Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

[The Dali]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

My mods far exceeded the initial price of my guitar and I'm a happy camper. But I think, comparatively, Squiers are a better cost-to-quality ratio than Epis. Agiles blow the doors off of Epis for half the price.

I hear you... but I said "double"... if you buy a $200 Squier and put $400 into it (which is a lot) do you really feel you have a $600 guitar? Even if you totally replaced EVERYTHING on the Squier you are looking at MAYBE $400.

I mean, what do you really have to upgrade anyway? Some pups, tuners, bridge? A setup? i mean, if you have a $200 guitar and it needs all that AND a re-fret would you really bother? Damn, I don't know if I'd bother on a $600 guitar.

 

[voggin]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I'll start off by saying I'd love a nice Les Paul, and the good ones are much better than MIK budget models, etc....BUT...

I'd love to see what a Michael Kelly or PRS SE, etc., would be like with, say, $50 more expensive wood and $100 or so more spent on hardware. Given these things are all just cut on machines anyway, it would be neat for them to put out, say, a $1,000 Patriot. Then I think we could see if there is any real validity to the "overpriced" allegation. We all seem to be debating $500 MIK's v. $2000 MIA gibby's.

Besides, I'd sure as hell buy one! There must be a market for something like that, like the old MIJ higher-line Yamahas and Ibanez' in the late 70s-early 80s.

 

[voggin]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I meant to add, I'd like to compare the $1000 MK to a Studio LP, obviously not a custom shop or really nice standard.

 

[Dr.K]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Part of your answer is in your sig... Theres more to quality than just what you can see.

Doesnt excuse the studio but does highlight things like cheap guitars with nice maple tops that turn out to be a 1/32nd of an inch veneer.

That's one reason I left the Dot. I've fallen for the deception of my eyes many times and my sig was writen by me. But the feel of my hands and tone in my ears is what I based my assesment on.

If you would compare the same instruments I think you would find a different result. The Gibson is a STUDIO so the finish is going to be basic. The fretboard is going to be basic, with no binding. You are comparing it to a guitar with all the bling to blind you. If you took both guitars, got them setup with a proper luthier, the Gibby would likely outplay the MK. The MK looks nicer and has the binding, but what do you want? Bling or soul?

I was comparing the quality of the Gibson to the quality of my other instruments, and my Ibanez RG 120 has no bling and they cost $200 new. It has better fretwork and a better finish (plain metalic red). How can Gibson allow that thing out the door?

It just seems to me that Gibson does have a problem with QC. As much as I want a LP and want to love Gibson. It's a real problem that I have a hard time getting past.

I know a lot of people are in love with their Gibbys and when ever someone says something to the contrary it's like an insult about your woman. Bottom line is why would Gibson let that out the door for that price? The LP I played was a factory 2nd at best. QC should have never bought off on it. IMO

 

[The Dali]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Bottom line is why would Gibson let that out the door for that price? The LP I played was a factory 2nd at best. QC should have never bought off on it. IMO

Again, because someone will buy it. Why are Jaquars still produced? Why are Range Rovers still produced but Hummers are not? Because somewhere, people will buy it. When they stop buying it, Gibson will stop selling them in that condition.

I never understood the Gibson "QC" issue anyway. Was there a study done at some point that I'm not aware of? Did JD Powers write a report? Has there been a Consumer Reports survey done regarding the inital build quality of Gibson versus other guitar manufacturers? Jeez, I've played crappy Korean guitars too. That QC issue may be real, but I think it gets far overblown at forum sites on the internet. If the QC was that crappy people would stop buying them.

By the way, full disclosure. I've owned one Gibson (and SG Faded) and it was a very solid instrument for $650 (new). Very solid. Was it as nice as my Epi Sheraton that I bought for $600 (new)? No, it wasn't. The Epi was nicer looking, played better, and came with a hardcase. Of course, I had to spend $100 for new pickups and $120 for wiring and pots and setup... hmmm... and I only spent $45 for a setup on the SG... Hmmm...

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Bro, I don't know how you could have possibly put $1400 into an Epiphone... Unless you made a lot of bad decisions.

Once your upgrades double the initial cost of the instrument you need to ask yourself, "why bother?"

Guitar.
Hard-shell case.
Gibson Burstbuckers fore and aft.
Bone nut, cut and installed at a good shop.
Tonepros TOM bridge.
CTS pots.
New caps and internal wiring.
Schaller straplocks.
Tools and supplies that I never would have bought otherwise,
especially for the de-finishing project.
I deliberately didn't keep track of what I spent on that part.

It was a science experiment.
I don't regret it, because I learned a lot about what makes a guitar good.
But I wouldn't do it again. Now I know what I like in a Les Paul, and I'd buy that from the start.

 

[The Dali]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Guitar.
Hard-shell case.
Gibson Burstbuckers fore and aft.
Bone nut, cut and installed at a good shop.
Tonepros TOM bridge.
CTS pots.
New caps and internal wiring.
Schaller straplocks.
Tools and supplies that I never would have bought otherwise,
especially for the de-finishing project.
I deliberately didn't keep track of what I spent on that part.

It was a science experiment.
I don't regret it, because I learned a lot about what makes a guitar good.
But I wouldn't do it again. Now I know what I like in a Les Paul, and I'd buy that from the start.

If you are considering the actual price of the guitar and hardcase in the $1400 then I can see it... I thought you were putting in $1400 AFTER you spent $600 on the guitar itself.

 

[Dr.K]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I'll start off by saying I'd love a nice Les Paul, and the good ones are much better than MIK budget models, etc....BUT...

I'd love to see what a Michael Kelly or PRS SE, etc., would be like with, say, $50 more expensive wood and $100 or so more spent on hardware. Given these things are all just cut on machines anyway, it would be neat for them to put out, say, a $1,000 Patriot. Then I think we could see if there is any real validity to the "overpriced" allegation. We all seem to be debating $500 MIK's v. $2000 MIA gibby's.

Besides, I'd sure as hell buy one! There must be a market for something like that, like the old MIJ higher-line Yamahas and Ibanez' in the late 70s-early 80s.

The MK has a very nice top in tiger eye, I couldn't see one being much nicer, I couldn't stand the EMG's so I dropped a JB and Jazz in it, and it's right on now.

For the record it belongs to my son now, I gave it to him for his 12th birthday.

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

If you are considering the actual price of the guitar and hardcase in the $1400 then I can see it... I thought you were putting in $1400 AFTER you spent $600 on the guitar itself.

No. What do you think I am, crazy?
Point is, if I took that money all at once and put it all into a well-chosen guitar that already existed, new or used, it would destroy any Epiphone LP I could find.

 

[voggin]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

lucky 12 year-old! I don't suppose you want to adopt a 43 year old?

 

[Dr.K]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Again, because someone will buy it. Why are Jaquars still produced? Why are Range Rovers still produced but Hummers are not? Because somewhere, people will buy it. When they stop buying it, Gibson will stop selling them in that condition.

I never understood the Gibson "QC" issue anyway. Was there a study done at some point that I'm not aware of? Did JD Powers write a report? Has there been a Consumer Reports survey done regarding the inital build quality of Gibson versus other guitar manufacturers? Jeez, I've played crappy Korean guitars too. That QC issue may be real, but I think it gets far overblown at forum sites on the internet. If the QC was that crappy people would stop buying them.

By the way, full disclosure. I've owned one Gibson (and SG Faded) and it was a very solid instrument for $650 (new). Very solid. Was it as nice as my Epi Sheraton that I bought for $600 (new)? No, it wasn't. The Epi was nicer looking, played better, and came with a hardcase. Of course, I had to spend $100 for new pickups and $120 for wiring and pots and setup... hmmm... and I only spent $45 for a setup on the SG... Hmmm...

I was just using the QC expression from my experience today. I don't know of any official rating or study. In my profession we QC our own work and sign off on it, so it holds us responsible. Weather Gibson has a QC or not I don't know. However, someone at Gibson couldn't care less.

 

[The Dali]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

No. What do you think I am, crazy?
Point is, if I took that money all at once and put it all into a well-chosen guitar that already existed, new or used, it would destroy any Epiphone LP I could find.

I know! and I did think you were crazy!! :nana:

 

[Dr.K]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

lucky 12 year-old! I don't suppose you want to adopt a 43 year old?

What you want your brother be your dad, I'm 43. You should see the pic of when I gave it to him his jaw was practically on the floor, it was priceless.

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I know! and I did think you were crazy!! :nana:

And the reason more people don't do that is because it's so much easier to spend money in smaller amounts. "I don't have $2,000 to spend on a guitar!", they say. But they do have the money for a dozen $300-$500 guitars. :scratchch

 

[Dr.K]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

And the reason more people don't do that is because it's so much easier to spend money in smaller amounts. "I don't have $2,000 to spend on a guitar!", they say. But they do have the money for a dozen $300-$500 guitars. :scratchch

Unfortunately that's true. Or, a few $700-$1000 ones.

 

[The Dali]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

And someone mentioned Carvin earlier. I am a Carvin lover, and I'd put my single-cut goldtop up against any $2500 or less Gibson. Great guitar, personalized options, and $500+ less than a comparable Gibson.

 

[voggin]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

What you want your brother be your dad, I'm 43. You should see the pic of when I gave it to him his jaw was practically on the floor, it was priceless.
__________________
Haha! Okay, I take it back! But that must be one happy young man.

That really does go back to some of the earlier posts here and elsewhere. When you and I were 12, there was nothing like michael kelly quality in that price range, let alone if you work back for inflation. New cheaper guitars may not be custom shop quality, but they are fantastic value. And that may be why there is a tendency to slag higher end guitars. When I was 12, the difference between, say, a $300 student guitar and a 1300 (I think that's what they were) gibson was a million light years. Now, with CNC's, etc., the difference between a $400 PRS SE and it's $2,000 brethren isn't as obvious, although it is still there. So what was then 50 times the guitar for 4 times the price, is now, maybe, 2-3 times the guitar for 4 or 5 times the price. And if indeed there is a great variance in quality among the same guitars in the high end, the right (or more correctly, wrong) high-ender may only be 1.5 the guitar of a real gem of a cheapie.

 

[IanBallard]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I hear you... but I said "double"... if you buy a $200 Squier and put $400 into it (which is a lot) do you really feel you have a $600 guitar? Even if you totally replaced EVERYTHING on the Squier you are looking at MAYBE $400.

I mean, what do you really have to upgrade anyway? Some pups, tuners, bridge? A setup? i mean, if you have a $200 guitar and it needs all that AND a re-fret would you really bother? Damn, I don't know if I'd bother on a $600 guitar.

First of all, I'm a drummer with a $4000 drum kit and this guitar I've had for years when I was barely able to play power chords. I've only in the last year, taken guitar playing and gear serious, so bear with me.

I wasted $100 on a Mighty Mite neck that turned out to have the worst fretwork known to man, so I went back to the stock neck. And $100 worth of two used Duncan (TB-11, TB-59) became a single hybrid too. So really I didn't use all the stuff I bought for it. The bridge was direct from manufacturer for $35, since Wilkinsons are all made in China now, maybe another $100 for misc. parts like Tusq nut which was on the Mighty Mite but is too wide the for the Squier, a brass nut for the current neck, an EVH low-fric pot, knobs, switches I don't use now and Sperzel Trim-Locs. So I did more than double it more or less, but I don't think of guitars as "investments" at all. I want them to be highly personal with the mojo of me doing all the work to make it sound the way I want it to and I have extra parts for future projects. I'll probably use the Mighty Mite neck on something, after I do some fretwork on it.

That's why I'm not into buying super-expensive guitars.

 

[karpathion]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I don't know why I'm even saying this, it won't matter. Some folks just don't get it.
You can "FEEL" the difference.
I grew up playing second hand cheap pawnshop guitars. Hell, I got lucky a few times and landed on a nice Epi, but after buying and playing a "real' Gibson, there is no going back. You are holding and playing a piece of American history/art. You can tell the difference. It's like driving a pinto for 20 years and then getting behind the wheel of a Ferrari. You can't tell me it's the same, it's not.
If you get it, you get it. If you don't, don't buy 'em. Just don't bash a company that has a very long track record of perfection because you can't afford one or have never played one for an extended period of time.
I'll put my Ferrari against your Pinto on any day.

 

[Dr.K]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

a very long track record of perfection

Oh, I want one but this part is not correct. Nobody's insulting your woman but Gibson has some issues. Most alcoholics aren't alcoholics either.