Gibson guitars: why the high cost?

  • Thread starter Thread starter amt7565
  • Start date Start date
Carvin produces a very high level guitar, and if you plunk down $1000 you can get a very schmantzy one. Granted, they do a simpler design that lends itself to CNC machining. I don't know if mine is perfect, but I can say there are no gross flaws. They just started putting out an archtop, which I think is around $1200 and it is really beautiful.

I look at the Gibsons in the catalogs, and it amazes me what you have to pay to get an ebony fingerboard.

My vote, in answer to the question at hand, is that Gibson can charge that because people will pay that. Does that mean much? No. People paid for Pet Rocks, for crying out loud!
 
juststartingout said:
Bongo is correct about some things. In america, we don't go to work to make the best guitar or car or whatever, we go there to make a living. I know, that's a very sad viewpoint, but it is true with large companies.


Actually, you find this is rarely the case in the large guitar factories. Martin is the best in this regard, and Gibson Montana has it all over Nashville, but at all of the large guitar factories, you find that most of the employees really love doing what they do. I don't know about Fender, but all the rest have really great employees.

An interesting statistic about Martin. They recently built their 1,000,000th guitar, and in the 171 years they have been in business, they have had only 700 employees. And the joke is, the first step to getting a job at Martin is to be born in Nazareth, PA. They love their city, and their employees are amazing.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Light said:
An interesting statistic about Martin. They recently built their 1,000,000th guitar, and in the 171 years they have been in business, they have had only 700 employees.

You're right, that is an interesting statistic. I am a manufacturing consultant and I don't see that too often. I have been in 100's of plants, making all kinds of things, and the one thing I hear all the time is "it's not my job to do that, if they want me to do that, they can pay me more". I have actually seen people running, what they knew were bad parts, and they just keep running them. When you ask them about it, they say, they will catch them down the line. It's sad.

I do need to get over to Martin and look at their facility. I only live an hour away and have never went. From what I hear, it is a very good place to work.
 
juststartingout said:
When I confronted him about it, he said, it's not what time or materials it took, it's what the market would bear for it. I learned a lot about marketting from him. The other thing that stuck with me is that if you price things too low, people won't pick it up. Price it higher, and everyone will look at it and want one.
Yeah, the sort of "monkey see, monkey do" school of marketing. On top of that, Gibson is doing something known as "The Sausage Game" in business schools. Of course, they are not alone in this.

I once worked for a really shrewd fellow who went into a competitive field and succeeded extremely well. His only secret was that when he started from scratch, he researched his market and priced his services 50% above the next most expensive competitor. In reality, he was providing totally substandard value by even the standards of much cheaper competitors, but nobody seemed to care, even in the presence of glaring evidence. He charged outlandish prices and that ipso facto made him "the best," even if his stumblebum dopefiend employees consistently did crap work for his rich customers.

I never ceased to be utterly astonished at what he got away with, and how he prospered. What made it worse was that this was not trivial stuff like guitars, but in fact potentially matters of life and death. In spite of everything, he virtually never lost a customer and even got referrals. To me, it was like some weird dream in which everything is backwards. When he reached his high-water mark, he sold the business at a huge figure and the whole thing went down the drain in six months when more conventional businessmen took it over.

Maybe this was just "business," but I reasonably regarded him as a crook and his customers fools.

If you want a Gibson, then pay their price, if not, get something else. If you want perfection, get it custom built.
It's not so much perfection I'd like to see, but value. The very cheap Gibson instruments are often decent dollar values, even if they're cobby. Their expensive stuff is demonstrably a relative rip-off. I see excellent workmanship in a lot of import instruments, but that's not always the most important thing in itself. It's just that at Gibson's MSRPs of US$3000-US$5000, one would reasonably expect superb workmanship and the absolutely finest materials. They're just not there on Gibsons.

So, the only answer to the original question of why Gibsons cost so much is that there are people who, contrary to all common sense, will pay the price.

It's a sorry answer, but it's the only one we've been able to come up with.

And it's not surprising that I tend to view things the way I did with that old employer and his stupid customers.
 
I can only repeat what I've said before: my Gibson does the music. I have owned a great many guitars over the years and I have learned not to mistake finish for value. If all you are talking about is resale value, which seems to be the subtext here, you are probably right. But so what? I don't play the stock market on my Les Paul, I play the blues. Show me an Ibanez or whatever that will outperform it and then we can talk. Until then I will keep Lester because -- however much you gripe about it, and regardless of whether you think you can convince me that you're a genius and I'm a fool -- it makes sounds that nothing else does.

And nobody has EVER said, Jeez, you got screwed: the binding's 1/16" lower on this side of the neck. Instead, they say, Wow! What a sound!

We DO record music, don't we?
 
lpdeluxe said:
I can only repeat what I've said before: my Gibson does the music. I have owned a great many guitars over the years and I have learned not to mistake finish for value. If all you are talking about is resale value, which seems to be the subtext here, you are probably right. But so what? I don't play the stock market on my Les Paul, I play the blues. Show me an Ibanez or whatever that will outperform it and then we can talk. Until then I will keep Lester because -- however much you gripe about it, and regardless of whether you think you can convince me that you're a genius and I'm a fool -- it makes sounds that nothing else does.

And nobody has EVER said, Jeez, you got screwed: the binding's 1/16" lower on this side of the neck. Instead, they say, Wow! What a sound!

Couple of points here: One, this whole "tone" business is almost entirely subjective and therefore irrelevant as a point of discussion. You like this guitar's sound and I like that guitar's sound. So what? Who's right? "Tone" tends to be more than anything else a fall-back, cop-out point, "OK, so it's ugly, so what? It sounds great!" You can't conclusively argue a pure matter of taste.

The question in this thread was why are Gibsons so bloody expensive. Tone doesn't explain/justify that.

That said, there are a lot of really dead-sounding (by anyone's standards) high-end Gibsons, and if you're a real tone maven who plays a lot of guitars, I'm sure you've encountered plenty of them.

I would also point out that there are a lot of very extraordinary sounding imports. The best sounding guitars - and in this instance I mean this in the sense of the Humbucking solidbody sort of sound one usually buys Les Pauls for - in my extensive pile of axes ranging in value from US$200-US$10,000+ are in fact higher-end Asian imports that came with quality US pickups.

For playing out - where subtlety of tone is totally lost and the image is everything - it's the US Gibsons and Fenders, but when nobody's looking, my favorite sounding and best playing axes are these relative cheapies. It has been my experience that the likelihood of finding an impressive-sounding individual instrument (whatever your particular taste) is largely a matter of pure chance and almost totally irrespective of brand or price.

I also think that people convince themselves that expensive Gibsons sound better than they really do. This is not to say that you may not have an exceptionally fine sounding individual instrument by whatever your tonal standards are. I'm just saying that if you do, it was more a matter of luck than it being a Gibson. I don't know from Ibanez, specifically, as I've never had any, but there are definitely very fine-sounding Asian instruments out there that get the sort of sound you normally associate with Les Pauls, for a tiny fraction of the price - and they are universally better built.
 
I'm going to abandon this discussion because I have a guitar that I'm very satisfied with, which happens to have the name Gibson on it, and you are doing your damnedest to make that out to be a bad thing. Do you think I bought it because it was a Gibson? Sorry, fella, a friend bought it in 1984 and let me play it and I then waited 13 years to buy it from him. I feel like I'm being attacked for not owning some mutt that you can approve of.

Well, as a matter of fact, how about my '60's Ventura Country Gentleman copy with a Carvin bridge, Gotoh tuners, and the original "you're-supposed-to-mistake-these-for-humbuckers" that I keep tuned in open C? Or is that the wrong key for you? Or the Japanese one-humbucker Strat I converted to 3Xsingle coils that I gave to my stepson? Should I go retrieve that? Once I explain your position I'm sure he'll understand. He wouldn't want me to be the slave of the evil industrial giant. He's a very understanding person.

=sigh= I TRY to be correct, but whenever I think I'm making progress that Les Paul comes along and sings me that sweet song....
 
bongolation said:
Couple of points here: One, this whole "tone" business is almost entirely subjective and therefore irrelevant as a point of discussion.

Wait a minute...you're saying that in a discussion about value in musical instruments, that tone is irrelevant???!!!!

We might not agree on what a good tone is any more than we would agree on what color is a good color to paint your house, but the opposite is not true...when your neighbor paints their house fluorescent blue, the whole neighborhood knows it's bad!
 
jfrog said:
Wait a minute...you're saying that in a discussion about value in musical instruments, that tone is irrelevant???!!!!
Only in that it's inarguable and subjective.

Tone is of course important to us individually.

It's also unpredictable in production instruments.
 
It's not so much perfection I'd like to see, but value. The very cheap Gibson instruments are often decent dollar values, even if they're cobby. Their expensive stuff is demonstrably a relative rip-off. I see excellent workmanship in a lot of import instruments, but that's not always the most important thing in itself. It's just that at Gibson's MSRPs of US$3000-US$5000, one would reasonably expect superb workmanship and the absolutely finest materials. They're just not there on Gibsons.

The question as asked before is, why do you care what other people spend their money on? Are you a fool that bought a sub-standard Gibson? Or against all "common sense" you want one?

What's your ideal guitar for "value"? A Dean? Their focus is on looks, not tone (which can't be used in this thread). Or maybe you can go to Seaman's, pick out a nice coffeetable with the wood you are looking for. Playability supposedly isn't a concern either...
 
lpdeluxe said:
Sorry, fella, a friend bought it in 1984 and let me play it and I then waited 13 years to buy it from him. I feel like I'm being attacked for not owning some mutt that you can approve of.
Actually, if you're talking from the standpoint of someone who bought a twenty-year-old used Gibson then I don't really understand why you entered into a discussion of the build and consumer value at current retail prices on new 2004 Gibsons in the first place.

The input certainly doesn't seem relevant.
 
On my side of the pond a Les Paul Standard has a recommended retail around $5200 Aust., that's about $3500 US. A Custom Shop LP Elegant is close to double that.

This is one of the main reasons we have purchased and imported a number of mint condition, second hand Gibsons from the US and Canada in recent times .............even with the shipping and import duties we are far better off than buying in the local market. The same applies to Fenders and PRS, etc., etc.

Personally I think you guys have little to complain about.

:cool:
 
Hey Bongolation.......... you gotta line on any of that guy's old customers???

I'm pretty much giving up on the "straight" life and might branch out into fleecing wealthy folks that don't know any better.

Any assistance you can provide in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

I'll put you on my Xmas card list, promise!

:D:D:D
 
Gibson makes some good guitars. I have a SG that is pretty well made. Im not crazy about gibsons to tell the truth. First of all I don't like Gibson necks, they are like a baseball bat split down the middle. Also, im not crazy about humbuckers....they distort very well but the clean tone sucks when compared to single coils IMO.

I have a les paul custom for a while (an old one)...I sold it because it was too heavy to comfortably gig with.

Would I pay over 2 grand for a Gibson?....no way.

To me a fender strat is perfection in an electric guitar.

The only reason I bought the SG is for the really distorted guitar recordings...it works pretty well for that.
 
A humbucker is capable of clean just as much a single coil.
 
If you think Gibson archtops are too expensive, look into an Anderson. I think his prices START at about $9500 and go up from there.
 
c7sus said:
If you think Gibson archtops are too expensive, look into an Anderson. I think his prices START at about $9500 and go up from there.


You’re comparing apples and oranges there. On top of that, People like Benedetto charge even more. His average guitar runs about $25,000. But where Gibson makes thousands of guitars a day, the average builder is unlikely to make 1000 in their lifetime. Now Bob Benedetto will probably end up somewhere around 1500, as he builds quickly, but he still does not make all that many instruments a year. The other thing to remember, with a custom instrument, is that you are getting an instrument that is made exactly to YOUR specifications. Almost none of us have "standard models" which you have to choose from, you get what you want. Gibson also spends about a tenth of the cost in labor that an individual luthier does.

People like Benedetto and Jim Olson get the high prices they do, however, for the same reason as Gibson. Because they can. Because, when their prices are lower, they can't keep up with the orders. Jim (whose base price is now $12,500) was selling his guitars at $6,000 or so, and he had a 2 year back log. He was selling guitars, and seeing them on eBay a week latter for double the price at which he sold them. He had to stop taking orders, because his wife would have to pay a quarter million dollars worth of down payments back if any thing were to happen to him, and his health is not very good. So he doubled his prices. And the real pain is, he still has an almost two year back log. As soon as he started taking orders again, he was flooded with orders, and now he is back to a place where his turn around time is about 18-20 months.

Here is my real question to all of you who feel $2000 is too much for a guitar. A Violin family instrument which is sufficient for professional use will regularly cost you $20,000 or more, with $100,000 instruments not being uncommon. Classical musicians regularly pay this, happily, because this is how they make their living, and they need to have the best instrument possible. Why then is it that PROFESSIONAL guitar players (I am not talking about amateurs here) will scoff at paying considerably less for a professional instrument. If you complain about the cost of a good guitar, then don't complain when your $500 POS hums, buzzes, and will not stay in tune. You choose your own price range.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
 
Light, that's an excellent point. And you didn't even mention the multi-$M Guarni someone like Perlman HAS TO HAVE in order to play his music! We see Eric Clapton on MTV, and then expect to buy his exact instrument for $500 with case and a free set of strings.

In fact, that exposes the essential weakness of this thread: in reality, it's NOT about how much it costs, OR what's it's worth, OR even how it's built or finished or painted: it's about what it does...and what a musical instrument does is allow a musician to produce music. We (at least some of us) seem to have a limitless ability to rant on and on about aspects of life that are, with very little reflection, seen to be unalterable, while forgetting that the important thing is the artistic result. I well remember a string player retorting to a guitarist griping about the cost of electrics: "You should thank God you're not a cellist!" Some of us seem to expect instant gratification in all things, home recording not least (but I'm slowly learning).

Well, I said I was going to abandon this thread, but I suffered exposure to your good sense and lost control.
 
Why are Gibson's so high priced????

Let's see here...

Union woodworker does the shaping, sanding, etc. of the bodies and necks

Union electricians wire the guitars

Union laborers mount the hardware

Union painters paint 'em

Union laborers do final assembly work

Union inspectors inspect the guitars

Union laborers pack and load the guitars, on trucks driven by...

Union truck drivers


All in all, most of the workers involved in making and shipping Gibson guitars probably range from $17 to $35 an hour in wages.

What do they make in Korea???

Probably less than 1/4 of their American counterparts.

This ain't a slam on unions... it's just a factual explaination of the higher labor costs that raise the prices so much on Gibson guitars.
 

Similar threads

PorterhouseMusic
Replies
28
Views
3K
DrewPeterson7
DrewPeterson7
SHEPPARDB.
Replies
10
Views
1K
noah330
N
rob aylestone
Replies
13
Views
3K
neaxudos
neaxudos
Back
Top