Most Overrated/Overpriced Electric Guitars

[rxQueen]

i voted for all of them. i guess that makes my votes void.

 

[zed32]

i paid $400 out the door for a MIM strat, stand, strap, hard case, handful of picks, extra set of strings, and a polishing cloth at GC in 2001. I also got a Schecter C1+ for $399 at GC last year. I love em both, they are great for me since any guitar costing anything more than that would certainly be wasted on me, hehe. i put some different pickups on the strat and it works great for playing older styles of rock, and even punk, i absolutely love playing this guitar. i use the Schecter for heavier metalish stuff, and although the stock pickups are kinda muddy, it still plays great and IMO looks beautiful (black cherry flame maple top).

to me, i think i can tell the difference in sound between a cheap guitar and one that is of higher quality, but realistically (and sadly for me) my playing abilities just don't justify the price i'd have to pay to get my hands on a PRS or LP or even an American Strat. i'm more than satisfied with the quality of the guitars i own, but i'm not delusional to the point where i'd say my schecter sounds and plays every bit as good as a PRS, nor would i go so far as to say that the "pro" level guitars are ridiculously overpriced. you do get what you pay for. but i'll only pay for what i feel i can really make the most of.

but yeah for around $800, i got 2 decent and versatile guitars that i love to death. i'd say that's a pretty good value hehe.

 

[Hard2Hear]

zed, you're a smart guy

dw fails to mention that he bought that 335 in ..what, 1972?

One thing I have noticed. Alot of people start out on cheaper poly finished guitars. Those have a rock hard, pretty much inpenetrable, thick hard plastic finish. And they equate that to bsing high quality feeling and looking. Then they get ahold of high $ guitars, which are usually nitro laquer, and say the finish and feel is cheaper than cheap guitars. Its not cheaper or not as nice. Its just that nicer guitars are laquered the way that most other fine wood products are. They're breathing, natural things. And the nitro lets them continue to breathe. They were not meant to be sealed in plastic. But people get used to the feel of nice smooth plastic, and when they feel the actual wood they think its lower quality, when in actually its a higher quality that they are just not used to feeling. Yes nitro is easier to scratch, fade, feels kind of sticky, and wears worse. But it is a superior product.

H2H

 

[zed32]

that's a great point H2H, i've heard of people mentioning stuff like that saying that some more expensive guitars feel like a "cheaper" finish, and i always figured they were idiots. to be honest, i don't have much experience playing/holding/touching more expensive guitars such as gibsons or whatever because im sort of scared to touch (ruin) them, so i wouldnt know about this first hand. but reading in this thread about the curing process for the nitro finish, it's obviously not cheap or low quality. some people are just ridiculously ignorant.

 

[ibanezrocks]

I'm still getting used to the nitro finish on my sg, I'm not going to say that its a cheaper finish, because I know it costs more, but I was under the impression that poly finishes were just as good for the guitar as nitro finishes.

but anyways, for anyone that thinks their poly finished guitar can take a beating they surely havent played one covered in duct tape and then sealed.

 

[reshp1]

I'm still getting used to the nitro finish on my sg, I'm not going to say that its a cheaper finish, because I know it costs more, but I was under the impression that poly finishes were just as good for the guitar as nitro finishes.

but anyways, for anyone that thinks their poly finished guitar can take a beating they surely havent played one covered in duct tape and then sealed.

The nitro vs poly argument only applies for acoustics IMHO. Nitro finishes the soundboard vibrate so much more freely, allows the wood to "open up" over time, etc. In an electric solidbody, I would pick the durability of a poly finish and take the neglible hit in sound. I have a cream colored Gibson SG and honestly it looks like crap, the color of the case (another Gibson product) is bleeding into the finish in parts, and other parts are yellowing at an alarming rate. Granted I haven't taken really good care of this guitar, but my others have "suffered" the same treatment and took it like champs. Gibson needs to redesign their neck to headstock joint too, BTW. I broke the head on my SG and have heard and seen countless others that have too.

 

[raab]

It really comes down to:

1) What kind of wood the body/neck are
2) Craftsmanship/playability of the wood
3) Cost of the name on the headstock

I think the wood is the most important thing. The playability, you'll feel that but the people hearing you play will not feel that. The name, you're throwing away money on advertising. If you're low on money to throw away like me, I'd rather make due with a good piece of wood that's not the easiest on the fingers but that's good enough for me, I can make due... I've personally had it with name brand guitars at this point.

 

[ibanezrocks]

The nitro vs poly argument only applies for acoustics IMHO. Nitro finishes the soundboard vibrate so much more freely, allows the wood to "open up" over time, etc. In an electric solidbody, I would pick the durability of a poly finish and take the neglible hit in sound. I have a cream colored Gibson SG and honestly it looks like crap, the color of the case (another Gibson product) is bleeding into the finish in parts, and other parts are yellowing at an alarming rate. Granted I haven't taken really good care of this guitar, but my others have "suffered" the same treatment and took it like champs. Gibson needs to redesign their neck to headstock joint too, BTW. I broke the head on my SG and have heard and seen countless others that have too.

My SG is my baby, I rarely ever take it out of the house, actually I don't think I have at all yet, but eventually when I do it will only be under very safe conditions, and I'll use a gigbag and guard it with my life rather than trust a hardshell case. The problem I've heard about and had happen to a friends LP classic is that gibson cases hold the body too tightly while letting the neck move and having the padding on the back of the neck end right before the weak spot at the neck to headstock area, so when the whole case moves the neck gets whiplash and the weak spot leaves the end of the padding and comes back and hits it hard, breaking it easily.

Now I know this could happen in a gigbag if it fell against something, but I'd much rather just be really careful with a gigbag then not know how the guitar is moving around inside the hardshell.

Back to the original purpose of the thread: although I have been thinking about refinishing my sg for awhile, I doubt I'd be able to work up the nerve to do it.

 

[reshp1]

The problem I've heard about and had happen to a friends LP classic is that gibson cases hold the body too tightly while letting the neck move and having the padding on the back of the neck end right before the weak spot at the neck to headstock area, so when the whole case moves the neck gets whiplash and the weak spot leaves the end of the padding and comes back and hits it hard, breaking it easily.

Yeah, that makes sense. Mine did break inside the case when it fell forward. Off the top of my head, the case braces the neck around the 12th fret, and the lid pushes down around the bridge area, and the rest of the neck is free floating. So it would mean that the neck support piece acts as a fulcrum to flex and whip the neck. I've also seen one fall forward off it's stand and break in the same exact spot, so it could be the string tension plus forward momentum too.

 

[acorec]

My SG is my baby, I rarely ever take it out of the house, actually I don't think I have at all yet, but eventually when I do it will only be under very safe conditions, and I'll use a gigbag and guard it with my life rather than trust a hardshell case. The problem I've heard about and had happen to a friends LP classic is that gibson cases hold the body too tightly while letting the neck move and having the padding on the back of the neck end right before the weak spot at the neck to headstock area, so when the whole case moves the neck gets whiplash and the weak spot leaves the end of the padding and comes back and hits it hard, breaking it easily.

Now I know this could happen in a gigbag if it fell against something, but I'd much rather just be really careful with a gigbag then not know how the guitar is moving around inside the hardshell.

Back to the original purpose of the thread: although I have been thinking about refinishing my sg for awhile, I doubt I'd be able to work up the nerve to do it.

You won't let your SG out of the house, but you would refinish it?

Wierd

 

[ibanezrocks]

You won't let your SG out of the house, but you would refinish it?

Wierd

no I would never be able to work up the nerve to refinish it, and only rarely bring it out of the house. It has nothing to do with putting the new finish on, but taking one off would be too nerve racking.

 

[astoebe]

fender makes some quality stuff i say, never been disappointed in them....PRS on the other hand.....most play ok but I haven't been amazed by the tone and they are pretty darn expensive

 

[astoebe]

Anyway, I guess what it boils down to is don't buy from these overpriced shit-brands unless you think it's worth it. I think the main problem is that the mainstream media and mainstream artists praise these companies left and right, especially when they're not footing the bill, and even more insulting is when newbies walk into my house, see my collection, and aren't shocked - and -awed because they don't recognize any of the names. Then go throw a shit SG in front of 'em and they wet themselves. People are silly.

Yeah you're probably right.....I mean I'm sure the guitar greats really just want a brand and so they aren't worried about the feel and sound.....if you can't tell, i'm being incredibly sarcastic....you think that good musicians play certain brands because of the name? that's one of the most moronic things i've ever heard.....Fender, Gibson, Taylor, Martin and such didn't get so big because they made crappy guitars and people suddenly decided to buy them......but anyways, I think I'll believe a few hundred amazing guitarists that have proven themselves before I listen to you and go buy a "brand I've never heard of". I also have an ear/have feel and can tell the difference between a bad and a good guitar.....sorry this post is a little bitter, I'm just sick of people acting like they know more than people who have accomplished way more with a guitar than they can ever hope to

 

[blingberrystew]

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

you must have a lot of time on your hands....

 

[blingberrystew]

Yeah you're probably right.....I mean I'm sure the guitar greats really just want a brand and so they aren't worried about the feel and sound.....if you can't tell, i'm being incredibly sarcastic....you think that good musicians play certain brands because of the name? that's one of the most moronic things i've ever heard.....Fender, Gibson, Taylor, Martin and such didn't get so big because they made crappy guitars and people suddenly decided to buy them......but anyways, I think I'll believe a few hundred amazing guitarists that have proven themselves before I listen to you and go buy a "brand I've never heard of". I also have an ear/have feel and can tell the difference between a bad and a good guitar.....sorry this post is a little bitter, I'm just sick of people acting like they know more than people who have accomplished way more with a guitar than they can ever hope to

I agree wholeheartedly...i play bass guitar but its the same princible. You can definatly see and feel the difference between a guitar that has a good name and one that doesnt. these companies don't get big because they pay a well-known guitarist to praise them, they get big because they make quality instruments that people can relate to. If you pick up a guitar that has a name that isn't recognizable and you like the sound, well more power to you. It all depends on personal experience with the instrument i guess is what i'm trying to say. derr dee derrr.

 

[Zed10R]

EErrr....people......just because a guitar costs $2000 doesn't mean it good. Just because it's a Gibson, Fender, whatever, doesn't mean it's good. Just because it's a Pes Paul doesn't mean it's good. And just because it's a $2000 Gibson Les Paul doesn't mean it's good. Don't fall fall for the marketing hype. If you can feel and hear $2000 worth of tone and quality, then buy it. But if you buy anything based on any other reasoning, you are contributing to the problem of of overpriced low quality guitars and gear in general.

And YES companies DO get big by paying well known players to praise them. It's called sponsorship. Do you really think the $2000 Les Paul you can buy is anyhere near the quality of a Les Paul owned and played by any big time guitar hero?? No way. You are paying for the name.

 

[greenascanbe]

Funny I read an article with the Los Loney Boy's Guitar player and he said his Strats are "plain old mexicans" with a little fretwork to handle the heavier stings. I looked carefully and low and behold, made in Mexico was on the headstock.

Paul McCartney has also stated he doesn't pay attention to what brand of guitar he uses. Didn't he use a old cheap Epiphone to do "Yesterday" on Ed Sulivin?

Eddie Van Halen and Tom Morello both used cheap homemade guitars to make their first record. Jack White uses a $40.00 sears guitar. And wasn't Danelectro considered another cheap P.O.S. until Jimmy Page used it? Slash didn't actually use a Gibson Les Paul on Appitite for Distruction, but rather a custom built clone.

So my question is does Slash sound $2000.00 better since he's using real Les Pauls? Did Jimmy sound better on his Tele's and Paul's? If the expensive guitars are supposed to be so much better than cheaper ones, why is there great music being played and recorded on cheap guitars? If there was that big of a difference then why didn't the Lose Your Illustions records sound so much better than Appitite?

I say this because while the rest of us had normal Ibanez guitars this guy had a Steve Vai Jem 777. Funny thing is it sounded the same as the rest of the Ibanez's, had most of the features (does floyd rose make a better tremlo bar) and after the pick up upgrade the only difference was the money grip and paint job. But he kept telling us his guitar was so much better than the trash we were playing. Funny he didn't sound better. And it sure didn't play better. Maybe Ibanez forgot to pack the Steve Vai mojo.

 

[hixmix]

Paul McCartney has also stated he doesn't pay attention to what brand of guitar he uses. Didn't he use a old cheap Epiphone to do "Yesterday" on Ed Sulivin?
mojo.

I believe epi's were all around much better guitars back then. No?

 

[greenascanbe]

I believe epi's were all around much better guitars back then. No?

Not as good as his Martin... but thank goodness Paul wasn't a gear snob or one of the historic moments in rock and roll would have been missed.

 

[hixmix]

Not as good as his Martin... but thank goodness Paul wasn't a gear snob or one of the historic moments in rock and roll would have been missed.

Yeah. I think an even better example than the Epi might be Paul's Hofner, which was used in dozens of the great Beatle recordings. Hofner's were relatively inexpensive guitars at that time.