Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Guitars' started by Dawis67, Aug 22, 2017.
Damn didn't realize my new, used 50's tribute was a piece of crap. What a waste of $430 bucks.
By that sencence i mean Gibson. But if you think about it, it applies both to Chinese and Gibson. None of them care about guitars really.
Its not a waste if you like it. I personally cant stand the lack of binding and gloss.
I get this. But $300 for a chibson vs $430 for bungle's Tribute? It's a no-brainer in favour of the Trib. Consider the resale value if you look after it. Now the resale value of a chibson... You like 'value for money' arguments, so you should instantly appreciate the advantage of buying into a legitimate aftermarket and successively trading up until you get what you really want, binding and all. Money spent on chibsons is a sunk cost.
Indeed we're not. We're talking about your Chibson.
Was there ever meant to be a point in you stating this?
Again, you've nullified your own point.
Why would you, as a student, spend a lot more cash on a guitar that costs more than you can get one for less cash? Because the quality of the more expensive guitar happens to be better. And many people are more than happy to pay extra for that quality.
And there are people just like you who do not have the money for a Gibson, but can still get a decent quality guitar that doesn't contravene IP. Everyone wins. So why would anybody have any logical reason to buy a fake?
1. Yes, you seem to be so concerned about the wellbeing of Gibson even tho they dont give a shit about their customers as long as they get money. The same goes for Chinese luthiers but they dont ask such a high price.
2. No i didnt. What i meant was there was no logical reason for me to spend money on an expensive Gibson that i would like or a cheaper or used gibson that i wouldnt like just because they are gibson, when i can buy something that fits my budget and is visually appealing for me. Im not arguing against buying gibsons. Hell i have got my eyes on the sexy LP Classic Ocean green, but price for it is out of my comfort zone. When i get a stable job with a good income, why the hell not support the real deal?
3. What you said is true but the quality difference between my Chibson and even the LP Classic doesnt justify the price difference IMO.
Perhaps so they can pretend to their non-guitar-savvy fellow students that they've got a real LP?
Every friend that knows about my chib knows its from china. The only person that i lie to is really myself. Which is what i need atm because i cant afford to tell myself that the neck isnt gloss and there are a few imperfections on the body, so i need a real gibson. The only other way i will be satisfied is with a LP what is at least a Classic but that, as i said, is above what i can afford atm.
I dont know what you imagine. Maybe you think im just settling with my shitty out of tune chibson and lying to myself saying that it sounds good. The only lie is about the looks. The finish isnt exactly as the real LP but the shape is pretty much spot on (at least from what my eye can differentiate). As for the playability. Sure it doesnt play as butter-smooth as real LP. its more like a decently oiled gears, could be better, but in no shape or form hinders my ability to play.
Just out of curiosity, why are you posting on this thread?
Well, i started it and it was originally about BC Rich'es but now it seems we have a pretty heated discussion.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were the OP. My mistake.
That's an interesting point. Different guitar body styles have to a degree come to be associated with specific styles of music. There is crossover of course; you will see people playing ES335 type semi-hollows and Strats across genres, but I've not seen Mockingbirds and Warlocks, etc, outside of the metal space. I don't know that it's the guitar that people either love or hate; I think it's more the metal genre. I had a Mockingbird for a while which I bought because I just liked the shape; I couldn't care less about metal music, but I'm not in a band or trying to project a particular image, etc.
I agree, metal-heads will be less inclined to hate them, based on their appearance. But I've heard players outside of this genre actually laugh at them. I routinely read folks on this board talking about the "fugly" Epiphone headstocks and how they don't want to play an Epiphone simply because of the headstock.
I think the appearance and it's affect on people's reaction, in this case, is amplified significantly.
Just my opinion. I do understand that historically, they are very good guitars.
It's worth remembering that Bernie Rico designed the Mockingbird for LA session musicians, not hard rockers (there was no metal then). The reason he called it the Mockingbird is because it can mimic the tone of lots of different guitars (thus saving the session musos the trouble of taking more than one instrument to the studio). Mockingbirds are natural mimics that copy the song of other bird species.
As for sniggering in the back row, I couldn't care less. On my guitar rack there are two Mockingbirds right next to an absolute cork-sniffer's dream of an R9 LP in dirty lemon fade. Doesn't get more reverentially old-school than that. But for me, these instruments co-exist in perfect harmony
Same for the Flying v if i know the facts right. Wasnt it designed for non-rock (at that point there was no metal yet)? Look where it has ended up. Basically any guitar that is outside the single and double cutaway "standard", is considered exotic and most likely is used among metalheads.
Flying V and Explorer came out in 1958, so yes, no rock, let alone hard rock, metal and shred. And the Mockingbird is basically a curvy Explorer with fancy onboard electronics. There's some cultural appropriation going on here
No Problem I'd love to own another Mockingbird with 22 frets ..
Sorry about lifting your pix but I'm lazy about faffing around with imgur etc. You didn't sell your Boshart sig did you?
And now feel a bit guilty, so here (at last) is a pic of my own