It's only a bit of wood FFS...

rlw

Andyjr1515 said:

rlw said:

Is the price of a guitar sized piece of wood, not even enough to make a whole guitar,  such that some firms can charge an extra £1500 to very silly indeed just for a fancy top? 

Or is it bollocks?

Prefacing with the 'this is impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction', I'm not even sure I'm totally clear what the question is.

Are you saying: "This guitar that can be bought with a plain body for £300 is, with exactly the same spec by the same manufacturer, other than a fancy solid top, offered at £1800" ?

Or

"I can buy a perfectly playable Epiphone solid body LP for £200, but this Gibson Les Paul with flamed maple top is £1700" ?

Or something else?

I ask because it's a different answer for the first two questions and it will be a different answer to both if it is a different question.

I'm asking this; not so different from your first suggestion but more upmarket  -  If I can buy a very nice PRS with a very fancy top for, say £5000, how can the price of a different piece of wood for the top, with essentially the same guitar underneath, justify the price now of £6500 or, more likely, closer to £10000?

Presumably the first top was quite expensive so the cost of that is being saved along the way.

I'm not suggesting that a Gibson LP with a fancy top is not a better guitar all round than an Epi LP, although I might be asking if a Gibson with a plain top is worth substantially the same as a Gibson with a fancy top, despite the big price differential..

I'm not seriously bothered by it either way, just pondering aloud.

Andyjr1515

rlw said:

Andyjr1515 said:

rlw said:

Is the price of a guitar sized piece of wood, not even enough to make a whole guitar,  such that some firms can charge an extra £1500 to very silly indeed just for a fancy top? 

Or is it bollocks?

Prefacing with the 'this is impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction', I'm not even sure I'm totally clear what the question is.

Are you saying: "This guitar that can be bought with a plain body for £300 is, with exactly the same spec by the same manufacturer, other than a fancy solid top, offered at £1800" ?

Or

"I can buy a perfectly playable Epiphone solid body LP for £200, but this Gibson Les Paul with flamed maple top is £1700" ?

Or something else?

I ask because it's a different answer for the first two questions and it will be a different answer to both if it is a different question.

I'm asking this; not so different from your first suggestion but more upmarket  -  If I can buy a very nice PRS with a very fancy top for, say £5000, how can the price of a different piece of wood for the top, with essentially the same guitar underneath, justify the price now of £6500 or, more likely, closer to £10000?

Presumably the first top was quite expensive so the cost of that is being saved along the way.

I'm not suggesting that a Gibson LP with a fancy top is not a better guitar all round than an Epi LP, although I might be asking if a Gibson with a plain top is worth substantially the same as a Gibson with a fancy top, despite the big price differential..

I'm not seriously bothered by it either way, just pondering aloud.

Ah OK - I understand

My view is that someone would be paying for exclusivity - ie "there is no other PRS in the world with this wood/ pattern/ history/ etc/ etc"  Maybe the timber came from the keel of the Mary Rose...

I saw a watch in Nice airport duty free - normal price a ridiculous €28,000 .or you could have one where the watch face was a slice of meteorite rather than ceramic at a cool €52,000 . It's often a richman's version of who can piss the highest up the wall.

thegummy

rlw said:

Andyjr1515 said:

rlw said:

Is the price of a guitar sized piece of wood, not even enough to make a whole guitar,  such that some firms can charge an extra £1500 to very silly indeed just for a fancy top? 

Or is it bollocks?

Prefacing with the 'this is impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction', I'm not even sure I'm totally clear what the question is.

Are you saying: "This guitar that can be bought with a plain body for £300 is, with exactly the same spec by the same manufacturer, other than a fancy solid top, offered at £1800" ?

Or

"I can buy a perfectly playable Epiphone solid body LP for £200, but this Gibson Les Paul with flamed maple top is £1700" ?

Or something else?

I ask because it's a different answer for the first two questions and it will be a different answer to both if it is a different question.

I'm asking this; not so different from your first suggestion but more upmarket  -  If I can buy a very nice PRS with a very fancy top for, say £5000, how can the price of a different piece of wood for the top, with essentially the same guitar underneath, justify the price now of £6500 or, more likely, closer to £10000?

Presumably the first top was quite expensive so the cost of that is being saved along the way.

I'm not suggesting that a Gibson LP with a fancy top is not a better guitar all round than an Epi LP, although I might be asking if a Gibson with a plain top is worth substantially the same as a Gibson with a fancy top, despite the big price differential..

I'm not seriously bothered by it either way, just pondering aloud.

I think the answer is just that guitar companies don't have a set price for the labour of a guitar and each model costs that plus the sum of the cost of its parts - they just make guitars then offer them for a price they believe someone will pay for it.

When I told my friend one of the reasons I was getting a Gibson LP over an Epiphone is that the Gibson has a relatively thick cap of maple over the mahogany where the Epiphone just has a veneer and he had a similar thought to you and said he was surprised that maple is that much more expensive than mahogany - it's not that it is more expensive in itself, just that the guitar on offer which has the maple cap is more expensive than the one without and that was one of the differences I was prepared to pay more for.

WezV

thegummy said:

rlw said:

Andyjr1515 said:

rlw said:

Is the price of a guitar sized piece of wood, not even enough to make a whole guitar,  such that some firms can charge an extra £1500 to very silly indeed just for a fancy top? 

Or is it bollocks?

Prefacing with the 'this is impossible to answer to everyone's satisfaction', I'm not even sure I'm totally clear what the question is.

Are you saying: "This guitar that can be bought with a plain body for £300 is, with exactly the same spec by the same manufacturer, other than a fancy solid top, offered at £1800" ?

Or

"I can buy a perfectly playable Epiphone solid body LP for £200, but this Gibson Les Paul with flamed maple top is £1700" ?

Or something else?

I ask because it's a different answer for the first two questions and it will be a different answer to both if it is a different question.

I'm asking this; not so different from your first suggestion but more upmarket  -  If I can buy a very nice PRS with a very fancy top for, say £5000, how can the price of a different piece of wood for the top, with essentially the same guitar underneath, justify the price now of £6500 or, more likely, closer to £10000?

Presumably the first top was quite expensive so the cost of that is being saved along the way.

I'm not suggesting that a Gibson LP with a fancy top is not a better guitar all round than an Epi LP, although I might be asking if a Gibson with a plain top is worth substantially the same as a Gibson with a fancy top, despite the big price differential..

I'm not seriously bothered by it either way, just pondering aloud.

I think the answer is just that guitar companies don't have a set price for the labour of a guitar and each model costs that plus the sum of the cost of its parts - they just make guitars then offer them for a price they believe someone will pay for it.

When I told my friend one of the reasons I was getting a Gibson LP over an Epiphone is that the Gibson has a relatively thick cap of maple over the mahogany where the Epiphone just has a veneer and he had a similar thought to you and said he was surprised that maple is that much more expensive than mahogany - it's not that it is more expensive in itself, just that the guitar on offer which has the maple cap is more expensive than the one without and that was one of the differences I was prepared to pay more for.

Many Epiphones also have a thick maple cap under the veneer