working jazz musician's archtop?

**christianm77** · 02-12-2016, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff

Well I wouldn't call it greed--all people and companies want to get the most they can from the market. It is after all a true free market for instruments. (Unlike pharmaceuticals, for instance.) You can take that $4000 and commission a guitar from an artisan. But it won't say Gibson on the headstock.

Or you can put down your $4000 and enjoy your Gibson and the prestige that goes along with it. It's totally up to you.

It is certainly IMO a prestige markup--the reputation and the demand from rich people and collectors all over the world drives up prices. Guitars is hardly the only product in which this occurs.

I agree re' perfumes and would add cosmetics. Some of the femmes in my family are addicted to fine cosmetics. More expensive than cocaine.

I'd rather earn prestige from my playing TBH....

I don't actually think their archtops are overpriced, BTW. (Les Pauls most definitely ARE)

US made instruments are expensive, and archtops are hard to build, it's not like bolting together a telecaster. I've argued elsewhere that the new ones are lucklustre instruments and the old ones are a better investment, but others differ, so whatever. I know what I prefer (an old one!) And of course there is a bias anyway in all of this.

I don't think musicians give a shit what's on the headstock. The guys with the L5's are not necessarily the best players....