-
I love Gibson guitars, but I don't think I will ever buy a new one. They don't exactly represent good value for money...
however--- I would gladly buy a used one! There is a reason why they're such a famous brand, they have made some of the best guitars. They have made some dogs too no doubt. Currently I'm on the hunt for a Gibson Les Paul Recording.
I have no issues with buying guitars that are Asian made either. My Gretsch G400 is made in Japan and the craftsmanship is absolutely superb. The playability and tone is on par with many far more expensive instruments.
-
05-09-2016 07:40 PM
-
Well, at least while the prices are inflated.
Originally Posted by FrankLearns
-
Perhaps, but as Henry Kissinger said in another context, "I only know what I read in the papers" [in your post]. Originally Posted by aboutIt
@goldenwave77: my comment was less about guitars than casinos
-
Maybe someone can explain something to me.
If Gibsons are so overpriced, and their quality is so lousy, then why doesn't every other mfg. follow this same strategy?
What is preventing them?
-
A price signal is information conveyed to consumers and producers, via the price charged for a product or service, which provides a signal to increase/decrease supply and/or increase/decrease demand for the priced item.
It’s a free market system in the western world, so Gibson can ask for their guitars whatever they want. I’d go only for their vintage guitars.
Some individual points elicit comments:
>> … (and it is hard to be humble when you are the best. I think the American made stuff is the best). There are no better motorcycles than a Harley and there are no better Guitars than a Gibson. If you cannot afford them, work harder (or smarter). The best things in life do not come easily.
I have yet to play a production guitar that sounds better or plays better than a Gibson. For Jazz, Gibson, the inventor of the archtop guitar wrote the book. <<
1. The best things in life are said to be free, hence come easily – unless you’re a follower of financialization.
2. There are no better (production) guitars than a Gibson? Say what? Uh, if you cannot find a guitar that sounds better or plays better than a Gibson, search harder (or smarter).
3. The Gibson Company was the inventor of the archtop guitar - from popular view. Others would put most of the glory to countless European violin and mandolin makers (since the 16th/ 17th century). The word "guitar" was adopted from the Spanish guitarra, which comes from the Andalusian Arabic qīṯāra , which in turn came from the Ancient Greek kithara. The Viennese guitar maker Johann Georg Stauffer invented "the arpeggione"around 1823. Some other European luthiers built similarly constructed bowed or plucked instruments, and I’ve seen at least one patent from Berlin/Germany that was preceeding Orville Gibson’s U.S. patent from 1896 by years. Eventually, it was mainly Lloyd Loar, a deep violin and mandolin worshiper who, between 1919 and 1924, achieved the first really convincing amalgamation of the archtop violin construction and materials with the elements of traditional plucked musical instruments. We all know that from the beginning the Gibson Company has been running by investors. Loar’s later developments at Gibson were considered to be too revolutionary; translated into the business language this means: too little profit promising. After they got what Lloar had developed, they kicked him off – similar to what the Selmer folks in Paris did to Mario Maccaferri some years later…
Despite the devastating WW I and its consequences in Europe, soon thereafter, still in the 1920’s, the archtop guitar in Europe was just as often called ‘cello guitar’ like ‘Gibson guitar’.
>> As much as I love America, I don't buy into this silly blind "American exceptionalism" crap. It is really to the detriment of the country, it prevents those believers from evaluating what is working best in other countries and adopting foreign ideas. You can argue about who makes the best motorcycle, guitar, car, whatever, but it is really all subjective and perspective is based on
context. <<
>> I don't know any great working guitarists in my area that play new Gibsons. <<
That’s exactly my own view. Other than the Lloar design, skilled Gibson craftsmen built great guitars up to the late 1950s. In the 1960s, the average Gibson workmanship comparably dropped, similarly to the mass of European made archtops. In the Norlin period, up to the 80s, the quality and value_for_money of Gibson archtops, bought new in Europe, are said to be more hit or miss. The post 1985 archtops are still hit or miss, though to a much lesser degree a hit. IMO, there was a considerable loss of violin making knowledge when the new Gibson plant started; later on, the all-pervasive cost cutting thought or the maximization of profits became rampant. Using poplar wood for the neck like on the ES-175 1959 VOS, and so on – once unthinkable. I remember well the startled face of my guitar teacher, a dedicated Gibson L-5, D’Angelico (1940s) and Borys player, when he plucked my 1996 L-5WM, bought new at one of the then few reputable stores in Germany, for the first time: "this is a semi-acoustic, electric guitar – nice looking, though quite differently sounding!"
>> Let's stick to the OP's claim that Gibsons are worth the money and not get sidetracked into a political squabble. <<
Sorry, but this is not easy to achieve! The reason is the political squabble and acting of the Gibson CEO according to the motto ‘God bless America and the American workers!’ This motto would fit to the open, though persistent secret among professional Gibson players and potential customers that only the qualitatively inferior part of the Gibson production has been arriving in Europe for a longer period. In addition, there’s the limited warranty issue and customer service in Europe. A responsible, globally acting CEO certainly would be concerned. If true – and after all I’m inclined to believe it might be true – this is questionable behavior. Also, we can learn so much more from our critics, well-meaning or not, than from the yea-sayers, and I don’t see the actual Gibson management would bother in any way. Most jazz fans I’ve met in my life, feel, think and behave like cosmopolitans. I’ve never asked by now, so it’s a vague guess, but some non-American jazz guitarists might even feel embarrassed if they get seen with an axe that is charged with unnecessary political and national sentiment: today jazz music is a global language - and jazz guitars are global tools!
>> i've had half a dozen purely american made guitars - from campellone, andersen and comins - they were just as expensive or more expensive than gibsons (i used think an L5 would be 2 steps down from the guitars i was playing) - and they were great
but none of them could hold a candle to the gibson i now play (brand new L5CES)
what the topic has to do with is the precise way that gibson make guitars
god knows how they do it - but this L5 makes all the other guitars i've played sound and feel cheap and nasty - really. its just that good. <<
This does happen in the production of hollowbody guitars, no matter where or by whom they are assembled: if you put together carved or laminated plates from the stocks, with tonebars from the stocks, and a neck from the stocks, etc., it could happen that the corresponding resonance modes fit really well in a few guitars, and that these will end up as exceptionally resonant and lively guitars. Well, Gibson don’t "do it", it just happens by accident! That’s why the potential buyers basically try to A/B as much as possible models at one point-of-sale, making the buying sort of a raffle, at least outside the country of origin.
God bless America! I really love the Americans and their enhanced freedom (which, OTOH, demands more self-control of the individual), and their ultimate export: jazz and blues music that was born there, not always without violence! Unforgotten will be their help at great sacrifice to get rid of that Austrian monster that without massive fraud and trickery could never have been the German Chancellor, and survived at least 39 assassination attempts in the German Reich.
God bless America: paradoxical as it may sound, but US bombs were directly responsible that some matchless jazz guitars emerged!
Last edited by Ol' Fret; 05-09-2016 at 09:39 PM.
-
Can anyone justify this? Please make a good case for Gibson:
Gibson True Historic 1960 Les Paul Aged Electric Guitar at zZounds
Oh, and that's a savings of 29%! LOL
-
Archie, in some strange ways, I can understand where you are coming from. I couldn't be offended with anything you say, even if my last name was Gibson. We need more of you. Don't be scarce.. Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
On one hand a gibson bash is acceptable and valid but inspite of what I say, I can tell you honestly that I respect your choices and I respect the choices of all you guys, Joe, Vinny, B2, others of course.
You know what good tone is, I can hear that in your videos, I can see it in your weapons of choice.
I tread a fine line here I dont want you guys to be offended. A good Gibson is unbeatable we all know that, thats like a given. perhaps i just need to remind you guys that I haven't forgotten that!
Im a perfectionist; an A-hole and if Patrick were here, he'd say the same thing.
Anyway i haven't said anythning bad about Gibson in months... ok that 275 thread like last week
Marco you never cease to amaze me. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Proud of you for standing your ground. You are probably the only one here that could start a thread like this and not have it turn into an all out brawl.. Credibility and respect coming at you in waves..
Aint that the truth! And you have every right. Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
see what I mean? Archie, you Crack me up. And thanks for not pointing out that they just might sand the 2 little pieces of walnut just a little bit more than the other 3 pieces of maple... Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
oh, I love this place..
JD
-
Originally Posted by abelljo
If Gibson manages to sell these they don't have to justify it to any of us ..... They only have to sell a few of them ... and they are apparently doing so
Have you seen the prices for Gil Yaron's LP copies or a Stevens LJ .... or a Gustavsson Bluesmaster ...
Check them out and others here
Destroy All Guitars - The Boutique Guitar Revolution Has A Home
Gibson is following their lead and trying to get a piece of the $10K and above solid body action
-
That's a very nice guitar sound. Makes me want to check out what the '90s boxes are going for... hmmmm.... Originally Posted by Stringswinger
It's all in the specific guitar. Something hand crafted like an L5 is always going to have variations. You just have to play lots of guitars. Which is a terrible hardship of course :-)
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
He does make that L5 sound good. I always liked the extra clarity (scale length) of the L5 over the 175.
-
Judging from the following video, high prices don't seem to bother German players much.
-
Originally Posted by Bluedawg
For the record, I don't thing solid body guitars are nearly as difficult to build as hollow body, or even semi-hollows for that matter. The corollary is---there is lot less "magic" inherent in them.
So, my earlier post re: Gibson's distinctive sound did not mention solid bodies.
I think anyone who pays huge money for solid bodies is just nutso....there was this pseudo-romantic, pseudo-flower child aspect to the Baby Boomer generation that has transmuted, or mutated, twenty years later, into really noxious consumeristic fetishism, and people who fetishize these instruments are just soft-headed, IMO. When you combine this with "individualized" marketing, that is now accomplished through digital media, the implications are frightening.
There was a pretty good New Yorker cartoon that showed a "Woodstock reunion" with a huge crowd of people standing around, sipping cocktails---that captured part of the hypocrisy. The cartoon would now have to be updated to show everyone distracted as they pay attention to their smartphones, tablets, etc.Last edited by goldenwave77; 05-10-2016 at 08:41 AM.
-
I have the same shirt that Larry has. Same hair too. Except mine grows mostly on my back.. Originally Posted by Klatu
Great Video. Thanks, Joe D
-
Yes, I would agree that this whole Gibson Les Paul as collectors item and the resultant whole custom Les Paul as furniture thing is a product of this culture... But who can blame a company for trading on their name and going for the easy buck? But yeah, thousands on a Telecaster, say, it's a bit silly. Although I was tempted by a '67 Tele. Then I thought... Hmmm, I could get a nice archtop for that, and came to my sense. In the end I din't spend the money.
My modern tele is a great workhorse and unlike a relic, I'm not afraid to take it out of the house. (Which is another argument for buying non-vintage, although used is turning into vintage more and more.... )
Here's the thing - carved musical instruments such as cellos, violins and archtop guitars are hard to make well. They are expensive. The cellist in my group plays an instrument worth in excess of 10-12,000USD. I rent a handbuilt lute worth around 10,000. When you bear that in mind, paying out for an L5 or whatever seems pretty reasonable.
While I love my Loar cheapo Chinese guitar (I know guys who own vintage Gibson acoustic archtops who play the Loar's on tours and pub gigs where their instruments might get damaged) I do wonder how clear my conscience is on the whole slave labour thing. I don't know about Loar's situation, but given you can get a carved archtop for under 500USD, I do wonder...Last edited by christianm77; 05-10-2016 at 09:09 AM.
-
What I mean by justify, I'm asking not for Gibson to justify, but for us to try to determine if there is real intrinsic value or is it a company being greedy and overpricing the value of a plank of wood with electronic components. Over-hyping their guitars and every year coming up with an even "more accurate" reissue and asking ridiculous prices. I'm not an idiot and I would never pay that much for a LP. It's just a BAD investment. I'm sure the idea came up in a meeting with a bunch of Gibson execs sitting in a conference room, trying to find ways to increase profit margins and sell snake oil to consumers. There is a fine line between legitimately pricing and selling an item and scamming consumers. I think Gibson at this point is scamming consumers. The fact that there are other scammers selling Gibson inspired guitars for high prices doesn't make it less of a scam. Snake oil! Originally Posted by Bluedawg
Last edited by abelljo; 05-10-2016 at 10:18 AM.
-
If you're a luthier working on your own, and make only a small number of instruments a year, and want to make a decent middle-class income, you're going to have to charge a lot per instrument, maybe like $10k depending on local cost of living and how well you want to live. If you're Gibson, you have a completely different scenario. There is no way it costs them 6, 7, 8 grand more to make one instrument than another, especially not when it's just a fancier version of a production instrument. Nor do they "need" this price on their high end products to keep the doors open. That's covered by their mass production lines. The price they charge for these is what they think the market will bear, period, not manufacturing cost. It's about halo effect and tapping into extra profit in the luxury segment. Originally Posted by christianm77
As to the "slave labor in China" thing, there are good and bad employers in China. I doubt any of us knows where the Chibson makers fall on that spectrum, and I don't think it makes any sense to assume they're on the worst end (I say this from having only basic general knowledge about the more notorious industries in China, like mining, construction, food pricessing, and textiles. These are bad everywhere, but luthiery is not).
John
-
Im sure exploitation of labour is high in China but then I could walk down to my local farm and ask the Romanians working for under minimum wage what they think? Originally Posted by John A.
We like to think of places we dont know as dark, where women are raped when going to the shops, governments harvest baby organs, citizens have no rights etc.. yet when we go o these places we start to realise that the Golden Rule generally has a way of making somewhere with humans in, humane.
Unless you live in NK or Somalia
If half of the places we in the West were as bad as we thought, no one would live there.Last edited by Archie; 05-10-2016 at 10:23 AM.
-
"The price they charge for these is what they think the market will bear, period, not manufacturing cost. It's about halo effect and tapping into extra profit in the luxury segment."
What, should they charge less than they can?
Gibson is a business, not a social welfare agency.
-
I guess if they are marketing to non gigging musicians, collectors and other high income buyers then it makes sense. I know they are a business, but it is unfortunate that real musicians can rarely afford a quality instruments and many talented guitarist are stuck with crappy guitars just because the guitar is so mainstream good ones are not affordable. But if clothing companies can charge thousands for a pair of jeans then Gibson can do the same with a guitar. Originally Posted by boatheelmusic
-
The cost is certainly quite high, but many of the companies selling the instruments to consumers do have zero or low interest payment options to get these instruments into the hands of working musicians. I want to delineate here, I am not speaking about going into massive debt to buy something, but rather a well thought out plan to make a purchase happen.
A buddy of mine is a working musician (fantastic bassist) that is an artist with a boutique company ($7-$$$$k basses). While he does work during the week at a desk job, he still can't just pay $7.5k for a new bass. They offer a yearly payment plan while the instrument is being built so he can afford it. Certainly, not everyone can swing that kind of dough regardless of how many payment options are available, but it's still an option.
Are Gibson's overpriced? Only if you either can't afford or don't want one. Sufficient sales volume is allowing the company to charge what they do (any company for that matter). If only X guitar is good enough, price is seemingly a secondary factor.
-
Pick your poison as far as new instruments go. Buy an expensive instrument that contributes to societies that perpetuate the advantages of the vast income divide, or buy a cheaper instrument that may or may be the result of labor and human rights exploitation. I think that the people at Gibson will say that they are altruistic because they off both.
P.S. I like the sound and feel of a good Gibson. I don't have one anymore
Last edited by lammie200; 05-10-2016 at 11:27 AM.
-
I'll buy and play instruments made in Countries that have laws respecting labor and the environment. My guitars were built in three Countries, the USA, France and Japan.
All three are places that respect the rule of law, have multi-party elections and just happen to make some great guitars.
-
Gibson does have an artist program where performing artists get a deal on their guitars (as do most Guitar makers). The more high profile the player, the better the deal.
-
I have no opinion on what they should charge. It's their business. I'm just pointing out that that manufacturing cost is not the main driver of their high end items' prices. Originally Posted by boatheelmusic
John
-
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Gibson also has techs who specialize in setting up artist's guitars (and not ours).
Reply With Quote
mclaughlin sound here
Today, 12:26 AM in The Players