I have been thinking a lot on the gravitational pull many folks (including myself) have towards wanting a piece of specific gear to add to one’s collection. I believe it comes down to three main themes: 1) collectors, 2) OCD, and 3) technical gaps. 1) collectors: this GAS is driven by the desire to hold a complete collection for either nostalgia, or value. The completeness of the collection does have a conclusion, and the owner is satisfied with it once they deem it fully intact. An example of this could be Fender collectors that desire the full gamut of models produced pre-CBS. 2) OCD: this form of GAS is the deepest rooted, and is driven by the unrelenting drive to have every color, pickup configuration, stringing, or other variation on specific instruments and/or gear. It can also manifest itself through multiple variants of entirely different gear due to the “grass is always greener on the other side” syndrome. Examples of this could be: someone driven to that newer model with the additional pickup because it might sound better; having blue, green, red, black, etc. versions of the same gear because they require the “full set” to ease their desire; and someone that needs a piece of gear simply because it has the same brand name and/or they may need it at some unknown point in the future for an obscure specialization. This GAS is likely driving the economic side of the gear industry and can destroy an individual because they fail to acknowledge the fact that there is no silver bullet for gear, they are the silver bullet. 3) technical gaps: an individual finds there is a legitimate gap in their current gear’s abilities, or the current gear is not compatible at all with specific needs to generate results. Examples of this are: the complete lack of an overdrive capability that utterly requires it due to specific arrangements; complete inability to cut through the mix; inability to record due to missing components; tunings that current gear simply cannot achieve. I find myself mainly in category 3, but flirt continuously, and dangerously, with 2 when I realize I am concocting justifications that require more than a second of thought to explain. I seem to fall victim to the “grass is always greener” syndrome most often, and end up with multiple components that honestly sound so close to each other that my elaborate justifications melt away once I take a step back and objectify the results.