I have narrowed my choice between 2 dreadnaughts that both play nicely but am a bit torn. The prices are close enough to not be an issue. One is the Gibson G45 Studio and the other an all solid DT45+. It doesn't need to be electro acoustic. They both sound great to me and despite one being very bling and the other very plain. I prefer the finish of the Sigma but the neck on the Gibson feels lovely. I am a bit hesitant of the sigma as it feels like a copy. The Gibson does make me think of it as a cheap Gibson. I think the Sigma is probably my preferred the slightly beefier sound of the Sigma. The Gibson is just a tad brighter
Is £850 on a Sigma too much for a Martin Copy?
Comments
You will take a big got in resale on that Sigma
Dont worry about it being a copy, most guitars are.
I had a J45 Studio for a spell. It was nice, but the "Studio" does affect the value and resale. And I did feel in the end that I wanted a type of tone more than that neck.
If you really prefer the Sigma, work out a deal on it or find a used one.
It was 200 quid.
Sounds huge, and every frequency is balanced.
Feedback
Sigmas are made in China. If a manufacturer outsources to save labor costs, I'm gonna make sure some of those savings are passed on to me. There's no way a guitar made in China should cost £850, particular given that the value will plummet as soon as it becomes a used instrument.
For a couple hundred pounds more, you could have a real solid-body Martin like a D15 or a studio Gibson, which I would absolutely buy over a Sigma at those respective prices.
To imply that they are not real instruments is the ridiculous bit
For the sub 1k market Far Eastern guitars are not to be overlooked
A D15 is around £1300. Hardly a fair comparison
And a G45 is what it is, a cheap copy of a J that sounds nothing like one
You need to play: an eastman
Strandberg, d'angelico, schecter, modern day bc rich the list goes on.
if you think all US guitars are caressed and made passionately by a caring considerate workforce in America you're wrong, I'd rather have a far Eastern guitar made in a decent factory than American any day.
My point is basically about the labor overhead. If you pay £850 for a Sigma, you're letting Martin/Sigma pull one over on you, you're selling out, you're letting the labor-outsourcers get away with metaphorical murder. And you're paying full price for a lesser guitar that you're gonna lose a bunch of money on, rather than spending a little more on a better guitar that will hold value much longer.
Eastman's quality is great, and I'd have no problem to get another of their premium (eg Red Spruce) guitars over a grand and as their instruments holding value, their prices have risen (eg the E10 is almost 100% more expensive than when I bought mine) so the issue of their premium guitars hold value is not a straightforward one for everyone.
Getting back to the original question, I'd personally get the guitar with the more comfortable neck. I also prefer the idea of a spartan looking basic guitar built down to a cost in a USA factory than a fancy looking Chinese made copy aiming to look like something much more expensive. The latter, no matter how decent it might sound, has the whiff of a Chibson (or, more accurately, a Chartin) about it. No guitar costing under a grand should have abalone inlays and binding – it looks a bit ridiculous and, perversely, makes the guitar look cheap.