Page 1 of 2
#1
Is this some recent trend? Did they one day decide to make all their stuff more expensive than the competition? I'm mainly looking for answers from people who have been playing for decades.
#2
everything used to be cheaper. in 95 my cousin bought a '75 american P bass for the same price as a brand new one. for a total of 500 dollars.
#3
I'd imagine their first guitar wasn't too expensive.
Gibson gets by on name alone.
Compare it to high fashion.
Been in Japan since August, no fucking money left!
#4
Ya I actually did a report on Les Pauls this year and I believe it was the 57' or 59' les paul that was 250 when it first came out. Now the exact same guitar is 750,000 for an original. From 250 to 750,000!!!!!!!! The reissues are even like a couple thousand dollars
( )( )
( . .) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
C('')('') signature to help him gain world domination.

Quote by SLonergan
Can I get a woot woot?

...No? Whatever.
#5
They have always been expensive. But not at the insane rate they are today. I think they were around 300 dollars when they first came out.
*lust list*
Vox tone lab
Vox ac50
satchurator
satches time machine
vintage phase 90
Money towards this gear = $0.00

Quote by Doctor Matthews
Yeah I dreamt I was fighting Master Hand, but then I woke up to realize I was jackin' it in my sleep.
#6
Quote by GaijinFoot
I'd imagine their first guitar wasn't too expensive.
Gibson gets by on name alone.
Compare it to high fashion.



Totally agree
( )( )
( . .) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
C('')('') signature to help him gain world domination.

Quote by SLonergan
Can I get a woot woot?

...No? Whatever.
#7
Quote by GaijinFoot
I'd imagine their first guitar wasn't too expensive.
Gibson gets by on name alone.
Compare it to high fashion.

I believe a Les Paul cost around $320 usd in 1959.
#9
Quote by Guitarlolz
Ya I actually did a report on Les Pauls this year and I believe it was the 57' or 59' les paul that was 250 when it first came out. Now the exact same guitar is 750,000 for an original. From 250 to 750,000!!!!!!!! The reissues are even like a couple thousand dollars
I hope you got an F on that paper for not taking into account inflation.
#10
Quote by Pac_man0123
Which was also a hell of a lot of money in 1959.


^This. I have this book on the history of all the major guitar companies, and, don't quote me on it, but there's a picture of an old Sears Roebuck ad with the first Les Paul and I'm pretty sure it's like $100.

However, $100 in the 50s WAS a hell of a lot of money. My great grandfather grew up in that period, and I remember him saying he used to make a couple cents a day at work.

Gear:
Agile AL-2000 > Maxon OD808 > Boss DD-20 > Strymon blueSky > Splawn Pro Stock > Emperor 4x12

the lives to come

#11
Quote by GaijinFoot
I'd imagine their first guitar wasn't too expensive.


Orville Gibson designed his guitars to be very expensive from the outset. He tore apart fine mahogany, maple and ebony furniture in order to get the best grades of wood. Much of the expense is certainly the result of the Gibson name, but their materials and the amount of hand work that many of their guitars require (plus paying U.S. labor costs) means that Gibson guitars are going to be more expensive than many of their competitors.

In the end, as long as people are willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars for a Gibson, Gibson will charge that much...and more.
#12
When you find it TS compare its 1959 price to its new price and compare something like bread/flour/etcs price in 1959 to its modern price

and that will tell you how much they have inflated their cost.
*lust list*
Vox tone lab
Vox ac50
satchurator
satches time machine
vintage phase 90
Money towards this gear = $0.00

Quote by Doctor Matthews
Yeah I dreamt I was fighting Master Hand, but then I woke up to realize I was jackin' it in my sleep.
#13
Quote by al112987
I hope you got an F on that paper for not taking into account inflation.



According to NASA's site (which I'm surprised it had an inflation calculator) estimates that $320 in 1959 is worth the same as $1796.77 today in 2009. As far as current resell price it's a matter of simple economics. Supply and Demand. There's very few original 1959 Les Pauls produced and even less still in existence. Everyone and their Uncle wishes they had one of these guitars, therefore the demand is very high for a product in low numbers.
Endorsed by Dean Guitars 07-10
2003 Gibson Flying V w/ Moon Inlay
2006 Fender All-American Partscaster
SVK ELP-C500 Custom

1964 Fender Vibro Champ
1989 Peavey VTM60

[thread="1166208"]Gibsons Historic Designs[/thread]
#14
A 1960 Gibson Les Paul Standard cost US$265.00 (MSRP). The case cost an additional $42.50. This works out to approximately US$1926.24 today.
Last edited by FatalGear41 at Dec 18, 2009,
#15
they were considdered nice little 000 size acoustics in the 30s-40s. Robert Johnson played one, and like most black men down south, he was dirt poor...his "signature" acoustic runs for a couple thousand dollars today.
#16
Quote by FatalGear41
Orville Gibson designed his guitars to be very expensive from the outset. He tore apart fine mahogany, maple and ebony furniture in order to get the best grades of wood. Much of the expense is certainly the result of the Gibson name, but their materials and the amount of hand work that many of their guitars require (plus paying U.S. labor costs) means that Gibson guitars are going to be more expensive than many of their competitors.

In the end, as long as people are willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars for a Gibson, Gibson will charge that much...and more.



I agree with this- At the end of the day you're paying for american labor and the Gibson lineage in their product. Say what you want about the company, but its still a Gibson
http://www.youtube.com/user/RichManofAction

200,000 views and counting!


Quote by Perp8tualMotion
This man gets the big golden popcorn trophy which signifies an exceptionally accurate response.


Gear: Jackson SL2H, DX10DFS, Ibanez Prestige RG, Marshall JCM 2000 DSL
#17
Quote by Flux'D
According to NASA's site (which I'm surprised it had an inflation calculator) estimates that $320 in 1959 is worth the same as $1796.77 today in 2009. As far as current resell price it's a matter of simple economics. Supply and Demand. There's very few original 1959 Les Pauls produced and even less still in existence. Everyone and their Uncle wishes they had one of these guitars, therefore the demand is very high for a product in low numbers.


There you go, you've answered the question. There has not really been any price decrease/increase taking into account inflation.
#18
Quote by Xeros606
Is this some recent trend? Did they one day decide to make all their stuff more expensive than the competition? I'm mainly looking for answers from people who have been playing for decades.

I haven't been playing for decades but I just want to point out something in your post. Gibson isn't more expensive than the competition. Gibson Standards cost about $1200-2200. American Fenders cost about $1000-2200. Ibanez Prestiges cost about $1000-2000. ESP Standards cost about $1300-2000. These companies also make cheaper guitars but you have to consider that Gibson also has Epiphone. They're competitive in the low-end, mid-range, and high-end markets. They're comparable to other guitars in their respective price-range. Maybe the cheaper ones don't say Gibson on the headstock (same with ESP), but they're available if you don't care about the name on the headstock.
#19
Quote by JELIFISH19
I haven't been playing for decades but I just want to point out something in your post. Gibson isn't more expensive than the competition. Gibson Standards cost about $1200-2200. American Fenders cost about $1000-2200. Ibanez Prestiges cost about $1000-2000. ESP Standards cost about $1300-2000. These companies also make cheaper guitars but you have to consider that Gibson also has Epiphone. They're competitive in the low-end, mid-range, and high-end markets. They're comparable to other guitars in their respective price-range. Maybe the cheaper ones don't say Gibson on the headstock (same with ESP), but they're available if you don't care about the name on the headstock.


Although the Les Paul Standard would probably fall on the high side of that range, perhaps even slightly outside of the 2200 mark, for the rest of Gibson's line this is a very good point. The issue being that everyone and their dog wants a Les Paul, and therefore Gibson can charge a premium for it. That's what the average person sees, and bases their entire opinion of Gibson's prices by.
Quote by Ur all $h1t
I furiously masturbate on public transportation.
#20
Quote by al112987
I hope you got an F on that paper for not taking into account inflation.

Yeah, but inflation doesn't make things go from 250 to 750000 bro. The current CEO is RETARDED
-LTD Alexi 600
-LTD MH-100 QM
-Schecter Omen 6
-B-52 AT-112
Quote by My Father
So is this guitar Mexican made or human made? Wait, shit, that was really racist wasn't it?


My shitty covers: http://www.youtube.com/simpleben09
#21
Gibson doesn't sell a new guitar for 750,000. If you compare a new ES-175 or Historic Les Paul to what they cost in the 50s they're about the same price (if you adjust for inflation).
#22
This is why I prefer buying from rondo music. They sell quality guitars at low prices because there not charging you for the brand name. They are charging you for the materials and build of the guitar itself.
#23
Quote by Pac_man0123
Which was also a hell of a lot of money in 1959.

Absolutely. Inflation alone would make that over $2000. My grandparents bought a new car off the showroom floor in 1974 for $3500. I remember seeing the window sticker in the glove box back in the 80's(yes I'm old).
#27
What makes a guitar 'expensive' in the first place? Price/Feature ratio? You can get something similar cheaper?
#28
They have always been more expensive than the likes of Fender etc. and like most people seem to say its better to look for older used model as today with the new ones yes your paying for the guitar but mainly the name.
#29
Quote by simpleben09
Yeah, but inflation doesn't make things go from 250 to 750000 bro. The current CEO is RETARDED

massive fail.

Henry Juszkiewicz has absolutely no relevance to the price of '50s Gibson les pauls. I shouldn't even need to explain to you why that is, seeing as how you think you're in any position to call him a retard
Rig Winter 2017:

Fender Jazzmaster/Yamaha SG1000
Boss TU-3, DS-2, CS-3, EHX small stone, Danelectro delay
Laney VC30-112 with G12H30 speaker, or Session Rockette 30 for smaller gigs
Elixir Nanoweb 11-49 strings, Dunlop Jazz III XL picks
Shure SM57 mic in front of the amp
#31
Quote by simpleben09
Yeah, but inflation doesn't make things go from 250 to 750000 bro. The current CEO is RETARDED
Whoa there, I don't think you get what is going here.

How does Gibson have ANYTHING to do with how much a 1959 les paul costs today? You've bought used gear before right? Would you bash Fender when someone tries to sell you a $150 Squier for $500? Or if someone tried to sell an Epiphone for $2000 that they bought for $500? The value of used and vintage guitar gear is dictated by the buyers. The guitars are rare enough and well regarded enough that someone can get away with selling a guitar for $500,000 with it actually getting sold. Gibson has nothing to do with the value that the 1959s have grown to today.

People who bash the Gibson CEO amuse me. Rarely do any of them know anything about the guy or his business practices. The best one is when they pull up the quote about how he doubled the price of Gibson guitars. 1) That happened back in the freaking mid '80s before most of UG was even conceived and 2) his decisions back then SAVED the company from completely falling apart.
Last edited by al112987 at Dec 19, 2009,
#32
simpleben09 is obviously about 11 years old. But personally if you are paying that much for a new guitar you know you are gonna get quality...I bought a new fender strat just over a year ago. I hate it and am now selling it to buy a gibson les paul traditional for $3000 in Australia (which is an amazing price). The strat was cheaply built and put together with the cheapest electronics available for that price range.

Gear
Gibson Les Paul Traditional
Carvin V3 and Marhall 1960A cab
2 B.C. Rich Ironbird Pro
Schecter Hellraiser 6
Boss ML-2

#33
For many years a Standard Les Paul was approximately twice the price of an American Strat (CDN dollars anyway). I used these two as a comparison because they represented the top of each line at the time. When I started out in the mid 70's a Strat was 600.00 and a Les Paul was around a 1000.00. When I finally had enough money to buy a top end guitar (93), the Start was 1100.00 and the Les Paul was slightly over 2000.00, a factor that led to my buying an American Deluxe Strat as even then I had a budget. Today you can still get an American Strat for about 1/2 of what a Standard Les Paul goes for, so in my experience between the "big two" yes Gibson were always more expensive.
Moving on.....
#34
Quote by al112987
Whoa there, I don't think you get what is going here.

How does Gibson have ANYTHING to do with how much a 1959 les paul costs today? You've bought used gear before right? Would you bash Fender when someone tries to sell you a $150 Squier for $500? Or if someone tried to sell an Epiphone for $2000 that they bought for $500? The value of used and vintage guitar gear is dictated by the buyers. The guitars are rare enough and well regarded enough that someone can get away with selling a guitar for $500,000 with it actually getting sold. Gibson has nothing to do with the value that the 1959s have grown to today.

People who bash the Gibson CEO amuse me. Rarely do any of them know anything about the guy or his business practices. The best one is when they pull up the quote about how he doubled the price of Gibson guitars. 1) That happened back in the freaking mid '80s before most of UG was even conceived and 2) his decisions back then SAVED the company from completely falling apart.


Yes they Doubled the prices, and yes that probably helped save the company, but the company is saved, the prices dont really have to stay that way. But here the #1 rule of Capitalism (And Im not bashing it) "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." In other words, people are willing to buy these expensive guitars, so why lower the prices?
Better, Faster, Stronger

Kansas City Chiefs

Kansas State Wildcats
Quote by airbrendie
Hey guys in the last 3 weeks I ****ed all the girls in this picture, what do you think?

#35
God Damn there is way to many Why are gibsons this threads. Simpleben09, surely you remember the last time you tried to bash Gibson right? You got spanked like a little baby in front of all the internet.

These Gibsons threads are just annoying. Why does nobody bash Fender for a 25,0000 dollar Frankenstein Replica, or a 17,0000 Lenny replica? They have many others too.

But Yes Gibsons have always been expensive. Its because your getting one of the best guitars you can buy.
#36
Quote by nickdohle
Its because your getting one of the best guitars you can buy.


I disagree, I found that an ESP outplayed a Gibson of a similiar price.

Although, the more expensive Gibsons out played the more expensive ESPs...
#37
Quote by nickdohle
Why does nobody bash Fender for a 25,0000 dollar Frankenstein Replica, or a 17,0000 Lenny replica? They have many others too.

because fender have lower priced instruments that say fender on them, which instantly makes them just as good as the expensive ones because it's obviously the same guitar, just cheaper, and the only reason anyone would pay any more is so they could show off that they got an expensive guitar... duh..

btw, incase people don't get it, i was being sarcastic.
Rig Winter 2017:

Fender Jazzmaster/Yamaha SG1000
Boss TU-3, DS-2, CS-3, EHX small stone, Danelectro delay
Laney VC30-112 with G12H30 speaker, or Session Rockette 30 for smaller gigs
Elixir Nanoweb 11-49 strings, Dunlop Jazz III XL picks
Shure SM57 mic in front of the amp
#38
Quote by Veggie Burger
I disagree, I found that an ESP outplayed a Gibson of a similiar price.

Although, the more expensive Gibsons out played the more expensive ESPs...


Well of course the best guitar is a complete opinion. I havent played on a better guitar than a 1983 Gibson Les Paul custom. BUT, i have played a 08 studio faded model that had the best neck ive ever played on to date.
#39
Quote by VanTheKraut
Yes they Doubled the prices, and yes that probably helped save the company, but the company is saved, the prices dont really have to stay that way. But here the #1 rule of Capitalism (And Im not bashing it) "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." In other words, people are willing to buy these expensive guitars, so why lower the prices?
The doubling in price was not simply for the sake of changing perception of Gibson's quality, think back to when Norlin went into huge cost cutting mode with Gibson guitars and how the guitars became progressively shittier and cheaper before the current CEO took over. Money has to be pumped in to improve quality, to start using high end materials again, etc. But you're right, as long as the public will pay for it, they have no reason to lower their prices.

There is nothing wrong with profit. I don't get what this forum has against a guitar company making profits. More profits means more money into the hands of the shareholders, more investors, it leads to company growth and is the only way Gibson can keep up with the demand today for les pauls.
#40
God Damn It People Don't You Understand Gibson Force Every Home In America To Give Them $50,000 Regardless Of Whether Anyone Buys A Guitar Or Not And I Heard Once From My Uncle Reg Who Heard It From A Guy In A Bar That Gibson's Ceo Refuses To Talk To Anyone Unless They Give Him $500 In Cash First And Everyone Knows Gibson Guitars Are All Made Of Sawdust These Days Anyway So Just Buy An Agile It's A Fifth Of The Price And Is As Good As A Real 1958 Les Paul I Know This Because I Got One And It's Really Good And I Got A Totally Pro Guy To Play It Once And He Said It Was The Best Guitar He Had Ever Played And I Run It Through A Fender Frontman And It's Totally Slash's Tone Only More Heavy And That All Cost Me Half What One Epiphone Cost And There Is No Difference Between This And What Jimmy Page Uses So **** Gibson I'd Like To Own One One Day But **** Them They're Overpriced Pieces Of Shit I Mean I Might Get A Lp Studio For Christmas I Think Because My Mom Said She'll Buy Me A Guitar So I'm Going To Ask For A Gibson But I'll Only Buy A Studio Because That's No Different To A Custom Really But It's Much Cheaper So It's The Only Gibson Worth Buying Except All Gibsons Are Shit And They're An Evil Company
Yes, I know everything. No, I can't play worth a damn.
A child is trafficked and sold for sex slavery every 30 seconds. Support Love146.
Page 1 of 2