Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad
My question is this, what is it that makes a Gibson Les Paul worth $3000 when a good Fender Strat can be had for $1500? Why is the Gibson considered more of an "instrument" than the Fender?
Discuss...
|
the answer to your question is more complex than your question appears...or maybe not
As far as Les Paul's go... the newer ones anyway...I cant find a good answer for you, except that the wood quality is of a higher grade than a strat or tele, there is more of it, and, the neck is glued.
If your talking about hollow-body or semi-hollow body gibsons, the answer is partly in the manufacturing and partly in the brand image..if you want a 335 or a 175, you gotta be willing to pay for it. Even though they are not hand-carved arch tops, there is quite a bit more effort required to build one than a strat...that basically gets spit out of a CNC machine and bolted together once the paint dries
I play both. own both. require both.
ive got an american strat and a Gibson SG Standard. I love them both. They could not be more different. The Gibson was more than twice the cost of the strat. Why? Im not sure !!!
Nobody really knows ! the quality of both is the same
i would never part with either
you will find this issue debated on the various guitar forums over and over and over
Dollar for dollar, the best value in a "versatile" guitar is probably an american strat or tele in my opinion
Best quality and value in guitar making ive come across, comes from the only remaining 100% american guitar maker, Rickenbacker. They however, are not as versatile as a fender.... which is why guitar freaks like myself, go bankrupt buying a zillion guitars... gotta have one of each
The question of "cost" between acoustic guitar makers is much simpler and easier to answer