Page 1 of 2
#1
Hokay, so, I was just thinking. In my experience, as a player, I have come across many-a-crappy guitar in my lifetime as a broke musician, both from Squier, Fender, Epi, and Gibson. And, I have noticed a peculiar trend. It's that on the budget end of the spectrum, Fender really seems to nail it as far as their instruments go. Now I'm not saying that Gibson and Epi suck when it comes to the low-end, but if one compares a bottom-of-the-barrel Fender vs an entry level Gibson, Fender just seems to win out every time. What I'm really saying is that a Mexi Fender looks, plays and feels like the real thing, I mean it IS the real thing, bearing the namesake. But the baby Gibsons are all watered-down versions of their awesome big bros. Take a ****ing Melody Maker series. They are terrible. Hard to even mod really. Gibson's lower end doesn't even bear a resemblance to it's better instruments. It seems as though they have a sort of exclusivity thing going on here. You get no binding, very limited colour choice, the neck is glued on so no hope for swapping out the neck to a better one. They are just completely bare bones. It's like they say "Here valued customer, we have for you... GUITAR!" Literally, they seem to meet the bare minimum of what qualifies as a chordophone. I'm not hating on Gibson, I've always dreamed of owning a nice one. But compare a low end Gibson to a low end Fender. Mexi Fenders have most if not ALL of the functional features of their bigger bretheren, and they are extremely modder friendly. With the removable pick guards, bolt on neck, lots ao interchangeable parts. Get an LP Studio and youre kinda stuck with what you bought, ya know, no removable neck UGH!

I'm not saying that they are bad guitars, its just that Gibson seems to purposely limit options for the less wealthy, in order to entice them to buy better. Fender gives you the whole shabang right out of the gate from their lowest models. You get more possibility with a Mexi Strat than you do with a kiddy Gibson.

p.s. I purposely didln't talk about Epi and Squier, cause that is a different argument.

So in a nut shell I say "shitty" Fenders all day. But that is merely my PERSONAL preference. I would like to hear what everyone else has to think and be called out and proven wrong!
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#2
you def checkout rondomusic. agile makes some good quality stuff.
Ibanez Rg 321mh
Squier Classic Vibe 1970s Precision Bass
Guitar Rig 5
Presonus Audiobox
Behringer Truth B2030A
#3
I see what you're saying. MIM Fenders are pretty solidly built guitars. Can't say the same for Melody maker series Gibsons.
Current Gear:
LTD MH-400 with Gotoh GE1996T (EMG 85/60)
PRS SE Custom 24 (Suhr SSH+/SSV)
Ibanez RG3120 Prestige (Dimarzio Titans)
Squier Vintage Modified 70s Jazz V
Audient iD22 interface
Peavey Revalver 4, UAD Friedman BE100/DS40
Adam S3A monitors
Quote by Anonden
You CAN play anything with anything....but some guitars sound right for some things, and not for others. Single coils sound retarded for metal, though those who are apeshit about harpsichord probably beg to differ.
#4
Also, to add, you generally end up paying a lot less for a Mexi-Fender than a baby Gibson. And LP Studio is still close to a grand, and a Mexi-Fender starts at like $400-$500. Is it just the name? Also, 9 times out of ten, if you watch local broke bands play, they play Mexi-Strats or Teles, and not Gibsons. Epi LPs as well.
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#5
LP Studios aren't what I'd consider a "baby Gibson".
Current Gear:
LTD MH-400 with Gotoh GE1996T (EMG 85/60)
PRS SE Custom 24 (Suhr SSH+/SSV)
Ibanez RG3120 Prestige (Dimarzio Titans)
Squier Vintage Modified 70s Jazz V
Audient iD22 interface
Peavey Revalver 4, UAD Friedman BE100/DS40
Adam S3A monitors
Quote by Anonden
You CAN play anything with anything....but some guitars sound right for some things, and not for others. Single coils sound retarded for metal, though those who are apeshit about harpsichord probably beg to differ.
#6
Quote by oneblackened
LP Studios aren't what I'd consider a "baby Gibson".


Yea, it's a Standard without binding etc.
#7
Gibsons by their nature cost more to manufacture than fenders (carved top maple cap, mahogany vs alder, set necks, etc) For what it's worth, low end Gibsons cost about the same in proportion to high end Gibsons as low end Fenders do to high end Fenders.

I actually like that the cheap Gibsons are "baby Gibsons". If you have to save money, where is a better place to save it than shiny finishes, binding and the like? Seems faultless cost cutting to me.

Live band playing more Fenders is probably more to do with the music scene you're following, and the fact that, like you said, low end Fenders cost way less than low end Gibsons.

And saying that Gibsons aren't very modable - Leo Fender was an Engineer. Everything he made could be serviced and repaired simply. Gibsons have always been more traditional, and every time they try to do something new they get a lot of hate. So don't expect Gibson to start building bolt on LPs en mass anytime soon.
#8
I own a mexi fatstrat and a gibbo studio. I can honestly say, I've never picked up ANY Fender and thought. "Damn, this is just terrible." However, I have picked up Gibsons, Melody Makers, Specials, low end SGs and thought "Woah, this is bad."
Fender do seem like better value for money, but I'd still rather save my money for a mid range Gibson.
Silverburst
#9
This is the most worthless set of comparisons ever.

Oh, no, there's no binding on the cheapest Gibsons! Let's compare it to a Fender! They totally put binding on their guitars.

Oh, no, they glue the neck in on purpose to make you mad that you can't change it! No, it's a construction and tonal decision and Gibson fans would riot in the streets if you tried to sell them a bolt-on.

Oh, no, the Melody Maker has no features! Meanwhile, Telecaster.

Fenders were designed from day 1 to be manufactured as cheaply as possible, and to be modular. That's great, but that doesn't make them a better guitar. Gibson designs are inherently way more expensive to make. They're made in the US, and have binding, mahogany, set necks, angled headstocks, carved tops, multiple body woods, nitro finishes, the list goes on. The features involved between a Strat and a Les Paul are so wildly different that it would be completely stupid to claim that they should cost the same, or that one is better just because it can be made more cheaply. They're different, that's all.

So this is like complaining that cheap motorcycles give you more for your money than cheap cars. Of course they do, there's less there in the first place, but if you need a car then there's no point in comparing the two, and if you want a motorcycle then no car is going to satisfy. Neither one is better, and trying to force this comparison is absurd and unfair.
#10
Quote by Roc8995

1 - Oh, no, the Melody Maker has no features! Meanwhile, Telecaster.

2 - Fenders were designed from day 1 to be manufactured as cheaply as possible, and to be modular. That's great, but that doesn't make them a better guitar. Gibson designs are inherently way more expensive to make. They're made in the US, and have binding, mahogany, set necks, angled headstocks, carved tops, multiple body woods, nitro finishes, the list goes on. The features involved between a Strat and a Les Paul are so wildly different that it would be completely stupid to claim that they should cost the same, or that one is better just because it can be made more cheaply. They're different, that's all.

So this is like complaining that cheap motorcycles give you more for your money than cheap cars. Of course they do, there's less there in the first place, but if you need a car then there's no point in comparing the two, and if you want a motorcycle then no car is going to satisfy. Neither one is better, and trying to force this comparison is absurd and unfair.

1 - i actually laughed, so true!

2 - now wait a minute cha-cha. wasn't the "sg" (1961 LP) originally designed to hit the market at the same price (roughly) as the Standard strat/tele? wasn't that gibson's goal with that model? and it's stayed (the sg as we know it) at the same price point as a usa standard strat/tele since? (right now roughly $1000)

or no?

simply talking marketing sales etc. not the fact that a set neck hog should cost the same as a bolt on to "build" etc. sg's don't have the carved top, binding, multiple woods which goes to your point.
Last edited by gregs1020 at Aug 9, 2013,
#11
I would never go near a Gibson with a bolt on neck, are you ****ing kidding me?

Most of the stuff that you are talking about really has zero bearing on the quality of the instrument whatsoever. Outside of the neck, what can be modded on a strat that can't with a les paul? I'd also venture to disagree with the notion than an entry level MIM strat sounds and plays like a higher end strat. It certainly doesn't. While I think that MIM standard strats are great for new players and for 2nd guitars, I would personally never buy one. I don't really think they sound that great, the pickups aren't great, they are difficult to refinish, I don't like the necks and by the time that I've sunk the money into it to mod it into something that I prefer, I've already sunk more in mods than I did into the original instrument. As it stands, if I had $1000 to spend on a guitar right now, I'd rather build a strat from parts than buy a MIM Fender. Whereas I'd have zero qualms about buying a Les paul studio tribute. Those things are the tits.

And to point out the obvious again, as Colin already did, Gibsons just cost more to manufacturer. Their finishes take more time to apply, and their construction is simply more labor intensive.

What exactly makes an entry level Fender, more of the "whole shebang"? Because from a distance, it LOOKS more like a higher end Fender? I can spot an entry level Fender MIM strat, from a mile away within seconds. So can just about any experienced strat player. If you think they sound and play the same, then I also suggest that you sit down with a few more higher end strats and teles.
Last edited by al112987 at Aug 9, 2013,
#12
Woah. Okay. Anyways. Good points indeed.

1. Don't Gibsons have a poly base with a nitro top coat anyways? Why don't' First act start finishing their guitars in gold and charge $10,000 dollars for them lol.

2. ALL mass produced guitars are scrolled and carved from CNC machines.

3. Made in USA does not mean the same thing it used to. I have an American Standard Strat, and a MIM and with an inertia block and pickup swap, the MIM sounds almost as good.

4. In a nut shell, I think entry level fender has the edge on entry level gibson. Gibson seems to implement arbitrary measures into their production (nitro finishes on low level guitars, american labour [the chinese are getting WAY better in their instrument manufacturing]) and it all drives up the price on ENTRY LEVEL instruments.

Just sayin I think Fender has the low end in their back pocket
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#13
Quote by slayer1979
Woah. Okay. Anyways. Good points indeed.

1. Don't Gibsons have a poly base with a nitro top coat anyways? Why don't' First act start finishing their guitars in gold and charge $10,000 dollars for them lol.

Nope, that's Fender you're thinking of. Gibsons are all nitro. Your second point is meaningless and I am beginning to suspect that you just don't like Gibsons and are trying mightily to badmouth them for no real reason. Fender makes nitro guitars too, they just don't put them on their cheaper models. Gibson has decided to do that. If you don't want to pay for nitro you don't have to. It's not like there's any shortage of choice in the $400 guitar world. Gibson doesn't want to water down their "All USA, all Nitro" legacy. If you want a $400 Les Paul with poly, get an Epiphone.

2. ALL mass produced guitars are scrolled and carved from CNC machines.

So? Gibson necks are finished by hand, that takes more time and cost. They also do parts of the binding by hand. A PLEK is done by machine but that's more expensive than doing it by hand. Gibson is one of the few companies that uses a PLEK on their instruments. CNC doesn't magically make all guitar bodies cost the same to make.

3. Made in USA does not mean the same thing it used to. I have an American Standard Strat, and a MIM and with an inertia block and pickup swap, the MIM sounds almost as good.

No, but it costs more. Again, nobody's saying what's objectively better or worse but American labor does cost more. So a MIA Gibson is going to cost more than a MIM strat in part because of the labor costs.

4. In a nut shell, I think entry level fender has the edge on entry level gibson. Gibson seems to implement arbitrary measures into their production (nitro finishes on low level guitars, american labour [the chinese are getting WAY better in their instrument manufacturing]) and it all drives up the price on ENTRY LEVEL instruments.

I don't think they're arbitrary. I think they're trying to maintain their legacy, which has always skewed towards the high end. Just because you don't like their choices doesn't mean they don't make sense. If we wanted to twist this the other way, we could say that you don't get any more in a MIA strat that a MIM, because the specs aren't any different. Clearly, this means that Fender is screwing you on their nicer models. Do you see how silly that sounds once you get beyond the most basic spec level?
Just sayin I think Fender has the low end in their back pocket

Gibson wants to keep their brand name "exclusive" so they focus on more expensive stuff. They have Epiphone to make the cheaper stuff. Fender has Squier, but by choice and nature of their product, Squier is not exactly analogous to Epiphone. The standard MIM strat costs the same as a standard Epi Les Paul. You've gotten all caught up in this talk about specs and pricing, but you're ignoring the fact that Gibson does make plenty of $500 guitars overseas with the same basic specs as their flagship guitar. They just call it an Epiphone instead of a Gibson. That's a valid business decision, and it keeps the Gibson name associated with high-end products, just how they want it. They don't want to compete with $500 MIM Fenders. Strats are the most popular instrument in the world, they know they can't compete with that. They want to appear more high-end, which is why their "Standard" guitar in their most popular model costs $2000 and Fender's "Standard" guitar costs $500. It's just a different approach to the market. It's fine if you don't like that but your arguments don't make any sense beyond showing that you don't like some of the cheaper Gibson models.

If you want to bash Gibson, just say that you don't like your guitars and that they charge too much for some of their models and that their QC sucks. There's no need to drag this into a "Fender Vs. Gibson" argument with some arbitrary qualifications that favor one brand over the other. Once you start qualifying your statements in the way that you have been, all you end up saying is that you prefer cheap guitars over expensive guitars. That's fine, but it's not a worthwhile argument.
#14
Double post, call the cops.
Quote by gregs1020
1 - i actually laughed, so true!

2 - now wait a minute cha-cha. wasn't the "sg" (1961 LP) originally designed to hit the market at the same price (roughly) as the Standard strat/tele? wasn't that gibson's goal with that model? and it's stayed (the sg as we know it) at the same price point as a usa standard strat/tele since? (right now roughly $1000)

or no?

simply talking marketing sales etc. not the fact that a set neck hog should cost the same as a bolt on to "build" etc. sg's don't have the carved top, binding, multiple woods which goes to your point.

2. Definitely! So we've shown that with certain specs a MIA Strat and a MIA Gibson of roughly similar quality can cost about the same. The first post here was about the cheapest models that each brand produces, though, which is kind of crap because the difference there is basically that Epiphone takes over at a higher price point than Squier.
#15
Yeah, this whole argument was started by ignoring the existence of Epiphone entirely. Aside from Classic Vibe, Squier is strictly for beginners. There are many upper-end Epiphones marketed in that $300-600 range of intermediate guitars. One could argue that Epiphone's quality for price is inferior to a relatively unknown company like Godin, Gretsch or Reverend, but it's a bit silly to argue that Gibson needs to create cheaper guitars. That's why Epiphone exists.

Fender never learned not to water their brand down. That's why you have Fender MiA, Fender MiM, and now Fender MiC Modern Player guitars. It's a different marketing tactic than Gibson, as Roc said. Fender wants the biggest market share possible, and they'll make a MiC guitar with "Fender" on the headstock if that's what the customer can afford.

I wouldn't feel good buying a $500 new Gibson MiA guitar. I would assume I was getting a hunk of junk that only cost so much because it was built here.
#16
There is no poly base on Gibsons guitars. It's a nitro finish with a different formula to the old one, but it's still nitro.
#17
Quote by Mephaphil
There is no poly base on Gibsons guitars. It's a nitro finish with a different formula to the old one, but it's still nitro.

Good catch. It's actually Fender that does the poly base with nitro...
#18
Yea, on the Road Worn and Thin Skin stuff.

The new Flash Finish is just nitro, there's nothing underneath. My AVRI Strat has it and it's great.
#19
Didn't know that. Fender's done a poly/fullerplast sealer under nitro since 1961, so your AVRI is potentially more nitro than the original.

That flash-finish thing must be new. I know the last time I checked, maybe a year or two ago, Fender was still doing a poly base on all of their nitro models.
#20
Just to make a note, really: Gibson does make guitars without nitro finishes, they just don't make them with poly. They make plenty of satin finished guitars nowadays.

Other than that, most has been said, I think.
#21
Quote by Roc8995
Didn't know that. Fender's done a poly/fullerplast sealer under nitro since 1961, so your AVRI is potentially more nitro than the original.

That flash-finish thing must be new. I know the last time I checked, maybe a year or two ago, Fender was still doing a poly base on all of their nitro models.


I did research it and go on the Strat talk forums etc and there might be some kind of sealer, but it doesn't look like there's much there. It seems to wear faster than the original finish too. I have pictures if you want, it's starting to wear already.
#22
Cool all valid points. I am not bashing Gibson or anything. Like i said, my DREAM GUITAR is a decked out explorer. I think Mr. Badger took it a little personally, and turned a simple observation into an arguement.

Yes I know Epi fills the gap in quality and price, but i was originally saying that if one wanted a "real fender", one could acquire one at a much lower price than a "real gibson" and by real gibby i mean all the appropriate specs one would come to imagine.

Epis can be a very good alternative if you cant afford a Gibson. I have owned quite a few of them. Great guitars. But I was not talking about Epi, or Squier.

Example. A kid getting his first electric. Walks into local music store. Sees a Gibby and a Fender on the wall, each of relative price point (like >700) Nine times out of ten i've seen it. The kid thinks "Man, that Fender looks just like the guitar that Famous Dude X plays. But that Gibson doesn't look like what Famous Dude Y plays at all..."

Beginner to intermediate guitar players often times will go by looks and features, not things like body resonance or neck break angle vs sustain or most importantly SOUND.

Not saying that the low end Gibbys are all bad compared to their fender parallels. I'm saying Fender has a much more linear value curve than Gibson. Fenders seems to be like those linear equations we all used to do in HS, as apposed to Gibby whose function is more exponential, starts off low and gradually catches up, eventually right on par.
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#23
Is it Epi-phone or Epi-phon-e as in epiphany?

Either way, if the budget brand of one company can outclass the main brand of another company, what does that say about the other company?

Epiphone Les Paul Standard = Fender MIM Standard Stratocaster
Tomorrow will take us away
Far from home
No one will ever know our names
But the bards' songs will remain
Tomorrow will take it away
The fear of today
It will be gone
Due to our magic songs

ALL HAIL CELESTIA
Last edited by jjfeu662 at Aug 9, 2013,
#24
Quote by Roc8995
This is the most worthless set of comparisons ever.

Oh, no, there's no binding on the cheapest Gibsons! Let's compare it to a Fender! They totally put binding on their guitars.

Oh, no, they glue the neck in on purpose to make you mad that you can't change it! No, it's a construction and tonal decision and Gibson fans would riot in the streets if you tried to sell them a bolt-on.

Oh, no, the Melody Maker has no features! Meanwhile, Telecaster.

Fenders were designed from day 1 to be manufactured as cheaply as possible, and to be modular. That's great, but that doesn't make them a better guitar. Gibson designs are inherently way more expensive to make. They're made in the US, and have binding, mahogany, set necks, angled headstocks, carved tops, multiple body woods, nitro finishes, the list goes on. The features involved between a Strat and a Les Paul are so wildly different that it would be completely stupid to claim that they should cost the same, or that one is better just because it can be made more cheaply. They're different, that's all.

So this is like complaining that cheap motorcycles give you more for your money than cheap cars. Of course they do, there's less there in the first place, but if you need a car then there's no point in comparing the two, and if you want a motorcycle then no car is going to satisfy. Neither one is better, and trying to force this comparison is absurd and unfair.



Yeah Roc! Sticking up for Gibson.


Also, i love motorcycles.
banned
#25
Quote by jjfeu662

Either way, if the budget brand of one company can outclass the main brand of another company, what does that say about the other company?


it says that one almost arbitrarily decided to stick its own brand name on cheaper instruments and the other one decided to stick its cheaper subsidiary brand name on cheaper instruments.

I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
#26
I know fully well where Epi stands. I didnt include Epi or Squier on purpose. I was saying that low end Fenders tend to be more complete that the low end gibsons.

Think of a kid buying his first or second electric. He walks into the local music shop, and sees all of the guitars on the wall. He sees a Gibby and a Fender of relative price point (<600). The kid thinks "Man, that strat looks just like the strat Famous Guy X plays. He then looks at the Gibson, and says "Man, that LP Special looks nothing like what Famous Dude Y plays."

I simply think Gibson should start to make some affordable LPs, SGs, Vs and so on that have the looks and features, just not costing over 9000 dollars. I think it would be smart business. Who wouldn't go nuts for a "real" Gibson priced at what a lower Fender costs (besides the purists and collectors).

Didn't mean any harm or hostility, just a simple observation.
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#27
That's what I'm trying to say, though. Gibson doesn't want to be your first guitar. They want to be that guitar you drool over for years because you know that Jimmy Page has one and you want to afford it one day. It's a little snobby, but that is how you retain that brand halo. Cranking out $400 Gibson Les Pauls would ruin that, which is why they have Epiphone, and why Epi has to be part of the conversation when you're talking about budget models.

I wasn't taking it personally, btw. I've owned more Fenders than Gibsons. It's just that this sort of thing comes up fairly often and I think Gibson unfairly becomes a punching bag when their decisions are misconstrued, or by people who want a $500 Gibson Les Paul without realizing how hard it is to build a brand where you can call a $2000 guitar the "Standard" model, and that if the Standard was $500, Gibson would probably have gone under a long time ago because they would have forced themselves to compete with all of the companies that can make a better $500 guitar. They don't want to compete in that market. They want to be exclusive and sell you a $3000 production guitar when you're ready for one, and they don't do that by telling their customers that the $500 model is their flagship guitar.

I don't see this as defending Gibson. They make tons of mistakes and seem to be one of the most poorly run guitar companies out there. However, I think your points were mostly incorrect, and unfairly comparing Gibson products to other completely different companies' offerings.
#28
It's just really two different ways of doing things, as colin said. Fender has decided to make its models more "complete" (though I'd argue "superficially"), while gibson has cut corners which are more obvkious, but in (at least some) less superficial ways Gibson's cheaper models are actually closer to its more expensive models.

I'd be the first to agree that (at least in the past, I haven't tried any Gibsons in shops for a few years now) Gibson may well cut too many corners on its cheaper models, but at the same time I see what they're trying to do, and I applaud the principle behind it, if not necessarily always the execution of it.

Conversely with Fender to the untrained (or even fairly trained) eye you get a guitar that looks more like the "real thing", but whose specs aren't as good as the dearer models. Which is an OK way to do it, too.
I'm an idiot and I accidentally clicked the "Remove all subscriptions" button. If it seems like I'm ignoring you, I'm not, I'm just no longer subscribed to the thread. If you quote me or do the @user thing at me, hopefully it'll notify me through my notifications and I'll get back to you.
Quote by K33nbl4d3
I'll have to put the Classic T models on my to-try list. Shame the finish options there are Anachronism Gold, Nuclear Waste and Aged Clown, because in principle the plaintop is right up my alley.

Quote by K33nbl4d3
Presumably because the CCF (Combined Corksniffing Forces) of MLP and Gibson forums would rise up against them, plunging the land into war.

Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Et tu, br00tz?
Last edited by Dave_Mc at Aug 9, 2013,
#29
Quote by slayer1979
I know fully well where Epi stands. I didnt include Epi or Squier on purpose. I was saying that low end Fenders tend to be more complete that the low end gibsons.

Think of a kid buying his first or second electric. He walks into the local music shop, and sees all of the guitars on the wall. He sees a Gibby and a Fender of relative price point (<600). The kid thinks "Man, that strat looks just like the strat Famous Guy X plays. He then looks at the Gibson, and says "Man, that LP Special looks nothing like what Famous Dude Y plays."

I simply think Gibson should start to make some affordable LPs, SGs, Vs and so on that have the looks and features, just not costing over 9000 dollars. I think it would be smart business. Who wouldn't go nuts for a "real" Gibson priced at what a lower Fender costs (besides the purists and collectors).


But everyone has already explained this. An Epiphone Les Paul Plus Top Pro is the Gibson equivalent of a MiM Fender. They just don't use the same brand because they don't want to associate that name with a cheaper product. You're not going to get MiA Gibson LP Studio quality from a $400 new guitar that says "Gibson" on the headstock. All that making cheap guitars with "Gibson" on the headstock does is devalue their brand. Which is what Fender is more than happy to do, and I personally think it's a mistake.

Squier =/= Epiphone. The top of the line squier is probably equivalent to a middle-of-the-line Epiphone. I hate to pull this card, but you sound like a brand snob who is concerned over what the headstock says. Fortunately, Fender caters to those sorts of people with their MiC factory-made Modern Player line.

I definitely don't agree that low-end fenders are more "complete" whatever that means. A Studio has a simpler finish, but you get the same tones and electronics. I'm pretty sure MiM Fenders use different parts. If your concern is finding cheap guitars with fancy looks and extra features like coil splitting, I hear this little unknown company called EPIPHONE is pretty good at making guitars that look a lot like $4,000 Gibson custom guitars.

TL: DR Gibson couldn't make a profit making a "real" Gibson at Fender MiM costs. Because they cost more to make. So you're arguing for a cheap piece of shit with "Gibson" on the headstock.
Last edited by samuraigoomba at Aug 9, 2013,
#30
Wow. I didn't realise some people had such fragile egos.... errm... *cough samuraigoomba *cough.
I was speaking from a business kind of view. The number of Fenders sold far outnumbers the number of Gibsons sold. Period. Gibby has the higher end of the market, and Fender has the high end and the low end.

You guys seem to think i have this Fender fetish and I hate Gibson. Wrong. I really really like Gibson's products, just not the lower end stuff. Gibson's attempt at the low end seems kinda lame.

And going back to creme de la creme Epis. Why are they better than entry level Gibbys then? Also, to add, Epi does most certainly not "take over where Squier left off". Take a look at the Vintage Modifieds and the CV series. Easily giggable in pro scenarios, as are the nice Epis.
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#31
We keep telling you, Gibson's not trying to sell low-end crap. They don't want to tarnish their good name with poor quality budget guitars. That Gibson doesn't sell as much is because it is harder to get a Gibson. And they like it that way. There's an exclusiveness about it.

Fender, however, has given up the exclusiveness and the high-end name in the interest of sales. Which is why you can get a mexican guitar with the Fender logo on it for $400.
Tomorrow will take us away
Far from home
No one will ever know our names
But the bards' songs will remain
Tomorrow will take it away
The fear of today
It will be gone
Due to our magic songs

ALL HAIL CELESTIA
#33
Quote by slayer1979
Thus supporting what I initially stated, no?


No.
Tomorrow will take us away
Far from home
No one will ever know our names
But the bards' songs will remain
Tomorrow will take it away
The fear of today
It will be gone
Due to our magic songs

ALL HAIL CELESTIA
#34
How not? Gibson cares not for their entry level stuff. They are not concerned with it i guess. So you get a really bare-bones guitar, maybe not a bad guitar, but really lacking in features and options. With a LP Special, you have usually 1 or 2 finish options, no pup options, always rosewood fingerboard. With a strat standard you usually have every combination under the sun to work with. Would you like every color of the rainbow? How about HSS? No? How about HSH? Maple or rosewood fingerboard? And on so forth.
So what you fellas are saying is Gibson gives zero f**ks about the poor man, right?
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#36
What is your point? That Gibson should feel sorry for your poor self and give you a luxury guitar full of features for nothing? If you can't afford a Gibson then you're not going to get one.
Tomorrow will take us away
Far from home
No one will ever know our names
But the bards' songs will remain
Tomorrow will take it away
The fear of today
It will be gone
Due to our magic songs

ALL HAIL CELESTIA
#37
UGH
Just wanted to have a friendly discussion. Based on an observation and personal exp. It kinda turned south as ALL Fender vs Gibson threads do.
That should be one of the rules of the internet. F vs G threads are always futile. Both are good or both are bad and there is no fluctuation in between. Or else fanboys may start crying and poop their pants if one has a contrasting POV.
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#38
No. Not the core of the arguement. Or at least what it has been turned into. Just saying has anyone else seemed to notice this, and if so why. And yes I have owned one it was an SG standard a few years back i sold on CL. So i got both sides.
I only feel like me when I'm behind my ax...
#39
Quote by slayer1979
UGH
Just wanted to have a friendly discussion. Based on an observation and personal exp. It kinda turned south as ALL Fender vs Gibson threads do.
That should be one of the rules of the internet. F vs G threads are always futile. Both are good or both are bad and there is no fluctuation in between. Or else fanboys may start crying and poop their pants if one has a contrasting POV.


That IS a rule of the internet. Specifically a rule of this forum.

You cannot compare a luxury high-end guitar brand to whatever Fender is.
Tomorrow will take us away
Far from home
No one will ever know our names
But the bards' songs will remain
Tomorrow will take it away
The fear of today
It will be gone
Due to our magic songs

ALL HAIL CELESTIA
#40
This thread is full of
There's so many points I feel like addressing but I don't even know where to start
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]
Page 1 of 2