How quickly prices have gone up... oh my...

[PDeville]

Thanks, it was a welcome change from grinding through Mick Goodrick cycles. I was just waiting for someone to mention the mini ice age… ;-)

Haha! Brilliant.

Parties on the frozen River Thames in the 19th century is a pleasant thought, thanks for that as well.

>>through Mick Goodrick cycles
Yeah, that sounds like an unpleasant "task" even on your new L5.

[Christian Miller]

Haha! Brilliant.

Parties on the frozen River Thames in the 19th century is a pleasant thought, thanks for that as well.

>>through Mick Goodrick cycles
Yeah, that sounds like an unpleasant "task" even on your new L5.

River Thames frost fairs - Wikipedia

I think you would be referring to the L5 of my wishes.

atm I’m on my es335. Which is brilliant actually.

[PDeville]

River Thames frost fairs - Wikipedia

Thanks, again! I like English history!
335s are alright.

[Doctor Jeff]

That’s a much better analogy than you may realize. I fell in love with the 356 when I was about 12. I bought my first one (a rusty ‘57 coupe) in 1966 for $400. I subsequently went through a ‘59 Super 90, a ‘62 T6 coupe, a ‘58 Speedster, a ‘61 cabriolet that was too far gone to restore without a proper shop (yes, I tried anyway), and a ‘60 coupe I shared with my cousin. None of those cars cost me more than $2k. I fixed up most of them and sold all for at least what they cost me.

What attracted me to Porsche was the simplicity of their excellence. They had just enough power - although another hundred horses under the lid would have been cool, they were not necessary. They could be made to cover lots of ground fast if you knew how. They had no wasted components or materials - everything was efficient and functional. They were very well made for the day - rust was not peculiar to Porsches in those days. They were easy to repair mechanically. They were comfortable and roomy. They easily held a guitar and an amp.

When Porsche got fancy, I said goodbye. They started moving to expensive cars with major defects that the customer paid dearly to live with - exploding air boxes and clutches, pulled case studs, bad timing chain tensioners, etc in 911s, engine mounts, steering racks, fuel pumps etc in 944s, clutches in 928s, major engine failures because of inadequate cooling of front cylinders in Boxsters, and so much more.

Porsche, like Gibson and others, got uppity and lost sight of what made them great. Prices rose and quality fell. Even their top models were sold with major flaws and defects. Communication with them went from open and informative up to the early ‘60s to impossible in only a few years. Every 356 was excellent. Every Gibson was excellent. Sure, there were a few oddball lemons - but not many. Then, all of a sudden, it changed for both. In fact, it changed everywhere - Norlin / Gibson, CBS / Fender, AMF / Harley, and Porsche’s dramatic character shift from lean beautiful 356s to the progressively fatter and failure-prone 911s.

I started with a very used Porsche in 1966 and had 5 more over several years. I drive an FT86 now. It has the same quality, character, and reliability as a new 356 Porsche. I started with a used 345 in 1960 and had multiple other Gibsons over several years. I haven’t had one in 20+ years. My two main guitars now are an Eastman 810 and an Ibanez AF207. And I’m very happy! I’d love to restore another 356, but decent hulks are $35k or more, and I no longer have my own shop. And I will not pay Porsche what they now charge for a car that’s awash in excess I don’t like, don’t want, and won’t pay for. Time marches on, and we either keep pace or die unhappy.

I think the analogy between Gibson guitars and Porsche is spot-on. They have become collector’s items and lifestyle products, better for them but worse (IMHO) for humble guitar and car enthusaists.

Fortunately, there are decent alternatives these days at prices even working stiffs can afford. Like the Godin Kingpin or Ibanez offerings. Or the 86 or Miata (my own ride of choice).

If one wants something bad enough, there is a way. I waited and waited and finally got the 175 I had wanted for a long time (after foolishly selling my ‘82 years ago). I had a couple of superb BMWs and could buy a Porsche, if I wanted to and didn’t have other uses for the $$.

I guess my point is that no one guarantees what you want will be cheap and easily available. On rare occasions, such is the case—back in the 70’s you could hardly give away a ‘60’s Mustang or Camaro, much less sell for an obscene amount—but for the most part special things require special sacrifices.

[tbeltrans]

For me, the alternative was the Mazda RX-7 back in the 90s. I could buy an 80s model for about $3k. To me, that would be roughly equivalent to getting an Ibanez Artcore series archtop. I had one for a whie and it was a surprisingly nice instrument.

In addition to my Gibson archtop I have an Eastman FV-880CE-SB (the Artist Series Frank Vignola model with the slotted headstock). It is a very decent guitar, in the lower $3k range and is completely different from my Gibson so it can comfortably stay without duplication to what else I have. Eastman archtops could easily be the main instrument for most of us and we could be well satisfied with their quality and playability. Also, from what I have seen, we live in a great time for lower end ($1k+ range) guitars and, thanks to Ibanez, even lower.

So, while it is certainly nice to have a Gibson archtop, it isn't really necessary these days for one to have a perfectly decent archtop. Unfortunately, RX-7s are old enough now that I don't know if anybody but a hardcore enthusiast would see value in keeping one running. Besides, I continually hear that people no longer know how to drive a stick (?).

Tony

[Christian Miller]

Wait - have Gibson prices gone up in real terms? Because the figures that I’ve seen would suggest that they’ve been pretty stable.

i think what’s happened is cheaper guitars have improved so people have increased expectations.

[Christian Miller]

As chance would have it this popped up in my feed. Simon Clark's area of expertise unlike mine is climate science, so take it from him.

[Doctor Jeff]

Wait - have Gibson prices gone up in real terms? Because the figures that I’ve seen would suggest that they’ve been pretty stable.

i think what’s happened is cheaper guitars have improved so people have increased expectations.

I tried without success to find some trends on Reverb and other places, but I think prices have definitely gone up over the last 2 years. And historically much faster than inflation (a new 175 would be about $3000 adjusted for inflation).

When I got my 175 in 2020, there were quite a number of used ones in the mid-2000’s. Now they start in the mid-3000’s (even Norlin era) and go up from there.

Edit: actually I did find a graph on Reverb re Norlin-era 175s which reflects my comments above:

[Marinero]

"It's true that there have been huge changes in global climate over the course of our species, but not during industrial civilisation. It's also the case that I find the science extremely compelling that the warming is anthropogenic in nature , and therefore we do in fact have some measure of control over it."
ChristianMiller

Hi, C,
May our members excuse us for this brief thread-drift which in no way is intended to derail the "price" discussion but is just a human interlude of thought. Quickly: global warming has become a political issue that defines one's political sentiments. However, it is not political . . . it is an issue of Science and for that, we need scientific scrutiny and quantifiable standards. So, if humans have caused the present trend of global warming, how do we prove our theorem that x + y= xy1 when it may also equal xy since we have no quantifiable proof in the past of this warming phenomena caused by humans? Is it possible it is merely coincidental with our global abuses and would have appeared anyway despite our poor practices of global care? The Science is evenly divided among the scientific community ,pro and con, and I believe discussions of this sort actually serve to define one's political sentiments. My personal opinion is that humans can have a dramatic impact on their environment: pollution in lakes, landfills, air quality, loss of habitat, extinction of species, greenhouse gases, etc but, I haven't made the leap of faith that our present global warming is solely related to Man's terminal abuses of our earth's ecosystem. For the record, I have been a lifelong hunter, fly fisherman, and sailor and am opposed to any destruction of our planet through poor conservatorship.
Marinero

P.S. Let's not forget that the brilliant fraudster's ,Al Gore's, book on climate change was peer reviewed by the scientific community and serious material falsehoods were entombed in its pages. And, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors. For some, it is gospel.
An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore - ABC News

[skiboyny]

Just a few things to keep in mind when you ponder the climate change question. Governments are very good at creating problems and simultaneously providing solutions. Most of the "science" we know today is funded by governments. If we have learned anything over the last few years, it's that "science" can bend to the government narrative. When you hand out the money, it's pretty easy to get the answer you're looking for, particularly when science is is usually a theory in progress. Our whole reality has been carefully presented to lead us in a desired direction. The politicians have been bought and paid for long ago. The money owns the world and they will have whatever it is they want. Draw your own conclusions but realize there really is no way we can know.

"It's true that there have been huge changes in global climate over the course of our species, but not during industrial civilisation. It's also the case that I find the science extremely compelling that the warming is anthropogenic in nature , and therefore we do in fact have some measure of control over it."
ChristianMiller

Hi, C,
May our members excuse us for this brief thread-drift which in no way is intended to derail the "price" discussion but is just a human interlude of thought. Quickly: global warming has become a political issue that defines one's political sentiments. However, it is not political . . . it is an issue of Science and for that, we need scientific scrutiny and quantifiable standards. So, if humans have caused the present trend of global warming, how do we prove our theorem that x + y= xy1 when it may also equal xy since we have no quantifiable proof in the past of this warming phenomena caused by humans? Is it possible it is merely coincidental with our global abuses and would have appeared anyway despite our poor practices of global care? The Science is evenly divided among the scientific community ,pro and con, and I believe discussions of this sort actually serve to define one's political sentiments. My personal opinion is that humans can have a dramatic impact on their environment: pollution in lakes, landfills, air quality, loss of habitat, extinction of species, greenhouse gases, etc but, I haven't made the leap of faith that our present global warming is solely related to Man's terminal abuses of our earth's ecosystem. For the record, I have been a lifelong hunter, fly fisherman, and sailor and am opposed to any destruction of our planet through poor conservatorship.
Marinero

P.S. Let's not forget that the brilliant fraudster's ,Al Gore's, book on climate change was peer reviewed by the scientific community and serious material falsehoods were entombed in its pages. And, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors. For some, it is gospel.
An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore - ABC News

[Christian Miller]

"It's true that there have been huge changes in global climate over the course of our species, but not during industrial civilisation. It's also the case that I find the science extremely compelling that the warming is anthropogenic in nature , and therefore we do in fact have some measure of control over it."
ChristianMiller

Hi, C,
May our members excuse us for this brief thread-drift which in no way is intended to derail the "price" discussion but is just a human interlude of thought. Quickly: global warming has become a political issue that defines one's political sentiments. However, it is not political . . . it is an issue of Science and for that, we need scientific scrutiny and quantifiable standards. So, if humans have caused the present trend of global warming, how do we prove our theorem that x + y= xy1 when it may also equal xy since we have no quantifiable proof in the past of this warming phenomena caused by humans? Is it possible it is merely coincidental with our global abuses and would have appeared anyway despite our poor practices of global care? The Science is evenly divided among the scientific community ,pro and con, and I believe discussions of this sort actually serve to define one's political sentiments. My personal opinion is that humans can have a dramatic impact on their environment: pollution in lakes, landfills, air quality, loss of habitat, extinction of species, greenhouse gases, etc but, I haven't made the leap of faith that our present global warming is solely related to Man's terminal abuses of our earth's ecosystem. For the record, I have been a lifelong hunter, fly fisherman, and sailor and am opposed to any destruction of our planet through poor conservatorship.
Marinero

P.S. Let's not forget that the brilliant fraudster's ,Al Gore's, book on climate change was peer reviewed by the scientific community and serious material falsehoods were entombed in its pages. And, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors. For some, it is gospel.
An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore - ABC News

I've never watched Al Gore's film, and have no interest in it TBH. It's also pretty old and out of date now. I'm able to access the work of researchers in the field in question more directly due to my background, so tend to be skeptical about mass media reporting of science in general.

[m_d]

Yeah people don't seem to have a problem with the politicization and/or corruption of science which is totally baffling to me. There was a very important editorial in the Lancet on corruption in scientific research about a decade ago. Here's a cause for "concern" no one wants to talk about. Have things improved since? Anybody know?

Maybe the tone of the conversation will change come next spring when people receive their energy bills. Talk about reverting back to "pre-industrial levels". I say trust the science, but more importantly, trust your government to put the science to good use. You'll be in good hands!

[SierraTango]

I think the analogy between Gibson guitars and Porsche is spot-on. They have become collector’s items and lifestyle products, better for them but worse (IMHO) for humble guitar and car enthusaists.

Fortunately, there are decent alternatives these days at prices even working stiffs can afford. Like the Godin Kingpin or Ibanez offerings. Or the 86 or Miata (my own ride of choice).

If one wants something bad enough, there is a way. I waited and waited and finally got the 175 I had wanted for a long time (after foolishly selling my ‘82 years ago). I had a couple of superb BMWs and could buy a Porsche, if I wanted to and didn’t have other uses for the $$.

I guess my point is that no one guarantees what you want will be cheap and easily available. On rare occasions, such is the case—back in the 70’s you could hardly give away a ‘60’s Mustang or Camaro, much less sell for an obscene amount—but for the most part special things require special sacrifices.

Did someone say Miata? Love our 03, seen here on Santa Rosa Creek Road near Cambria,CA.

[Marinero]

" I say trust the science, but more importantly, trust your government to put the science to good use. You'll be in good hands!" m-d

Hi, m-d,
And the world's government's pernicious dictates on Covid are a great example, right?
Marinero

[Marinero]

I've never watched Al Gore's film, and have no interest in it TBH. It's also pretty old and out of date now. I'm able to access the work of researchers in the field in question more directly due to my background, so tend to be skeptical about mass media reporting of science in general.

Hi, C,
I'm skeptical of everything . . . especially government-paid researchers as in our NIH and their un-scientific mandates on Covid and the continuing mass hysteria in re: the politicization of global warming. I'm with you in following the Science if it's independent, free from pre-conceived biases, and peer-reviewed from legitimate sources using the "scientific method".
Marinero

[Christian Miller]

Yeah people don't seem to have a problem with the politicization and/or corruption of science which is totally baffling to me. There was a very important editorial in the Lancet on corruption in scientific research about a decade ago. Here's a cause for "concern" no one wants to talk about. Have things improved since? Anybody know?

Not sure what your point is.

Is that you feel that because there are problems in science and the corrupting influence of corporate money (including fossil fuel companies of course) invalidate science? Well if so, you would end up assuming that all beliefs are equally reasonable and just go with what feels natural and 'right'. (Conversely it might be a total waste of time to try and convince anyone of any objective truth about anything.) Thus the internet.

So, here I am having to defend science I suppose lol. Science while done by fallible humans looking for research funding, is more an overall picture we build up of the world based on repeatable experiment and observation. What an individual scientist says - even in a paper in a peer reviewed journal - matters much less than the overall body of knowledge and the method by which this knowledge is verified over time.

Galileo - himself a deeply flawed individual who was often wrong - doesn't matter as much as the many many observations confirming the heliocentric solar system since his death; scientific history vindicates him, not his rebellion against authority.

People do bad science for bad faith reasons all the time, but in science we know the truth must out in the long run, because if it did not it would impossible to build functional technology based on it. Cargo cult aircraft don't work, real ones do.

Problem is most people don't have enough knowledge to make a good evaluation based on what they read. I don't about pharmacology or biology for instance, because I have no training in that field beyond high school. My relationship with Climate Change science is I have a strong enough physics background to understand what researchers are saying and to some extent weigh up their methods without needing a third party, but when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, I haven't a clue.

People without scientific education sufficient to read and understand the literature directly are pretty much reliant on third parties to interpret them for them. This is were 'trust' enters the discussion, and people start talking about Al Gore or whatever.

Maybe the tone of the conversation will change come next spring when people receive their energy bills.

Or you could view it as an excellent opportunity to wean ones dependency on unstable and warring petro-states and ensure energy security via investment in renewals.

Talk about reverting back to "pre-industrial levels". I say trust the science, but more importantly, trust your government to put the science to good use. You'll be in good hands!

It's important not to trust science. Skepticism is a good thing, it's what drives science. OTOH skepticism without knowledge often leads people to believe other, less credible things.

However, there's too much for one person to know. Therefore, we all have to weigh up trust of authority figures in areas we don't know. It seems to accord with my experience of the world so far that in general, politicians aim to distort the truth for political gain, journalists may write bad faith copy even where they understand the science (which cannot be assumed) and experts may know something I don't.

[drbhrb]

"It's true that there have been huge changes in global climate over the course of our species, but not during industrial civilisation. It's also the case that I find the science extremely compelling that the warming is anthropogenic in nature , and therefore we do in fact have some measure of control over it."
ChristianMiller

Hi, C,
May our members excuse us for this brief thread-drift which in no way is intended to derail the "price" discussion but is just a human interlude of thought. Quickly: global warming has become a political issue that defines one's political sentiments. However, it is not political . . . it is an issue of Science and for that, we need scientific scrutiny and quantifiable standards. So, if humans have caused the present trend of global warming, how do we prove our theorem that x + y= xy1 when it may also equal xy since we have no quantifiable proof in the past of this warming phenomena caused by humans? Is it possible it is merely coincidental with our global abuses and would have appeared anyway despite our poor practices of global care? The Science is evenly divided among the scientific community ,pro and con, and I believe discussions of this sort actually serve to define one's political sentiments. My personal opinion is that humans can have a dramatic impact on their environment: pollution in lakes, landfills, air quality, loss of habitat, extinction of species, greenhouse gases, etc but, I haven't made the leap of faith that our present global warming is solely related to Man's terminal abuses of our earth's ecosystem. For the record, I have been a lifelong hunter, fly fisherman, and sailor and am opposed to any destruction of our planet through poor conservatorship.
Marinero

P.S. Let's not forget that the brilliant fraudster's ,Al Gore's, book on climate change was peer reviewed by the scientific community and serious material falsehoods were entombed in its pages. And, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors. For some, it is gospel.
An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore - ABC News

The scientific community is nowhere near evenly divided on the topic of man made climate change.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

I also believe skepticism is critically important but agree with Christians point that people often have this lead them to far more dubious conclusions and sources.

[mr. beaumont]

Science is science. Science isn't the problem. Political parties are the problem.

For example, Global Climate Change is real. Special interests on both sides have reasons whether or not to play up (or down) how big of a deal it is. And that's all it takes.

So a Senator on side A who has interests in oil companies says "we don't think Global Climate Change is that big of a deal, and we don't think humans are accelerating it,"

To which side B must immediately come out and condemn everything the man has said, telling us that "Global Climate Change is an imminent threat to our children's generation",

To which side A counters with "Side B is controlling the scientists and the media coverage of Global Climate Change."

And then rinse and repeat, with, well, everything.

[Christian Miller]

Hi, C,
I'm skeptical of everything . . . especially government-paid researchers as in our NIH and their un-scientific mandates on Covid and the continuing mass hysteria in re: the politicization of global warming. I'm with you in following the Science if it's independent, free from pre-conceived biases, and peer-reviewed from legitimate sources using the "scientific method".
Marinero

Im not sure most people are equipped to follow the science that's the problem.

If I was to say for instance, that the one of the best pieces of evidence I have seen for the human caused nature of atmospheric CO2 is measurements of C14 in atmospheric carbon, would most understand what I meant, for example? Well, no.

I'm not trying to be high and mighty, but if I have to explain what an isotope is and the significance of C14 as opposed to, say C13 or C12 and why this might be an indicator of the nature and origin of atmospheric carbon, for example, you have to explain a little bit of nuclear physics and so on. It's safe to assume not everyone with an interest in Climate Change is conversant or indeed terribly interested in nuclear physics 101.

I'm not saying it would be hard for an intelligent person such as yourself to follow, but it would assume an interest on one hand and indulging a digression into something that might seem a bit irrelevant at first. Such things aren't tolerated in mass media which is probably why people don't hear about this one. (Gorgeous bit of sience tho)

It's a shame because people who talk about volcanic eruptions being a driver of increased atmospheric CO2 are instantly proved wrong by these data, even if the figures they usually provide on volcanic eruption caused (outgassed) CO2 are correct, which generally they aren't.

TBH I think most scientific researchers would rather do science, but luckily there are quite a few communicators of science now who are also researchers, if you know where to find them on YouTube and so on (through the morass of uneducated BS)

[jads57]

Well look at the good side of things. Most of us won’t be around to see if the science was accurate, Lol!

[Christian Miller]

Science is science. Science isn't the problem. Political parties are the problem.

For example, Global Climate Change is real. Special interests on both sides have reasons whether or not to play up (or down) how big of a deal it is. And that's all it takes.

So a Senator on side A who has interests in oil companies says "we don't think Global Climate Change is that big of a deal, and we don't think humans are accelerating it,"

To which side B must immediately come out and condemn everything the man has said, telling us that "Global Climate Change is an imminent threat to our children's generation",

To which side A counters with "Side B is controlling the scientists and the media coverage of Global Climate Change."

And then rinse and repeat, with, well, everything.

To me that suggests that the level of science education is actually the problem. People have no idea, so they go with team A or B based on identity and political beliefs.

I once had the idea of 'scientific and statistical citizenship' diploma that would allow students who weren't necessarily interested in academic science to critically examine science and stats in current news stories with a degree of scientific and statistical knowledge. Most misrepresentations in the media don't require a great deal of specialist knowledge to debunk, so I think it would work.

Good luck getting funding for that haha. Ignorance is useful.

That said, I think the kids are pretty smart. Helps when you don't pump the air full of lead, apparently.

[mr. beaumont]

I'll say it less nicely-- the people who run my country, on both sides, aren't all that smart.

[skiboyny]

Is there any way you can verify the data?

Not sure what your point is.
Problem is most people don't have enough knowledge to make a good evaluation based on what they read. I don't about pharmacology or biology for instance, because I have no training in that field beyond high school. My relationship with Climate Change science is I have a strong enough physics background to understand what researchers are saying and to some extent weigh up their methods without needing a third party, but when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, I haven't a clue.

People without scientific education sufficient to read and understand the literature directly are pretty much reliant on third parties to interpret them for them. This is were 'trust' enters the discussion, and people start talking about Al Gore or whatever.

[Doctor Jeff]

I'll say it less nicely-- the people who run my country, on both sides, aren't all that smart.

Agreed but some people are aggressively unsmart. I think we all know who they are.

We seem to have digressed from the OP. I fail to see any link between climate change and the price of collectible guitars.

[mr. beaumont]

Agreed but some people are aggressively unsmart. I think we all know who they are.

We seem to have digressed from the OP. I fail to see any link between climate change and the price of collectible guitars.

There will be once everybody's favorite woods run out

Re: aggressively unsmart...indeed. Willful ignorance is a dangerous thing.