Is Gibson the worst thing about the Les Paul?

[CivoLee]

I opened this thread here because I felt posting it in the Gibson Les Pauls section would be an invitation to get flamed.

But seriously, it seems like other manufacturers of Les Pauls - Tokai, Burny, Greco, and to a point, even Epiphone - just have (or had) a better grasp on how the Les Paul should be built and sold. They don't mess around with collector-oriented oddballs and for the most part, keep their quality standards high. They also don't add on features most people don't want like automatic tuners. (Epi now has a guitar with Mini E-tune though)

They also seem more populist about who plays them, keeping there prices under 1000 USD. With Gibson, on the other hand, their philosphy is if you want the best, buy a 5 grand Historic from the Custom Shop. 700 bucks will buy you a Love Rock from Tokai with binding and if you want it, a Gold Top finish. From Gibson, 700 will get you an LPJ with a rubbed satin finish, no binding, and no Gold Top. Even the Standards this year can't be had with a Gold Top. What gives?

I sometimes think the world would be better off if Gibson had some huge loss befall them and be forced to license out or sell the Les Paul design to another maker, but I know that would cause a lot of people to lose their income and Henry J would just retire and somehow keep the rights to the open book headstock for himself or his estate. Worse, the cost of used Gibson Les Pauls would probably skyrocket since they'll be a "rarity" someday.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

[TeaForTwo]

.

 

[Groove Toad]

 

[parts]

I opened this thread here because I felt posting it in the Gibson Les Pauls section would be an invitation to get flamed.

yeah..I am certain you will not be flamed here.. We are the kinder..gentler..posters backstage...

you now..kinder..and fvcking gentler n shit..

 

[MUSTANGCAT]

Stop it!

 

[Roberteaux]

--R

 

[paruwi]

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Yep

 

[jeff_farkas]

Yep

Yarp!!

 

[BuzzHaze]

 

[Groove Toad]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dmE-emrrAs]US Marine Corps Flamethrower Demonstration - YouTube[/ame]

 

[parts]

..been playing them since I was built..

 

[Brazilnut]

Hey! Where'd you get that picture?? My agent's an assh^le!

 

[TeaForTwo]

Yarp!!

Gibson's use of bunny glue must be stopped.
.

 

[Brazilnut]

Bunny glue?

 

[markbastable]

You must be dumb, or stupid. Or both.

At a slight tangent, simply because I'm interested in language...

In Brit English, 'dumb' and 'stupid' are very different. ('Mute' and 'unintelligent'.)

But what's the difference in your usage?

 

[chipper]

In short and to answer your question, no I don't feel the same way as you. But you do raise some interesting points that are worthy of wider discussion.

As with a lot of high-end manufacturers, concentrating only your high-end customers and ignoring the entry level market is often a recipe for disaster. But Gibson doesn't do this and there are plenty of models to choose from in different price ranges.

It's not a guitar company, but Rolls-Royce only ever catered to a very select market, stopped making a profit and got sold to BMW. Now, BMW didn't buy Rolls Royce to make it profitable. They bought it to add a greater degree of prestige credibility to their existing brand. For that purpose, Rolls Royce could probably be run at a loss on the back of additional sales of their core product or aspirational factors for the future market.

I don't think you can over-estimate the value of a prestige brand. So I think Gibson have to manufacture high-end custom shop models and they have to be expensive. If they didn't, their entry-level market would eventually dry up.

Of course, there are other manufacturers that claim to make a better Les Paul at a better price and they may be right, but they have no choice, they can't compete on prestige.

You can go out a buy a car made in Malaysia. It will be full of extra features, be high quality and be cheap. But it won't be BMW or a rolls.

 

[Spoone]

In short and to answer your question, no I don't feel the same way as you. But you do raise some interesting points that are worthy of wider discussion.

As with a lot of high-end manufacturers, concentrating only your high-end customers and ignoring the entry level market is often a recipe for disaster. But Gibson doesn't do this and there are plenty of models to choose from in different price ranges.

It's not a guitar company, but Rolls-Royce only ever catered to a very select market, stopped making a profit and got sold to BMW. Now, BMW didn't buy Rolls Royce to make it profitable. They bought it to add a greater degree of prestige credibility to their existing brand. For that purpose, Rolls Royce could probably be run at a loss on the back of additional sales of their core product or aspirational factors for the future market.

I don't think you can over-estimate the value of a prestige brand. So I think Gibson have to manufacture high-end custom shop models and they have to be expensive. If they didn't, their entry-level market would eventually dry up.

Of course, there are other manufacturers that claim to make a better Les Paul at a better price and they may be right, but they have no choice, they can't compete on prestige.

You can go out a buy a car made in Malaysia. It will be full of extra features, be high quality and be cheap. But it won't be BMW or a rolls.

Translation:
In the end, you're buyin' the name on the headstock.

My opinion?
Screw that noise. Buy the better quality instrument, and play it til it dies. Then refurb it, and play it some more..

 

[chipper]

Translation:
In the end, you're buyin' the name on the headstock.

My opinion?
Screw that noise. Buy the better quality instrument, and play it til it dies. Then refurb it, and play it some more..

It's not just the name on the headstock, it's a combination of the name and the quality. But I think we all know high end names always come at a price.

 

[Nightrain]

 

[MeKevin]

It's not a guitar company, but Rolls-Royce only ever catered to a very select market, stopped making a profit and got sold to BMW. Now, BMW didn't buy Rolls Royce to make it profitable. They bought it to add a greater degree of prestige credibility to their existing brand. For that purpose, Rolls Royce could probably be run at a loss on the back of additional sales of their core product or aspirational factors for the future market.

.

That's what the VW group did with Bugatti. The VW group lost a billion dollars on Bugatti because each car cost 8 million to make, and they sold them for 4 million.