The Cost of a Gibson

[Archie]

Regarding Gibson 1.0, 1.1, 1.2...



I am going to go with the concept that Gibson has built pretty great guitars throughout the whole period. I can say the best this or that was from this or that decade but fortunately, it's also been in someone's great hands to prove how great it is. There are good guitars and bad guitars from every era I expect. I am going to expect wartime (sudden exodus of workers and intake of new workers (nothing against women, just that new workers may not have the skills of practiced workers)) was less productive of great guitars, but I have heard some great 1940s guitars.

And if we think of the great craftsmen of good guitars out there in the past several decades from the Gibson mold or 'heritage' it is the guys at Heritage, Aaron Cowles, Jim Triggs, Bruce Kunkel, and others - all people who spanned Gibson 1.0 and 1.1 and Gibson 1.1 and 1.2.

We may not think the newly introduced guitar models in portions of 1.1 and 1.2 are to our taste, but that's kind of the point. They were introduced to sell to other people's tastes, because other people's tastes were evolving. And the build count was much greater there in the OPG (Other People's Guitars) section. So be it.

We moan and complain about how expensive Gibsons have become ("they have doubled since X or quadrupled since Y") but we never stop and ask ourselves, "Is it possible that the starting point we are measuring from was unreasonable (and therefore a good chunk of the increase was bringing us back to where it should have been)"?

For much of its life, the L5 cost 7-12 ounces of gold at MSRP. And largely between 50 and 200 barrels of oil. Now we are at roughly 7-8 ounces of gold and despite oil prices being their lowest in several years, an L5 costs about 200 barrels of oil. Maybe that tells you something about the relative price of oil and gold. In 1930, the average new car cost something like $650. Perhaps 2 L5s and change. Average now? Probably more like 3-4 L5s. Gasoline was 10-15cts a gallon in the early 1930s, compare that to the last few years average at $2.50+ and your talking about a multiplier of 20+x. L5s have are probably at the top end of that. Again, this is probably an indication oil (and gasoline) is cheap. A lawyer had an average annual income of $4200 in the early 30s. Now probably 20-30x that. That's about L5 territory I bet. A pilot was earning $8k. Now the average pilot in the US is probably earning 5x that. Pilots are cheap. A really cheap guitar was $10. Now you're probably 30x that.

How much was an L5 in the early 1930s? I am not sure (and this forum is so great I bet someone can tell me). I've seen some $250, and $275 prices for the early 30s. And some $275 prices for 1940, and some $375 prices in the 40s. But I think we get the quantum.

I'm going to guess that the price inflation of L5s from the 1920s-1940 period until the 80s was not nearly enough to cover actual inflation. And lower quantities of those instruments means higher fixed costs per guitar than in days of old. At which point, maybe the whole thing averages out and we here looking at prices are a) looking at things from the perspective of what might have been had we had more money (and foresight) back then, and b) looking at the competition, being cheaper now, we are startled.

I'm with Jabber. There are lots of really nice guitars out there. Gibson makes Gibsons. Lots of people grew up listening to Gibsons. So they're iconic. And lots of people love them. Lots of people my age had posters of Porsche 911s (with tails) and Lambo Countachs on their walls when they were kids. But not Miuras or Daytonas - they were old, a bit dowdy. The Daytonas and Miuras moved first because the people who had those posters on their walls were a few years older and had money earlier. Then the 911s and Lambos moved. People like what they know. It's comfortable. There's nothing wrong with that.

Hey T nice to see you join in, wondered when you would ;-)

Yesterday was a busy, stressful day, I shouldn't have posted anything. My point wasn't about the quality of their work which has been good and bad, some great 90's models but that decade seems to stand out for me and my experience.

That aside, my comment was more about ridding on coat tails and how Gibson has been doping it for too long.

Yes I appreciate that Gibson went through a very productive period in the early to mid 60's and i realise they make guitars for people like me, when i was 16 (yes I had a flying V but soon changed to a Dinky because Flying V's were not popular in the 90's, I should know I was a metler ;-)

So dont assume I'm not aware of the other people Gibson sell to, I just dont see how post 65 (Hammertone IS right) Gibson have produced anything that could compare to what the original Gibson company produced. It has been a long down hill slope from the 60's and I'm not talking about quality, I'm talking about building a company off other peoples ides and Gibson 1.1 1.2 (ruffly) essential haven't done little to touch on that.

Again (not to you travis) show me a model more polar than the less paul? Show me one more popular than a J series acoustic? Show me one more poplar than Es-175, L5, Mandolins,

it can't be done and we're talking not even close!

Hammertone your response was accurate except for the last bit about original ideas since the 80's. They haven't had a really original idea since the 60's.

Look at the ES339, thats a copy of someone else guitar ;-)

Also many of Gibson's acoustic models disappeared without trace. Even the ones that were supposed to become the new standard (the odd ones designed by a scientist in the 80's) sunk quicker than the Bismarck. What have we got now, Dove, J45, etc all models pre 1970. Practically none of their new models have been very successful.

This al stemmed from a point someone made about equity firms and Gibson's on going success or lack of and I was pointing out that because Gibson has the unique position of heritage and being there early on, they will always be attractive to a pvt equity firm who knows they can exploit designs for the most part that are 60 years old. That is after all the attraction of Gibson to an equity firm is it not? And what have these firms done with Gibson, for the most part ride the coat tails of the designs from the 60's.

The input from these companies has been misguided, vague, odd; stupendous at times. That to me is Gibson post 60's and I'm not talking about quality of said head scratching designs.

So that then leads back to the original question, are Gibson doing well and since I cant see anything accept a huge leverage on old designs and almost everything they have tried since failing miserably at huge expense, I would say... no!
You cant applaud someone for selling something that sells itself, L5's Es-175, Les Pauls. Thats for them to screw up (which they are doing their best) not to make a success.

Looking then at the real value an equity firm has in owning gibson, you could argue none, it's not their business and they shouldn't be involved, as the mini etune should tell you. Agreed in terms of marketing the VOS was an obvious move so no awards there but they are designs of what? Old Gibson 1.0's

I suppose Gibson 1.2's achievement has been to sell us even older Gibson's for way more than they are worth/cost to make and theres the rub, Gibson 1.2's only achievement is making you pay more for guars than it cost them to build!

Thats the value of a pvt equity firm running a company i guess :-)

New designs = Fail

maximising profit from old designs = Success

[AlainJazz]

Gibson have an undeniable attraction for those who like them. Case in point: I have absolutely no need for a Les Paul. I never play music that would require that sound. Still, I've wanted one for the last 35 years. Every time I see a nice one, I think about buying one. Then my head kicks in and reminds me that I do not need one and would never really use it.

[travisty]

Hi ATH, I was in earlier, then I was out... but just when I thought I was out...

As to "popular" (and 'polar' and 'poplar'), it may pay to look at WHAT was popular and when. At the beginning, Gibson made what sold. His original patent was for an archtop mandolin. He sold a lot of mandolins. And some banjos. Someone else had a patent for an archtop guitar a couple of years earlier but Gibson's way of doing it turned out better (more 'productive' I think). And when others were making guitars, he did too. And he built himself a sales chain which was great. Others didn't. I am am pretty sure Gibson succeeded in the early days by being a great marketer more than a great guitar producer. And by effectively sponsoring the greats, he created an aspirational product. No matter how many Kays and similar guitars were made, because CC and Mr Greene played Gibsons, thousands of wannabes wanted to as well.

When I was a kid, my peers ate Wheaties because Bruce Jenner was on the box and he was the greatest athlete ever. Caitlin on a Wheaties box now would draw a different crowd. Was Wheaties any good compared to the sugary cereals? I couldn't tell you. My mom wouldn't get me those, so I sprinkled sugar on the Wheaties instead. But my mom bought Wheaties because there was a hook when I was a pre-ten. Once. And I knew I wasn't going to get the sugary stuff so after a few times I didn't even bother asking. I had Wheaties or Cheerios. Did Bruce on the box sell me? Nope. Did it sell her? Yep - not because it was Bruce mind you... she mooned over Paul Newman, because it got me to accept eating something other than Cheerios so I wouldn't complain. Actually, what I needed was variety.

In the end, Gibson doesn't have to produce a new model at any point in time which "compares well" - as far as you are concerned - to what was produced in the past except the same model of the original product. Economics are different, but much more importantly, the buying population is different. If you don't buy into what the new crowd is buying (which you know the new crowd is buying because Gibson is trying to sell it) then you don't, and you are obviously not their new target customer. So life goes.

Out of curiosity.... As to not having a new idea since the 1960s... have you seen that 3 really new ideas in guitar-land since the 1960s which have sold well enough to make a solid branded businessline out of them? Or even one?

[Max405]

Joe, it is the tricolor

Attachment 31237

Headshot,
Beautiful. With a nicely figured top, this is one of the prettiest guitars out there. I had a blond 135 that I wish I never sold. Its a GREAT guitar to play out with standing up. Its a very convincing Jazz guitar that handles well. If you get a chance, check out Achim Kohl on Youtube. He does one of these much justice. I am considering one for myself. My JP20 doesn't get played much anymore because the neck profile kills my hand. A swap is imminent..
I hope you get it. If you do, please let us know.
JD

[Max405]

Why is it that Gibson has so much trouble obtaining ebony that is legal, yet Mr Wu, Eastman, Ibanez and many other makers seem to have unlimited supplies of it?

[goldenwave77]

Look at the ES339, thats a copy of someone else guitar ;-)

And if this is true, didn't THAT person essentially copy a 335 design, and just build it in a smaller body?


So that then leads back to the original question, are Gibson doing well and since I cant see anything accept [sic---I think you mean "except"} a huge leverage on old designs and almost everything they have tried since failing miserably at huge expense, I would say... no!
You cant applaud someone for selling something that sells itself, L5's Es-175, Les Pauls. Thats for them to screw up (which they are doing their best) not to make a success.

I think you're worshipping innovation for its own sake. Paul Reed Smith---downsized a Les Paul, split the difference scale-wise, and it kind of splits the difference tonally between a strat and a LP...not revolutionary. Ken Parker?!---this guy will be dead in 20 years, and there will be a small handful of owners who will wax rhapsodic about how these instruments were worth the huge bucks, and doing their mightiest to keep the mojo factor alive--essentially talking to each other to justify/validate their own huge emotional investment in this product. Ergonomic guitars ?!...Jody Fischer sounded great on one---but other posters have told of dismaying quality control/product support issues.


This is not just my opinion. From Melvyn Hiscock, Make Your Own Electric Guitar (2nd Ed., 1998):

"Some people who choose to make guitars seem to want to radically redesign the instrument, or to do build their dream guitar that will do everything....There are many people who have tried to produce revolutionary guitars in the past, and most of these have fallen by the wayside. The principal reason for this is that is that the early guitar designers got it right by keeping it simple." (pg. 3)

Now Hiscock's book is talking about solid bodies, but his essential design conservatism I think also applies to archtops. No one replied to an earlier post of mine re: asking whether Orville Gibson's archtop technique---full carving--rather than steam bending, as purportedly done by violin makers, was really revolutionary.

It is easy to make an archtop sound more delicate, and acoustic-y, but a much bigger trick to make them sound good amplified. I've written before that Gibson essentially re-designed the archtop that they had originally pioneered* to make it much more usable in a band, or on a stage....and the lovely thin-carved boutique-y, acoustic-y things sound great by themselves, or in a lower-volume setting, (or maybe in a recording studio application), but I think they're problematic in these other settings. The truth is-- an L5-CES, an L4-CES, a 150, 250, 300, 335, 350, HR Fusion, 347, Tal Farlow, 175, and 165 and probably even a Super 400 or Johnny Smith sound great in these other settings. (I've never actually held, or played a Super 400 or Johnny Smith, but from everything I've read, their electric versions are not just acoustic instruments with a pu put on them. )


New designs = Fail

maximising profit from old designs = Success[/QUOTE]

This could also be true with the paper clip, the mouse trap, or the modern piano...(Chopin never played a full 88-key model, and the things he played on, sound pretty wimpy to modern ears) IF the originators of these designs still held a dominant market position, either thru intellectual property rights or barriers to entry, etc., but they don't for one reason or another.

The essential problems of designing/producing stringed instruments are pretty well understood...big changes in design, almost by definition occur quickly, and then successive changes/improvements (/!) come incrementally, if at all....i.e. the innovation function flattens out. (I would argue the strat was almost a step backward in pure design terms---but I know strats do have their own sound, which is different than a tele, so I guess you can view it as progress: When old Leo started painting his instruments to look like cars, that WAS a step backward, IMO).


*Whether Gibson "invented" the archtop is maybe an open question, that they were the first to achieve widespread success with it, is not open to question, I don't believe. It's like Fender and the production solid body guitar.

Leo F stole the "single line" headstock design from Paul Bigsby's guitar that he built for Merle Travis: Leo F. and Paul B. never spoke to each other after that incident. Other makers, e.g. Rickenbacker with their steel guitar "frying pan", had built electrified, solid body instruments, but there is no doubt that Fender achieved early market dominance with "Spanish style" (not steel guitar) electric solid body guitars.

[Archie]

I'm obviously making a terrible time of explaining myself.

@Travisty @ GoldenWave

Yes my point is not to worship originality per say, that is in a way what I'm talking about but I'm trying to make a finer point.

Look at modern guitar companies, look at how successful they have become, why couldnt Gibson achieve the same success in that time? If Gibson started off in 1970 without any of the designs they had before, how successful of a company would they be now?
Sure the other companies had different guitars, some original, most variations of a tested theme. Gibson too try many variations of their well tested themes but the difference isn't as obvious to the buyer because they are still called Gibson, so I can appreciate Gibson have a harder time of 'appearing' to have 'original designs, or Gibson mess it up and no one wants what they have produced because it's either poor quality or doesn't fit any market. .

There has been way too much of the later and thus comparably to modern companies, Gibson are imo failing. The majority of what they produce is models designed by a different company many years ago.

Add in the QC issues, I too agree that Gibson studios are (imo) rubbish, really an offence to the guitar buying public, yet those craving Gibson ownership are more than happy that they have bought into the club. Thats not to make a derogatory statement about them, it's just a psychological fact?

So again, at what point given those guidelines has Gibson really succeeded since the 60's. Production, quality, marketing, new designs etc.. There's very little there that could be considered successful, whilst many other makers have taken over the game and had great success.

Yes no one brand will dominant but considering the amazing value in built into the Gibson headstock, I'd think they could be in much better shape.
YES they have great luthiers, YES there are people there that genuinely care and make some of the best instruments in the world

And my final point was about marketing. Gibson have totally misread the market and have been doing so for decades, hence why most of the models designed post 65 aren't around today, or aren't very popular. Many innovations like from last year being completely binned after years and years of RnD but apparently no marketing at all.

I wonder sometimes if Henry J assumes to know what peep want. Look at the Midtown! Gibson's recent history has been blotted with some of the biggest marketing mistakes of all time Post 60's!

P.s sorry if anyone feels my opinion on Gibson Studio stuff is way off. I have never seen or played a nice Gibson studio and then looked a the price talk and thought, Hey Gibson thanks for doing me a favour. Sorry just hasn't happened, you'll just have to respect my opinion and disagree.

I hope that makes more sense? Which company post 1970 has been more successful, Ibanez or Gibson? who had the head start, the celeb endorsements, the heritage and the most popular deigns locked away? Gibson!
Then why is Gibson post 60's so shallow (general thinking here)? because the company imo simply isn't very good.

[MaxTwang]

Archie,

Aside from shredder guitar makers like Ibanez, Schecter and a few others, who has innovated in the past 30 years?

Before you say Ibanez for jazz, they're doing the same thing with jazz guitars as they were doing in the 70s: making really good copies of other people's guitars.

The company I see that's trying to do something different with guitars is Music Man and Music Man guitars are really nice, good sounding and well playing instruments.

The real issue isn't the guitar makers but guitar players. aside from shredders, guitar players don't want and will not buy anything that wasn't made in the 50s.

[John A.]

Archie,

Aside from shredder guitar makers like Ibanez, Schecter and a few others, who has innovated in the past 30 years?

Before you say Ibanez for jazz, they're doing the same thing with jazz guitars as they were doing in the 70s: making really good copies of other people's guitars.

The company I see that's trying to do something different with guitars is Music Man and Music Man guitars are really nice, good sounding and well playing instruments.

The real issue isn't the guitar makers but guitar players. aside from shredders, guitar players don't want and will not buy anything that wasn't made in the 50s.

It seems to me, the guitar is essentially a solved problem, and there's not much left to innovate. There's potential to engineer more sustainable/renewable/recycled material to behave like wood, and there's potential around the margins to make ergonomic tweaks. But in the end guitars come in a few flavors that are well established, and that's kind of that. It's hard for me to see "oh they make good stuff, but they're hardly innovative" as much of a critique.

John

[vinnyv1k]

Being a Harley lover, I loved it when Gibson was chroming their metal parts. :-)

[Stringswinger]

Yep, I prefer the chrome as well. Nickel means more maintenence. My gripe with 70's Gibsons is the volute. While I will admit that they are an improvement, making the headstock break less possible, I think they are ugly. I wish the designer of the Gibson volute had looked at the Martin volute, which I think looks great.

[Headshot]

Headshot,
Beautiful. With a nicely figured top, this is one of the prettiest guitars out there. I had a blond 135 that I wish I never sold. Its a GREAT guitar to play out with standing up. Its a very convincing Jazz guitar that handles well. If you get a chance, check out Achim Kohl on Youtube. He does one of these much justice. I am considering one for myself. My JP20 doesn't get played much anymore because the neck profile kills my hand. A swap is imminent..
I hope you get it. If you do, please let us know.
JD

First vid I see on Youtube has him playing this same color...plus now I have ANOTHER channel that I subscribed to...gee, thanks Joe....

[vinlander]

I love Gibson guitars because I love the tone and feel of them.
When I think Gibson, I think: Les Pauls, Super 400, L5, Tals and so on, I suspect a lot of Gibson fans do to, do we really need innovation ?
So what if anything really new came out since the mid 60s, What for ?
Guitar making is no rocket science and certainly not involving steampunk robot self tuning instruments...
Let innovation to other guitar companies struggling to make a fan base because they are just into trend and fashion with no brand loyalty

[aboutIt]

I have a liberal amount of love for classic designs as well as innovation. Both have their pros and cons, and diversity is natural and wholesome. Authenticity and honesty are certainly admirable traits. If Gibson were the sort of company to stack the deck against their customers, or try to run the competition out of town when the other company was winning more revenue, or declare bankruptcy at the drop of a hat to cheat their suppliers out of their due... well, they would be no better than Vegas mafiosos. Now there's a bunch we could all do without.

[Lobomov]

Why is it that Gibson has so much trouble obtaining ebony that is legal, yet Mr Wu, Eastman, Ibanez and many other makers seem to have unlimited supplies of it?

Ibanez is having fun putting ebony boards on their cheap'ish chinese models.

Being japan based does have its advantages ... like not having to deal with US legislation

[lawson-stone]

It seems to me, the guitar is essentially a solved problem, and there's not much left to innovate. There's potential to engineer more sustainable/renewable/recycled material to behave like wood, and there's potential around the margins to make ergonomic tweaks. But in the end guitars come in a few flavors that are well established, and that's kind of that. It's hard for me to see "oh they make good stuff, but they're hardly innovative" as much of a critique.

John

And this is totally sensible. seriously, how much innovation do we see in any basic musical instrument. The flute hasn't changed much in my lifetime, nor have saxophones, nor have trumpets. Electronic keyboards are out there of course, but the keyboard concept hasn't changed, and acoustic pianos have hardly changed.

In the realm of primal musical instruments, the evolutionary process has reached an apex as far as concept goes. I see nothing wrong with that: evolution has to occur in our playing... not our gear ...

[lawson-stone]

Ibanez is having fun putting ebony boards on their cheap'ish chinese models.

Being japan based does have its advantages ... like not having to deal with US legislation

\
But didn't Japan sign on to C.I.T.E.S.? if they did, ebony is going to become a bigger problem.

[John A.]

Why is it that Gibson has so much trouble obtaining ebony that is legal, yet Mr Wu, Eastman, Ibanez and many other makers seem to have unlimited supplies of it?

I very much doubt they had trouble getting ebony. They did, however, have trouble following the regulations (briefly) for getting ebony that others had less trouble following, then Henry J. had a hissy fit and decided to glue bowling balls to guitars instead.

John

[Bluedawg]

I very much doubt they had trouble getting ebony. They did, however, have trouble following the regulations (briefly) for getting ebony that others had less trouble following, then Henry J. had a hissy fit and decided to glue bowling balls to guitars instead.

John

From what I've read, the ebony thing was a little more complicated than just following regulations ...

The complication is that there was a coup in Madagascar .. and Gibson bought the ebony after the coup

The new government allowed the sale ...

but using CITES the US enforced the laws of the previous government which would not have allowed the sale

CITES, as I understand it, allows the US to enforce foreign laws in the US

The US chose to enforce the laws of a deposed government .... which may have been the right thing to .. or maybe not


At least that's what I've read ... so it may not be so cut and dry

[iim7V7IM7]

Regarding Gibson, it was the Lacey Act, not CITES documents.

[Bluedawg]

Regarding Gibson, it was the Lacey Act, not CITES documents.

That sounds right

Thanks for the correction

[furtom]

Ibanez is having fun putting ebony boards on their cheap'ish chinese models.

Being japan based does have its advantages ... like not having to deal with US legislation

Yes. Ebony is not as protected as say, Braz rosewood. It's perfectly legal to import ebony, provided you have the correct paperwork to prove it was harvested in a sustainable way. Gibson, knowingly or otherwise, was circumventing this requirement.

And that's right. The particular problem in Gibson's case involved the US enforcing foreign law, which is what made it seem a bit unnecessary.

There is no restriction whatsoever on finished products that contain ebony. Therefore, all the MIC guitars use ebony very liberally.

[Stringswinger]

Some have claimed that the Feds picked on Gibson (over the Ebony) because Henry J. is a Republican (and made donations against the Democrats). Others have called that claim total BS and say that Henry J. is a longtime Democrat.

Does anybody here know what Henry J.'s political affiliation actually is?

[2bornot2bop]

It's actually a 1982 Mazda RX7, with a wide-body kit based on the IMSA RX7 put out by a body shop in Hawthorne, California.

Nice fat Pirelli P7s too.... 245 50 15s there 2b?

Darn man, are you sure you weren't a bug on the wall in the shop while that ride underwent cosmetic surgery!? Yes on all counts. It was the only '7 in the Northwest with an IMSA kit. Guards red lacquer on the top...I couldn't afford a Porsche!

Funny thing about those P7's...I hadn't driven the car before it went from being purchased at the showroom and delivered to the body shop...the car's odometer read 7 miles. It went from the 6 months stay at the shop to a weeklong Seattle car show...I still hadn't personally driven the car. Featuring performance coils and sway bars, wanting to see how the car handled I left the show late on a Sunday night and headed to my favorite wide oval exit curve off I-90 at Eastgate. Max posted speed for that curve was 30 mph...I hit it at 70 and felt complete confidence as those wide P7's had the car stuck, like it was on rails...I had the thought, take that Porsche!

[aboutIt]

You can always count on Faux News:
Gibson Guitar Raid: A Fox Case Study