Price of a Gibson ES-175 in 1949

[Barcia]

Hi all,

I know the model's name is derived from its original price of $175, but... how expensive was that at 1949?
What was the average wage? or
What would be its price today? (1949 $175 vs. 2016 $)

[rpguitar]

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2016

$1,770.98 in 2016

They've gone up quite a bit more than that, eh?

[Stringswinger]

Inflation Calculator | Find US Dollar's Value from 1913-2016

$1,770.98 in 2016

They've gone up quite a bit more than that, eh?

So has the cost of raw materials and American labor. Also in 1949, they were one pickup only (a single coil pup at that), had very plain woods and the hard shell case cost extra.

[Bill C]

So has the cost of raw materials and Anerican labor. Also in 1949, they were one pickup only (a single coil pup at that), had very plain woods and the hard shell case cost extra.

imo the 175 looks better with plain woods - form follows function etc ...

[newsense]

So has the cost of raw materials and Anerican labor. Also in 1949, they were one pickup only (a single coil pup at that), had very plain woods and the hard shell case cost extra.

This remark is actually a lot more relevant than I first thought - there are several different ways of measuring inflation - not just comparing the value of a dollar bill: (https://www.measuringworth.com/uscom...ar_result=2015)

In 2015, the relative price worth of $175.00 from 1949 is:
$1,740.00 using the Consumer Price Index
$1,420.00 using the GDP deflator

In 2015, the relative amount consumers spend worth of $175.00 from 1949 is:
$2,760.00 using the value of consumer bundle

In 2015, the relative wage or income worth of $175.00 from 1949 is:
$2,880.00 using the unskilled wage
$3,660.00 using the Production Worker Compensation
$5,360.00 using the nominal GDP per capita

In 2015, the relative output worth of $175.00 from 1949 is:
$11,600.00 using the relative share of GDP

Pick which number you want, but for goods such as a guitar, the major cost component is labor. $175 worth of labor in '49 is now worth between $2,880 and $5,360 - which spans the price of a new ES175.

[Beanctr]

I guess the bottom line is they were expensive then and they are expensive now. R

[Doctor Jeff]

Pick which number you want, but for goods such as a guitar, the major cost component is labor. $175 worth of labor in '49 is now worth between $2,880 and $5,360 - which spans the price of a new ES175.

The entire cost of the guitar is not the labor, so that doesn't hold.

Most goods get cheaper to make (in inflation-adjusted terms) over the lifetime of the product, unless there is a truly serious shortage of a rare material. Over 65 years of production there should be many, many technological advances in production and efficiencies in acquisition of materials.

The bottom line is, no one seriously thinks a 175 costs $5000 in materials or labor today. There are however market forces based on desirability and collectability that have a significant effect on price.

[Little Jay]

An interesting comparison would be to take something else that was $175 in 1949 and is still being made today and see if that's as expensive as an ES-175. Anyone?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Are we sure it was $175 in 1949? How much was the ES-5?

[newsense]

The entire cost of the guitar is not the labor, so that doesn't hold.

I think you are confusing cost and price. My statement still holds - the cost of production of most non-mass produced products is dominated by labor cost. The price includes profit, which is determined by how much the seller believes the buyer will pay.

None of us know how much profit Gibson made on a 175 in 1949, or in 2015, so the comparisons of price we make are of limited use. However, there seems to be a general feeling that Gibson's profit margin (as fraction of price) has increased considerably in the last 70 years - and I'm not going to argue with that.

[newsense]

Are we sure it was $175 in 1949? How much was the ES-5?

$5.00 ?

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

None of us know how much profit Gibson made on a 175 in 1949, or in 2015, so the comparisons of price we make are of limited use. However, there seems to be a general feeling that Gibson's profit margin (as fraction of price) has increased considerably in the last 70 years - and I'm not going to argue with that.

Argue with facts or argue with feelings?

[Cunamara]

I think you are confusing cost and price. My statement still holds - the cost of production of most non-mass produced products is dominated by labor cost.

In the old economy that had a great deal of truth but not really any longer. Look, for example, at automobile manufacturing in the US in which the majority of workers have been replaced with automation. Factories are no longer lines and rows of workers doing interlocking jobs- now it is machines doing those tasks and a handful of humans keeping an eye on the process. This is one of the large causes of the decline of the middle class- machines are more precise and repeatable and ultimately less expensive to operate over millions of repetitions. Businesses that can leverage automation are making more profits with fewer workers- corporate profits have doubled since 2000 but median household income is down ~10%. Good news for investors, terrible news for workers- the classic conflict between Main Street and Wall Street. Indeed, automation caused more manufacturing job losses than trade deals and outsourcing of jobs to other countries has done. Countries like China and Brazil have lost twice as many manufacturing jobs to automation than the US has. We can't bring those jobs back to the US because those jobs simply no longer exist anywhere.

I haven't got a clue whether this applies to Gibson and the ES-175, though. Certainly some automation is possible- CNC machining, for example- but that seems likely to be better suited to small parts like bridges and to solid body guitars than to an archtop (although Victor Baker CNCs his tops and backs, as I understand it, and Benedetto partially automated rough carving of tops and backs using a sort of pantograph). Did Henry J invest in tech and automation? It is interesting to see the different ways of evaluating what $175 in 1949 is worth today.

[Max405]

I guess the bottom line is they were expensive then and they are expensive now. R

And worth every penny.

[bohemian46]

1949

"Average Cost of new house $7,450.00
Average wages per year $2,950.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas 17 cents
Average Cost of a new car $1,420.00
Minimum Hourly Wage Rate 70 cents per hour
Bacon per pound 50 cents
Kitchen Table and Chairs $100.00"
Bananas - 2 lbs for 27 cents
Campbell's tomato soup - 10 cents
Chuck roast - 59 cents a lb.
Oranges - 24 for 69 cents
Kelloggs Shredded Wheat - 18 cents
Potatoes - 10 lbs for 35 cents
Toilet Paper - 5 cents a roll
Sugar 5 lbs for 43 cents"

[Stringswinger]

And worth every penny.

Damn straight! Gibsons rule. Yesterday, today, and I would bet tomorrow as well.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's my understanding that Gibson's Nashville plant is pretty heavily automated. I can't say anything about Memphis operations, and I'd imagine they're more hand-built there.

If the market will bear it, HJ and Gibson would be foolish not to charge it.

[Dennis D]

I guess the bottom line is they were expensive then and they are expensive now. R

They were Gibson's entry-level jazz guitar back then......you could buy one and look like Jim Hall...........Then came rock and roll and Les Paul's and 335's........Gibson could sell every LP & 335 it could build -and make more money on them- than it could making low-buck jazz 175's.....

...I paid $ 250. for my single P/U 175 - new, in 1962. I think LP's were at least double that - -and 335's maybe a little less. ( Correct me if that's wrong - -I couldn't find '62 LP prices ).

But even as a student, and paying tuition I could save up $250. and buy one.....(( living at home )).....

I agree they're expensive now, but back then they were pretty reasonable.

MHO

[vinlander]

Based on bohemian46 1949 list a Gibson 175 if 175$ for a 2950$ average income a year would mean 6%
6% of lets say 55000$ median American household income would mean 3300$.

[tonedeaf]

An interesting comparison would be to take something else that was $175 in 1949 and is still being made today and see if that's as expensive as an ES-175. Anyone?


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

One of the more meaningful measures is the "Big Mac" index, which measures rates of inflation in terms of how the price of Big Macs has increased. Only problem is, Big Macs have not been around that long. That said, I was personally born in 1949, which dramatically increased the value of all durable goods manufactured in that year.

[Dennis D]

One other thing - - these days, by time today's young buyer buys his first guitar of any level, how many state of the art cellphones will he have bought and how much will he have spent each time, almost w/ no questions asked ??

You can buy a nice guitar I'm guessing.


Again, MHO.

[Doctor Jeff]

In 1980 I worked all summer as a hospital orderly making $3.25 per hour (minimum wage). I made about $2000, and spent almost half that on an ES-175. I was between freshman and sophomore years at college--tuition was $2500 per semester, but I was going on scholarship. Living expenses were a hundred or 2 a month.

Anyway, a lot of money for me, but not as much of a stretch relative to today's 20 year-olds working minimum wage jobs and paying $12,000 a year for public college tuition (my daughter is a senior at UW-Madison).

Not that this proves anything, but I should never have sold that 175...

[Dennis D]

One other thing - - these days, by time today's young buyer buys his first guitar of any level, how many state of the art cellphones will he have bought and how much will he have spent each time, almost w/ no questions asked ??

You can buy a nice guitar I'm guessing.


Again, MHO.

[newsense]

In the old economy that had a great deal of truth but not really any longer. Look, for example, at automobile manufacturing in the US ......

I apologise for seemingly keep correcting perceptions concerning manufacturing. Yes, there are more robots and machines now, which have been used to reduce production costs by eliminating some labour, and replacing it with smaller capital costs. However, of that reduced cost I know that even in a highly automated industry, labour is still the major cost. I've been there and had to do the sums (manufacturing industry, not Memphis).

[Barcia]

Thanks all, very interesting answers. I didn't want to polemize about cost vs. price, only was trying to figure how many gigs had to do a 1949 guy to get that guitar.