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

[faberbz]

I feel your pain....and a little more so .......I'm a bass clarinetist I'm looking at around $6500 for a used Buffet

I used to play bass clarinet. Yeah, my Buffet was expensive, but I got almost everything back when I sold it.

(still have my Buffet clarinets, tho....beautiful instruments!)

[golias]

 

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.

 

 

Show me somebody making a guitar for less that is as labor-intensive to build with an American workforce and similar quality of materials, and I'll agree that it's an aggressive mark-up.

 

But as somebody else pointed out earlier in the thread, it's EXPENSIVE to build guitars here.

 

Yeah, US Fenders are cheaper, but anybody who has ever built a guitar from scratch can tell you that a Tele or Strat is a lot less work to build. Likewise with the SG.

 

Note that an Epiphone LP is much cheaper than a Gibson LP, but it's still MUCH more expensive than an Affinity Squier.

[TheBlueStrat]

I feel your pain....and a little more so .......I'm a bass clarinetist I'm looking at around $6500 for a used Buffet

Oh man, and I thought I had it expensive with tenor saxophones...

[bvr775]

i think its been said too many times,but its because you will pay the difference.

 

and yes as for as wood it is basically 2 sgs glued together and caved..takes allot of time to clamp a peice of wood in a cnc and hollow it out and carve a top..oh wait that part of gibsons line is automated now and the sg is more hand built than an lp..yeah its defiantly just because they can.

 

allot of you gibson guys really need to take a tour of their line not just the shop

[docjeffrey]

If you think you're going to disect the materials and construction methods to come up with the reason for the price difference, forget about it.

 

It's all marketing and product placement. Gibson knows which guitars will sell at different price points. They have carefully created and priced a range of instruments to fit within those price points.

[_pete_]

Show me somebody making a guitar for less that is as labor-intensive to build with an American workforce and similar quality of materials, and I'll agree that it's an aggressive mark-up. But as somebody else pointed out earlier in the thread, it's EXPENSIVE to build guitars here. Yeah, US Fenders are cheaper, but anybody who has ever built a guitar from scratch can tell you that a Tele or Strat is a lot less work to build. Likewise with the SG. Note that an Epiphone LP is much cheaper than a Gibson LP, but it's still MUCH more expensive than an Affinity Squier.

 

But it's not much more than an Epi SG.

Let's stick with SG's and LP's not Affinity's and LP's. The OP was asking why a Gibson LP is twice as much as a Gibson SG.

 

Yes, USA labor is pricey but let's make a relative comparison using MF's current pricing for Gibson and Epiphone:

USA built Gibson SG Std.= $1199

USA built Gibson LP Std.= $2499

 

That is roughly a 110% upcharge for the LP.

 

 

Chinese built Epi SG Std. = $349

Chinese built Epi LP Std. = $479

 

That's roughly a 37% upcharge for the LP.

 

That's comparing 2 guitars using the same workforce and quality of materials. The construction difference is a carved top and binding. Both factories use CNC's for top carving and the binding on an Epi is no better or worse than the binding on a Gibson.

 

What I was saying is that adding a carved top and binding is not that expensive to do. The Chinese seem to be able to do it for a reasonable price.

Yes it's more expensive to build guitars HERE but if China can do it for 37%, USA can too. That Gibson LP std. could be priced at $1642 instead of $2499.

The difference is that they don't have to. People will pay that extra 110%.

[machine gunner]

The SG seems like a more bang for the buck.

I think it definitely is. I love my Les Paul, but if money's a consideration I'll go w/ the SG every time.

[GAS Man]

But it's not much more than an Epi SG. Let's stick with SG's and LP's not Affinity's and LP's. The OP was asking why a Gibson LP is twice as much as a Gibson SG. Yes, USA labor is pricey but let's make a relative comparison using MF's current pricing for Gibson and Epiphone: USA built Gibson SG Std.= $1199 USA built Gibson LP Std.= $2499 That is roughly a 110% upcharge for the LP. Chinese built Epi SG Std. = $349 Chinese built Epi LP Std. = $479 That's roughly a 37% upcharge for the LP. That's comparing 2 guitars using the same workforce and quality of materials. The construction difference is a carved top and binding. Both factories use CNC's for top carving and the binding on an Epi is no better or worse than the binding on a Gibson. What I was saying is that adding a carved top and binding is not that expensive to do. The Chinese seem to be able to do it for a reasonable price. Yes it's more expensive to build guitars HERE but if China can do it for 37%, USA can too. That Gibson LP std. could be priced at $1642 instead of $2499. The difference is that they don't have to. People will pay that extra 110%.

See your point, BUT, there's some constants in there, like required U.S. domestic profit margins (markups), that would level out the MIC pricing of those two guitars.

This quote is a few years old but,

"A recent study shows that the average monthly income of 70% of business workers in Mainland China is between 800 yuan (US $97) to 2,500 yuan (US $302)"

But compare that average monthly salary of $200 against the U.S. average of $3,250, then the cost differences between MIC and MIA are apparent making the MIA look like a comparative bargain. So I think that although I like your argument, the markups that Epiphone USA or even Agile might add to the pricing might mask some of the actual disparaging Asian production costs between the two models. Another words, labor is a much less significant element of the pricing if MIC.

Fudge, it's still just edumucated speculatin on my part, but it's fun idn't it?

[GAS Man]

I think it definitely is. I love my Les Paul, but if money's a consideration I'll go w/ the SG every time.

I sometimes harbor this "hidden sentiment" that part of me thinks that the SG might be a better guitar anyway.

I think that Gibson was on to something when the SG was becoming "the new Les Paul".

The thinner slab body just has more vibe and to my ears has more versatility going for it. The Les Paul is a bit like a '55 Chevy. Classic, but totally phat. SGs are a bit more like a 1960 Corvette.

Gibson was losing a lot of business to Fender and I've long viewed the SG as being a nice compromise toned guitar between the two worlds.

[_pete_]

See your point, BUT, there's some constants in there, like required U.S. domestic profit margins (markups), that would level out the MIC pricing of those two guitars. This quote is a few years old but, "A recent study shows that the average monthly income of 70% of business workers in Mainland China is between 800 yuan (US $97) to 2,500 yuan (US $302)" But compare that average monthly salary of $200 against the U.S. average of $3,250, then the cost differences between MIC and MIA are apparent making the MIA look like a comparative bargain. So I think that although I like your argument, the markups that Epiphone USA or even Agile might add to the pricing might mask some of the actual disparaging Asian production costs.

I'm not saying that the USA guitars should be the same price as the imports. Of course the USA guitar are more.
The labor difference between the two guitars is the same for each respective workforce. It takes the same amount of labor in China to do binding and carved tops as it does in the US. The Epi LP doesn't have the 'prestige' to justify a 110% upcharge for that labor. No one would buy a $732 Epi Lp Standard.

I'm making a point that the price differential between a Gibson SG and a Gibson LP is more than the cost of labor and materials. They're both built by that higher paid workforce. I'm sure Gibson makes a good profit on the SG but I'd bet good money that there is a much larger profit margin on that LP.

[Wyatt]

If you think you're going to disect the materials and construction methods to come up with the reason for the price difference, forget about it. It's all marketing and product placement. Gibson knows which guitars will sell at different price points. They have carefully created and priced a range of instruments to fit within those price points.

 

 

Bingo.

 

Gibson is very upfront that they don't price their guitars as a commodity (meaning their price point isn't based on cost -- labor+materials).

 

They charge more for the LP because it's their flagship model -- it adds prestige and desirability to price the model out of the hands of the "great unwashed", and even they will scrimp and save to buy one if they think it'll add some respectability to their position in life. Gibson would charge as much for every guitar if it didn't price customers out of the market; so instead, they carefully set their prices to cover several levels of consumer affordability. They want make sure people beg for a LP, but they also want to make sure they can collect as much money from each income level as possible.

[Wyatt]

I sometimes harbor this "hidden sentiment" that part of me thinks that the SG might be a better guitar anyway. I think that Gibson was on to something when the SG was becoming "the new Les Paul". The thinner slab body just has more vibe and to my ears has more versatility going for it. The Les Paul is a bit like a '55 Chevy. Classic, but totally phat. SGs are a bit more like a 1960 Corvette. Gibson was losing a lot of business to Fender and I've long viewed the SG as being a nice compromise toned guitar between the two worlds.

 

You can't lose what you never had, Fender outpaced Gibson throughout the '50's on solidbodies. Gibson's pride got the better of them, they wanted to build a solidbody as nice as their jazzboxes, the LP was expensive and flashy (the Goldtop was consider to be too fancy by working musicians, believe it or not the bursts were introduced for a more "down to earth" finish) and never really caught on sales-wise. Gibson built a Caddy, Fender built a Chevy and players opted for the more practical model.

[soundcreation]

See your point, BUT, there's some constants in there, like required U.S. domestic profit margins (markups), that would level out the MIC pricing of those two guitars. This quote is a few years old but, "A recent study shows that the average monthly income of 70% of business workers in Mainland China is between 800 yuan (US $97) to 2,500 yuan (US $302)" But compare that average monthly salary of $200 against the U.S. average of $3,250, then the cost differences between MIC and MIA are apparent making the MIA look like a comparative bargain. So I think that although I like your argument, the markups that Epiphone USA or even Agile might add to the pricing might mask some of the actual disparaging Asian production costs between the two models. Another words, labor is a much less significant element of the pricing if MIC. Fudge, it's still just edumucated speculatin on my part, but it's fun idn't it?

 

You're using flawed numbers though. You said "business" workers not factory workers. But even if you're chinese numbers are reasonable you're american ones aren't. No WAY gibson factory workers are making 3200 bucks a month. I've heard they pay about 12 bucks an hour. x 40 x 52 / 12 = about 2 grand a month. And that's assuming they give their workers a full 40 hour work week.

 

How many 2500 dollar guitars can gibson produce in one day? Don't kid youself..gibson make bank on the Les Paul.

 

Several people have already said the truth...they are priced to what gibson thinks they can get for them.

[PanaDP]

They are actually the same price, per pound.

 

 

/thread:cop:

[machine gunner]

I sometimes harbor this "hidden sentiment" that part of me thinks that the SG might be a better guitar anyway. I think that Gibson was on to something when the SG was becoming "the new Les Paul". The thinner slab body just has more vibe and to my ears has more versatility going for it. The Les Paul is a bit like a '55 Chevy. Classic, but totally phat. SGs are a bit more like a 1960 Corvette. Gibson was losing a lot of business to Fender and I've long viewed the SG as being a nice compromise toned guitar between the two worlds.

I completely agree w/ all of this- not to mention the neck of an SG is more comfortable to me and it has superior fret access. Sometimes you just want that Les Paul tone though, but if I could only choose one I'd probably go w/ the SG.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

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

 

 

CORRECT ANSWER !

 

 

 

Also, LP's out sell SG's, so they hike the price to hell and gone, on the one that sell more, 'cause they bloody know they can and WILL get away with it !

[V-man]

LPs (Gibsons, at least) just aren't practical for the value for most. You are talking about a mohogany-based solidbody with Gibson pickups. The SG, Explorer, and the Flying V all fit the bill to some extent. The extra weight and maple cap add tonal coloring. Some find that coloring worth the money. Some don't. As a player however, the LP is inferior to its humbucker brethren. It's heavy, thick, and the player has more difficulty with upper fret access.

I would love a LP (a REAL LP) someday, but everything else that Gibson offers takes me there for less and plays better. The SG is a great guitar, and if the losing the distinct tone of the LP isn't a deal breaker, it's a smarter move for those concerned about the price tag.

[59humbucker]

This stuff never makes any sense but sometimes can benefit the consumer.

When I was LP shopping I very nearly bought a G0. This is a GC exclusive that is essentially a plain top R0, apparently, if you take out the neck p'up its even marked as a R0.


This top of the line custom shop reissue can be had for $1000 less then the figured top R0 with which it shares every spec but the flame

[SirJackdeFuzz]

 

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.

 

 

 

But you have to look at the whole picture !

 

With a Sax it is a pretty much your final price, and you are ready to gig . . .

 

. . . ever seen an electric guitarist playing his Les Paul withOUT an amp ?

 

 

The Les Paul is only 50% of the end result, you need to add an amp to that price, to get a "final figure".

 

$2500.00 LP + *$2500.00 amp = much closer to your sax price !

 

 

*Orange Thunderverb50 Head (...and that is withOUT a cab)

[BG76]

I am not an authority like the other posters here but having built both from scratch I can tell you that I can build an SG in about 2 days (not counting drting time for glue and finish) and a LP takes me about 5 days.

I'm sure Gibson builds them faster then I can and I'm sure they get a better deal on the wood but I can tell you that adding the top does add more time and cost. Not only to the build time, but also when finishing. Most SGs are cherry or black which is pretty straightforward. Sunbursts are not hard to do, but they do take a little longer.

When you add up the cost of the labor and the added materials (and production time) I think you can see why they cost more - plus there is probably a little bit of cost on there to have Les' name on the guitar.

[bvr775]

But you have to look at the whole picture ! With a Sax it is a pretty much your final price, and you are ready to gig . . . . . . ever seen an electric guitarist playing his Les Paul withOUT an amp ? The Les Paul is only 50% of the end result, you need to add an amp to that price, to get a "final figure". $2500.00 LP + * $2500.00 amp = much closer to your sax price ! * Orange Thunderverb50 Head (... and that is withOUT a cab )

 

 

 

ever seen sax player play without a mouthpiece, a neck, and reeds.when you say thats the final price do you relize an instrument like a sax has an upkeep you cant even imagine and doesnt come ready to play like you think. so yeah i can can completely see why he wouldn't see 2500 as a bad price for an instrument.. my buddy just dropped 13g on a used bari sax and then turned around and payed like 500bux for some kinda mouthpiece then payed some ungodly amount to have the cork relapsed

[ComOp]

Also, LP's out sell SG's, so they hike the price to hell and gone, on the one that sell more, 'cause they bloody know they can and WILL get away with it !

 

 

There was an interview with the CEO of Gibson where he mentioned that they started selling more guitars as they raised the price. An $875 Gibson just didn't sell as well as a $1600 Gibson. Same guitar, made at the same factory using the same materials.

 

Folks want the "best" and they use cost as a measuring stick.

[ΨWindingΨ]

Yes.

[prolog]

ever seen sax player play without a mouthpiece, a neck, and reeds.when you say thats the final price do you relize an instrument like a sax has an upkeep you cant even imagine and doesnt come ready to play like you think. so yeah i can can completely see why he wouldn't see 2500 as a bad price for an instrument.. my buddy just dropped 13g on a used bari sax and then turned around and payed like 500bux for some kinda mouthpiece then payed some ungodly amount to have the cork relapsed

 

 

All the people talking about what a good deal guitars are, are right.

 

I own a pretty run-of-the-mill intermediate-level double horn - cost me $2300. A Conn 8D (the type I played in university for five years) would run me $4000+, and it's a basic "good" horn. My dream horn would cost me at least $10000 and put me on a waiting list of a couple of years.

 

To put this in perspective, a Squier CV Strat costs a few hundred bucks. And unless you're one of the snobs in the "HAY GUYS U CANT GIG WITH SQUIRES AND EPIPENS" thread, you can gig with it for the rest of your life.

 

Then again, this might be why most professional musicians who aren't guitarists don't have 10 Conn 8Ds (and certainly none from the dodgy Mexican labour and cost cutting era!).

[ΨWindingΨ]

Gibson Custom SG Standard Historic Reissue VOS

$2,999.97 new - Sweetwater

 

Gibson Custom 1958 Les Paul Plain Top (1958 LP Plain Top VOS, Wsh Ch)

$3,699.97 new - Sweetwater

 

Hi end the diff is $700.