I've heard it all now!

Seziertisch

Philly_Q said:

Seziertisch said:

The fact that these guitars exist (and sell) at the price point they do is just further justification for the introduction of a tax on wealth. There are too many people out there for whom whether they can afford these kind of goods of extreme ostentation is not even a consideration. 

If owning a limited-edition Gibson Custom Shop guitar is enough to take you into the scope of any kind of wealth tax, then an awful lot of people are going to be paying wealth tax.  They may be stupidly expensive, for a guitar, but they cost no more than an average car.  If the government ever did introduce a wealth tax it would be hitting the kind of people who own original '50s sunbursts, not people who buy reissues.

You miss my point. I wasn’t proposing that owing an ultra expensive guitar as a criteria for whether someone should be taxed, rather that that the existence of a market for such items indicates that there is a category of super rich for whom dropping this kind of coin isn’t a consideration. At least a Burst is likely to appreciate or at least hold its value and can be considered an investment, who knows what’s going to happen with these.

The forums are full of people posting about how they would/could never buy a £20k plus reissue, how there is better value to be had from both an instrument and investment perspective on the vintage market, how these are not going to sell, how Gibson have lost touch … And then dealers get them in stock and they are all sold in no time. 

All Gibson have done is recognise the existence of a market for those with means of magnitudes greater than the “average” CS buyer, and catered for that market. In that they are no different from other makers of super luxury goods. The number of millionaires and billionaires has increased exponentially in the last few years. Someone has to sell stuff to them. 

OilCityPickups

scrumhalf said:

You pay them the money and they give the guitar to a woman you hate - simulating losing the guitar in a divorce settlement.

Been there with a 50s Les Paul ... man that smarts. The only consolation is that I'm certain wherever that Les Paul is now 
it looks in better fucking condition than she does now! 

Philly_Q

Seziertisch said:

Philly_Q said:

Seziertisch said:

The fact that these guitars exist (and sell) at the price point they do is just further justification for the introduction of a tax on wealth. There are too many people out there for whom whether they can afford these kind of goods of extreme ostentation is not even a consideration. 

If owning a limited-edition Gibson Custom Shop guitar is enough to take you into the scope of any kind of wealth tax, then an awful lot of people are going to be paying wealth tax.  They may be stupidly expensive, for a guitar, but they cost no more than an average car.  If the government ever did introduce a wealth tax it would be hitting the kind of people who own original '50s sunbursts, not people who buy reissues.

You miss my point. I wasn’t proposing that owing an ultra expensive guitar as a criteria for whether someone should be taxed, rather that that the existence of a market for such items indicates that there is a category of super rich for whom dropping this kind of coin isn’t a consideration. At least a Burst is likely to appreciate or at least hold its value and can be considered an investment, who knows what’s going to happen with these.

The forums are full of people posting about how they would/could never buy a £20k plus reissue, how there is better value to be had from both an instrument and investment perspective on the vintage market, how these are not going to sell, how Gibson have lost touch … And then dealers get them in stock and they are all sold in no time. 

All Gibson have done is recognise the existence of a market for those with means of magnitudes greater than the “average” CS buyer, and catered for that market. In that they are no different from other makers of super luxury goods. The number of millionaires and billionaires has increased exponentially in the last few years. Someone has to sell stuff to them. 

I didn't miss your point.  I just don't think the existence and sale of a few expensive guitars adds weight to any argument for a wealth tax.

elstoof

Seziertisch said:

The forums are full of people posting about how they would/could never buy a £20k plus reissue, how there is better value to be had from both an instrument and investment perspective on the vintage market, how these are not going to sell, how Gibson have lost touch … And then dealers get them in stock and they are all sold in no time. 

That’s because people on forums aren’t normal

Seziertisch

Philly_Q said:

Seziertisch said:

Philly_Q said:

Seziertisch said:

The fact that these guitars exist (and sell) at the price point they do is just further justification for the introduction of a tax on wealth. There are too many people out there for whom whether they can afford these kind of goods of extreme ostentation is not even a consideration. 

If owning a limited-edition Gibson Custom Shop guitar is enough to take you into the scope of any kind of wealth tax, then an awful lot of people are going to be paying wealth tax.  They may be stupidly expensive, for a guitar, but they cost no more than an average car.  If the government ever did introduce a wealth tax it would be hitting the kind of people who own original '50s sunbursts, not people who buy reissues.

You miss my point. I wasn’t proposing that owing an ultra expensive guitar as a criteria for whether someone should be taxed, rather that that the existence of a market for such items indicates that there is a category of super rich for whom dropping this kind of coin isn’t a consideration. At least a Burst is likely to appreciate or at least hold its value and can be considered an investment, who knows what’s going to happen with these.

The forums are full of people posting about how they would/could never buy a £20k plus reissue, how there is better value to be had from both an instrument and investment perspective on the vintage market, how these are not going to sell, how Gibson have lost touch … And then dealers get them in stock and they are all sold in no time. 

All Gibson have done is recognise the existence of a market for those with means of magnitudes greater than the “average” CS buyer, and catered for that market. In that they are no different from other makers of super luxury goods. The number of millionaires and billionaires has increased exponentially in the last few years. Someone has to sell stuff to them. 

I didn't miss your point.  I just don't think the existence and sale of a few expensive guitars adds weight to any argument for a wealth tax.

Expensive guitars are just one example. 

Maybe it was a case of Gibson failing to see the opportunity before, but I would say that their recent decision to start catering more to people in the market for luxury goods that cost as much as a house deposit and which are of dubious investment value is telling.

The lower end of the market (like under 5 grand) has softened significantly, while these trophy pieces still seem to be selling just fine. The haves seem to have more than ever.

BillDL

Sporky said:

Isn't it spalt that's fungal? Flame and quilt are variations in grain density I think.

I once had spalted big toenails.  They looked fantastic, especially with some vintage tinted clear lacquer and some artificially induced checking after sticking my feet in the freezer then immediately using a hairdryer on them, or vice versa - can't remember now.

carlos

Sporky said:

Seziertisch said:

The fact that these guitars exist (and sell) at the price point they do is just further justification for the introduction of a tax on wealth. There are too many people out there for whom whether they can afford these kind of goods of extreme ostentation is not even a consideration. 

I'm certainly not a fan of extreme consumption, or excessive wealth disparity. Neither are good for the world.

"Let them play Harley Bentons!"
Then the heads roll.

Sam77

Surely a lot of these 20k guitars are aimed at people that can't be bothered collecting 20x1k guitars? 

Sam77

To be honest I think that owning something that gives you pleasure is just as valid whatever you want to do with it or why you like it.

Liking a guitar that's been made to look old ior like something else sn't the worst thing in the world either. 

fretfinder

Sam77 said:

To be honest I think that owning something that gives you pleasure is just as valid whatever you want to do with it or why you like it. Liking a guitar that's been made to look old ior like something else sn't the worst thing in the world either. 

Exactly.

It’s a pretty constant theme on this forum though - people angsting and getting all het up about what other people choose to spend their money on.

Sporky

fretfinder said:

It’s a pretty constant theme on this forum though - people angsting and getting all het up about what other people choose to spend their money on.

And its companion theme, of phrasing that to make oneself sound so much better than them, even though that's angsting and wailing and waving ones fists at the sky and getting all het up about other people expressing opinions.

 

OilCityPickups

Sporky said:

fretfinder said:

It’s a pretty constant theme on this forum though - people angsting and getting all het up about what other people choose to spend their money on.

And its companion theme, of phrasing that to make oneself sound so much better than them, even though that's angsting and wailing and waving ones fists at the sky and getting all het up about other people expressing opinions.

 

Exactly 

Sporky

And then me being a smart-arse about it. We shouldn't forget that bit.