Gibson guitars: why the high cost?

[amt7565]

I happened to visit the local summer fest last weekend and Gibson happened to have their travelling museum. The cheapest guitar was $4500.00.

I was wondering why they are so expensive....now they did play well...but still...

 

[Adam P]

Because they can command that much with the Gibson name.

 

[Light]

Primarily they can get the prices they do because they are Gibson, and they have a reputation which is built on more than 100 years of (mostly) really high quality instruments. They have made some really stupid decision during that time (such as the plastic bridges on some of the acoustics during the early sixties), but they also came up with the Les Paul, the J-45, the L-5, the F-5 (mandolin), some really great banjos, and the ES-335 (to name just a few of the really high points). It would take a very long time to damage that reputation, and there are still styles of music and parts of the country where, for electrics at least, "Only a Gibson is good enough," to quote a marketing slogan.

It is also worth while to note, however, that Gibson also uses much more expensive construction methods and designs than, for instance, Fender, which is part (though only part) of the reason for the higher cost.

And then there is the economics answer. They get the price they get because at that price, they can still sell every thing they make.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[bongolation]

Here is a good discussion of the phenomenon. Note the marketing and price explanation that comes about 3/4 of the way through and the violent response it gets from the suckers who have bought into the Gibson myth.

 

[juststartingout]

This is actually a good thread. I went hrough this very decision about 9 months ago.

I think Light made a good point about the manufacturing process. This might be small, but when they do the neck bindings, they put the frets in and router the binding grove out of the fretboard and frets at the same time, then glue in the bindings. The results are that the bindings are an extention of the frets, which makes the neck feel great. There are a number of small things like this that I have noticed over the years.

Now, are they worth it. Well, why buy a Mercedes ($100k) instead of a Chevy ($15k). Both will get you where you want to go. Prestige, comfort, durability, what I can afford; they all come into play. I am now on my second Benz and after 600,000 miles, I know I will always own one. Buy the same token, I got just got my 7th Gibson, and I know I will always have at least one. But this is me, and not you!!

Price is a big factor for most people. For me, the major factors are feel and sound. I bought a Taylor instead of a Martin or Gibson accoustic, because I didn't like how they felt. I have 3 Strats and a Schector C1 hollow body because I liked the way they sounded and felt. I also have a number of Gibsons and love them all. Here are some comparisons for you:

Custom Strat 50th Aniversary (1 of 200) - $5,000
Custom SG 12 String (one of a kind) - $8,000

Strat Deluxe - $1,700
SG Supreme - $1,800

If you compare apples to apples, they really are competitive. If you compare a $500 LP clone to a $2,500 Gibson LP, they look high priced. But if you compare a $300 strat clone to a $2,000 Fender, then Fender looks high priced too. I will guarentee that if you cover the names and play them, people will pick the Fender and Gibson almost every time, because they sound better and play better.

Are they worth the extra money? That's something for each of us to decide for ourselves.

 

[bongolation]

This might be small, but when they do the neck bindings, they put the frets in and router the binding grove out of the fretboard and frets at the same time, then glue in the bindings. The results are that the bindings are an extention of the frets, which makes the neck feel great.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Gibson does their so-called neck binding this way for one reason and one reason alone: Cost cutting. It is hugely cheaper to do it in this semi-automated way than to do it correctly.

This "feature" is one of the biggest gripes knowledgeable guitar people have about Gibsons, though Gibson has a terrible time doing any kind of binding properly (see linked thread).

 

[juststartingout]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Gibson does their so-called neck binding this way for one reason and one reason alone: Cost cutting. It is hugely cheaper to do it in this semi-automated way than to do it correctly.

This "feature" is one of the biggest gripes knowledgeable guitar people have about Gibsons, though Gibson has a terrible time doing any kind of binding properly (see linked thread).

Ok, so you are not a Gibson fan, but that's cool. I wouldn't expect to find a good Gibson review on a Fender lover's forum.

About the bindings, I happen to like a bound neck and the way Gibson does theirs, but that's my preference. As far as the costs go to do this, I think you will find they are about the same. If you have ever viewed the Fender manufacturing video, you will find that they install the frets and put it into a CNC machine to do the edge cuts just like Gibson and PRS and every other manufacturer does. The only difference is that Fender doesn't bind their strat necks.

 

[randyfromde]

I don't really think they are that expensive. I got a J-45RW for $1500 or so, amazing guitar.

 

[bongolation]

Ok, so you are not a Gibson fan, but that's cool. I wouldn't expect to find a good Gibson review on a Fender lover's forum.

About the bindings, I happen to like a bound neck and the way Gibson does theirs, but that's my preference. As far as the costs go to do this, I think you will find they are about the same. If you have ever viewed the Fender manufacturing video, you will find that they install the frets and put it into a CNC machine to do the edge cuts just like Gibson and PRS and every other manufacturer does. The only difference is that Fender doesn't bind their strat necks.

Couple of points: I own six or seven Gibsons at the moment. For many years I made my living selling (and playing) vintage and contemporary Gibsons in the past. I know Gibsons.

I'm not a "fan" of any maker or any gear. That suggests irrational acceptance based on some obscure emotional response. That's stupid.

When I point out objective flaws on guitars, I not only know what I'm talking about, but I can clearly point out the flaws to a novice. When I do this, I usually get only a pouty "oh, you just don't like Gibsons (or whatever)," which under the circumstances is an inadequate response.

As far as your comment on neck binding costs, you're simply wrong. Doing a proper, traditional neck binding is inherently more difficult, expensive and less adaptable to automation than the butt-binding process Gibson uses. All makers have to hand-finish their fretboards and this system also requires less time to detail. As an aside, FMIC Fenders frequently have appalling fretboard detailing as well, as Fender is also attempting to cut US hand-labor time to the minimum. I have an "American" series Stratocaster with the frets detailed only on one side of the fretboard!

If Fender Corona did more top and neck binding, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be typically as bad as Gibson's, as - despite whatever level of CNT automation one can program - good binding & frets require expensive hand detailing, and American builders just won't pay the labor cost for that level of relatively skilled work.

[Most of Fender's bound instruments seem to come from Cor-Tek, a Korean company with skilled workers who work at a fraction of the costs of Corona's indifferent line-labor. The fingerboard and binding detailing on these instruments is typically perfect. Likewise Fujigen Gakki Fenders.]

Gibson guitars are simply poorly detailed, whether they bear a $999 or $4500 MSRP. Again, read that FDP thread, linked above.

 

[hixmix]

Actually there's a great deal going on LP Standards at Musicians Friend this month $1999.00, and they throw in a FREE Melody Maker(fun little Gibsons which are going for about $300.00 now) with gig bag! That's down from last year's price of $2149.00 without the free MM.

If your a Gibson fan, that's a great bargain package considering the free shipping and no sales tax.

 

[randyfromde]

Gibson guitars are simply poorly detailed, whether they bear a $999 or $4500 MSRP. Again, read that FDP thread, linked above.

I'm going to be as pragmatic as your statement and declare that I do not regularly see the shoddy workmanship on Gibsons that you do. Perhaps it's a case of selection bias because I shop at smaller stores. Don't know.

 

[jfrog]

That suggests irrational acceptance based on some obscure emotional response. That's stupid.

Isn't music itself based upon emotional response, which is highly subjective?

 

[lpdeluxe]

As you might guess from my screen name, I am a satisfied Gibson owner. I've got a "bad" Norlin deluxe, with the pancake body, goof hiders, volute, you name it, and it is the sweetest sounding electric I've ever had in my hands. It's not about the objective details, it's about how it plays and sounds, and all makers have quirks (have you looked closely at a '60's Gretsch Chet Atkins lately? I own one of those, too, and you'd swear it was designed by the lowest bidder). It comes down to the sound and how it "handles" in your hands. From that perspective Gibson has it. Maybe it helps that I bought mine for $750.

An aside: when I was in college I worked my way through by running a 60' truck scale for Sunkist Lemon Products in Corona CA. I was visiting my brother a couple of years ago and we went by the Fender facility to visit their museum (turned out to be closed for renovations) and damned if it wasn't right on the grounds of the old lemon plant! Makes me afraid to buy a Fender....

 

[bongolation]

Isn't music itself based upon emotional response, which is highly subjective?

That's a genuinely interesting question to which I probably have a different answer than most people, but it's irrelevant to this thread.

Value, construction details, cost/benefit ratios and other issues are (or should be) approached with cold-blooded objectivity. The many things that make an instrument a good piece of work or a good value have absolutely nothing to do with emotion.

Contriving an emotional, nonrational response in a buyer is the objective of marketing and advertising, but the extent to which it plays a part in making your buying decisions is the extent to which you've been suckered and manipulated. A perfectly good instrument may not personally fit you or appeal to your sense of style, and those are certainly both valid and subjective points against your buying that specific instrument. That does not mean that buying or evaluating a guitar qua guitar should predominantly be a subjective (or worse, emotional) exercise. Quite the contrary.

People pay big prices for Gibsons (and other "name" instruments and gear) that are typically poorly built and obscenely overpriced almost entirely on subrational impulses. They tend to operate in a perpetual state of denial about clear flaws and poor dollar value.

That's dumb.

 

[bongolation]

I'm going to be as pragmatic as your statement and declare that I do not regularly see the shoddy workmanship on Gibsons that you do. Perhaps it's a case of selection bias because I shop at smaller stores. Don't know.

Read that FDP thread (linked above) about specific instances. The vast majority of buyers simply don't know good from bad work, nor what to look for.

There is a possiblilty that a really conscientious dealer sends back the junkier examples - and if so, God bless him - but if he's waiting on Les Pauls with even top binding, he's going to go a long time before he builds up his stock.

 

[tomleblanc]

I think you made a lot of great points here bongolation. I know this is a bit off the topic, but given your statement about most American manufacturers being unwilling to pay for the manual labor required to create a good neck, I was wondering how you feel about G&L. I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about them except what they say on their webpage, which is to some degree an advertisement, but I was impressed to learn about how their manufacturing process was created and inspired by Leo Fender, who believed the only way to truly make a great guitar was by hand, and thus they use as little automation as possible. Do you find the G&L's to surpass Gibsons, Fenders, etc. in build quality, or is this just a sale pitch?

 

[juststartingout]

Read that FDP thread (linked above) about specific instances.

Yes, we read your Fender thread. Let me guess, you are Chaingun. At least your whining and writing are the same.

The bottom line is that almost every major group are playing Gibsons. Makes you wonder why. Oh, I know, it must be the shotty workmanship. Damn, what was I thinking.

 

[bongolation]

An aside: when I was in college I worked my way through by running a 60' truck scale for Sunkist Lemon Products in Corona CA. I was visiting my brother a couple of years ago and we went by the Fender facility to visit their museum (turned out to be closed for renovations) and damned if it wasn't right on the grounds of the old lemon plant! Makes me afraid to buy a Fender....

Haw!

I love it!

 

[bongolation]

Yes, we read your Fender thread. Let me guess, you are Chaingun. At least your whining and writing are the same.

The bottom line is that almost every major group are playing Gibsons. Makes you wonder why. Oh, I know, it must be the shotty workmanship. Damn, what was I thinking.

Thanks for a brilliant and fact-filled rebuttal!

 

[juststartingout]

Thanks for a brilliant and fact-filled rebuttal!

No problem, anytime.