Gibson Archtops returning 2026?

[John A.]

Yes, the value of the Yen vs the U.S. Dollar is as low as it's ever been in the last 4 years, 1 Y = .63 USD now, thus the lower price for new Japanese guitars. However, the Bank of Japan intends to raise its interest rate and the value of the dollar is falling so this should turn around.

1 Yen is not .63 USD; it’s .0063 USD (or about 158 yen to the dollar.

[Bill C]

In dollars it's actually $1,300 new, case not included.
???????????????????
There's a fancier model with solid rims for a couple hundred more.

I’m not in the US, but you’d be looking at shipping costs and, I assume, import costs on top of that.

[Stringswinger]

Two years ago, a member of this forum paid just under $2,400 for an Archtop Tribute 175.

Archtop Tribute Custom ATC175

I presume that today, with the duties and shipping costs having increased, it would be more like 3K. On reverb, people are asking 2K plus for used examples.

Just a moment...

They are still way cheaper than a new Borys, Holst or what Gibson will presumably charge if they ever make them again.

[Gitterbug]

Back to Gibson. Remember Midtown, a lower-priced semi introduced in 2011. The specs below may refer to a later Custom version:

• Chambered Mahogany body with carved, bound Maple top
• Mahogany neck with '60s SlimTaper neck profile
• Black Richlite fingerboard with acrylic block inlays
• Burstbucker 1 in the neck and Burstbucker 2 in the bridge
• Grover kidney button tuners with 14:1 tuning ratio
• Vintage Sunburst, Heritage Cherry Sunburst, Ebony, or Antique Natural finishes
• MSRP $2299

These go for under 1K used. Not a success, not an investment, a lot of mahogany wasted in chips. I would prefer to see a solid line of Asian-made Epiphone pro-quality archtops in the 1-2K range, vs. 6K+ Gibson laminates. There's more qualified luthiers than ever for the hand-carved top echelon. US labor cost is not the issue. I rather believe that the overhead costs of large US corporations (marketing, insurance, legal etc.), plus pressure from investors and shareholders, would necessitate exorbitant prices for new L5s.

[jads57]

So there seems to be a conflation of Carved Instruments and Laminate ones,here in this thread.
While I realize most here are aware of the difference, the price of a true carved wood instrument would be at least double the price, reflecting the hours involved in its construction.

So that along with say formed instrument construction, seems to muddy the waters in this discussion.
And add to that CNC, and other newer practices?
I can’t see Gibson paying experienced fine luthiers to make them in the old ways. Especially since they are money motivated. Unless this is a Loss Leader for them in some way.

[Mick-7]

1 Yen is not .63 USD; it’s .0063 USD (or about 158 yen to the dollar.

Right you are, I moved the decimal by .00.

Two years ago, a member of this forum paid just under $2,400 for an Archtop Tribute 175.

Archtop Tribute Custom ATC175

I presume that today, with the duties and shipping costs having increased, it would be more like 3K. On reverb, people are asking 2K plus for used examples.

Not sure, the value of the Yen vs USD was about 13% higher back then, and the Walkin page that m_d posted the link to says $1310 USD including taxes, plus shipping, etc. How much higher can it be? Add 25% and the total price is close to $1640.

[deacon Mark]

I don't think Gibson would get into the process unless they could at least bring a profit. Does not mean that it is going to be the bread and butter of Gibson. It will actually be the opposite I suspect. How many could they actually make in a year? I doubt they could make 25 L5's in a year. That is nothing since they could sell 25 Lesters in the time it takes to write out the order for one L5. The ES 175 might take a bit more in terms even of set up given they are laminate but nothing in voicing since they are laminate. Getting the laminated tops and backs is not particularly easy either but once had you just brace and glue.

To me a company builds guitars like this based on a legacy and tradition assuming they can take on the work without damaging the profit. If Gibson wanted to piss dealers off they could simply take orders of these guitars from anyone just like a builder. You pay upfront a certain cost and then the full on receipt. Skip the middleman. So, I will throw a hypothetical out What if Gibson said they would build an L5ces with 6 month lead. We need you to come up with %25 percent before we even start. So they charge you $16k for one you put down your $4k. From a buying perspective the guitar is new so no issues like cracked necks and the typical vintage crap shoot depending on you seller. It is new so you can say it was made for you and have all the history. The betting on this might be better than the $10k on Reverb that you don't know much about. It is a lot money but it is not out of the world in terms of price. Price a new Selmer Alto Sax is 7-10K$.

I think there are enough in players and collectors that might bite. They are out nothing in a sense the guitar is sold before it is made. Do the math at Gibson and see if it works. The question is how much of your manufacturing process is being taken by these small orders? I have no idea but they can sell a rack of Les Pauls probably without the same trouble.

[m_d]

Two years ago, a member of this forum paid just under $2,400 for an Archtop Tribute 175.

Archtop Tribute Custom ATC175

I presume that today, with the duties and shipping costs having increased, it would be more like 3K. On reverb, people are asking 2K plus for used examples.

Just a moment...

They are still way cheaper than a new Borys, Holst or what Gibson will presumably charge if they ever make them again.

Really? I've imported a Martin from the US to Switzerland a couple of years ago, price was $1,500 (used), and shipping and customs combined about $300.

[Aiq]

I turned away from custom stuff due to long waits. A year on one, over two on another.

That said I ordered (now sold) aGibson Martino sig in June, was told they build when they get 50 orders, and I had it in November.

That is a workable model.

My problem is I have trouble spending over 2 - 2.5 K on a guitar so I’ll never have a Gibson archtop.

[DRS]

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.

Most of Gibson's line is a luxury brand.
Click on my link. This is from the big Gibson dealer in Canada., L&M. Multiply by 1.26 for $NZ plus whatever added mark-up your distributor charges which appears to be about 20%. Now, yes, these are the CS guitars but all 170 guitars are over $5,000. 17 are over $10,000. 27 are $9,000 - $9,999. In the USA production list, there are 160 of 280 guitars $3,000 or over. I chose $3,000 as an arbitrary point of where an expensive guitar begins. Your point could be triple that. Or half. My point is that Gibson is no longer a manufacturer of instruments for working musicians but another purveyor of luxury goods.
Professional Electric Guitars - Long & McQuade

[Archie]

I don't think Gibson would get into the process unless they could at least bring a profit. Does not mean that it is going to be the bread and butter of Gibson. It will actually be the opposite I suspect. How many could they actually make in a year? I doubt they could make 25 L5's in a year. That is nothing since they could sell 25 Lesters in the time it takes to write out the order for one L5. The ES 175 might take a bit more in terms even of set up given they are laminate but nothing in voicing since they are laminate. Getting the laminated tops and backs is not particularly easy either but once had you just brace and glue.

To me a company builds guitars like this based on a legacy and tradition assuming they can take on the work without damaging the profit. If Gibson wanted to piss dealers off they could simply take orders of these guitars from anyone just like a builder. You pay upfront a certain cost and then the full on receipt. Skip the middleman. So, I will throw a hypothetical out What if Gibson said they would build an L5ces with 6 month lead. We need you to come up with %25 percent before we even start. So they charge you $16k for one you put down your $4k. From a buying perspective the guitar is new so no issues like cracked necks and the typical vintage crap shoot depending on you seller. It is new so you can say it was made for you and have all the history. The betting on this might be better than the $10k on Reverb that you don't know much about. It is a lot money but it is not out of the world in terms of price. Price a new Selmer Alto Sax is 7-10K$.

I think there are enough in players and collectors that might bite. They are out nothing in a sense the guitar is sold before it is made. Do the math at Gibson and see if it works. The question is how much of your manufacturing process is being taken by these small orders? I have no idea but they can sell a rack of Les Pauls probably without the same trouble.

All of this is rough guess work but the greatest costs imo are binding and finish.
Otherwise an L5 (without pickups) should cost about $2k (plus operating costs) to make.

The top and back plates can be carved and braced in 1 day.
The sides bent at the same time.
The box can be closed start of day 2.
Add binding to box day 3
Also and simultaneously
Neck wood cut and glued day 1
Neck carved and rod fitted day 2
Headstock veneers machined and glued day + binding day 3
Fingerboard machined and glued day 4
Neck and body fitted day 5
Prepped for spraying day 6
1-2 weeks for finish to be completed and buffed
Cut and fit marquetry and bridge
Nut added, plek’d and dressed 1-2 days

Total build time say 3 weeks but this order might change a bit. I think they can do it in 2-3 weeks. If they switched from nitro they could build one in around a week.
That would take 3 different teams, one working on necks, bodies and finish. one mans wage would be what $500 a week? x 3 so roughly $1.5K in labour, $500 parts.
Probably costs $2k to make one without other operating costs.

Judging by the hollow bodies they have in the custom shop factory tour in 2023, they are making archtops but in very low numbers.

[floatingpickup]

For many years, I have thought that it would be a good move for Gibson to license Heritage in Kalamzoo to make their archtops for them (ES-175, L5, Super 400 etc.). The people in Kalamazoo have the skills and the “heritage” and I think there is enough room in the price of a Gibson Archtop for both parties to make a profit. This way, Gibson wouldn’t have to tool up for those models and archtop enthusiasts would be thrilled to see 225 Parsons St. on the label. Heritage has built guitars for Gretsch and D’Angelico, so why not build some Gibsons? Maybe there is too much bad blood between the two companies, but I think it’s a missed opportunity.
Keith

[213Cobra]

Most of this thread about new Gibson archtops pricing neglects to consider the cost of distribution.

Mark Campellone sells direct, so if he sells his Standard for $6000, that all goes to him, out of which he pays his costs and himself. If he sells any through a few dealers and wants to give the buyer price parity, he eats the dealer margin but gets some other efficiencies in return.

Gibson sells globally. They have to sell into distribution at a profit. In the US, they have to build in dealer margin. Internationally, they have to price in both dealer margin and distributor margins, which can vary. Generally, for a producer to sell through multi-tier distribution, the retail price has to be set at 4X to 5X of build and packaging cost for the item to leave the building. So if @Archie is in the realm sketching out a build cost of $2,000 for a carved archtop, that guitar has to be listed at $8,000 - $10,000, minimum. Discounts are haggled by consumers out of dealer margin. And sometimes dealer discounts are haggled out of distributor margin. Or Gibson runs a sale.

Having done a couple of manufacturing stints, I think @Archie's build-cost-time estimates are lean, especially for US produced archtops. And more expensive models will have more elaborate bindings and inlays, and more expensive wood. In this market, I don't think they can abandon nitro for five+ figures guitars. If Gibson wanted to field a multi-tier archtop line, with lams, solid formed and carved tiers, they could get prices down via low-human-supervision automation. Your "carved" archtop would be shaped by CNC only. They could probably even find an Asian partner to build them in a "dark" factory. But does the market size justify the capital costs? Guessing not.

Today, a Custom Shop ES-335 X-Year reissue lists for $5999, $6499 if it's Murphy Lab Ultra Light Aged. Yeah, it has a center-block. But I don't see a Custom Shop ES-175 coming in at less than $5999 for being hollow. The precedent has already been set. Now, a regular production Gibson ES-335 has a retail list of $3499, or $3999 with some figuring in the wood. The ES-330 is fully hollow but nevertheless priced same as the centerblock-stuffed 335. So that suggests a laminate hollwbody *could* be built and offered at a similar price, if there was sufficient demand for more scaled production, and if the 175 buyer would accept standard production workmanship, poly finish and sound. Or just let Asia build for that customer.

I'd guess that if @Archie is reasonably correct about the $2000 build cost of a carved archtop, that a lam hollow body 175 made to same standards would have to come it at $1200 - $1500 cost (including nitro, not poly), which means you get a ~$6000 retail list guitar. Guitar interest and demand in general ebbs and flows in the west with music trends, but Asia still has growth for guitar. However, Asia has also equipped itself to meet almost any demand. For a niche like archtops, Gibson in the US has to go upmarket, and the economics support the pricing you all are speculating on.

Henry Juszkiewicz said he incrementally ratcheted up Gibson prices to support rising prices in the used market, because a big part of the brand was assuring new guitar buyers that the value of their instruments would appreciate rather than erode. That game has a ceiling and we may be very close to finding it.

Phil

[Stringswinger]

Henry Juszkiewicz said he incrementally ratcheted up Gibson prices to support rising prices in the used market, because a big part of the brand was assuring new guitar buyers that the value of their instruments would appreciate rather than erode. That game has a ceiling and we may be very close to finding it.

Phil

I suspect that with changing demographics in the USA, that game may be ending sooner than any of us Gibson owners think. In addition to owning Gibson guitars since the early 70's, I have owned Harley-Davidson motorcycles since 1981. In recent years the value of the two Harley's that I currently own has tanked (It is a good thing that I enjoy owning them still). There are now more Harleys available than there are Harley buyers. Simple supply and demand. I own seven Gibson guitars. I suspect that their value shall tank at some point as well, but I am enjoying ownership of them so whatever happens, it won't change my life in any significant manner.

Anyone who tells themselves that buying a Gibson guitar is like having money in the bank should realize that money shrinks in the bank these days (unless it is in a CD), and Gibson guitars are probably going to do the same.

[Archie]

For what it’s worth, here is a list of the top selling electric guitars on reverb in 2025


When it comes to new models Gibson aren't in the top 10. We don't even know if they're in the top 20. That probably doesn’t mean much as Gibson didn't release any new models (as far as I know) and if we look at the price of those guitars, they’re likely all sub $1500.



So regarding the Les Paul, it’s still very popular although Fender is massively outselling Gibson. These figures also don't mean much given you can buy direct from Fender and all makes from shops not through Reverb.

[Archie]

Most of this thread about new Gibson archtops pricing neglects to consider the cost of distribution.

Mark Campellone sells direct, so if he sells his Standard for $6000, that all goes to him, out of which he pays his costs and himself. If he sells any through a few dealers and wants to give the buyer price parity, he eats the dealer margin but gets some other efficiencies in return.

Gibson sells globally. They have to sell into distribution at a profit. In the US, they have to build in dealer margin. Internationally, they have to price in both dealer margin and distributor margins, which can vary. Generally, for a producer to sell through multi-tier distribution, the retail price has to be set at 4X to 5X of build and packaging cost for the item to leave the building. So if @Archie is in the realm sketching out a build cost of $2,000 for a carved archtop, that guitar has to be listed at $8,000 - $10,000, minimum. Discounts are haggled by consumers out of dealer margin. And sometimes dealer discounts are haggled out of distributor margin. Or Gibson runs a sale.

Having done a couple of manufacturing stints, I think @Archie's build-cost-time estimates are lean, especially for US produced archtops. And more expensive models will have more elaborate bindings and inlays, and more expensive wood. In this market, I don't think they can abandon nitro for five+ figures guitars. If Gibson wanted to field a multi-tier archtop line, with lams, solid formed and carved tiers, they could get prices down via low-human-supervision automation. Your "carved" archtop would be shaped by CNC only. They could probably even find an Asian partner to build them in a "dark" factory. But does the market size justify the capital costs? Guessing not.

Today, a Custom Shop ES-335 X-Year reissue lists for $5999, $6499 if it's Murphy Lab Ultra Light Aged. Yeah, it has a center-block. But I don't see a Custom Shop ES-175 coming in at less than $5999 for being hollow. The precedent has already been set. Now, a regular production Gibson ES-335 has a retail list of $3499, or $3999 with some figuring in the wood. The ES-330 is fully hollow but nevertheless priced same as the centerblock-stuffed 335. So that suggests a laminate hollwbody *could* be built and offered at a similar price, if there was sufficient demand for more scaled production, and if the 175 buyer would accept standard production workmanship, poly finish and sound. Or just let Asia build for that customer.

I'd guess that if @Archie is reasonably correct about the $2000 build cost of a carved archtop, that a lam hollow body 175 made to same standards would have to come it at $1200 - $1500 cost (including nitro, not poly), which means you get a ~$6000 retail list guitar. Guitar interest and demand in general ebbs and flows in the west with music trends, but Asia still has growth for guitar. However, Asia has also equipped itself to meet almost any demand. For a niche like archtops, Gibson in the US has to go upmarket, and the economics support the pricing you all are speculating on.

Henry Juszkiewicz said he incrementally ratcheted up Gibson prices to support rising prices in the used market, because a big part of the brand was assuring new guitar buyers that the value of their instruments would appreciate rather than erode. That game has a ceiling and we may be very close to finding it.

Phil

I would say the cost of making an ES-175 would be around $500. I could make one unfurnished for £300, to the same specs. Of course I don't include labour, rates etc. Those are just the raw materials.
Bare in mind that Gibson buy lots of wood. The prices they pay for their figured veneers is going to be pretty low, much lower than anyone else can but them for.
The mahogany they buy for the neck is going to be very cheap too. They have their own unique suppliers and forestry. I can buy a mahogany neck for £40, a rosewood slab for £20, the figured veneers for £100, the poplar for £20-40? That’s £200. Gibson will pay much less than that.

A good ’tell’ is that Gibson in the 80’s started using highly figured veneers to justify the price they wanted to charge. Figured veneers make the guitar look exponentially more expensive than the cost of actually using them. You've just built in more profit.

A 175 is a bog standard, laminate budget guitar. They are supposed to be cheap and Gibson can make them incredibly cheaply. Adding highly figured veneers attempts to turn them into luxury items and justifies in the buyer, the need for the vey high price tag. Gibson could sell them for $2.5K and quadruple their money but quadrupling their money might not be worth doing.
Also don't forget that the CNC machines to make the carved plates is a big outlay. Using the same pressing machine they’ve had for 50 years is not. Part of recouping the cost of an L5 is the outlay on tooling, which will be much more expensive, so I wouldn’t compare the two models, there will be much more upfront cost to making an L5 before they've bought the wood. I suspect the woods for an L5 are around $500.

Regarding ‘Gibson' shadow building, that is a good idea and pooling Archtop manufacturing will increase quality and lower costs but for Gibson, they already have access and suppliers so it would make sense for them to be the pooled manufacturer and I just don't think they'd be interested. I think their's a snobby air at Gibson which comes cross heavily in their marketing and buyers (of course not the fine people here ha!).
Gibson might be facing a challenge to their ‘Made in USA’ claim too with changes in the US regarding what constitutes a ‘made in the USA’ product. Most of the components to a Les Paul, are sourced from outside the USAa and so do not meet the criteria.
Interestingly their Archtops are mostly made from domestic woods, like Maple, or can be made from all domestic woods if they change suppliers to USA only.

[Doctor Jeff]

^^ES175’s were not super cheap back in the day. I paid $8-900 for mine back in 1982, which meant a lot of minimum wage work to save up.

A new one would undoubtedly be much more than the above plus inflation though.

Question about modern carved top—would a company like Gibson use mainly CNC to rough it out? Would they tap tune and hand carve the braces?

Any large company has already invested in CNC. That and their plates, sanders, polishers, etc. are sunk costs. I agree with Archie that it SHOULD be possible to make a rather cheap archtop. But the actual business of making and selling a fine archtop is not so straightforward.

Also question about Archtop Tribute—they look very nice. Their website is in Japanese though. Does anyone know how one would go about ordering one, and calculating shipping and tariffs?

Not to digress too much—but tariffs are really hitting smaller operations that export individually or small volume to the US big time. It can be a lot more than the nominal cost—15-25% for instance, because tariffs may affect many parts of the construction differently. Many companies are getting out of the US altogether.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cker-industry/

In case you can’t access this, it’s about the impact of tariffs on German nutcrackers.

“The biggest concern wasn’t price — it was instability,” CEO Rico Paul said, standing in front of a glass cabinet filled with colorful nutcrackers. “Policies changed depending on political mood. For us, planning ahead is essential. One day, the rules were one way, the next day they changed.”

For six months after Trump’s inauguration, confusion reigned. Initially, the president threatened tariffs of 30 percent or more on most goods, prompting the E.U. to ready plans for retaliation. The deal on 15 percent tariffs, reached in late July, ended that uncertainty.

But in late August, Trump issued an executive order ending the “de minimis” exemption, meaning a slew of new paperwork and bureaucracy.

Costs rose and delays mounted as Customs and Border Protection grappled to keep up with the surge in new parcels requiring clearance. With the holiday season approaching, Steinbach faced the possibility of its nutcrackers getting stuck in customs warehouses.

More than half of Steinbach’s business comes from online orders shipped directly to American doorsteps, and customers soon felt the increase. Prices are up roughly 25 percent compared to last year, because of the tariffs and customs costs, as well as rising wages.

[MHeld]

All of this is rough guess work but the greatest costs imo are binding and finish.
Otherwise an L5 (without pickups) should cost about $2k (plus operating costs) to make.

The top and back plates can be carved and braced in 1 day.
The sides bent at the same time.
The box can be closed start of day 2.
Add binding to box day 3
Also and simultaneously
Neck wood cut and glued day 1
Neck carved and rod fitted day 2
Headstock veneers machined and glued day + binding day 3
Fingerboard machined and glued day 4
Neck and body fitted day 5
Prepped for spraying day 6
1-2 weeks for finish to be completed and buffed
Cut and fit marquetry and bridge
Nut added, plek’d and dressed 1-2 days

Total build time say 3 weeks but this order might change a bit. I think they can do it in 2-3 weeks. If they switched from nitro they could build one in around a week.
That would take 3 different teams, one working on necks, bodies and finish. one mans wage would be what $500 a week? x 3 so roughly $1.5K in labour, $500 parts.
Probably costs $2k to make one without other operating costs.

Judging by the hollow bodies they have in the custom shop factory tour in 2023, they are making archtops but in very low numbers.

This calculation seems, uh, optimistic.

Where are you building these at that you can pay someone with the skill/care to build an L5 for $12.50hr in 2025? I don't know if you can get by living in your car in Nashville TN in 2025 on $12.50hr.

[John A.]

Limiting the cost of building a guitar to the raw materials makes no sense to me. If the question is “does it make business sense for Gibson to re-start production of archtops?” that is perhaps the least important component of an answer. Truth is, we have almost no real information about Gibson’s costs other than some commodity components, and there’s no solid basis for speculating about whether they could make it work.

But I would speculate that the fact that haven’t reintroduced archtops while having feinted at it a couple of times indicates that they understand the “halo” value, but see no solid business case for investing money in it beyond publicity for the feints.

My larger theory is that KKR is in the business of lending money and buying and selling companies, not the guitar-building business. The information they put out is geared toward buyers of companies they sell, not buyers of products. Videos of custom-order L5’s in the factory serve that end.

[Rickco]

What I dont get is why anyone would buy a new Gib carved archtop when the markets full of used examples of every kind and and condition and even more you can buy a fine hand carved luthier built guitar in any country for what you would pay ( or far less) for a new Gibson. Ive had my 175 since I was a kid and managed to get an L5 and L7 pre wars along the way. If I was running out the door it would be my luthier builds, Epis, Heri GE then my Gibs, thats just personal preference but if I was looking new I would not even consider a Gibson at their prices and thats based on what Ive seen and heard on this forum. If I was looking for a truly fine carved archtop made by a master craftsman and had the $ for a new gibson Id be on the phone to dealers like TRM for something equivalent to pre or early post war or to a luthier. Lastly, I was in manufacturing in the U.S. for over 50yrs. For Gibson making a "custom shop" quality archtop would be good for image but damn near impossible to sustain their manufacturing but more important in the 21st century Gibson means nothing. Even the Les Paul and 175 have been bettered for less by everyone.

[jads57]

The idea behind the original ES-175 was like Leo Fenders Telecaster.
An affordable tool for the working musician
So Let’s just say $175 for the ES-175 in 1955 for example.

That would roughly translate to $2000 or less in today’s economy.
And yes it’s a different world and market in today’s thinking.
But that was 1956 and more manual labor and less technological devices being used as well.

[pawlowski6132]

I've bought four nice Gibson archtops since covid (starting about 3 years ago) and have no regrets. I've played guitar since 1966 and decided it was time to treat myself. I do feel I made a slight mistake initially by buying quite a few 'substitutes' at the very start of covid.

hey I’m in the exact same boat. I’m 58 and I’ve played guitar often on since fourth grade. I’ve always had a trophy list of guitars I’ve wanted and just since Covid said to hell with it I’m gonna buy what I want now that I have some disposable income

since Covid I bought and sold dozens of arch chops and I finally think I have probably, close to my final list in house now

[pawlowski6132]

I think your conjecture is right. Gibson is competing with its past. High-quality Gibson guitars can be bought second-hand. A vintage market provides the best of these guitars at high prices.

Gibson has largely abandoned the design and manufacture of new models. Instead, it continues to make its classic designs. It most expensive models imitate their originals very closely. The buyer can have a new guitar that is in almost every respect identical to a classic, but with a warranty.

I don’t know this for a fact, but, I gotta think that a guitar built in 1930 was used from a tree that, one cut down may have been 200 years old in order to get that size of an arch top back even though it’s joined down the middle. Then it’s been played for almost 100 years. That’s hard to reproduce in a modern guitar. My guess is there are no or hardly any old growth forests left that the modern mass production guitar maker is using

[Stringswinger]

The idea behind the original ES-175 was like Leo Fenders Telecaster.
An affordable tool for the working musician
So Let’s just say $175 for the ES-175 in 1955 for example.

That would roughly translate to $2000 or less in today’s economy.
And yes it’s a different world and market in today’s thinking.
But that was 1956 and more manual labor and less technological devices being used as well.

The ES-175 was $175 in 1949 when it was introduced. That was for a sunburst, single pickup model and the case was extra. Using an inflation calculator, that would be about $2400 today. Labor and raw materials, not to mention the costs of land, utilities, government compliance, etc. were all much cheaper back then. Things like a CNC machine require a large capital outlay and do not last forever.

Roger Borys charges $6,000 for his laminate archtop. I think Gibson with it's additional cost of at least one middleman will have to charge pretty close to $6,000 for it to pencil out. It is way more than today's working musician can afford considering that adjusted for inflation, musician wages have seriously declined since 1949.

Most of today's working musicians will have to buy something else. If the 175 comes back, it's customer profile will be well off hobbyists.

[garybaldy]

hey I’m in the exact same boat. I’m 58 and I’ve played guitar often on since fourth grade. I’ve always had a trophy list of guitars I’ve wanted and just since Covid said to hell with it I’m gonna buy what I want now that I have some disposable income

since Covid I bought and sold dozens of arch chops and I finally think I have probably, close to my final list in house now

I got my first Gibson Les Paul Standard in 2010 (a 2004) and an SG (the SGJ 2013 model) in 2014. Apart from perhaps an early 17" L7 I'm done. I have a lot to sift through then but I find it tough to part with anything!