#1
The Gibson J-45 was named for its cost of $45.00 US when it was introduced in 1942. Based on an inflation calculator, this same product would cost $569.54 US today. The modern counterpart, the Gibson J-45 True Vintage has a list price of $3,542.00 US. Can someone explain this to me? I know I sound like I'm high and in college (oh wait . . . ), but I can't help but feel that this is just wrong. Why should I have to pay for a name? Especially in the modern era of no-service, disposable good, garbage-material, consumer-feed products? I trust a brand name about as far as I can throw it (which I once attempted under the influence of psilocybin) and this is why. Not that I'm complaining that everything is too damn expensive, but it is!

Just my two cents.
Sincerely, Chad.
Quote by LP Addict
LP doesnt have to stand for les paul.. it can stand for.... lesbian porn.
#2
I played a Gibson J-45. I did NOT enojy it AT ALL. the sound was nothing special, and the plastic feel of the neck annoyed me to no end. after hearing so many good things about it, i was VERY disappointed when i actually played it. everything kinda just sounded dead. there wasnt anything exiting about that guitar at all. After playing the Gibson, i went and played a Martin D-15(which is a LOT cheaper than that Gibson) and really enjoyed myself. The difference between the two guitars were like heaven and earth.

Thats my $0.02 on the Gibson J-45.
#3
First of all, the standard J-45 would be a better comparison, which runs just under $2K. Inflation isn't the only factor either. Manufacturing and wood costs are significantly more expensive today compared to the 40's. Let's put it this way, an Epiphone Masterbilt(made in China) would probably run at least 100% more if it was made in the USA, primarily because of labor costs.

Another factor is that quality acoustic guitars generally tend to be more expensive than electrics because they don't sell as well, and because they are more difficult to make(have a look at the Martin factory vids on Musician's Friend). There weren't many electric options in the 40's, so most guitars sold were acoustic. The point being that it acoustics were more cost-effective back then as opposed to now. I'm sure that Gibson still makes a ridiculous profit from the J-45, but comparing the cost to the consumer solely based on inflation over 65+ years doesn't tell the whole story.
Last edited by teegee420 at Feb 6, 2008,
#4
ive been to the martin factory and ALOT goes into making acoustics. and with all the people that do individual jobs now instead of one person who did a bunch of different jobs back then means more people to pay let alone a bigger facility they have to maintain.


my spelling is horrible
Guitars:
Custom les paul copy with sun inlay
Epiphone les paul custom with emg 81/85
Hondo 80's star shape(project)
ESP explorer (project)
Epiphone dr200s
Epiphone ej200
pedals:
mxr doubleshot distortion
amp:
Raven rg100
#5
Quote by Ghost_bass
ive been to the martin factory and ALOT goes into making acoustics. and with all the people that do individual jobs now instead of one person who did a bunch of different jobs back then means more people to pay let alone a bigger facility they have to maintain.


my spelling is horrible



Your reasoning is worse than your spelling though. More people with more specialized jobs all in a bigger facility means they can crank out lots more guitars than before and therefore they should be cheaper, not more expensive.
#6
Quote by corndogggy
Your reasoning is worse than your spelling though. More people with more specialized jobs all in a bigger facility means they can crank out lots more guitars than before and therefore they should be cheaper, not more expensive.

Was just about to post that. I'll concede that the cost of wood and labor has gone up, but Gibson's price is still grossly inflated. Far past the point of profits. Granted, I will never own a Gibson acoustic in my life, but this still just seems wrong to me. I couldn't find any price matching, so I couldn't use Martin as an example, but yeah, they're another one. Martin inflates prices really bad, and offers terrible service.
Sincerely, Chad.
Quote by LP Addict
LP doesnt have to stand for les paul.. it can stand for.... lesbian porn.
#7
Because only a Gibson is good enough. Why do people pay for a designer article of clothing when they can get something that is better quality for literally 5 times less. Although Gibson's quality control is going down supposedly, they have earned their respect over the years.
#8
Quote by one vision
Because only a Gibson is good enough. Why do people pay for a designer article of clothing when they can get something that is better quality for literally 5 times less. Although Gibson's quality control is going down supposedly, they have earned their respect over the years.

That means they're not good enough. It means they're a trumped-up excuse for a company that values its customers as much as a mortician values corpses.
Sincerely, Chad.
Quote by LP Addict
LP doesnt have to stand for les paul.. it can stand for.... lesbian porn.
#9
Hey I agree that the over inflated prices for name-brand guitars is way out of proportion to the actual value of the assembled pieces. Most of the processes today are done by machine not specialists. (unless it requires a specialist to press the on button. Have a look at Stew Mac site they sell all the pieces to build a guitar of the $2000+ range for between $400 > $500 USD.
http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Kits/Acoustic_Guitar_Kits/Dreadnought_Guitar_Kits.html
Richard

Veni Vidi Vici

Head Drug Tester of Australians FTWclub
PM the_random_hero for entry

Prime Minister of the UG archtop acoustic players club,
PM Keef_is_King
to join!