Jump to content

Why are Gibson guitars so expensive?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I suspect it has something to do with them having high prices.

 

Market forces at work: supply & demand, cost of production, marketing and distribution; etc.

 

I suspect neither of these answers is what you're looking for, though.

 

Might as well ask why Lamborghinis cost so much more than VWs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well...I really don't think $399 (the lowest-priced model in the 2017 lineup) is that expensive. AFAIK it's not possible to make a decent guitar in the USA for less. The Les Paul Faded for $799 is very sweet, and there are quite a few guitars in the sub-$1,000 range.

 

So I think your real question is why are Gibson's expensive guitars so expensive...like the Les Paul Standard, which lists for $2,799. There are multiple aspects to the Standard that fall into the "you get what you pay for" category.

 

First, all Gibson guitars are hand-made in the United States using almost exclusively American-made parts, so that leads to a higher price (and higher quality) from the gitgo. This makes a significant difference when you have something as labor- and time-intensive as, for example, the finish (which requires multiple applications over a long period of time). There's a definite dividing line in terms of price between, for example, high-gloss and satin finishes; high-gloss finishes are buffed at each stage, by hand, by humans who are paid American wages. (Also note that for some consumers, it's important to "buy American" and they know they can do that with Gibson.)

 

The Standard's wood top is AAA figured, which is as good as its gets in terms of visuals. But wood of that quality is very rare and expensive. The Standard also has an asymmetrical slim-profile neck. Asymmetrical necks are labor-intensive and difficult to get right. The hardshell cases are expensive too. They add several hundred dollars to the price.

 

There are also a ton of little things. For example, the frets have to be sent out to another company for cryogenic freezing (which reduces fret wear dramatically). Locking tuners cost more than non-locking types. The fingerboard is a single piece of thicker-than-average rosewood, and implements the more difficult-to-make compound radius instead of the usual standard radius. The electronics are more sophisticated, with four push-pull knobs to do tuned coil tap (like a single-coil sound, but not as thin), phase switching, and pure bypass. The wood used for the back is low-density, so it has to be hand-selected and evaluated (as well as being more rare). The less expensive guitars use medium-density wood.

 

I wrote a series of articles, not reviews, about the various guitars in the 2017 line, explaining the differences. If before doing the research for those articles you had asked me the difference between for example a Les Paul Tribute and a Les Paul Studio, I knew only the basics. It was very educational because I realized that each guitar at each price point has its raison d'etre. Some people are willing to pay a premium for exceptional visuals, but there are also guitars without the "luxury" features that are every bit as playable. For example if you can't afford a Les Paul Standard, I think the Les Paul Studio would be a good alternative for $1,499. It has a plain A top, doesn't have binding, has a standard slim profile neck instead of an asymmetrical one (with a standard radius fingerboard), uses non-locking tuners instead of locking types, and has two push-pull controls for tuned coil tap but lacks the phase and pure bypass options. Yet It still has the finish, the low-density wood, the cryogenically treated frets, the hardshell case, etc. and plays very much like the Standard. (If I wanted to spend the least amount for the best playability, I'd get the Les Paul Faded for $799. It's not fancy, but close your eyes and the playability is everything you'd expect from a Gibson. Besides, it's just plain cool.)

 

It's also very important to note that all Gibson guitars use the PLEK process for dressing the frets and cutting the nut to ensure the best possible action. You can get luthiers to PLEK your guitar, but it will cost you around $200-$300 so having the PLEK process be standard with all Gibson guitars adds considerably to the value.

 

There's a reason for the prices and the more I dig into how the guitars are made and what materials they use, the more I find out what they are. But your question is valid and important. I don't think Gibson has done a great job of educating people as to the differences among the various guitars so people can choose the one that's right for them. Hopefully the articles I wrote will help in that regard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Because they can be. Rickenbacker increased their prices years ago because they didn't want to expand to meet their orders, so they expected people to throw their hands up, but they didn't. The Beatles and Byrds fans still wanted their Rickenbackers, and they were willing to pay the nearly doubled price.

 

When I posted about Gibson's price increases on HCEG a while ago, I expected people to respond a with some remarks about their QC problems and buying the Gibson name, but everyone was pretty meh about it.

 

If they boosted Epiphone prices, I'd probably say the same, because I bought my Les Paul and S-800 used. My Casino Coupe was new, but you couldn't find a used one when I bought it because they'd just come out. Considering the quality, I'm not disappointed.

 

But I owned two Gibsons and prefer my Epiphones. I have no interest in buying a new Gibson anytime soon, but I'm not into high end guitars for the sake of buying one with a pretty finish or grade of wood from some indigenous forest, or even parading it around HCEG or Instagram. I'm not Gibson's target market, though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Because they can be.

 

There's a fairly straightforward formula for pricing that takes into account the parts, labor, dealer margins, support, etc. Lower prices tend to mean more market share...I bet if Standards went out the door for $1,999 Gibson would sell a lot more. But they'd lose money, so the point is moot. Gibson's done price increases, and held prices. There are a lot of variables.

 

I agree with you about Epiphones; they're excellent guitars. Bought an Epi bass for my daughter and she loves it. If I didn't have the $$ for a Gibson I'd have no problems going the Epi route, except for my preference to buy American instead of products made offshore.

 

I'm not into high end guitars for the sake of buying one with a pretty finish or grade of wood from some indigenous forest, or even parading it around HCEG or Instagram.

 

My priority is playability, although I will admit some guitars strike me more like a work of art, and I appreciate that. However, if I had to go out and buy a guitar tomorrow, I'd get the Les Paul Faded because I love how it feels. Doesn't matter to me that it doesn't have a grade AAA top.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

my two cents..I have one Gibson, a 1979 walnut 'The SG' bought it new, it was my workhorse through countless bar gigs from 1980 to 1991.

Paired with my 1980 Music Man 210 Seventy -five RP..it was a versatile and dependable combo that NEVER failed me through the years.The Norlin era SGs were built to take a beating....one set up on the SG from the get go..and string changes.. It would get a cloth wipe down after the gig and some fret dressing on the ebony fretboard every few years.

 

The different tone spectrum of the guitar/amp combo was legion..the pickups were just amazing on the SG..the natural sustain of the walnut body was and still is phenomenal..along with onboard Reverb and phaser of the MM..the only other effects I ever used were a dynacomp and an ancient Morley wah.

 

We played Blues/Country rock, Brit Pop hard rock, and Police like Reggae and Ska..

This combo handled all the bases.

I still have this combo..as a matter of fact I have every piece of gear I ever bought since I was 16.. even my first copper and white Silvertone/danolectro 417 from Sears.

I have two epis..a LP pro plus and the Sheraton Union Jack..I love the hell out if both these guitars..

needed nothing more than a set up right out of the box.

I will probably never get another Gibson...too expensive, the higher end ones are beautiful to behold and play..but even though I could afford one, I cannot justify a purchase.

Craig is right about the faded Gibson LP.. the price was even cheaper when I considered one...but the Epi pro top plus won out by a C hair..price was 547.00 ? but that wasn't a factor..it was just the better guitar for me.

 

Right now, my 2-3 'go tos' are neither Gibson or Epi..but all my guitars get equal play and maintenance.

 

I love my Ric Fire-glo 360/12 and my MIM tele with the noiseless PUs..I will also bring my American Standard strat along on a gig too..smaller and quieter venues..(and few and far between gigs by choice) just can't stay up that late anymore :-)

 

pair these guitars up with a versatile Vox 15..all 3 guitars sound great through the little portable Vox ..but the Ric sounds the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

FWIW I really didn't know much (at all!!) about what went into guitars before I joined Gibson. It was all about "I pick it up, I play it, I like it or don't like it." So it's been a real education for me. For example, I never knew that it mattered whether wood was harvested closer to a water source, or higher up a hill. I didn't know the specific ways in which mahogany necks were different compared to maple, or how the different types of weight relief worked...or why titanium is so good for bridges. Most of all, I never really thought about what was involved with making instruments out of what had been living things - both the pros and cons.

 

Recently I got turned on to Richlite. My knee jerk reaction was (of course) how could that be better for fingerboards than real ebony? Scanning forums, though, it seemed that people who didn't know much about guitars were against it while actual luthiers thought it was great. So I looked into it further. I liked that it was a totally renewable resource, but that was more like a bonus. Luthiers told me what they liked best about it, aside from the uniformity and knowing that every fingerboard was as good as every other fingerboard, was you could refret a guitar with a Richlite fingerboard without destroying it. With Gibson, that's not so important because of the cryogenic frets, but it did tell me that what is "traditional" is not always best.

 

What is traditional at Gibson is the hand-made aspect. I was quite taken aback when I toured the factory and saw how labor-intensive everything was, and how much was dependent on human judgement. Granted there are the PLEK machines, but I expected a lot more mass production/robots at work. I'm starting to think that all those human hands touching those instruments can't help but add some degree of mojo.

 

I'm still learning...one of the major fringe benefits of this gig.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

But I owned two Gibsons and prefer my Epiphones. I have no interest in buying a new Gibson anytime soon, but I'm not into high end guitars for the sake of buying one with a pretty finish or grade of wood from some indigenous forest, or even parading it around HCEG or Instagram. I'm not Gibson's target market, though.

 

 

I just bought an Epiphone Casino Elitist - and wow, am I impressed. I keep hearing folks comparing Epiphone and Gibson and in many cases, preferring the Epis. The competition is probably good all the way around.

 

Gibson has gotten so big and diverse - I assume they are in another world than the old guitar shop where there was just raw materials, labor, and markup for basic overhead - with two or three levels of management taking care of it all. Now they've got a large workforce and complex supply chain, international and US taxes, the regulatory environment, environmental issues, exchange rates, national and international political goings-on, the price of gas, global weather patterns, black market and fakes as competition, the company "face" and culture, sophisticated marketing and advertising, inventory control, interest rates, on and on and on. It's a complicated world and big business is over-the-top complex and getting more so all the time. Part of the zeitgeist is the public yearning for a simpler world but only achieving a false simplicity via ideological imagination - or lack of imagination perhaps said better.

 

In the big picture, there is so much quality gear at such historically great prices. We're spoiled!

 

nat

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gibson has gotten so big and diverse - I assume they are in another world than the old guitar shop where there was just raw materials, labor, and markup for basic overhead - with two or three levels of management taking care of it all. Now they've got a large workforce and complex supply chain, international and US taxes, the regulatory environment, environmental issues, exchange rates, national and international political goings-on, the price of gas, global weather patterns, black market and fakes as competition, the company "face" and culture, sophisticated marketing and advertising, inventory control, interest rates, on and on and on.

 

The complexity boggles my mind. I'm aware of much of it, and monitor as much info as I can, but thankfully Gibson recognizes my primary talents lie elsewhere :)

 

But this too has been educational. I know most of the people in accounting, statistics, and legal, and am blown away by the kind of skills those jobs require. I never really grasped that high level "number crunchers" crunch many different kinds of numbers in many different kinds of ways (and Gibson generates a lot of numbers). In a way they're like doctors - they look at the numbers to assess the health and well-being of the company, as well as the health of the industry, retailers, etc. One thing I've learned is that doing numbers is the easy part compared to drawing meaningful conclusions from data.

 

I don't want to overstay my welcome in this thread. The bottom line is love being in an environment where I'm constantly learning, so as you can probably tell this gig is right up my alley.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

Martin guitars are expensive, too. Last time I visited the Martin factory was in the 1970s when they were much smaller than they are today. Most of the workers, though having their specifc work areas in the factory, could build a whole guitar themselves with a little help. And even today there's a lot of hand work.

 

For a long time, I thought that an electric guitar was just a place to hold the strings and pickups, and that the actual design was mostly cosmetic. One thing I'm learning from playing with MODO Bass is that bodies actually make a difference in the sound. But because every piece of wood is different, even once you've settled on a body design, somebody has to make sure that the piece of wood is "within tolerance" however they measure that. Used to be by knocking on it, but it may be more scientific now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My take on this is similar to what others have said, but this is from my own ponderings over the years.

 

I got my first Epiphone Casino (what you would call the elitist at the moment) in 1965. It was a three hundred dollar guitar and what you would buy if you couldn't quite afford a 335. A 335 was $500 and I got one of those too because I couldn't stand the Casino feedback on stage after a while. I picked up a Casino to hold and feel out in a store this year (the dark-back one like mine, not that lesser-priced gawdy plywoody looking version). It's just like mine. It's still a $300 guitar now priced at $2200.. A 335 (variants included) are still $500 guitars but priced at I don't know what.

 

I've owned four Les Paul Customs brand new since 1974. Cost me around $400 each (dealer cost, retail was about $700). I still have my 25th anniversary one white/black (or maybe its 20th anniversary.... was 1975 or so when I bought that one). I also still have my Deluxes and Standards that I paid slightly less for in that time frame. They're still worth the same in my mind now.

 

I pick up a Les Paul custom in stores when I see one... just to feel it. Despite the 6 grand sticker and lit up glass case its in, it's still a $500 guitar. I know.... I've got them at home. No way is there now $5500 extra "stuff" in that guitar in the store now..... and while anyone can produce numbers on the amount sunk into the thing based on current dollars, rare toggle switches etc, there is still only ONE reason in my mind that the Gibson guitars are priced so far out there.....

 

And it's basically a cool reason that I'm fine with because hey... I'm not in the market for any of them because I already have them.

 

There are actually two reasons. One would be the word Corvette. And the second is good ole......... Epiphone.

 

Gibson is Epiphone is Gibson is Epiphone is Gibson is Epiphone. We all knew that in 1965. No secret there. You can't afford a 335? Heck, buy a Casino. It sorta looks the same (and....no....no.....get your eyes of those current Beatles pics that have been popping up this year at Shea etc.... disregard that for a few minutes... in fact, just disregard that part). Buy a Casino, Gibson gets your money in 1965 dollars. Get tired of the Casino and realize WHY you need a 335, pony up the cash next year and get one. Again, Gibson gets your money.

 

Okay, we're rolling through 1970-1980 and that works pretty well. Lots of Les Pauls (albeit there weren't 123000 versions of gibson Les pauls that decade... at least not all in the same week) being sold at sub $1000. About the same price as a couple of Peavey amps on the side or a twin. Can't quite even swing a Les Paul Custom/Deluxe/Standard? Get an SG for a couple hundred bucks less. Hey, lots of guys like that sound better anyway. Or a flying V or Firebird. All at around accessible 1976 prices. ANY musician had a couple grand to throw around over the course of several times a year for new guitars. And hey, maybe you'd get a Strat while you're at it.

 

But.....they are/were/will always be.... in my mind..... $500.

 

Okay, we're in the 21st century and what has changed with Gibson is Epiphone is Gibson is Epiphone is Gibson is Epiphone?

 

One thing.... the very cool thing (something Norlin would've never thought of I'm sure)....

 

The world is now full of dot coms and stock brockers and investment bankers and doctors and politicians (and bums and addicts and losers and fast food workers.... and cool people and not-cool people) who WERE teens in the 70s, are parents/grandparents now and......and......Heyyyyyyy........ let's clone most EVERY hot Gibson guitar simultaneously under the Epiphone label and thereby re-introduce the PRICE POINT that all these old people now want for their kids/grandkids. BRILLIANT

 

Same concept. Can't afford a Les Paul Custom at $6 grand. No prob. Pick up my 1975 Les Paul in one hand ($500 guitar in 1975) and pick up an Epipone Les Paul Custom in the other hand (a $500 guitar today). What diff do you feel.... hear... detect?

 

None? FANTASTIC. Are you being snooty, saying "this is NOT a Les Paul? Cool, let me get a Gibson Les Paul off the wall for you and pull out your credit card. Not so snooty? "Dang, this Epi is from every angle... just like the 1976 Gibson. I'll take it. Cool.

 

Either way, Gibson gets your cash.

 

And... imo.... how did this brilliant idea come to someone at Gibson in that lightbulb moment?

 

One simple thought. Corvette.

 

How many corvettes could GM sell if they repriced them at a third of the going sticker price?

 

The answer if you're GM....... who cares?

 

If I owned Gibson, I'd probably NEVER ask how many Les Paul Customs (ETC) we sold last year. I'd be all over the Epiphone numbers though. In fact, depending on how I interpreted the year, I'd probably jack the Gibson guitar prices UP here and there. And hey, fire out some additional models.

 

It has NEVER not worked.

 

That said, when my personal darling, the rare Firebird 12 string electric that graced my hands in the studio for a week of sessions in 1974 is re-released, Gibson or Epiphone..... you WILL get my cash immediately. And I'm guessing it'll be on the Gibson side just for their amusement.

 

Seemingly outrageous prices or not, the industry as a whole still gets my money every now and then. I used to could buy White Falcons new at around $800 in the mid 70s. When I added some in the 80s, I was paying around $2000 dealer cost and now, for the next couple I'll be buying (to feed my incurable addiction), it's gonna be in the $4 grand range. I honestly have to say, even White Falcons are $800 guitars.

 

But what can I do? There is no Gretschiphone equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I do think it's important to differentiate among Gibson USA, Epiphone, Memphis, and Custom. I was referring to Gibson USA. The Custom shop is a whole other thing, because it has to duplicate guitars rather than just manufacture them.

 

IIRC Gibson put together a presentation for dealers of the differences among Les Pauls from Epiphone, Gibson USA, and the Custom Shop. I'll find out if that was posted anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Consider the lowly VW bug - $1823 brand new in 1970. The new one: about $22000. It isn't so much the value is 10x what it was (although you could argue that the new ones are far superior); it's more that the money is worth 1/10 of what it was. Keeping that in mind, it's not out of line that a $500 guitar in 1970 might run $5000+ today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just to add - there are lots of inflation calculators online. I used this one (it's based on the Consumer Price Index - so it's a purchasing power yardstick) to pull the following:

 

$500 in 1965, same value in 2016 dollars = $3,790.46

 

$700 in 1970, same value in 2016 dollars = $4,391.71

 

$1,823 in 1970, same value in 2016 dollars = $11,437.27

 

Hard to believe, but true anyway, that inflation rate in the late 70s, hitting around 14% annual.

 

I would also just point out that current vehicles are light-years better than the (relative) junk we drove in the 70s. In case you've forgotten just what a pain cars used to be compared to their reliability, longevity, and general comfort and amenities today. Oh, I'm very sentimental about my first vehicle which was a 1968 Ford F100 stepsides pickup with a wooden truckbed - but I had to work on it every weekend just to keep it on the road. By the time I sold it, I had replaced probably 80% of the thing not including the body and frame.

 

nat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Recently I got turned on to Richlite. My knee jerk reaction was (of course) how could that be better for fingerboards than real ebony? Scanning forums, though, it seemed that people who didn't know much about guitars were against it while actual luthiers thought it was great. So I looked into it further. I liked that it was a totally renewable resource, but that was more like a bonus. Luthiers told me what they liked best about it, aside from the uniformity and knowing that every fingerboard was as good as every other fingerboard, was you could refret a guitar with a Richlite fingerboard without destroying it. With Gibson, that's not so important because of the cryogenic frets, but it did tell me that what is "traditional" is not always best.

 

 

 

I hate to admit it, but it took me a couple of weeks with a guitar with a Richlite fingerboard before I even noticed that it wasn't ebony. :0 IMHO, the feel and look are nearly indistinguishable. And like you said, it's renewable, more stable (it won't crack) and more durable. It also won't chip when you refret it based on the comments from the luthiers I've heard discussing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

I hate to admit it, but it took me a couple of weeks with a guitar with a Richlite fingerboard before I even noticed that it wasn't ebony. :0 IMHO, the feel and look are nearly indistinguishable.

 

Is this the stuff made of compressed paper? I talked with those folks at NAMM and mentioned it in my daily dribbles, though decided to leave it out of my full report and let the people who know more about guitar technicalities talk about it if it's worth talking about.

 

What did you notice about it that made you realize that it wasn't ebony? Feel? Or that it looked too perfect? Or something else?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is this the stuff made of compressed paper?

 

Yes - I believe it's recycled paper (65%) and phenolic resin (35%) which is compressed and heated to form a solid material.

 

http://www.richlite.com/what-is-richlite/

 

I talked with those folks at NAMM and mentioned it in my daily dribbles, though decided to leave it out of my full report and let the people who know more about guitar technicalities talk about it if it's worth talking about.

 

What did you notice about it that made you realize that it wasn't ebony? Feel? Or that it looked too perfect? Or something else?

 

I noticed when I started doing photos and was getting really, really close and doing a detailed survey of the guitar. There's no pores or grain in it. Ebony is extremely tight grained and smooth (and Richlite is also smooth), so unless you look very close, you probably wouldn't notice.

 

Like I said, feel is nearly indistinguishable. The Richlite may be just a touch smoother and a bit easier to bend strings on, but IMHO any differences are pretty negligible. I honestly didn't notice it wasn't ebony and just assumed it was.

 

I looked into Richlite once I knew they used it on the guitar, and it has some very interesting properties that seem to make it an ideal replacement for ebony. It's sustainable. It doesn't crack like ebony can. It is much more stable and could help the guitar neck to be more warp resistant. It doesn't crack or chip when you try to refret it. In fact, I can't find a single thing to fault it for... except that it's "not ebony" - and yeah, that's still going to make an emotional difference to some folks, despite the fact that it appears to be the superior fretboard material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Philboking....."Consider the lowly VW bug - $1823 brand new in 1970. The new one: about $22000. It isn't so much the value is 10x what it was (although you could argue that the new ones are far superior); it's more that the money is worth 1/10 of what it was. Keeping that in mind, it's not out of line that a $500 guitar in 1970 might run $5000+ today....."

 

While I mentioned the today's dollars consideration, my opinion is that Gibson couldn't do the Epi LP Custom at all if the today's dollars thing were true. They just couldn't do it. No matter where they're building them. I constantly a/b those Epi LPCs with my own Gibson Les Pauls, even simply holding one in each hand sometimes to run my hands over the necks, feel the weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm late to the party (been gigging a lot) so I haven't read all the previous posts, so please forgive me if I'm repeating. Also, I'm on the outside - looking in so my guesses can be totally wrong. But here is how I'm figuring it:

 

1) Made in USA. Labor is more expensive here than it is in many other countries

 

2) Quality woods and parts. None of those cheap pickup switches that break in a year or so - and so on

 

3) The name - Gibson has worked very hard to have a good name in the business and that is worth a lot of money.

 

4) Every business charges whatever the market will bear. That only goes for the "Gibson" name but for their models as well. If people will pay a thousand dollars more to get a facsimile of a famous guitarist's signature on the guitar, the manufacturer will charge it.

 

Fender does the same thing. I remember when Fenders were relatively cheap guitars, but the reputation and brand building has taken the humble starter guitar - the tele - and made it a desired and pricey guitar.

 

My Epiphone Casino is IMHO 95% as good as my Gibson ES330 but at about 1/4 the price. It was made in Korea (Peerless plant), has MOT inlays instead of MOP, poly finish instead of nitro, and the wood must not be as good because when not plugged in, the Gibson has a fuller tone.

 

Is the 330 worth 4 Casinos? That depends on the player.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...