heck everyone who played guitar has had their hands on numerous nice guitars...

to sum up I have a 58 strat ... not a repro

I bought it when I was 19 for $2200... should I sell if for $2500 ??? 

99% of you would say you should sell it for what the market will PAY

& IMHO that is why guitars sell for what they do 

keep in mind If more people played they would be more expensive relative to the demand 


looking back to 89 or 85, whenever Henry bought Gibson ... he made a brilliant investment 

back then the guitars were not great, every year since they get better, because we demand better guitars 

I have a few current production guitars & other than being ultra picky about pickups love them all 

p


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Budda said:


> the rest is fluff for those who like to argue. Having met the owner of the company, saw, heard and felt his passion for his craft, PRS will probably get most of my money.


Yes, but why are PRS USA guitars so expensive?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

sulphur said:


> Well Stead, looks like there's no point in debating when you're dead set against the idea, either way.
> 
> Everybody drives. some have nicer cars than others.
> Do you have a hate on for someone driving a Porche, or for the Porche itself?
> ...


There is a huge difference between a car and a guitar besides size. The only thing similar is that they rhyme.

However, I agree with you, if they can afford it, let them buy it. In my opinion, and I am not alone in this if you have read all the posts in this thread, is that Gibson (and Fender and PRS and a few others, perhaps to a lesser degree) present themselves and many, if not all of their products as better than other products, when they are often of less quality and yet cost more. 

For the buyer who is aware of this and just wants to buy the product because of the name, as you say, so be it. But for those with less experience and buy because of the marketing hype or because of members on this forum and others who agree with the marketing hype, that, in my opinion is akin to fraud; legal fraud perhaps, but fraud, just the same. The music instrument business is not the only place where this takes place. It happens in pretty well every business that has supposed leading companies.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Scotty said:


> This thread will never reach an amicable agreement.* There will always be people who feel that US quality trumps everything else in the world, even when Japanese quality has always been better. (automotive, electronics or musical instruments) Some people fall for the "US-made is automatically better"* perhaps in part due to the bubble that envelops that country is in part due to their media and beliefs...which unfortunately affects our thinking across the border.
> Craftsman against craftsman...I know where I see _consistency_...and it is not Gibson. Actually, the most beautiful tops/finishes I have ever seen have been on Greco LP's. Better than any G product


This is due in large part to the same culprit that causes prejudice and wars. It's called nationalism.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Scotty said:


> This thread will never reach an amicable agreement. There will always be people who feel that US quality trumps everything else in the world, even when Japanese quality has always been better. (automotive, electronics or musical instruments) Some people fall for the "US-made is automatically better" perhaps in part due to the bubble that envelops that country is in part due to their media and beliefs...which unfortunately affects our thinking across the border.
> Craftsman against craftsman...I know where I see _consistency_...and it is not Gibson. Actually, the most beautiful tops/finishes I have ever seen have been on Greco LP's. Better than any G product



And, there will be people who think that it can't be good quality if it's from the USA.

"Japanese quality has always been better"

Always? Seems like you're guilty of the same preconceived notions many of us are.

I like to make those judgements after having played specific instruments not just because of my impressions.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Scotty said:


> even when Japanese quality has always been better. (automotive, electronics or musical instruments)


Hmmm, "always" might be a bit of an exaggeration. Do you remember these rust buckets?


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Gibson USA guitars are more expensive because there's baby's blood in the wood stain.

A Les Paul Custom would have cost you $395 USD in 1959. That's approximately $3000 in today's money. What do they list for now? 4k? 

A Les Paul Junior at $132.50 would be around $1050. 

Seems to me the prices have stayed about the same for fifty years.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

hardasmum said:


> Hmmm, "always" might be a bit of an exaggeration. Do you remember these rust buckets?


Right there is how all of the Japanese automakers made it big. Honda, Toyota and Nissan all started with econo cars. Let me point out the biggest POS cars that ever came from Detroit...GM X body, chevette, K car...same crap. But the Japanese automakers built on that and climbed to the top. Hyundai has done the same. The Big 3? They still have socks to pull up save for maybe Ford


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

smorgdonkey said:


> Yes, but why are PRS USA guitars so expensive?



Great Question, I love PRS guitars and I suspect Paul Looked at Gibson and said that's the right way to do it, lets stake out the high ground. 
I suspect PRS is in trouble, if not they are struggling to maintain sales. 

Keep in mind that when he was doing this 82-85 Gibson and Fender were divisions of large corporations and quality was suspect...

I am sure he though there is a good enough percentage of guitarists who will PAY for the guitar to play right to keep us busy, but unless we charge more than the big guys people will not get the message that we are building a better product 


somewhere along the Line they were so successful with that concept that they were unable to back down from that pricing strategy 
with working players like Santana on their roster they had credibility 

They became addicted to selling non musicians high end flame maple special editions and private stock guitars, which while great 
in no way reflect that original ethic of a premium plain mahogany double cutaway playable guitar...

In building a customer base for premium guitars they catered to high income professionals who were buying limited edition bling guitars 
meanwhile their core customer base was being retaken by Fender and Gibson 
(prs has in fact been losing credibility with younger players for years) 

If you were 17 and wanted a PRS guitar you had two choices, a prs se import guitar, an $1800 entry level US prs, or a Gibson les Paul studio at $1000

the point is 
Fender and Gibson have many functional offerings at every price point along the way, to build brand loyalty with the 17 year olds who will be guitar buyers for life 

FWIW other than wood selection PRS probably has the lowest production cost due to their modern machinery 

When the 2008 banking crisis hit Fender and Gibson responded with flat finish under $1000 us made offerings to maintain their customer base, Prs continued to 
pursue high end customers (a lawyer who has just lost a virtual 30% on his retirement savings is going to stop buying bling! ) 

PRS still has very little to offer around 1k for the working musician and when younger players are confronted with the gap between the SE and $1800 
they jump ship ...

Meanwhile the "collector guitar player"... has dramatically scaled down his activity leaving PRS trying to figure out the above 

Disclosure, I buy the plain used PRS guitars cheap and put Gibson pickups in them 
but then again I buy all of my guitars CHEAP (fender & Gibson) and keep the boutique pickup makers in business 


p


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> It's certainly not true in my case. I might have one or two but there are better and nicer guitars out there, PRS, for one.


Once again...based on what ?



Steadfastly said:


> In my opinion, and I am not alone in this if you have read all the posts in this thread, is that Gibson (and Fender and PRS and a few others, perhaps to a lesser degree) present themselves and many, if not all of their products as better than other products, when they are often of less quality and yet cost more.
> 
> But for those with less experience and buy because of the marketing hype or because of members on this forum and others who agree with the marketing hype, that, in my opinion is akin to fraud; legal fraud perhaps, but fraud, just the same.


less experience at what ? reading internet reviews ?

So your opinions mean more than someone's who actually owns or have owned the guitars ?

it's good to be king huh ?

- - - Updated - - -





Milkman said:


> And, there will be people who think that it can't be good quality if it's from the USA.
> 
> I like to make those judgements after having played specific instruments not just because of my impressions.



pffftttt !! You'll never make it kid !

- - - Updated - - -



hardasmum said:


> Gibson USA guitars are more expensive because there's baby's blood in the wood stain.
> 
> Seems to me the prices have stayed about the same for fifty years.


yup...over priced then too I guess .

That's why they are still around .


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

[video=youtube;KuMQjKiaDTg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuMQjKiaDTg[/video]


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Scotty said:


> Right there is how all of the Japanese automakers made it big. Honda, Toyota and Nissan all started with econo cars. Let me point out the biggest POS cars that ever came from Detroit...GM X body, chevette, K car...same crap. But the Japanese automakers built on that and climbed to the top. Hyundai has done the same. The Big 3? They still have socks to pull up save for maybe Ford


All manufacturers have their golden days and their dark days.
you mention Hyundai as an a example....my dad had an '87 hyundai pony that went to the scrap yard with 55k on the odometer and felt unstable on the highway doing 110kph. That thing would have made th chevette look like a BMW. They (Hyundai) rose above it. American cars too are having a resurgence these days.
i always thought it silly to think ethnicity of labourers determined the quality of their work.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> Yes, but why are PRS USA guitars so expensive?


Because people will pay for them. 

Parkhead, you are wrong about why PRS cost the same. I have witnessed with my eyes and ears the improvement paul has been making on his original design. Gibson throws out new finishes on a les paul and calls it a new model. New PRS model names actually have differences aside from colour. The company has developed a new type of finish, new pickups, a new nut material - they want everything built in-house to paul's specs and IIRC they are at that point with the paul's
guitar model. I have seen his best A/B'd with some of the best gibson and fender (and martin) have to offer. He stated his case well. The guitars are not for everybody. 

Paul is constantly trying new ways to improve on his product. Other companies do this as well, some are one-man companies and others aren't in the boutique market.

also that $1800 gap doesnt really exist. You want a usa prs without paying 3k? You buy a used one for $1500. Why? Because that guitar happens to fit you better then a strat or lp. Want to know whay you *might* do after? Save up another $1500, sell your used one and buy a $3k one. Or just a second one. You didn't buy a brand new PRS but you still have brand loyalty and a nice guitar. 

The SE models have nice finishes and birds - and when everyone says good things about the other components, you get a guitar that to most audiences says "prs" - only the musicians will know it's not expensive.


----------



## Gearhead88 (Nov 7, 2013)

Here's what I find to be a little puzzling...................... Take Gibson Les Paul for example , , prices on these vary widely , middle of the road is let's say 2 - 2.5 K . So , what is the difference between a LP that is 2500 vs one that is 5000 ? . Now , I do not yet own a Gibson nor do I know much about them , what I do know , is based on casual observation while shopping for guitars or what I have read . I'd really like to know how a difference of 3 or 4 K is justified , what is it that makes the more expensive guitar so much more valuable ?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Gearhead88 said:


> Here's what I find to be a little puzzling...................... Take Gibson Les Paul for example , , prices on these vary widely , middle of the road is let's say 2 - 2.5 K . So , what is the difference between a LP that is 2500 vs one that is 5000 ? . Now , I do not yet own a Gibson nor do I know much about them , what I do know , is based on casual observation while shopping for guitars or what I have read . I'd really like to know how a difference of 3 or 4 K is justified , what is it that makes the more expensive guitar so much more valuable ?


It's very subjective.
maybe others are more Jedi than me, or more susceptible to placebo effect, but i tried a bunch of R9's that I thought I wanted. Tried an R8 which cost substantially less (but sounded better to my ears), and then settled for a $1400. Traditional faded that sounded at least as good as any of them.
The R9 had them all beat in looks and sex appeal only, IMO, but wasn't cost justifiable....so I'm buying a snowmobile instead  money just burns a hole in my pocket.
i think the sweet spot for me is $1000-2000 in terms of getting what I need, and all that I need, in a guitar. If I spend more than that, I know I'm just showing off, or buying prestige.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

smorgdonkey said:


> Yes, but why are PRS USA guitars so expensive?


Guys...stop it. When I posted that it was just because it mirrored the original question and the answer will be identical, if not very similar.

Jokes are never very funny when they have to be explained.

On another note: Headplasty's posts continue to be based upon no real experience but he talks like his opinion means more than everyone else's. Love these two:


Steadfastly said:


> But for those with less experience and buy because of the marketing hype or *because of members on this forum* and others who agree with the marketing hype, that, in my opinion is akin to fraud; legal fraud perhaps, but fraud, just the same.





Steadfastly said:


> This is due in large part to the same culprit that causes prejudice and wars. It's called nationalism.


God...if I were that much of a bonehead I would hope for osteoporosis.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

This thread cracks me up. I own three Les Pauls, real ones not the wannabe knockoffs some people are so proud of. I bought them because they are great sounding and playing guitars. I'll probably buy more in the future. When I was a kid I always wanted a Les Paul so when I got to the age and point in my life to be able to afford one I thought why not. Personally I don't care who thinks they are over priced, to me they are worth every penny. The majority of people that show all the hate for them can't afford them anyways. Go have fun playing your cheap knockoffs and you keep telling yourself that they are a better guitar, lol. The people that actually own real ones will just keep shaking our heads at you. :thread:


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Unnecessary nastiness. If a thread upsets you, don't participate.


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

TA462 said:


> This thread cracks me up. I own three Les Pauls, real ones not the wannabe knockoffs some people are so proud of. I bought them because they are great sounding and playing guitars. I'll probably buy more in the future. When I was a kid I always wanted a Les Paul so when I got to the age and point in my life to be able to afford one I thought why not. Personally I don't care who thinks they are over priced, to me they are worth every penny. The majority of people that show all the hate for them can't afford them anyways. Go have fun playing your cheap knockoffs and you keep telling yourself that they are a better guitar, lol. The people that actually own real ones will just keep shaking our heads at you. :thread:


Bravo ... you nailed it 
you said what many people think... not out of meanness but perhaps maturity 

My first Les Paul was a 78 I bought used for $450 in Quebec, I sold it 2 years later for $900 
I realized at an early age the better guitars hold their value & if your are Sharp & Lucky you will at least break even 
Many years ago I bought my first 335 brand new It was $1800 at the time it was an INSANE amount for a new guitar 
clean used 335's always sell north of $1500 in any economy... since then I have bought two more 
$1000 (right place right time, broken wiring harness) and $1500 if I sold all three for the going rate I would be ahead 

the guitars may not be perfect but heck compared to a mortgage or the price of a functional used car they are a bargain 
they hold value over time...

Many years ago my parents paid 100k for a house in the GTA ... at the time it was a big deal, how will we ever pay this thing off? lots of drama 

Years later I had to choose between two houses one for $199 and one for $235k in a better neighborhood 
at the time it was a huge stretch (still is) the more expensive house was the better choice, one just listed on our street 
for a price that would make your head spin... the advert says "highly desirable neighborhood" 

You can make great music with any guitar... but we live in a market economy and the buyer dictates the price 
be they rational or otherwise 

I remember when all guitars US or otherwise were crapola... I like what you can buy in the local store these days,
it may not be better than grandpas 59 Tele, Strat, or LP, but they are closer than they have been for decades 

every time I have to buy a car I think... these POS are so overpriced... I will never be able to afford what I need 
somehow it gets done and I do not die paying for it (I hate cars) 

if you hate guitars this might be the wrong hang out for you 


p


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

Budda said:


> Because people will pay for them.
> 
> Parkhead, you are wrong about why PRS cost the same. I have witnessed with my eyes and ears the improvement paul has been making on his original design. Gibson throws out new finishes on a les paul and calls it a new model. New PRS model names actually have differences aside from colour. The company has developed a new type of finish, new pickups, a new nut material - they want everything built in-house to paul's specs and IIRC they are at that point with the paul's
> guitar model. I have seen his best A/B'd with some of the best gibson and fender (and martin) have to offer. He stated his case well. The guitars are not for everybody.
> ...


I stand behind my comments I have met Paul. I own several great PRS guitars. He F'ed up when the economy went south... the tide went out and they are struggling to sell guitars. 
I am not knocking Him or the product, if he is as sharp as I suspect he is they are prepared to weather the current storm and have money in the bank. 

Here in Canada we do not see how ugly the situation is in the US. The music business is never easy. I may not be as intimate with the PRS situation as yourself but given time I think my comments will hold water. 

In the next few years there will be many changes, lots of restructuring and some surprising causalties. 
Guitars will continue to get better, as long as we demand great guitars people will make a living making them. 

now I shut up 
p


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

parkhead said:


> I stand behind my comments I have met Paul. I own several great PRS guitars. He F'ed up when the economy went south... the tide went out and they are struggling to sell guitars.
> I am not knocking Him or the product, if he is as sharp as I suspect he is they are prepared to weather the current storm and have money in the bank.


I read on another forum that the PRS Experience is cancelled for 2014. Now, it is said that part of the reason is for the 30th Anniversary...so it can be a really big thing. I was trying to find the post again to copy the email text that the person got but couldn't find it.

As for Gibsons...I have had many, and I have sold a bunch. If I was a rich guy I would have likely kept them all because I only bought one new and got excellent deals on the rest - sometimes less than half new. Alas, I am not rich and didn't keep them all. Even still, I have way more guitars than a person 'should' particularly if that person (me) is a singer who just loves guitars. Then again, I don't have a problem with drugs, alcohol or paying the bills on time so...good fortune so far even if no fortune possessed. I have had many other guitars as well. 

I think the Gibsons are fantastic and really don't know what people are talking about when they knock them. I also have LP style guitars of other brands that are excellent. They aren't the exact animal but they are great as well. I wish everyone would send me their 'crappy Gibsons'.


----------



## pattste (Dec 30, 2007)

TA462 said:


> This thread cracks me up. I own three Les Pauls, real ones not the wannabe knockoffs some people are so proud of. I bought them because they are great sounding and playing guitars. I'll probably buy more in the future. When I was a kid I always wanted a Les Paul so when I got to the age and point in my life to be able to afford one I thought why not. Personally I don't care who thinks they are over priced, to me they are worth every penny. The majority of people that show all the hate for them can't afford them anyways. Go have fun playing your cheap knockoffs and you keep telling yourself that they are a better guitar, lol. The people that actually own real ones will just keep shaking our heads at you. :thread:


You should try an Agile.

Kidding. I own three guitars, all three of them Gibson. I like other guitars too and try everything but always end up buying a Gibson. I'll admit to being a fan boy.

They're expensive because people are willing to pay the price. We may just be idiots who don't know what we're buying. We may all be deluded and brainwashed into buying them for the name on the headstock. Maybe our heroes are deluded for using them instead of a Tokai. Or maybe, just maybe so many of the top guitar players in the world choose to play them because they're the best.

I can't believe the amount of complaining about the price of guitars. Yes, a Gibson Les Paul will set you back $2000. If this is a serious hobby, who cares? I play guitar probably something like 300 hours a year. I'll be damned if don't spend the money to buy a good one. I have friends who go on cruises or own boats or motorcycles. I buy guitars.


----------

