Gibson Last straw...

[KeeperOS]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Don't get me wrong, I don't knock those guys who found THEIR one in a Gibson, just saying that it wasn't because it was a Gibson that it was their one, it could have just as easily have been a Tokai, Burny, Orville, Greko, Ibanez, Edwards, ESP, Yamaha, Hamer, Carvin, Warmoth, FREEKIN' Michael Kelly.
It doesn't matter, your one, that one GREAT guitar that for a certain reason stood out above all else could have been made by the hands of ANY skilled luthier REGARDLESS WHO HIS EMPLOYER IS.
I mean, is a Gibson built in the Kalamazoo plant better by definition to the ones Heritage builds today? Why? Wasn't it THE VERY SAME PEOPLE that build them both?
And, WHO ARE BUILDING TODAY'S GIBSONS ANYWAY...?

Again, I'm not knocking any individual guitar but there's such a thing as putting TOO much faith on a name on a headstock...

And to clearly answer the question that everyone already knows the answer but keeps beating around the bush:
Why do people STILL buy Gibsons?
BECAUSE THEY'RE RECOGNIZABLE.
The ones that don't know, well, just don't know any better and the ones that DO know know that while their Hamer or Carvin will only lose in value a Gibson will ADD in value, not because they're any better but because they're recognizable (plus, as long as prices keep going up and quality keeps going down its' a sure bet that a Gibson you bought today is gonna be BETTER than a more expensive one built tomorrow, how could it NOT gain in value?)
That's what happens when a music company is ran by lawyers instead of musicians...

 

[guitfiddle]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Guitarists have it easy.

You get into good orchestral instruments, and the base level "good" ones are $10,000 and up. The really great ones are anywhere from $20,000 to infinity.

Gibson mandolins costs anywhere from $2,000 to $23,000 depending on the model. The base models of mandolin are just a shade cheaper than the LP Standard, and better models get crazy expensive past the value of any new Les Paul. Same thing for their banjos...anywhere from $2,000 to around $40,000 for the best they make.

Overall, they're (electric guitars) still the cheapest way into music, unless you aspire to the Ukelele.

 

[AzCat]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Whenever ANYONE releases a set neck, mahogany, twin 'bucker axe, they're guaged by whether or not they're better or worse than a GIBSON Les Paul.

If that's the case the standard for quality among this sort of guitar is pretty doggone low these days.

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

I own a Hamer, own and have owned multiple Carvins, flirted with a couple of Parkers , have plenty of MIA and MIJ Fenders and, until recently, owned a 1996 LP std that was beat to death. I sold it for financial reasons and kept the others. The only guitar that had the same mojo as that LP is my Hamer.

I swore I was never going to buy another high dollar guitar, but I finally broke down and went out and tried every PRS, Musicman, Gibson, MIA Fender, and G&L I could find.

I thought that I had escaped unscathed (my wallet, anyway), and then I played some PRS McRosewoods. They were nice, in an ambivalent way, and absolutely gorgeous. All played great and had good QC, but none knocked my socks off. I then found out that this dealer also carried VOS Lesters. I picked up a Goldtop and a '60 Plaintop. Both had acceptable QC (at least as good as the PRSi), they played a bit more stiffly, and were heavier by a bit, but by God, the tone was there.

Those two LP's made all of the rosewood necked PRSi sound like cheap knock-offs. Nothing in the store could touch those two Gibsons, clean or distorted. Guess what? Both of those LP's undercut the cheapest high zoot PRS by a couple hundred bucks, and you got an axe not totally made by CNC machines and shot in nitro.

Imagine that.

Gibson has turned out it's share of dogs (as has every company), but when they get one right, they knock it out of the park.

Needless to say, I'm in the process of getting me a VOS '60 Plaintop.

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

If that's the case the standard for quality among this sort of guitar is pretty doggone low these days.

Every play something from the "Good old days"?

A lot of that stuff would be unacceptable now. My buddy's '57 strat looks cool and sounds great, but it plays like poo, IMHO.

Everyone rags on Gibson for making bad guitars now, but in fact, their QC is better than it used to be. If you ge a chance, take a look at one of their old Norlin era pancake LP's.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Forgive me if I don't confuse "good business" with "honest business"...

How is a high price dishonest? A price is never dishonest in and of itself, just high or low relative to the market. If they tell you you're getting something that you don't actually get, that's dishonest.

But if I clip a toenail and put it on E-bay tomorrow and say "It's just a toenail but I want $6 billion" and somebody makes a bid and says "I know it's just a toenail, but I'm willing to go that high for it", and I sell it to him, it's a perfectly honest deal. It's not dishonest unless I send him a fingernail.

 

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

On the price issue, look at the prices of ALL guitars...they are all going up. I see Tele's and Strats all day long for $3000+ and no body seems to have a problem with that at all...

Here's why you won't hear me complain about Fender's prices:

When I started playing guitar, a MIM Fender Strat or Tele was $350. Now, 15 years later, a MIM Strat is $400, has better pickups and hardware than it did, and includes a nice gig-bag. An MIA Standard Strat was $900 and is now $1000.

Now, check out Gibson. They've raised their prices more than that in the last year.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Investment. Right. Tell that to those people who bought thousands of Les Pauls between 2005 and 2008 ignoring or not knowing that they are chambered. these people will be screwed on the used market, mathematically.

I got really pissed about Gibson when somebody X-rayed the bumblebee capacitor in a historic and found it's one of those with a small capacitor inside and a bumblebee looking shell. WTF?

I love my studio and it doesn't have issues that really affect sound or playability. Looks nice, plays nice, sounds nice. That's more like it.

 

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

....somebody X-rayed the bumblebee capacitor in a historic and found it's one of those with a small capacitor inside and a bumblebee looking shell. WTF?

:laugh2:

I bet the owner swore by his bumblebee caps when he first bought it, too

 

[Wattage]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

I've been looking for a few pieces lately and I see Fender selling $5000 relic CS Strats. I can't freak out about Gibson's prices when I see that though they may be hard to fathom.

I can't say I really like some of the things Gibson does or product they put out but so what? Why would I get hung up on it? They make plenty of good affordable guitars which is what they should do. If you want the premier models you are going to pay - player, speculator or collector. If you are a professional musician your guitar is your lifeblood, spend on it what you must and play it, all the peripheral stuff is just BS.

 

[BloodRose]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

How is a high price dishonest? A price is never dishonest in and of itself, just high or low relative to the market. If they tell you you're getting something that you don't actually get, that's dishonest.

But if I clip a toenail and put it on E-bay tomorrow and say "It's just a toenail but I want $6 billion" and somebody makes a bid and says "I know it's just a toenail, but I'm willing to go that high for it", and I sell it to him, it's a perfectly honest deal. It's not dishonest unless I send him a fingernail.

You wouldnt.....Would you??

LOL!!! Brother this is a funny way to make a good point. I dont think its dishonesty, its greed..
However, I thought the Custom shop label on the Custom was dishonest, when nothing about them was changed.

 

[BloodRose]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Fender has been mentioned too... I think its sad they are trying to play keep up and now have a bunch of $2000-3000 models now too. But, this is normal to have some collector pieces.. Always been that way.. Growing up, I always wanted a custom shop guitar.. (mostly a jackson) So, I knew Id pay royally for that.. I expect that.

If gib's normal guitars are all $4000-5000, I shutter to think what a custom one would cost..
oh well

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Call it greed if you will, but Gibson, just like every othercompany out there making gear (including Duncan, Fender, PRS, Hamer, et al) is out to make a profit. They don't make a product as a public service. They don't owe us anything more than what we pay for. They're not out to give us a warm and fuzzy feeling.

They're all out to make a buck. If Gibson is doing that without moving their production over seas, or selling to Fender like a lot of other makers, more power to them.

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Forgive me if I don't confuse "good business" with "honest business"...

I don't care for Gibson as a company either, but now you're talking out your ass. In what way are they dishonest? They charge a price and people choose to pay it. That's got nothing to do with honesty. I don't like the large price jumps either, I don't think they're worth those prices either, but apperantly other people do. Th price is right there, it might be a high price, but its there. There's nothing dishonest in that. We may not like it, but it's got nothing to do with being dishonest.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Call me paranoid / conspiracy theorist but I feel that there's a lot of money spent (and in various ways) from Gibson on making those older ones gain in value while at the same time, make every kid and his grandma believe that if it's a Gibson then it MUST be the best.

Someone mentioned Harley Davidson earlier. Same thing.

It's not as if it's illegal but at least IMHO it's unethical.
If they put half that money into making better guitars and only increase their value as is the norm then I'm betting we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In the end it's true what many say; "if you don't like it, don't buy it" or "vote with your wallet" but it's just that it pisses me to no end to see all those supposedly knowledgeable guys so ready to give Gibson a pardon for all those overpriced dogs they've put out over the years just because, at some point in time, every once in a while they would actually get it right for a change and put out a decent guitar...

BTW, don't even get me started on the "if it's not a Gibson then it can't possibly have the tone, it'll just be a nice guitar" mentality cause I really don't want to start a REAL flame war here...

 

[Ayrton]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Are Gibson's a good value compared to other guitars in the market? That is up to the buyer, and if Gibson was not selling guitars at current prices, then Gibson would have to adjust pricing.

We can debate the QC of guitar companies all day, but if the manufacture can sell it "as is", then they will.

 

[Zerberus]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

It all really boils down to the most basic of economic principles. These are:

1. Supply and Demand. When you cannot supply enough product to satisfy the demand, you decrease demand by charging a higher price, until the point where you can just barely not supply it. The is usually the point of maximum return, assuming operating costs are similar in both scenarios (which they should be becasue you only changed the price).

2. Cost reduction to maximise profit: While it is honorable to churn out a top quality product for middle of the road cash, the additional value added by additional quality is lost on most buyers. So as a cost cutting measure you decrease quality to the point where complaints start rolling in but sales don´t noticably diminish.

(Side note: This is part of the reason that everyone started buying far east knockoffs with stolen technology vs the originals a few decades ago, because the difference in quality was lost on them, the function was essentially the same, and the price thereby became the main factor. This applies to more or less all consumer industries in what has become a "Tear off, use, ball up and throw away society")

3. Advertising and Merchandising to establish and retain brand recognition and sense of Value. Bottom line: the more often you see or hear it, the more it will stick in your head and the more value you will subliminally associate with the product. Or does anybody here not know what a Gibson is "traditionally supposed to be"? Exactly, the top of the line for over a century IIRC... And that´s the part that sticks in your head, and the part that sells guitars for a few hundred $ more without adding anything to the quality. Ironically, it´s also a good part of what starts threads like this, because the impression arises that a company (IE an entity created to earn money) betrays its values (earning money) by earning money

While I may not be a fan of Gibson´s current prices and what apparently seems to be their modus Operandi, I probably wouldn´t do it a bit differently if I were the guy who´s job it is to make sure the company makes as much as possible

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Seriously, how can one company affect the prices of their USED product?

That price is set by the market, not my the manufacturer.

It's amazing how something that doesn't directly affect a person can get said person so worked up.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Here´s how it´s always worked...

Gibson sells to rich guy who wants to be a musician. After it collects dust, he sells to buy Harley.

Musician buys for half price from rich guy, and then makes music with high quality guitar.

Very good! Isn't Epiphone the big money maker for Gibson anyways? And with the lousy economy, Gibson sales will take a nose-dive. Gibson is still a big company because: 1) they came up with many of the innovative guitar designs in the 1950's, and 2) the "affordable" Epiphone line provides the majority of their cash flow. Without those things to lean on, they'd be just another little guitar company.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Zerberus more or less covered me and even provided some useful insight. Thanks man.


As for the other question, in reality it's a lot more complicated than that but in theory, a very basic way would be to constantly decrease quality while at the same time increase price.
That will put the older ones in an advantage quality-wise, raising the demand for them and thus, their price.
Add to that certain "parrots" working for the company's sake spreading left and right (mis)information and/or even affecting prices by overpaying for sth and there you have it.

Trust me when I say that when you have the capital and connections there are many ways to rig the market to bring prices where you want them.

A scandal some 8 or so years ago we had with our local Stock Exchange where the government cabinet itself was involved in a (successful) attempt at buying re-election up to this day serves as a painful reminder to fools who lost their entire fortunes just by thinking the way you do...