Change of CEO at Gibson a positive step for return to archtop building?

[bananafist]

With the newly announced change at the top of Gibson, any thoughts on whether production of archtops may return?

[ThatRhythmMan]

I’ve never seen any indication of an interest in archtops from Cesar Gueikian who is the interim CEO. I seriously doubt that he will push for that or be persuaded. I don’t think they see that as an especially good area for growth of the company. I also don’t see any likelihood of them being able to sell Murphy Lab ES-175s for 10-20k like they do Les Pauls. I’d be happy to let them copy Herb Ellis’s guitar, but I don’t see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[skiboyny]

I just don't see it happening maybe ever. The most complex to build with the lowest sales numbers. Why would you?

[tbeltrans]

There seems to be a ready supply of used Gibson archtops available, so maybe better to consider those rather than waiting for Gibson to make more. They may seem expensive, but I wouldn't be surprised if Gibson put a premium price on any they might decide to make in the future. If that happened, it could drive the used prices even higher too.

Tony

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

I just don't see it happening maybe ever. The most complex to build with the lowest sales numbers. Why would you?

Good question.

But as long as they sell them for a profit. And the way that people complain about their prices...

And there is brand image. That has lasting value. Would Chevy make a profit off of Corvettes alone? How about Porsche and the Turbo?

[tbeltrans]

Good question.

But as long as they sell them for a profit. And the way that people complain about their prices...

And there is brand image. That has lasting value. Would Chevy make a profit off of Corvettes alone? How about Porsche and the Turbo?

Good points. However, I don't see businesses taking a long view anymore.

In my personal opinion, there is nothing like a Gibson archtop, so it is a shame they aren't being made anymore. Fortunately, reverb, ebay and dealers in used archtops seem to have ready supplies of used ones. That doesn't address your perfectly valid point, but at least we players can continue to get our hands on them.

Tony

[Stringswinger]

Good points. However, I don't see businesses taking a long view anymore.

In my personal opinion, there is nothing like a Gibson archtop, so it is a shame they aren't being made anymore. Fortunately, reverb, ebay and dealers in used archtops seem to have ready supplies of used ones. That doesn't address your perfectly valid point, but at least we players can continue to get our hands on them.

Tony

If I was running Gibson and taking a long view, I would not consider archtop production except as a small custom shop niche, and only then, if I had spare capacity.

I just don't see the younger generations of guitar players buying archtops in large enough numbers to make it lucrative.

There are plenty of used Gibson archtops to be found, and for those who need their guitars to be new, luthiers like Mark Campellone are waiting for your order at a price point that would not be profitable for Gibson.

Nothing is forever, including Gibson archtop production.

[m_d]

Gibson has a much larger production capacity than Mr. Campellone. What are the particular reasons they wouldn't be able to make a profit building archtops ?

[skykomishone]

Sad but true SS! Except for the M. Campellone part! That is a very good thing, and we're lucky as hell. As Vinny says, Mark's guitars "..are like Gibson's on steroids".

I'm a Gibson fan boy too, but if they were still making archtops, and I were in need of something like a Gibson, personally I'd be heading to M. Campellone asap!

[tbeltrans]

If I was running Gibson and taking a long view, I would not consider archtop production except as a small custom shop niche, and only then, if I had spare capacity.

I just don't see the younger generations of guitar players buying archtops in large enough numbers to make it lucrative.

There are plenty of used Gibson archtops to be found, and for those who need their guitars to be new, luthiers like Mark Campellone are waiting for your order at a price point that would not be profitable for Gibson.

Nothing is forever, including Gibson archtop production.

If we want younger people to go for archtops, maybe we need another Ted Nugent or Steve Howe (whatever their equivalent might be to today's younger folks). Snakeskin cowboy...where's my Byrdland!

True enough about a Campellone. Certainly more affordable than my Citation. As for long view, I am thinking more along the lines of preserving a long tradition, maybe as a specialty item rather than a profit center since Gibson has such a long history of archtops.

Tony

[Stringswinger]

Gibson has a much larger production capacity than Mr. Campellone. What are the particular reasons they wouldn't be able to make a profit building archtops ?

It is called opportunity cost. If Gibson has a finite number of highly trained, skilled artisans making guitars (it is not like this is a commonly held skill set that is an easy job to fill) and a finite area of shop space in which to build guitars (land values in Nashville are not cheap), they will make bigger profits (and sell more guitars in a shorter time period) building R-9's than L-5's.

While I am sure that they could sell archtops at a profit, I am equally sure that their profit margin is better if they use their finite resources making Les Pauls and 335's. And seeing as their management seems to be in agreement with me, that is exactly why there are no Gibson archtops being made at the moment.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

I think it's easy. They can afford to make them and profit off of them. They have the capacity, skills, staff, tools, materials. Beautiful archtops add brand prestige, and the cash flow from their more affordable volume products should easily carry them. ("affordable" being relative where Gibson is concerned. But that's Gibson).

Besides - what does some kid today know about Les Paul or for that matter, Eric Clapton?

If Gibson ditches tradition altogether, they'll be done. They need some strategy and marketing help though, I'll give you that. Big stars playing the products on stage, in videos and pictures get notice (even if they play a style that has no need for an L5.) There are always new music stars, even if we older dudes think they suck.

[deacon Mark]

Just looking a repairing to consider in resources and time: It is much easier to do a fret dressing and set up on a Les Paul than an L5. It way easier to refret a Les Paul than an L5. Archtop guitars require more space, that equals money. They take up much more space in the repair room and on the bench. If Gibson was smart in my mind and wanted to turn a real profit on them they should advertise that will build say 10 L5's a year. The price would be locked in and you had to order direct from them, then they charge some premium price like $15-20k, this would put them on the level of some custom builders.

[ThatRhythmMan]

If we want younger people to go for archtops, maybe we need another Ted Nugent or Steve Howe (whatever their equivalent might be to today's younger folks). Snakeskin cowboy...where's my Byrdland!

True enough about a Campellone. Certainly more affordable than my Citation. As for long view, I am thinking more along the lines of preserving a long tradition, maybe as a specialty item rather than a profit center since Gibson has such a long history of archtops.

Tony

Sure, if someone can convince someone like Tim Henson to start playing archtops, interest in them among young people would surely increase dramatically. He is certainly one of the main guitar heroes of his generation and Gen Z. He already has an endorsement deal with Ibanez so it would be just a lateral move for him to start playing archtops and he’s already shown that he’s open to guitars which are an alternative to the standard steel string solidbody. I’m not sure if that would be enough to move Gibson in that direction though.

For the time being, I think SS is dead on target. Additionally, I don’t see how high end archtops are a prestige product when it’s not currently an aspirational guitar for all but a very small number of players. People may dream of one day owning a high performance car, but if they don’t even realize archtops exist or think they are just for old dudes playing jazz, where is the prestige?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AllanAllen]

10 Gibson L5s and 100 Epiphone Broadways. $15,000 for the Gibson, $1,500 for the Epiphone. 2 humbuckers as the flagship, then next year go to acoustic, next year add a floater, after that a single P90, double P90, staples, single HB. Then switch to ES175 and do the same thing.

The Epiphones are key, a kid can get the Epiphone and then dream of getting a real Gibson. Without the Epiphone stepping stone they're just making expensive crap and not creating demand.

[John A.]

I think it's easy. They can afford to make them and profit off of them. They have the capacity, skills, staff, tools, materials. Beautiful archtops add brand prestige, and the cash flow from their more affordable volume products should easily carry them. ("affordable" being relative where Gibson is concerned. But that's Gibson).

Besides - what does some kid today know about Les Paul or for that matter, Eric Clapton?

If Gibson ditches tradition altogether, they'll be done. They need some strategy and marketing help though, I'll give you that. Big stars playing the products on stage, in videos and pictures get notice (even if they play a style that has no need for an L5.) There are always new music stars, even if we older dudes think they suck.

They are currently owned by a private equity firm that has a pattern of shedding cost and product-line complexity and eventually selling the company. So far, everything they've done with Gibson is consistent with that pattern. Diverting and/or investing in tooling and labor to build models that are harder to sell for the sake of difficult to quantify brand-value does not seem like the sort of thing they'd do. Maybe that's not smart, and maybe they know less about the business than some archtop lovers who think they'd do better making L5's and 175's. But my guess would be that they have better information about the markets they're in and their own finances than we do.

[tbeltrans]

Sure, if someone can convince someone like Tim Henson to start playing archtops, interest in them among young people would surely increase dramatically. He is certainly one the main guitar heroes of his generation and Gen Z. He already endorsed Ibanez so it would be just a lateral move for him to start playing archtops and he’s already shown that he’s open to guitars which are an alternative to the standard steel string solidbody. I’m not sure if that would be enough to move Gibson in that direction though.

For the time being, I think SS is dead on target. Additionally, I don’t see how high end archtops are a prestige product when it’s not currently an aspirational guitar for all but a very small number of players. People may dream of one day owning a high performance car, but if they don’t even realize archtops exist or think they are just for old dudes playing jazz, where is the prestige?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The archtop market is probably a very small niche market. Forums such as this may appear to have large numbers of people sharing an interest, but usually it turns out to be just a very small fraction of those sharing the general interest such as the number of people with an interest in "guitar" vs, "archtop guitar". A small market such as this would saturate pretty quickly, so there would likely be little need for a slew of new archtops to hit the market. I have what I need and am not looking for more, and I am sure I am not alone in that.

So I am not arguing that Gibson must make more new archtops, but simply observing that since Gibson has been around so long and have been central to the archtop world during that time, it would be conceivable that they might at some point decide to make a few archtops here and there. I suppose these might be special issue collector's items like some company issuing commerative plates at some high price aimed at specific collectors.

We all have our opinions and can spend many posts defending them, but in the end, Gibson will do whatever they feel is best for the company at any given point in time. Whether or not they continue to make archtops has no impact on me because I am not in the market for another, so I can just casually watch and see what happens with a passing interest.

Tony

[Gabor]

Changing the CEO usually indicates, that a company needs more income, or needs less cost, or both. Can not imagine a CEO, who want to achieve this in 2023 by manufacturing quality products made by quality workforce and quality materials.

What is more probaly, they will focus selling the image by marketing campaign and temporarily increased press presence, and the same time lowering the cost both labor and material wise.

[vinnyv1k]

Well Gibson still has the talent to build a quality archtop. That 2023 Byrdland I just got from Sweetwater has very nice fit and finish and it lasted on the market for 2 days.

Actually I think Japan and Europe has a bigger want for Gibson archtops then the USA does now. Also jazz is healthier there too.
Archtops are dying out just like us baby boomers.
I think we were the last generation to love them and Gibson knows that.

My question is how many LP’s, SG’s, and 335’s can you flood the market with ?

[vinnyv1k]

I must eat my words…… I miss Henry J. !

10 years ago the Crimson shop was building every archtop model and at the highest quality.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Sure, if someone can convince someone like Tim Henson to start playing archtops, interest in them among young people would surely increase dramatically. He is certainly one the main guitar heroes of his generation and Gen Z. He already endorsed Ibanez so it would be just a lateral move for him to start playing archtops and he’s already shown that he’s open to guitars which are an alternative to the standard steel string solidbody. I’m not sure if that would be enough to move Gibson in that direction though.

For the time being, I think SS is dead on target. Additionally, I don’t see how high end archtops are a prestige product when it’s not currently an aspirational guitar for all but a very small number of players. People may dream of one day owning a high performance car, but if they don’t even realize archtops exist or think they are just for old dudes playing jazz, where is the prestige?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, because they're beautiful. Up and coming guitar enthusiasts will go "Ooh! What is that guitar?"

Artists play fancy Gibson acoustics on stage, you know. CSN&Y used to play Gibson archies that they didn't need.

Marketing, marketing, marketing.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

10 Gibson L5s and 100 Epiphone Broadways. $15,000 for the Gibson, $1,500 for the Epiphone. 2 humbuckers as the flagship, then next year go to acoustic, next year add a floater, after that a single P90, double P90, staples, single HB. Then switch to ES175 and do the same thing.

The Epiphones are key, a kid can get the Epiphone and then dream of getting a real Gibson. Without the Epiphone stepping stone they're just making expensive crap and not creating demand.

They are NOT, nor have they ever been $15K when you walked up to the point of sale. The advertised price is NOT the price.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

They are currently owned by a private equity firm that has a pattern of shedding cost and product-line complexity and eventually selling the company. So far, everything they've done with Gibson is consistent with that pattern. Diverting and/or investing in tooling and labor to build models that are harder to sell for the sake of difficult to quantify brand-value does not seem like the sort of thing they'd do. Maybe that's not smart, and maybe they know less about the business than some archtop lovers who think they'd do better making L5's and 175's. But my guess would be that they have better information about the markets they're in and their own finances than we do.

I'm not talking about them so much. To your point, they'll sell it.

I was painting the "S" and "O" considerations from a SWOT perspective.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

Good lord, guys.

1. Gibson Archtops have always been niche/limited.
2. The advertised retail price has not been the price for a fine Gibson guitar, since the 70s at least.

The confusion on these two points seems to be endless.

Parting shot - there is no good reason to assume that we are the last generation to like archtops. That's a bit self-important. Maybelle Carter played an early L5 that was not electric, she played country, and it was before we were born.

[Doctor Jeff]

Good question.

But as long as they sell them for a profit. And the way that people complain about their prices...

And there is brand image. That has lasting value. Would Chevy make a profit off of Corvettes alone? How about Porsche and the Turbo?

Most companies have marquee products. Sometimes they make very little money on them (or occasionally sell at a loss).

I drive a Miata for instance. Previously I had a BMW Z4 and Subaru WRX. None have been big sellers, but they certainly get attention both from the public and the car press. A guy walks in to look at a Z4 and ends up with a 5-series as the family sedan.

I can see a case for Gibson making a small number of collectible guitars like the L5. I can also see them making some 175s or other iconic archtops in somewhat higher numbers. (The 175s are not really that hard to make with modern production techniques.)

I heard from a "reputable source" about a year ago that this was in the medium-term plan. But I have no idea if it will come to fruition.

As far as MSRP, guitars historically have had some of the highest MSRP to street sales ratios of any product. However, in the last 5 years, certainly in the last 10 years, you could not get a coveted archtop much under MSRP, except for the rare special sales through large dealers (inventory closeout). When things get highly collectible, the asking price becomes the final price.

(Again re' cars--we were used to getting thousands off MSRP until recently. My last 2 cars were more or less MSRP. Some highly desirable vehicles even have dealer markups in the thousands.)