Re: Gibson is halting warmoth builds!?!?
I've read some very thoughtful posts that have made me reconsider my position. I'm not totally letting Gibson off the hook here, but I'd love to put some thoughts out there and maybe get some people scratching their chin the way you guys made me. So here it goes...
Guys...Gibson owns the rights to those body shapes and if they want to tell Warmoth to stop using them they are well within their rights to do so.
As for Gibson prices are you guys saying they are priced too high based on real information or based on the fact that you want them to be cheaper??
As for the QC I think Gibson is making some of the best guitars they've made in a long time and IMHO the QC at Gibson has been rather good for a while now...everybody turns out a clunker now and then but trust me when I say everybody...
Some really good points here. I agree with the statement that Gibson has the right to protect its own ideas. Not disagreeing, but I have a counterpoint that I will come back to.
As for prices, I should've been more specific about my beef here. Is $2k too much for a quality built, well appointed guitar? No. But where Gibson frustrates me to no end is I never understand why there are sometimes vast pricing differences on guitars that don't appear prima facia to be that different. Take my Explorers. I have the standard one and the Traditional Pro. The standard one is MSRP $2,399 US and can be had at Guitar Center for $1,399 US. Then there's the Traditional Pro. It's a slightly smaller body, has binding on the body and neck, has a BB3 and a 57 Classic, and sports more complicated wiring with each volume knob being a push/pull for tapping (which means the pots are pricier too). All of these things would make me think the price is higher. Nope. MSRP $2,199 US ($200 cheaper) and $1,399 US (same) at GC. I'm not complaining that I didn't have to spend more, but I just don't get it. The smaller body uses less wood but being non-standard would make me think it raises cost. I'm not saying there isn't a reason for it, but I'd like to know what it is.
This occurs on LPs all the time in reverse. The Studio models are cheaper because the wood isn't figured, no binding, more standard pickups, finish is cheaper... you get the idea. So how does this all add-up? At least when i visit Fender's website they are explicit in listing details and I almost always can tell right away where my extra coin is going. THIS is what makes me get frustrated with Gibson prices! If the wood is "select" wood as Fender will tell you, then knowing that would at least make me get it. I get bitter when i'm not sure what I'm paying for. They don't have to lower their prices, but I would like better knowledge of what features create the number on the tag.
I agree every company will produce a lemon from time to time but some of the stuff I've seen from Gibson really gets to me. I've seen pickguards on explorers missing screws because no one ever drilled the screw hole. Not a big deal, but why did it get missed? What else was neglected? I've seen pickguards that weren't put on right and were bent and bowing. The real killer for me was my tech showing me a Custom Shop LP that had the notch in the saddles cut wrong. On a $5,000 guitar from your prestigious custom shop? That's just not acceptable. This past weekend, I was cruising the local GC and spotted a black explorer with a shoddy paint job that would look bad on an Epi or a Squier. My $1,399 won't accept that. I've seen some pretty bad screw-ups from just about every company, no question. But Gibson's QC keeps me scratching my head. When they get it right, they make fantastic guitars. But for the prices they charge I wish I didn't see some of these issues.
This is something most knuckle draggers dont understand. If you dont defend a trademark you will lose it. Gibson historically has protected their stuff. All the way back in the 70's with suing Ibanez over their copies. God forbid someone protects their intellectual property.
I like this. Very solid point. I side with Gibson on Ibanez and even ESP. I was considering buying an LTD Explorer back in the day because it looked exactly the same. Perfect reason to cry foul on Gibson's part. Talking to a coworker today, he made a fantastic point that is essentially what you are saying here. If you don't stop people early on from infringing on your intellectual property it will never stop. It's a point I can't argue against. If you let one company do it, next thing, 5 companies are doing it. So from that point, I agree. Gibson has every right to protect its interests by trademarking and guarding its intellectual property.
What still bugs me is this: "Why Warmoth, and why now?" Like I said in my first post, they're a niche market that caters to those of us who want something that they just don't offer (tubecrunch is a great example). To build one from my estimate is about the same as buying a Gibson so for my money I'd rather just buy the Gibson (unless I really wanted something wacky). To be fair, I get it. The Guy Who Invented Fire and Edgecrusher have great points. It's the timing and who they're targeting that makes this seem a little bit mean-spirited.
