Most Overrated/Overpriced Electric Guitars

[flat1ine]

Seeing as there are a fair amount of "Overrated" and "Underrated" polls up, I'd like to know what everyone thinks are the most overrated and overpriced electrics on the market today.

I think the prices on some of these fairly standard guitars is completely insane. For example:

$2,000 for a Gibson Les Paul Standard?
$1,700 for a Custom Telecaster?
$1,600 for a Les Paul Classic?
$1,000 for a Gibson SG?
$1,000 for a Strat?

These aren't One-of-a-Kind Collector's edition guitars, they're not autographed, and what burns me most is that they're not even built with the best materials - mostly we're talking mahogany and rosewood here - not AA or AAA Maple and Ebony.

Now I'm not saying these are bad guitars by any means, I'm just saying that the price to performance ratio seems to be extremely skewed.

Thoughts, comments, anything - fire away.


--edit--
[this poll very much shows my bias - i didn't put ESP, Schecter, Ibanez or plenty of other manufacturers on here, mostly because i believe they make very good quality instruments at affordable prices - that said, it's only my opinion.]

 

[chadsxe]

Every single gibson-epi guitar made.

 

[flat1ine]

i couldn't agree more.

 

[dkijc]

you guys read my mind +)

 

[flat1ine]

good to know i'm not completely insane.

 

[spoonie g]

Seeing as there are a fair amount of "Overrated" and "Underrated" polls up, I'd like to know what everyone thinks are the most overrated and overpriced electrics on the market today.

I think the prices on some of these fairly standard guitars is completely insane. For example:

$2,000 for a Gibson Les Paul Standard?
$1,700 for a Custom Telecaster?
$1,600 for a Les Paul Classic?
$1,000 for a Gibson SG?
$1,000 for a Strat?

These aren't One-of-a-Kind Collector's edition guitars, they're not autographed, and what burns me most is that they're not even built with the best materials - mostly we're talking mahogany and rosewood here - not AA or AAA Maple and Ebony.

Now I'm not saying these are bad guitars by any means, I'm just saying that the price to performance ratio seems to be extremely skewed.

Thoughts, comments, anything - fire away.


--edit--
[this poll very much shows my bias - i didn't put ESP, Schecter, Ibanez or plenty of other manufacturers on here, mostly because i believe they make very good quality instruments at affordable prices - that said, it's only my opinion.]

ithe gibson fiasco is related to consumer demand. it's how business works.

 

[ibanezrocks]

I voted for fender. If I could choose two I also would have put Gibson, but I find that Fenders are more overpriced. The top of the line fenders aren't that good, the cheaper fenders are pretty good, if you replace the pickups they'll sound as good as a high end strat and upgrading the pickups couldnt cost more than $300.

 

[Track Rat]

Gibson is just a little bit too proud of their stuff in my opinion.

 

[mshilarious]

An expensive Epi or cheap Gibson can be a great guitar. I have one of each, they were only $600 each.

However $2000 for a Gibson is senseless, and $300 for an Epi is usually a disaster.

 

[Light]

Professional violin players will pay in excess of $100,000 for their instruments. And that is just the guys in the orchestra. The soloists are spending well over $1,000,000.

When professional guitar players complain about the cost of a good guitar, they sound like whiny asses. Guitars are, with only a very few exceptions, cheap. You DO get what you pay for. Now shut up and play.

And yes, saying things like this is EXACTLY why I chose to stay anonymous on this forum.


Light

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

 

[ibanezrocks]

violins are different than guitars because with guitars a lot of what you pay for is looks. I doubt you'll see a violin with a silver sparkle finish, gold trim and abalone flame inlays on the fingerboard.

 

[mshilarious]

When professional guitar players complain about the cost of a good guitar, they sound like whiny asses.

But the pros too often don't have to pay. I mean the big boys, the equivalent of the soloists who are shelling out seven figures for a three hundred year old violin.

Unfortunately Stradivarius isn't still in business to sign up Itzhak Perlman to a lucrative endorsement deal

Honestly, I highly doubt there is real value in paying beyond, say, $30K for a violin. The rest is just questionable demand for an extremely scarce, dwindling supply of ancient instruments.

On the amateur side, you can get a plenty good violin or guitar, for $1-$2K. But for $2K, I'd expect a LOT better than the average Gibson--and I'm Gibson fan.

 

[Light]

But the pros too often don't have to pay. I mean the big boys, the equivalent of the soloists who are shelling out seven figures for a three hundred year old violin.

Unfortunately Stradivarius isn't still in business to sign up Itzhak Perlman to a lucrative endorsement deal

Honestly, I highly doubt there is real value in paying beyond, say, $30K for a violin. The rest is just questionable demand for an extremely scarce, dwindling supply of ancient instruments.

On the amateur side, you can get a plenty good violin or guitar, for $1-$2K. But for $2K, I'd expect a LOT better than the average Gibson--and I'm Gibson fan.

Hey, I have spent a lot of time talking about the problems Gibson has with QC. None the less, I have a friend who is one of the most respected and popular (and best) acoustic guitar builders on the planet. His prices reflect the realities of the market, which is to say that they are VERY expensive. He has had wanna be customers call him up and YELL at him about his prices, saying shit like "You have a responsibility to make your guitars affordable to real players." That is a load of crap. And the idea that a professional can get an acceptable guitar for $300 (as I have seen suggested in this forum) is ludicrous. You get what you pay for. If you can't afford it, get something else, or save your money. Building good guitars costs money, which means you need to spend money to get a good guitar. Deal with it.

Now, as I said before, shut up and play the damn thing.


Light

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

 

[mixmkr]

I have a friend who is one of the most ........

saying shit like .........."

That is a load of crap. ..........

Deal with it.........

Now, as I said before, shut up and play the damn thing...........


Light

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

that time of the month, is it?

 

[OneArmedScissor]

IMO, you clearly have to pay too much for the name with brands like Fender, Gibson, and PRS.

I'd rather build my own than buy one of those. It's not rocket science. It'd cost less, and I could likely make it sound better for whatever I may be trying to get out of it.

 

[flat1ine]

in response to spoonie g and lights' comments:

spoonie - i agree completely, and it is a demand issue - gibson can get away with charging $2,000 for an instrument that cost them maybe a few hundred to make and slapping the gibson name on it. i'm not saying gibson guitars are of poor quality, but rather that they can, and do, get away with outrageous prices.

light - without a doubt, do get what you pay for, no doubt; but that doesn't mean that a $2,000 guitar is worth the price - you can buy a gibson dobro for almost $2,000 or you can buy a better crafted, better sounding, Custom Liberty Copperhead with better workmanship, more attention to detail, a more personal and tailored buying experience for a shade over $300. i played a large, large selection of extremely expensive dobros at Matt Umanov Guitars in NYC, bought my dobro from Bill at Liberty, and can say that that the Liberty is just flat-out better.

For the record, I intended this poll and thread to be geared towards new, overpriced, mass produced, readily available guitars, not custom luthiered instruments (violins, guitars, whatever) handmade with the finest materials and craftsmanship - in my opinion, any instrument in that catergory is almost always worth the money.

 

[Tadpui]

I'd rather build my own ... It's not rocket science. It'd cost less, and I could likely make it sound better for whatever I may be trying to get out of it.

Oh man, wait until Light gets a hold of that little nugget. During this time of the month and all!

Seriously, I see where he's coming from. It's not just the materials, its not just the craftsmanship, nor the sound nor the market...its a combination of them all. Gibson, American-made Fenders, Gretsch, etc. happen to be desireable instruments that are well-made and sound great. Put it all together and you have to shell out some dollars to take that home. From the very words of the posters here: quality on guitars is a crap-shoot. You pay the money for consistency in craftsmanship.

And there's no way that I'm going to vote on this, because I knew from the title that it'd be a bitch-fest about Gibsons.

 

[flat1ine]

IMO, you clearly have to pay too much for the name with brands like Fender, Gibson, and PRS.

I'd rather build my own than buy one of those. It's not rocket science. It'd cost less, and I could likely make it sound better for whatever I may be trying to get out of it.

I'm actually in the process of building my own semi-hollow electric (my first guitar) ... it's a fantastic process, and i'm sure the final product will look almost exactly how i want, regardless that it will probably sound like ass. Sadly, i've just moved and no longer have access to my parents' workshop. damn. anyone have a shop or an 18" planer they wouldn't mine lending me some time on?

 

[Light]

IMO, you clearly have to pay too much for the name with brands like Fender, Gibson, and PRS.

I'd rather build my own than buy one of those. It's not rocket science. It'd cost less, and I could likely make it sound better for whatever I may be trying to get out of it.

To build a guitar with the build quality of any of those you mentioned, you could not do it for less. But of course, you couldn't match their build quality, unless of course you have built a couple hundred guitars (or more). And it will take you at least ten to really hone in on the sound you are looking for.

Trust me, I know. I've been there.

And just a quick look at the cost of a Les Paul:

Mahogany is REALLY expensive and getting more so all the time. This is particularly true for wood of a sufficient quality to be used in a guitar.

Figured maple is really expensive too.

Between materials; overhead for the factory, tools and maintenance; and labor costs, I would suspect that a Nashville made Les Paul costs Gibson approximately $500-700 to make. Now, they need to make a profit for their share holders, so it goes out the door for a MINNIMUM of $1000, but probably more like $1300. Standard markup in any retail business is 100%, but if you are getting it for $2000, you are paying quite a bit less than that. Of course, most businesses give discounts on MSRP (ours is usually about 30%), but a $700 profit on a $1300 cost is not very good, when you consider the salespersons commission is on the full sale price (say 10-15%, so $200-300), and then you have non-sales staff to pay, plus rent on the retail space, maintenance, and of course utilities and the like. And somewhere in all of this the store owner needs to find a profit.

Add to all of this the fact that the Les Paul is a hugely popular guitar, meaning that Gibson has little problem selling all they make, which means the shareholders are yelling at the company to charge more for them, because shareholders like big dividend checks.

Now, those numbers are completely made up, but not at all unlikely numbers. There is a lot of very labor intensive work on a guitar like a Les Paul. They do not use much in the way of CNC at the Gibson factory (or they did not last time I checked, which is probably too bad, as it might help their QC); they are still shooting nitrocellulose lacquer (because it SOUNDS better), which is very time consuming (my finish process with nitro takes a minimum of one month, which is probably longer than it takes Gibson, but they are still needing to store the drying guitars for at least two weeks,, and drying guitars take up a HUGE amount of space, which they are paying rent on – one of the reasons I am so glad we own our building, but that has it’s own problems); and those carved tops take a lot of hand sanding, particularly during finishing.

Is their profit margin big? Sure, but the market tells them it can be. It is not, however, unreasonable. I would certainly take that kind of profit margin, if I could. I can't, but that is because my name is not Gibson.

You pay for the name, but you also get what you pay for. That name Gibson means a hell of a lot when it comes time to sell the damn thing, and the high resale value is a big part of what you are paying for with a Gibson.

And it has nothing to do with the time of the month. I always find it annoying when people under-value the hard work of others.


Light

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

 

[faderbug]

light, your comparison of guitars and violins is ridiculous : $ 100.000 violins are hand made instruments constructed with the best materials, pieces of art in their own respect.
a $ 2000 gibson or $ 1000 fender is a mass product made with the cheapest materials and workmanship they can get away with and priced twice its value because of the logo on the headstock.