Boyd, on 14 March 2017 - 10:40 AM, said:
Well you're right about that, I don't understand it even though you have "tripled down" on your original statement. "...their Guitars are in the same price range now than what many of us paid for our first home"
Assuming that "us" means members of this forum and not our grandfathers… how many of us bought a house "in the same price range" as a new Gibson?
Allie did not claim that guitars now cost the same equivalent, inflation-adjusted price as houses then. Just that the price of higher mid-range Gibson guitars now is similar in simple numerical terms to the price of houses in living memory. If you prefer, that 1% of a house now has the same numerical value in dollars as a whole house then. With the wistful reflection that for people who paid $x for a house then, $x seems very expensive for a guitar now. This is not a scientific claim, but it is grounded in empirical fact.
It is not only our grandfathers' generation who were able to buy a house for a few thousand dollars or pounds. I've cited the case of my father. He is younger than a number of regular posters on this forum who demonstrate regularly that they can still play guitar. His first house cost in pounds then what a Gibson SJ200 Vintage costs now.
The UK is not the US (yet), but our markets tend to shadow yours. So if a house could be bought for £3000 in the early 1970s in parts of the UK, I find it quite believable that a house could be bought in parts of the US for a similar number of dollars. And while Ron's comment about getting out to nicer areas is funny, we live in a beautiful bit of the UK. The house prices are lower than in London is all. Perhaps you just live in a more expensive part of the US than Allie.