Page 1 of 3
#1
I just saw the new prices for 2015 Gibson Les Paul guitars this morning on Musicians Friend. The price increases we were hearing about for 2015 seem to be reality.
#4
I think this is a really bad move on Gibson's part. They are already losing market share to companies like ESP, Agile and others even to their own Epiphone line who all make really decent Les Paul style guitars not to mention the "elephant in the room" Chibson Les Paul counterfeits from China. The brain trust at Gibson looks around and rather than trying to figure out how to be more competitive says “I know how to fix things, we’ll raise the prices”.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Oct 1, 2014,
#5
Is the Classic Custom still in the catalogue? It's such a sick guitar.
Quote by SrThompson
I don't think in buying a Gibson any time soon so....could not care less.

Me neither. Not for another few years at least.
Quote by Rickholly74
I think this is a really bad move on Gibson's part. They are already losing market share to companies like ESP, Agile and others even to their own Epiphone line who all make really decent Les Paul style guitars not to mention the "elephant in the room" Chibson Les Paul counterfeits from China. The brain trust at Gibson looks around and rather than trying to figure out how to be more competitive says “I know how to fix things, we’ll raise the prices”.

It's because Gibson are trying to maintain their exclusivity. They tried to respond to popular demand by lowering their prices, and releasing more guitars in the sub $1000 range. But it actually hurt their reputation more than it helped because a great portion of the guitars just didn't meet up to customers expectations. By making their guitars cheaper, they lost exclusivity. As exclusivity is a key selling point with Gibson, they have to defend it.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Oct 1, 2014,
#6
Quote by SrThompson
I don't think in buying a Gibson any time soon so....could not care less.

Same here.

The only Gibson guitars I'd like to buy are old used ones, like an early '60s Explorer or late '60s Flying V.
Squier "VMC" Stratocaster
PRS SE Singlecut
tc electronic polytune
CMAT MODS Signa Drive
Blakemore Effects Deus Ex Machina
DIY gaussmarkov Dr. Boogey
EHX Small Clone
Mooer ShimVerb
DIY Beavis Devolt
T-REX Fuel Tank Chameleon
Ampeg GVT52-112
#7
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Is the Classic Custom still in the catalogue? It's such a sick guitar.

No, it was discontinued a while ago. It was one of the stopgap instruments they introduced when trying to deal with their rosewood fiasco, I don't think it was ever seriously meant to be a permanent addition to the line.
#8
Quote by Roc8995
No, it was discontinued a while ago. It was one of the stopgap instruments they introduced when trying to deal with their rosewood fiasco, I don't think it was ever seriously meant to be a permanent addition to the line.

Shame.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
#10
I like the new 2015 models. The Les Paul Deluxe and Junior are super cool, and that even the Junior comes with a hardshell case besides being a gloss finish is a very welcome change. I would be very excited to try the G-Force tuning system, now that I don't have to pay extra for the thing. The only thing I could possibly complain about is the price - but prices are adjustable and I will just wait and see. I do want a Junior.

While I do think my 2008 LP Standard Faded is one of the best sounding and playing guitars ever, and really liked the much cheaper SG Faded as well, I don't think those kind of finishes was a good move. Not while the competition offered guitars that were both good looking and well playing.

May be a step in the right direction for Gibson, maybe not, but considering how many people bashed the more recent Faded-types like the LPJ we should welcome this.
"Your signature can not be longer than 250 characters."

How you know you have too many guitars...

Apparently once also known as PonyFan #834553.
#11
I'm going the opposite direction; selling off a few. No intentions to replace them with anything that says Gibson on the headstock.
#12
Worst new model lineup ever

ZEN JUDDHISM
The new solo project, and spiritual philosophy... Album out now !
----------------------------------------------------------
hybrid 6.0
Debut album 'Silent Destruction' out now
Read the Two Guys Metal review here
#13
Quote by HomerSGR
I like the new 2015 models. The Les Paul Deluxe and Junior are super cool, and that even the Junior comes with a hardshell case besides being a gloss finish is a very welcome change. I would be very excited to try the G-Force tuning system, now that I don't have to pay extra for the thing.

May be a step in the right direction for Gibson, maybe not, but considering how many people bashed the more recent Faded-types like the LPJ we should welcome this.


You don't get it, Grasshoppah. You ARE paying extra for the MinETune/PowerTune/GFarce/TronicalTune/Robot. The extra is just part of the selling price, and you can't buy the guitar without it. Same as the hardshell case. "Last year, we listed the Nav system and fancy wheels as a $2000 option. This year, even though the prices are higher by $2400, they're standard!"

You may in fact be correct that this is a step in the right direction for Gibson (except for the MinETune thing), and the LPJs were definitely (IMHO, and no offense intended to the owners who love them) crap.

I don't mean to be a MinETune (GForce is a guinea pig movie) hater, but you should know that they're not particularly accurate, they're easily broken if you don't follow directions, the "alternate tunings" that they tout are extremely limited in scope and, like most alternate tunings that force the tuning by changing the tension on the string, you'll end up with some cheese-slicer strings (almost impossible to bend) and some floppy ones. They change the polar moment of inertia of the guitars they've been added to AND they require a battery.

In short, G-Force the Movie is a Disney creation, and G-Force the Gibson tuner is mickey mouse.

Last edited by dspellman at Oct 1, 2014,
#14
I didn't like whole MinEtune thing from the very beginning. There is just something wrong about automating an instrument like a guitar. What's next, it plays for you too?
#15
Quote by columbiar
I didn't like whole MinEtune thing from the very beginning. There is just something wrong about automating an instrument like a guitar. What's next, it plays for you too?

Imo, the problem isn't that it's automated, but that it solves a problem that doesn't exist for most guitarists.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
#16
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Imo, the problem isn't that it's automated, but that it solves a problem that doesn't exist for most guitarists.

very true. Especially those willing to spend thousands on an instrument. Most of these consumers are not beginners.
#17
Quote by columbiar
very true. Especially those willing to spend thousands on an instrument. Most of these consumers are not beginners.

It isn't marketed for beginners necessarily, it allows a guitarist to re-tune to an alternate tuning quickly, which has some use in a live situation when you only have one guitar the entire night. But that scenario is too niche for most people. And it has the physical limitation that depending on what gauge of string is used, using the system to drop from one tuning to a radically different one has a tendency to make the strings as loose as spaghetti, or when tuned up, the tension gets so high that the strings break.

But back to the point, I really like a lot of Gibson's guitars, or at least the ones that are actually good.

But it's a huge letdown that this has happened. I understand why they did raise the prices up by a huge margin, and I'm glad I have mine before the prices went up the ass, but it doesn't stop it from being hugely disappointing. Until the prices go back down, I won't consider any Gibson.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Oct 1, 2014,
#18
It must be Gibson's turn now. With Fender's sale to CBS and Gretsch's sale to Baldwin both of those brands suffered. Now they have a CEO who has no passion for guitars and is there for the money so the brand will suffer for a few years until they get it together again.
#19
A buddy of mine said something I find to be very true.

PRS essentially took Gibson's market.

PRS makes some extremely high quality handmade guitars at the same (if not slightly lower) pricepoint as Gibson, but the fit and finish is of a much higher quality, plus a lot of them look better IMO.
Gibson RD Silverburst w/ Lace Dissonant Aggressors (SOLD)
Electra Omega Prime Ceruse
Fender Franken-Jag Bass

Amps and the like:
Laney VH100R
Seismic Luke 2x12
Dunlop 105Q Wah
Gojira FX 808
Line 6 M9
#20
Quote by Zhaezzy
It must be Gibson's turn now. With Fender's sale to CBS and Gretsch's sale to Baldwin both of those brands suffered. Now they have a CEO who has no passion for guitars and is there for the money so the brand will suffer for a few years until they get it together again.

No, that was the Norlin era of 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.
#21
It will be interesting to watch and see how these 2015 guitars sell. I certainly won't be buying one.
#22
Quote by Rickholly74
.........
not to mention the "elephant in the room" Chibson Les Paul counterfeits from China.
..............


Do you still own the two fakes ?

#23
Quote by oneblackened
No, that was the Norlin era of Gibson.


Your probably right but now it looks like they are doing it again.

Also the PRS comments were spot on. What hurts Gibson more is that they are not pushing some niche guitars that are a long way from PRS guitars. (Explorer and V Firebird) I am not in the market for a Gibson now and I hope that they turn it around and do right by their customers. But there are plenty of quality guitars out there.
#24
HJ seems to want to make his own personal mark on the Gibson brand. This was demonstrated with such beauties as the FireturdX and in 2013 the same crap that wouldn't fly on that model applied to a Les Paul.
Now it seems they've scaled back the "innovations" and this is the result. An IMO ugly script on the headstock, a metal nut that's not really adjustable to taste, expensive tuners for those either too lazy or too stupid to tune their guitars.
You know... whatever.... the market will decide what's acceptable and what isn't but upping prices by 30% and offering features to appeal to younger players who likely won't like the new higher prices any better than the old seems counter-intuitive to me.
Gibson is an iconic brand with iconic models that have lasted 60+ years, why someone would feel the need to risk that status to gain a smaller new market possibly at the expense of the old shows just how out of touch marketing can be.
Technology in of itself isn't the answer. Look at today's Smart TVs. Dumb. The features they offer can be had ina $50 Blu-Ray DVD player than can be upgraded or replace easily but some ahole thought it was wise to include these "features" in a major investment like a 2k big-screen TV making that big ticket item more likely to go out of date far too soon.
Moving on.....
Last edited by KenG at Oct 1, 2014,
#25
Quote by Zhaezzy
Your probably right but now it looks like they are doing it again.

Also the PRS comments were spot on. What hurts Gibson more is that they are not pushing some niche guitars that are a long way from PRS guitars. (Explorer and V Firebird) I am not in the market for a Gibson now and I hope that they turn it around and do right by their customers. But there are plenty of quality guitars out there.



Norlin's big issue was running Gibson just like any business where profit above all else mattered and brands don't matter. When a business starts to cut everywhere with the sole goal of lowering expenses regardless of the outcome, that business has a reduced life span. Hence Norlin era Gibson sales falling (late 70-earl 80s) to numbers equivalent to the same quantities that killed the original LP in the 1st place.

Real business men seem to look for short term gain primarily (profit) and since they have no vested interest in the product, are fine with the eventually failing of a company when it no longer gives them what they deem important. Then they move on to another business and repeat the process.
Moving on.....
#26
Yes. I still own the two Les Paul "fakes". They do kind of just sit at home. I have done all I wanted to the first one so my experimenting and learning is pretty much at an end for now.
#27
The last 3 years:
"Gibson's quality control sucks."
"There are too many useless Les Pauls."
"Gibson's making crap with their headstock just so people will buy it."
"I don't even know what they're doing as a company, who're they catering to?"


So, Gibson refocuses their lineup on a handful of purposeful models meant for the upper end of the guitar market so they can focus on quality and the happiness of their target market.

2014:
"Oh my god I can't believe they're changing prices to help fit their business model, how am I suppose to own one!"


Can't Gibson do anything right with you people?
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
Last edited by JustRooster at Oct 2, 2014,
#28
Quote by JustRooster
The last 3 years:
"Gibson's quality control sucks."
"There are too many useless Les Pauls."
"Gibson's making crap with their headstock just so people will buy it."
"I don't even know what they're doing as a company, who're they catering to?"


So, Gibson refocuses their lineup on a handful of purposeful models meant for the upper end of the guitar market so they can focus on quality and the happiness of their target market.

2014:
"Oh my god I can't believe they're changing prices to help fit their business model, how am I suppose to own one!"


Can't Gibson do anything right with you people?


I feel like this is a bit of a fallacy. People who know Gibson has been putting out crap don't want to buy one anymore. There are two people who want to buy Gibson as far as I'm concerned, people who can afford them and kids just starting out who love Slash.

Good for them that they might actually be going back to the company they were at one point.
Gibson RD Silverburst w/ Lace Dissonant Aggressors (SOLD)
Electra Omega Prime Ceruse
Fender Franken-Jag Bass

Amps and the like:
Laney VH100R
Seismic Luke 2x12
Dunlop 105Q Wah
Gojira FX 808
Line 6 M9
#29
Quote by TheStig1214
There are two people who want to buy Gibson as far as I'm concerned, people who can afford them and kids just starting out who love Slash.


I work in guitar sales. Would you like to stick by that statement? I'll give you a chance to retract or amend it.
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
Last edited by JustRooster at Oct 2, 2014,
#30
I said it before and I'll say it again. People will pay anything to have that Gibson logo on their headstock.

They might get a PRS too because of it's build and beauty....but as long as one of their guitars say "Gibson" it's all good.
Last edited by ken styles at Oct 2, 2014,
#31
Quote by JustRooster
I work in guitar sales. Would you like to stick by that statement? I'll give you a chance to retract or amend it.


I'm just observing the common sentiment of many guitarists I know or see.

EDIT: Excluding players in bands endorsed by Gibson, which is a different story altogether.
Gibson RD Silverburst w/ Lace Dissonant Aggressors (SOLD)
Electra Omega Prime Ceruse
Fender Franken-Jag Bass

Amps and the like:
Laney VH100R
Seismic Luke 2x12
Dunlop 105Q Wah
Gojira FX 808
Line 6 M9
Last edited by TheStig1214 at Oct 2, 2014,
#32
Quote by TheStig1214
I'm just observing the common sentiment of many guitarists I know or see.

Common sentiments don't make for very strong arguments when compared to the facts.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Oct 2, 2014,
#33
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Common sentiments don't make for very strong arguments when compared to the facts.


What are the facts? I'm ignorant on this issue and I have been presented with none.
Gibson RD Silverburst w/ Lace Dissonant Aggressors (SOLD)
Electra Omega Prime Ceruse
Fender Franken-Jag Bass

Amps and the like:
Laney VH100R
Seismic Luke 2x12
Dunlop 105Q Wah
Gojira FX 808
Line 6 M9
Last edited by TheStig1214 at Oct 2, 2014,
#34
Ooh let's see how this goes
ZEN JUDDHISM
The new solo project, and spiritual philosophy... Album out now !
----------------------------------------------------------
hybrid 6.0
Debut album 'Silent Destruction' out now
Read the Two Guys Metal review here
#35
Quote by KenG
Norlin's big issue was running Gibson just like any business where profit above all else mattered and brands don't matter. When a business starts to cut everywhere with the sole goal of lowering expenses regardless of the outcome, that business has a reduced life span. Hence Norlin era Gibson sales falling (late 70-earl 80s) to numbers equivalent to the same quantities that killed the original LP in the 1st place.

Real business men seem to look for short term gain primarily (profit) and since they have no vested interest in the product, are fine with the eventually failing of a company when it no longer gives them what they deem important. Then they move on to another business and repeat the process.


There are real business men, real good business men, and real bad business men. I have seen examples of all of them. The real good business men know that a brand is something very important that has to be protected for long term success. Therefore, they take decisions on cost cutting, capitol investments, marketing, etc. with brand protection and cultivation in mind. They even realize that short term losses might be necessary for long term success. Since Norlin missed the importance of maintaining brand reputation, I'd place him in the real bad business man category.
#36
Quote by TheStig1214
I'm ignorant on this issue



All I needed to hear. Have a good day!
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#37
Quote by KenG

Gibson is an iconic brand with iconic models that have lasted 60+ years, why someone would feel the need to risk that status to gain a smaller new market possibly at the expense of the old shows just how out of touch marketing can be.
Technology in of itself isn't the answer. Look at today's Smart TVs. Dumb. The features they offer can be had ina $50 Blu-Ray DVD player than can be upgraded or replace easily but some ahole thought it was wise to include these "features" in a major investment like a 2k big-screen TV making that big ticket item more likely to go out of date far too soon.


Big-screen TVs should never be purchased as a "big ticket" or a status item and absolutely not justified as a "major investment." That's just incredibly stupid. Take a very close look at the replacement warranty and buy as a budgetary item. Three year warranty? Divide the price by three years and apply that to your entertainment budget. That'll tell you if it makes even remote sense. Technology on these things moves too quickly. Buy a new something that has two or three-year-old specs available at a quarter (or less) the price.

I think that in some ways (MinETune the exception), Gibson's move makes sense.

The cheap guitars weren't making them a profit. They were trashing Gibson's image as a premium guitar. They weren't gaining Gibson entry-level buyers (as intended); they were simply cannibalizing sales of the more expensive guitars. They were stressing the factory's production limits and quality control across the board was being trashed.

Guitar Center, Gibson's largest outlet, is in deep financial trouble. Some manufacturers have reduced their presence at GC or eliminated it altogether. Most will NOT provide inventory on finance. GC's guitar selection, as a result, has skewed heavily toward low end guitars, and guitars are more often displayed flat against the wall rather than on diagonal hangers sticking out of the wall. This allows them to fill the wall, but with 100-300 fewer guitars. Even the keyboard section offers a higher percentage of used items than ever before. Backup stock (on the shelves behind the front box) has been reduced, as has warehouse inventory, and in Los Angeles, some items are available as display items or special order only. There's simply no backup stock in the system.

Gibson sees online sales making more sense. By raising prices, they can concentrate their efforts on better quality control and make more profit by selling fewer items. They reduce quality complaints that can be traced to shop wear, pilferage, etc.

If they're smart, they'll allow the Qindao plant to produce higher quality Epiphones and use that brand to more fully penetrate the under-$1000 bracket. Epiphone can become the entry level leader (this will gall long-time Gibson corporate wanks, who still rankle at the high level of competition Epiphone once gave Gibson when it was an independent brand). Epi can offer shaved neck heels, 24-fret necks, more modern finishes, tummy cuts, Floyds, stainless frets, flatter fretboards, new materials, piezos, interesting pickup choices, etc. It can effectively become Gibson's technology stalking horse.
#38
Quote by dspellman

I think that in some ways (MinETune the exception), Gibson's move makes sense.

The cheap guitars weren't making them a profit. They were trashing Gibson's image as a premium guitar. They weren't gaining Gibson entry-level buyers (as intended); they were simply cannibalizing sales of the more expensive guitars. They were stressing the factory's production limits and quality control across the board was being trashed.

This is the crux of the issue. People need to realize that Gibson doesn't want to try to sell everyone a guitar any more. They want to go back to selling expensive guitars to people who have the money to buy expensive guitars. Clearly they can't compete in the $1K market. Gibson doesn't care if it hurts your* feelings that they don't care about you any more. They couldn't figure out how to make money off of you before so they're going back to their original customers and you're just going to have to learn to live without them. It's like a bad breakup that's best for everyone in the long run.

A lot of the complaints about Gibson are coming from a market that Gibson just shouldn't be competing in.

They still need to knock it off with the G-force though.


* "You" is used here to refer to us filthy peasants who won't drop 3K on a new Les Paul.
#39
First, not a fan of the min-e tune, either.

Second, I have to say, I know I'm not the only person in this thread who owns or has owned a guitar equivalent in $ value to a Gibson...but I haven't been all that impressed with Gibsons thus far. I always seem to find something else to buy instead. So I'm concerned that, as Gibson leaves the sub-$1000 market to its subsidiary, Epiphone (potentially a very good decision), it may also not be as competitive in the over $1000 market as they need to be.

At least, not yet. Not at this time.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#40
Definitely. I don't think they can make that change quickly, but it's a step in the right direction to narrow their market and focus, hopefully, on building guitars that are actually worthy of their price tag.

If it turns out that their offerings don't improve after this change, then perhaps a bankruptcy or ousting of Harry J by investors is the only solution. We know he can't make Gibson competitive in lower price ranges, so the move to the higher end exclusively will hopefully get the company back on track or result in new leadership.
Page 1 of 3