The latest on Dean

[Inflames626]

Only had time to read part of the thread but of all the major rock/metal oriented brands Dean is the one I could most easily part with. I always found their designs somewhat tacky, beginning with the iconic V headstock. I much preferred Washburn's sleeker take on the ML. I hope Washburn comes back and maybe works with what remains of Dean to create some exciting new designs.

I hate to see one less brand in the industry, though, because it's always good to have more ideas in the marketplace.

As far as Gibson and Fender, their designs are almost de facto public domain at this point, but they are resuming lawsuits like it is the 1970s again.

IMO, due to their bankruptcy a few years ago, Gibson doesn't deserve to exist save as a nostalgia brand. The whole "lifestyle" marketing angle is ridiculous.

It's like they're trying to sell Harleys to Millennials used to Kawasaki Ninjas. As a Jackson/ESP/BC Rich/Ibanez guy, I'd be one of those Ninja "kids."

That said, there will always be room in my collection for some Gibson/Fender inspired gear. Just not Gibson/Fender themselves.

As for Dean, this may drive up the value of their instruments. I'm hoping some of their other stuff like their basses will go down in price. I am not nearly as down on their bass designs as I am on their guitars.

As for Zelinsky himself, he's not involved in this, right? He went on to DBZ and then made yet another company after that?

DBZ guitars don't seem so bad design wise, although their pricing seems a little volatile. Then again, I've heard Zelinsky himself is a little volatile.

 

[Mincer]

As for Zelinsky himself, he's not involved in this, right? He went on to DBZ and then made yet another company after that?

DBZ guitars don't seem so bad design wise, although their pricing seems a little volatile. Then again, I've heard Zelinsky himself is a little volatile.

No, he is not involved in any way.

 

[Aceman]

The Gibson buy is an interesting proposition

- Aquire more market
- Acquire a serious Metal brand
- Allow Z/V sales again (perhaps with mods, perhaps with a hefty payback...)
- Pay Dimes estate what they want for licensing

Could be a lot to like here.

 

[Inflames626]

To be fair to Dean, in the metal world, aside from super Strats, you can usually only sell Gibson derived stuff. I'd say Gibson has a slight edge over Fender in terms of popularity in metal. The Explorer and Les Paul remain metal standards, while the super Strat comes and goes in popularity.

Dean has tried to innovate like with the Rusty Cooley RC8 8 string model with a 23.5" high A string.

But if people don't buy it, you can't sell it. You go back to making bread-and-butter Explorer copies.

Nice ideas and beautiful guitar here. Just not worth the $4.5k desired in the listing.

Side note: I'm wondering if potential litigation is why so many Explorer inspired designs are more expensive lately--stuff like the Schecter E-1 series.

Meanwhile, formerly high end stuff like neck thru Jackson Soloists are coming Floyd Rose 1000 equipped with name brand pickups and often selling at below $1000.

When I was coming up as a player in the 90s anything that was a Soloist was $1-1.5k minimum because Soloists, like upper end RGs, Jems, and Prestiges, were considered high end guitars for technically advanced players with discriminating tastes ($1-1.5k 1996 dollars = $2-3k today). Everyone else into shred sticks got Dinkys.

 

[Mincer]

But Gibson doesn't generally buy companies with huge debt. I also don't think Dean fits in their current 'Lifestyle' brand. Maybe they could buy Marshall. Outside of metal (and very specific sub-genres of metal), Dean just isn't that popular.

 

[Inflames626]

But Gibson doesn't generally buy companies with huge debt. I also don't think Dean fits in their current 'Lifestyle' brand. Maybe they could buy Marshall. Outside of metal (and very specific sub-genres of metal), Dean just isn't that popular.

Gibson in its former incarnation (they briefly owned my beloved Cakewalk) bought everything--guitar related or not--and was very good at generating their own insurmountable debt.

Maybe it's just the principle of it. I don't like a formerly badly run company like Gibson trying to push other companies around who are doing more interesting things than robotic tuners.

I tend to bash Dean a little bit because their guitars do remind me of pink plastic flamingos in retirement communities in Florida, but I don't want to see the company vanish, either.

Meanwhile, Gibson and Fender soldier on like GM and Ford--continually bailed out despite not deserving it mainly due to nostalgia and history.

Don't get me wrong. If one of you guys has a beat up Les Paul Custom or even Studio you'd be willing to indefinitely loan to me, I'd accept. I just think Gibson is a tremendously overvalued company, especially to have recently emerged from bankruptcy after a lack of innovation and useless ideas.

 

[Inflames626]

The Gibson buy is an interesting proposition

- Aquire more market
- Acquire a serious Metal brand
- Allow Z/V sales again (perhaps with mods, perhaps with a hefty payback...)
- Pay Dimes estate what they want for licensing

Could be a lot to like here.

I wonder if a Dime license/endorsement is actually worth more than Dean and Randall at this point, because his name is synonymous with those companies and, after his passing, they both suffered while Washburn and Krank basically vanished.

Rita and the Abbott estate have done a great job at replicating EVH's success with EVH branded gear and endorsements. I think in time Dime will catch up and maybe his estate will start his own brand as EVH did--sort of like how Fender does a lot of EVH stuff but keeps their name off of 5150 3's because one doesn't think high gain and Fender.

I wonder who would build a dedicated Dime brand on an EVH scale and not something that trends toward the lower end of the market?

 

[Inflames626]

But Gibson doesn't generally buy companies with huge debt. I also don't think Dean fits in their current 'Lifestyle' brand. Maybe they could buy Marshall. Outside of metal (and very specific sub-genres of metal), Dean just isn't that popular.

This would be a great idea. But doesn't Gibson already own Mesa Boogie now? They might be fighting against themselves if they owned two of the top three amp brands (with Fender being #3).

Also, I don't think Kramer is a bad metal sub brand for Gibson. I own many Kramers I'm happy with after upgrades. I think they are a good value right now. But if one associates Kramer with "cheapness" that is completely the opposite of their heyday with EVH, I sort of also associate Dean with "cheapness" after their heyday with Dime.

 

[Top-L]

This would be a great idea. But doesn't Gibson already own Mesa Boogie now? They might be fighting against themselves if they owned two of the top three amp brands (with Fender being #3).

Also, I don't think Kramer is a bad metal sub brand for Gibson. I own many Kramers I'm happy with after upgrades. I think they are a good value right now. But if one associates Kramer with "cheapness" that is completely the opposite of their heyday with EVH, I sort of also associate Dean with "cheapness" after their heyday with Dime.

Only problem with Kramer is that its a nostalgia brand. I don't see them putting Kramer on any "modern" guitars. The Kramers they have produced are mostly reissues, which is fine.

Same thing with Gibson, nostalgia and traditional guitars. Its as if they know when they start making modern guitars, it will dilute their brand.

At least Dean was trying new things. They had some 7 and 8 string guitars, many new body shapes, etc.

 

[Inflames626]

Top-L , and there's Gibson's problem. Their strength--tradition--is also their weakness. There doesn't seem to be the urge to build something like a flying V or Explorer for the 2000s.

That said, you know they must have AI assisted CAD software that will go through every possible permutation and shape. Maybe there just aren't any cool new designs to be made.

This is where my hope for Kramer lies. As the "metal" division, they and Epiphone can be sources of innovation for Gibson, with Epi doing things more closely aligned with Gibson at a reasonable price and Kramer trying the really far out stuff while *also* releasing their famous models from the 1980s.

It's just hard for me to wrap my brain around Kramer being an elite custom shop brand run by a well respected luthier and innovator in the 1980s to being a mass produced budget brand today.

Perhaps it's easier just to ignore brands and follow the luthiers. Gary Kramer has GKG. Grover Jackson has GJ2. Wayne Charvel has Wayne Guitars.

And yet I wouldn't feel like I owned a "real" Kramer/Jackson/Charvel with one of these custom shop guitars even though I would own a far more genuine guitar than if I bought a new Gibson/Fender era Kramer/Jackson/Charvel.

The psychology of the logo is powerful. It's why I never remove my Seymour Duncan logo from my pickups. Instant value added just by being there.

 

[Top-L]

Its ridiculous at this point. A "brand" is just what they contract the factory who built it to print on the headstock.

The question is, how much profit is the parent company trying to take? How much quality are they putting into a build at each price point?

Regarding my recent bad experience with those Jacksons, its evident to me that they are trying to sell $300 chinese guitars for $900. Or they have absolutely no QC and are trying to pawn off defective guitars for profit. So in that case, Fender/Jackson is trying to make a ton of profit and don't care about quality, despite the fact it turned me off the brand.

So it comes down to:
* How much profit is the company trying to take?
* How good is their manufacturing process / control over factory to produce quality instruments?

My feeling is that the bigger a name is, the less quality they can get away with, and the more profit they need to take. (To pay marketing, shareholders, etc.) Its not like there is an economy of scale, where if they build 10000 guitars instead of 1000, they are saving tons of money. I don't think being big helps a guitar company, except in marketing and store presence.

 

[Aceman]

So it comes down to:
* How much profit is the company trying to take?

As much as humanly possible, or even inhumanly and unethically/immorally, for the shareholders.

 

[Mincer]

Th current Dean is mostly an import company. They have a small Custom Shop with guys building some unique instruments, but that isn't what most people experience when they play a Dean. The 'factory' is really a big warehouse filled with pallets of imported guitars.

 

[chadd]

It wouldn't bother me if Dean just disappeared (I've never liked any of their guitars), but all of this Gibson lawsuit stuff bothers me. If Gibson just focused on building good quality guitars that appeal to many players at a REASONABLE price, they wouldn't have to worry about putting their competition out of business. The competition hurts Gibson because they can build similar guitars, good quality, good looking, good playing, and at 1/4 to 1/2 the price.

Disclaimer:
I'm not a Gibson hater. I currently own 4 or 5 Gibsons and have owned at least 3-4 others. They used to be the best. But they have been making the same guitars they did 60 years ago (with maybe slightly lower quality) and charging 10-15 times as much. Don't tell me it's due to inflation. Some, of course, but other guitars that were made then and still now are only 5-10 times more expensive. With CNC and other mechanized building techniques, the cost of making guitars has actually gone down, relatively. Gibson sales remain high because of their name. They are, proverbially, resting on their laurels. And rather than keeping up with their competition, they are trying to eliminate it.

Production cost has little, if anything, to do with retail price for top tier brands in any market segment. Levi's 501s are $79.50 on their website and Walmart sells jeans for as little as $12.98 . There's no way Gibson can compete on low end pricing when their production is in the US and the competitors are manufacturing overseas. Heritage is in the same pricing ballpark on their models as well.

A Les Paul was roughly $250 in 1959, that's equal to a little more than $2600 in current dollars. Sure, they have custom shop models and limited edition models that cost several times that much, but it's not like that's the entry level price. It's not any different than Ford selling base model 2024 mustangs at $30k and fully tricked out version somewhere north of $75k. Oh, and their $2500 sale price in 1965 would only be $24k and change today.

 

[Leon Of Late]

Don’t forget that Dean made the US model Hardtail back in like 2001-2008. That was a VERY nice guitar, especially in the early years. I have owned a couple, and still do. They are on my “never sell” list, they are so nice, play so well, and look so good. I think many of the guitars they produced in the US were of better than average quality…..the Cadillac’s and the Explorer types, along with the ML’s and the. V’s.

Yes, the V headstock on some models was not for everyone, but it was distinct to Dean and instantly recognizable. I hope something happens that allows them to continue to make guitars, and hopefully a USA range of guitars. Get on track with some sensible models and then they could have a few that were still out there.

Hate to see another U.S. Guitar maker go out of existence.