Seriously, why doesn't a Gibson Les Paul standard cost ~$1500

[Acid Test]

Is there a real valid reason why a Gibson Les Paul standard shouldn't cost around $1500. Consider an American made Fender Stratocaster cost around $1100 new. Both are made in the USA, so shouldn't labor costs be similar? Are there extra costs that goes into a Gibson that aren't in a Fender? Labor or parts? Does one guitar really cost greater than $1000 to produce than the other? and why?

 

I hope we can keep this thread somewhat serious to the point. Just thinking in the last couple of days about the written problems with Gibson and trying to figure this out.

[Hotrod Lincoln]

What I REALLY don't get is why a standard is over a $1000 more than a studio :S

[GCDEF]

People are willing to pay more.

 

Consumer Surplus

[smorgdonkey]

Watch the Gibson factory tour videos and you'll see partly why they cost that much.

[Acid Test]

 

Watch the Gibson factory tour videos and you'll see partly why they cost that much.

 

 

But is there something that cost more at the Gibson factory than at the Fender factory?

[BoneNut]

I guess it good be argued that the neck joint is more labor intensive but $1000 more? Really?

[Elias Graves]

A Les Paul is more labor intensive to build than a strat.

Set neck, maple top, internal routing/wiring, binding, nitro sunburst, etc.

It's still overpriced. $1,500 sounds good to me.

 

EG

[smorgdonkey]

 

But is there something that cost more at the Gibson factory than at the Fender factory?

 

 

Gluing in a neck is way more involved than bolting on a neck. Binding is time consuming. If you are specifically talking about the standard then the top wood has to look a certain way not to mention that all Les Pauls (minus the worn brown and faded cherry, etc) have two types of wood making up the body. The Gibson guitar is a completely different animal than a Fender guitar. They both do what they do really well but they are completely different.

 

Furthermore, look what you're supposed to pay for an engagement ring...the Les Paul Standard is way less than that and you could have the guitar until you die but there is a lot less chance that you'll have the woman that you are buying that ring for until you die and it's going to cost a lot more 'along the way' too.

 

A Gibson is what...a month's gross wages for the average income? People have just become obsessed with guitars that cost the same amount as shoes.

[vcnyls]

 

People are willing to pay more. Consumer Surplus

 

 

/thread

 

Why do these threads come up constantly? THAT is the answer whether you like it or not.

 

Guess what? Gibson isn't alone in deciding it's product costs in that manner. Do you really think that a Mercedes costs that much more to produce than a Honda? No. A certain percentage of cost is based on better materials and research (same thing goes for Gibson) but the vast majority is because people will pay it.

 

Gibson is a business that makes many luxury products and is trying to make as much money as they can. They're not around to make you happy or to make products that you think are reasonably priced.

[Acid Test]

 

A Les Paul is more labor intensive to build than a strat. It's still overpriced. $1,500 sounds good to me. EG

 

 

I would love to see a break down of their costs for a guitar. Something like:

 

$ parts

$ labor

$ marketing

$ distribution

$ retailer markup

[smorgdonkey]

My USA H/S Tele cost a couple hundred less than my Les Paul Studio.

[soundcreation]

What I really don't understand is how some people don't understand that retail cost of an item has NOTHING to do with manufacturing cost. Especially gibson. What they "should" cost is irrelevant.

 

Gibson uses a "premium pricing" policy. There is your answer.

[Acid Test]

 

What I really don't understand is how some people don't understand that retail cost of an item has NOTHING to do with manufacturing cost. Especially gibson. What they "should" cost is irrelevant. Gibson uses a "premium pricing" policy. There is your answer.

 

 

Then shouldn't they be making tons of money if they are selling any guitars at all? They aren't.

[Acid Test]

 

People are willing to pay more. Consumer Surplus

 

 

But appearantly they are not willing if Gibson is in the financial situation that is being written.

[vcnyls]

They're having monetary issues becasue the business is terribly run, regardless of how much they're charging for their product. Bigger companies than Gibson with higher return on investment in their products/services have gone under as a result of poor management.

[Elias Graves]

 

Then shouldn't they be making tons of money if they are selling any guitars at all? They aren't.

 

 

Making money and managing it are two different things.

 

EG

[Large]

Is your question basically just "what would a Gibson LP Standard cost if it didn't have 'Gibson' on the headstock?"

[kirs]

I think they are considerably overpriced especially noting (I apologize for saying this) the quality control.

 

For $2000+ I should be able to pick any of them off the shelf and they should equally play great. It's not a lot to ask considering the price tag and the fact that many of the models are advertised as being PLEK'd.

[GCDEF]

 

But appearantly they are not willing if Gibson is in the financial situation that is being written.

 

 

I don't know the reason behind Gibson's financial problems, but I would assume Gibson has analyzed supply and demand curves. The question they would have to ask themselves is if they sold them at $1500 would they sell enough of them to make up for the increased production costs and the decreased profit per unit. My guess is if they thought they'd make more money selling them at $1500, they would.

[twotimingpete]

 

Gluing in a neck is way more involved than bolting on a neck. Binding is time consuming. If you are specifically talking about the standard then the top wood has to look a certain way not to mention that all Les Pauls (minus the worn brown and faded cherry, etc) have two types of wood making up the body. The Gibson guitar is a completely different animal than a Fender guitar. They both do what they do really well but they are completely different. Furthermore, look what you're supposed to pay for an engagement ring...the Les Paul Standard is way less than that and you could have the guitar until you die but there is a lot less chance that you'll have the woman that you are buying that ring for until you die and it's going to cost a lot more 'along the way' too. A Gibson is what...a month's gross wages for the average income? People have just become obsessed with guitars that cost the same amount as shoes.

 

 

I don't think glueing on a neck or putting on binding are really that hard. plenty of axes out there that cost just a few hundred bucks for the whole axe have flawless neck joints and binding. I don't buy it.

[Acid Test]

The quality of my Gibson Les Paul Standard is not an issue. But for the money it originally sold for, it should have had better features. I ended up paying $1300 for it new as the MF Stupid Deal and after a $500 rebate.

 

Compared to other guitars I have played, the price vs features vs quality, the Gibson is a bit over priced at $1300 - I have owned other guitars that were slightly better at around $1000 but were imported.

[twotimingpete]

 

The quality of my Gibson Les Paul Standard is not an issue. But for the money it originally sold for, it should have had better features. I ended up paying $1300 for it new as the MF Stupid Deal and after a $500 rebate. Compared to other guitars I have played, the price vs features vs quality, the Gibson is a bit over priced at $1300 - I have owned other guitars that were slightly better at around $1000 but were imported.

 

 

this sounds about right, gibsons are good axes and fun, and I'd even assign a bit more value simply for the mojo/legacy of having a "real gibson".. that stuff matters! but what they're priced at now just isn't reasonable IMO.

 

just as one of quite a few examples, Hamer USA guitars smoke gibsons -- IMO anyway. pick one up and you'll see what I mean.

[cogdog]

 

Is there a real valid reason why a Gibson Les Paul standard shouldn't cost around $1500. Consider an American made Fender Stratocaster cost around $1100 new. Both are made in the USA, so shouldn't labor costs be similar? Are there extra costs that goes into a Gibson that aren't in a Fender? Labor or parts? Does one guitar really cost greater than $1000 to produce than the other? and why? I hope we can keep this thread somewhat serious to the point. Just thinking in the last couple of days about the written problems with Gibson and trying to figure this out.

 

 

set neck, maple cap, bindings, I can see costing more to make in the US vs. a Strat

 

...but that's why I own an Elitist, FujiGen can make an LP for the same price as a AM Strat

[Hoople Head]

 

I don't know the reason behind Gibson's financial problems, but I would assume Gibson has analyzed supply and demand curves. The question they would have to ask themselves is if they sold them at $1500 would they sell enough of them to make up for the increased production costs and the decreased profit per unit. My guess is if they thought they'd make more money selling them at $1500, they would.

 

 

Ha ha, yeah, you'd think... These would be the actions of a well-managed company. But from the sounds of things Gibson might not fall into that category.

[pixelchemist]

i'll give you a hint... it starts with an H and ends with a J