Why are gibsons more expensive than Fenders???

[jdimitri]

Hey all, this question's been on my mind for a while, so yeah...
A standard les paul is like what, 2x the price of a standard american tele?
Even epiphones are much more expensive than squiers!
Is it just the brand, the wood is better maybe, better factories?

[Colo Springs E]

.....it's probably a little more expensive to manufacture certain Gibsons (archtops and LPs with maple caps on mahogany bodies), but the bottom line is, enough people will pay the high prices. So Gibson charges the high prices.

That's just Econ 101...

[Rich Rice]

1) Design features and production costs on set neck instruments run higher.

2) Appointments are typically more ornate.

3) They can get away with it.

[Bill]

I suspect it's largely due to labor costs. With Fender's they're designed to be built like cars--all the parts bolt together. Big difference between fitting a bolt-on neck on a Strat and a glued-in tenon-joint neck on a Les Paul. Also, the carved tops in Les Pauls for instance, were specifically designed because the folks at Gibson knew that the folks at Fender didn't have the equipment to do that back in the 50's. The finish on most Gibsons is nitro as opposed to poly on Fenders. Poly is cheaper and easier to apply.

Even little things, like the binding on the fretboard on a Gibson takes a lot longer to do and fit frets to than on a Fender.

I suspect there's also a bigger markup on Gibsons.

[Pete Galati]

Two key reasons why Gibsons cost that much more.

It costs more to build them.
but more important
They're no longer in the business of selling guitars. Now they sell image!

[Tom S]

Originally Posted by Rich@wildriceband.com

1) Design features and production costs on set neck instruments run higher.

I'm skeptical about that one, Rich. After all, Fender can sell a Squier chambered tele with a set neck for $400 retail. Plus, there's a gazillion $200 acoustics out there.

Gibson's can have more design features, but I think most of the price is in the name these days.

[zombywoof]

Fender and Gibson both charge by the pound.

[Rich Rice]

Be as skeptical as you want, the fact remains that it is more expensive to produce a set neck instrument. It is harder to do the finish when there's a neck permanently attached than to do a separate body and neck. Gibson also has much more hand work involved, such as scraping overspray from bindings and neck/fingerboard joints. The Squiers you speak of are not American instruments, either. Our wages are higher, thus the price is higher. The cheaper Epiphone instruments are imports, and are more mechanized in their construction, which are comparable to the Squier instruments.

[Tom S]

Rich, I understand what your saying. I realize the difference in labor costs here versus overseas. But Fender products produced here in the U. S. are much less expensive than Gibsons, generally speaking. My only point is that it doesn't necessarily have to cost more to produce a set-neck instrument, strictly because it's set-neck. The bodies and necks are finished separately anyway aren't they?

I guess the bottom line for me is that I don't buy into the price/value equation of Gibson's, specifically MIA Les Pauls. I have a really nice one too, and it's a very cool guitar, but not at the crazy pricing most are currently at (they don't make mine anymore, but if they did, it would be absurdly priced).

[aznxtasy341]

Originally Posted by Tom S

Rich, I understand what your saying. I realize the difference in labor costs here versus overseas. But Fender products produced here in the U. S. are much less expensive than Gibsons, generally speaking. My only point is that it doesn't necessarily have to cost more to produce a set-neck instrument, strictly because it's set-neck. The bodies and necks are finished separately anyway aren't they?

I guess the bottom line for me is that I don't buy into the price/value equation of Gibson's, specifically MIA Les Pauls. I have a really nice one too, and it's a very cool guitar, but not at the crazy pricing most are currently at (they don't make mine anymore, but if they did, it would be absurdly priced).

doesnt it also have somthing to do with the selection of wood? fender will take nice pieces but gibson takes the best stuff. the fender website even specifies from alder, and select alder on the guit. specs. plus gibsons are made of out mohagany i think that costs more on the market than alder and ash

think of gibson as rolls royce and fender as mercedes. what does your basic LP go for? 2000 $$?

[Tim Armstrong]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

Fender and Gibson both charge by the pound.

[Rich Rice]

Originally Posted by Tom S

Rich, I understand what your saying. I realize the difference in labor costs here versus overseas. But Fender products produced here in the U. S. are much less expensive than Gibsons, generally speaking. My only point is that it doesn't necessarily have to cost more to produce a set-neck instrument, strictly because it's set-neck. The bodies and necks are finished separately anyway aren't they?

I guess the bottom line for me is that I don't buy into the price/value equation of Gibson's, specifically MIA Les Pauls. I have a really nice one too, and it's a very cool guitar, but not at the crazy pricing most are currently at (they don't make mine anymore, but if they did, it would be absurdly priced).

OK. There are lots of things that seem to be overlooked here.
Carved tops- more labor, thicker wood, more production steps=more cost=higher price.

Set neck angles, joinery, precision machining and hand assembly/ adjustment. More labor, more time, more cost=higher price. Fender bolts on a neck, if it needs a shim they throw one in. Done.

Necks and bodies are completely assembled prior to finishing. More labor. More hand sanding, more scraping. More skilled labor, more time on the buffing wheel (hand work)= more labor, more time, higher price. Fender sprays a relatively flat body, runs it on the wheel, bolts on a neck, ready for hardware and electronics. Fast, effective, and way easier/cheaper/lower labor figures. Every second counts in a big shop. A dime makes a difference when they produce 500,000 instruments. Gibson spends more, and they charge more.

There are millions of $200 acoustics out there that are not Gibsons. The lower priced Fender acoustics that I see are terrible (machine made imports) Sad, but true. Personally, I like Alvarez acoustics, and Martins. Old Gibsons are mostly good, Old American Fender acoustics were pretty fair guitars, too. I wouldn't buy a new one to keep, though.

[O.D.CRUISERS]

I gotta ask this, just what the heck is a "drop top" when referencing a guitar? I hate to sound uninformed but I don't have a clue. Must be a Gibson thing...not that there is anything wrong with it.

-Craig

[Ron Garson]

A "drop-top" isn't a Gibson thing. If memory serves me correctly, I think that Tom Anderson was the first builder to do this. It is where a cap (figured maple, or whatever) is applied to the curved top of a Strat style body, but the cap is not carved to follow the contour of the "armrest!" Instead it it flat initially, and then by suction, or pressure, is forced to follow the arm contour when it is glued to the body. You can then leave the edges of the cap un-stained and natural, giving a natural wood "binding" effect, like you have on many PRS guitars.

[cowboytwang]

From the start Fender's have always been a more economical instrument to build, even their steel guitars in the '40s were cheaper than Gibson's steel guitars.

Another thing is that Fender has instruments made in other countries to keep labor and manufacturing cost down. Gibson does also, but uses the Epiphone name on their imports.
So if you took the average price of the Epiphone line and added it to the average price in the Gibson line, the average of those two would probably be closer to the average Fender price.

Another reason for higher Gibson prices(mostly Les Pauls) is that when Henry Juszkiewicz took over Gibson 20-some years ago, he started raising prices.
Here is a quote from him in USA Today

I said we are going to increase prices. Prices were ridiculously low. And people said, the price has been decreasing 20% a year, how can you reverse that? I said I'm just going to double the prices on a lot of models. I actually tested it and got an inverse price curve. Basically it showed that every time I raised prices a certain amount, volume would go up.

His thinking is that if his guitars(Gibsons) cost more then people will think they are worth more, and will pay double of what they should for one!!

The cost of manufacturing a Tele neck and body on a CNC machine compared to making an SG neck and body on a CNC machine, is probably just pennies apart.
Bolting a finished neck on a finished body is about the same amount of labor as gluing an unfinished neck onto an unfinished body. When the neck and neck joint is cut to spec on a CNC machine it just take seconds to glue the neck in. Then it gets the finish sprayed on.

[Oskar]

They're no longer in the business of selling guitars. Now they sell image!

Fender sells its image just as much. Ever look at all the peripheral stuff? T-Shirts, shoes, clocks, coffee mugs, anything that will collect dust, on and on and on.

Both are giant corporations competing for the same market.

As far as being more expensive all you have to do is look at the design of Fenders & Gibsons. I don't see too many people making Gibson partscasters. Primarily because it's so much easier and way cheaper to screw a neck into a body than try to put together a set-neck guitar. I can see why Gibsons are more expensive, but I also think they are more expensive than they should be. After all, the Epiphone line looks pretty nice at almost a third of the price in most cases.

[guitarmanvt]

It definetly seems logical that Gibsons would cost more to manufacture, but I also think that these days you are paying several hundred dollars more than is reasonable just for the Gibson name. I would probably not buy a new Gibson right now for 2 reasons:

1) You can get much more for your money with a used one.

2) New Gibsons seem to suffer from quality control issues (rough finish around the neck joint, horrible factory setup, loose tuners, badly installed electronics, lack of sanding, bad fretwork, etc.) that were not present in older Gibsons. Before buying my '96 Studio I played a couple of new ones. Although they were nice guitars they had quality control issues (rough finish, bad fretwork) that simply should not be present on a $xxxx guitar.

Gibson has a great product, but their recent business practices of jacking up prices and dropping in quality are sickening at best. I won't even go into all the crap about dropping smaller dealers (as in basically anyone but GC) because they won't also carry Singerland drums and Baldwin pianos and such. Gibson's business practices have gone downhill.

[Telemarkman]

cowboytwang wrote :

From the start Fender's have always been a more economical instrument to build, even their steel guitars in the '40s were cheaper than Gibson's steel guitars.

One of Leo's main goals when he started making the first
production solid bodied electric guitar, was that it should be a simple, workingmanlike, easily maintained and reasonably priced instrument.

I'm sure everyone here on this forum will admit that he succeeded in his intentions, and also everyone praise the
simplicity of the Telecaster.

And still we ask why the Les Paul is more expensive.... :?

Rich has explained that perfectly, I think !

[Raymond]

Any manufacturing company will try to produce as cheap as possible and sell them at the highest price the market would accept. “Market” is the key word here. That’s just business 101. If I can make something for a penny and the market is willing to pay $100, why would I sell for less? How I can convince the market to give me a 100 bucks for something that costs 1 cent to make is what keeps thousand of marketing people employed.

Examples are everywhere:
<li>A CD costs like 50 cents to make. After production costs, it’s close to 1 bucks. How much do they sell them for?
<li>Startbucks sells a latte for lo-tte; close to 4 bucks. I’ve done the numbers (don’t ask) and making that latte just costs around 30 cents.

Pete and Cowboytawng bring the key points. Even though it’s a fact producing a Gibson solid-body instrument in the US is more expensive than a Fender equivalent, the difference isn’t that much to justify only under this base a price difference of ~$1000 between the two products.

The explanation is simple: Gibson management figured out a way to sell the guitars for what they’re being sold and the market is satisfied. They have said publicly their target is people who grow up listening to bands that played Gibsons and now they can afford the same instrument their heroes played. Moreover, they know being able to afford a $2000 guitar makes them feel good. Their ads are in financial and news magazines and they aren’t afraid to show old dudes in suits playing the guitars. More important yet, they can afford getting those instruments to their kids and fell really good about it because their parents couldn’t.

Yes, when you buy a Gibson you’re buying an image. A used Corolla can take you perfectly from home to work every day but that BMW actually “says” something about you.

Same for Fender, don’t get me wrong, but their business/image model is different.

[daddydg]

I think the real question is why does a Fender 51 Nocaster replica cost $2179.99? OK, it's made in the Custom Shop involving more "hands on" work - maybe. How about a 62 Custom Telecaster (which is not a Custom Shop piece) $1400?

I love my Teles (that's all I own), but I have a hard time understanding the amount Fender charges for an old "plank and 2x4".

[cvansickle]

Les Paul's "Log" was a neck bolted on to a plank of wood - literally! But that wasn't the Gibson way of doing things in 1952. Gibson historians have said that the Les Paul model was designed with a set neck and carved top because, among other reasons, it required a tooling that the Fender shop simply didn't possess at the time.

Go to the supermarket and compare apples and oranges. Their prices aren't going to be the same either. If I want a delicious, shiny red apple, I for sure am not going to buy an orange instead. If I want vitamin C, the apple ain't got it.

[Tom S]

Originally Posted by cowboytwang

The cost of manufacturing a Tele neck and body on a CNC machine compared to making an SG neck and body on a CNC machine, is probably just pennies apart.
Bolting a finished neck on a finished body is about the same amount of labor as gluing an unfinished neck onto an unfinished body. When the neck and neck joint is cut to spec on a CNC machine it just take seconds to glue the neck in. Then it gets the finish sprayed on.

Thank you, cowboytwang. This is the only point I had tried to make. Of course it is obvious that there are certain production factors that can make a Gibson more expensive to make than a Fender. But from a modern production-line standpoint, a set neck really isn't one of them.

Do the other factors warrant the premium price? Perhaps if the guitars were truly stunning finished products, but my observations in recent years has been similar to that of guitarmanvt:

Originally Posted by guitarmanvt

2) New Gibsons seem to suffer from quality control issues (rough finish around the neck joint, horrible factory setup, loose tuners, badly installed electronics, lack of sanding, bad fretwork, etc.) that were not present in older Gibsons. Before buying my '96 Studio I played a couple of new ones. Although they were nice guitars they had quality control issues (rough finish, bad fretwork) that simply should not be present on a $xxxx guitar.

To me, it seems like an awful lot of cost-cutting has been implemented, yet they have been accompanied by price increases. And Gibson management seems to corroborate that MSRP has a lot more to do with market manipulation than it does actual production costs.