# Can we talk about what makes a high end guitar a high end guitar, i have questions



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

My main question is this - What makes a good electric guitar? 

what parts demand quality? 
what parts are only there for show/comfort? 
is every guitar only as good as the pickups? 
what about the type(s) of wood?
Chambered or no?
the manner in which the neck is attached to the body? 
the number of pieces of wood used on the body/neck?
Binding?

Where do you draw the line between quality and cosmetics?

Example, is a les paul studio just as good as a les paul custom for people who don't care about mother of pearl inlays and flame maple tops? If you were going to purchase a guitar to play in front of a blind audience, what guitar would you choose?


----------



## dcole (Oct 8, 2008)

mike_oxbig said:


> Example, is a les paul studio just as good as a les paul custom for people who don't care about mother of pearl inlays and flame maple tops? If you were going to purchase a guitar to play in front of a blind audience, what guitar would you choose?


I have wondered this myself. Hopefully when can get some good answers from those who are experienced.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I would say that the higher you get in "end" the more individual treatment the instrument gets. Higher quality hardware/wood/electronics and more hand work in the instrument makes it higher end also. I would think there are a lot of intrinsic factors involved too. I think PRS's are a high(er) end guitar and yet they are mostly cnc'd.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

You can play an absolute piece of trash, providing it's playable....sound is way more about the amp. The most critical component of sound on a guitar is the pickups, so that partially gives *my opinion* on at least one of your questions. I mean, look at the Squier CV lineup - the electronics are crap (though the pickups are really very decent). Over time, though it hasn't been reported to my knowledge, it wouldn't surprise me if the frets were found to be a little soft, but out of the box and providing it's set up to be playable, this is a pro quality piece of gear for $300-ish.

All the rest is teeny tiny minimal increments. Sure, neck joint makes a difference, mostly in sustain but even that's a very small % of time in most cases. Body pieces? gimme a break, OK glue doesn't resonate the same as pure wood but NOBODY has the ears to pick that one 3 piece body when tested against 5 one-piece units thru an amplifier.

Binding is cosmetic, I don't know why that would even be listed.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

I figured binding would play a role in the longevity of the instrument. if the binding helps keep a maple cap or a fingerboard in place, for instance, it's more functional than it is cosmetic IMO.

might be completely mistaken about its purpose, i'm no expert obviously.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

Binding plays no structural role at all ,its purely decorative .
Just an extra step or two in the building stage,so it does add to the cost of manufacture


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

I apologize i know this is opening one hell of a can of worms, but i'm just curious and know relatively little about electric guitars.

On acoustics you can hear the difference between models. the shape of the guitar, the density of the wood, the hardness of the nut/saddle, all makes a very noticeable difference. is the same true with electrics? are you better off to spend 300$ on a guitar and the rest on a good amp and a two week supply of speed?


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

mike_oxbig said:


> I apologize i know this is opening one hell of a can of worms, but i'm just curious and know relatively little about electric guitars.
> 
> On acoustics you can hear the difference between models. the shape of the guitar, the density of the wood, the hardness of the nut/saddle, all makes a very noticeable difference. is the same true with electrics? are you better off to spend 300$ on a guitar and the rest on a good amp and a two week supply of speed?


This depends on what you're trying to accomplish and the tones you're after. For me, a tube amp is essential, but you can buy a Blues Jr for $300 used and it does a serviceable job. Put a mic in front of it, and it's enough to gig with (even no mic at the right venue with a drummer who doesn't pound the shit out of his drums).

For guitars, not all parts equally effect the tone. Some things effect reliability as well. You don't need a $3000 Les Paul Standard to sound good, and what you're paying for at that price point is certainly as least partially cosmetic. But as someone else mentioned, in addition to better woods etc, you're getting more time on the guitar, which potentially could result in a better playing instrument. 

If you compare 2 Les Pauls I owned and A/B tested, one was a Studio Faded, the other a Traditional Faded - both had Burstbucker Pro pickups, though the Studio had the PCB tone/volume control setup. The Traditional sounded better. I was surprised, because I figured at the time the pickups would be the biggest factor, however the different guitars had a more than subtle difference in tone. Now if I used heavy Over Drive tones, it wouldn't be nearly as noticeable, if at all. I was playing clean or with a little natural tube break up.

The Traditional just felt a little more finished. Now, 2 Les Pauls after the Faded Traditional, I'm running a 2012 Standard. I can't say the Tone is better than my old Trad, but the guitar is certainly a better finished product. Depending on the Brand, there's a certain point you're paying a lot for very very small changes. 

$1000 buys you a way better guitar than $500. $2000 buys you a nicer guitar than $1000, but not nearly the difference between. $1000, there about, is to me the starting price range for a professional level guitar. It's not a on/off type thing, but a US Standard Strat/Tele is pretty much the level where I see the guitar as a professional instrument. Without trying to get in an agrument, I'm sure there are cheaper guitars I could gig with (and indeed have), but that's pretty much where I sit as a preference.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

*what parts demand quality?*

Every part demands quality, I wouldn’t waste my time building a guitar and using cheap parts.

i*s every guitar only as good as the pickups?*

IMO, at the end of the day the answer is no, not even close, too many reasons to list.

*what about the type(s) of wood?*

Leaving tone out of the equation, you’re back to the beginning, why build something out of cheap lumber, why not use the best as the price difference between worst and best is very little, when considering the amount of wood in a guitar.

*Chambered or no?*

It’s more work and if done right its lots more work, so while it’s not a prerequisite for an expensive guitar, if you’re paying good money you don’t want an 11 pound guitar, so chambering can be important/good.

*the manner in which the neck is attached to the body?*

IMO this is the dividing line, while you can pay a lot for a bolt-neck, to be a “high end” guitar it should be set neck

*the number of pieces of wood used on the body/neck?*

1,2,3 piece, it’s all the same, but with all the cork-sniffers out there I’d like to see you get good money for a custom guitar with a 3 piece back.

*Binding?*

In an acoustic guitar it (a) hides the fact that the top and sides are a simple butt joint, (b)
it hides the end grain of the top or back (that shows because it’s butt jointed).

In an electric it’s cosmetic, but again, one would think a “high end” guitar should have it.


----------



## theruley (Oct 24, 2011)

My $0.02. People are encouraged to disagree and debate.


My main question is this - What makes a good electric guitar? - Three things-playability, sound, and aesthetics.


what parts demand quality? - The woods, for one. You got to have good, dry wood to work with. General attention to detail is important, especially on the frets, and nut.


what parts are only there for show/comfort? Bindings, veneers, inlays, and body contours. 


is every guitar only as good as the pickups? Paul Reed Smith compares the pickups in a guitar to being a microphone for a singer. He said "it doesn't matter what kind of microphone you give to Celine Dion, she's still going to sound like Celine Dion. While different pickups do make a difference, they are still going to bring out the natural acoustics of the guitar.


what about the type(s) of wood? There isn't necessarily any type of wood that is superior to another. Mahogany, alder, ash, maple, and rosewood are certainly the most popular, it all depends on what kind of sound you are after.


Chambered or no? This is something that can be debated to the ends of the earth. No comment.


the manner in which the neck is attached to the body? Again, something that can be highly debated. In theory, a very tightly fitted bolt-on neck will transfer more vibrations than a set neck. However, a set-neck is generally conceived to be superior. 


the number of pieces of wood used on the body/neck? A one-piece guitar body requires cutting down a bigger tree, usually meaning an older tree. However my tele has a three-piece pine body, and its light as a feather, and very lively. 


Binding? Purely cosmetic.

my theory is that the quality/cost ratio is roughly balanced up to around $2000. Once you go past this point you are paying much more money for much smaller margins of quality.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

mike_oxbig said:


> are you better off to spend 300$ on a guitar and the rest on a good amp and a two week supply of speed?


I agree with bg72^,It really does depend on what tones you are after and what your circumstances are.
Typically I would say on $300 guitars the components are of lesser quality from the woods down to the frets and electronics .
If you are a bedroom/home player it might never come into play that the frets are softer or the switch is faulty.
If however you are a player with steady paying gigs and bandmates that depend on you,you want a little extra insurance that the upgrade SHOULD bring you,even if it is just psychological .
A good amp will do more to make a cheaper guitar sound better than a good guitar will improve a bad amp.
A good player can overcome both .

A two week supply of speed and all bets are off .


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Bridges, tuners and saddles are good upgrades, or higher end finishes that'll help with a more stable instrument.

Wood types and even neck construction are debatable factors on tone,
certainly a more plausible factor in acoustic guitars.
A maple cap on a mahogany body is the same whether it's flamey or plain.
I think that more figured, exotic woods are harder to find and more expensive for the builder,
so that cost is passed along to the consumer. Mostly cosmetic, imo. Deminishing returns.
A set neck is a bit more involved than a bolt on, again, you'll pay for that.

I too think that you should be able to gig with a $1000 new guitar.
Of course, you'd get more guitar used for that, but that's another story.

A good example, my new Reverend Flatroc, that's as good of a guitar that I've played.
I'd put it up against guitars two, three times the sticker price.
This is a special edition and it was just over $800 on the shelf.
Surely not a high end guitar, but stable, sounds great and is fun to play, what more do you need?


----------



## big frank (Mar 5, 2006)

Sulphur nails it. It's not so much the price as it is the playability and build quality.
BUT; and this is the big one; we all want the wow factor that comes with owning a really high quality name-brand instrument that we show to our friends/fans/audience.
Even when China starts building guitars as good or better than a PRS, for half the price, it's still not a bragging rights guitar because it's not really a PRS or a Gibson, Fender etc. and doesn't have the same cachet.


----------



## GUInessTARS (Dec 28, 2007)

I have several (20+) guitars, ranging from a newer squire tele to a custom shop tele, from an epiphone sg to a private stock prs. The more expensive guitars look better and generally stay in tune longer, but sound is such a subjective isssue. I like them each for their own voices. 

I suspect the squire (it's opaque black) is made up of several pieces of wood glued together, but so are my drums, and they ring like crazy. And why is it better to glue the neck to the body but not the body to itself? Or a maple cap to a mahogany body. Glue is glue. The screws holding the neck in place place the wood in that area in compression. Glue does not.

For that matter ALL of the sound begins with the strings, and I don't know of anyone who glues their strings in place. Or their pickups, tuners or bridges. The strings themselves are in tension (steel handles tension well) and they generally place other parts of the guitar in compression and torque. Better guitars are more resistant/resilient to these forces. 

If a guitar sounds good it is good. I have spent thousands of dollars on individual guitars because they appealed to me. They aren't better than other guitars, they are different.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I think to answer your question, think about the materials in a guitar. There are not that many:

1 body
1 body cap (possibly)
1 neck
1 finger board
1 nut
1 set of fret wires
6 tuners (we'll assume it's a six string)
1 bridge/tailpiece
2 coils
2 volume pots
2 tone controls
And some various bits of miscellaneous hardware

From the low end of the scale to the top end of the scale there is not much difference in cost, especially when you consider these things are being purchased and/or manufactured in bulk.

So the mail thing separating an expensive guitar is materials, workmanship and the cost of marketing and selling the guitar.

The material in a $200.00 guitar and the material in a $2000.00 will likely be under $100.00 or less to a manufacturer. The biggest cost difference is margin of profit in the guitar. A company may sell several thousand $200.00-$400.00 guitars but less than 100 or so of the expensive guitar. While the margin of profit on the cheaper guitar is smaller, they are selling lots of them and while they are selling only a few of the expensive guitar most of the money is in the margin of profit. It works this way with all manufacturers and with all products.


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

The Les Paul Studio is a good example. It was made for studio musicians who needed the sound, but not the appearance, so binding, fret markers etc were kept to a minimum.


----------



## dcole (Oct 8, 2008)

Jimmy_D said:


> *the manner in which the neck is attached to the body?*
> 
> IMO this is the dividing line, while you can pay a lot for a bolt-neck, to be a “high end” guitar it should be set neck


This statement would emply that Fender doesn't make many "high end" guitars.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

washburned said:


> The Les Paul Studio is a good example. It was made for studio musicians who needed the sound, but not the appearance, so binding, fret markers etc were kept to a minimum.


And yet, there are many, many good yet inexpensive guitars with binding, fret markers, etc. This is marketing, pure and simple at its most blatant. It works, though, as thousands and thousands have fallen for it.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> From the low end of the scale to the top end of the scale there is not much difference in cost, especially when you consider these things are being purchased and/or manufactured in bulk.
> 
> So the mail thing separating an expensive guitar is materials, workmanship and the cost of marketing and selling the guitar.
> 
> The material in a $200.00 guitar and the material in a $2000.00 will likely be under $100.00 or less to a manufacturer. The biggest cost difference is margin of profit in the guitar. A company may sell several thousand $200.00-$400.00 guitars but less than 100 or so of the expensive guitar. While the margin of profit on the cheaper guitar is smaller, they are selling lots of them and while they are selling only a few of the expensive guitar most of the money is in the margin of profit. It works this way with all manufacturers and with all products.


After visiting a shop, I'm going to disagree with you there. For my friend's company, his $2400 guitar is 1/3 materials alone. So yes, there is a price difference. The profit margin on a cheaper guitar is usually higher as well.

I'll get into what makes a high end guitar high end (IMO) after work.


----------



## bzrkrage (Mar 20, 2011)

I'd love to say, but I only have "low end" guitars.kqoct

But, that being said, I have a few different styles & makes.
I love my CV Telecaster (60's)
The PRS SE Singlecut is a dream to play.
My first LP is a Epi Royale, I really dig it.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I think that you're way off too Steadly.

A one piece body is guaranteed to cost more, same with exotic and highly figured wood.
It's just harder to find and when you do, it cost more. The customer pays for that.

No way that the hardware is the same cost either.
The TonePros wraparound bridge going onto my new build was $130 retail alone.

Better hardware, fancier woods, more attention to detail, it all adds up.

No doubt that marketing comes into play, somewhat.
You're paying for the cache of the name, on top of the particulars mentioned above.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

I've always wanted to ask this very question. I got to get me a better amp.


----------



## Mike Potvin (Apr 30, 2009)

I've had this conversation with many well respected builders. Many seem to agree with my personal belief which can be boiled down into a few simple points:

-Everything (EVERYTHING!) you do to a guitar affects the way it sounds. Wood choice, chambers, nut material, glue types etc.
-Is this always a negative impact? Absolutely not, it's just "different".
-Can you hear this "different"? Sometimes yes... sometimes no (not the answer most people want)

Mike


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

As mentioned already, I'd also rather have a good guitar and a great amp.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Over the past few yrs. I've gradually been upgrading my collection. Before opening my wallet, I'll A/B the guitar(s) that I'm thinking of trading with the possible new addition. IME as a general rule, there is a difference in tone & playability, I've encountered far fewer dogs in the high end range. Although it is the law of diminishing return, folks who buy CS guitars aren't really worried about bang for the buck. This being said, an accurate reissue is generally more reliable & significantly less costly than it's vintage counterpart, so one could make the argument that CS guitars are good bang for the buck, just depends what you're comparing them to.

I spent a number of yrs. trying to "beat the man" by swapping out pickups in lower end guitars. The tone improved somewhat, but they still weren't on par with their higher end brethren. This lead me to believe that it's more than just electronics that provide the tone. There are many other factors at play, it's foolhardy to isolate just one, but anything that enhances resonance is good. This means woods, hardware, finish etc. will play a role.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

dcole said:


> This statement would emply that Fender doesn't make many "high end" guitars.


No, I said you can pay plenty for a bolt-neck, but* IMO* it's not a high end guitar without a set neck, pretty simple really, especially easy to understand if you try building both...


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Mike Potvin said:


> I've had this conversation with many well respected builders. Many seem to agree with my personal belief which can be boiled down into a few simple points:
> 
> -Everything (EVERYTHING!) you do to a guitar affects the way it sounds. Wood choice, chambers, nut material, glue types etc.
> -Is this always a negative impact? Absolutely not, it's just "different".
> ...



I have built a few as well and agree. Even the same rig in a different room will sound different. 

For the individual builder it is often hard to resist using some " special woods n' stuff " when you spend so much time working on them.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

There can never be a consensus on such a subjective term as "high-end". It can mean so many things...

High price is easily quantified.

High performance can only be judged by an individual user for a specific purpose.

High desirability can be hugely variable.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

Hears my can of worms:

What makes a guitar high-end?
What makes one guitar better than the others?


Nothing.


It's the guy plucking the strings that makes a good guitar.

Wood is wood.

Almost all guitars are CnC'd there is No major factory hand sawing bodies, draw-knifing necks, or chiseling pickup cavities.
Only specialty shops do that; and charge around 5-10000. per guitar.

Which comes back to numbers.

Neck back design: which do you prefer? 
C shape, D shape, V, Bat, Boat, asymmetrical, Thin D(Wizard)

Fretboard Radius: Which do you prefer?
7.25", 9.5" combination 9.5-12", 12"

Body shape preference.
Pickup type preference.

If you can find a guitar that fits your criteria, buy it. It will be a high-end guitar because it fits.
Saying brand X is better because it costs more is "Hearing with your eyes"

You think it HAS to sound better because it's soooo Expensive and expensive means better right?

There is on place where that thinking is absolutely correct:
Effects and Amplification. 

I'd spend 200-500 on a guitar and 900-1500 on an amp.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

djmarcelca said:


> It's the guy plucking the strings that makes a good guitar.
> Wood is wood.


[video=youtube;dZNk76_4lds]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZNk76_4lds[/video]


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> And yet, there are many, many good yet inexpensive guitars with binding, fret markers, etc. This is marketing, pure and simple at its most blatant. It works, though, as thousands and thousands have fallen for it.


Not really - as Gibson goes, there's a lot more labour involved in how they do their binding, etc, and they're not made in China which is again far cheaper to maintain overhead and hire labour. Gibson still builds their guitars essentially the way they were built a long time ago. They're hand sanded, the binding hand scrapped and applied and hand finished. It's part of the reason why they're more expensive than Epiphones, which even aside from their cheaper hardware, are not nearly as expensive to make as a Gibson.


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

Yes, all things being equal the player is the final and potentially largest factor in the tone equation. However, wood is not just wood and hardware is not all equal. I can tell you without doubt that a $500 Fender/Epiphone is not close to the same instrument as a Studio Les Paul. But the big variable as to why it may be a bigger deal to me than you, is what one comes to expect and look for. If you play hard rock and metal with layers of effects and piles of distortion, you really don't need anything more than the Epiphone (for tone). You're not really looking for tonal layers and definition anyway. 

However, I play often clean or with little OD, and a $500 guitar just doesn't get me there. I look for certain tones in my amp, and a lot of times it's not always price that dictates. I guess I'm a Fender guy, but enjoying a Budda V20 Handwired Boutique amp I recently got. I also have a Fender Bassman 59 RI - both amps sell for well over $1000, but I've also enjoyed a Fender Blues Jr and a Traynor YGL1 for some nice tones (Jr sells for around 550 new and many to be had used for well below). Also, once you get spoiled with higher end instruments, it doesn't feel quite the same to go backwards. 

I've had a lot of guitars over the years, and a lot different brands (Gibson, Fender, G&L, Epiphone, Deusenberg, Koll, Hamer, Yamaha, Martin to name a few) and several models from the more popular ones. I can tell you without reservation, They aren't all equal. 



djmarcelca said:


> Hears my can of worms:
> 
> What makes a guitar high-end?
> What makes one guitar better than the others?
> ...


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

laristotle;

Not sure if you're making fun of my post; But Even a diddly bo can be made well.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

not at all dj. just adding to your point of the players touch.


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

As someone who's owned guitars costing between $75.00 and $5000.00 over the years, I strongly disagree with your statements. There are generally big differences in playability and tone as you go up the food chain, although I've had a couple of less expensive guitars that did over achieve (a really nice MIM Tele thinline comes to mind). But your chances of getting a great playing and sounding guitar greatly increase as you move up in price (in my experience)

And wood makes a huge difference, even on a solid body. I once had a late 70's Strat which weighed about 9-10 lbs. Loved the neck and overall look of the guitar, but it was toneless. Must have tried 4 or 5 different sets of pickups and it basically retained the same non-resonant character. Finally sold it off in frustration.





djmarcelca said:


> Hears my can of worms:
> 
> What makes a guitar high-end?
> What makes one guitar better than the others?
> ...


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

There is so much individual taste involved, that there will never be total agreement on what a good guitar is. There are great sounds in pawn shop cheapies and boutique case queens. Asking what a good guitar is in a group of guitar players is the same as asking what good tone is. The answers are all over the map and all of them are right for each individual. Do you need a '59 Les Paul to get a great sound? No, you can get a great sound out of a variety of others. Do you want that '59?.... oh yeah.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Budda said:


> After visiting a shop, I'm going to disagree with you there. For my friend's company, his $2400 guitar is 1/3 materials alone. So yes, there is a price difference. The profit margin on a cheaper guitar is usually higher as well.
> 
> I'll get into what makes a high end guitar high end (IMO) after work.


That is a guitar shop, not a guitar manufacturer. The price difference is astounding because the manufacturer is buying in the thousands or 10's of thousands and a shop is buying at best in the hundreds and often, a lot less.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

bluesguitar1972 said:


> Not really - as Gibson goes, there's a lot more labour involved in how they do their binding, etc, and they're not made in China which is again far cheaper to maintain overhead and hire labour. Gibson still builds their guitars essentially the way they were built a long time ago. They're hand sanded, the binding hand scrapped and applied and hand finished. It's part of the reason why they're more expensive than Epiphones, which even aside from their cheaper hardware, are not nearly as expensive to make as a Gibson.


So you have visited shops in Asia, China and the USA and seen the different machines and methods of doing this?


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

What i'm basically hearing is a lot of non definitive answers. Lets get to some specifics.

Necks. It's been said that bolt on necks are better than set necks. Why? because they stay in place tighter than glued in mounts allowing the guitar to be more resonant. If that's the case, wouldn't neck thru body designs achieve the best results?

Hardware. How sub-par could overseas metal really be? I realize the importance of good quality tuners but i don't think i've ever had any issues with epiphone tune-o-matics unless you count the colour fading fairly quickly.

Pickups are a very personal taste kind of decision, so i'll keep it simple - passive or active?

If wood is wood is wood, why do we use exotic woods at all? why not just veneer everything overtop of basswood. is there a down side to using veneers instead of thicker caps?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

From looking at the cost sheets I have (some where around here?), guitars coming out of the Washburn Custom Shop were being sold at cost. The materials cost would surprise you if you think they were making a bundle on the guitars. For anything coming in from Asia, they were being purchased from $20 to $200 cost, entire guitar. I dont know how you make a guitar for $20, but the Chinese have figured it out. Its all under a thick poly coat so who knows what the wood is, but who cares. People buy all price points for different reasons. Guitar companies couldnt survive without these cheap guitars because it gives them profit to pay down debts. It aint a great business.....

The most important thing about an electric guitar is the feel. Pretty much everything else is changable. Give me a nice feeling neckthru any day of the week. I'll slap a Roland MIDI pickup on it, and everything else is moot. Feel is not.........


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> The most important thing about an electric guitar is the feel. Pretty much everything else is changable. Give me a nice feeling neckthru any day of the week. I'll slap a Roland MIDI pickup on it, and everything else is moot. Feel is not.........


Definitely agree with your first point...feel is the most important to me. One of the nicest sounding guitars that I every owned, a 1990 all-gold LP classic with Wagner Fillmore pickups, had to go because the damn neck was pencil thin and it made my fretting hand cramp up.


----------



## djmarcelca (Aug 2, 2012)

mike_oxbig said:


> How sub-par could overseas metal really be?
> If wood is wood is wood, why do we use exotic woods at all? why not just veneer everything overtop of basswood. is there a down side to using veneers instead of thicker caps?



For Certain manufacturers they have "Always used wood X" 
Others have put out guitars with bodies made with everything from Pine, Spruce, Basswood, mahogany, ash, swamp ash, acrylic resin, plywood, carbon fiber, steel, mesonite, cedar (cigar boxes), fiberglass.

Some of the korean/japanese hardware that comes on mid-80's import guitars was very high in tin content, it was really soft. Got a bad rep, but that's changed, but the rep is still there.

Some examples of "High End" guitars that are made from really cheap materials:
Ibanez JS models: Basswod body, maple neck. 
Ibanez Universe/JEM models: Basswood body, Maple neck.
(not so high end but strangly expensive for the 1960's models) Danelectro: spruce 2x2 with mesnonite laminate top/back & maple or mohogany neck. 
Early Broadcaster/telecaster Pine body, maple neck.
Acoustic Guitars are almost exclusively made from Spruce plywood now. Very very few are real wood.

Fender, Ibanez, Gibson, Samick, have all put out cheap crap, and more Fender & Ibanez than Gibson, cheap gold.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Accept2 said:


> From looking at the cost sheets I have (some where around here?), guitars coming out of the Washburn Custom Shop were being sold at cost. The materials cost would surprise you if you think they were making a bundle on the guitars. For anything coming in from Asia, they were being purchased from $20 to $200 cost, entire guitar. I dont know how you make a guitar for $20, but the Chinese have figured it out. Its all under a thick poly coat so who knows what the wood is, but who cares. People buy all price points for different reasons. Guitar companies couldnt survive without these cheap guitars because it gives them profit to pay down debts. It aint a great business.....
> 
> The most important thing about an electric guitar is the feel. Pretty much everything else is changable. Give me a nice feeling neckthru any day of the week. I'll slap a Roland MIDI pickup on it, and everything else is moot. Feel is not.........


People who have not been in the manufacturing side of things have a hard time believing how cheap things can be made and how cheap the parts are. Why are "dollar" stores doing so well? Because they are able to buy the goods in their stores for next to nothing. That's the only way they can sell what they do for $1.00. If they can make wrenches and screwdrivers for less then a dollar, how much do you think it costs to make a bridge or a set of tuners?


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> So you have visited shops in Asia, China and the USA and seen the different machines and methods of doing this?


Well, I've seen several videos from Gibson, Martin and Hamer, and had friends go to the Gibson Shop tour , as well as some other shops that do higher end guitars. Yes, things are still largely hand done at these companies in the states, and no, economics would prevent them from being done the same way in China and being sold for $300. You'd do better to talk to some Luthiers (I have a local friend who builds both custom guitars, and also builds a sort of production model with the bodies coming pre-cut and finished - custom guitars are over $2k, the others around $600) who could break it down for you better - but essentially, that's the whole point of mass production in China. Hand finishing takes a very long time and certain finishes (like Nitro and hand oils) are a lot more labour intensive than Poly finishes (which Fender uses, and has used since the early 60's). If you're mass producing items, you tool up and everything gets machine done. They don't care if it's a Guitar or a spatula, it's all the same. Machines take the human out of the equation so you can have a low paid, low skilled work force and be able to produce and sell vast quantities at low prices. 

Thing is, because guitars aren't spatulas, there's a human element in building one that gets lost. Again, I'm a player not a builder... I can tell when something isn't right, while my Luthier friend can most often tell me why it isn't right. Seems like there's a few builders on here to learn from as well.


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> That is a guitar shop, not a guitar manufacturer. The price difference is astounding because the manufacturer is buying in the thousands or 10's of thousands and a shop is buying at best in the hundreds and often, a lot less.


You're right - which is part of the reason why when you have a reputable builder do a guitar that is the equivalent of a Standard Les Paul, it actually costs well over the price of a Gibson Les Paul. 

As well, lower end guitars use lower end components. Cheaper alloys in bridges etc, cheaper grades of wood, lower end electronics and so on. It's not even fair to compare a guitar like my Hamer to an Epiphone (unless you're talking an Elitist, and even that is just entering the same realm as the Hamer, still not the same). Don't get me wrong, an Epiphone is a fine guitar for the money. But at the risk of sounding condescending, just because the difference may be in perceivable to some people, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## dmc69 (Jan 20, 2011)

Accept2 said:


> The most important thing about an electric guitar is the feel. Pretty much everything else is changable. Give me a nice feeling neckthru any day of the week. I'll slap a Roland MIDI pickup on it, and everything else is moot. Feel is not.........


Bingo! Well for me it is. I am willing to pay for a guitar that feels great, and is made out of materials that will ensure it will still feel great in the long run. 
I have a Parker Nitefly mojo flame. 
It's bolt on. Don't care. Shape is ugly. Don't care. One piece body, AAA flame maple cap. Don't care (I got it used, so I didn't have a choice really). 
However, the frets are stainless steel. The neck is also carbon epoxy reinforced. It feels great. Action is low without buzzing. All that, I do care about. All that is, to me, what a "high end" guitar is all about.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> People who have not been in the manufacturing side of things have a hard time believing how cheap things can be made and how cheap the parts are. Why are "dollar" stores doing so well? Because they are able to buy the goods in their stores for next to nothing. That's the only way they can sell what they do for $1.00. If they can make wrenches and screwdrivers for less then a dollar, how much do you think it costs to make a bridge or a set of tuners?


I remember the first time I saw a supplier list of all parts (every screw, component, length of wire, plastic bag, packaging, etc. including the amount of solder required) to produce a piece of electronic gear at one of our Asian factories. The price list was in USD with 3 places after the decimal point. A good many of the parts were fractions of a penny! You can get a good price on a transistor when you order them in lots of 600,000 ~ 1,000,000


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I'm going to leave this here.

Fender Factory in Corona. A Pictour. - Sevenstring.org


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

bluesguitar1972 said:


> You're right - which is part of the reason why when you have a reputable builder do a guitar that is the equivalent of a Standard Les Paul, it actually costs well over the price of a Gibson Les Paul.
> 
> As well, lower end guitars use lower end components. Cheaper alloys in bridges etc, cheaper grades of wood, lower end electronics and so on. It's not even fair to compare a guitar like my Hamer to an Epiphone (unless you're talking an Elitist, and even that is just entering the same realm as the Hamer, still not the same). Don't get me wrong, an Epiphone is a fine guitar for the money. But at the risk of sounding condescending, just because the difference may be in perceivable to some people, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


I'm sorry but you're talking apples and oranges here. I wanted a neck made by a luthier last year and his minimum price was $700.00 for the specs I wanted. I asked him what the difference was in his necks and the necks may by Warmoth that I could buy with the same specs for $300.00. His answer was: "Warmoth makes good necks and can do it a lot quicker than I can". 

This is the answer when we are talking large quantities, both in building and buying.

Here is an example that will help you see what I'm getting at. In 1984 a top of the line Oldsmobile cost $600.00 more to manufacture than a Chevette. Obviously there is no comparison in the vehicles but the Oldsmobile sold for three (3) times as much. How much more money was GM making on the Oldsmobile than on the Chevette?


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> I'm sorry but you're talking apples and oranges here. I wanted a neck made by a luthier last year and his minimum price was $700.00 for the specs I wanted. I asked him what the difference was in his necks and the necks may by Warmoth that I could buy with the same specs for $300.00. His answer was: "Warmoth makes good necks and can do it a lot quicker than I can".
> 
> This is the answer when we are talking large quantities, both in building and buying.
> 
> Here is an example that will help you see what I'm getting at. In 1984 a top of the line Oldsmobile cost $600.00 more to manufacture than a Chevette. Obviously there is no comparison in the vehicles but the Oldsmobile sold for three (3) times as much. How much more money was GM making on the Oldsmobile than on the Chevette?


It's certainly not apples and oranges. Gibson gets a discount on tone pro bridges for sure, but it's not like they get $130 bridge for $1. Doesn't work that way. And building and sanding a neck by hand is a time consuming regardless. I'm not sure how Warmouth does their necks, so I can speak to their process, but my local Luthier charges around $450 - 500 for a neck. Doesn't mean he has better buying power than your guy, but maybe they have different processes or want a different hourly rate.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

bluesguitar1972 said:


> It's certainly not apples and oranges. Gibson gets a discount on tone pro bridges for sure, but it's not like they get $130 bridge for $1. Doesn't work that way. And building and sanding a neck by hand is a time consuming regardless. I'm not sure how Warmouth does their necks, so I can speak to their process, but my local Luthier charges around $450 - 500 for a neck. Doesn't mean he has better buying power than your guy, but maybe they have different processes or want a different hourly rate.


Give me your experience of buying for a large international manufacturer and I will listen. Regards, Steadfastly


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> Give me your experience of buying for a large international manufacturer and I will listen. Regards, Steadfastly


*sigh*

And you've been a major purchaser for both Gibson and a large Chinese mfg? Cool story bro


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

Another classic thread.. the OP asks about "high end" and it turns into a hair-splitting debate that misses the point, filled with the usual myths and misconceptions... a comedy of errors...ha


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

yeah i realized the train was going off the track and tried to correct it but to no avail. seems this is doomed to be nothin more speculation and opinion. it really shouldn't be this complicated.* lets think about it scientifically.*

Necks. It's been said that glue is counterproductive when it comes to transferring sound from one piece of wood to the other. While that confuses me, since you will very very rarely find a bolt on acoustic, and you would think it would be more important on an acoustic than an electric, it does make sense the way it was explained. In regards to transferring sound, *logic indicates that set necks are good, bolt on necks are better, and neck through body guitars are best. Can we agree on that?*

Woods. Does the body material make a big impact? is the body even necessary, or is it for comfort? could we not just extend the neck by 8 inches or so, enough to put a couple pickups and a bridge? If the answer is no, and the body is crucial to the sound, is higher density or lower density wood better? is there a certain density that's neither the highest nor lowest that is ideal?* is wood even the best material to use or is it simply the most abundant?*

Hardware. We've all felt the frustration of trying to tune a guitar with cheap tuners. We've all felt the frustration of trying to set the intonation on a cheap bridge, or even worse a cheap trem. I know that i've had epiphone bolts start to strip even when using the appropriate screwdriver. That indicates that the frets would also wear faster than they should, assuming they're used with the same metal. *Can it be said that the metal parts are one of the key differences between high and low end guitars?

*What I'm basically hearing is that feel (aka, the neck) is important and the rest is clever marketing.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

the inherent problem with trying to come up with a black and white best/worst list is that there will always be exceptions.

Case in point,your statement about rarely seeing an acoustic guitar with a bolt-on neck ignores one of the more popular "highend" makers.
Taylor guitars are bolt-on .

It's much too subjective and open to debate ,

Tradition playes a large part in what's accepted as standard,if Gibson stopped using mahogany bodies with a maple cap,then they wouldn't sell any more Les Pauls


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

I spent a week or so this summer looking for a good acoustic, and didn't see a single bolt on. not from taylor, martin, gibson, guild, larrivee, etc. not a single one.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

Yes you did ,you just didn't realize it. Look here - > FRETS.COM


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

well i'll be damned, i learned something today


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

i had, admittedly, assumed that all bolt on necks look like fenders version, with a big steel plate on the back. it's ugly to me. i really like how they've hidden it.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

mike_oxbig said:


> well i'll be damned, i learned something today


and it's still early :tongue73: :woot:


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

mike_oxbig said:


> yeah i realized the train was going off the track and tried to correct it but to no avail. seems this is doomed to be nothin more speculation and opinion. it really shouldn't be this complicated.* lets think about it scientifically.*
> 
> Necks. It's been said that glue is counterproductive when it comes to transferring sound from one piece of wood to the other. While that confuses me, since you will very very rarely find a bolt on acoustic, and you would think it would be more important on an acoustic than an electric, it does make sense the way it was explained. In regards to transferring sound, *logic indicates that set necks are good, bolt on necks are better, and neck through body guitars are best. Can we agree on that?*
> 
> ...


The body does make a difference. 2 of the many guitars to pass through my collection included a Flying V & an Explorer. Both guitars had one-piece Korina bodies, Classic 57 pups, similar neck profile & were built by the Gibson CS in 2007. Essentially the only difference was the size of the body. The larger Explorer sounded much fuller (it's still here, the V is gone).

+1 on threads getting derailed. God forbid that a builder, small or large, be able to make a profit & remain viable. If you don't agree w/ what Gibson or Fender or PRS is doing, don't buy their products. If the only thing they have going for them is dishonest marketing, they will fail. If you can't hear the difference & don't want to spend the extra $ on a guitar, so be it. But please stop insulting those of us who can hear one & don't mind paying more by insinuating that we are idiots who were simply fooled by marketing. This attitude has really hurt the quality of the gear porn around here. I know several members who have incredible instruments but no longer post NGDs b/c they are tired of being labelled cork-sniffers. A guitar forum is the last place someone should get grief over owning an expensive guitar, that's what wives do.


----------



## Woof (Jan 13, 2010)

Jimmy_D said:


> Another classic thread.. the OP asks about "high end" and it turns into a hair-splitting debate that misses the point, filled with the usual myths and misconceptions... a comedy of errors...ha


Yah, sure didn't see that coming... lol


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

Rory, not sure if the second paragraph was directed at me, but i'm not trying to give anyone grief. I would love to own a beautiful top of the line PRS or Gibson as much as the next person, and enjoy seeing them because some of the designs and builds are true works of art. It's simply not something that (so my wife tells me) is within my budget at the time being, so i was trying to get some feedback as to what a bare-minimum professional grade instrument would have.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

I've only been playing for less then a year and I'm more confused then ever now. From what I've read so far a great amp will make an OK guitar sound good, with the right player of course. A great guitar won't sound great unless it has the great amp to go with it. My Fender American Standard Statocaster and Telecastor, both 2012 models are both good guitars but not without a great amp. My Squier Stratocaster is the bottom of the barrel but could be ok with a great amp. I think I need a beer, lol. :rockon2:


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

What kind of beer ? Domestic swill or highend boutique micro brew ?

Less than a year,and three guitars..you are well on the way .:food-smiley-015:


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

mike_oxbig said:


> well i'll be damned, i learned something today


As my ex-wife was prone to say, "Tu vas coucher moins niseux a soir".


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

Bubb said:


> What kind of beer ? Domestic swill or highend boutique micro brew ?
> 
> Less than a year,and three guitars..you are well on the way .:food-smiley-015:


Canadian or Steam Whistle, probably both, lol.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

mike_oxbig said:


> My main question is this - What makes a good electric guitar?
> 
> what parts demand quality?
> what parts are only there for show/comfort?
> ...



your the one thats going to play the guitar and its giong to be your money that wil buy it.
LEt it be you that decides whats the best bang for your bucks.

the way I would decide is to go to as many music stores as possible and play as many guitars as possible.
At some point, there willl be one guitar that says."dont go home withought me".
Thats the one you should buy. If you can afford that guitar, buy it right away.
If you cant afford that special guitar, save up and buy it later. 
Its been my experiaence that settling for something that isnt THE guitar for you , is just thowing good money away.

anyways....

its been my dream that someday a chicken will be allowed to cross a street and NOT have its motives questioned.
Untill then...keep on rockin..
G.


.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

mike_oxbig said:


> Rory, not sure if the second paragraph was directed at me, but i'm not trying to give anyone grief. I would love to own a beautiful top of the line PRS or Gibson as much as the next person, and enjoy seeing them because some of the designs and builds are true works of art. It's simply not something that (so my wife tells me) is within my budget at the time being, so i was trying to get some feedback as to what a bare-minimum professional grade instrument would have.



No Mike, it wasn't. There is a plethora of incredible instruments being produced these days, both by the major manufacturers and the smaller builders. I'm tired of threads that should be celebrating these wonderful works of art being derailed by "It's just marketing" or "My Agile is the best ever". I'm not a good enough player to justify dropping $12K on a Gustavsson,
or way more on a 50s Tele/Strat/Les Paul, but some of my friends that are great players have those upper echelon guitars in their collections. I'm quite happy to live vicariously through them & have an opportunity to play them when I visit. 

As far as what you're looking for in trying to determine what makes a pro-grade instrument, I don't think you can say bolt-on is better than set neck or neck-through, those are all differences in design. They will lead to tonal differences (in the same way scale length does), but I don't think that any one design is better, what sounds full & fat to me might be muddy to you. I will agree with a previous comment about the floor being somewhere around the $1K mark (new), esp. where Fenders are concerned. Case in point, this summer I saw Trevor Findlay at the Calabogie Bluesfest & his tone was killer. He was using a 100% stock 90s Am Std Strat (i.e. a $1K guitar). An SG Std would also be reliable, gig worthy axe, and you can find those used for under $1K. Keep in mind that Fenders & SGs aren't as labour-intensive as semi-hollows, so I don't think you'll get as good of an ES-type guitar for $1K. The labour costs are higher, so to build to the same price point corners have to be cut elsewhere.

Money was tighter for me a few yrs ago, so I spent a lot of time upgrading Epiphones & MIM Fenders. At the end of the day, I'd spent the same $ (or more) vs. buying a gently used U.S. version of the same guitar. Prior to the upgrades, 1/3 of the Epis were terrible, 1/3 were so-so & 1/3 were good. The new pups etc. improved them to a certain degree, but none of the guitars became spectacular, so it's not just about electronics. It took me a lot of time & $ to realize this, but how the guitar resonates unplugged is the foundation of the tone. If it's "dead" new pups will not make it sing, you can't amplify what's not there to begin with.

To those who think that finish doesn't matter, I once had a G&L Legacy with a very thick poly finish on it. I sanded the body down to the bare wood & it sounded better. Same guitar, no other mods. To those who think that hardware doesn't matter, replace the stock trem block on a Squier or MIM Strat w/ a Callaham.

My choice is to look for gently used, but if you prefer to buy new, other options in the "good bang for the buck" category are the G&L Tribute & PRS SE series, although I would upgrade the electronics on the PRS (you're still under $1K).


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

I propose two criteria: 1. Does everything do what it is supposed to do, and how well? 2. How long will it keep doing it?


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

can't argue with any of that...nice post Roryfan


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

IMO, durable components and good fit and finish along with a consistent QC process.

everything else is personal preference and esthetics and cork sniffing.

I like pretty wood. I cant pretend to claim it sounds any better to me.
I like neck through 24 fret designs. Not cuz it sounds better/worse, but for my clumsy hands it provides the easiest, most comfortable access to the upper regions. Bolt ons feel primitive at the heel generally. And why should I bend at the 22nd fret in order to get a full 2 ocatave note (whos to say I can be trusted to bend to perfect pitch?)?

I still need to be taught what "TONE" is.
I'd love to hear examples of "good tone" derived solely from the guitar, compared to a similarly set up guitars with "bad tone". I bet it would be the longest, most hotly contested thread ever. Think Martin vs. Taylor acoustic debate x 10.

I personally think the quest for "tone" is BS, or at least assigning it as a label to an instrument is. we may hear great tone, but it isnt necessarily "owned" by the instrument in question. Great guitars sound meh.. in certain places, on certain days, in certain ppls hands.
Too many variables at play...effects, amp, room acoustics, personal taste etc.
We've all heard some great sounding rigs sound great in one location and terrible in another.
Or its a placebo. Youre just more inspired to play better if you think that axe has "mojo".
To me it, its has all the validity of other intangible beliefs....ghosts/spirit, chi, yin/yang, feng shui, etc. If you dont believe in it already, you wont experience it.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I have to disagree that any one way of attaching the neck is better or more "high end" than another. No better or worse, just different. Also cannot agree with the body/wood selection not influencing tone. I think it does, and I think most would agree with me, otherwise we would all be playing steinberg's.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

When I got to lunch with George Gruhn in 2009, he sort of pointed at $3000-3500 as the inflection point, above which there really wasn't much to add to a guitar other than cosmetics. At that point, and below it, "design" was what mattered to him. Workmanship too, of course, but the attention to the entire instrument as a system was key for him.

It is important to distinguish between what the vendor tries to sell the instrument for, and what the purchaser believes it ought to cost. The vendor is, after, all trying to eke out a living. If they don't have the means to produce/purchase/install/tailor the elements or components in the instrument at a cheap price, they still need to make their rent, car payments, utlity bills, etc., and will charge what they require to meet those obligations. That a Korean or Chinese-manufactured instrument of comparable quality can be produced at a fraction of the selling price, simply because of access to cheaper labour and mass-production facilities, is separate from whether the vendor still needs to get more for the instrument in order to avoid relying on the food bank.

But that's all about price, not quality. The two are certainly related, since quality can ratchet up production cost, but we've all seen/played budget instruments that were brilliant, and seen/played pricey things that were uninspiring and annoying. I'll put the correlation coefficient of price and quality for guitars at around .40-.50. 

So what makes an instrument "high end"?

Certainly playability, and responsiveness to the musician. In the case of guitar, it should be *comfortable*. That means the builder is attentive to balance, shape, weight, and where things are located. *Playability* certainly includes comfort, but also includes things like the finishing and reachability of the frets, not having sharp edges on anything, or saddle adjustment screws sticking up and digging into your hand. No dead spots, no buzzes, no intonation issues, no excuses. It should be _*responsive*_. That includes feeling lively in one's hands, providing as broad a sonic palette as possible to select from. That can rely on choice of tone woods, finishing, critical joints, choice of electronics, and string-physics materials like nuts, bridges, tailpieces, tremoloes, and whatever yields optimum string angles. "Critical joints" subsumes a lot. It not only means how the neck, body, and bridge are physically connected, but the quality of that linkage. A set neck with 1/64th of soft glue between it and the body is not going to link to the body better than a less fussy bolt-on neck. It should be *durable*, so that whatever has been installed to make somethng playable and responsive remains available to the player. Well-finished frets that wear out easily will soon require replacement, and refrets will not necessarily achieve the same sonic outcome as the originals.

The transfer and conservation of string energy into the body has always fascinated me. We tend to think of neck-body joints in very simple terms sometimes. I wondered for a while whether a different sort of bolt-on joint might yield set-neck properties with bolt-on convenience and cost. A bolt-on neck transfers the brunt of acoustic energy, back and forth, primarily through its underside. The screws pull the neck and body towards each other to make them behave like they are one piece. The surface area involved plays a big role in that. There are many ways of increasing the surface area involved in that vertical connection. Imagine, if you will a neck heel that is machined in a kind of W-shape along its sides, with the pocket machined in the same W-shape to receive the neck heel. The neck heel slides into the pocket, from front to back, rather than solely from the top. The W-shape along the sides increases the total surface area, such that when the bolts pull the neck down, it makes more contact with the body.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

To me it really doesn't matter what is high end and what is low end. I do have a limit on what I'll spend for a guitar, which is in the $1000.00 range but what's important is playability first and foremost. If the guitar has that, it's already in the high end bracket. Then I go into the other aspects such as quality components, fit and finish, etc.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I have to disagree that any one way of attaching the neck is better or more "high end" than another. No better or worse, just different. Also cannot agree with the body/wood selection not influencing tone. I think it does, and I think most would agree with me, otherwise we would all be playing steinberg's.


My strong hunch is, blindfolded the difference wouldnt be is great as you think. Its the Pepsi Challenge.
And even still ,I dont think it would be much that a slight amp eq adjustment couldnt correct.

heck I was watching some vids last night where they were comparing tube types, 6l6's and el34's and it was hard to tell the difference...and the comments and descriptions by others were all over the map.

really the only thing that will convince me, is blind head-to-head comparisons with both the player and the listener blind.
In terms of the Steinberger comment, I think you have much more faith in the logic and rationality of musicians purchases than I do  

As for neck attachment, one could definitely make a case for one being more "high-end" than the other, based simply on the labour, costs or materials etc involved.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

What I alluded to earlier Jim, was the difference between a plain top and a curly/flamed maple top.
Fancier wood on the latter, but they're both maple capped guitars, so there should be little to no difference.
Providing both guitars have the same specs, pickups, etc., it's simply aesthetics.

IMO, hardware can make a ton of difference.
Take a Floyd Rose for example. Big differences even between the "licenced" units, from maker to maker.
Then, there's a big difference between them and an original Floyd, or one produced by Schaller.
All in the materials used. Make them with cheaper, softer metal...and they're just that, cheaper and softer.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

"It is a _riddle_, wrapped in a mystery, inside an _enigma_; but perhaps there is a key." Winston Churchill

On another note (pun intended), How high is up?

As you were....


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

sulphur said:


> What I alluded to earlier Jim, was the difference between a plain top and a curly/flamed maple top.
> Fancier wood on the latter, but they're both maple capped guitars, so there should be little to no difference.
> Providing both guitars have the same specs, pickups, etc., it's simply aesthetics.
> 
> ...


But even that although significant differences in durability would be expected, on day 1 after installing them, do you think you could hear the difference? I dont. Maybe 5 ys later you might. but even then, I wonder...


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

It's not about tone, it's about durability.
Also, the tuning stability would be greatly increased with a better system.

You get what you pay for.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

sulphur said:


> It's not about tone, it's about durability.
> Also, the tuning stability would be greatly increased with a better system.
> 
> You get what you pay for.


That said anyone who's played Gotoh's take on the Floyd Rose design should notice not only a more comfortable design, but also improvements in the way the arm is attached to the tremolo. That said I am biased as it's my favorite of the ones I've played and on top of that to buy one it's a nice bit cheaper than an OFR. A few years later and it's still as rock solid as the day I bought it.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I've no doubt that a Gotoh is a good unit, I have other bridges by them and they are well made.

Some of the guitar makers though, especially on the lower end of the line,
use a licenced FR with steel that's about as hard as the wood it's made with.

Look at the pots in a cheaper guitar, they use the minis, which I'd cook on the first pickup swap.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Curls, flames, birds eyes, burls all deviate from the norm and are rarer thus more expensive. They may not enhance the tone at all (an arguement can, and has been made, that they detract from tone as straight grain transfers sound better), but because they are rarer, they signify a builder who is working right from the beginning stages of selection of material, and that is higher end. Not because of what the wood does, but because what it is and what it signifies.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I agree Jim.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Jim DaddyO said:


> Curls, flames, birds eyes, burls all deviate from the norm and are rarer thus more expensive. They may not enhance the tone at all (an argument can, and has been made, that they detract from tone as straight grain transfers sound better), but because they are rarer, they signify a builder who is working right from the beginning stages of selection of material, and that is higher end. Not because of what the wood does, but because what it is and what it signifies.


This is all true and the price goes up, not just because it's different but it's also a one of, which takes 100 times longer to build. Someone has to pay for that labour.


----------



## HarpBoy (Jun 10, 2009)

i got a chuckle out of your post, Mike. First you said....



mike_oxbig said:


> * "...lets think about it scientifically.**"*
> 
> _*Then you said:*_
> It's been said that glue is counterproductive when it comes to transferring sound from one piece of wood to the other.
> ...


There is very little science to be found in internet special interest forums of any sort. Lots of opinion and one-upmanship, but not much science.

Anyway, carry on. I'm just being a dick :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

sulphur said:


> I've no doubt that a Gotoh is a good unit, I have other bridges by them and they are well made.
> 
> Some of the guitar makers though, especially on the lower end of the line,
> use a licenced FR with steel that's about as hard as the wood it's made with.
> ...


I noticed that on my brother's Floyd Rose Special, right now it holds it's tune very well. But some of the materials look a step down and one can only wonder how long they will actually last before a full swap will be required.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

HarpBoy said:


> There is very little science to be found in internet special interest forums of any sort. Lots of opinion and one-upmanship, but not much science.
> Anyway, carry on. I'm just being a dick :smilie_flagge17:


is there nothing scientific about arriving at a conclusion via a series of deductions? granted it's based on no immediate physical testing at all, simply relying on logic and common sense, which admittedly is not a sound enough method to get our own episode of bill nye, but as far as internet debates go it's a fairly good start, don't you think?

I'm curious about this "one-upmanship" you speak of, though. I haven't seen it in here. Everyone has been really civil and while yes there's been a lot of beating around the bush, i haven't seen a single matter of opinion stated as fact in a manner that would put someone else down. Except for you of course. I'm glad i could provide such a chuckle that you deemed it necessary to come in here and argue semantics instead of contributing anything useful to the topic. It sounds like you're no stranger to the use of one-upmanship. That doesn't make you a dick, it just makes you irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I've never bought a custom electric guitar made to order, just six acoustics, plus a one-off mandolin. It has sometimes been a factor that the more manufacturing steps, the fancier the wood, the additional inlay, specific rosette, etc, the greater the cost. It depends on what the builder includes in the model base price, or if the builder charges per item, or is willing to absorb the cost, or cut a deal. I don't find that haggling with independent luthiers is the least bit productive, most of them are already reasonably priced and most will be quite fair when treated fairly.

A high end electric would need my very specific wood, neck attachment, electronics, machine heads, bridge, nut, frets, body contours. As luck would have it, for me, most of this can be accomplished with simple mods to existing guitars. The exception would be an archtop electric, that I would want to have built from scratch...but will likely never be able to afford.

The little details that set a high end guitar apart from the pack are neck contour, fingerboard radius, fret size, personalized electronics, colour/finish specs, type of included case, and so on. The big details are things like woods, neck attachment. 

Anything else is in the mind of the builder and customer.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Mike Potvin (Apr 30, 2009)

Wow, this thread really mushroomed! Not to go all Zen Ninja Way-of-the-Guitar on you, but... 

How we hear things is very personal/different from one person to another. Kind of like "hey, is that chili spicy?". "Spicy" means different things to different people. I love (sarcasm) when people launch into what I call "sweat creamy mids" talk. If you make your way back early in the thread, I shared my personal philosophy which is basically: everything you do to a guitar changes it's sound (a little or a lot) and changes can be good/bad/un-noticeable. To turn this into something concrete and possibly address some of the OPs question, let's recap.

1) Everything you do/use in the construction of a guitar changes how it sounds.
2) The changes are not necessarily bad, or even noticeable

*Bolt-on / Set-neck, Neck-through:* there's often a stigma that bolt-on necks are a) low-end ("cheaper") b) part of a parts-caster c) not as "good" as a set-neck. I build both types because I like them both! Is a quality bolt-on neck guitar so ridiculously easy to make compared to a set-neck that it explains why set neck guitars should be more expensive? I don't think so. I've sort of become known for building very playable necks because I put a lot of effort into them considering how much they play a part in bonding with a guitar.

*Wood types make no difference (... especially in an electric):* in my opinion this is not true. I'm a tinkerer by nature and I've used a lot of non-traditional woods. Some of those guitars were spectacular duds! I once used a slab of super-heavy / super-dense something-or-other to build a guitar and the end result sounded like I was at the bottom of a swimming pool and someone was playing a stereo on the patio! Google "MDF guitar" and blow some time reading and listening to sound clips. I once found a thread where someone attached a neck to a cement block to examine the theory that heavy bodies (think Les Paul) have better sustain. There was also a thread where sound clips of maple vs rosewood fretboards were listened to blindly. Spoiler: no one could reliably hear the difference.

To expand on my simple 2 point philosophy, here's a couple more things to chew on.

*The neck IS the guitar.* Yes, body features (weight, would type, glue etc) all play a part in the overall sound of the guitar. The neck is the way you squeeze different sounds out of the guitar. It has to be comfortable and mechanically sound. That sounds really obvious, but I've played a lot of guitars where the necks were just awful. Keep in mind, my awful may be different than yours.

*A great guitar is like a great suit (substitute "thing that makes you feel bad-ass" for "suit" as required).* You know how you feel when you're driving your vintage convertible on a sunny day with the top down? Why don't you feel like that when you drive the station wagon to the grocery store? Because the wagon is lame dude! I usually use the suit analogy because a suit and a guitar are both things you wear  First and foremost, a guitar has to feel comfortable and play great. Assuming you have that, feeling really happy with the way it/you look plays a huge part in your liking the guitar.

Mike - zen guitar philosopher dude (tm) :banana:


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Jim DaddyO said:


> Curls, flames, birds eyes, burls all deviate from the norm and are rarer thus more expensive. They may not enhance the tone at all (an arguement can, and has been made, that they detract from tone as straight grain transfers sound better), but because they are rarer, they signify a builder who is working right from the beginning stages of selection of material, and that is higher end. Not because of what the wood does, but because what it is and what it signifies.



Interesting thought about flame tops detracting from tone vs. plain tops. I was quite suspicious of the upcharge between an R7 GT or R8 vs. an R9 and thought "Who would pay an extra $2K for a flame top? Those guys are nuts!". But then I noticed that the average weight on an R9 seems to be around 8.5 lbs whereas the plain top guitars are almost always well over 9 lbs. My ears & back have lead me to believe that "light is right". This is pure conjecture, but perhaps the more expensive guitar also gets the better mahogany? 

As far as any of this being scientific, there are so many variables (string type/gauge, picks, speakers, tubes, room) that it becomes difficult to state unequivocally or establish any concrete rules about what is best. This being said, a lot of this knowledge comes about from experimentation, comparing guitars side by side & looking for patterns/common elements amongst the best instruments. If you've never done it, have a shootout: slap fresh strings on a bunch of guitars then get the same player to play the same riffs through the same amp at the same settings & LISTEN. Caveat: your ears get tired after a couple of hours. 

Be they players, collectors, techs or luthiers, there are some very experienced & knowledgable folks on here, so I'm only too happy to pick their brains & narrow down my options before opening my wallet chasing at tonal windmills.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Roryfan said:


> As far as any of this being scientific, there are so many variables (string type/gauge, picks, speakers, tubes, room) that it becomes difficult to state unequivocally or establish any concrete rules about what is best.


^^^ This is the most scientific comment in the whole thread.:thanks5qx::rockon2:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Mike Potvin said:


> Wow, this thread really mushroomed! Not to go all Zen Ninja Way-of-the-Guitar on you, but...
> 
> How we hear things is very personal/different from one person to another. Kind of like "hey, is that chili spicy?". "Spicy" means different things to different people. I love (sarcasm) when people launch into what I call "sweat creamy mids" talk. If you make your way back early in the thread, I shared my personal philosophy which is basically: everything you do to a guitar changes it's sound (a little or a lot) and changes can be good/bad/un-noticeable. To turn this into something concrete and possibly address some of the OPs question, let's recap.
> 
> ...


Nothing all that "zen" about it, Mike...and I don't mean that in any sort of pejorative way. Rather, the things that matter to us, and which we perceive as "quality" or simply "better" are woefully underspecified. I'm sure it's the same way in many areas related to aestheics. Somewhere, 50 years ago, some folks were saying that THIS reproduced sound sounded more "realistic" than _that_ version, but that didn't mean they were able to say exactly what it was that made it sound better. They knew what they preferred when they heard it, but were damned if they could say what specifically was different.

I work in oversight of human resources, and I can tell you that a great many hiring managers are pleased to have employment tests and hiring rules to make things easier for them, but when it comes down to what it is they need or are looking for, they often can't say with any great specificity; they'll "know it when they interview it". That doesn't mean they're necessarily going for superficial BS; they simply don't know how to express or "dimensionalize" what it is they want.

Same thing with guitars, and something as "simple" as necks. Myself, if you ask me, I like a mahogany neck; mostly because if the amp is cranked, there is some tactile feedback through the neck that gooses my finger vibrato. It is, of course, VERY subtle, but I like to feel the note in the neck itself, and feeling it improves my playing, over and above a maple or other relatively non-resonant neck. If I could get cheap bolt-on mahogany necks, I'd be happy, but bolt-on tends to be synonamous with maple, and set equal to mahogany. Are there many players who can notice and describe that? I suspect not. Or rather, they may well notice it at a subsconscious level, but aren't able to surgically extract that aspect about the neck and refer to it as a quality of the neck. Indeed, probably the most you'll ever get from many players is that a neck is "fast", "comfortable", "easy to bend on", or something else which is relevant, but more holistic than analytical or granular. Again, highly underspecified.

Wood matters, but often not in the way people think. Often, it is the marriage of the specific piece of wood to the rest of the instrument that matters. A different neck composition, or different pickups, or different body shape or thickness, may demand a different piece of wood for tone and balance. It might be the same species or type of wood, and maybe even from the same tree, but not the same piece. That's a big reason, I think, why so many low budget instruments are hit and miss. You can find an under-$200 guitar that absolutely rocks, but you probably won't get it on-line. Or at least you can't assure it on-line. Every now and then, you'll find one where the neck and body were absolutely made for each other...but it happened just by chance, since the builder was not keeping an eye and ear open for it, and selecting the wood. Keep in mind that they cannot BE a high-volume/low-cost producer unless they have a large volume source of wood. Higher-end instruments will involve more limited and selective purchases of wood (THAT log/plank, but not THAT one), resulting in virtually every instrument consisting of optimal wood, rather than merely the stated species. Trust me, there is good koa and crappy koa, Sitka spruce made for a guitar top, and Sitka spruce better suited for firewood or newspapers.

I have a book about Danny Ferrington, and one of the interesting bits in there concerns the "one-hour guitar" that he threw together from plywood and a Fender neck, with a makeshift bridge, to try out a particular pickup. Ry Cooder happened to come by the shop, tried the guitar, and insisted on using it for a session that day, because he loved the sound. As for MDF, Gibson has produced gutars with that material over the years, and not just during the Norlin period. Their Kalamazoo solidbodies from the early 60's were made from MDF.

So, when it comes to wood, sometimes you DO get lucky, and counterintuitive materials yield unexpectedly good results, and other times you have to pay very close attention to make sure it is the right wood for the job. BUt like I say, there's nothing especially zen or magical about it. It always involves specific elements that matter....we just have a hard time putting our finger on them.


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

I've played different guitars over the past twenty years, including very high end models and rare vintage models in fancy international stores, and also assembled guitars from parts. I think that the woods and build quality do effect the tonal quality. I find that the woods make a definite sonic difference. Different timber has different timbre. It's not just the type of wood but the density and quality of the individual piece of wood. This is one of the reasons why different guitars of the same model can sound different. That also comes down to build quality, too. I remember hearing that you should try to avoid guitars built on Mondays and Fridays! In any case, some guitars are made better than others of the same model and sometimes you can tell. The high end guitars I've owned have had quite noticeable differences in the workmanship and had something extra that was kind of intangible unless you analysed it. They just felt better for some reason. That reasons, if investigated, was the fret work, neck finish, bridge height out of the box, and so on. I also think that sometimes bolt-on neck guitars can suffer from issues simply because a bolt-on neck allows for a greater margin of assembly error than a glued-in neck. On the other hand I've played vintage Strats with sloppy neck pockets and shims that sounded wonderful. Of course, they were _vintage_ neck shims!  

As for cosmetics vs. build quality, they so often go hand in hand that it is very hard to find an off-the-shelf guitar that has one without the other being on par. Does a super deep quilt top add to the sound? No. However, when someone is building a guitar, as the build quality increases, they add to the visual side as well. I think this is partly out of builder's pride and partly marketing.


----------



## Stringtown (Jul 16, 2013)

I have had quite a few high hand guitars pass through my hands, but just lately I bought an Ibanez SZ320 for a couple hundred bucks and oh man! I'm almost wondering why I've been paying top dollar for other guitars my whole life. This thing feels and plays better than some $1000 guitars I've played with! In the end really it's not about glitters and all the extra goodies that might come with some guitars, it's about finding a guitar that just speaks to you and feels right.

Cool thread, cheers!


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

Wow, for the most part this has been a pretty civil thread. A miracle by internet standards... 

I buy/sell/trade quite a bit. It's part "search for the right guitar" and part "boy it sure is fun to trade." I've owned Many Gibsons (studio models, faded series, ES series, RI's, and Standards) many Fenders (from Squier to CS) and played countless others. I've owned cheaper guitars of various makes, and various boutique guitars... Certainly price does not equal a guarantee of quality but if I were to graph my guitars I've owned (well over a hundred) I would say the trend would be clear. The higher a guitar costs, there greater the quality. Sure, you'll find a nice classic vibe series Strat on the wall at the local store, but it isn't the guitar my Suhr is (in any way, shape or form). Nor is a Hamer XT the guitar my Hamer Artist Custom is. 


Guess what I'm saying is that while there are no certainties, my chances of finding a quality guitar greatly increases as they go up in value. 



Stringtown said:


> I have had quite a few high hand guitars pass through my hands, but just lately I bought an Ibanez SZ320 for a couple hundred bucks and oh man! I'm almost wondering why I've been paying top dollar for other guitars my whole life. This thing feels and plays better than some $1000 guitars I've played with! In the end really it's not about glitters and all the extra goodies that might come with some guitars, it's about finding a guitar that just speaks to you and feels right.
> 
> Cool thread, cheers!


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

after hearing henry juszkiewicz say, straight up, that gibsons prices were tied directly to branding, of course i'm skeptical. he said "we found that when we increased the prices, it increased sales" he SAID that on some news show. i saw it and heard it myself.
i dont care what some of you guys claim you know. henry owns gibson. in this case, his word means more than any of you. until someone can explain that away, you have little weight for your argument. he said it right in front of the camera for all to see. gibson's dont have to be as expensive as they are. but the boutiquey brand image they have created sells guitars. what else could one possibly get from those facts? anyone who knows they are over priced, and still buys them cannot claim the cost was necessary. all they can say is, "it's my money, i can spend it however i see fit" that's it. that's all the truth they got at that point.
that said, dont get me wrong, i dont hate gibson guitars. they're some of my favs. they really are nice guitars. but they're over priced, and *it's fact.* it's not debatable when the ceo straight up tells you, to your face, that you paid the price you do because it sells more product. 

so debate the tone wood myth all you guys want to. aside from lacking any science to support it, the argument is not relevant to begin with, at least as far as gibson guitars are concerned. we know that it is a fact they can be profitably sold for less than what they currently are. unless one of you can show me henry recanting his statement, you got nothing.


----------



## -ST- (Feb 2, 2008)

The comment attributed to Henry Jusczkiewicz deserves to be quoted directly and placed in context. 

I found it here:

Music man turns Gibson Guitar around.

Please note: This is in reference to things that he did when he took over the company (Gibson) in 1985.



> Q: How did you even start?
> 
> A: You have to do homework. I spent seven months sitting in that company. I pored over the books. I interviewed every employee. I interviewed dealers. I interviewed customers. I came up with a comprehensive plan. I was kind of known as the Harvard geek because I would sit in this little office in front of a computer most of the time. We made money the very first month. And we have not stopped growing since 1986.
> 
> ...


----------



## -ST- (Feb 2, 2008)

Here's some video (the price issue is not specifically mentioned but it offers more context).

How Gibson’s CEO Saved the Company — the Bloomberg Interview


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

A couple of things about what Henry said. First of all, he clearly does not speak for all guitar manufacturers. I have heard Paul Reed Smith talk with great enthusiasm about how much certain quality components effect the sound of the guitars he makes. Secondly, you have to take what Henry says with a grain of salt. Who is to say that, head of Gibson or not, he is not talking out of his butt? Frankly, I've heard Henry say some things over the past few years that have made me much less inclined to take him at his word. He'll say whatever he thinks will increase sales. Thirdly, and I don't want to turn this into a Gibson-bashing post, but I think that the difference between a $6000 Gibson and a $1000 Gibson is much less that the difference between a $6000 custom-made guitar from a small company and a $1000 Gibson. A $6000 guitar from a small builder will most likely include much better components and upgraded parts than a $6000 Gibson. Even PRS has obvious differences between their basic models and high end models. If you look at PRS Modern Eagles and Private Stock guitars compared to, say, a PRS SE model, the difference is quite clear. They are not just charging more money for no reason.

On the other hand, people do equate higher price to higher quality and will pay more for a perceived higher quality just because the price of something is higher. That is absolutely true and it is true for every consumer industry I can think of. So, yes, many high priced items we may buy are over-inflated in price simply because that is an aspect of the marketing strategy and nothing else. However, that does not mean that high end items are not any better than low end items. It is just the law of diminishing returns, financially.


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> after hearing henry juszkiewicz say, straight up, that gibsons prices were tied directly to branding, of course i'm skeptical. he said "we found that when we increased the prices, it increased sales" he SAID that on some news show. i saw it and heard it myself.
> i dont care what some of you guys claim you know. henry owns gibson. in this case, his word means more than any of you. until someone can explain that away, you have little weight for your argument. he said it right in front of the camera for all to see. gibson's dont have to be as expensive as they are. but the boutiquey brand image they have created sells guitars. what else could one possibly get from those facts? anyone who knows *they are over priced*, and still buys them cannot claim the cost was necessary. all they can say is, "it's my money, i can spend it however i see fit" that's it. that's all the truth they got at that point.
> that said, dont get me wrong, i dont hate gibson guitars. they're some of my favs. they really are nice guitars. but they're over priced, and *it's fact.* it's not debatable when the ceo straight up tells you, to your face, that you paid the price you do because it sells more product.
> 
> so debate the tone wood myth all you guys want to. aside from lacking any science to support it, the argument is not relevant to begin with, at least as far as gibson guitars are concerned. we know that it is a fact they can be profitably sold for less than what they currently are. unless one of you can show me henry recanting his statement, you got nothing.


Well, I'm not sure what your getting at. At the risk of being contrary, Gibson's are not over priced. This isn't opinion, it's fact. We live in a capitalist society. The fact they _could _be cheaper is not relevant. Prices are dictated by what the market will bear. Supply and demand is what sets price. Why can an engineer charge $125 /hr while a cook is fortunate to get $25, and the waitress is sitting at minimum wage? 

Say you work at Company "X" for $15 /hr. If you could work for $13 /hr does that mean you're over paid at $15? No, it's simply what that job is worth in today's market. The fact is that Gibson is able to use it's name and reputation to aid sales and extract a better price. But that's the same for EVERY company/business/employee. People will pay more for a known quality than unknown.

Now here's the opinion part: whether you feel the increase in price justifies the increased options (it's certainly not a linear relation, as discussed in several earlier posts) is left to the individual consumer. Is a bound Les Paul Standard worth $1000 more than a Studio? Is a PRS 10 top worth $500 more than a standard flame top? Is there any value in the hands on work done at a custom builder? Is it worth having your Guitar PLEK'd? All questions that the consumer asks, the answer to each of which will directly relate to budget and to some degree skill (a novice guitarist will not feel/hear subtle differences the way a seasoned player may).


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i can lead a horse to the water trough, but i cant make them drink from it. believe what you want. it's not important enough for me to argue over


----------



## bluesguitar1972 (Jul 16, 2011)

cheezyridr said:


> i can lead a horse to the water trough, but i cant make them drink from it. believe what you want. it's not important enough for me to argue over


Hey man, not trying to make enemies. I'm just saying that Gibson's business practice is no different from any other business or working person. It's not really something you can argue. The right or wrong of it, well you're getting into a deeper discussion on the merits and pitfalls of capitalism, but really, the whole world intentionally or unintentionally lives it the same system, regardless of whatever political blanket that covers them.


----------

