Why is a 'Beast' more expensive than a 'Shank' ?

[db3266]

Over here is blighty, The Beast is £1000 more expensive than a Shanks.
Why? The aging between the two appears to be similar and they are both 2013 spec.

In two weeks time I am in the market for one of these, but I don't get why one is so much more than the other?

 

[joff]

The Beast isn't razorbladed all over either.

 

[billy]

Sounds like they are charging more for the flame on the beast... Same with R8's and R9's essentially the same guitars apart from the flame.

 

[db3266]

Wow! Does a flamed piece of Maple cost £1000 more than a non flamed piece of Maple? Really?

 

[guitarbob123]

Wow! Does a flamed piece of Maple cost £1000 more than a non flamed piece of Maple? Really?

Nah, but evidently it's working pretty well for Gibson considering the amount of people that have bought one anyway

 

[Sharky]

Nobody knew Shanks before the guitar was announced, everybody knows Bernie Marsden.

Why do they charge more? Because they can

 

[Slashperryburst]

Wow! Does a flamed piece of Maple cost £1000 more than a non flamed piece of Maple? Really?

No. It's just typical gibson price gouging. Although, to be fair, other companies are just as bad.

A friend of mine buys wood in low quantities and told me the difference between a plain top and a flame top is around £50*. Expect the difference in price to be a lot lower due to the high volumes that gibson purchase. It's funny to think that gibson use some nice flametops on some USA guitars which are supposed to be lower end than cs guitars. Luckily for me, I happen to love plain tops.


If this information is inaccurate, then blame my memory, not my friend.

 

[BurstFan]

Sounds like they are charging more for the flame on the beast... Same with R8's and R9's essentially the same guitars apart from the flame.

That's it!

 

[Todd68]

Sounds like they are charging more for the flame on the beast... Same with R8's and R9's essentially the same guitars apart from the flame.

This is it. Look at any of the CC models. The least expensive ones are #1. The Babe, Scholz and Shanks. Franks/Green/Moore, Goldie, Sandy and The Beast have the flame. They cost more because of it too. For comparison, look at a plaintop R0 compared to a flame top R0. Nothing new here.

 

[tspoon5150]

Because Henry says so. Take it or leave it.

Really, because of the flame I guess and custom wound BB pups with
Alnico 5's. Does not make much sense in the price difference.
Maybe Bernie wanted a higher royalty fee?

Here in the US I paid $1000 more for the Beast.

If people are willing to pay, Gibson will charge more.

 

[strat1701]

This is it. Look at any of the CC models. The least expensive ones are #1. The Babe, Scholz and Shanks. Franks/Green/Moore, Goldie, Sandy and The Beast have the flame. They cost more because of it too. For comparison, look at a plaintop R0 compared to a flame top R0. Nothing new here.

I'd agree with that aside for #1. VOS I've seen on the low end but used aged fetches a lot imho. When I got my shanks, it was used and their price point was about 500 bucks cheaper than I got my Sandy VOS for new. From what I've seen, the Beast has nice flame pattern, probably why they are upping the fee. Sandy's flame has been hit or miss on some. Some outstanding, some run of the mill. I have seen several Shanks with great tops though. They're getting harder to find though....if ya want one better move soon!

 

[Todd68]

I'd agree with that aside for #1. VOS I've seen on the low end but used aged fetches a lot imho. When I got my shanks, it was used and their price point was about 500 bucks cheaper than I got my Sandy VOS for new. From what I've seen, the Beast has nice flame pattern, probably why they are upping the fee. Sandy's flame has been hit or miss on some. Some outstanding, some run of the mill. I have seen several Shanks with great tops though. They're getting harder to find though....if ya want one better move soon!

I forgot about the Murphy aging on CC 1. I'm thinking aged ones too. The Shanks is awesome. I really liked the one that I had a chance to play. I know three people who have them, and they are very happy with the guitar. I do not own one, would like one .... but I also want The Beast. Soooooooo ....

 

[Sct13]

I would Guess its the weight difference? I don't know what the weights for those two are, but I do know that R9 and R8 are separated by weight (and a few other specs) maybe Marsden's is lighter wood???

I know I want a Shanks....Thats for sure....

 

[tspoon5150]

If the Beast is more money, just wait till the Donna hits the stores.

Ouch, if and when, look out. I am happy with both the Shanks and the
Beast.

 

[Stoj]

Nobody knew Shanks before the guitar was announced, everybody knows Bernie Marsden.

Why do they charge more? Because they can

 

[billy]

but I do know that R9 and R8 are separated by weight (and a few other specs):

Really?
I've had enough R8's and R9's through my hands over the years to know thats not the case. The only difference between the two models is the neck shape and even that sometimes isn't the case.. i've seen plenty of R8's with a smaller more typical R9 shape and R9's with huge necks.. As to the price a neck shape is a neck shape, one doesn't cost more to produce than any other, there just different.
And the other difference is flame vs plain top.

 

[Sct13]

Well, there is a picture floating around here that shows the Gibson's factory signage reminding their workers of the designated weights for R8's and 9's

found it

http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/gibson-les-pauls/50210-gibson-les-paul-101-a.html

Also, I have an R9 that some one seriously confused....because it has the biggest neck I have ever seen on a Les Paul, fat and chunky.

So I am not in that camp of neck sizes determine R8 and R9's, I have been through too many R- somethings....The four that I have are the best ones for me. and they do not follow that rule, and the lightest one is the 2011 R9. And the lightest one before that was the 2010 R9.... The 2012 R8 is lighter than the 2003 R9, but I think the 03' is a different kind of maple.

Besides I was just guessing, I have no idea what Gibson is thinking, the Shanks is a sweet guitar and they charge what they charge.

 

[Jakeislove]

There's probably no functional difference between them.

 

[strat1701]

Well, there is a picture floating around here that shows the Gibson's factory signage reminding their workers of the designated weights for R8's and 9's

found it

http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/gibson-les-pauls/50210-gibson-les-paul-101-a.html

Also, I have an R9 that some one seriously confused....because it has the biggest neck I have ever seen on a Les Paul, fat and chunky.

So I am not in that camp of neck sizes determine R8 and R9's, I have been through too many R- somethings....The four that I have are the best ones for me. and they do not follow that rule, and the lightest one is the 2011 R9. And the lightest one before that was the 2010 R9.... The 2012 R8 is lighter than the 2003 R9, but I think the 03' is a different kind of maple.

Besides I was just guessing, I have no idea what Gibson is thinking, the Shanks is a sweet guitar and they charge what they charge.

All the neck profiles in the CS are rolled by hand from what I was told. My R9 that I just traded had the slimmest R9 neck I've ever ran across. I was tough to let that one go, but I upgraded it with the shanks as its replacement. I've seen R8's that are thin I've seen R9's that are like R6's. Basically there's a dude at the CS who after sanding a neck down says, oh this is like an R7 but my order is for R8 necks, so I'll sand it down a .0000332mm and be done with it! All relative.

I'd surmise the USA line has more consistency with regard to the neck profiles with them feeling all mostly the same since USA stuff is more assembly line oriented.

 

[Skipped]

Wow! Does a flamed piece of Maple cost £1000 more than a non flamed piece of Maple? Really?

db - Why have you waited 20 years to complain about Historic price differences?

Shanks is "decent" value because it's a plain top.