• 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.

The Grabber is back! : Gibson Grabber II

#61
coreyfyfe said:
Either way, this will only motivate collectors if anyone. Probably the reason for the limited run.
Click to expand...

Finally, someone gets Gibson's deal with the price. Gibson doesn't want to make instruments for the "working" musician. That is what Epiphone is for.

Gibson wants to make an instrument that appears to be the best of the best. Gibson is a luxury brand. Gibson tries to position itself as the premier instrument maker in the world by pricing their instruments into the stratosphere (ie priced similarly to instruments from PRS, Sadowsky, et al.) because there is a large group of somewhat uneducated consumers who believe that price is synonymous with quality. Take a trip to their showcase store down in Nashville if you don't know what I mean. (Or better yet, do a search here. There's plenty of TBers who have described the Gibson Showcase better than I could.)

They don't have to make the best, just stuff that the average consumer thinks is the best. (note: the average TBer is NOT equal to the average consumer).
 
#62
Price aside, wasn't this the "fad" instrument 5-8 years ago? Talk about missing the boat even for the fad craze. But 3 g's for that? I understand the collectible nature of these, but really, they are laughably bad basses. At least the originals were.
 
#63
OK, I'll chime in. Grabbers were Gibson's attempt at competing with the less expensive Fenders of the day (Gibson basses were always high-end and high priced). The Grabber was simply made (not to say cheaply), and never sold well on its merits. I always thought they were 'not very attractive'.
But my son just picked up an original, and much of it's growing on me. It has a unique tone, the sliding pickup, while kinda silly, works surprisingly well, it has nice balance, and it has aged well.
The bridge, as someone pointed out, is junk. I'd love to see it replaced with, say, a Hipshot (as someone here suggested) if it didn't mean drilling new holes.
Price? Pffft. Gibson's lost it.
 
#65
Ephminus said:
You are all too busy complaining about the price and not thinking ahead.
Two words.
Epiphone Grabber.

Gibson has to do something to compete with Fender and Squier.
This is the next logical step.
They create a buzz about reissue models...then come out with the affordable versions via Epiphone.

Mark my words.
Click to expand...

I agree. We're also not considering the point that, with this and the Pro Bass line, Gibson is finally paying attention to their bass division. Maybe we'll get an official "Fenderbird" from them.
 
#66
If they do a reissue of the RD Artist I don't think the result would be similar to the original. Does Gibson still do any all maple instruments at all? What make the RD Artist unique is the electronics (I KNOW that many did take the Moog electronics out of the original), but I guess many would buy it for the shape anyway. They would do a reissue with mahogany body and neck, put 2 LP bass pickups in it, passive electronics, charge quite an amount of money for it and get away with it. I don't care, I already have a '78 RD Artist.
 
#68
superjesus said:
Finally, someone gets Gibson's deal with the price. Gibson doesn't want to make instruments for the "working" musician. That is what Epiphone is for.

Gibson wants to make an instrument that appears to be the best of the best. Gibson is a luxury brand. Gibson tries to position itself as the premier instrument maker in the world by pricing their instruments into the stratosphere (ie priced similarly to instruments from PRS, Sadowsky, et al.) because there is a large group of somewhat uneducated consumers who believe that price is synonymous with quality. Take a trip to their showcase store down in Nashville if you don't know what I mean. (Or better yet, do a search here. There's plenty of TBers who have described the Gibson Showcase better than I could.)

They don't have to make the best, just stuff that the average consumer thinks is the best. (note: the average TBer is NOT equal to the average consumer).
Click to expand...



i was just at the showcase in nashville in june of 2008. pretty sweet place, AND Its inside a huge mall, AND its right acroos fromt he grand ole opry. when i went in, they had a really cool upright bass forclose to $8000 too. nice place overall. i tried a few different les pauls and loved them. when i went in tho, my moms like, "DONT TOUCH ANYTHING!":bawl:
 
#74
I always thought they were crap!

In the 70's you could get a B-stock "second"model for $150 bucks.Had a "2" stamped in the back headstock by the serial number & minor finish flaws maybe. I bought one as a spare .

I really didn't like it much. It sounded nasal & honky to my ear.
Sold mine for $50 bucks. Should of held on to it!

But,Hey! A lot of better players than me like nasal & honky!
 
#75
Come on, people: in every Gibson thread I've seen on here for a long time somebody comes on and says, "Oh, I wish Gibson would reissue the Grabber/Ripper/G3!" The logical response to that, which also often appears in such threads, is, "It would be too expensive for people to buy." But everybody still whines and moans about why doesn't Gibson reissue them, etc. etc.

So, now they have. And of course, it's more expensive than anyone wants to pay. Few of these will sell---Gibson will sell them to dealers, but most will sit there. Then, next year some time, they will be blown out at cost or less, making them still probably more expensive than an original, but closer to reasonable.

With the footnote that everything Gibson sells is more expensive than it ought to be, within the realm of Gibson, I can see how this would not be a cheap thing: there are probably substantial sunk costs for tooling up for a limited run of something that's not yet another LP or SG. The limited run is almost irrelevant because they probably wouldn't sell 350 of these in a few years anyway, even if they were somewhat cheaper---they were never going to be under $1,000 no matter what, thus, an original would always be an attractive alternative.

One imagines Gibson putting this out just to shut up everybody who keeps calling for reissues of these 70s basses.
 
#77
Chuck King said:
Come on, people: in every Gibson thread I've seen on here for a long time somebody comes on and says, "Oh, I wish Gibson would reissue the Grabber/Ripper/G3!" The logical response to that, which also often appears in such threads, is, "It would be too expensive for people to buy." But everybody still whines and moans about why doesn't Gibson reissue them, etc. etc.

So, now they have. And of course, it's more expensive than anyone wants to pay. Few of these will sell---Gibson will sell them to dealers, but most will sit there. Then, next year some time, they will be blown out at cost or less, making them still probably more expensive than an original, but closer to reasonable.

With the footnote that everything Gibson sells is more expensive than it ought to be, within the realm of Gibson, I can see how this would not be a cheap thing: there are probably substantial sunk costs for tooling up for a limited run of something that's not yet another LP or SG. The limited run is almost irrelevant because they probably wouldn't sell 350 of these in a few years anyway, even if they were somewhat cheaper---they were never going to be under $1,000 no matter what, thus, an original would always be an attractive alternative.

One imagines Gibson putting this out just to shut up everybody who keeps calling for reissues of these 70s basses.
Click to expand...

Now, it is *possible* that the folks managing Gibson are that dumb... Possible... But I don't think so. Someone had to make a business case for them to start a new line up - someone, somehow, decided they could sell these for that much money (okay, ~$2K street). Now, let's ponder that a minute... A $2K street price for a bass... what else could you get INSTEAD of a bass most of us wouldn't have owned the first time it came out?

Now, had Gibson inserted this into their line as a "budget" bass, you know, MSRP of ~$1500 (budget by Gibson standards, that is!) I would just shrug - but $3200, I have to think that the good folks at Gibson are convinced that by pricing this bass insanely high for no apparent reason, they will add "Value" to it - perhaps to the Epiphone Grabber that will no doubt be issued shortly...

Either way, it seems loopy to me. These were *never* good basses - - they might have looked cool, but no one ever mistook a 1972 Grabber for a 1972 J bass!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back