|
|
Post by newey on Feb 23, 2010 22:49:46 GMT -5
We often hear nowadays how Gibson guitars are overpriced. In 1969, the year of Woodstock, 41 years ago, Gibson introduce the Les Paul Deluxe, with a few differences from the Les Paul Standard of the previous years. The list price was $425 USD. You might have got a music store to shave $25-30 off that as the street price. In 2010 dollars, $425 equates to $2585.30. MF lists a new 2010 Les Paul "Standard Traditional", essentially the same guitar, for $2189.00. Both are US made, some of the components are different, but I'd bet a blindfolded player couldn't tell the difference in sound or playability, assuming both were brand new when tested. So, what's all this about overpriced? Now, of course, I can't afford to buy one in 2010 and I'm not in the market for one- but I couldn't have afforded it in 1969, either . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by dunkelfalke on Feb 24, 2010 1:39:47 GMT -5
back then they needed much more manual work (no cnc machines, no automatic pickup winders) and had to recouple development costs. now they just sit on their backs, milking the same old cow for decades,
your turn.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Feb 24, 2010 4:23:10 GMT -5
Interesting... I just worked out that if I'd saved all my weekly pocket money that I got in 1969, I could have had my very own Les Paul Standard by the year 2002!
John
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 24, 2010 14:25:12 GMT -5
They didn't have CNC, but I'm willing to bet that pickups were not wound by hand as of 1969. And the basic guitar model had been around, as of 1969, for over 14 years, so I'm willing to bet they'd already recouped their development costs by then.
You could do the same comparison with cars, then vs. now- and you'd find that the cost of a similar-sized car has increased more than the rate of inflation. But that's a false comparison, because the 2010 model would be a better machine- more economical, faster, safer, more comfort and conveniences- than a similar car from 1969.
But with the guitar, the basic object hasn't really changed much. They are "resting on their laurels", so to speak, with a 50 year old design- but so is Fender and everyone else. And they can do this only because their market doesn't demand an upgraded product.
|
|
|
|
Post by ijustwannastrat on Feb 24, 2010 21:03:06 GMT -5
The fact that my local luthier can make a higher quality guitar, custom fit to ME for about the same price says something.
My uncle has always been a Les Paul guy. About 3 years ago he bought a Les Paul, and when he received it there was paint on the binding, the binding was installed awefully, and the pup switch did not work. After MUCH hassle, he returned the guitar and got his money back. He sold his other 2 Les Pauls asap, and bought a PRS Custom 24. I think that the wiring is much better on the PRS, and it came in perfect condition.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Feb 24, 2010 22:49:37 GMT -5
I got my Gibson SG Standard 31 years ago. It was (and still is) a well-made guitar. The wiring (such as it is) was well-done and offered THREE switching choices - Rhythm - Both Pickups and Treble Pickup.  Wow, all those tone options offered decades of musical exploration. Well, maybe about 10 minutes. As far as Gibson and Fender resting on their laurels, I'd say definitely! How many questions posted here are asking 1) I want my Gibson to have a brighter sound OR 2) I want my Stratocaster (or Telecaster) to have a fuller sound? And how have these manufacturers responded to their customers requests? Gibson has released the Robot Guitar - a self-tuning guitar that was probably demanded by about two people (if that). Fender seems to churn out the same stuff decade after decade. Oh but they can be innovative. I imagine they will release yet another special edition of the Stratocaster to celebrate its 55½ year anniversary. |
|
|
|
Post by Double Yoi on Feb 27, 2010 1:07:07 GMT -5
I went to the Gibson Custom shop road show here in Charleston about 4 months ago,Played the '59 Reissue. $4600. Plastic nut, horrible binding, and the inlays looked fake. It was set up nicely and played well. They had line6 PODs to plug into with headphones. Now this is a custom shop guitar for the $4600. I left kinda bummed out with the quality.
From a few conversations I've had with friends is that the best Mahogany for guitars is the stuff that comes from the middle portion of the tree, not sure if this is true or not. Sure Newey an Cyn1 will shed some light on this.
The mahogany that Gibson is using is from the bottom of the tree, which is more dense, there fore, heavier. They say that to keep to specs that Gibson has to chamber out some under the maple top. I tend to think this would add the tone of the guitar.
Another friend of mine in Jersey bought a early 80's LP standard and swears by it. Loves it better than his mid 90's PRS.
I have personally talked to a dude in the guitar biz for 35 years that tells me most Gibson's are only assembled in the US. I know he worked for them in the 1990's and is now hocking his own brand, but assembled is not "made" But "made" costs more than assembled. I think that if I was to spend $4600. or even the $2189, I would go custom builder or local luthier like what IJWS mentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Feb 27, 2010 8:30:42 GMT -5
If their quality has slipped from what it used to be, then that's a valid point to saying "overpriced". My point was that, by and large, the price of high-end guitars has basically just kept up with inflation. We're not paying any more, in constant dollars, than our fathers or grandfathers did.
I could have used Fender or Gretsch in my example equally well.
What has changed is the number of choices we have now. In the 1960s, the Japanese makers were flooding the low-end, "starter guitar" segment of the market, but if you wanted a high-quality instrument, your choices were pretty much limited to Gibson, Fender, or Gretsch (along with a few other smaller outfits) in the high-end of the market.
Nowadays, there are many high-end guitars from Asia and elsewhere. And IJWS and CL's idea of going to a custom luthier wasn't an option back then- the few that did exist focused on acoustics, mainly.
And Craig, I'm no expert on the history of the LP, but I believe that LP bodies have always been chambered. Whether they take out more wood now than formerly I have no idea. An LP has always, technically, been a semi-hollow body, not a solid body guitar.
I've also often wondered why Fender's solid-bodies are so beloved, while their attempts at hollow bodies were such failures (anybody remember the Coronado?). Ultimately, Fender just gave up on hollow body electrics.
Conversely, Gibson makes both types, but their success largely rests on their hollow-bodies, if we call the LP a hollow body. The SG is really the only Gibby solid body that has stood the test of time. The Vees, Explorers, Firebirds, etc. all pretty much tanked back when they were introduced, and were only resurrected by Gibson years later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Double Yoi on Feb 28, 2010 7:24:40 GMT -5
Point taken as I am not sure how much wood is taken out under normal circumstances. Do you think that Gibson and Fender kinda set the market price? MF has LP studio at $1,319 and American standard Strat and Teles at $1,149. So now ESP can ask 1,499 for thier eclipse model, Ibanez asks 1,599 for thier Prestige, and Prs asking over 3,000 for most of thier models. I think it kinda fools some folks that to get a good guitar you have to spend that much or worse, Only expensive guitars are good.
|
|
mrpeabody
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
|
Post by mrpeabody on May 23, 2010 9:25:39 GMT -5
I think Gibson is in a tough spot, competition-wise. With all the makers using 3rd world labor to cut cost (including them with their Epiphone Brand), yet their products still shine and are duly respected in all segments of the industry. Thankfully they're still around and they have products in all price ranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by sydsbluesky on May 23, 2010 11:56:11 GMT -5
I love my 1700 dollar Gibson. I love my 200 dollar ESP just as much. I'd love to see something new come out of either the Gibson or the Fender camps, but let's face the facts, people. Everyone loves vintage these days. Innovation simply isn't profitable. Sure, guitars with "tonetubes," or bridges that never go out of tune, or guitars that tune themselves, or guitars that look like cricket bats are AROUND... but how many of you lug those around to the gig? Those 1200 whatever dollar Gibson studio LP are about the ugliest guitars I've ever seen. The Gibson darkfire was auto-tuning and had midi linkage. It also looked freakin' incredible, but I guess that's not exactly innovation. Oh, and didn't it have a p-90 at the neck? Don't remember. The current "Les Paul Standard tradition Pro" has coil splitting and a plek setup. Not to forget that it looks like six-stringed sex in vintage sunburst. That's cool. Then we have the LP AXcess, or however that's spelled. Hilariously expensive for features you can get from ESP for 1/10th the cost. I mean, yeah... that's nice. NEXT! Fender does some interesting stuff. Mostly sketch paint schemes for their Squier line and franticly call agents to secure the next custom series idea, it seems. Hey, Fender. I have your next big thing. Counter sink your spring cover plates... Actually that's not half bad! However... I do love my Gibson LP. Reasonably priced for a guitar with full body and neck binding and a set neck, and it has mini humbuckers for a bit of a brighter sound. It came with the normal wiring, which works for me (I bet you could hear a pin drop in most of your rooms right about now!  ) I could spend all day on that neck pickup and never get bored. And if I do, well hell... That's why they make pedals! And amps! And P-90s! P-90? Did someone open the shade, because it just got BRIGHT in here! Those studio Gibsons are pretty honest, too. They're ugly because they're for the studio. The guy that came up with THAT one was a cheeky SoB, I'd wager. Are they overpriced? Perhaps. But I knew what I was getting when I bought that guitar... well, technically it was a grad gift, but let's not split hairs... I was getting a Gibson. I wasn't buying the ESP or the Schecter or the Ibanez. That Gibson name still means something in this town. Sure, plenty of people start off with a cheaper guitar. I did. But when they get onto MF during their lunch break to daydream where are they casting their lustful gaze? Well, we can't sort by lust, but the fact that when you go to guitars and sort by best selling you get four Gibsons and a Fender tells me that they eventually bought it. |
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jun 30, 2010 17:26:21 GMT -5
IS Gibson the " standard " these days ? i am not a Gibson hater by any means , i LOVE my SGs ... but it will be a cold day in hell when i buy a new Gibson. i AM still lusting after an Epiphone Prophesy SG ... when i have the spare change laying around i will have to acquire one Ibanez , ESP / LTD , and others are offering guitars that just blow Gibson and Fender out of the water . i dont really care where a guitar is made , just that is is awesome , and dosent cost a fortune. and on to Fender ... were they EVER the standard for anything other than production line cost cutting ? Fenders were never made to be BETTER than Gibson , just cheaper . i guess Fender IS the standard for marketing .... |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 30, 2010 19:48:23 GMT -5
For overall quality at a given price point, that may well be true. But, consider this. While I don't have the model-by-model sales figures for any of those makers, I'd be willing to bet that each of those companies makes a majority of their profit selling what are, in essence, copies of Strat and/or LP And/or SG body styles.
All those Ibby shredder guitars are by and large of the so-called "Superstrat" design, a rear-routed pickguard-less Strat for all practical purposes. And all those other companies make LP/SG versions as well- and probably sell more of those than of any of their more original offerings.
For whatever reasons, those Fender and Gibson designs have stood the test of time. It's more than just marketing- Ibanez isn't copying Fender's advertising, but they have been copying its guitars.
So, while you can certainly say that these other companies may build a better LP at a better price, note that it's still an LP they're building, more or less. Gotta give Fender and Gibson some credit for the timelessness of their designs, not just for their marketing.
And, given a market full of all these different versions, it isn't too surprising that a number of buyers figure: "Heck, I'll just get the real deal rather than an imitator".
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jul 5, 2010 17:17:51 GMT -5
a Superstrat is a different animal than a Fender Stratocaster .... true , they have body shapes that are Stratish to different degrees , and usually a vibrato bridge of some sort. they also have features of Gibson Les Pauls / SGs .... and features all their own. these features are combined into a package that is a far cry from those 1950s designs. yes , a huge number of Fender and Gibson clones are sold by other companies ... usually they are cheap , inexpensive beginners models. people do not buy an Ibanez Prestige RG , Jackson Soloist , ESP Horizon . etc because they really want a Fender . if you are a Fender Strat guy , chances are those guitars mentioned above are not your cup o tea. but on the flip side , if a sleek , fast , amazingly playable , hot looking guitar is what you are into , then a stock Fender is nice , but kinda blah and old fashioned. among the vintage crowd Fender and Gibson may still be king .... but there are a ton of players who demand more than what the retread copies of 50 year old designs can offer. that is why the Superstrat style of guitar was invented in the first place , and why it has flourished in the past 3 decades or so . honestly ... do you really think of a Jackson Soloist as an imitation Fender ? all i am saying is that Gibson and Fender are no longer the big 2 , and have not been for a loooong time. they might be the big 2 to the general public , and in marketing / sales ... but in quality , value , and innovation they dropped the ball long ago. ... and thats what i think about that ...  |
|
|
|
Post by jcgss77 on Jul 20, 2010 17:15:05 GMT -5
I hear a lot about the "huge marketing budgets" of the guitar companies, most notably Fender and Gibson. Anyone know how much they spend?
They obviously set the standard for the then cutting-edge designs of electric guitar. And they have come up with a lot of nice additions to their line since, but they are all based on the same old body styles and simple wiring schemes that are even in all the cheaper companies using their already tried styles.
But hey now, if that wasn't the way, then what about GuitarNutz? If this wasn't how it is, we would not be talking about this subject on this forum. We would be talking about the new Gibson SG with a P90 in the neck, the bridge humbucker with phase and coil split, and the synth pickup with onboard effects, all the PU's active and all is powered by a rechargeable battery. But that is what we do. We take the guitars which are sold (expensive or cheap) and make the machine of our dreams.
Lets face it. There is NO market for innovation when it comes to guitars. Look at Switch-having never played one, I cannot speak from experience, but that idea I think is awesome. I have been hunting one down, but can't get it in my price range. Just think-a guitar which has excellent resonance/tone transfer from head to toe, and is not susceptible to humidity and water. Of course, it is not wood, and doesn't sound like wood, but has a tone of it's own. And they didn't sell.
So what is the point?
People just don't buy innovation, they just want what they heard is good, and what their friends have and what their role models endorse. There is no better salesman than the friend who brings over their new Fender and starts rocking out, and says "Man, this is it."
Are these guitars overpriced? I think so, except for some all American-Made guitars. However, these all American ones should have a quality which is well beyond all the imports.
Most importantly, though, is that as long as people buy stuff that is overpriced, companies will sell a product that is overpriced.
My 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 20, 2010 20:04:12 GMT -5
No idea what they spend, and it is probably quite large compared to other manufacturers in the industry. But we must keep in mind that, while guitar is a popular instrument, the vast majority of the human populace isn't in the market for one. Even among guitarists, the market for new instruments is only a percentage of sales. Fender, Gibson, et al., are pretty small companies in the greater scheme of things.
Even for large, publicly-traded companies, it can be difficult if not impossible to figure out the total a company is spending on advertising, in one form or another. Sure, the balance sheet will have a line item for "Advertising costs", but that usually only includes direct costs for TV/radio/print ads. There will also be a listing for "charitable contributions"; that includes the costs of company-sponsored charity events, with the corporate logo splashed all over everything in site- which is all really advertising anyway.
Fender's endorser payments are probably listed as "product consultant's fees" or some such.
But, you're right, there's not much innovation these days. There's a principle of product design (and don't ask me what this is called or where I read it, because I don't remember . . .) that holds that, as the design of a product "matures" through different iterations over time, all designs become more and more similar. This is because, once the basic features of a design become "set", anything other than incremental minor changes make the object less well suited to its purpose. In other words, design naturally hits a point at which the design can't really be made "better".
In the early days of cars, there were a large variety of body styles. One could buy a steam-powered car, an electric car, or a gas car. After a while, the market settled on gas propulsion and a basic sedan layout; the design was "maturing", such that any radical departures likely resulted in an inferior design. But even then, the shapes of cars were distinctively different- you could tell a Buick from a Dodge at a glance. Nowadays, as designers focus on the most aerodynamic shapes, design has become further focused- and they now all look like jellybeans on wheels.
Of course, we're in the midst of a sea change in the market as far as propulsion of cars is concerned, but that's a different story.
The point of this screed is that, other than "vintage appeal", the rules of design dictate that, over time, most guitar designs would be expected to converge towards a more-or-less similar platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jul 20, 2010 23:51:31 GMT -5
but they keep repeating the same mistakes and design flaws
|
|
|
|
Post by jcgss77 on Jul 22, 2010 16:04:51 GMT -5
Yes. And why not? These flaws have become the standard, so there is no need to exert the extra cost to change that. Ever heard the story about the computer company that stopped using a clicking power button for their monitors, cpu's, and other items with a switch? They saved 2 cents per item, but in total, counting all the monitors made over a year, that amounted to savings in millions. And all this at the same price as if they had the clicker. This is a tried-and-true American Way. And we always come back for more.
Unfortunately, the only way to get a guitar which is made right, is to pay an American custom shop or a private luthier their thousands of dollars to have it. I don't know about you, but if I dropped even 1 large on a guitar, I would be on the missing persons list.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcgss77 on Jul 22, 2010 16:05:53 GMT -5
Aha, so why don't we guitar nutz get together, and make a guitar company? Is that not a dream of everyone on here?
|
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Jul 22, 2010 17:37:59 GMT -5
Because if everyone is anything like me, it takes two years to make a guitar. How would we split the (supposed) profits? I wouldn't want to think about my hourly wage. ;D -lpf3 |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jul 22, 2010 21:33:02 GMT -5
First one to win the Lottery starts it...
HTC1
|
|
|
|
Post by Yew on Aug 17, 2010 10:56:45 GMT -5
Its a lose-lose situation for guitar manufacturers, over on the gibson forums, we regularly have the complaints about gibson making stupid robot models when they cant get the bevels on an sg right.. well they can one the $2000 VOS models, but not on the standard. ie; the model the VOS is copying. Sorry about my rant there.. we have been telling gibson exactly what they need to do.. deeper bevels, a wine red and heratige cherry colour option, and the lyre vibrola option on all guitars. But they dont do it, they go out and make the Zoot suit guitar.... |
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 17, 2010 20:29:39 GMT -5
thank goodness for Epiphone .... the Prophesy SGs are flat out awesome
|
|
|
|
Post by ijustwannastrat on Aug 17, 2010 22:33:55 GMT -5
So what it sounds like is, 1) Gibson doesn't renovate 2) Gibson's attempt at being "fresh" are in fact, "fail" 3) Gibson's attempt at putting out their safe, old designs are fail My plan! 1) Make a company with a cool name 2)  3) PROFIT!!! 4) Live out the rest of my life with no worries, because my cool name will keep the company afloat |
|
|
|
Post by Yew on Aug 18, 2010 3:50:35 GMT -5
The WHite sg with the coil taps is nice, for the same price as a normal standard too.. just a shame all gibsons attempst at renovation dont go so well  |
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 18, 2010 11:55:57 GMT -5
its not just Gibson ... Fender is the same way ....
how many Strat and Tele reissues do we REALLY need ?
it seems the lemmings love reissues , so why should Gibson and Fender bother changing ?
|
|
|
|
Post by ijustwannastrat on Aug 18, 2010 12:10:20 GMT -5
its not just Gibson ... Fender is the same way .... how many Strat and Tele reissues do we REALLY need ? it seems the lemmings love reissues , so why should Gibson and Fender bother changing ? I get what you mean, but they are kind of mucking things up with certain things. (great use of the english language, amirite?) I will NEVER own a chambered Les Paul. Fender, give me a blackguard tele WITHOUT fake damage. Gibson, I will tune my own guitar, TYVM. VOS is amazing. Relic'ed, not so much. Gibson, I know you are planning a reversed body LP, but don't do it! Also, don't drill a bunch of holes into my guitar, and call it "Holy" What is this?Gibson, please, angle the tailpiece on the LP correctly. You used to do it! All of this, yet Gibson can't put a volute in their necks? I have more, but I feel like I'm just Bitching. I guess that's why we have custom builders out there. |
|
|
|
Post by Yew on Aug 18, 2010 12:53:42 GMT -5
On the bright side, the gibson forums are back up, however I'm disapointed they dont self-tune your words |
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Aug 18, 2010 13:02:36 GMT -5
i agree .... some of those "cool" (?) changes / features / options might be great for some of us , some not so great ...
some SMART changes / features / options would be nice .
would it REALLY be so difficult to talk with customers , real world players , etc , and find out what is wrong with their instruments and what WE want / need ?
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 18, 2010 14:05:57 GMT -5
Just another poorly disguised attempt to suck yet more money of of the pockets of retired or soon-to-retire boomers. Laughable. Or pitiful, take your choice. sumgai |
|
Wow, all those tone options offered decades of musical exploration. Well, maybe about 10 minutes. 
) I could spend all day on that neck pickup and never get bored. And if I do, well hell... That's why they make pedals! And amps! And P-90s! P-90? Did someone open the shade, because it just got BRIGHT in here!
