Re: How do they make the SGJs so much cheaper?
I don't know anything about them for sure, but I can take a guess that the main reason is that they minimize the labor costs associated with their construction. That is easily the most expensive "ingredient" in a guitar made in a country with at least some semblance of labor laws.
First of all, the flat finish saves gobs of time in labor. You might not appreciate that fact until you have done your own glossy lacquer paint job, but it's really quite true. Finishing a guitar takes a lot of boring and time consuming labor. Gibson sometimes take as much as 50 percent off the retail prices of their guitars that simply have flat finishes instead of glossy ones. Aside from labor, their flat finishing procedure also eliminates the need for many materials and supplies, like grain filler, primer, sandpaper, mineral spirits, polish, and buffing pads. Long story short, doing a flat finish instead of glossy saves Gibson a whole lot of money. Put a gloss finish on that guitar, and it would cost at least $800, maybe $1,000.
Also, Gibson has put lower quality, rushed craftsmanship into their low-end guitars for over a decade now. Their quality of setup, fret work, and finish detail has declined steadily since – I would say based on experience – about Y2K. Now, their final assembly and setup quality is laughably bad. It's easily the worst it has ever been, and is easily worse than many imported guitars. And it has even bled into their higher-end models now. But it's most visible in the lower-end guitars, which are cranked out in high numbers by incredibly rushed workers trying to satisfy an insane and greedy boss. Bottom line, they guitars simply don't get a lot of caring and detailed individual attention, hence highly reduced labor costs. A low-end Gibson needs at least $100 in setup work, fret work, and a new nut. Probably closer to $150, actually.
The other thing is materials. Stock Gibson tuners are complete crap. The tailpieces and bridges are now made out of cheaper material than they were even a few years ago. New pickups? Be leery of new and improved anything; it's usually only new and improved for the company, not for the product itself, especially knowing Gibson's trends over the past 10 to 12 years. New models can often simply be a way of sneaking in cheaper materials and labor costs.
Gibson's wood has become lower in quality as well. Honduran mahogany is no longer the standard. They are using other, less expensive, types now. They've turned Les Pauls into chambered guitars in order to keep weight down with the heavy-ass wood they use...and disguised it as an "improvement" to the design of the guitar. They have gone through all sorts of weird fretboard changes over the past few years (including obech, synthetic, and laminated boards). To me, it seems that they are having trouble maintaining an affordable supply of quality wood, and they are trying all sorts of options to maximize profit. As opposed to continuing to build great guitars like they did in the '90's, and simply charging more for them to reflect increasing costs of doing business, they are cutting the costs of doing business, and letting the product suffer as a result. And if even the high-end Gibsons are being skimped on in terms of materials, what do you think the low-end models are getting for materials?
So, I ain't saying that these models are definitely horrible, or that they are definitely a rip off. I'm sure you could take one, put some money into it, and have a guitar that is pretty nice. But there definitely are reasons why they are so much cheaper than most Gibsons. It's best to approach the purchase of one of these guitars the same way you approach the purchase of an Epiphone. I.e., plan to have to put money into it before it is really a "good" instrument. Just like with many Epis that you take and then soup up, in the end, you're probably better off just buying a nice used Gibson instead.
