Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Gibson designed guitars.


MaxiumburnN

Recommended Posts

I love Gibson guitars but every once in a while they'll display new guitar that is questionable. For instance the so-called formed arch top guitar that they introduced at Namn. They're supposed to be "affordable", But at the Music Zoo's it is going for $6300 which I think is kind of high for an essentially laminate guitar. Furthermore it has the old-style cheap looking pick guard that is translucent which really for that price shouldn't be on a guitar like that.

Furthermore, the guitar has cheap looking.fret markers which for $6000 is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Gibson guitars but every once in a while they'll display new guitar that is questionable. For instance the so-called formed arch top guitar that they introduced at Namn. They're supposed to be "affordable", But at the Music Zoo's it is going for $6300 which I think is kind of high for an essentially laminate guitar. Furthermore it has the old-style cheap looking pick guard that is translucent which really for that price shouldn't be on a guitar like that.

Furthermore, the guitar has cheap looking.fret markers which for $6000 is ridiculous.

That's a lot of money for most people, yes. At this point in my life, I would never pay more than $4000 for a guitar. Still, some people are very willing to pay $6300 for that particular guitar. The fact they say it's "affordable," well, that's kind of weird. It shows where Gibson is aiming at...in terms of what kind of customers they want to attract with this particular guitar.

 

Now, onto some of the things you mentioned. The guitar probably takes - although, it's what you say essentially a laminate guitar - quite awhile to make, with lots of individual steps before it's complete. You pay for details and consistent quality. What you said about the pickguard, however, is quite a slap in the face.

 

It reminds of when Gibson started using richlite, instead of ebony, on Les Paul Custom guitars. That's really quite offensive. I know Ebony is not always readily available, because this wood comes from Africa. However, it needs to be on a Custom Shop product like the Les Paul Custom. Not some compound material that essentially consists of recycled paper and phenolic resin. Just Google it, if you don't know what I'm talking about. Richlite and ebony fretboards don't look that dissimilar, but they do seem to affect the sound slightly different. And it's just special to have a decent piece of ebony as a fretboard - on a Custom Shop LP - instead of something that's 100% created by a company.

 

Just my two cents on this. What's also worth mentioning, is that the Les Paul Standard (2015) and the Les Paul Custom are not that far apart from each other anymore in terms of what price tag Gibson is putting on them. In 2014, the Les Paul Standard was about $1200 cheaper than the Les Paul Custom. Gibson USA is stepping it up in 2015 with all kinds of funky features, but also better quality finishes etc. So, now, customers that don't want all the bells and whistles are forced to go to the Custom Shop. I wonder what kind of effect this will have on the Custom Shop. Jim DeCola specifically mentioned this change in his interview with Andertons at the last NAMM show.

 

I'm a purist, and I like well-made instruments. I don't like a whole lot of bells and whistles on my Les Paul. I do have the Min-Etune still on there, but I can always take it off and have a normal looking Les Paul Standard. Not so much in 2015. But getting back to what you said about quality, I do feel that's what needs to spot on for the kind of money Gibson is charging for guitars like you mentioned. $6300 is lot of money, and you want the best you can get. I get that...and it's kind of similar to my point about richlite. I am going to buy a Les Paul Custom Silverburst next year, because that guitar looks absolutely stunning. Hopefully, I can place an order for one with a ebony fretboard. If not, then I will just have to live with that richlite fretboard. If Gibson is willing to make one with ebony for me, then it is going to cost me extra. I might need to make an exception to my rule of thumb, regarding what I'm normally willing to spend on a guitar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Gibson guitars but every once in a while they'll display new guitar that is questionable. For instance the so-called formed arch top guitar that they introduced at Namn. They're supposed to be "affordable", But at the Music Zoo's it is going for $6300 which I think is kind of high for an essentially laminate guitar. Furthermore it has the old-style cheap looking pick guard that is translucent which really for that price shouldn't be on a guitar like that.

Furthermore, the guitar has cheap looking.fret markers which for $6000 is ridiculous.

 

 

It's not laminated. It's one piece of wood. You can't compare it price wise to the laminated top guitars. You would have to compare it to something like a BirdLand with a carved top to see the "affordable" aspect of it. The translucent pickguards are not cheap looking and are in fact far more expensive that the thin laminated stuff used on cheaper guitars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not laminated. It's one piece of wood. You can't compare it price wise to the laminated top guitars. You would have to compare it to something like a BirdLand with a carved top to see the "affordable" aspect of it. The translucent pickguards are not cheap looking and are in fact far more expensive that the thin laminated stuff used on cheaper guitars.

Really? Then, it's not as outragious, as I thought it was because of how the OP described it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding eds1275lp89 comment. How is my pick guard statement a slap in the face to you ?

I think you mentioned something about a Les Paul which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

 

Furthermore, you can get a used L5 for $6000. So who is going to buy that guitar who has researched it and looked into it except an idiot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is the differences between the "Presed Wood " and laminate guitar which is essentially pieces of wood together?

To my understanding, laminated means several pressed or bent plies glued on each other, as opposed to a single board pressed in shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my guess Gibson employs some highly skilled and highly qualified luthiers. The very problem is an economical one. Think of Leo Fender's approach to manufacturing guitars. His top priority was mass production through use of machine tools rather than manpower. All his designs were conceived this way.

 

Gibson is a different story. Most of their instruments were and still are designed in a way that takes an artisan's skill to a substantial degree. This makes cost-cutting measures much more complicated, and they may have a significant and less predictable impact on quality. It is not an easy task to find solutions satisfying cost and activity accounting as well as the customer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Furthermore, you can get a used L5 for $6000. So who is going to buy that guitar who has researched it and looked into it except an idiot!

 

 

And a used Honda is a lot less then a new one. Would only an idiot by a new one?

 

You can't compare a new guitar price to a used guitar price. Gibson doesn't sell used guitars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a used Honda is a lot less then a new one. Would only an idiot by a new one?

 

You can't compare a new guitar price to a used guitar price. Gibson doesn't sell used guitars.

 

 

...though for enough money, they will sell you a copy of a used one [wink]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of Leo Fender's approach to manufacturing guitars. His top priority was mass production through use of machine tools rather than manpower. All his designs were conceived this way.

 

Not to pick nits or start fights, Leo Fender wanted to design and make a guitar that guitar players themselves could repair and replace the parts easily and affordably instead of having to buy a new guitar when something broke, including the neck.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to pick nits or start fights, Leo Fender wanted to design and make a guitar that guitar players themselves could repair and replace the parts easily and affordably instead of having to buy a new guitar when something broke, including the neck.

 

rct

Absolutely. This was and still is a convenient side effect, in particular when I think about the first generation of Fender necks without a truss rod. [blink]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a used Honda is a lot less then a new one. Would only an idiot by a new one?

 

You can't compare a new guitar price to a used guitar price. Gibson doesn't sell used guitars.

 

You can't compare cars to jazz guitars. the reason is, because Gibsons appreciate in value as opposed to cars that depreciate. A 1950s super 400 was$400. that same guitar would be $15,000 at least now .

And yes an idiot would buy a 1950s Honda compared to a more modern Honda but you would be an idiot not to buy a 1950s super 400 if you had the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my understanding, laminated means several pressed or bent plies glued on each other, as opposed to a single board pressed in shape.

But isn't that essentially the same concept you are compressing the wood so that you can use more of it?

I must say I'm not believing the hype with this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to pick nits or start fights, Leo Fender wanted to design and make a guitar that guitar players themselves could repair and replace the parts easily and affordably instead of having to buy a new guitar when something broke, including the neck.

 

rct

Leo Fender designed solid body guitars right? What does that have to do with an arch top Gibson guitar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a lot of money for most people, yes. At this point in my life, I would never pay more than $4000 for a guitar. Still, some people are very willing to pay $6300 for that particular guitar. The fact they say it's "affordable," well, that's kind of weird. It shows where Gibson is aiming at...in terms of what kind of customers they want to attract with this particular guitar.

 

Now, onto some of the things you mentioned. The guitar probably takes - although, it's what you say essentially a laminate guitar - quite awhile to make, with lots of individual steps before it's complete. You pay for details and consistent quality. What you said about the pickguard, however, is quite a slap in the face.

 

It reminds of when Gibson started using richlite, instead of ebony, on Les Paul Custom guitars. That's really quite offensive. I know Ebony is not always readily available, because this wood comes from Africa. However, it needs to be on a Custom Shop product like the Les Paul Custom. Not some compound material that essentially consists of recycled paper and phenolic resin. Just Google it, if you don't know what I'm talking about. Richlite and ebony fretboards don't look that dissimilar, but they do seem to affect the sound slightly different. And it's just special to have a decent piece of ebony as a fretboard - on a Custom Shop LP - instead of something that's 100% created by a company.

 

Just my two cents on this. What's also worth mentioning, is that the Les Paul Standard (2015) and the Les Paul Custom are not that far apart from each other anymore in terms of what price tag Gibson is putting on them. In 2014, the Les Paul Standard was about $1200 cheaper than the Les Paul Custom. Gibson USA is stepping it up in 2015 with all kinds of funky features, but also better quality finishes etc. So, now, customers that don't want all the bells and whistles are forced to go to the Custom Shop. I wonder what kind of effect this will have on the Custom Shop. Jim DeCola specifically mentioned this change in his interview with Andertons at the last NAMM show.

 

I'm a purist, and I like well-made instruments. I don't like a whole lot of bells and whistles on my Les Paul. I do have the Min-Etune still on there, but I can always take it off and have a normal looking Les Paul Standard. Not so much in 2015. But getting back to what you said about quality, I do feel that's what needs to spot on for the kind of money Gibson is charging for guitars like you mentioned. $6300 is lot of money, and you want the best you can get. I get that...and it's kind of similar to my point about richlite. I am going to buy a Les Paul Custom Silverburst next year, because that guitar looks absolutely stunning. Hopefully, I can place an order for one with a ebony fretboard. If not, then I will just have to live with that richlite fretboard. If Gibson is willing to make one with ebony for me, then it is going to cost me extra. I might need to make an exception to my rule of thumb, regarding what I'm normally willing to spend on a guitar.

You say that someone is going to buy that guitar? I don't think so what they're going to do is buy a used higher-quality Gibson or they gonna buy Chinese model that is a third the price and twice the quality now.

You see Gibson has priced themselves out of affordable an guitar is in the arch top luxury models.

Okay let's talk about the classes of people there going to buy. The first class is the rich class and they're not gonna Buy that when they can afford an L5 or or an L4 or whatever. And there's too much competition

 

 

The next class I'll call the poor class and they're not going to a be able to afford that guitar, so you priced them out simply because that price is too high.

 

A third class is the most interesting middle class ...These are the the persons that can possibly afford a $6000 guitar and who are somewhat accomplished musically or a collector. However if that is the case they would know something about these guitars and would not buy that guitar. I can guarantee it. They will get a used Gibson that is higher quality and an original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't compare cars to jazz guitars. the reason is, because Gibsons appreciate in value as opposed to cars that depreciate. A 1950s super 400 was$400. that same guitar would be $15,000 at least now .

And yes an idiot would buy a 1950s Honda compared to a more modern Honda but you would be an idiot not to buy a 1950s super 400 if you had the money.

 

 

Sorry but you are totally and completely wrong. Old guitars aren't worth money. Rare guitars are. Only in the vary rarest of cases does a guitar appreciate in value. You just pointed that out yourself. A new L5 is over ten thousand dollars but a used one is about half that because, just like a car, guitars depreciate as soon as you walk out the guitar store door.

 

 

But isn't that essentially the same concept you are compressing the wood so that you can use more of it?

I must say I'm not believing the hype with this!

 

 

No, It's not the same at all. A laminated top like on a 335 ($3500) allows you to use much thinner and less expensive wood to make a top. Also you can press the arch into the top as you make it. A solid spruce carved top like found on a Byrdland or L5 ($10,000+) requires a much thicker piece of wood to start with, must have the arch carved into the solid wood blank and creates a lot of waste in the process. The new press top guitars ($6000) allow you to use the more expensive solid spruce wood but shape it with the less expensive process producing less waste and having an unique quality of bending the grain of the wood instead of cutting it down. This process falls somewhere between the laminated and carved top processes and is priced and appointed accordingly. It's a rather big deal...

 

Just because you don't understand how a guitar is made or the cost of that materials being used doesn't mean it isn't worth the price being asked. Gibson has been selling $10,000 guitars for many years but you guarantee that they wont sell a single $6000 guitar... Well, I guarantee you're wrong. [biggrin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we will see about how this model does in the year and you can buy me a cup of coffee when they discontinue it. But on the other hand you're misunderstanding the appreciation of Gibson guitars.., they all appreciate.

They appreciate from the original selling price that's what you're confusing so something that is sold in 1960 is going to be worth a lot more now than the original price but not compare it to the selling price today which is different. Which is related to inflation etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but you are totally and completely wrong. It's not the same at all.

Just because you don't understand how a guitar is made ... [biggrin]

 

So, do you type on your computer with one finger, while the index finger of your other hand is up your nose?

 

Now that we've finished being insulting, let's settle down and hear what the guru's have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, do you type on your computer with one finger, while the index finger of your other hand is up your nose?

 

Now that we've finished being insulting, let's settle down and hear what the guru's have to say.

 

No insults intended. Are you insulted by my post? Lay some wisdom on us then there Mr Guru. [thumbup]

 

I'm all ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1427139755[/url]' post='1642768']

Well we will see about how this model does in the year and you can buy me a cup of coffee when they discontinue it. But on the other hand you're misunderstanding the appreciation of Gibson guitars.., they all appreciate.

They appreciate from the original selling price that's what you're confusing so something that is sold in 1960 is going to be worth a lot more now than the original price but not compare it to the selling price today which is different. Which is related to inflation etc.

I am not going to argue, but I agree with Searcy and the others. Besides playing guitar, I also am a gun collector. The price of guitars rather you agree to it or not can be compared to the price of guns maybe a little better. Not all guns appreciate while others do depending on how many they made and how rare. Colt made the peace maker or the cattleman 45 LC way back in the 1800's. Today those originals are way out of site to buy. Colt made replicas of these firearms in the 1900's also after they discontinued them in the 1800's and people flocked to pay whatever price that Colt asked for. Uberti and Pieta came out and made replicas of the colt to such fine requirements that the colt parts interchanged with the Ubertis. The pieta is slightly larger then the uberti. But the colt and uberti are exact replicas. While it will cost some where up to 2 thousand dollars to buy a modern colt replica depending on what model you get, you can buy a uberti for around $500.00 and up to $800.00 for a Cody. In sass shooting, lots of people buy the Ubertis and even Rugar Vanquerros or Pieta but tons of guys want and pay for the more expensive Colts. It's the name on the product as much as the product itself that people go for regardless of price. To some people, price means nothing. I myself have one Colt that was handed down to me but I can't afford to buy one that I want. For that reason I would probably buy an Uberti, but I would much rather have a Colt if I could afford one. While your taste is not someone else's taste, never say Never! There are some cars I see people drive that my wife and I say, "we wouldn't be caught dead in it" but there are enough people out driving them who love them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retired...

 

Whew! I'm not the only one who's been a bit ... sass-y. Ruger, though. Actually I did SASS a while, modern. Didn't buy anything new, since I had it all for normal use. <grin> Kinda like boots and hat worn to work every day.

 

Guitar...

 

Okay, this is a guitar that the forum's top archtop guy, L5Larry, notes appropriately is effectively an acoustic archtop with a pup added, not as the ES-175, for example, that was designed from the start to be an electric guitar.

 

It's not my cuppa tea for a couple of reasons, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a fine instrument.

 

Pressing and/or steaming wood, depending on shapes, is used daily with flattops too. Some flattops traditionally also have had a back that functionally was pressed into a bit of an arch shape.

 

Personally, no matter how much of a price tag, I think the 175 is almost the perfect guitar in terms of how I interface with guitar overall. But obviously I'm me and other folks are other folks. Were Gibson to offer me a free new guitar of my choice, it'd be a 175, after hopefully I'd had a chance to play several. In fact, I'm not so sure I wouldn't almost prefer an Epi ES 175 Premium with a bit of "polish" to an L5. It ain't the money, it's what and how you play. Larry probably thinks I'm nuts in some ways, and he may well be right, but that's me.

 

I could feature this new Gibson having a market niche. But then, all full archtops are niche market instruments regardless of price tag.

 

Yeah, it's outa my price range at this point in life, but that doesn't mean it's an overpriced piece of dung. Then too, neither's a Ferarri, although I don't see its value with where and how I live.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...