Rant about Ebay and Gibson Les Pauls.

Saddlepunk

The other day I searched Ebay for electric guitars and filtered for 'used' and 'highest price'. What struck me was that 80% of the guitar world seems to think that old Les Pauls are worth a fortune. And not just the old ones - reissues of the old ones that themselves are only a year or two old - seem to be ridiculous amounts of money!

Anything with Fender or Gibson written on it seems to be 'rare' or 'ultra rare' (when there are three or more adverts further down the page for the seemingly exact same thing).  Am I right in thinking the emperor has no clothes - that these things are mass machine produced, and the only reason you get charged more for one made in America is not because of quality and workmanship, but because wages are much higher?

I don't get it.

Moving down the search there seemed to be some absolute gems up the cheaper end of things. Guitars that are handmade, genuinely rare, works of art almost, that could be snapped up for a tenth, hundredth, of the money attached to some musty old Les Paul.

Fuengi

It does seem to the uninitiated (me) that Fender & Gibson are overrated manufacturers.

BUT watch any pro live musicians and they invariably use Fender guitars and amps and Gibson guitars all the time. If it's good enough for them... 

darthed1981

Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it I guess.  eBay listings are regularly pulled up here as ludicrous, if you want a guitar from someone trustworthy, try the classified listings here?  A fraud would soon be outed!

As well as the wages, additionally the guitar companies deliberately build the US models to a higher specification that the Far East ones.  You are correct that the "emperors new clothes" applies, there is literally no reason after 20 years building guitars a Chinese manufacturer would not be superior to a US one, but they deliberately get a much bigger margin from their higher-end US models.  

Three-ColourSunburst

What you have to remember is that many people in the world of guitars are strong believers in magic, usually given the slightly more credible name of 'Mojo'. Just look at the 'tone wood' debate and the fetishisation of vintage instruments. 'Fender and even more so Gibson guitars have more Mojo than many companies because the brand-name allows an association to be made with certain genre-defining models, the use of those models by famous players and so on.

Today a company like Gibson may have next to nothing to do with the original company, being merely the current owners of the brand name, using CNC machines to produce look-alike copies of guitars such as the original Les Paul, in different factories and using cheap imported parts, but because of the name on the headstock people still see these as having an 'authenticity', and thereby more 'Mojo' than an identical (or even higher quality) guitar that does not carry that brand name.

Saddlepunk

Three-ColourSunburst said:

 ..using CNC machines to produce look-alike copies.. 

I started an engineering apprenticeship back in the early 80's until I discovered CNC machines and realised it made no sense risking life and digits to learn to do badly what a computer would do perfectly!

I do get the 'Hendrix played a Fender, and if it was good enough for him etc..' For years my only guitar was a left handed American strat played upside down! But he, like Jack White, could out-play mortals with the cheapest guitars or a bit of string stretched between a couple of nails!

I'm prepared to believe that the Les Paul and Stratocaster were fine guitars back in the 50's/60's with a lot of inferior stuff to contend with - but not now.

Three-ColourSunburst

Saddlepunk said:

I started an engineering apprenticeship back in the early 80's until I discovered CNC machines and realised it made no sense risking life and digits to learn to do badly what a computer would do perfectly!

Don't get me wrong, I agree that CNC machines make a better guitar than someone with a band saw and sander. However, it seems having work done by hand is held to give a guitar more 'Mojo'. Given this and the cult of 'vintage' guitars it is no wonder that companies like Gibson can get away with charging 5-grand extra for a 'relic' guitar - done by hand of course!

Sync

As with many brands and products, it's the history and placement of the brand that creates the market, price, value and demand. 

There may be a marginal betterment in quality over lesser or parallel brands, or not; but that is completely irrelevant for guitars where it is the legacy of the 60's to 80's era that created the iconic value in Gibson and Fender and can never be repeated in the same way in other brands.

For PRS, it is the promise of future legacy based on the 'impeccable quality' that creates their perceived value. A piece of modern art to admire......

It's no different for example to the value created with top tier watches, art and racing pedigree cars.

Whether the actual pricing is realistic is ultimately realised by whether the item sells. But like art, some people aren't worried about whether it sells, or even really want to sell it. Instead they are simply creating a perceived value.

Try buying concert grade orchestral instruments and you realise how cheap guitars are on the whole. You can successfully gig with a £200-£500 guitar. You wouldn't turn up to a SO with a £200 string instrument. 

Saddlepunk

This originated a few weeks ago when I was shopping around and watched an Rguitars video on YouTube, now I realise R has history with this forum and generates hot opinions but that's neither here nor there, he held up a beautiful Eastman and said "why would you pay £3000 for a Gibson 330 when you could have this work of art for half the price?" Couldn't disagree with him - seemed to me, if you were paying for what you get and not just the name, the Eastman should have been twice the price of the Gibson.

merlin

The crucial words are "marketing" and "fashion". 

Coming from the perspective of a pro clarinetist, I've looked into the history of clarinet manufacture and it seems that the French company Buffet became the woodwind equivalent of Gibson over 140 years ago, and produced stencil instruments for many other European clarinet makers and indeed made something like 85% of clarinets made in Europe. Despite there having been other, smaller companies that produced instruments that were every bit as good, Buffet were the company that spent most money on marketing and getting themselves to all the musical instrument fairs, therefore the awards etc etc.

No one could compete with their selling techniques and many great companies went under. 

With guitars, the endorsement of Hendrix, Page, The Beatles etc etc and the fact that America was still the funkiest and trendiest country meant that Fender and Gibson (and a few other brands) scrambled to the top of the pile and have pretty much stayed there. 

LuttiS

Along with the perceived value of these, i think they are "safe" brands.. 
People who are not necessarily "guitar nerds" would know these brands so rather than risking it with some unknown brand they know that they are going to get a certain level of quality. 

They are the Premier Inn or Travel Lodge of the guitar world.

prowla

Well (and not particularly wanting to defend them per-se) ebay are not responsible for the goods which are sold by their auction site, so long as they are legal.

On the matter of Gibsons, Fenders and vintage guitars, they are worth what people will pay for them.

I like a guitar which has age to it, has survived the years, has matured, etc. If I had loads of spare cash and a dedicated room, I'd be buying some.

For current production guitars, I think it is true that the brands do tend to artificially position them at certain price points and using componentry of differing qualities; companies do that in other fields too.

I think that you have an expectation of the premium models that they will be consistently better and you may get a really good one, whereas with the lower ranges you may be lucky and a good one.

Me, I'm not going to pay £3k+ for a Gibson, though I did recently buy an SG for less than 10% of that; it's a nice guitar.

darthed1981

prowla said:

I think that you have an expectation of the premium models that they will be consistently better and you may get a really good one, whereas with the lower ranges you may be lucky and a good one.

If that were the case, then they could start to justify the price point, but I've seen way too many reports of ropey Gibsons to believe it is.

The horrific irony is that Gibson is a failing business with a ready market of rich or wealthy boomers who have money to burn.  In twenty years when the only guitar enthusiasts are the younger generation who barely pick up electric guitars, i.e. small in number, the situation will be far worse.

The younger generation are used to getting a stunningly capable and damn near perfectly made product (smartphones, other tech largely) at almost throwaway prices.  How are you going to convince them to max their credit cards for a Les Paul (hint: you aren't, the US guitar manufacturers need to change approach).

aord43

Saddlepunk said:

The other day I searched Ebay for electric guitars and filtered for 'used' and 'highest price'. What struck me was that 80% of the guitar world seems to think that old Les Pauls are worth a fortune. And not just the old ones - reissues of the old ones that themselves are only a year or two old - seem to be ridiculous amounts of money!

Anything with Fender or Gibson written on it seems to be 'rare' or 'ultra rare'. Am I not right in thinking that the emperor has no clothes - that these things are mass machine produced, and the only reason you get charged more for one made in America is not because of quality and workmanship, but because wages are much higher?

I don't get it.

Moving down the search there seemed to be some absolute gems up the cheaper end of things.

Items are worth what people will pay.  If they "think that old Les Pauls are worth a fortune" then perhaps they are.

Guitars that are handmade, genuinely rare, works of art almost, that could be snapped up for a tenth, hundredth, of the money attached to some musty old Les Paul.

These are only attractive to those who know what they are. Gibson, Fender are a safer bet than something I've never heard of, even if it's a fantastic bargain. And people are more likely to go safe than to spend a lot of time researching something, especially if it's at the cheaper end.

Three-ColourSunburst

LuttiS said:

Along with the perceived value of these, i think they are "safe" brands. People who are not necessarily "guitar nerds" would know these brands so rather than risking it with some unknown brand they know that they are going to get a certain level of quality.  They are the Premier Inn or Travel Lodge of the guitar world.

I think that was a lot truer back in the 60's and 70's when everyone and his dog were buying guitars and countless young blokes had well-paying jobs with cash to spare and just wanted to buy whatever those long-haired blokes on TV were playing. (The ones who all the girls seemed to like so much. )

Now it is exactly the 'guitar nerds' who lust after high spec and vintage Fenders and Gibsons, the very people who really should know better. But the power of the brand and the Mojo that supposedly comes as standard with buying a 'Really, really true historic, complete with hide glue' Les Paul causes many people to throw all rationality out of the window.

Saddlepunk

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Now it is exactly the 'guitar nerds' who lust after high spec and vintage Fenders and Gibsons....

And would never play them because that's like taking the toy out of the box and then throwing the box away - and who does that these days?

Neil

No one is forcing you to buy a "musty old Les Paul".

If you enjoy guitars that cost one hundredth of the price all power to you. 

Saddlepunk

Neil said:

No one is forcing you to buy a "musty old Les Paul".

Thank goodness for that.

I don't believe anyone who owns one plays it anyway - far too valuable. I've got a friend who's in a semi-pro punk band, owns a Gibson yet gigs with a cheap Les Paul copy in case it gets broken - makes you wonder whether they're more rewarding and wonderful to own than they are to play. 

Skipped

The insane desire to own and play an original Les Paul came about long before Collectors came on the scene. It was created by word of mouth.

AlexC

Fender and Gibson were played by the 60s and 70s generation of rock stars because, by and large, that's what there was. Burns? Guild? Vox? Not gonna hack it (then, at least). The fact that nearly all the great guitarists took these pieces of wood and wire apart and customised them to the hilt seems to have escaped most people. 
Watch a Hendrix live clip. He's tuning the thing up mid song half the time.
It"s like Citizen Kane being 'the greatest film' - it was ahead of its time. Some critics raved about it. And generations have rarely called it into question.
Gibson and Fender? Yeah - they make guitars. So do lots of other people. But - hey man - you're 'paying for a legend.' If you want to do that then do it. But don't make out it's because they're the best guitars on the market.