Anyone seen this yet?

[mdlewis]

Gibson redefines guitars as investments with new Rally partnership

Don't know if I'm in the minority here, but I find this revolting.

It's ALWAYS been about the music that these collections of wood, plastic, steel, and paint inspire for me. I don't really understand the mind set that comes up with this sort of thing.

 

[RattleSnack]

As far as I understood - there are folks who like to invest money in musical instruments and bet the value will rise. This offer is for those who lack the money to buy whole instrument, but can this way get shares?
Almost sounds like a money scheme. Actual owner would like to further increase value, and believes this is easiest way. This has nothing to do with music and playing mus. instruments. This is pure economy and capital investment.

 

[Roland GR 88]

I like the part about giving people an ownership experience they couldn’t otherwise obtain.
Of a guitar locked in a cupboard at Gibson.

 

[dangevans]

Nah, I will stick to playing instruments instead of investing, thank you.

 

[Samatza]

I’d invest in some good stocks that are sure to go up…
…this is like”can we have $10 and we’ll give you a certificate”.
Don’t know that it’ll actually make any money or you could be amazed and get $50 for your investment if it sells at auction.

 

[knumbskull]

If a person was feeling uncharitable they might describe this as kicking the stupid tree to see if any money falls out.

 

[Michedelic]

If only Gibson still produced guitars that would appreciate in value on a regular basis, like they did in 1958.

 

[Oddly]

I could see giving a share certificate as a gift to a gibson-loving guitarist I know. Otherwise, not something I'd have any interest in.

 

[OOD]

Money loses value. Smart investments don’t. Is this a smart way to hold the value of your dollar? I don’t know, but I doubt it.

You can do the same with buying property and it’s actually a good way to keep your money from losing value, assuming you have enough extra for it not to be a huge risk. I seriously doubt a financial advisor would tell you to buy a share of a guitar.

 

[Winslow]

If a person was feeling uncharitable they might describe this as kicking the stupid tree to see if any money falls out.

That's excellent, and I am shamelessly stealing it.

 

[MonetBass]

Sounds like a desperate money grab to me.

 

[JakobT]

Isn’t this kind of «Gibson meets Franklin Mint»?

 

[TigerInATrance]

Since I was watching Shark Tank last night... I don't understand the valuation that they are assigning to the guitars. 60k - 95k seems like it might be a little beyond the scope of reality.

If they hadn't told me different (everything you see written on the internet is true, right?) I would have thought they were trying to manufacture hype in order to artificially inflate the value of what really doesn't seem special enough to mark up 8 to 10 times what the value of those should be...

 

[Tim Skinner]

This is similar to what is seen in the high end string instrument (orchestral) worlds. I have 2 friends who are professional cellists and both of their instruments are owned by investors. They are merely the custodian of the investment. Although the major difference is that these instruments a) cost north of $1 million and b) are in the hands of a skilled musician getting played.

Don't understand the appeal of investing in an instrument that never sees the light of day. How is value expected to rise when they aren't being used/seen/sold?

 

[mdlewis]

Isn’t this kind of «Gibson meets Franklin Mint»?

Interesting thought. What kind of returns do Franklin Mint items provide? I'm not familiar with their investment potential. Always assumed they more like collectables.

My wife and I often shop at thrift stores. It's striking to see what objects one generation highly valued another generation now treats as refuse. For savings, I've always preferred to put money into items that have intrinsic value.

Probably why I'm not wealthy though.

 

[salmon256]

Kevin O'Leary made a whole video on investing in guitars. Just like you I hate this whole idea, fine have fun investing in a guitar or any instrument that ages well, I understand sometimes, times can rough and you have sell your gear, my great uncle had to sell his civil war collection and broken strad violin (still worth decent amount) because of his diabetes and taking care of his family, but no one wants to sell that stuff they love for quick money, it all had meaning very strong meaning all gone now. I am not fan of this idea. I'm going to stick with the bank and also buy things because I want to play them and not because I want to make money with them! Either way let it be I guess, if someone wants to do this let them do it, but I buy things for their use. All I can afford is Squire anyway !

 

[nickpc]

The guitars will sit in a vault? So possession stays with Gibson, they don't get played, but you get a piece of paper that says you own 8 one-thousandths of a percent (did I do that math right - $5/65000??) of the value of the guitar. And, at some point, there's a shareholder's vote to decide it's time to sell. And after fees and costs you'll get a check in the mail (or a direct deposit - you can hope because then you don't lose the cost of printing and postage!) for your share.

 

[JakobT]

Interesting thought. What kind of returns do Franklin Mint items provide? I'm not familiar with their investment potential. Always assumed they more like collectables.

My wife and I often shop at thrift stores. It's striking to see what objects one generation highly valued another generation now treats as refuse. For savings, I've always preferred to put money into items that have intrinsic value.

Probably why I'm not wealthy though.

The answer to your question is: none whatsoever. Franklin Mint has a history of making naff «collectibles» that are not collectible, and will never appreciate in value. Basically, it’s a scam. And it would seem that Gibson is on that bandwagon now.

 

[Tim Skinner]

And a tenfold increase in value, very unlikely as it would make for a VERY expensive $650,000 guitar!!**, would see your 'investment' go all the way up to a whopping $50!! (less fees and costs, of course)

** This list shows only 3 guitars ever going over $1 million in value. All of them were owned by major name guitarists.
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Killing Floor]

An unused, specialty guitar like the examples in the linked announcement will gain value exactly until the passing of the demographic collectors. So if you choose to invest in a saved rock star guitar just make sure you cash out before too long. Pop objects do have a value cycle that can be profitable but only as long as the nostalgic association exists.

That said, I think from Gibson’s perspective this is pretty clever.
Think about it. No offense, but this forum is neck deep in members who think a mass produced and easily accessible 70s Fender that is worth less than its original price (adjusted for inflation) is a solid growth investment.
It’s not stupid or deceitful to try to capitalize on people’s nostalgia. A guitar that cost $300 in the 70s, that’s $2,100 in today’s money. So unless it’s a specific sought after object like a pre CBS a true 50 year old closet queen from the most sought after brand in our industry can’t even keep up with the rate of inflation. Does that stop bassists from calling basses “investments”?

So why wouldn’t a corporation like Gibson want to raise revenue in this manner? They are smart. Their singular goal is profit, that is the definition of a business. Good for them.