Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

[IanBallard]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

A JEM is a fantastic guitar. It's every bit as good as a Les Paul, but it's a different kind of guitar. I like both, and I think they're both worth what they cost.

Ibbies are very reasonable in price too! Yeah, they are simpler, bolt-on guitars, but they are very precision-built and tolerances in their artist lines are TIGHT and they design their own hardware and have improved the Floyd Rose design manifold over stock. Plus, some people don't care for 50+ year old designs in guitars and don't care for sounding "vintage". Some people play NEW music and want it to sound as such.

One example of a good deal from a "Custom Shop" would be the EVH Wolfgang. You can get one on eBay from a dealer for $2500 and considering all the custom features: pickups, arched top, compound radius board, stainless frets, custom design Floyd, d-tuna, custom pots, etc, etc, it's a pretty good deal compared to the RIDONKULOUS Frankenstein or Clapton Blackie which were both $25,000. Yeah, limited quantity and all, but still.

 

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

My biggest concern is that the dad is apparently more concerned with buying vintage LP's than he is about his sons ability to write in his native language.

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Gibson haven't bade a decent Les Paul in many years.

You sir are talking out of your backside...

Sorry but anybody that would make that as a blanket statement simply isn't worth wasting time listening to or talking to.

 

[IanBallard]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

What a load of poop...

The PRS, Anderson, and Heritage are JUST as likely to break off at the head since they all use the same design...

I'm also curious how does a Heriatage sound better and how is it made better...

Not true at all. They don't use "the same design". Most of the set-neck, sway-back headstock makers (even foreign ones) have corrected the inherent weaknesses there in several ways. Gibson is stodgy because their fans are stodgy and vintage-obsessed. Gibson tried to correct the issues with thicker wood and other things in the 70's into the 80's and people complained due to slight differences in tone. Just don't drop them or let them fall over. But no, there are many companies that make far more durable designs but they don't SOUND like a Les Paul.

 

[John_L]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

What a load of poop...

The PRS, Anderson, and Heritage are JUST as likely to break off at the head since they all use the same design...

Wrong. PRS and Heritage use a shallower angle, a smaller truss rod cavity and more mass behind the nut. Anderson use a voulte.
Gibson use a design that was flawed in the 50's, they were told was flawed in the 50's by none other than Les Paul himself but they went back to the flawed design in '83!
PRS and Heritage are closer to what Gibson used between mid 58 and and mid 72. While Gibson in 83 went back to the pre 58 angle which with their large rod cavity means it's very weak.

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Wrong. PRS and Heritage use a shallower angle, a smaller truss rod cavity and more mass behind the nut. Anderson use a voulte.
Gibson use a design that was flawed in the 50's, they were told was flawed in the 50's by none other than Les Paul himself but they went back to the flawed design in '83!
PRS and Heritage are closer to what Gibson used between mid 58 and and mid 72. While Gibson in 83 went back to the pre 58 angle which with their large rod cavity means it's very weak.

Whatever man, I've seen plenty of Heritage, PRS, Guild, etc with broken heads...PLENTY!

 

[formula73]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Wrong. PRS and Heritage use a shallower angle, a smaller truss rod cavity and more mass behind the nut. Anderson use a voulte.
Gibson use a design that was flawed in the 50's, they were told was flawed in the 50's by none other than Les Paul himself but they went back to the flawed design in '83!
PRS and Heritage are closer to what Gibson used between mid 58 and and mid 72. While Gibson in 83 went back to the pre 58 angle which with their large rod cavity means it's very weak.

I was just wondering how this backed up your previous statement about them having not made a decent Les Paul in many years. Please?

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I'm out...

These Gibson bashing threads are getting old...correction...they were old a long time ago.

If you don't like Gibsons, can't afford them or refuse to pay what they cost thats fine but that doesn't mean that they are overpriced, underbuilt or not worth what they sell for.

I have and use a lot of different guitars...they are tools plain and simple.

If I want the sound of a Les Paul I use one...if I want the sound of a Jazzmaster I use one...if I want the sound of a Telecaster I use one.

However if I couldn't afford a chainsaw I wouldn't try to cut down a tree with a sawzall because they are cheeper...I'd either save up for a chainsaw or I wound't cut down a tree...

 

[karpathion]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I spent 15 playing years dreaming of owning my own Gibson. I have one now and love it.
It was worth every penny.

 

[IanBallard]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I'd much rather go with a V, Explorer or Firebird if I really wanted a Gibson. I may get one someday. But the issue of durability and vulnerability to breakage is really moot. If you spend that kind of money on a guitar, you are going to be very careful with it... at least I would be. Even when my Partscaster falls over I freak out a little... then I recall the story about Keef Richards using his Tele as a weapon against a crazed attacker during a Stones show and it still being in tune after the debacle. Different sound. Different design.

 

[Got_tone?]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Here's my favorite gibson bashing quote:

Its so cliche' to hate on Gibson these days..........Just pick your era to dislike and have at it!

I'm going to make sure I have this sigged when I get the 336 or 339.

 

[jimlp]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I've put at least $1,400 into the Epiphone, and it's still not as good as the Gibsons I've played.

This statement makes me question your sanity!

 

[voggin]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

I think the whole anti-LP thing is a confusion of a number of issues and biases, some valid, some less so:

1. If you don't like LP's (that whole early clapton, slash, etc. tone) than I guess $5 would be over priced. But since lots of people do love that sound, it stands to reason that the easiest and best way to get it is to get a Gibson;

2. From there, it is probably fair to say Gibsons are somewhat overpriced. Whatever guitar you like better, there are other manufacturers making stuff as well built with as good quality parts and wood for less, or better workmanship for the same price. I think LP's are about 15-20% (new) inflated for the name and reputation, which is deserved for tone, but not for craftsmanship, which leads me to the next point,

3. Gibson really seems to have a greater variance in quality among the same model than a lot of makers. While there will always be the odd lemon and gem, a $2,000 guitar should be more consistently well made. But that's easily dealt with by not buying a lemon;

4. But if $2500 gibsons were, say, $2000 and as consistent in quality as Heritage, PRS, etc., they would be pretty well perfect guitars. Again, providing you like that LP sound. Then again, a nice epiphone with good pickups that gets you close to that tone for half the money or less is a pretty good buy, too.

Older Gibsons and Fenders are just so out of reach, price wise, because they have become objects of conspicuous consumption to a certain generation of people who made too much money, and not from music. Which is a real shame, because in many if not most cases, the people who could really get the best out of these instruments could never afford them, while investment bankers are playing "Smoke on the Water" poorly on works of art.

On the other hand, someone with limited abilities and funds like me can come pretty close to the sound I want for a lot less money these days. So there's that upside to the downside, I suppose.

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

This statement makes me question your sanity!

When you spread it out over six years, you notice it a lot less. Plus, I don't regret it. At each stage, I learned something priceless about the role of a different part or design feature in the sound of a guitar.

 

[Powdered Toast Man]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Some ppl spend lots on fenders too... I don't get that.

Cause they're better! :nana:

I've never been a Gibson guy probably because none of my guitar idols played them.

Isn't Gibson run by a crazy tyrant or something?

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

IPlus, some people don't care for 50+ year old designs in guitars and don't care for sounding "vintage". Some people play NEW music and want it to sound as such.

I get that a lot of people buy Fenders and Gibsons for the brand factor, nostalgia, tradition, whatever. I also get that there are plenty of companies making more modern guitars that are pretty great instruments. On the other hand, I'd bet anything that there are more musicians making modern, important music on guitars from 50-60-year-old designs than there are people playing a guitar from any one of the NEW companies.

One example of a good deal from a "Custom Shop" would be the EVH Wolfgang…it's a pretty good deal compared to the RIDONKULOUS Frankenstein or Clapton Blackie which were both $25,000. Yeah, limited quantity and all, but still.

I've thought about the $25k Frankie, and it kind of makes sense. If you were to take well-paid people in a modernized economy, and have them meticulously recreate every nuance of an old, beat-up guitar that had been heavily customized with kitchen-table craftsmanship, you'd probably have enough hours in it to justify that price (assuming otherwise normal margins for the dealer and manufacturer).

 

[JOLLY]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

These Gibson bashing threads are getting old...correction...they were old a long time ago.


However if I couldn't afford a chainsaw I wouldn't try to cut down a tree with a sawzall because they are cheeper...I'd either save up for a chainsaw or I wound't cut down a tree...

That was just plain awesome.

 

[80's_Metal]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

 

[80's_Metal]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Isn't Gibson run by a crazy tyrant or something?

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: Why is the Les Paul so over priced?

Is the young lass in your avatar being held upright by guywires?