The Cost of a Gibson

[Guitarbean25]

There is no secret knowledge. Heritage can only dream about pricing its archtops on par with Gibson's. Because Heritage knows, the market won't pay Gibson prices for Heritage guitars. Is the market stupid? Heritage won't sell a single archtop at Gibson prices.

There was a guy named Drew who tried to sell off his Super Eagle in mint condition on the Heritage Owners Club. He started at $3200 and gradually had to whittle it down to $2600 before someone bought it. Even Heritage fan boys know not to pay too much for a Heritage. Tells you everything you need to know. That's a Super Eagle, the supposed 18" equivalent to the Super 400CES, made in the original home of Gibson. Yadda...

If Heritage were undervalued, the market will recognise that and raise their prices on the secondary market.

It is not because Heritage won't charge Gibson prices. Heritage can't. Fine archtops but they really aren't Gibsons. And I am not talking about the brand name on the headstock.

Gibson's marketing budget is probably bigger than all of Heritage. I love heritage. All my archtops are Heritage.

Marketing can make people do and think crazy things...like buy expensive vodka or vote for...wait...never mind

[Stringswinger]

Earlier in this thread, it was pointed out that Gibson has techs that do setup work on their artist program guitars. They need to do this. The Artist gets the guitar directly from Gibson and has no dealer to provide this service (which the dealer is supposed to provide.....part of the dealer profit should go to providing this service).

Of the 22 Gibson guitars that I have owned, I only bought 2 brand new. One was bought from Michael's Music in New York and was setup perfectly. The other was bought from an Illinois dealer (who I won't name here) and the setup was not great. I think that buying from GC or MF probably brings a lot more Gibson bashing than buying from Wildwood or Dave's.

[Stringswinger]

If one gets a significantly lower price from GC or MF, one should be prepared to pay a bit more to get the setup done. You generally do not get to have your cake and eat it too.

If people are unwilling to pay for quality, well, they won't be playing Gibsons. ;-)

[Stringswinger]

@2B, Why did you sell the Gibsons? Was it financial? Or were none of them keepers for other reasons.

I have sold 16 of the 22 Gibsons for different reasons. Back in my younger days when money was tight, I had to sell a guitar to buy a guitar. If I could have my 1970 175, my 1968 335 and my 1963 SG back, especially for what I sold them for, I would. A couple were sold because I did not like them after playing for awhile. The rest? I sold them to trade up.

I had one dog, a 2008 175 that had a less than perfect neck, but probably could have been fixed with a refretting and a plane.

All in all, they have been pretty fine guitars. I remain a fanboy.

[2bornot2bop]

@2B, Why did you sell the Gibsons? Was it financial? Or were none of them keepers for other reasons.

I have sold 16 of the 22 Gibsons for different reasons. Back in my younger days when money was tight, I had to sell a guitar to buy a guitar. If I could have my 1970 175, my 1968 335 and my 1963 SG back, especially for what I sold them for, I would. A couple were sold because I did not like them after playing for awhile. The rest? I sold them to trade up.

I had one dog, a 2008 175 that had a less than perfect neck, but probably could have been fixed with a refretting and a plane.

All in all, they have been pretty fine guitars. I remain a fanboy.

No, they each arrived one after the other in my guitar search...first a pair of Lucilles, soon followed by a dream of a '98 CES, a '73 Super 400, and a few weeks later an '05 Hutchins WES, ending with a blonde '01 Hutchins CES. I couldn't bond with the '01 CES...it sounded nothing like the '98 CES...I preferred the '98, but I reluctantly moved it to afford the Super 400 that availed itself weeks later...it was at a price I couldn't refuse so I bought it blind...at the time I was knee deep in other gear, so something in my retirement budget had to give...hind site is 20/20...of all the Gibsons the '98 had the smokey tone I'd imagined Gibson jazz archtops possessed. But to be truthful, I was still too deep in my desire to sample some of everything...now that my sampling phase has ended there's a few guitars I'd like to have back...as to an electric archtop it would for sure be the '98 CES...it was sunburst too, which is my preference.

No one here appreciates your 'fanboydom' more than me. If you're gonna own an archtop to play plugged in jazz, why not a Gibson. They're not ultra expensive used...even today...if one looks, they can find one in the $5-$6k range...I'll eventually track down a CES in sunburst to keep...I'm going through another keyboard phase of late so I've not been playing as much. Thanks for asking...no hard feelings I hope...none here.

[MaxTwang]

While Gibson's 'quality' can be questioned, their fit and finish might not be up to boutique standards on some models, and they setup guitars poorly - what can't be questioned is that Gibson has some of the best, and most imitated, guitar models made. Gibson has been innovating and building for close to 100 years and in that time they have introduced new designs, refined designs that worked and abandoned designs that didn't.

What Gibson sells today are iconic designs with signature sound and feel that are the culmination of 100 years of being an industry leader. They may not be your 'cup of tea' but Super 400, L5, L5-CES, ES-335, ES-175, ES-350, Les Paul, Flying V, Destroyer, J45, Hummingbird, etc. are instruments that have changed and defined music

Nothing looks quite like a Gibson, nothing feels quite like a Gibson and nothing sounds quite like a Gibson.


Damn! Now I'm gassing for a Gibson flattop!

[destinytot]

Gibson re-sale value was/is a big plus for me. (I've owned two and sold them on; they weren't right for me, but I agree that they're absolutely excellent guitars.)

[medblues]

Quick and innocent question: Does the Gibson company own low end brands (Epiphone etc) that they outsource to non US factories and sell in the US market ?

[aboutIt]

While they can't quite move the spirit like a vihuela or an oud, any Gibson or even a good ukelele makes a wonderful souvenir for the kids after a holiday in the States.

[Archie]

While Gibson's 'quality' can be questioned, their fit and finish might not be up to boutique standards on some models, and they setup guitars poorly - what can't be questioned is that Gibson has some of the best, and most imitated, guitar models made. Gibson has been innovating and building for close to 100 years and in that time they have introduced new designs, refined designs that worked and abandoned designs that didn't.

What Gibson sells today are iconic designs with signature sound and feel that are the culmination of 100 years of being an industry leader. They may not be your 'cup of tea' but Super 400, L5, L5-CES, ES-335, ES-175, ES-350, Les Paul, Flying V, Destroyer, J45, Hummingbird, etc. are instruments that have changed and defined music

Nothing looks quite like a Gibson, nothing feels quite like a Gibson and nothing sounds quite like a Gibson.


Damn! Now I'm gassing for a Gibson flattop!

Pretty much all the models you named there were designed pre 1960. I've said this before but Gibson's output as a company since then has been almost none existent.
Most of the new models they tried to introduce since then failed miserably, the company whoring the name went bust and another stepped in to do exactly the same.

I dont even want to use the word Gibson to talk about Gibson anymore.

Gibson 1.0 has always been the finest
Gibson 1.1 was a dissater
Gibson 1.2 Is a disaster (especially after last year)

At what point for the last 50 years has companies gorging on the Gibson name been any good?

Time and time again Gibson lives on because of the great things done so many generations ago and no i'm not talking about the fine builder that have been there, they are still making guitars designed in 1950.

if your only redeeming quality is that Gibson 1.2 designed the 'midtown' then my point is only proven further.

[drbhrb]

I have no interest in the subject of this thread anymore, but I'm alwas looking for inspiration and something new, so please tell us what guitars you favor

[2bornot2bop]

J-Dub. Don't use the Heritage forum as the established market value for a Super Eagle. It's a place where most Heritage archtops sell at a minimum if they sell at all. It's a place to list a free archtop ad for internet exposure. That place is not now nor has it ever been a popular place to maximize the value of any archtop for the demand for archtops is very minimal there.

Regarding the value of SE's their actual selling prices vary greatly. I know someone whose sold nearly 10 SE's at or near $4k. But as always to sell any used guitar and maximize price one has to be patient and have an exceptional item and ad. Sometimes it's just dumb luck.

There are one off minimum sells on most anything. An L5CES at $2700, a Super 400 at $4k, a Hutchins WesMo for $4700, a Hutchins CES for $5500, but as we know those are outliers and don't reflect average market prices. Clearly there's no market value comparison between Heritage and Gibson guitars. That's obvious to anyone

There is no secret knowledge. Heritage can only dream about pricing its archtops on par with Gibson's. Because Heritage knows, the market won't pay Gibson prices for Heritage guitars. Is the market stupid? Heritage won't sell a single archtop at Gibson prices.

There was a guy named Drew who tried to sell off his Super Eagle in mint condition on the Heritage Owners Club. He started at $3200 and gradually had to whittle it down to $2600 before someone bought it. Even Heritage fan boys know not to pay too much for a Heritage. Tells you everything you need to know. That's a Super Eagle, the supposed 18" equivalent to the Super 400CES, made in the original home of Gibson. Yadda...

If Heritage were undervalued, the market will recognise that and raise their prices on the secondary market.

It is not because Heritage won't charge Gibson prices. Heritage can't. Fine archtops but they really aren't Gibsons. And I am not talking about the brand name on the headstock.

[Hammertone]

Pretty much all the models you named there were designed pre 1960. I've said this before but Gibson's output as a company since then has been almost none existent.
Most of the new models they tried to introduce since then failed miserably, the company whoring the name went bust and another stepped in to do exactly the same.
I dont even want to use the word Gibson to talk about Gibson anymore.
Gibson 1.0 has always been the finest
Gibson 1.1 was a dissater
Gibson 1.2 Is a disaster (especially after last year)
At what point for the last 50 years has companies gorging on the Gibson name been any good?
Time and time again Gibson lives on because of the great things done so many generations ago and no i'm not talking about the fine builder that have been there, they are still making guitars designed in 1950.
if your only redeeming quality is that Gibson 1.2 designed the 'midtown' then my point is only proven further.

I love this place.
What are your dates for phases 1.0, 1.1. and 1.2?

[Stringswinger]

I would use the following dates:

1.0 is pre 1966

1.2 is post 1986

There is no doubt that 1.0 is the best era but I think that fine examples can be found from 1.1 (Norlin/corporate era) and some of the best Gibsons ever have come from 1.2. (Henry J.)

[Archie]

I love this place.
What are your dates for phases 1.0, 1.1. and 1.2?

Haha well its crude I grant you.

Gibson 1.0 1900-1955 (the original team kind of although ownership[ changed in the 40's?)

Gibson 1.1 70's-80's (norlin)

Gibson 1.2 mid 80's-now (this guy)

And yes I know they have tried to build loads of new models post Gibson 1.0 but I'm not writing an essay every time I want to make a general point. And yes I know Gibson were bought out in the 40's too but Im making the point that construction seemed to have remained highly regarded until the mid to late 50's.

[Max405]

why the hell do I want the Gibson ES-137 at my local Sam Ash?

If its this one..


That's an easy one. That is a GREAT guitar. It sounds great. It Plays great. It has a nice comfy handful of a neck, and it is very possibly the most sensible Jazz guitar you can get for playing out. I wish I had one myself. And, Oh I forgot to add, its a Gibson. You will ALWAYS find a buyer for it and you will get pretty close to what you paid for it, if you ever decide to sell it..

Joe D.

[r_cc_c]

I don't have any gibson guitar.
My wish list is one or more of ...

L5 or L5 WesMo
ES-175 single humbucker or ES-165 Herb Ellis
Pat Martino or ES-446
ES-335

[Stringswinger]

If I was looking for a Gibson and money was tight, I would choose the 335 Studio over the 135/137. The 335 will always be easier to sell when or if you want to trade up.

The 335 is an iconic guitar, and set up properly with the right strings, they are all the jazz guitar anyone needs. They are pretty well respected in the rock/blues/country genres as well.

[Hammertone]

Haha well its crude I grant you.
Gibson 1.0 1900-1955 (the original team kind of although ownership[ changed in the 40's?)
Gibson 1.1 70's-80's (norlin)
Gibson 1.2 mid 80's-now (this guy)
And yes I know they have tried to build loads of new models post Gibson 1.0 but I'm not writing an essay every time I want to make a general point. And yes I know Gibson were bought out in the 40's too but Im making the point that construction seemed to have remained highly regarded until the mid to late 50's.

You neglect to mention the period between 1955 and 1970s when, in addition the newfangled "humbucking" pickup Gibson introduced in 1957 (rumour has it that they are really catching on), they also introduced:
- ES-335 & variants
- ES-330
- Double-cutaway Specials and Juniors
- SG & variants
- L-4CES
- Johnny Smith
- Barney Kessel & variants
- Epiphone Howard Roberts (the original one)
- Flying V
- Explorer
- Reverse Firebird & variants
- Melody Maker & variants
- Dove
- Hummingbird
and many others.

Gibson did introduce some other guitars during this period as well as those I have listed.
While there is the inevitable dog in the bunch, all of the above are recognized by most players as great guitars in their own right.

I'll make a general point as well:
Perhaps you might want to reconsider your classification system.

Some useful wiki information from regarding Gibson's ownership history:
- In 1902 Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Mfg. Co, Ltd. was incorporated.
- In 1944, Gibson was bought by Chicago Musical Instruments (CMI).
- In 1969 by Panama-based conglomerate, Ecuadorian Company Limited (E.C.L.) that changed its name in the same year to Norlin Corporation.
- Between 1974 and 1984 production of Gibson guitars was shifted from Kalamazoo to Nashville, Tennessee. The Kalamazoo plant kept going for a few years as a custom-instrument shop, but was closed in 1984.
- In 1986, the company was acquired by Henry Juszkiewicz, David H. Berryman and Gary A. Zebrowski. Gibson is a privately held corporation.

More general points to come.

[Hammertone]

Haha well its crude I grant you.
Gibson 1.0 1900-1955 (the original team kind of although ownership[ changed in the 40's?)
Gibson 1.1 70's-80's (norlin)
Gibson 1.2 mid 80's-now (this guy)
And yes I know they have tried to build loads of new models post Gibson 1.0 but I'm not writing an essay every time I want to make a general point. And yes I know Gibson were bought out in the 40's too but Im making the point that construction seemed to have remained highly regarded until the mid to late 50's.

New models in the Gibson 1.2 period include many strange and failed models, and a pile of perhaps "so what" instruments, as well as the following instruments, which I think are widely recognized as excellent guitars in their own right:
- ES-135 / 137
- Johnny A
- ES-275
- CS-336 and variants
- ES-339 and variants
- ES-446
- Pat Martino
and a few more

[Jabberwocky]

Folks who claim that Gibsons are unaffordable are used to paying MSRP i.e. sticker price on everything...

When I was asking circa 2011, a brand new Gibson L-5CES ASB was ~$850 more than a brand new Heritage Golden Eagle OSB, ~$6500 vs. ~$5650. Maybe that is a scandalous difference to some. To me, after weighing the pros and cons, negligible.

Those who like Gibsons like Gibsons. Those who like Heritages like Heritages. Both companies make fine archtops, and their fair share of dogs when the planets are aligned i.e. not that often. Nobody deserves to be called a rube for choosing one over the other.

[christianm77]

If I was looking for a Gibson and money was tight, I would choose the 335 Studio over the 135/137. The 335 will always be easier to sell when or if you want to trade up.

The 335 is an iconic guitar, and set up properly with the right strings, they are all the jazz guitar anyone needs. They are pretty well respected in the rock/blues/country genres as well.

Good pickups.... So what are you laying out for with the pricier Gibson? With Fender it's always spec, but with Gibson it seems to be finish? Or have I got it totally wrong?

[2bornot2bop]

Folks who claim that Gibsons are unaffordable are used to paying MSRP i.e. sticker price on everything...

When I was asking circa 2011, a brand new Gibson L-5CES ASB was ~$850 more than a brand new Heritage Golden Eagle OSB, ~$6500 vs. ~$5650. Maybe that is a scandalous difference to some. To me, after weighing the pros and cons, negligible.

Those who like Gibsons like Gibsons. Those who like Heritages like Heritages. Both companies make fine archtops, and their fair share of dogs when the planets are aligned i.e. not that often. Nobody deserves to be called a rube for choosing one over the other.

Yes, but no one pays MSRP for a Golden Eagle, even new, and used GE's in superb condition do occasionally appear beneath $3k. And while finding a used L5, today, for less than $5k is possible, it's hardly the norm. Is it worth over $2k more to own an L5? Only a buyer can decide that for themselves...someone here once said, "you pays your money and make your choice."

[Stringswinger]

Good pickups.... So what are you laying out for with the pricier Gibson? With Fender it's always spec, but with Gibson it seems to be finish? Or have I got it totally wrong?

For the most part with Gibson, the higher price just gets more bling, but at the highest price point, they often use rare woods that result in a lighter guitar.

[2bornot2bop]

For the most part with Gibson, the higher price just gets more bling, but at the highest price point, they often use rare woods that result in a lighter guitar.

Oh yeah...4 sure!