Gibson: The iPhone of electric guitars?

[Rickenbacker]

This past summer a guitar playing buddy of mine & I were talking about our dream guitars. We were looking at online at newer Gibsons (specifically Les Pauls) and how lavish and extremely expensive lots of them are. He said they're like the iPhones of the guitar world today. I had to laugh, because on the surface that sounded true. The Must-Haves of electric guitars. High end guitars aimed at a certain customer. ("If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it")

What do the guitarists here think?

[Supersonic Scientist]

The thought of pairing Gibson and iPhone in the same sentence should be a punishable crime.

[N_Singh]

Not really. Gibsons today are massively overpriced and often have poor QA issues. There are better alternatives in the private luthiers with regard to 175s, L5s, Super400s, Byrdlands, and 335s. Certainly, the true heir to Gibson in Kalamazoo. Heritage, makes much better guitars than what's put out in Memphis.

Sadly, people fixate on the headstock and not on the quality of the instrument.

[nosebone]

Not really. Gibsons today are massively overpriced and often have poor QA issues. There are better alternatives in the private luthiers with regard to 175s, L5s, Super400s, Byrdlands, and 335s. Certainly, the true heir to Gibson in Kalamazoo. Heritage, makes much better guitars than what's put out in Memphis.

Sadly, people fixate on the headstock and not on the quality of the instrument.

what he said!

[Wisdomview]

^True, but most of those private luthier guitars cost even more than Gibsons, so if cost is already an issue...... I understand the reasoning why smaller companies need to charge more, but a quality Gibson can still be had. One just needs to try them out and find a good one. I have 2 great ones myself.

[GuitarGeek]

If I only had one electric, I'd want it to be a Strat. Les Pauls are nice to have as an alternative, but I always felt they're kinda on the heavy side. I remember trying one out in a store once, and when I sat down and placed the guitar on my knee, the weight of the body caused the neck to tilt up. Easy to correct, sure, but that's never happened with any of the Fender style guitars I've ever played.

I also remember Alan Rogan, Pete Townshend's guitar tech saying once that Pete switched over to the Schecter guitars in 79 because he had made up his mind the Les Pauls that he had used for most of the preceding 6 or 7 years were too heavy.

And Steve Howe said his The Les Paul was "very tiring" to play standing up for similar reasons, but that was a special premium all maple variant, which I imagine was heavier than most Les Pauls.

[jkelman]

This past summer a guitar playing buddy of mine & I were talking about our dream guitars. We were looking at online at newer Gibsons (specifically Les Pauls) and how lavish and extremely expensive lots of them are. He said they're like the iPhones of the guitar world today. I had to laugh, because on the surface that sounded true. The Must-Haves of electric guitars. High end guitars aimed at a certain customer. ("If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it")

What do the guitarists here think?

I never liked Gibsons. I was always a Fender guy. One big reason: Gibson necks are flat; Fender necks are arched, to varying degrees.

I always found Fender necks more natural to my hand; you rest your thumb under the neck and when you play across the strings, there's a natural arch that your hand does. So for me, they always felt great.

As for sounds, these days, with pickup technology and guitar emulation software, it really doesn't matter that much what you choose to play. You can play a Stratocaster and make it sound like a Rickenbacker, a Les Paul or an L5, for that matter. And vice versa.

A lot of it is what feels good and natural in your hands. And people tend to fall in one of the two camps; Gibson or Fender....and I really think it comes down, quite simply, to that arch in the neck, and which one feels more natural to you.

As far as manufacturing is concerned Les Pauls (and all Gibsons) are not any better, in terms of design and quality than similarly priced Fenders (Strats, Telecasters, etc). If you want to talk real quality, then you want to start looking at higher end instruments like Paul Reed Smith...or custom-built guitars. Truthfully, the mid-line Gibsons (Les Pauls) and Fenders (Telecaster/Strat) that run in the $1300-1700 range are all quality instruments, no one better than the other.

It's all just a matter of taste. After that it's a matter of finding the guitar that feels best to you within the budget you can afford.

Nobody mentions Gretsch, but they made/make some great guitars too. I had a Chet Atkins Nashville back in the day and love it, too. Guys like Neil Young and Neil Finn like 'em, and they sounds damn good in their hands.

Rickenbackers have their own character, and are wonderful also...

So many guitars, so little money

[Wisdomview]

I play both Gibsons and Fenders a lot and I love both. If I had to pick just one guitar model to play for the rest of my life, it would be a Les Paul. They just work for me in every way.

[N_Singh]

1. Private Luthier who is cheaper than Gibson and makes incredible guitars on Spec: Victor Baker (NYC)--notable people who have commissioned him: Gilad Hekselman (not sure anyone here would know who is, though).

2. Small companies that kick Gibson's ass and are comparably priced or cheaper: (a) Heritage: (2) Collings: (3) Sadowsky (Sadowsky also makes "T" and "S" series slabs/planks, i.e, Fender clones). The Sadwosky Jim Hall is a fantastic model (I own one)--recently, Jim was playing with Julian Lage, and it looked like both were playing the same model guitars. Both guitars are based on D'Aquisto's, but Jim's was a Sadowsky and Julian's was made by Linda Manzer, a Canadian luthier and a former student of D'Aquisto. She's the one who made Metheny's 42 stringer.

3. Two recent great semi-hollow guitars that are no longer made but can be found on the used market that are in demand and superior to new Gibson 335's: (1) Ibanez AS-200, early 1980s (Ben Monder plays one; used as the basis for the Scofield model); (2) D'angelico Nyss-3b-Vestax version (made in Japan) (Kurt Rosenwinkel guitar)

4. The "I'd trade it all in and if I win the lottery, I'd buy this for $30K: the Ken Parker acoustic archtop. Incredible design and sound. Has to be seen and heard to be believed. The guy is a genius.

5. When Fender kind of became Gibson. My teacher's best friend was the former CEO of Fender. Through my teacher's personal connections, the former CEO acquired enough financial backing to buy Fender from CBS. At some point in the 80s and 90s, when my teacher was working for Fender, they acquired Guild, brought in Benedetto to work in-house, licensed some designs from Jimmy D'Aquisto (alas, he was to pass away unexpectedly thereafter), and convinced Johnny Smith to put his name a new Guild Johnny Smith. Alas, it was not to last; Fender discontinued these guitars--but the absolute all-time bargain for $300-500 you can find is a used DeArmond X-155 (made by Guild, sold at Guitar Centers until about 2006, when they were discontinued)--a professional made archtop that can be gigged by pros at a ridiculous price.

6. Norlin era Gibson and CBS era Fender tend to get bad raps--incorrectly. The problem with Norlin is the longtime luthier who sourced the wood (the same guy who would later start Heritage with other Gibson employees) was replaced by a young kid from college, an accountant type, who knew nothing about wood, guitars, and craftsmanship. That said, plenty of find guitars during that period. CBS actually put a lot of resources back into Fender--Leo was a small time operator who did not have the resources to equip and supply the company properly, towards the end. Which is why he sold it. That said, Fender was practically irrelevant to CBS in terms of their bottom line.

[GuitarGeek]

Linda Manzer, a Canadian luthier and a former student of D'Aquisto. She's the one who made Metheny's 42 stringer.

If I'm not mistaken she's made all of Metheny's acoustic guitars for the last couple decades.

5. When Fender kind of became Gibson. My teacher's best friend was the former CEO of Fender. Through my teacher's personal connections, the former CEO acquired enough financial backing to buy Fender from CBS.

That's William Schultz you're talking about. He was credited as the guy who pretty much saved Fender from oblivion. It's been said that when it was announced that CBS was divesting itself of Fender, there was a collective sigh of relief throughout the entire guitar industry. There was apparently a point where it was looking like Fender might actually cease to exist, during that early 80's period.

I read once that when you adjust the price CBS paid Leo for the company for inflation, they actually lost money on the deal when they sold out to Bill Schultz and his associates (which is fine with me, companies like that deserve to lose money).

6. Norlin era Gibson and CBS era Fender tend to get bad raps--incorrectly. The problem with Norlin is the longtime luthier who sourced the wood (the same guy who would later start Heritage with other Gibson employees) was replaced by a young kid from college, an accountant type, who knew nothing about wood, guitars, and craftsmanship. That said, plenty of find guitars during that period. CBS actually put a lot of resources back into Fender--Leo was a small time operator who did not have the resources to equip and supply the company properly, towards the end. Which is why he sold it. That said, Fender was practically irrelevant to CBS in terms of their bottom line.

CBS pulled a lot of cost cutting maneuvers that affected the quality of the instruments. They changed the way the bridges were made, which affected the tone. They changed how the pickups were wound, which made them more susceptible to microphonic squeal.

They switched to a real thick polyester finish, which apparently was more resistant to dings and scratches, but it also cut off the guitar's ability to "breathe", which again affected tone. This is sort of an inverse of the phenomenon that George Harrison noted about how when he and John Lennon both had the finishes stripped off their Epiphone Casino. He said "They immediately became much better guitars".

And I think I've also heard that they switched the weight requirement for the wood used on the guitars, so some of the CBS Fenders are a bit heavier than say a pre-CBS or post-CBS instrument.

There was also a problem with that three bolt neck design. Not the design itself, but somehow the way it was implemented, a lot of those guitars ended up with neck pockets that were too large, allowing the neck to move around much more than they should have, which in turn caused tuning problems, say if any amount of pressure or inertia came to bear on the instrument (say if you were trying to imitate one of Pete Townshend's gravity defying maneuvers, when you came in for reentry...ya know how when you apply the brakes on a car suddenly you're sort of thrown forward for a second...well, that's what would happen to the necks on some of these guitars).

There's a story in one book about guitars leaving the Fender factory that shouldn't have, with nuts where the slots had been cut too deep, guitars where the high E string would be literally off the fingerboard. The thing was, CBS wanted guitars going out, to meet whatever demand there was (or that the CBS turkeys imagined there still was), and their attitude was "Don't worry, they can fix that in the field". One guy told of how there was a simple maneuver to fix the strings going off the fingerboard, involving giving the neck a bit of a nudge but "We were told to do it in the back room, never do it in front of the customer".

Of course, a lot of this had to do with the fact that, like with Norlin (and probably all the corporations who bought up guitar companies during that period, as I recall Guild, Gretsch, and a few others were all bought by "big business" around that time too), CBS put people in charge of Fender who didn't know anything about building quality musical instruments. One guy said most of the company managers knew more about selling things like refrigerators than they did about guitars. And of course, the company big wigs were leaning them to keep the bottom line where they thought it should be, because of course the big wigs didn't know anything about guitars either.

Having said that, my first Strat was a 79, slap dab in the middle of the CBS era. It's got the loose neck pocket (I guess there's aftermarket thingies you can buy that make the pocket a little more snug, I know I've read of people sticking things like matchbooks in there) and the one piece bridge (that is, the bridge plate and whammy bar inertia block are one piece, whereas on the pre-CBS guitars and more recent instruments, they're two pieces and are manufactured differently...the bridge saddles are different too). But it's kind of a nice guitar despite all that. A previous owner put Lace Sensor pickups on it, and the guitar's been beat to help, with a cracked finish and areas where it wore off (sort of like what they now call "relicing", though here it was done the old fashioned way), so it's got a nice "played in" vibe to it. I probably wouldn't play it onstage (at this rate, I probably won't ever play any guitar on a stage), but it's a nice guitar to have at home.

Oh yeah, another thing about those CBS era guitars: I'm not certain if the potentiometers on my 79 Strat (I call her Priscilla, btw) are stock, but my managed to break one of the tone controls off one day when the guitar got knocked over. So I'm guessing another thing CBS did was they went to pots with plastic shafts (as far as I know, the pre-CBS guitars had metal shaft pots).

[Mikhael]

Me, before I bought any top-end guitar from Fender or Gibson, I would get a parts-guitar put together from someone like USA Custom or Warmoth, and get everything exactly the way I want it.

Whatever happened to Hamer? They used to make some incredibly good guitars. I've got a Chaparral (sp?), from the 80s, and it's an incredible guitar. Shaped like a Strat, glued-in maple neck into a lightweight mahogany body, plays so silky smooth... and sounds great. They made a bunch of great guitars for a while.

[GuitarGeek]

Me, before I bought any top-end guitar from Fender or Gibson, I would get a parts-guitar put together from someone like USA Custom or Warmoth, and get everything exactly the way I want it.

Yeah, my next guitar will probably be something I put together myself from Warmoth parts. I've got a couple, three, four ideas for such instruments.

[Mr. Grizzly Bear]

Gibsons I hate to say are nowhere near as good as they once were, the quality has gone so far downhill it's criminal, overpriced and not good enough to warrant the pricetag.

Heritage guitars (the company was started by several ex-GIbson employees) are far superior instruments and more reasonably priced (though not cheap).

http://www.heritageguitar.com/indexd.html

[Mr. Grizzly Bear]

If I'm not mistaken she's made all of Metheny's acoustic guitars for the last couple decades.



That's William Schultz you're talking about. He was credited as the guy who pretty much saved Fender from oblivion. It's been said that when it was announced that CBS was divesting itself of Fender, there was a collective sigh of relief throughout the entire guitar industry. There was apparently a point where it was looking like Fender might actually cease to exist, during that early 80's period.

I read once that when you adjust the price CBS paid Leo for the company for inflation, they actually lost money on the deal when they sold out to Bill Schultz and his associates (which is fine with me, companies like that deserve to lose money).



CBS pulled a lot of cost cutting maneuvers that affected the quality of the instruments. They changed the way the bridges were made, which affected the tone. They changed how the pickups were wound, which made them more susceptible to microphonic squeal.

They switched to a real thick polyester finish, which apparently was more resistant to dings and scratches, but it also cut off the guitar's ability to "breathe", which again affected tone. This is sort of an inverse of the phenomenon that George Harrison noted about how when he and John Lennon both had the finishes stripped off their Epiphone Casino. He said "They immediately became much better guitars".

And I think I've also heard that they switched the weight requirement for the wood used on the guitars, so some of the CBS Fenders are a bit heavier than say a pre-CBS or post-CBS instrument.

There was also a problem with that three bolt neck design. Not the design itself, but somehow the way it was implemented, a lot of those guitars ended up with neck pockets that were too large, allowing the neck to move around much more than they should have, which in turn caused tuning problems, say if any amount of pressure or inertia came to bear on the instrument (say if you were trying to imitate one of Pete Townshend's gravity defying maneuvers, when you came in for reentry...ya know how when you apply the brakes on a car suddenly you're sort of thrown forward for a second...well, that's what would happen to the necks on some of these guitars).

There's a story in one book about guitars leaving the Fender factory that shouldn't have, with nuts where the slots had been cut too deep, guitars where the high E string would be literally off the fingerboard. The thing was, CBS wanted guitars going out, to meet whatever demand there was (or that the CBS turkeys imagined there still was), and their attitude was "Don't worry, they can fix that in the field". One guy told of how there was a simple maneuver to fix the strings going off the fingerboard, involving giving the neck a bit of a nudge but "We were told to do it in the back room, never do it in front of the customer".

Of course, a lot of this had to do with the fact that, like with Norlin (and probably all the corporations who bought up guitar companies during that period, as I recall Guild, Gretsch, and a few others were all bought by "big business" around that time too), CBS put people in charge of Fender who didn't know anything about building quality musical instruments. One guy said most of the company managers knew more about selling things like refrigerators than they did about guitars. And of course, the company big wigs were leaning them to keep the bottom line where they thought it should be, because of course the big wigs didn't know anything about guitars either.

Having said that, my first Strat was a 79, slap dab in the middle of the CBS era. It's got the loose neck pocket (I guess there's aftermarket thingies you can buy that make the pocket a little more snug, I know I've read of people sticking things like matchbooks in there) and the one piece bridge (that is, the bridge plate and whammy bar inertia block are one piece, whereas on the pre-CBS guitars and more recent instruments, they're two pieces and are manufactured differently...the bridge saddles are different too). But it's kind of a nice guitar despite all that. A previous owner put Lace Sensor pickups on it, and the guitar's been beat to help, with a cracked finish and areas where it wore off (sort of like what they now call "relicing", though here it was done the old fashioned way), so it's got a nice "played in" vibe to it. I probably wouldn't play it onstage (at this rate, I probably won't ever play any guitar on a stage), but it's a nice guitar to have at home.

Oh yeah, another thing about those CBS era guitars: I'm not certain if the potentiometers on my 79 Strat (I call her Priscilla, btw) are stock, but my managed to break one of the tone controls off one day when the guitar got knocked over. So I'm guessing another thing CBS did was they went to pots with plastic shafts (as far as I know, the pre-CBS guitars had metal shaft pots).

Glad I never owned a CBS-era Fender, utter CRAP!!! Another thing that cracked me up was their natural finish axes (like the Strat for example), weighed a ton and finish was something like dipping it 20 times in Karo syrup!

[Dan Marsh]

I was talked into buying a PRS instead of a Gibson and I am glad I did!

[klothos]

This past summer a guitar playing buddy of mine & I were talking about our dream guitars. We were looking at online at newer Gibsons (specifically Les Pauls) and how lavish and extremely expensive lots of them are. He said they're like the iPhones of the guitar world today. I had to laugh, because on the surface that sounded true. The Must-Haves of electric guitars. High end guitars aimed at a certain customer. ("If you have to ask how much, you can't afford it")

What do the guitarists here think?

Not really. Gibsons today are massively overpriced and often have poor QA issues. There are better alternatives in the private luthiers with regard to 175s, L5s, Super400s, Byrdlands, and 335s. Certainly, the true heir to Gibson in Kalamazoo. Heritage, makes much better guitars than what's put out in Memphis.

Sadly, people fixate on the headstock and not on the quality of the instrument.

Its important to remember this:

Gibson USA, like Fender USA, no longer makes instruments just for musicians --- they both have current marketing strategies that primarily focus to make instruments for collectors, regardless if they play or not. Its a simple philosophy: working musicians are usually not the most stable-incomed people ( I, for one, can attest to this)....On the other hand, collectors are usually people that have the extra capital to invest in this new hobby. Many of these view guitars (and amps) as "art" and want to keep them locked away or on display without ever hitting a stage again with a cigarette burning in the headstock.Some don't even play. Some do play, and many of these people (usually doctors/lawyers/etc) can play/collect have some kind of weekend band (usually loaded with Stevie Ray Vaughan, CCR, Rolling Stones, "Brown Eyed Girl", and "Mustang Sally" tunes) and play mainly for kicks as opposed to really needing the money. As I said: they can afford Gibson USA and Fender USA

Both companies also issue commemorative pieces, just like the post office releases stamps aimed for philatelists instead of a person that just needs to mail a letter

I sarcastically would like to thank Gruhn's Guitars in Nashville that introduced this philosophy in the early 90s

As a working musician, I hate this: now I cant afford the tool that I want to use for my job.......... and, for me, watching people collect guitars is like a carpenter watching people collect hammers and driving the American-made hammer-market out of the budget range.

Im thinking about getting a law degree and practicing law on the weekends...you know: for fun.......

[Jerjo]

I'm a beginner on guitar and am learning on an acoustic Epiphone. It was cheap, stays in tune, has a nice tone. I think when I go electric I'm going to get the Epiphone version of the Gibson SG.

[Supersonic Scientist]

Regarding Gibson quality, I'll comment on each GTR from my arsenal:

1947 ES-300 - Simply the best sounding post-war arch-top I've ever owned (and I've owned several) (Flat-wound strings are a MUST for that big-band Jazz tone) Crafted by real Artisians.

1966 ES-335 - Heavily modified (not by me) - A true SCREAMER and was my main axe for 30 years (it is now retired) (I LOVED the neck on that guy) Stunning quality top-to-bottom.

1967 ES-125 - Deep body/cut-away (single P-90) A sweet-sounding GTR with a more cutting high-end than the ES-300 Better for Jazz leads. Certainly a mid-level GTR (PLywood top w/veneer) but worth every penny.

1979 ES-1275 - Doubleneck - Heavy in weight and in sound. 12-string cuts through everything and the 6-string neck feels great. Stays in tune remarkably well.

1995 Nighthawk - A total piece of shit. PUPs sound like crap. Neck feels weird. Doesn't stay in tune. I hate gold hardware too. Junk but I got it for free.

2011 Les Paul Traditional - Fantastic feel and tone. PUPS have nice balance from rhythm to Lead. Solid weight but not too heavy. My new main axe.


In the past I've owned a 1964 Barney Kessel. Fanstastic GTR too that I sadly sold & a 1972 SG (My first Gibson) also sadly long gone now.

[GuitarGeek]

On the other hand, collectors are usually people that have the extra capital to invest in this new hobby. Many of these view guitars (and amps) as "art" and want to keep them locked away or on display without ever hitting a stage again with a cigarette burning in the headstock.Some don't even play.

Bonnie Raitt once made an interesting comment in relation to the "collector" phenomenon: "This was a tree, you should honor that". In other words, if you're gonna cut down a tree (actually, most of the more popular guitar models are constructed from more than one variety of wood, so you're cutting down at least two trees, if not more) for the purposes of having material to build a guitar, the damn guitar should be played!!!! Even if it's just a lawyer/doctor/whatever playing in a "weekend warrior" band, that's better than having a beautiful Les Paul or pre-CBS Strat or whatever that never gets played.

I remember back in the 90's, when Fender first started building those high end Custom Shop guitars. I remember the local Sam Ash had one of the Harley Davidson Strats and one of the Phoenix Strats:

1040d1234102861t-visual-guide-stratocaster-years-phoenix.jpg

Each was in a glass case, with a price tag of 20 grand. Now, I'm not sure if I'd necessarily want to play a guitar like that, which is obviously meant to be a piece of furniture, rather than a musical instrument. But even still, as Bonnie said, "It used to be a tree".

Another thing about Gibson is the prices on their hollowbody guitars. I checked out the website awhile back, and the ES-5 Switchmaster reissue something like 7 grand! The vintage ones go for something like 15 grand on E-bay! If you have the means of coming up with 7 grand, you may as well wait until you've got the 8 grand and buy a vintage one. If I ever win the lottery, I'm going vintage on that one.

And half the time when they build a reissue, they don't even offer them in the colours I want. Back in 1968, you could custom order an SG Custom in Walnut Brown, Pelham Blue or Cherry Red (the standard finish was white, but you could get it in any of their custom colours). But now, you can only get in what I guess they reckon are the one or two most popular finishes. I guess one could buy a white reissue, and have it refinished, but...I have this thing about modifying guitars. It's like asking your girlfriend or wife to get a boob job.

Besides which, I've heard changing the finish on a guitar, as I mentioned earlier, can change the guitar's tone irrevocably, though that might be just acoustic instruments where that's most noticeable. Then again, I remember Joe Bonamossa claim that he's had trouble with changing out pickups on a guitar, then returning to the original pickup. Apparently, he thinks even the solder joints affect the tone (shades of Eric Johnson's "I took the screws out of my Fuzz Face because they were messing with the tone, and I put my Tube Driver on a wooden block because it doesn't sound right sitting next to my other pedals" trip).

Another guitar I'm shooting for if I win the lottery is a walnut finish ES-355. There's been a couple on E-bay over the last few years, so I reckon if one has the money it shouldn't be too hard to acquire one.

[klothos]

Bonnie Raitt once made an interesting comment in relation to the "collector" phenomenon: "This was a tree, you should honor that". In other words, if you're gonna cut down a tree (actually, most of the more popular guitar models are constructed from more than one variety of wood, so you're cutting down at least two trees, if not more) for the purposes of having material to build a guitar, the damn guitar should be played!!!! Even if it's just a lawyer/doctor/whatever playing in a "weekend warrior" band, that's better than having a beautiful Les Paul or pre-CBS Strat or whatever that never gets played.

Yeah, that was sour grapes on my part -- as a working musician, its kind of a pet peeve (as it is with a lot of working musicians) but, yes, your point is most definitely valid

Another guitar I'm shooting for if I win the lottery is a walnut finish ES-355. There's been a couple on E-bay over the last few years, so I reckon if one has the money it shouldn't be too hard to acquire one.

Some time ago, I had a late-60s ES-330 Walnut (P90s and a few other differences from the 335)...lovely guitar (but Im a bass player )

[GuitarGeek]

As a side note, I remember reading once that after Buddy Holly died, his guitars were returned to his widow, who kept them in the living room of the house. Whenever fans would show up (and apparently it happened from time to time), they'd bring the guitars out for the fans to see, and even let them play the guitars. I guess they're now in a museum, in glass cases. But I find it intriguing that Buddy's family had no beef with fans strumming a song or two on Buddy's Strat or Gibson acoustic.

Oh, and I imagine it's the "weekend warrior" types that Fender makes the "relic" guitars for. Ya know, you don't have the time or money to play out often enough to make your Strat look like Stevie Ray's or Rory's, so Fender will do it for ya, at a premium, of course. Gee, wouldn't tying the guitar to the rare bumper of a 1972 Buick Skylark and dragging up and down Main Street for a couple weeks achieve the same effect?

[Sputnik]

Its important to remember this:

Gibson USA, like Fender USA, no longer makes instruments just for musicians --- they both have current marketing strategies that primarily focus to make instruments for collectors, regardless if they play or not. Its a simple philosophy: working musicians are usually not the most stable-incomed people ( I, for one, can attest to this)....On the other hand, collectors are usually people that have the extra capital to invest in this new hobby. Many of these view guitars (and amps) as "art" and want to keep them locked away or on display without ever hitting a stage again with a cigarette burning in the headstock.Some don't even play. Some do play, and many of these people (usually doctors/lawyers/etc) can play/collect have some kind of weekend band (usually loaded with Stevie Ray Vaughan, CCR, Rolling Stones, "Brown Eyed Girl", and "Mustang Sally" tunes) and play mainly for kicks as opposed to really needing the money. As I said: they can afford Gibson USA and Fender USA

Both companies also issue commemorative pieces, just like the post office releases stamps aimed for philatelists instead of a person that just needs to mail a letter

I sarcastically would like to thank Gruhn's Guitars in Nashville that introduced this philosophy in the early 90s

As a working musician, I hate this: now I cant afford the tool that I want to use for my job.......... and, for me, watching people collect guitars is like a carpenter watching people collect hammers and driving the American-made hammer-market out of the budget range.

Im thinking about getting a law degree and practicing law on the weekends...you know: for fun.......

There's some truth in this, but if you consider inflation, the price of some of these instruments isn't that out of line with what the price was back in the day. If a 1963 Fender Stratocaster sold for $289 USD, that would be $2,138 today. I know you can get a very nice USA made Strat, Tele, or what have you for less than this. So this shouldn't be out of reach for any serious working musician. Gibsons have always been more expensive, and their guitars are commensurately more expensive today. Whether their "quality" matches this price today is another question. But in a relative sense they aren't out of line in terms of the buying power needed to purchase one today versus back in the 50s or 60s. So I wouldn't say these instruments are "simply for collectors."

No doubt both companies make "custom shop" or other special models that are far more pricey. But you can get a USA made guitar for a fraction of the cost of these from both Fender and Gisbon, and far less if you move to a Mexican, Japanese, Korean, and even Chinese made guitar by these makers; many of which are completely usable by a serious musician.

I have two American made Fender reissues, one a 1963 Jazz Bass in the style of Jaco's bass, and one a 1957 Stratocaster. I bought both new and paid about $1,600 for the bass and about $1,400 for the guitar. I also have a Japanese 1951 reissue Precision bass that I paid about $700 for (all these might cost a bit more now as I've owned them for a while). I've played A LOT of instruments, including Nash and LSL guitars and boutique basses that cost between $800 to $2,000 more than the two American guitars. For me, I haven't noticed any difference that would have justified my paying more (except in some cases the pickups, which is about a $200 upgrade). So I think the American Fenders are actually extremely reasonably priced for a serious player, recognizing that some specific features like neck shape, fingerboard radius, etc. might make other brands appealing to certain players. But I still think the American Fenders are a good deal. My Japanese Fender was a steal at that price.

I'm not as much of a Gibson guy, so I can't do that kind of comparison for solid-body Gibson style guitars. I have played a bunch of Gibson and heritage hollow and semi-hollow bodies. I couldn't immediately see a huge quality differential between the two, but my sense is the Heritage would probably have won out over time in terms of playability and sound. The Gibson would have been worth more in the end, though!

As I'm not really a jazz guy, I actually wound up with a Chinese made Epiphone 1961 reissue Casino. I prefer the P-90s to the humbuckers, and they used the same Gibson p-90s that are on the ES-330. I paid about $700 for this guitar, and I think it plays and sounds as good as many of the vintage Gibsons and Epis I've toyed around with. So under the Gibson umbrella, I think some good guitars are being made, but I know their reputation is spotty. It's actually kind of unfortunate to me that Gibsons have such a poor quality reputation. It would be great to have an esteemed US manufacturer making quality stuff, like I believe Fender still does. If their instruments largely justified the price, you probably wouldn't see as many complaints from the musicians who buy them.

Bill

[klothos]

There's some truth in this, but if you consider inflation, the price of some of these instruments isn't that out of line with what the price was back in the day. If a 1963 Fender Stratocaster sold for $289 USD, that would be $2,138 today. I know you can get a very nice USA made Strat, Tele, or what have you for less than this. So this shouldn't be out of reach for any serious working musician. Gibsons have always been more expensive, and their guitars are commensurately more expensive today. Whether their "quality" matches this price today is another question. But in a relative sense they aren't out of line in terms of the buying power needed to purchase one today versus back in the 50s or 60s. So I wouldn't say these instruments are "simply for collectors."

No doubt both companies make "custom shop" or other special models that are far more pricey. But you can get a USA made guitar for a fraction of the cost of these from both Fender and Gisbon, and far less if you move to a Mexican, Japanese, Korean, and even Chinese made guitar by these makers; many of which are completely usable by a serious musician.

I have two American made Fender reissues, one a 1963 Jazz Bass in the style of Jaco's bass, and one a 1957 Stratocaster. I bought both new and paid about $1,600 for the bass and about $1,400 for the guitar. I also have a Japanese 1951 reissue Precision bass that I paid about $700 for (all these might cost a bit more now as I've owned them for a while). I've played A LOT of instruments, including Nash and LSL guitars and boutique basses that cost between $800 to $2,000 more than the two American guitars. For me, I haven't noticed any difference that would have justified my paying more (except in some cases the pickups, which is about a $200 upgrade). So I think the American Fenders are actually extremely reasonably priced for a serious player, recognizing that some specific features like neck shape, fingerboard radius, etc. might make other brands appealing to certain players. But I still think the American Fenders are a good deal. My Japanese Fender was a steal at that price.

I'm not as much of a Gibson guy, so I can't do that kind of comparison for solid-body Gibson style guitars. I have played a bunch of Gibson and heritage hollow and semi-hollow bodies. I couldn't immediately see a huge quality differential between the two, but my sense is the Heritage would probably have won out over time in terms of playability and sound. The Gibson would have been worth more in the end, though!

As I'm not really a jazz guy, I actually wound up with a Chinese made Epiphone 1961 reissue Casino. I prefer the P-90s to the humbuckers, and they used the same Gibson p-90s that are on the ES-330. I paid about $700 for this guitar, and I think it plays and sounds as good as many of the vintage Gibsons and Epis I've toyed around with. So under the Gibson umbrella, I think some good guitars are being made, but I know their reputation is spotty. It's actually kind of unfortunate to me that Gibsons have such a poor quality reputation. It would be great to have an esteemed US manufacturer making quality stuff, like I believe Fender still does. If their instruments largely justified the price, you probably wouldn't see as many complaints from the musicians who buy them.

Bill

Part of that problem has to do with pay rates -- (Speaking for my area) Back in the 80s, I would make anywhere from $50-$125 per night (depending on the gig -- avg between $75-100 per night) and most of these gigs were 4 to 5 nights per week....back then, I could play music for a living: there because most clubs were multi-nights per week, dedicated career musicians (without day-jobs) were needed......fast forward to 2013, the cost of living is far higher, and most gigs are one-niters (I always joke to people that I get paid to set up/tear down equipment -- the playing is free) but, most clubs are STILL only paying $75-100 per night....this is why I do a lot of solo and duo work, because it pays more (avg $125 per man)...playing in my band is way more fun, and doing corporate gigs/ wedding gigs always pays more (sometimes $200-$300 per man) as well, but - for the most part - the days of being able to purchase a decent USA-made instrument on a career club musician's budget are over: In three decades, I never got a raise.....so, while your cost analysis time comparable may be true for production, working club musicians still make the same amount of money

[Sputnik]

In three decades, I never got a raise.....so, while your cost analysis time comparable may be true for production, working club musicians still make the same amount of money

That's a good point, and I hear you. Working musician's salaries have likely not kept up with the inflation of salaries generally, so that is surely a mitigating factor.

Still, ~$1,600 - $1,700 for an American made Strat is hardly "collector's only" pricing, and that's for an American Vintage. American Standards are around $1,200 new. Les Pauls are more. I see them at about $2,000 to about $2,600 for something reasonable that isn't super fancy. It's not cheap, but for an instrument you're likely to have and be able to use for your whole life, it's not a king's ransom. And there are far cheaper options that a Pro could definitely use, many made by Gibson and Fender. To me, the bigger issue is working musician's salaries, not the cost of the instruments. But that's another topic altogether.

I imagine it's the "weekend warrior" types that Fender makes the "relic" guitars for. Ya know, you don't have the time or money to play out often enough to make your Strat look like Stevie Ray's or Rory's, so Fender will do it for ya, at a premium, of course. Gee, wouldn't tying the guitar to the rare bumper of a 1972 Buick Skylark and dragging up and down Main Street for a couple weeks achieve the same effect?

To some extent you are right, but understand that Nash and LSL relic their guitars, and they are absolutely NOT meant for the weekend warrior, or the collector. These guitars are aimed at musicians who know and can tell the difference. There are aspects of relicing that are cosmetic and for show, but others (like removing lacquer from the back of the neck and fingerboard) have utility. Also, "broken in" instruments do play differently, and Nash and LSL do recreate the feel of guitars that have been around the block.

As, surprisingly, do Fender's road worn Mexican instruments. I expected them to seriously suck, and I've been seriously contradicted in that expectation every time I pick one up. I haven't tried any of the guitars, but the basses really do play like an old Fender. Contrast this with the stock Mexican 50s P or 60s J they use to relic, the stock instrument just feels "sticky" and far too stiff. The roadworn guitars I've played are nice and smooth. And the "premium" for relicing is like $100. Not exactly a gouge.

And to be clear, no, you can't relic your guitar by dragging it behind a car, even a vintage one.

Bill

[GuitarGeek]

I have a Mexican Strat which I think is a decent guitar. That's the guitar I was talking about awhile back that I had to replace the nut on. I'm not sure what kind of wood the body is made out of (basswood? poplar?) but it's MUCH lighter than my '79 Strat (which I think is one of the ones with the ridiculously heavy swamp ash body). It has a good tone.

I've often heard it said that if you buy a Mexican Fender, and swap out the pickups (which are apparently one of the areas where they cut corners) with, say Seymour Duncans or DiMarzios, they become much better guitars.

And since the topic of Far East made instruments came up, the other guitar I've lately been thinking about some of the recent Squier models. I believe those are made in China now, as well. They have one model with Seymour Duncan made lipstick tube pickups, which kinda has my attention lately. I've also seen another Squier model that has a matching headstock, which looks kinda cool.