How important is the word "Gibson" on your headstock.

[James R]

Would I take 25% off if it didn't say Gibson? Absolutely not. Gibsons makes beautiful guitars and I'm not afraid to say that part of what encouraged my purchase was looks. I have nothing against playing an ugly guitar that plays well but if I can get one that's pleasing to my eye AND plays well? It's a no brainer for me.

On the other hand, would I complain if Gibsons were 25% cheaper because they decided that from here on out ALL Gibson guitars will be manufactured without the logo on the headstock? Probably not because that would become the "standard" look of the newer Gibson Les Paul and as consumers we wouldn't have much choice but to either go along for the ride, or miss out on some great guitars for lower prices.

 

[cookieman15061]

It's not if I'm buying a Duesenberg.

 

[Brutalisateur]

I would give you 25% of the total cost that you paid for your Les Paul, if.... you would allow for the name Gibson to magically disappear from the headstock? Of course knowing full well that it is still a Gibson.

Would you do it?

25% off for removing the logo? Sounds like a sweet deal, I'd hit it!

 

[rich85]

I like the les paul shape more than the Gibson brand.

My ESP eclipse is a wonderful guitar.

 

[RedSkwirrell]

Imperative.
It's what it means; quality, tone, unique materials and... oh crap.

 

[Kamran]

No, only because $500 will come and go but the les Paul would never be the same, simply because it was created bearing the name. But if you offered to charge me $100 to silk screen a logo back onto a Gibby that had some how lost its logo, I would say no.

I don't care about the logo really though, as long as it doesn't have a stupid shape or just look weird to me. The headstock on my epi standard looks pretty ugly to me but the bound headstock on my epi custom looks incredible. As good as gibsons look IMO.

 

[SingeMonkey]

I have two Gibsons and a Tokai LP. The only ones who care about the difference are guitar geeks. They come up and praise my tone when I'm playing a Gibson because they're all impressed by the logo. Normal people don't care.

My Tokai is great, could go spec for spec and tone for tone against an R8 any day, and because it was much cheaper than an R8 I don't baby it at all. It works hard. It doesn't pretend to be anything it's not. The Gibsons are great machines that do their jobs well. It's not an issue. Practically I'll get more MIJ guitars because I like classic spec guitars, and Gibson reissues are out of my price range. Also I don't care enough about who made the thing to pay more than twice as much. Some do, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

 

[bobswinea]

VERY! Thanks for asking...

 

[dangerdog]

Try 50% and then we will talk.

I will not argue which guitars are better/what the Gibson name is worth, just point out that a logo is kind of large, and kind of in a very prominent place. So removing a logo is kind of like a huge ding....in perhaps the worst possible spot.

To put this in a real world, non magical perspective, when a logo gets destroyed (any logo) a guitar will often take huge hit in value...not just because the magical brand name is gone but because it looks like crap.

When I think of it this way the idea behind the thread gets even sillier.

 

[skysc]

I dont care about the logo or not .. im not a brand guy anyway .

so im not a gibson for the logo or having the "real deal" .. ilike my standard cause it play well

I havent find a guitar that had the feel of my les paul standard .

ive try agile , esp eclipse and many other .. they were nice guitar but the feel was different from the gibson . not better , not worse , just different .

So people who say : you can get a les paul much cheaper than buying Gibson .. well im still trying to find the same feel on another guitar yet . if i could have the same standard for 1200 instead of 2500 by taking off the gibson logo .. i would .

 

[Frogfur]

Dear troll,

The question you pose is ridiculous, because this particular scenario is unrealistic. There is no such they as magic, but there is such a thing as common sense. If I can find a guitar company that produces as good as a product as I have in my possession in the same shape, then perhaps I'd own a couple of those too.. At this moment I have not found such a competitor.

I know you hope to just come to the conclusion that we buy Gibson guitars becasue it says "Gibson", but you'll find quickly that it's about preference. Oh yeah, it's also about tone and playability too..

You left out "status"..and NO question is rediculous. He has a point here. There are those that have to have that brand name up there to impress their friends and neighbors, along with themselves. Probably spend allot of time looking in the mirror and sniffing the air around them for tell tale signs of an Epiphone[which are great guitars too]but they don't say Gibson on the headstock. That's why you buy them..right? because they "say" GIBSON up there. Otherwise, there are plenty of better guitars out there for less money actual.
Just say'n...

 

[Ginger Beer]

...and a Tokai LP.
My Tokai is great, could go spec for spec and tone for tone against an R8 any day, and because it was much cheaper than an R8 I don't baby it at all. It works hard. It doesn't pretend to be anything it's not.

Neither do Gibsons. It's the owners that pretend.
People constantly talking about getting buried with it live a King Tut treasure tomb. Afraid to let sunlight even hit it. Refusing to even change out a pickup they can't stand. A screw that needs replacing. Worrying if straplocks will kill the value. It's rediculous. It's a tool. A fine expensive tool but it's not a holy item made from the hands of the almighty.

 

[Frogfur]

well when its time to sell it, its pretty important

You don't buy shit to sell it. You buy it because it is what you need and to keep.
In my early days of playing, we traded guitar right and left. Fenders, Gibsons, this guitar that guitar. Why not? we never thought there would be a time when we couldn't get another one or afford another one. Wish i had them all now. I've had so many that you all speak of here, worship, want for, desire or own reissue of.

Have you ever seen Les Paul's bedroom? it is wall to wall guitars in cases lining the walls. He never got rid of anything. He kept everything. Things he hadn't used for years! Cracks me up around here sometimes. Guy buys a brand new guitar, tries to sell the damn thing before he's had it a year for another one perhaps one year newer!

 

[Frogfur]

It doesn't seems as many people understand what he tries to say, or maybe no one.
What he's trying to say is that if the Gibson logo at the headstock is more important than the guitar itself.

For many real players who have a lot of experience it isn't the name but their taste and like for Gibson that makes them spend so much money, but many people out there could find some guitar at the same quality for a lower price and still go with the Gibson, just because it says "Gibson" , that's why we have those "chibson" chinese copies, because people dreams with having a guitar that says "Gibson" so they can feel they're better than the rest.

It should be not important, and for real musicians it isn't, but there are so many snobs who don't even give a **** about the instrument, they just want it to say "Gibson" on the headstock.

Les Paul played Epiphone guitars long before Gibson came into his life. When he signed on to endorse Gibson guitars he refused to give up his Epiphones at first. They had to give him a decal to put on the headstock until he switched over to the Les Paul Models.

If Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page had played Epiphones it would have been all the rage now and Gibson would have been selling LP guitars for $500.00 new.

 

[truckermde]

couldn't care less.

people who don't know jack-shit about guitars are more impressed by nameplates than actual musicians.

 

[skysc]

Les Paul played Epiphone guitars long before Gibson came into his life. When he signed on to endorse Gibson guitars he refused to give up his Epiphones at first. They had to give him a decal to put on the headstock until he switched over to the Les Paul Models.

If Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page had played Epiphones it would have been all the rage now and Gibson would have been selling LP guitars for $500.00 new.

Ive had both .. and while the difference is not that much ... the gibson was better than any epiphone or agile ive tried . One of the main point is the setup .. my standard has the strings almost touching the fretboard without any buzz .. and i mean really really low . the exact same setup and string height on my agile or epiphone with be fretbuzz all along the fretboard .


i like my standard mostly for that and his feel . i can play a epiphone or my agile ( the higher end 3200 ) .. i soon as i touch my gibson , the others are forgotten .


that said im not a brand guy .. i dont buy because its write gibson on the headstock . in fact IMO the LPJ and other 700-800 $ gibson are firewood . i would never buy one and buy antoher brand anytime before . same for many studios .

call me a snob , but i like my binding .

 

[jc2000]

I have a Taylor solid body electric I picked up and played almost every night until I got my LP, now I grab the LP every night and NOT because it says "GIBSON" on the head...

 

[Stinky Kitty]

Sometimes i wish mine said, "Norlin" on the headstock...

 

[JimmyKrackCorn]

Sorry folks—I jumped into this thread at the last minute, & probably missed some great perspectives. I’m frantically searching for ANY information I can find out about ASTON Les Paul copies. They seem to be in that sweet spot for the 70’s “ lawsuit Les Paul copies.” Headstock is a perfect imitation of the classic Gibson “mustache” which was very prevalent in about ALL of the various companies that were producing Les Paul copies in Japan. I’m assuming that it was manufactured in Japan, but anything else from me would be pointless speculation. I have a very small collection of Gibson’s, & Epiphone’s—about 12 in all, & I’ve wondered over the years if one of these MIJ Les Paul imitations would ever be invited to my little music room. Tonight I have the opportunity to pick up what appears to be a stunning version of a very vibrant burst...& I can’t seem to find out any info on these guitars. Any help? PLEASE? I’m only going by the photos supplied by the seller, but 23 frets, appear to have something close to abalone as the inlay on the trapezoidal inlays; nut looks like it might possibly be bone, but more than likely it’s just aged plastic; bolt-on neck rather than a set-neck; no serial #’s on back of headstock, nor any identifiers on neck bolt plate or elsewhere other than ASTON in gold lettering on headstock; machine heads/ tuners are nondescript chrome looking things that actually look better made than most of the fake grovers I see ending up on a lot of the Chinese made Epiphones manufactured in the past decade or so. I will say that the color hues of the sunburst are very vibrant—just the right amount of red’s, & gold’s, & it’s hard to say without holding it but it sure looks like a maple top.
Thank you one & all for bearing with me, & my first post to this wonderful group of Les Paul enthusiasts!

Jimmy
Jimmy KrackCorn

 

[motowntom]

About as important as the word "Mens Room".
Cheers