The GINI coefficient when applied to acoustics

DavidR

The GINI coefficient is supposed to be an economic measure of distribution of income across a country.

Taking it as a concept and applying it in a slightly strange lopsided way to acoustic guitar prices, things don't seem to be improving in that department either as regards balance. To my mind the costly but non-luthier end of the market and the really quite good budget end seem to be diverging in the last few years.

£119 for a Fender CD60/£259 for a Yamaha FG800 vs. £3,899 for a Martin OM28 Modern Deluxe/£6,500 for an Atkin 25th Anniversary J43 for example.

Am I really going to have that much more fun on the expensive instruments? Thirty times more???

I know there's a very welcome cost spectrum of instruments out there in comparison with 'the good old days' and so people can choose what they want at their own budget point. I suppose the point I'm making is there must be a huge mark up in the business models of some of the supposedly premium but non-luthier brands. I don't begrudge anyone a profit and I guess they know their own businesses. It just strikes me as increasingly  odd.

Gandalph

£6500 for an Atkin! 

Has the world gone insane. 

Check out that removable ‘leather cover’ and signed anniversary poster though...

Edit...
modern day guitar marketing at it’s worst
imo  

jellyroll

There are two schools of thought:

1. Companies charging these higher prices are a rip-off.

or

2. You (generally) get what you pay for. 

I’m in camp 2.  

Benm39

I suspect it's more likely a case that some of these companies charging these higher prices are a ripoff, and sometimes you get what you pay for (more so given decent research and the collective wisdom as found on this forum for example...)

Tannin

I think it is more a reflection of the inexorable infection of every single commercial activity by marketing theory weenies. These people - the people that big corporates put in charge of model differentiation and pricing strategy - are utterly wedded to the notion that the way to extract maximum profit from the consumer is to offer a large range of pricing points and makes sure that every product has something "wrong" with it which can only be "cured" by "upgrading" to the next one up in the model range. 

The tricky bit is that at the same time they have to find reasons to stop you simply switching to another company. They are very good at it. One method they use is decision fatigue. By presenting you with endless choice after choice after choice - none of them easy or obvious or clearly explained - they hope that you will throw up your hands in confusion and just buy the top model (which has the biggest profit margin of all, naturally). Classic examples are power and gas supply contracts, phone contracts, insurance, car models, air travel ... and in many cases guitars. Gibson, Fender, and Martin do it as mere routine. Other companies are not immune.

ICBM

It’s even worse with electrics. There is more of an argument that very good acoustics require higher quality woods and craftsmanship - they’re significantly more complex constructions and much more dependent on microscopic differences than any electric guitar. The prices being asked for high-end electrics are either in response to fine-tuning that really doesn’t matter, or just a total con.

BluesLover

A good friend is a watch collector, the prices are ridiculous. Would love to know how much it costs to make a watch that retails for £5k

Lewy

Tannin said:

I think it is more a reflection of the inexorable infection of every single commercial activity by marketing theory weenies. These people - the people that big corporates put in charge of model differentiation and pricing strategy - are utterly wedded to the notion that the way to extract maximum profit from the consumer is to offer a large range of pricing points and makes sure that every product has something "wrong" with it which can only be "cured" by "upgrading" to the next one up in the model range. 

It certainly would explain some of the odd feature decisions companies make about models - e.g. who in their right mind would choose the transitional logo versus the spaghetti logo on a US 60s re-issue strat? I'd wager not many people. Doesn't make sense....why not make it more desirable at no extra cost...except now if you want the spaghetti logo it's off to the custom shop with you! 

jellyroll

Well, forums like this don't help ... stimulating GAS by talking about minute differences that would make the person in the street keel over with indifference. 

tomjax

There's also the supply and demand element. I've read that some high-end luthiers can push their prices way up just as a means to manage the demand and create the exclusivity factor. 

ICBM

Lewy said:

It certainly would explain some of the odd feature decisions companies make about models - e.g. who in their right mind would choose the transitional logo versus the spaghetti logo on a US 60s re-issue strat? I'd wager not many people. Doesn't make sense....why not make it more desirable at no extra cost...except now if you want the spaghetti logo it's off to the custom shop with you! 

Me, if I wanted a 60s-style Fender rather than a 50s one - I think it looks much better with the other 60s features.

And also because the transition logo is far less widely faked than the spaghetti...

earwighoney

ICBM said:

It’s even worse with electrics. There is more of an argument that very good acoustics require higher quality woods and craftsmanship - they’re significantly more complex constructions and much more dependent on microscopic differences than any electric guitar. The prices being asked for high-end electrics are either in response to fine-tuning that really doesn’t matter, or just a total con.

For high end electrics or ones made by a single luthier, for something like a Les Paul repro - all the materials combined might come to just less than a grand including pickups (PAF's might be £250-300), the hardware, the timbers which might be more expensive than for some acoustic guitars if you factor in one piece Honduran Mahogany blanks, flamed maple carved tops, BRW fretboard blanks and so on.

I once had the chance to compare my Epi LP with CTS Pots/Mojo Pickups against a LP repro with CTS Pots/Mojos costing many times more through the same amp on the same day and the differences between both guitars were night and day. 

I'd say for acoustic guitars though the quality of MIC (and far East) instruments are really superb, companies like Eastman use timber as good as any guitars around (eg the Adirondack comes from the same supplier for Collings etc) and there's no better time to be a consumer than now whichever part of the market you are buying a guitar.

crunchman

An acoustic is a lot more complex to build.  An electric is essentially a slab with a neck  fixed to it and a few holes and channels for the electronics.  It's a simple construction.  A carved top adds some extra labour, but it's still not a complex construction.

An acoustic on the other hand is a lot more complex.  There are a lot more pieces of wood.  You have to bend the sides.  You have to do all the bracing and the kerfing.  The top and back are radiused.  The neck joint is more complex.  You can't just screw a ready made bridge on. You have to make the bridge, rout a saddle slot, glue it on, and make a saddle.

That's before you get to scalloping the bracing to get a balanced tone.  That requires skill to do well.

There is a lot more work on an acoustic.  You are going to have to spend money for a well built handmade acoustic.  If it's not a lot of money, it's either factory style production with a lot of automation, or corners will have been cut in the build, or on materials, or both.