Is there a reason why Gib SG Standard is 1/2 price of Gib Les Paul Standard?

[stretch_333]

And what is the difference between them tone-wise with rock n roll distortions?

[rock-lobster]

Most of it comes from a couple things: the maple (plain or flamed) adds to the cost, as does the fact that it's a carved top, and the body binding.

[instantsteve]

Less wood?

[ExiledCrow]

Actually I think most of it come from one simple fact: Because they can!

[stretch_333]

That minimal amount of Maple to go along with a carved top and body binding should NOT equate a difference in well over 1000 dollars.

 

I'm sorry but that's just.... hard to believe. There HAS to be something more to it... like better craftsmanship, more detailed fretwork, electronics, etc.

[benzem]

They base the price on tone.

[EADGBE]

More wood. More binding. More glue. More work. They're priced according to what the market will bear.

[MattLivingInVan]

les paul has a better market?

they can charge 1000$ more because people are willing to pay it

[stretch_333]

The SG seems like a more bang for the buck.

[UberNova]

I noticed that too, but personally I always liked the SG guitars better. Cool shape.

[guitarman]

Actually I think most of it come from one simple fact: Because they can!

Yup. Look at the physical differences between the 339 and the 335. Is it worth the $1000 difference for the few extra ounces of wood on the 335?

[kenact]

Sadly, Les Paul recently passed on. This has the effect of increasing the value of anything with his name on it.

I think SG is still around.

[Brewski]

SG looks too much like the devil and that takes a lot of the market away.

[faberbz]

The LP is being managed as a brand, under both the Epiphone and Gibson marques. 'Les Paul', the guitar, is a rock and roll icon. Everyone knows it. That is what they charge you for. What they charge for an Epiphone LP is criminal, but the market will bear it.

 

Plenty of other LP clones that cost less for equal or superior workmanship/materials.

 

As for the SG....it's a flat piece of wood, much smaller, and no binding.

[faberbz]

Yup. Look at the physical differences between the 339 and the 335. Is it worth the $1000 difference for the few extra ounces of wood on the 335?

 

 

When I bought my 335 in 1989, it cost 1/3 of what a new one costs now (adjusted for 1989-2009 dollars).

[stretch_333]

If I went out and bought a brand new SG Standard at $1250 dollars, and bought a Les Paul Standard for $2600 dollars.... which one will appreciate more over time assuming it's kept in mint condition?

 

In 2035, a 2009 SG that cost me 1250 will be worth _________?

 

In 2035, a 2009 Les Paul that cost me 2600 will be worth_______?

[Yogi_Sizzle]

Its really hard to say but LPs generally are more desirable in the vintage market than SGs. Vintage SGs can still be found for reasonable prices, where as most Gibson LPs are pretty ridiculous.

[GAS Man]

More wood. More binding. More glue. More work. They're priced according to what the market will bear.

 

basically, of course.

 

Who can doubt that a one slab mahogany body costs less to produce than a bound muti-layered mahogany/carved maple top body.

 

There's always so much bitchin about the cost of guitars and yet if you consider that the average U.S. salary is around $39,000 with benefits running around 35% for a total of roughly $40,700 per year and you consider that that employee gets a dozen holidays, at least 15 days of vacation, and is home sick 6 days of the year and on break 30 minutes (or more ) a day, that only leaves 1700 productive work hours a year, so labor cost alone would be at least $24 per hour. The street price being $2500, let figure the factory cost around 1/2 or MSRP or $1755 and 1/3 of that to factory overhead and profits, that leaves $1,170 for materials and labor. Even if materials were only 1/3, that leaves only $780 for labor, which would mean all the shaping, assembling, finishing, fine finishing including wet sanding, set up, packaging and shipping would have to be done in under 32.5 hours, then tell me you could do it cheaper out of your shop. I would need more than that just to study the schematics.

[guitarman]

When I bought my 335 in 1989, it cost 1/3 of what a new one costs now (adjusted for 1989-2009 dollars).

 

 

I bought my cherry gloss 335 in '09 for $2500.

 

Saxophone is my primary instrument and my saxes range in price from $2700 - $5500 so paying $2500 for a guitar is not so outrageous in my point of view.

[GAS Man]

I bought my cherry gloss 335 in '09 for $2500. Saxophone is my primary instrument and my saxes range in price from $2700 - $5500 so paying $2500 for a guitar is not so outrageous in my point of view.

That's my other thought on guitars. Sure we know that metal work can me a more skilled tedious trade than wood work, but I've long wanted to know why a mom thinks she should be able to buy a good guitar for $100 but readily accepts making payments to the corner music shop that with interest may total $5,000 for Johnny to have a sax for band practice.

[Incubus]

That's my other thought on guitars. Sure we know that metal work can me a more skilled tedious trade than wood work, but I've long wanted to know why a mom thinks she should be able to buy a good guitar for $100 but readily accepts making payments to the corner music shop that with interest may total $5,000 for Johnny to have a sax for band practice.

 

Very interesting point. I got a hand-me-down trombone that I played throughout elementary and middle school that must have cost close a grand. My parents wouldn't put a dollar into the guitar I later bought. On top of that, they wouldn't continue my guitar lessons after the 4 I received from my sister as a gift. And no, there was no financial reasons for it.

[Guitarist970]

I bought my cherry gloss 335 in '09 for $2500. Saxophone is my primary instrument and my saxes range in price from $2700 - $5500 so paying $2500 for a guitar is not so outrageous in my point of view.

I feel your pain....and a little more so


.......I'm a bass clarinetist I'm looking at around $6500 for a used Buffet

[_pete_]

They charge more because people will pay it. It's that simple.

 

 

It's not because of binding or a carved top. Gibson can do the same binding and the same carve on an Epi LP and it doesn't cost a thousand dollars extra because of it.

Hell, Agile can do an entire guitar with a carved top and binding for $200.

 

The extra price is not for labor or materials, it's because it's a "Gibson Les Paul".

Remember, this is coming from a guy who owns one.

[soundcreation]

If I went out and bought a brand new SG Standard at $1250 dollars, and bought a Les Paul Standard for $2600 dollars.... which one will appreciate more over time assuming it's kept in mint condition? In 2035, a 2009 SG that cost me 1250 will be worth _________? In 2035, a 2009 Les Paul that cost me 2600 will be worth_______?

 

 

Probably the Les Paul...if at all...but if you're looking for a guitar as an investment you'd be better off investing in a savings bond or something.

 

Factory USA Gibsons will be relatively worthless in 30 years. Just WAY to many of them...Nothing special about them, and the people who really want them are all dying in the same time frame. There are not nearly enough young people around now who care enough about Les Pauls to keep the current inflated market going.

[thisgoesto11]

They are actually the same price, per pound.