Are Gibson LP's way overpriced?

[Eddie]

so i dont understand what any of what you are saying has to do with gibsons being overpriced, or with the cost of manufacture vs the retail price which is what you initially claimed to know about.

Let me know what I can do to help you understand. So far I've posted:
-Videos of Hamer's factory. You can find many videos from Gibson's factory and compare.
-A comparison of the materials on the Hamers and Gibsons I had.
-Links.
-Explanations.

But don't try to twist my words. When/where exactly did I claim to know about cost of manufacture vs. retail price?
I do know quite a bit about it from an economics perspective, as well as about economies of scale and economies of scope, but don't recall that being the essence of any of my posts in this thread.
I have no information regarding Gibson's cost, and pricing strategies are chosen by the organization and/or by the CEO. These strategies may or may not be related to actual costs.

Since you mentioned that "people have absolutely no idea how things are made and what things cost." I did post about that comment. If you have any question regarding my specific reply, just let me know.

For now I'll add a formula:

Value=Attributes/Price

Attributes include the product's characteristics, such as quality, materials, etc.
For someone buying a guitar, these may include wood(s), electronics, whether or not a case is included, craftsmanship, tone, etc.

Given the same Attributes, an item with a lower Price represents a better Value.

Given the same Price, an item with more attractive Attributes represents a better Value.

This formula makes it easy to see whether or not an item is overpriced. One reason I bought my Gibsons was precisely the relatively low price I paid. I would never buy them at their regular "street price."

For some people, brand name may be an attribute. Country of origin may also be an attribute. Some people want to say that they have a US-made Gibson (or a Harley or whatever). That's perfectly acceptable, and related to branding which I mentioned on an earlier post. Some people are willing to pay for those attributes which have zero effect on the guitar's tone and playability. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but I'm not one of them

[Willyguitar]

The rich aren't the majority, true enough. They don't NEED to be in the majority. Because each rich person is WORTH MORE, a lot more, than a poor person. How much more, exactly? ... So, anyway. Rich people are more important than non-rich people, and they COUNT for more. They matter more. The world tends to revolve around them, and why shouldn't it? That's where the money is.

Hopefully you are being ironic. If not, this is how I feel:

Perhaps we could use poor people to wipe our arses?... even better, use them as cannon fodder, by testing out our weapons on them, or fooling them into fighting a pointless war! Then, when thousands of poor people die, somewhere in Asia, we can make it back page news because they don't matter.

I've heard some bollocks on this forum, but this really takes the biscuit. In fact, it makes me want to pull the plug completely... not that I find it very surprising.



Long live the poor (especially those who invented the very basis of most of the music you play on your shiny Gibson).

[jordan8865]

I'm in the market for a new guitar. I went to a few dealers today. I live in a smaller town and none of them carry Gibson, but one shop had a used Gibson LP standard double cut. I played the Gibson, a few Epiphone LP's, and two LP knockoffs, forgot which brands. The Gibson was the worst of the bunch to me. The Epi's were good, even the knockoffs. Do I need to make a trip to a bigger store and try more Gibson models? I wouldn't mind paying a premium if that's what it takes to get a great Gibson. I guess my question is, do the expensive Gibson LP's in the $2000+ range play better than the cheaper, $1000-$1500 ones? Are vintage Gibsons better than new ones as far as feel and playability? Should I forget about Gibson and go Epiphone or another brand? I also played a Schecter C1-Elite and really like it.

 

 

 

I wouldn't judge Gibson based on that one guitar you tried. There are some great Gibsons and some {censored}ty ones. And a $2,000 Gibby isn't necessarily going to sound better than a cheaper one. Personally, a good Les Paul is my favorite guitar in both sound and playability. I love a nice fat neck. As far as vintage Gibsons go, an older one isn't going to play better simply because it's older. Try a bunch of guitars out and see what you like! Good luck.

[jordan8865]

Yeah, the LPs are incredibly overpriced, there's something worse though. Their acoustics are the most {censored}ing {censored}ty-sounding guitars EVER and they still cost an arm and a leg when my sub-$750 Taylor sounds better than EVERY ONE OF THEM. Rant over.

 

 

that's an odd generalization

[kherman]

I just recently got the new American Music Supply catalog.
LP Standard '08 Plus is up to almost $2800.
LP Traditional Plus is almost up to $2500.

U.S. guitars in general are getting expensive.
New Jacksons, Hamers, Heritages, Parkers, are all getting up there in
price.
Even Carvins when optioned out push over the $1500 mark very quickly.

Basically it's like the cost of living isn't keeping up with the cost of consumer goods (at least U.S. goods).

As much as I'd like to say "Buy USA".
I pretty much can't afford it these days.
At least not new.

[metallica_00]

For now I'll add a formula: Value=Attributes/Price Attributes include the product's characteristics, such as quality, materials, etc. For someone buying a guitar, these may include wood(s), electronics, whether or not a case is included, craftsmanship, tone, etc. Given the same Attributes, an item with a lower Price represents a better Value. Given the same Price, an item with more attractive Attributes represents a better Value.

 

 

Great post - this is what I'm talking about! There are some guitars that are more expensive than your average Gibson that I would consider a better value. Hamer is definitely one of them - maybe more expensive, but much more guitar. The last Newport I played was $2200. That guitar was so good they could have charged $4000. Killer stuff. To me, that guitar is a "good deal" even though there might be comparable guitars that are cheaper (although the Newport is somewhat unique, but let's run with it). I'm perfectly happy to pay a little more if I get more. And there are many brands out there that are like Hamer - maybe a bit more expensive, maybe a bit less expensive, but consistently putting out a superb product. That's why I find it tough to understand why people keep buying Gibson when these things exist - not the Epis and Rondos, but the Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, and McInturffs of the world.

[_Idioteque_]

Yes. So are Epiphones. Buy an Edwards. Buy an Heritage. {censored} Epiphone and Gibson.

[Tone Deaf]

Great post - this is what I'm talking about! There are some guitars that are more expensive than your average Gibson that I would consider a better value. Hamer is definitely one of them - maybe more expensive, but much more guitar. The last Newport I played was $2200. That guitar was so good they could have charged $4000. Killer stuff. To me, that guitar is a "good deal" even though there might be comparable guitars that are cheaper (although the Newport is somewhat unique, but let's run with it). I'm perfectly happy to pay a little more if I get more. And there are many brands out there that are like Hamer - maybe a bit more expensive, maybe a bit less expensive, but consistently putting out a superb product. That's why I find it tough to understand why people keep buying Gibson when these things exist - not the Epis and Rondos, but the Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, and McInturffs of the world.

 

 

For some people, value as defined by Eddie's post is not the only factor in their purchase decision. There is an intangible value to be had in owning the original, a piece of rock n roll history. For those folks, anything else is just a copy, or something less than the real deal, regardless of cost. For some, this justifies the extra cost (as compared to an Agile) or a lesser value (as compared to a Hamer) for others it does not. If you are in the "does not" camp, you aren't going to understand it, so quit trying, play the guitar you purchased and enjoy it, while allowing others to enjoy the one they purchased.

[Crisco]

I'm in the market for a new guitar...... The Gibson was the worst of the bunch to me. The Epi's were good, even the knockoffs. Do I need to make a trip to a bigger store and try more Gibson models? I wouldn't mind paying a premium if that's what it takes to get a great Gibson. I guess my question is, do the expensive Gibson LP's in the $2000+ range play better than the cheaper, $1000-$1500 ones? Are vintage Gibsons better than new ones as far as feel and playability? Should I forget about Gibson and go Epiphone or another brand? I also played a Schecter C1-Elite and really like it.

 

You seem to be answering your own questions to a point.

Gibson is hit or miss these days regardless of price point.

Epiphone has similarities in that department too but look to have gotten a grip on them lately.

If "The Name On The Headstock Must Say Gibson" then by all means scour the earth for that one that will convince you your savings didn't go to waste.

If not, then the guitar you choose that feels great in your hands and satisfies the feeling of never questioning your final choice on the guitar will be the winner.

[Eddie]

For some people, value as defined by Eddie's post is not the only factor in their purchase decision. There is an intangible value to be had in owning the original, a piece of rock n roll history. For those folks, anything else is just a copy, or something less than the real deal, regardless of cost. For some, this justifies the extra cost (as compared to an Agile) or a lesser value (as compared to a Hamer) for others it does not. If you are in the "does not" camp, you aren't going to understand it, so quit trying, play the guitar you purchased and enjoy it, while allowing others to enjoy the one they purchased.

Those intangibles are part of the Attributes in the equation.
They have little or nothing to do with the product itself, but they're important to some people. That's why many people are willing to pay for certain brands. And some brands are representative of a "lifestyle."
After all, "Only a Gibson is good enough" and "Until you've been on a Harley-Davidson, you haven't been on a motorcycle."

[ihavenofish]

Great post - this is what I'm talking about! There are some guitars that are more expensive than your average Gibson that I would consider a better value. Hamer is definitely one of them - maybe more expensive, but much more guitar. The last Newport I played was $2200. That guitar was so good they could have charged $4000. Killer stuff. To me, that guitar is a "good deal" even though there might be comparable guitars that are cheaper (although the Newport is somewhat unique, but let's run with it). I'm perfectly happy to pay a little more if I get more. And there are many brands out there that are like Hamer - maybe a bit more expensive, maybe a bit less expensive, but consistently putting out a superb product. That's why I find it tough to understand why people keep buying Gibson when these things exist - not the Epis and Rondos, but the Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, and McInturffs of the world.

thats like saying "i dont understand why people buy porsches when things like bugatti veyrons are available". of course theres nicer guitars than gibsons, and definitely ones with better value for the dollar compared to the upper end gibbys. if anything, you end up making an argument that hamers are just as overpriced if not more, because they add in $15 worth of extra materials, have less overhead and charge alot more.

you cant use the same argument to justify one brands price and knock down anothers. no logic to it. if you are boiling it down to "cause i like it more" then this whole discussion is pointless - and of course it has been since 2007 when this thread was started .

the basic reality is that gibsons cost more to make than most guitars, they spend alot of money promoting, and they tightly control the retail chain. end result is that they simply cost alot to buy. once you get to the les paul standard and above, the price starts going up on prestige with little to no added "value". but below that level, its all pretty fair. whether YOU can justify the price of what they are selling is a personal matter.

[Eddie]

the basic reality is that gibsons cost more to make than most guitars, they spend alot of money promoting, and they tightly control the retail chain. end result is that they simply cost alot to buy. once you get to the les paul standard and above, the price starts going up on prestige with little to no added "value". but below that level, its all pretty fair. whether YOU can justify the price of what they are selling is a personal matter.

 

 

Does Gibson live in an alternate reality where mass production actually increases costs per unit?

Sure, they cost a lot to buy. That has little to do with how much it costs to make them. Marketing and branding have more to do with determining the price.

Reminds me of when CDs came out. They were cheaper to make than tape and vinyl, yet record companies charged more money for the new format.

 

In the end it is indeed a personal matter, and people make their own choices (often while being manipulated by marketing).

metallica_00's question is indeed logical. Why would people spend more money when there are alternatives that may be better and/or cheaper?

Why would people chose Gibson over Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, and McInturffs?

Would I buy a Porsche instead of a Bugatti if they were similarly priced?

 

I do agree with you in that making a purchase and determining whether something is worth it for the buyer is a personal matter. Again, brand name or country of origin may be important attributes for some people.

But it has little to do with actual costs, and it has little to do with logic.

 

At the same time -once we realize that our purchasing behavior may be illogical- we can also objectively compare different products based on their actual characteristics (i.e., we can compare Gibsons, Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, Driskills, Giffins, McInturffs, etc.), and make more informed purchasing decisions.

[milosch]

No.

[ihavenofish]

Since you say that "they add in $15 worth of extra materials, have less overhead and charge alot more" , can you be more specific? I have not seen the $15 of materials. I've seen more labor intensive operations using qualified craftsmen, and I've seen many Gibsons that are more expensive than comparable Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, and McInturffs. Overhead may be in proportion to the company size. I'm not going to speculate, though. Still, it gets prorated and Gibson makes hundreds of thousands of instruments per year. Not to mention the benefits they have through economies of scale and scope, and lean manufacturing.

 

 

you dont know what it costs to make things then, and aparently arent familiar with how many guitars gibson usa makes in a year. which gets back to my original point you tried to dispute. "thinking" one technique costs more than another doesnt make it reality.

 

im not arguing the value of gibsons or any other brand, im just saying - as someone who has alot of knowledge of shop and factory costs particularly relating to CNC - that the retail cost on the core models is in line with the cost of manufacturing them, and on some of the lower end models that are likely selling at a loss. you could easily argue that the expense of their manufacturing techniques arent justified by the result, but it doesnt make the actual cost any less.

[Eddie]

im not arguing the value of gibsons or any other brand, im just saying - as someone who has alot of knowledge of shop and factory costs particularly relating to CNC - that the retail cost on the core models is in line with the cost of manufacturing them, and on some of the lower end models that are likely selling at a loss. you could easily argue that the expense of their manufacturing techniques arent justified by the result, but it doesnt make the actual cost any less.

 

 

I'm not familiar with the actual costs of any guitar manufacturer, but I do know that once we use automation and increase volume, production costs per unit drop. Costs per unit are not going to be the same when producing 10 vs. 100 vs. 10,000 units.

Unless management is totally messed up, Gibson's cost should be relatively low. They're not only reducing costs due to mass production, but also with their costs of materials.

If I buy one container (or however they're sold) of Honduran Mahogany I'll get a price. If I buy 1,000 containers, I'll get a discounted price. The same goes for electronics, tools, glue, plastic, and so on.

 

I can see how costs would affect smaller luthiers. Buying and setting up automated systems can certainly be expensive. I think Gene Baker had some articles about this years ago.

 

I can also see how costs affect companies like Hamer. That's part of Jol's way of doing things. He could certainly make things cheaper. But he has said: "I have a saying at the shop: damn the accountants, because good accounting makes for bad guitar building."

Hamer's process is labor-intensive, and they take their time at different stages of the process (e.g., letting the necks dry for 2 months on a rack, taking 14 days to put the finish on, etc.).

 

But when it comes to Gibson, I'm pretty sure that their manufacturing costs are relatively low. And that's a good thing. In fact, it's a great thing. If they manage to offer the same level of quality as the Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, and McInturffs at a similar price I would give Gibson another try.

For now, I bought 2 this year and sold both of them.

One LP Standard that I absolutely loved belongs to a friend. I played it maybe 10 years ago. When my friend spent $500 to repair the headstock I jokingly said that for that much money he could buy a new guitar. He said that paying for the repair was worth it, since it was a $5,000 instrument. And I don't think he paid retail price. That one is a really nice Gibson!

[D Carroll]

No. If you think they are, buy an alternative... But, for me, I don't like les pauls, but if I had the money, I would be more than willing to pay asking price for the right semi from gibson.

[ihavenofish]

Based on some of the differences I mentioned before (mother of pearl, AAA top) it's very easy to check for prices. You can get MOP inlays for maybe $10 for the whole fingerboard. Prices vary quite a bit for the maple tops, depending on figure and thickness. A 5/8" AAA Broadleaf Maple wood blanks may cost $40. I'm using the lowest price I found. I'm not sure how representative this is, but $15 seems too low if we also include other differences like hardware for example. Regarding guitar production you're correct. I don't know their numbers. And I did not say it was the production of Gibson USA, by the way. A single Gibson brand (Garrison) estimated their production to reach 100 per day a few years ago. If they work 50 weeks a year, 5 days a week, they produce 25,000 guitars. Add other Gibson brands such as Epiphone, Kramer, Steinberger, Tobias, Valley Arts, etc. Now add the Gibson brand. My guess is that they in fact produce, at the very least, 100,000 guitars per year. This does not include other instruments. When I mentioned economies of scale and scope, everything the company produces becomes relevant. In contrast, Hamer builds maybe 2 guitars a day. I'm not familiar with the actual costs of any guitar manufacturer, but I do know that once we use automation and increase volume, production costs per unit drop. Costs per unit are not going to be the same when producing 10 vs. 100 vs. 10,000 units. Unless management is totally messed up, Gibson's cost should be relatively low. They're not only reducing costs due to mass production, but also with their costs of materials. If I buy one container (or however they're sold) of Honduran Mahogany I'll get a price. If I buy 1,000 containers, I'll get a discounted price. The same goes for electronics, tools, glue, plastic, and so on. I can see how costs would affect smaller luthiers. Buying and setting up automated systems can certainly be expensive. I think Gene Baker had some articles about this years ago. I can also see how costs affect companies like Hamer. That's part of Jol's way of doing things. He could certainly make things cheaper. But he has said: "I have a saying at the shop: damn the accountants, because good accounting makes for bad guitar building." Hamer's process is labor-intensive, and they take their time at different stages of the process (e.g., letting the necks dry for 2 months on a rack, taking 14 days to put the finish on, etc.). But when it comes to Gibson, I'm pretty sure that their manufacturing costs are relatively low. And that's a good thing. In fact, it's a great thing. If they manage to offer the same level of quality as the Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, and McInturffs at a similar price I would give Gibson another try. For now, I bought 2 this year and sold both of them. One LP Standard that I absolutely loved belongs to a friend. I played it maybe 10 years ago. When my friend spent $500 to repair the headstock I jokingly said that for that much money he could buy a new guitar. He said that paying for the repair was worth it, since it was a $5,000 instrument. And I don't think he paid retail price. That one is a really nice Gibson!

 

 

 

 

i dont see the point arguing, ill just throw out a few points:

 

lest i understood, gibson usa prodices 40-50 thousand guitars a year. since they are the brand being questioned, i dont think the numbers of the others matter as they effectively operate as different companies.

 

a AAA flame maple top in one off quantity i can go buy for $25 or less. i factory volume its more like $10 to $15 - thats AFTER waste. that makes it about $5 MORE than the cheaper A grade flame maple caps. note that AAA is the highest grade recognised by the lumber industry, and therefore the most expensive. anything above that is just "cause the seller thought it was pretty". mother of pearl for a fretboard its worth at most a dollar or 2 in production volumes.

 

"materials" is always the absolute least of the cost in a guitar. they justify very little price increase. even a solid brazilian rosewood les paul with sterling silver inlays wouldnt justify more than a few hundred dollars in actual materials upcharge.

 

as for mass production, yes, it can actually cost more to make something in in volume than one off. the invensment gibson has made in their machinery in recent years is likey more than hamers entire revenue. so technically, yes, the might save a few bucks per guitar in labour, but the overhead must factored in there, and in gibsons case its not trivial. gibson hasnt dont what fender has... fender made a mass producable guitar.. gibson has taken a hand made guitar and tried to mass produce it while changing very little of the design and feature set. and to note, CNC is rarely a cost saver in guitar building (or anything else). most of the cheapest guitars are made entirely by hand.. because its cheaper. CNC adds huge overhead and operating costs and skilled labour. its generally only added to increase throughput and consistency on complicated tasks.. like chambering for example. otherwise basic manual and automated machinery is the most cost efficient.

[golias]

All this brand cheerleading is pointless.

 

I have a Gibson guitar, and I'm happy with it. It cost me $800, and I feel I got my money's worth.

 

Others have Agile guitars, and are happy with them. They payed between $200 and $500, depending on the model, and I'm sure they feel they got their money's worth.

 

Nobody is "wrong." Find the guitar you like, buy it if you feel the price is justified, and go rock.

[Eddie]

gibson hasnt dont what fender has... fender made a mass producable guitar.. gibson has taken a hand made guitar and tried to mass produce it while changing very little of the design and feature set. and to note, CNC is rarely a cost saver in guitar building (or anything else). most of the cheapest guitars are made entirely by hand.. because its cheaper. CNC adds huge overhead and operating costs and skilled labour. its generally only added to increase throughput and consistency on complicated tasks.. like chambering for example. otherwise basic manual and automated machinery is the most cost efficient.

 

 

But let's not confound the issue here. When you say that "most of the cheapest guitars are made entirely by hand.. because its cheaper" you're not referring to Gibsons, Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, McInturffs, etc.

Or to US labor.

Or to qualified luthiers with years of experience.

Or are you?

 

In addition, CNC machines have been used for decades. Prices are not as expensive as before, particularly for large companies, and from what I've seen, these days there's also the option of buying used machines that are as good as new.

 

Since we're talking about Gibson and CNC:

 

"CNC machines and guitar making go together as well as

[Brewski]

Gigadee!! Goo Gah!

[Eddie]

All this brand cheerleading is pointless. I have a Gibson guitar, and I'm happy with it. It cost me $800, and I feel I got my money's worth. Others have Agile guitars, and are happy with them. They payed between $200 and $500, depending on the model, and I'm sure they feel they got their money's worth. Nobody is "wrong." Find the guitar you like, buy it if you feel the price is justified, and go rock.

Do you feel that your Gibson is worth $1700?
I was very tempted to buy it when I saw it, and $800 was indeed a great price.
I'm happy that I got my Gibsons also quite cheap. At their regular "sale price" I would not have bought them, though. As metallica_00 mentioned, there are many great options in that price range.

I'm open to any brand

[ihavenofish]

But let's not confound the issue here. When you say that "most of the cheapest guitars are made entirely by hand.. because its cheaper " you're not referring to Gibsons, Heritages, Hamers, Bakers, McInturffs, etc. Or to US labor. Or to qualified luthiers with years of experience. Or are you? In addition, CNC machines have been used for decades. Prices are not as expensive as before, particularly for large companies, and from what I've seen, these days there's also the option of buying used machines that are as good as new. Since we're talking about Gibson and CNC: "CNC machines and guitar making go together as well as

[Eddie]

...in virtually every industry, the mere mention of CNC means "its gonna cost a fortune". its only used in production when it can do something no other process can.

But hasn't it gotten better in the past 5 or 10 years?
From what I've read it's cheaper than before especially when buying used, and some CNC machines include some sort of training programs that are easy to follow, reducing training costs as well as skills required by the operator.

And thanks for the very eloquent post
Your specific scenario was very clear.

[ihavenofish]

But hasn't it gotten better in the past 5 or 10 years? From what I've read it's cheaper than before especially when buying used, and some CNC machines include some sort of training programs that are easy to follow, reducing training costs as well as skills required by the operator. And thanks for the very eloquent post Your specific scenario was very clear.

haha.. ok, you want to hear a rant? ill tell you about the over priced made in america cnc mills!

oh man. ill just say that, yes, the sticker prices on cnc mills seem to have gotton cheaper, but the end cost of ownership has not. what theyve been doing it ripping out all the useful features and then slapping on a low price tag. then you walk in and much akin to an american car dealer, that entry level mill starts costing more than the high end german and japanese models. they are also built like crap, and as ive said, youll be happy for an 8 hour a day, 5 day a week shift on these things. they are "disposable" mills to alot of companies actually. thats not something a guitar shop can afford though. the so called training you get with the machines is a run through of the manual... you still need a qualified and experienced machinist to run them.

as for used... the story is the same. you need to first get the thing inspected, then moved, then reinspected, then set up, aligned, and more often than not about 15-20k worth of parts replaced. likewise, alot of these older mills are not adequate for woodworking, they arent sealed properly. most of the used woodworking gantrys are likewise in terrible shape, abused by minimum wage sign shop employees. you CAN get some good used stuff, but its a serious effort to do, and wont save you as much money as youd think.

realistically, a single mill capable of handling what i consider an efficient medium guitar shop (my scenario posted above) will run $145,000 or more kitted out for a mix of wood and metal work and the ability to mill 3 bodies or necks at once. then add tooling, jigs, etc and your hitting $250k in a real hurry. in contrast, a good solid new pin router is $3k. it adds up real fast. the "cheapest" valid production solution capable of one guitar body or neck at a time and likely to be replaced in a year or 2 still runs well over $40,000.

blah!

[Ides of March]

Number one, anyone who says Gibson's are crap are {censored}ing idiots. That being said why is no one complaining about PRS's being overpriced, or Martin's for that matter. It's always Gibson's. I just bought my second Gibson and that is my personal choice. I love Gibson's tone and feel and I love the way they look. And yes most of my guitar heroes play Gibson les pauls (Slash, Warren Haynes, Duane Allman, Joe Perry, Noel Gallagher, Rich Robinson) so that would make me gravitate towards the Les Paul.

Yes they are expensive and the historic's and Vos are really expensive and I agree are way overpriced. But Gibson has history, legendary guitarists have played them and there are plenty of people who love the tone of the guitar and will spend the money to buy the guitar. I am sure there are some dud's in the bunch, but there are more that aren't.

As for the Collings, Hamer, Carvin, I don't know if they are good and if they are not for 1/2 the price, and I really could give a {censored} to be honest those names don't do anything for me. Gibson is history and a great guitar to be had.