I
iownrocknroll
New member
I would pay 4 grand for my 73's les paul deluxe....likewise my frankstein tele only cost me 300 stock.
I agree with some of what you are saying but some of it I dont,I would gladly pay $2000 for another Gibson if I could find one of these "professional" instruments with the inlays centred on the neck,without a tub of two pack filler around each one,the nut not cut too deeply on g, b and e strings,the heel not looking like it was crafted with a chainsaw and the finish not looking like the guy who sprayed it had a coughing fit while eating dry crackers.No, it is not a work of art. It is a tool. A paint brush. The art only happens when someone uses it to make music. Luthiers, myself included, are NOT artists. We are craftsman. All I am doing is making a very fancy sonic paint brush.
As to the rest, you are right that a Gibson is not a violin. But it also does not cost as much as a great violin. $2000 for a profesional instrument is not ridiculous. THAT is my point.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
And yes, saying things like this is EXACTLY why I chose to stay anonymous on this forum.
And I have owned PRS in the past..
But I would have to say the guitar I most like to play cost me
< $700... It's my Schecter C1 Elite.. It is every bit a PRS without the fat price tag...
Not sure why Epiphone are getting a slating, I had a gold top that was lovely, good tone, good finish, good price.
Obviously not your ultimate guitar material, but not as bad as some people make out.
I don't know everything...
Gibsons are overpriced but worth every dime...