Guitar price vs value

[Spook410]

<snip> But really, you mean to say that a Yunzhi or Eastman is on the same level tone wise to either a Gibson, Collings or Campellone? <snip>

Don't know about Campellone, but Gibson is not in the same class as a Collings.

And yes, I do think Yunzhi and Eastman are on the same level as current Gibsons tone wise. Their craftsmen have received good training and have been at it for over a decade. They are using the best materials (excluding electronics) available. They sound different (Benedetto bright), but are on the same level. Why would they not be?

[pubylakeg]

In response to the OP ( sort of).
I'd suggest that even the most demanding guitar players could find an instrument that would adequately satisfy every requirement in terms of playability or tone for a maximum of $5000 (US). Beyond that is purely subjective.

[vinlander]

It is a matter of finding the right balance between playability, tone and pride(value) factor, based on one's need.
For me a non pro the only reason I would spend higher than 5000$ on a well made guitar is if I had a lot of money and simply could afford it...
On the other hand I would never thinker with very expensive guitar that is why I would still buy some cheap Asian ones to play the Luthier on...

[3625]

Don't know about Campellone, but Gibson is not in the same class as a Collings.

And yes, I do think Yunzhi and Eastman are on the same level as current Gibsons tone wise. Their craftsmen have received good training and have been at it for over a decade. They are using the best materials (excluding electronics) available. They sound different (Benedetto bright), but are on the same level. Why would they not be?

As for why, I can't give you a technical reason as I'm not a luthier. However, I've played a few Eastman Benedetto types including an AR910CE - to me it didn't feel comparable to a US guitar in that style. I wanted to like it, as I think they look good, but the playing experience wasn't quite there IMO.

I get the vibe that making a Benedetto copy for around $3000 is a tough ask in terms of matching quality to something literally 3X the price (or double) - you gotta cut corners somewhere. But I think the laminate models Eastman have introduced like the AR371 have a closer shot at being giant killers, since they're a simpler design to manufacture. Do Yunzhi now make laminates as well?

[rpguitar]

I would say to a buyer that, if you really don't understand why Guitar A is much more expensive than Guitar B, then simply purchase Guitar B and enjoy it. Leave Guitar A for those of us who do perceive and value the difference. That way everybody wins, players and manufacturers alike.

There is a lot to be said for learning these differences on your own by starting lower on the totem pole, discerning what's missing over time and through experience, and upgrading over the course of your lifetime.

[MarkRhodes]

here we go again, the age old question. usually brought up to make someone feel better about buying an affordable house/car/boat/cappuccino machine/guitar/whatever..

I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. The OP was not complaining about the high price of some guitars or trying to make anyone feel better about having to pay less than top dollar for a new guitar. He said at the beginning he was new to archtops and did some research. The range in prices surprised him and he wondered why some cost so much. It's an innocent question. At least, there is no reason to assume that it isn't an innocent question.

[Greentone]

I am very sympathetic to guitarists exploring archtops for the first time. (I say this as someone who has played them for over 50 years, now. I think I know my way around them, having played my first archtop guitar when I was about six or seven.)

A newbie to the archtop world looks at those strange guitars behind the glass (in some shops--I first saw a Byrdland in a glass case, and old acoustic Epiphones hanging high on a back wall at my hometown music store as a boy). Surely the prices must be wrong. How many zeroes? Then, the newbie tries one out. If it's an acoustic archtop, it can be a baffling experience. It can sound amazingly mediocre, especially given the price tag, if the player has no idea how to drive sound out of an archtop. It is not just a matter of strumming some first-position "cowboy" chords, or picking out the opening licks of "Sweet Child O' Mine." As Roger shows in his comparison videos, right-hand technique on an archtop is different than on a flattop guitar.

Upshot: it can be pretty off-putting for someone new to archtops to see prices, varieties, options, and to even try to get a decent sound. Archtops are practically different instruments from the things that most young people come to describe and acknowledge as "guitars."

Somebody needs to write one of those yellow-covered books, "Archtops for Dummies."

[MarkRhodes]

Somebody needs to write one of those yellow-covered books, "Archtops for Dummies."

I'd read that. I really know nothing about high-end guitars. Other than a good Ovation Deluxe Balladeer I lucked into as a kid, I've never had a first-rate instrument. Like you say, a good archtop is a different instrument than anything I've played. I would be like Elvis Costello, "O, I just don't know where to begin!"

[Peter C]

These days, there are surely many competent budget instruments out there which are not going to get in the way of your playing, unlike in days of yore, when it seemed that the aim of cheap guitars was to sabotage and frustrate rather than aid and inspire. I have an Ibanez Artcore hollow body which does nothing wrong and is actually fun to play, and the Eastman 371 seems to have a lot going for it.

It's also true that you're far more likely to find "bonding" mojo in a more costly instrument, just because the employee who took a little extra time to shape and finish "that particular neck", was actually thinking how cool it would feel in some future owner's hands. My Heritage 150 certainly gives that impression.

Greentone, I remember the first time I picked up an Ibanez GB and plugged it into the drive channel of a nearby tube amp and thinking how "lame and flat" it sounded. LOL. Long time ago.

[pubylakeg]

I'd read that. I really know nothing about high-end guitars. Other than a good Ovation Deluxe Balladeer I lucked into as a kid, I've never had a first-rate instrument. Like you say, a good archtop is a different instrument than anything I've played. I would be like Elvis Costello, "O, I just don't know where to begin!"

Hey Mark
I've often wondered what guitar you play, and what's in the avatar ?

[Jabbarn]

I don't and probably will never play professionally. I play for enjoyment in my house. So my answer might be different if I was a pro. I've heard guitars at all price ranges sound great in the right hands. But to me, what makes one guitar worth 5-10 times as much as another is the heart flutter I get when I pick it up and play. That's the experience I am after. Yes I care about the tone and how it plays, but beyond that I love the idea that my guitar was made by hand by a singular artist. That makes it more than a guitar to me.

[MarkRhodes]

Hey Mark
I've often wondered what guitar you play, and what's in the avatar ?

It's an Ibanez AF85 from around 2002. They didn't make that model for long but from what I've heard from a former Ibanez employee, other models since then (in the same low price range) are pretty much the same guitar.

[Jim Soloway]

I have a few Asian guitars that I use for outdoor gigs or travel to iffy locales. I've set then up to play very very well and replaced the pick ups to sound very good. None of them are in any way as good as my good guitars. In the 80s when I played an ES-175, I thought it sounded great and played as well as anything. Compared to the Super 400, the 175 is about as easy to play, though it doesn't look nearly as nice. It doesn't sound as good. None of my guitars sound as good. The L7 with the DeArmond pick-up I had years ago didn't sound as good. I've never played a guitar that sounds better amplified through a Fender amp that the Super 400. For me, it's worth the price for that reason alone. I tried pick up swaps and everything else, no way. It's crazy better ... to me, to my ears.

When comparing things, it really only makes sense if the objects being compared are of like design and characteristics. A Super 400 is a huge guitar. It is also made of solid carved woods. Those are the basic characteristics of the guitar so to compare it to a guitar that is significantly smaller or made from laminates and then conclude that the difference is in the cost doesn't make much sense to me. To get a valid comparison, you would need to compare it to another 18" solid wood, carved guitar. That's why I compared the Ibanez Expressionist series to a Gibson 165 or 175. They are all made from laminates. They have a similar size body. They have the same scale length. They are basically of the same paradigm. The obvious differences are country of manufacture, market perception and value of their cultural heritage. I have owned both (and in the case of Gibson I have owned several of them) and while I generally prefer the look of the Gibson, I don't believe that the Gibson either plays better or sounds better. There is a very significant premium in the price of a Gibson for the company's heritage and a second premium for the country in which it's manufactured. Niether of those make it a better instrument but they do make it a much more expensive instrument.

[fumblefingers]

That has everything to do with it like it or not. If you feel a guitar is worth $20,000 and you can afford it you'll pay it. If you don't you'll buy a $1000 guitar and feel you got your money's worth. Neither guitar is going to make you a better player, that again is all you. You could ask the same question about guitar players. You have a casual and can get guitar player A who is an establish pro and wants $500 for the night. Guitar player B is not a pro, but you know he can easy handle this gig. This gig is for a close friends wedding you going to pay for Guitar player A or B they both can handle the gig, but one has a name and reputation to maintain.

Value is totally subjective, if it wasn't you wouldn't even be asking, because you're going to sound the same whether its an off the shelf Ibanez or a Gibson Citation. The audience doesn't care except for the gear fanatics and they'll be over that in five minutes and checking out the waitress.

I disagree that value is totally subjective, although subjectivity plays a strong role.

i also tend to check out the waitress in the first 5 seconds, and I suspect you all do too.

[Greentone]

Jim,

Your point is well taken about comparing like to like. However, I think it is possible to make valid comparisons of a carved Gibson to a laminated Gibson. Consider the eloquent playing of these two guys:

To my ear, the Johnny Smith is superb sounding. Then, again, the ES-175 is also superb sounding. The two guitars seem to share many of the same sonic characteristics, even though one is carved and one laminated, no?

[fumblefingers]

I would say to a buyer that, if you really don't understand why Guitar A is much more expensive than Guitar B, then simply purchase Guitar B and enjoy it. Leave Guitar A for those of us who do perceive and value the difference. That way everybody wins, players and manufacturers alike.

There is a lot to be said for learning these differences on your own by starting lower on the totem pole, discerning what's missing over time and through experience, and upgrading over the course of your lifetime.

Yeah, that was one of my points but you made it much better.

there is learning curve. It can take awhile to sort out what you prefer and why.

Finally, if there's one thing guys change their mind about frequently, it's guitars. That is an expensive proposition...

[Jim Soloway]

I think they both sound great but I also think they sound very different. (When you hear different guitars in the hands of different payers it's always hard to know ow much of the difference is the player and settings and how much is the instrument)

[MarkRhodes]

I disagree that value is totally subjective, although subjectivity plays a strong role.

I agree. My dad sold cars and I spent a lot of time on car lots as a kid, washing and cleaning out the trade-ins. There is a subjective component in the value of cars---and the makers of cars think they understand this and use that knowledge to make their cars more appealing to those who can afford them---but there are real components to value too.

Some engines are made to higher specs with better parts than others. And on the other side, if you are trading in car X, which is a popular model that will likely sell before the week is out, that car is worth more than a model that is as well made but less popular, less likely to sell soon (which is to say, more likely to take up lot space for a longer time) and that has to be factored in to what you would "allow" for it as a trade-in.

So I agree that value is not totally subjective.

[fumblefingers]

I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. The OP was not complaining about the high price of some guitars or trying to make anyone feel better about having to pay less than top dollar for a new guitar. He said at the beginning he was new to archtops and did some research. The range in prices surprised him and he wondered why some cost so much. It's an innocent question. At least, there is no reason to assume that it isn't an innocent question.

Innocent? You mean sincere?

anyway, I never said it wasn't.

I think I have a pretty good handle on the question and why it's asked. I'm not casting aspersions, but I would point out that the question is rarely if ever asked from the high end. "So, I'm all set to pay $25K on this beautiful guitar and noticed a few decent looking alternatives at $1,500.00 so began to question - should I just buy the cheaper one?"

never.

[MarkRhodes]

Innocent? You mean sincere? .

No. I avoid the word "sincere" since reading Harry Frankfurt's essay "On Bullsh*t."

I meant there is no reason to assume any intent behind the question other than what the OP admitted: he is new to archtops and wonders why their price range is vast. That's all. You weren't responding to him but to people you assumed him be. (You know, one of 'those' people who ask that question for some poor reason.)

This reminds me of a story. When the philosopher Karl Popper was still in college, he was talking to the psychologist Alfred Adler on the porch of the place where he (Popper) worked. A young man passed by them, entering the building. Adler made a comment about the young man's personality. Popper asked him how he could know such a thing just by seeing him walk past. Adler said, "My experience with such cases is a thousand-fold." Popper asked, "Is it now a thousand-and-one fold?" Or as Goethe put it, "Experience is only half of experience."

[fumblefingers]

When comparing things, it really only makes sense if the objects being compared are of like design and characteristics. A Super 400 is a huge guitar. It is also made of solid carved woods. Those are the basic characteristics of the guitar so to compare it to a guitar that is significantly smaller or made from laminates and then conclude that the difference is in the cost doesn't make much sense to me. To get a valid comparison, you would need to compare it to another 18" solid wood, carved guitar. That's why I compared the Ibanez Expressionist series to a Gibson 165 or 175. They are all made from laminates. They have a similar size body. They have the same scale length. They are basically of the same paradigm. The obvious differences are country of manufacture, market perception and value of their cultural heritage. I have owned both (and in the case of Gibson I have owned several of them) and while I generally prefer the look of the Gibson, I don't believe that the Gibson either plays better or sounds better. There is a very significant premium in the price of a Gibson for the company's heritage and a second premium for the country in which it's manufactured. Niether of those make it a better instrument but they do make it a much more expensive instrument.

this is the key point - apples vs. oranges. the elephant in the room is incredibly cheap Asian labor.

i remember teaching guitar in the early 80's in a nice music store which sold everything from starter guitars to the best of the best, everything in stock. back then the fine archtop market consisted primarily of Gibson and Guild. The Ibanez George Benson was an affordable wild card. The Asian market took off after that.

so in the interest of critical thinking its seems to me that just like a Car and Driver comparison test it makes sense to compare according to classification, which if done right, also takes into account price:

1. Asian or other third world made vs. same
2. American, Canadian, European made vs. same.
3. Laminate vs. laminate
4. Carved vs. carved.

PLUS:

5. upgrades (highly figured and/or rare woods, precious metals, inlays, etc)
6. single luthier low production vs. same
7. shop made vs. same
8. hand made vs. machine made

jumbling these categories up really clouds one's thinking, no?

[2bornot2bop]

here we go again, the age old question. usually brought up to make someone feel better about buying an affordable house/car/boat/cappuccino machine/guitar/whatever.

I've always wondered what it would be like to actually read another's mind? Wow, do you have other non earthly powers as well?

You said something interesting about the complex tone. Im an hour east of Sacramento, there aren't many shops around here, so I'm trying to listen to samples on line. The samples of the Eastman AR503 are great, exactly what I want, but when a listen to the guitars on the Benedetto site, I do hear more in each note. It could just be the Mic picking up more.

I dont mind spending $1000 on a guitar I've never played, but if i was spendingmore, id have to play it.

An hour east of SacTown? That puts you about Folsom, or on the outskirts of Truckee....kewl!

Whether it's Cars or Guitars, there's a commonly known phrase that applies to your original question. It's known as 'the cost of diminishing returns'.

[docbop]

i also tend to check out the waitress in the first 5 seconds, and I suspect you all do too.

For an old roadie like me I'm there early waiting for the waitresses to show up.

[Patrick2]

As for why, I can't give you a technical reason as I'm not a luthier. However, I've played a few Eastman Benedetto types including an AR910CE - to me it didn't feel comparable to a US guitar in that style. I wanted to like it, as I think they look good, but the playing experience wasn't quite there IMO.

I get the vibe that making a Benedetto copy for around $3000 is a tough ask in terms of matching quality to something literally 3X the price (or double) - you gotta cut corners somewhere. But I think the laminate models Eastman have introduced like the AR371 have a closer shot at being giant killers, since they're a simpler design to manufacture. Do Yunzhi now make laminates as well?

Let's not forget to factor the value of the name *Benedetto* into the cost of one of his guitars. Similarly with Gibson. There is brand value associated with virtually every high end arch top made anywhere. Bob Benedetto's top of the line guitar, the 18" Cremona has a cost starting at . . . I'll repeat that, starting at $30,000. Does anyone here actually believe that there are no luthiers here in the USA or abroad who couldn't make a very comparable guitar for 1/3 the cost and still realize a comfortable profit? What would any of you estimate the cost of an Eastman or a Yunzhi to be if it was built exactly the same way, with exactly the same raw materials and hardware, but built in Bob Benesetto's shop and had his name on the head stock?

[SuperFour00]

When comparing things, it really only makes sense if the objects being compared are of like design and characteristics. A Super 400 is a huge guitar. It is also made of solid carved woods. Those are the basic characteristics of the guitar so to compare it to a guitar that is significantly smaller or made from laminates and then conclude that the difference is in the cost doesn't make much sense to me. To get a valid comparison, you would need to compare it to another 18" solid wood, carved guitar. That's why I compared the Ibanez Expressionist series to a Gibson 165 or 175. They are all made from laminates. They have a similar size body. They have the same scale length. They are basically of the same paradigm. The obvious differences are country of manufacture, market perception and value of their cultural heritage. I have owned both (and in the case of Gibson I have owned several of them) and while I generally prefer the look of the Gibson, I don't believe that the Gibson either plays better or sounds better. There is a very significant premium in the price of a Gibson for the company's heritage and a second premium for the country in which it's manufactured. Niether of those make it a better instrument but they do make it a much more expensive instrument.

Hi Jim,
I have made two separate comparisons in my post. One was between two of my best sounding guitars used full-time during a career of about 39 years and another between all the very expensive historic and/or handmade guitars I've tried over those four decades and my current number one. In the first comparison, the common denominator is: they're both intimately known to me and sound wonderful. The second comparison is more important ... many of the pricy guitars I'v tried over the years were analogous to the S400.

Regarding Asian guitars, some of them are quite good ... but I don't mind risking a $1000 guitar on a plane vs a $10,000 instrument that stays on the ground.

I'll edit this one more time to add: re: apples and oranges, the OP asked "Is a $4800 ES175 really that much better than an Eastman manufactured in Asia? Is a $20,000 Benedetto that much better?"

Ask an apples vs oranges question, get an apples vs oranges answer.