• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Anyone seen this yet?

#42
Does anyone realize the irony that the ‘vintage’ instrument market came about by the end of the 70’s because by the begining of the decade, the quality of Fender/Gibson products had slipped so bad that all of a sudden those guitars/basses that were just a few years old, that everyone took for granted, were all of a sudden viewed as superior quality. The new stuff…3 bolt necks, plastic finishes, questionable feature changes to classic designs and everything else, were just awful. Then came the Japanese knock-offs that weren’t half bad. But then, down the line, the 70’s stuff that felt so cheap became vintage because the quality stuff, be it manufactured so humbly, was all grabbed up. There was some sort of disconnect in there somewhere. Old does not equal quality. 80’s gear is a case by case situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Novarocker
#43
knumbskull said:
If a person was feeling uncharitable they might describe this as kicking the stupid tree to see if any money falls out.
Click to expand...

Can we get a list of these idiots? Would be a great tool for filtering the list of guitarists for my next band....

Killing Floor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Serious section: ....Inflation is a b***h. Yeah that old bass may be worth $2k now... but once accounting for inflation you lost money. Especially once adding on storage costs, etc. BUUUT.... I've seen players call it "investment" to keep the wife happy, with no intention of selling it.

This sounds like it's a desperate move for a company that's got a tight budget. IMHO, I'm not going to buy something from a company that thinks that low of it's customers. I hate to see great names like this go down this path.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novarocker and Killing Floor
#50
Michedelic said:
Does anyone realize the irony that the ‘vintage’ instrument market came about by the end of the 70’s because by the begining of the decade, the quality of Fender/Gibson products had slipped so bad that all of a sudden those guitars/basses that were just a few years old, that everyone took for granted, were all of a sudden viewed as superior quality. The new stuff…3 bolt necks, plastic finishes, questionable feature changes to classic designs and everything else, were just awful. Then came the Japanese knock-offs that weren’t half bad. But then, down the line, the 70’s stuff that felt so cheap became vintage because the quality stuff, be it manufactured so humbly, was all grabbed up. There was some sort of disconnect in there somewhere. Old does not equal quality. 80’s gear is a case by case situation.
Click to expand...

And the late 50s Les Paul thing came about largely because Gibson stopped making them due to Les and Mary Ford's divorce settlement.
 
#52
I would have thought Gibson learned it's lesson after nearly going under after transitioning from a musical instrument manufacturer to a provider of lifestyle accessories.

Who do they expect is going to buy these guitars so the "shareholders" can make a profit?

Can you say Ponzi? Pon-zee...that's right, I knew you could say it :roflmao:

ficelles said:
And the late 50s Les Paul thing came about largely because Gibson stopped making them due to Les and Mary Ford's divorce settlement.
Click to expand...

???????? Gibson kept making Les Pauls, just with the new SG body. Les didn't like those and got out of his contract. Gibson changed the name to SG and kept going.

BTW, I want to know which one you guys wrote this letter that was printed in this month's Q&A section of the Edelman Financial Engines newsletter to investors:

Q: I loved Corgi and Matchbox cars as a kid. How much should one’s net worth be in order to comfortably afford a Ferrari? Other than my home (and a particular bass guitar), this is the only indefensibly expensive possession I desire.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#53
So I'm thinking of selling some non-fungible tokens in my vintage air guitar... it's a non-existent '59 Les Paul that has amongst other songs been used on a few renditions of Radar Love.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novarocker
#55
thewildest said:
I agree with all of you.

The part that is tragically funny is that most of our financial outlooks are built on systems based on these exact same concepts, as we trend to be ok with that… do we all really think a bond, stock, etc really has concrete value?

At least there is a guitar (something that does exist) at the end of this plot…
Click to expand...
Very different situations. With a stock, you own a piece of a company. As long as the company is making money, that stock has concrete value. If you own a piece of Apple or Microsoft, for example, you can be pretty confident that they will continue to churn out profits for a long while--their products are so embedded into our daily lives. Now there are companies with shaky finances and uncertain futures, but these are typically (though not always) much smaller firms.

The guitar exists, but the actual value over the long term is up in the air. With the insanely high starting prices of these instruments, I would be surprised if there's much appreciation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrperkolator
#56
thewildest said:
I agree with all of you.

The part that is tragically funny is that most of our financial outlooks are built on systems based on these exact same concepts, as we trend to be ok with that… do we all really think a bond, stock, etc really has concrete value?

At least there is a guitar (something that does exist) at the end of this plot…
Click to expand...

Yep - Gibson SG….the new gold standard!
 
#57
GregC said:
Very different situations. With a stock, you own a piece of a company. As long as the company is making money, that stock has concrete value. If you own a piece of Apple or Microsoft, for example, you can be pretty confident that they will continue to churn out profits for a long while--their products are so embedded into our daily lives. Now there are companies with shaky finances and uncertain futures, but these are typically (though not always) much smaller firms.

The guitar exists, but the actual value over the long term is up in the air. With the insanely high starting prices of these instruments, I would be surprised if there's much appreciation.
Click to expand...

Even a corporation is a figment of our collective imaginations as much as a fiat currency is. Now, we have centuries of trust built up in those things as investment and forms of wealth and are ostensibly backed up by government.

But even a top end Gibson contains maybe a couple hundred dollars of raw materials and a few hundred more in labour.

What Gibson is really offering is an investment in the logo on that guitar and that’s not much different than owning a common share in Gibson - if in fact they traded publicly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pie_man_25
#58

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back