Gibson has a very weird marketing team.

[lightice]

almondx

R9s shouldn't be USD9k, if I am not wrong, they are going brand new at around 5.5-5.6k USD.
I think you shouldn't lambast the various brands, yes you're entitled to your opinion etc etc, but based on your posts on the other tread.

I think you should base your opinions on guitars you have actually tried playing.
No offense intended, but I'd like to hear from users of actual guitars they own/tried.

 

[almondx]

Need to know how to cook chicken rice to comment on chicken rice yummy or not arh?

The brazilian rosewood fretboard R9s are 9k USD. The east indian rosewood fretboard R9s are 7k usd list.

I feel weird quoting myself but for your sake:

me: "Compared to a USD$7k R9 Les Paul"

you: "R9s shouldn't be USD9k, if I am not wrong"

since when was 7 = 9?

So what exactly is your point?

Just in case you want to check, a 2nd hand R9 at G77 lists for 8-9k SGD. How much you think a brand new one will cost then? Or are you trying to imply that G77 is a rip off?

 

[lightice]

My bad for misquoting you, but still 7k isn't 5.5-5.6k.

Neither did I mention that you'd need to know how to cook chicken rice to comment on chicken rice. But you'd have to first eat the chicken rice , right?

I don't want to comment on guitar shop's business practices or their pricing policies.
But I think you need to go easy on all that trashing of Gibson in particular.

If you don't like it, then just don't buy it. Because there are people out there who like the feel and tone of it.

I just really don't see the point in you making such a fuss about this.

And No I don't own a gibson, just in case you were wondering.

 

[almondx]

My fuss? You dug up an 11 months old thread my dear boy.

Typically, Gibson dealers sell 20 - 30% off list/msrp price. I trust your mathematical skills here.

That 7k I got didn't magically appear out of thin air.

OK then.

I think Gibson is a brand with unbeatable QC that sets the market standard, has tone to die for that annihilates all other guitars even if you're looking for that single coil sound, produces new les pauls with a fully solid body so that they can sound like the real '59 burst, are not made by $5/hour factory workers, and do not skimp on QC so that they can get their guitars to be as perfect as they can.

Btw, sometimes all it takes is to smell the chicken rice rather than eating it to know that it's stale/spoilt.

 

[PatheinRaindropMoe]

heh, half time advertisment:

last reply before the most recent reply was january 07, how come it took so long till dec to see it bumped up again

What happen to the 11 mths in between?

ok, advertisement over: lets go back to the topic

 

[lightice]

Actually between reading this and the LP & PRS discussion on this board, but neither did I mention that anyone's QC is super. Like what you sarcastically described.

I only mentioned that you should be opinionated on gear that you've tried.

 

[almondx]

So you agree that whatever I've said previously is sarcastic?

Well guess what? My gibson "thrashing/bashing" is just everything I've said in the previous post reversed.

Which means you basically agree that:

Gibson is a brand with questionable QC that does not set the market standard, does not have tone to die for that annihilates all other guitars, especially if you're looking for that single coil sound, does not produce new les pauls with a fully solid body so that they can sound like the real '59 burst, are made by $5/hour factory workers, and skimps on QC so that they cannot get their guitars to be as perfect as they can.

I never knew you could disagree with someone who you agreed with in an agreement, agree?

The thing about the opinionating on gear I've tried was why I mentioned about the chicken rice as an analogy.

 

[lightice]

I don't see how you can link agreeing with you and not mentioning.

But until I see and play a few will I form my opinions on them, and I don't see how trying out a guitar will be as bad on your body as eating chicken rice. Stale or fresh.

I will my discussion here as I don't see a point with arguing with you, I intended this to be a friendly discussion. But it has gone to a point where you have become too defensive of your opinions.

 

[van_halen]

when all is said and done, people will still pay what, $10,000 here to buy a gibson that is of lower quality than a guitar that costs just 1/3 of it's price.

 

[optisailor2002]

hmm end of the day, if you paid 10k for your guitar, will you be willing to admit that it is gonna have poorer qc, poorer build, poorer tone etc than a guitar 1/3 its price?

 

[almondx]

Yes I have played Historics before.
Yes I have my PRS to compare to them.

An analogy is an analogy and it is not to be taken literally.

The link is:

People are saying I bash Gibson because I say:

1. They have lousy QC
2. Their aim is to maximise profits and production quota at the expense of their QC
3. They sell by their brand name Gibson
4. They are no longer the same company in the 50s which took care of their guitars
5. The R9s do not have the correct specs as the '59 burst
6. Guitars with same type of but higher quality build, material, construction albeit slightly altered body shape can outdo an R9 in achieving that classic Les Paul tone, since totally different guitars such as a tele can even sound like a Les Paul.
7. PRS has better QC than Gibson
8. Gibson is no longer the market standard, other companies such as PRS set the bars so high for a factory mass produced guitar that Fender and Gibson are playing catchup.

You're telling me that the above are fiction I've invented to defend my "opinions" and hence they warrant me as bashing Gibson?

Well, whatever makes you happy.