Gibson Archtops returning 2026?

[Christian Miller]

For some that may be a good thing

For myself I find most Far Eastern laminate jazz boxes, Eastman, Ibanez, doesn’t matter - are often great instruments a bit ‘flat’ we-wise. It’s an overgeneralisation probably but IME Gibson laminates tend to have a bit more mid range cut as a rule which makes them excellent ensemble guitars.

To some they might sound a bit nasal or ugly even, but it’s what makes them distinctive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

That's interesting, isn't that an uncommon opinion that they're nasal? I found the opposite with my 175

[GuitarJay]

maple neck and ebony fingerboard though - probably brighter?

Though I've played many ES-175s, I haven't played Eastman version, so I can't comment. Gibson did make maple-necked ES-175s for a period.

[Bill C]

Though I've played many ES-175s, I haven't played Eastman version, so I can't comment. Gibson did make maple-necked ES-175s for a period.

Yes, I was thinking that about the maple necks as I wrote it. It’s odd to my mind that Eastman didn’t go for the “classic” 175 mahogany and rosewood combo on the neck though - maybe more costly?

[pawlowski6132]

Gibson is not a luxury brand. Gibson makes stringed musical instruments, as do many other manufacturers. If Gibson tries to sell its products at excessively high prices, Gibson will lose potential customers to its competitors.

it absolutely is a luxury brand. What are you talking about? Everything they sell is ridiculously expensive and as a result of a great marketing department, people will pay for the brand image.

[John A.]

I’m intrigued by the fact that “there’s nothing like a 175” (which I’d personally agree with), but does any other manufacturer currently make a similar off-the-shelf guitar, ie same dimensions, same woods/laminates? I’m not aware of one, or would this be a copyright infringement? This seems odd, given the proliferation of high end clones of say teles and strats, which I guess there is more demand for.

As Litterick notes, copyright would not come into play, but trademark does. The only aspect of Gibson instruments' visual designs that they've been consistently able to enforce as a trademark is the "open book" headstock. Otherwise, they've recently succeeded in enforcing the flying V shape, but not their more regular guitar shapes (which are pretty generic and not some sort of Gibson signature). SFAIK, these successes have only been within the US.

In other countries IP laws and enforcement are different. So, for example, in Japan and China companies can (and do) copy the open book legally, and there are many visually exact copies of ES-175's made in both countries (e.g., Greco, Edwards, Tokai, many anonymous "chibsons") and sold there (and to a degree in Europe). They just can't be legally imported into the US.

With respect to what counts as a trademark, it's the same thing with Fender (headstocks, yes; body shapes, no). However, Fender licenses their headstock shapes to others (e.g., Warmoth and other parts suppliers), but Gibson does not. That's why there are "legal" visually exact Fender copies, but not Gibson ones (other than Epiphone, which is owned by Gibson). That said, most of the high end Fender-like-objects are not visually exact copies. Builders use their own headstock designs as trademarks (e.g., Sadowsky, Suhr, PRS). There are often other subtle differences in body shape or size if you look closely.

[AllanAllen]

But you can also buy an ordinary ES-335 at Guitar Center for $2,999. You could go to a store with $10,000 and buy three Gibsons, or one. Most Gibson guitars are midrange.

You're moving the goalpost. We are talking about archtops, carved ones at that.

[pawlowski6132]

Here's how I perceive the brand equivalents:

Today:

Car Brand	Watch Brand	Guitar Brand
Mercedes, BMW, Lexus	Omega, Rolex	Gibson, Collings
Bugatti, McClaren, Rolls Royce	Richard Mille, A. Lange & Söhne,	Benedetto, Monteleone, Zeidler, Manzer
Buick, Honda, Lincoln	Tissot, Hamilton, Seiko	Ibanez, Eastman, Epiphone

Of course, there's a large aftermarket for collectable and desirable archtop guitars too. That looks a little different because today's luxury brands were yesterday's elite brands.

Car Brand	Watch Brand	Guitar Brand
Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, Cadillac	Omega, Rolex	Gibson, D’Angelico, Stromberg

[Sigmund451]

Aside from the discussion being mostly about archops am I the only one that thinks 3k is pretty high for solid body build that has a pressed top providing some F holes (a 335) ?

Its not insane but its no bargain.

[AllanAllen]

Aside from the discussion being mostly about archops am I the only one that thinks 3k is pretty high for solid body build that has a pressed top providing some F holes (a 335) ?

Its not insane but its no bargain.

I can't even tell anymore. Inflation made a loaf of bread $5 instead of $2, so maybe a 335 holding steady at $3k is becoming reasonable. That's just theoretical, my pay hasn't gone up 150% to match bread costs.

[Sigmund451]

I hear ya!
And Im the first to admit Im cheap so Im no yardstick either.
I dont want to suggest that Its a rip off, but it is high...but Gibson has always commanded a higher price so it does not shock me.

[Stringswinger]

Gibson guitars may lose value as Gen Z buyers take over the musical instrument marketplace.

Used Harleys now sell for about 25 percent (after adjusting for inflation) of what they did 30 years ago. Tastes change and brand value can go up or down depending on those changes.

[Sigmund451]

Yes and that generation didnt grow up with the idea that if you want a good guitar you grab a Gibson (or a couple of other brands). They have been flooded with choice and some of those choices are quite good.

When a lot of us older guys expire is there going to be a glut of archtops people dont really want?
I realize there are probably a lot more young guys in the mix than I know of but Im betting its top heavy in terms of age.

And face it, we are the generation with more cash and maybe the last. The younger gen is saddled with debt and insane living costs. 10k guitars????

[Stringswinger]

When a lot of us older guys expire is there going to be a glut of archtops people dont really want?

No doubt. IMO, The big question is "when" not "if". Many of us Boomers will not live long enough to see this, so if you want a Gibson archtop, time is probably not on your side.

[John A.]

Aside from the discussion being mostly about archops am I the only one that thinks 3k is pretty high for solid body build that has a pressed top providing some F holes (a 335) ?

Its not insane but its no bargain.

A 335 is not a solid body. It's built like a hollow body (i.e., with bent wood sides and separate top and back pieces all glued together), but with a block of wood glued inside. To the extent that price is driven by cost, I don't find it surprising that a 335 was priced in the same ballpark new as a 175. There's more wood in a 175 (and maybe more paint and lacquer), but labor for the woodworking, assembly, and finishing are similar, and they're made in the same factory with the tooling and overhead costs. In any event, though, pricing is only loosely connected to the direct labor costs of construction, and you can't infer much about price, even from larger labor cost differences. They charge what the market will bear.

[jads57]

Gibson is making some great guitars for sure. But the ones that are in demand are targeted to Rock and Blues players. And the most expensive seem to be the Worn Jeans Cool ones,Lol!

Archtops are a very limited market,especially carved ones. Just like the music they were intended to be used for.
The profits just aren’t there for a large company.And this would be a money loser for them,even at high prices.
I bemoan their loss as well, but am encouraged by all of the great bespoke Archtop luthiers nowadays and their beautifully crafted guitars.

[Bill C]

Tastes change and brand value can go up or down depending on those changes.

Very true - I traded in a 63 Fender Jag (admittedly refinished) for £125 several decades ago. This was pre-Nirvana …

[andrew]

Here's how I perceive the brand equivalents:

Today:

Car Brand	Watch Brand	Guitar Brand
Mercedes, BMW, Lexus	Omega, Rolex	Gibson, Collings
Bugatti, McClaren, Rolls Royce	Richard Mille, A. Lange & Söhne,	Benedetto, Monteleone, Zeidler, Manzer
Buick, Honda, Lincoln	Tissot, Hamilton, Seiko	Ibanez, Eastman, Epiphone

Of course, there's a large aftermarket for collectable and desirable archtop guitars too. That looks a little different because today's luxury brands were yesterday's elite brands.

Car Brand	Watch Brand	Guitar Brand
Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, Cadillac	Omega, Rolex	Gibson, D’Angelico, Stromberg

I generally agree with a lot of this, but as a Lincoln driver, I have to take exception with it being lumped in with Buick and Honda. Ford would have been a better fit there. I'd put Lincoln in the same category as Cadillac, I.e. elite brands of yesteryear.

[Gitfiddler]

Gibson recognizes the limited market for their expensive archtops. They limit building them to an absolute minimum...and premium price.

I haven't seen any communication from Gibson about archtop builds on the web.

That said, when I Googled this question, here's the AI generated response:

"Yes, Gibson still builds archtop guitars, but production is very limited, often through custom orders or special runs, with models like the L-5 or Byrdland appearing as dealer specials, rather than mass-produced models, due to high costs and smaller demand compared to solid-body guitars, with many discussions pointing to a shift away from regular archtop lines after factory changes...".

Once in a while a one-off Gibson Custom Shop archtop pops up on the web. Maybe a previous CS order that finally made it to a lucky buyer.

That said, Heritage has somehow continued to offer its fine archtops (Eagle and H575).
Plus, if one throws a truckload at them they'll build you one of their top tier H-717 archtops.

Heritage Core Collection H-717 Electric Guitar | Heritage Guitars

[pawlowski6132]

Gibson is making some great guitars for sure. But the ones that are in demand are targeted to Rock and Blues players. And the most expensive seem to be the Worn Jeans Cool ones,Lol!

Archtops are a very limited market,especially carved ones. Just like the music they were intended to be used for.
The profits just aren’t there for a large company.And this would be a money loser for them,even at high prices.
I bemoan their loss as well, but am encouraged by all of the great bespoke Archtop luthiers nowadays and their beautifully crafted guitars.

I couldn't think of one serious musician or well-heeled hobbyist that's in the market for an archtop that is buying anything new except perhaps from a custom luthier, especially acoustic archtops. All the good stuff was made years ago. I wouldn't take a new Gibson archtop today if you gave it to me. That could be said for their flat tops too. I don't care if it's "aged" or not. Because it's not. It's just dried out tops.

I've tried MANY of their re-issue stuff...it's all just marketing getting you to buy something that is perceived as being as good as the genuine vintage stuff. Why do you think they're doing that to begin with? The used market was active and they weren't selling that many new guitars. Just my conjecture.

[pawlowski6132]

I generally agree with a lot of this, but as a Lincoln driver, I have to take exception with it being lumped in with Buick and Honda. Ford would have been a better fit there. I'd put Lincoln in the same category as Cadillac, I.e. elite brands of yesteryear.

Fair enough. I really like the Lincoln's too. They're sharp.

Sorry about that.

[L50EF15]

I have often wondered what happened to the tooling used for the Solid Formed guitars. If Gibson didn’t just toss it (possible, but given the expense of getting it setup, doubtful), I see no reason why it couldn’t be used going forward.

And not just for electric guitars. There’s a gap in the market for affordable purely acoustic archtops. I suspect that something like an L-50 reissue would meet that demand. And building it with solid pressed woods would probably be less expensive than building it with traditional carving methods.

Maybe I am wrong; I probably am wrong. But my gut tells me that this could work. And I have some basis of comparison with two L-50s (1934 and 1960); an L-75 (1939); an L Jr. (1925); a reissue/tribute Epiphone Zenith (2017); and a Harmony H1310 Brilliant (1971). The Zenith is definitely better than online opinion led me to believe, and the Harmony is outstanding, so I know that pressed solid wood instruments can be very good. And of course, market sticker shock aside, I have never seen anything negative about the Solid Formed Gibbons made on Bruce Kunkel’s watch.

I dunno. My gut tells me that Gibson could successfully make an acoustic archtop equivalent to the current J-45/J-35. They probably won’t do that, much as I would love to see it. My read is that if archtops return next year, we’ll see only electric versions: ES-175; L-5CES (and probably the Wes version at that) and the Super 400 CES. Probably $5K/$10k/$15K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mr. beaumont]

Here's how I perceive the brand equivalents:

Today:

Car Brand	Watch Brand	Guitar Brand
Mercedes, BMW, Lexus	Omega, Rolex	Gibson, Collings
Bugatti, McClaren, Rolls Royce	Richard Mille, A. Lange & Söhne,	Benedetto, Monteleone, Zeidler, Manzer
Buick, Honda, Lincoln	Tissot, Hamilton, Seiko	Ibanez, Eastman, Epiphone

Of course, there's a large aftermarket for collectable and desirable archtop guitars too. That looks a little different because today's luxury brands were yesterday's elite brands.

Car Brand	Watch Brand	Guitar Brand
Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, Cadillac	Omega, Rolex	Gibson, D’Angelico, Stromberg

Motor Vehicle Brand: Yamaha
Watch Brand: Yamaha
Guitar Brand: Yamaha

[Hammertone]

I'm more of a Belchfire Wombat man myself.

[L50EF15]

Motor Vehicle Brand: Yamaha
Watch Brand: Yamaha
Guitar Brand: Yamaha

And Yamaha, via Guild, has the A150 Savoy (solid but pressed top and back) still in production. And I keep fighting off GAS pains for one…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk