Are Gibson guitars worth the new price?

darnoldi

As a follow up to the posts on the Gibson price increase:

I have always dreamed of owning a brand new Gibson, as I am sure many of you have too.

With the changes to the new line-up, specs and pricing, are they still considered 'worth it'?
This is obviously very subjective, but I would be very interested to get a feel for the overall consensus.

I would appreciate it if a mod could run a poll on this, as the results would be very interesting and give some idea as to the success of their marketing strategy.

So I think the real question is, if you could afford to buy one (any one), would you?

Dave

singemonkey

Erm... no?

If money was no object, their historic line is pretty much as good as it's ever been. So if you can afford what's likely to be close to R70K for a single guitar, you'll get a classic Gibson for it, as I understand.

But why on Earth would someone choose the latest line up Les Pauls over the 2013 models. Or, in fact, a great many line ups from the past? The new tuning system is ridiculously clunky - like some kind of home-rigged thing. The necks are reportedly absurd - a few people have mentioned 'classical guitar' necks. And - as always - the quality of woods for any given model is down from a decade ago.

One example, Les Paul Customs no longer have ebony fret-boards. Now who, in their right mind, would buy one of those rather than a mint-condition Custom from a few years ago with an ebony board? At a fraction of the price.

Why would it be important to buy the guitar brand new? It boggles the mind. It's not a toaster. It doesn't wear out. To the extent that you'd rather get a lower-spec product for three times the price just so you get to peel the plastic off?

There's individual preference and then there's just plain foolish.

AlanRatcliffe

Depends on how much you think having the Gibson name on the headstock is worth. You can get better Les Pauloids for less money, ranging from the "inspired by, but better" designs like the PRS Singlecut to "made like G used to make 'em" like Heritage and Tokai.

Sure, if you buy new, the Gibson's hold their value better (but if you buy secondhand, they all hold their own and the other brands will still cost you less). However, I suspect Gibson have just wiped out that advantage they had and added tons of value to the "other" guitars. The boutique builders like Gil Sharon will probably also now snap into many more people's sights.

Anyway, as Singe pointed out in the other thread: for a player, what's the use of owning a guitar you can't take out and perform with for fear of something happening to it? So most of the real players will end up playing and promoting the other brands and they will influence the next generation of buyers and Gibson's desirability will wane further.

warrenpridgeon

Alan Ratcliffe wrote:

Depends on how much you think having the Gibson name on the headstock is worth. You can get better Les Pauloids for less money, ranging from the "inspired by, but better" designs like the PRS Singlecut to "made like G used to make 'em" like Heritage and Tokai.

Sure, if you buy new, the Gibson's hold their value better (but if you buy secondhand, they all hold their own and the other brands will still cost you less). However, I suspect Gibson have just wiped out that advantage they had and added tons of value to the "other" guitars. The boutique builders like Gil Sharon will probably also now snap into many more people's sights.

Anyway, as Singe pointed out in the other thread: for a player, what's the use of owning a guitar you can't take out and perform with for fear of something happening to it? So most of the real players will end up playing and promoting the other brands and they will influence the next generation of buyers and Gibson's desirability will wane further.

Imagine getting the (in)famous headstock snap on a R70k gibbo ☹

Banditman

Agreed - to everything that Alan and singemonkey've said.

The thing is Gibson mass produce an item, and like any production line item there are variations in quality if you're not really on top of it. The more you charge for an item, the more consistent you need to be. You cannot afford to rest on your laurels, no matter how well earned they were. So its not that Gibson didn't earn a name for good reason - long before happy Henry came on the scene. The question is: How does it stack up against a competitor's product made to the same claimed quality levels, of similar quality tone woods and hardware?

Some people like to speak about a Gibson sound as if its somehow unique. In that case, which one? The original '50's Les Pauls with P90s? The Maple capped unchambered mahogany PAF-fitted Standards and customs? The SG, Flying V, Explorer or ES series? The weight-relieved ones or the '70s models with mini humbuckers?

It's an uncomfortable truth for the rabid devotees to swallow, but sound is like colour. There's much that affects the way each individual perceives it, and a well-made mahogany/maple single cut guitar of the right basic dimensions that's fitted with the right hardware and pickups will make "that" sound. It'll be close enough that only a synesthete or complete tone hound could tell the difference.

If some or all of that is true, then Gibson should be building one hell of a guitar - and from the correct woods etc. - for that kind of a price rise. Their QC should be impeccable.

Caveat emptor. If I had the "no object" kind of money to put into a guitar, I'd be looking at something really special with better quality like a Tom Anderson. Or pick up a good older Gibson for less.