Eastman Archtops vs Sadowsky Archtops

[NiAg]

82,

Can I ask what is your clear, simple, fundamental point?

a. Some ostensibly high end luthiers are dishonest because they imply hand work that is really machine work?

b. Some ostensibly high end luthiers charge not what the market will bear but what they must, due to a lack of efficiency?

c. Some ostensibly high end luthiers charge not what the market will bear but what they choose to, due to an unspecified lack of business savvy?

It can sound like you are saying all three, with the last two being rather a stretch and the first being a little harsh w/o solid facts.

Maybe we can stay on the sound and playability of guitars themselves vs. any sort of bellicose business analysis?

[82Benedetto]

I am simply saying many archtop guitars are obscenely over priced, particularly considering many of them are constructed using some form of machine work in today's day and age. It could be due to a number of factors. The incredibly expensive instruments I've played and heard that may actually be somewhat worth the price have been more innovative instruments, like the Ken Parker Archtops.

Regardless, the Eastman and Sadowsky instruments are excellent bang for your buck.

[oldane]

I am simply saying many archtop guitars are obscenely over priced, particularly considering many of them are constructed using some form of machine work in today's day and age. It could be due to a number of factors. The incredibly expensive instruments I've played and heard that may actually be somewhat worth the price have been more innovative instruments, like the Ken Parker Archtops.

Regardless, the Eastman and Sadowsky instruments are excellent bang for your buck.

To quote Bob Benedetto in his book from the 1990s: The right price is the price the market will bear.

Now, that goes for anything, not just guitars. It's the laws of market economy. If the production methods necessitate a price higher than the market will bear, the builder is out of business very fast. If the market will bear a price higher than the actual production costs, the builder will pocket the surplus. Guitar builders are selling guitars, but also dreams. With well known makers, the dream is bigger, and the dream part is more expensive, though the guitar itself may not be any better (or worse for that matter). The only tried and tested alternative to market economy was the communist plan economy, and it didn't inspire to the production of goods of high quality and lasting value. The fierce competetion of the market does. How many valuable vintage guitars from the Sovjet Union have you seen?

[docbop]

I am simply saying many archtop guitars are obscenely over priced, particularly considering many of them are constructed using some form of machine work in today's day and age.

IMO that is true for all new guitars. Automation reduces creation time, reduces number of skilled workers required, increase consistency, and in general reduces costs that normally gets passed on to the consumer. Look at most new products once a product catches on and production ramps up, prices go down. That is the norm except in the guitar industry. The industry has guitar making down to a science and keeps finding countries with cheaper and cheaper labor, but prices haven't really dropped at any level.

I have no problem with high-end luthiers using CNC for a lot of the process, but it should be reflected in their price. Then your paying a higher price for woods/selection, and final fit-and-finish work.

[NiAg]

[docbop]>>>The industry has guitar making down to a science and keeps finding countries with cheaper and cheaper labor, but prices haven't really dropped at any level.

Oooh, disagree there. Maybe at the higher end we have not seen a technology driven price erosion. But at the lower end there has been an incredible improvement in quality at a given price.

Go back 20 or 30 years and try to find an Ibanez Artcore box at a similar price (all adjusted for inflation etc.).

Many of today's budget guitars are of incredibly high quality. So the price/value relationship has changed in my opinion.

Now I don't have an Artcore, but I have an 805CE that is a great value. Likewise I am extremely happy with my Bravo.

[oldane]

Look at most new products once a product catches on and production ramps up, prices go down.

That all depends on whether there is a true competition or not. If several manufacturers produces the same commodity, then the price will go down. Maybe there isn't at present enough competion among top level luthiers to press down the price. If they are relatively few, an unspoken mutual understanding among them can keep the price up. And really, why shouldn't they. If a luthier is backlogged two years or more, there is no incentive to lower the price, as enough people must certainly find it worth to pay what he charges. One luthier was once qouted saying, that if his backlog grew over two years, he'd increase his prices. If it fell well below two years, he'd consider lowering the prices.

However, there are a few top level luthiers, who hasn't let their prices skyrocket, though their instruments are absolutely on par with instruments that cost many times more, but they are not the majority. (Two of them are Mark Campellone and Jim Triggs, and if you don't want to pay those sky high prices, I'd recommend checking what they can offer. Mark Campellone has standardized models, while Jim Triggs will custom build almost anything you want.)

This dependence of competition is seen very clearly in the pharmaceutical world. Every time the patent on a drug expires (usually after 15 years), the price drops to a fraction of the original - but the pharmaceutical company still makes a profit.

One may like it or not: Prices of commodities has nothing to do with production costs. Of course production costs must be covered, but above that only the sky is the limit. It's all about demand and supply.