Page # 2

[BigKahune]

... With all due respect, that's a stupid thing to say and you obviously don't know the market very well. This is purely the market for rich guitar collectors.

 

Yes, these uber expensive guitars are aimed at collectors and rich players. I don't think anyone is stupid though, maybe lacking some market knowledge. For me, I know all of that and still find it funny that some of these customers pay vintage prices for brand new guitars. And, no way is Page's autograph worth $10K, but for adding his sig to this model Gibson jacks the MSRP $10K (Page Burst VOS $11,176, Page Burst Aged $15,294, Page Burst Aged & Signed $25,882). You can find an autographed photo his for less than $50.

 

Gibson plays the same game in the $4K-10K range with sigs and special editions. As long as the cost of the "sig/license" fee isn't too high, you know they're making good profit because the production cost isn't much higher than guitars marked "Custom Shop".

 

Of course, Gibson wouldn't be doing any of this if they weren't making money. One thing about Henry, he knows how to play this game very well.

 

None of this changes my opinion that $15K or $25K is overpriced this Les Paul.

[Thundergod]

Anybody every notice the price of a Lamborghini or a Koenigsegg? They're just cars...

Not trying to be a prick but that's just the way things are. I can't afford an ultra exotic car but I also don't complain about their prices. I appreciate them for what they are.

 

 

 

Exactly.

[Thundergod]

BINGO.....

 

Gibson DOES make cheap Les Pauls. They're called "Studios". They are damned good guitars. Made in U.S.A. for a bit over a grand. I wouldn't want em' any cheaper.

 

Sheese.

 

It's this contantly wanting sh1t cheaper that's killing our economy. Man up and buy some quality gear.

 

 

There's the melody maker also. A made in USA guitar for less than $400 that actually plays great and is highly modificable.

[Thundergod]

I think people should stop *****ing about Gibson prices and buy what they can afford. There are lots of quality asian guitar brands that sell guitars with lots of features for less than 1000.

 

(Then we get the classic response to the above coment)

 

"But I want a Gibson"

 

 

So I have to ask WHY?

 

Regardless of the answer to that simple question, you yourself have explained why it costs more.

[BigKahune]

I think people should stop *****ing about Gibson prices and buy what they can afford. There are lots of quality asian guitar brands ...

 

So, new rule, no discussion of Gibson prices on the Gibson forum - we should go buy asian guitars.

 

Nice.

[tartanbeastie]

I own a Pearly Gates VOS. it was expensive as h*ll but worth every penny.

 

 

With all due respect, that's a stupid thing to say and you obviously don't know the market very well. This is purely the market for rich guitar collectors. Have a look at eBay #160518239849 and see what people try to sell them for on the used market. Now why would Gibson sell you that guitar for $2,000 - $3,000 when they very well know what these guitars sell for used?

 

You want to see more Gibson Les Pauls for under $1,000? WHO DOESN'T?? The fact is labour rates in the US are much higher than wherever they make those Epiphones. I don't know what you do for a living but how about you and everybody else you work with takes a massive pay cut so your customers can buy your product/service for less?

 

Anybody every notice the price of a Lamborghini or a Koenigsegg? They're just cars...

Not trying to be a prick but that's just the way things are. I can't afford an ultra exotic car but I also don't complain about their prices. I appreciate them for what they are.

 

not the best comparrison because the exotic cars tend not to do any ranges for the less wealthy amongst us. Gibson do however make some affordable. Therefore suggesting that they are within reach for most of us.

As for labour costs, i very much doubt the workforce get that great a percentage of the profit!

[Tman5293]

It's this contantly wanting sh1t cheaper that's killing our economy. Man up and buy some quality gear.

 

This statement is as true as it gets.

[tartanbeastie]

Well i guess, this thread also explains the number of fake and counterfeit gibsons out there. Why spend thousands when you can find companies who produce something that looks the same. not the same quality or panache but companies make kit cars to look like high end sports cars at a fraction of the price so perhaps rather than buying gibson and reporting the ebay fakes etc we should all consider the "affordable" ones?? I would think that if Gibson were using the car analogy then wouldnt they just ditch all the guitars at less than a certain value? say $5-10,000 for example? I personally think gibson want to apeal to all but get a little out there on the pricing sometimes.

We could spend forever discussing this, the reason behind there pricing etc but I stick with my original points

1. does adding a signature or namesake make the guitar any better or more playable and worth the price hike?

2. $500-$1000 for an entry level gibson, for many it still is a decent amount of cash. Yes i'm aware there are some models available and i applaud Gibson for that.

3. stop the reissues, Unless its a previously discontinued like the nighthawk, and signatures for a while and develop some new stuff. Yes the robot is a love or hate guitar but how about it, a new instantly recognizable classic that says Gibson just by looking at it. They could have them marked as studio, special and standard. effectively same basic shape and design with cosmetic and electronic and would differences depending on price.

[Thundergod]

So, new rule, no discussion of Gibson prices on the Gibson forum - we should go buy asian guitars.

 

Nice.

 

 

[tartanbeastie]

This statement is as true as it gets.

 

would they not sell more if the price was a little lower.. nobody is suggesting a hundred bucks guitar or not having the high end stuff. Its about compromise and having something that fits most price brackets

[Goldenone]

If Gibson can get $25,000 for a guitar more power to them. I don't know if this particular guitar will become a collectors item only time will tell. Collecting guitars to me seems to be one of the better investments a person can make, other than those 60s and early 70s muscle cars and gold, a lot more fun than stocks and bonds too. I am not a collector, I don't have that kind of money. However when it came time to buy a guitar I choose my 2001 Gibson Les Paul Standard. Yes, I could have picked up an Asian guitar of some sort but for one my conscience wouldn't let me the other is if I spend the $400 - 700 on an Asian guitar I would lose around 50% of my investment if I were to stop playing and want to sell. I purchased my Les Paul on ebay, there were 37 bidders wanting my guitar so now if I were to stop playing and put it back on ebay there would be 36. I am sure I would get a full return on my investment or maybe even make some profit and 40 years from now who knows what my guitar will be worth but the Asian one will probably be worth nothing. And besides no Asian guitar plays, sounds or feels like a Gibson. Yes, American made will cost you more than the Asian import no matter what you are buying, it costs more to live here. Freedom is not free.

 

David

[tartanbeastie]

http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/33996-introducing-the-les-paul-studio-50s-tribute-limited-run-from-gibson-usa/page__pid__477729&do=findComment&comment=477729

 

 

Heres a gibson, sensible priced. not to everyones liking but its relatively affordable and a limited run so could become collectible.

[BigKahune]

If Gibson can get $25,000 for a guitar more power to them. ...

 

 

 

Nobody plays that game better than Henry.

 

 

Although some find his dabbling in guitar tech annoying. B)

[FirstMeasure]

 

 

Nobody plays that game better than Henry.

 

 

Although some find his dabbling in guitar tech annoying. B)

I'm in that category.

[WahKeen]

It's capitalism at it's best (or worst). It's a money making game by "creating " a short supply "desirable" item that's cranked up in price to give the illusion that it's worth that much , when in fact it's not (a $13, 000 guitar is not going to sound better than a standard or a custom debate for instance). But that's ok. In the world we live in there are always going to be "created elite markets" to make money and stroke egos. With cars, a Mack truck will total a Honda or a koenigsegg just theh same. Yes, the koenig is more sophisticated, powerful, etc.... But they're not going to make only $2,000 selling it, are they? Now, to each his own, so I could care less who buys what. But a student of mine, exhibited this brilliantly on how it all works:

 

We were talking about ear buds when I told her about some skull candy ones that were expensive, and had some wood on them from Costa Rica. Having heard this she got very excited and said, " I'm gonna get those just to say that I have them!". That summarized it for me.

 

The great thing about capitalism is that you don't have to buy what anybody sells.... Or you can. And I exercise my choice not to "buy" into it.

[FirstMeasure]

I think the big discrepancy here is that we're comparing a Players Market to a Collectors Market.

[LarryUK]

If you've got loads of money

Don't waste it on a car

Get down to your music dealer

Go buy a collector's guitar.

 

You see,

 

Henry needs the money

He bought some naughty wood

Uncle Sam's gonna fine him

Fine him hard and fine him good.

 

'cause

 

These people that buy these guitars

Want something special and really 'posh'

That's why Henry bought that naughty wood

So he could charge them loads of 'dosh'.

[sparky scott 29]

So, new rule, no discussion of Gibson prices on the Gibson forum - we should go buy asian guitars.

 

Nice.

 

Geezz.... I didn't think this would still be going on.

Whoda thunk???

[Thundergod]

If you've got loads of money

Don't waste it on a car

Get down to your music dealer

Go buy a collector's guitar.

 

You see,

 

Henry needs the money

He bought some naughty wood

Uncle Sam's gonna fine him

Fine him hard and fine him good.

 

'cause

 

These people that buy these guitars

Want something special and really 'posh'

That's why Henry bought that naughty wood

So he could charge them loads of 'dosh'.

 

 

 

That's actually great.

[Shnate McDuanus]

I think the big discrepancy here is that we're comparing a Players Market to a Collectors Market.

 

I tend to agree. As I said, there's a great Gibson instrument at every price point.

[retrosurfer1959]

 

3. stop the reissues, Unless its a previously discontinued like the nighthawk, and signatures for a while and develop some new stuff. Yes the robot is a love or hate guitar but how about it, a new instantly recognizable classic that says Gibson just by looking at it. They could have them marked as studio, special and standard. effectively same basic shape and design with cosmetic and electronic and would differences depending on price.

 

 

Lot's of interesting points and most I at least kind of understand but I still think many people seem to miss the key point - A guitar is a luxury item and as such it's more about desire and want then it is about value or function. That's why I don't understand people saying that the Studio is a working musicians guitar and anything else is for collectors? I also don't understand the above comment and the other ones like it, I don't want a Studio had them when i was younger and that's what i could afford but those days are gone and I can pretty much buy any guitar I want now and I buy Reissue almost exclusively now ( I did buy a Traditional Pro) I like reissues especially the 58's and 59's and yep I gig and play a R9 and I'm slowly beating the hell out of it.

 

Gibson has a good mix right now personally everything from the MM at 400 bucks to the Historic Studio at under 900 all the way up to the Page #2.

 

I don't want anything new from Gibson - I like the old style long tenon and solid body Les Pauls, it's what I like to play and it's what I like to collect and it's Gibson bread and butter why do so many other people want them to change that when so many other builders fill those niches already?

[pippy]

... I stick with my original points;

 

1. does adding a signature or namesake make the guitar any better or more playable and worth the price hike?

2. $500-$1000 for an entry level gibson, for many it still is a decent amount of cash. Yes i'm aware there are some models available and i applaud Gibson for that.

3. stop the reissues, Unless its a previously discontinued like the nighthawk, and signatures for a while and develop some new stuff. Yes the robot is a love or hate guitar but how about it, a new instantly recognizable classic that says Gibson just by looking at it. They could have them marked as studio, special and standard. effectively same basic shape and design with cosmetic and electronic and would differences depending on price.

 

Interesting to ponder your original points, tartanbeastie.

 

The following, FWIW, are my views on those points;

 

1. No and Yes. No the addition of a signature will, obviously, not make the instrument play or sound better. Yes; the addition of a signature makes the instrument more desirable to those select few whom Gibson are targeting. Otherwise the guitars wouldn't exist.

2. The least expensive Gibson guitar will still cost the buyer, as you say, "..a decent amount of cash..". This is because they are still a decent amount of instrument.

3. Even if we only consider the LP range, many players feel the various R6's; R7's; R8's and so on are the very finest guitars presently made by the Gibson company. Why on Earth should Gibson stop making them?

 

As far as the "..new instantly recognizable classic.." goes there are various interesting points to consider;

 

I'm absolutely certain every guitar manufacturer in the world would jump at the chance to create such an instrument.

 

If, for example, we consider those solid-body six-string guitars which come under that description I would suggest we have at least two groups of instruments;

 

The first group would contain only the very acme of design classics; in chronological order we have the Telecaster (shape); the Les Paul and the Stratocaster. The newest of these is now 57 years old.

The second group would contain the other true classics of solid-body guitar design; Flying V; Explorer; SG; the LP Double-Cut and the Firebird. The newest of these is now 48 years old.

Almost every solid-body six-string built since - along 'classic' ideas - owes almost all of it's design to one or other of these eight instruments.

In over 60 years of designing and building them we have not come up with anything which can be considered a true, original-looking ''instantly recognizable classic' outside those 8 shapes.

 

A large part of the problem of coming up with a new 'classic' shape is the 'best' shapes are so obvious they have already been done. It's a bit like trying to improve on the diamond-frame bicycle. Think about it;

150 years ago it was realized that the best compromise for a bike frame was the diamond. Technology and materials have improved out of all recognition in those subsequent 150 years but I'm willing to bet the frame ridden by the next winner of the 'Tour de France' will be a (possibly slight variation on the) diamond-frame.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

P.

[freak show]

Well, you guys do have to admit one thing:

 

The Page #2 is way cooler than the Jonas Brothers Sig model...

 

[MrNylon]

Who the hell are the Jonas Brothers? More ninety day wonders that now have star status?

[tartanbeastie]

Interesting to ponder your original points, tartanbeastie.

 

The following, FWIW, are my views on those points;

 

1. No and Yes. No the addition of a signature will, obviously, not make the instrument play or sound better. Yes; the addition of a signature makes the instrument more desirable to those select few whom Gibson are targeting. Otherwise the guitars wouldn't exist.

Fair point

2. The least expensive Gibson guitar will still cost the buyer, as you say, "..a decent amount of cash..". This is because they are still a decent amount of instrument.

I think many people would and do pay happily in the $500-$1000 price range because they know that even if it is Gibsons cheaper option they still get a good guitar.

3. Even if we only consider the LP range, many players feel the various R6's; R7's; R8's and so on are the very finest guitars presently made by the Gibson company. Why on Earth should Gibson stop making them?

 

As far as the "..new instantly recognizable classic.." goes there are various interesting points to consider;

 

I'm absolutely certain every guitar manufacturer in the world would jump at the chance to create such an instrument.

 

If, for example, we consider those solid-body six-string guitars which come under that description I would suggest we have at least two groups of instruments;

 

The first group would contain only the very acme of design classics; in chronological order we have the Telecaster (shape); the Les Paul and the Stratocaster. The newest of these is now 57 years old.

The second group would contain the other true classics of solid-body guitar design; Flying V; Explorer; SG; the LP Double-Cut and the Firebird. The newest of these is now 48 years old.

Almost every solid-body six-string built since - along 'classic' ideas - owes almost all of it's design to one or other of these eight instruments.

In over 60 years of designing and building them we have not come up with anything which can be considered a true, original-looking ''instantly recognizable classic' outside those 8 shapes.

 

A large part of the problem of coming up with a new 'classic' shape is the 'best' shapes are so obvious they have already been done. It's a bit like trying to improve on the diamond-frame bicycle. Think about it;

150 years ago it was realized that the best compromise for a bike frame was the diamond. Technology and materials have improved out of all recognition in those subsequent 150 years but I'm willing to bet the frame ridden by the next winner of the 'Tour de France' will be a (possibly slight variation on the) diamond-frame.

Isnt this why large companies have research and development people, ask the customers find out what they want. I also agree the most original shapes are still being used and sell hugely but there is option for new styles. Regarding the bicycle analogy, a large reason for the diamond shape is due to strength and the anatomical design so diamond or almost diamond (see chris hoys bike) is almost neccessity.

Just my thoughts.

 

P.