Price point and name bias

[Steve DeRosa]

Back in the early-60's much of the "advanced beginner" market, particularly when it came to electrics, was occupied by any one of a number of US and European "off-brands" - which would soon give way to the first Japanese imports...

When the MIJ "lawsuit" instruments arrived in the early-70's their selling point, in many cases, was that they were offering a level of QC, tone, and value-per-dollar that the big American names weren't...

As they increased in price, to a point where they competed directly with their American counterparts, they lost their advantage - a niche the Koreans, and more recently the Indonesians and Chinese, were more than happy to fill...

At the same time, the Canadians found a way to make fine-sounding, no-frills guitars at Working Joe/Jane prices...

I've played enough high-dollar duds in the last 35-40 years (unfortunately owned a few) to know that the legendary names aren't necessarily synonymous with their exalted reputation - and enough well-made low-midprice stuff to know that tone is where you find it...

[wguitar]

Brand preference is as much a function of effective marketing than the product itself. Not to mention that Martin and Gibson have been around for generations, have "legendary" name recognition, and their reputation is excellent! Taylor came along later of course, but also has established great name and "sound" recognition. It's no wonder that so many folks prefer these guitars. THANKS to AGF, guitar players like myself learn about amazing guitars like Northwood, Larrivee, and a host of others. Our preferences are largely developed around what we know. I enjoy exploring new brands myself and have found that as you explore and learn more, your preferences change. It's fun for me anyway! FWIW, my favorite electric is a mid-70's BRADLEY semi-hollow body (a Gibson 355 clone) that I bought on eBay a few years ago for a couple hundred bucks. It had been listed for months, likely because of the BRADLEY on the headstock (instead of the more recognizable (and much more expensive) Ibanez clone). I've been told it was likely made at the Ibanez factory and is essentially the same guitar.

Enjoy whatever guitar(s) you play!

Cheers!

[Mr. Jelly]

I think we only have these issues because we can have them. Forty years ago when I got me first D-18 I never imagined becoming dissatisfied with it. Probably because there wasn't an alternative available to me.

[Mbroady]

Branding is the most powerful tool a company can have. Branding can highlight quality, history, price, popularity, and a whole host of other concepts. To state the obvious, any bias we have, which is hard to ignore, is most likely due to branding (or a past personal history).

Originally Posted by Rev Roy

I try to follow my ears, not brands. But in my experience you generally get what you pay for in guitars like most other stuff...

As a whole, I agree with this statement but my ears have led me to some incredible guitars for what would be considered a bargain. And now that I experienced the possibilities I have a bit more ability to let go of brand bias

[rllink]

I think there is a mental aspect of playing guitar and if you are proud of your instrument you will play better. I think that the name on the headstock is a big contributor to that.

[baw3]

I bought an Aria acoustic guitar when I was in the Army in Okinawa in 1972. I bought it because it was one of the finest sounding guitars I had ever played. I played that thing until I became what most guitar players would call a pretty good guitar player. So I dont know why having Martin or Aria on the headstock would have made any difference in making my guitar playing any better. Through the years I played with a lot of guitar players who played Martin guitars and one of the most common things they said to me after playing my Aria was that it was one great sounding guitar. Many even said they liked it better than their Martin. I kept that guitar for 30 years. Never had a serious issue with it. I paid 450 bucks for the guitar and sold it for 300 bucks. And it was showing signs of use believe me. I feel I came out pretty good on my resale of a Japanese made guitar. If you are looking for that Martin sound then you should buy a Martin. I guess were really lucky these days that we have so many choices to pick from.

[rokdog49]

I ended up parting with three different Eastman guitars. Two were because I wanted a certain sound from a certain brand and the third because I had too many guitars and it wasn’t getting any love.
The E20D I owned is forever a guitar I will miss and probably should have kept anyway. It was actually even a better instrument than I recognized at the time.
The “brand bias” aspect was as I said, mainly born out of wanting a certain sound.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by _zedagive

I'm happy a lot of players think like you. It's allowed me to purchase several Breedloves that exceed Martins, Taylors, etc. that cost twice as much.

Perhaps they didn’t “exceed” those brands you mentioned, as much as they produced the sound you personally prefer. Sometimes we confuse personal preference with superior performance.

[Brent Hahn]

Regarding brand bias in the peer pressure since... despite being a grownup, I attended Warped Tour every year it existed. A very long day of 4 stages blasting at once in the corners of a vast county fair parking lot. At the beginning all you ever saw were Gibson Les Pauls and the occasional Fender Strat. By the last year of the run, it was at least half Epiphones and Squiers. Not that this was a place to critically judge, but it sounded the same to me.

And I do a lot of recording -- way more recording than live playing these days, obviously -- and the studio's a place where there's no point to brand bias. When I want the Martin sound, that calls for a Martin. But the acoustic guitar I use the most in the studio is a 70's Ibanez dread.

[mawmow]

I discovered solid wood acoustics with the Taylor 510 I gave myself on my 50th birthday. Then I wandered here and there looking for the good ole Delta Blues sound, to discover many of these very poor guys played on guitars a nowadays respectful solid wood lover would probably not even throw an eye at.
So I got a Gibson Lg-0 (1965) made of Mahogany rejects (I finally sold because I happened to understand I need 1 3/4" nut width). I cannot talk about Stella...

Wandering through mid-range solid woods (Taylors 3xx through 7xx series, Martins (D-35, OOO-18 of 2014), Gibsons L-1 1928 BT and L-OOTV (both 2016) and Guild F-30 (1973 and Aragon 2018), I then stepped down to a Seagull Performer (made nearby my hometown by Godin !) and an Eastman AC122ce (made in China) as I needed a cutaway to learn scales and climb the neck.

While the quality of Godin is quite reknowned, I bought it because we do not know how an Eastman will age.

So here is my point : While big names crafters generally produce good to excellent guitars (though there were notable exceptions !!!), we do not know much about construction quality and consistency of emergent countries builders as well as how these quite good sounding guitars will age.

[Martin_F]

It's easy to fall prey to brand loyalty. However, if you take a step back and listen to guitars while you play, you can always find something in your favourite brand or within a range of brands(Martin, Gibson, Taylor, etc) that will be what you are looking for. I just advise not to be set on a certain model, even within a brand.

When I got my Gibson J45, I walked into the store expecting to walk out with a Martin D35. After playing them side by side for quite a while, I walked out with the J45 as the better sounding guitar. I gave them both about an hour of play to make sure that they had warmed up a little from sitting. It was obvious that the J45 had a rounder bass and was the more brilliant guitar. However, it could have easily been the other way around. I also love Martin's. But, when I play my Yamaha FS5 or my Gibson L-00 against my Martin 000-15m, I also like the Yamaha and Gibson better. But, this is just a sound preference. The Martin is a great guitar and for some music sounds perfect.

For myself, I recently played a couple Eastman guitars and thought they sounded horrible. They were both the E10 series and I could have had better sound from a student level Yamaha.

I have recently made a conscious choice that I won't buy a guitar that is not made in North America, Europe(for classical guitars) or Japan. However, that is my personal choice for specific reasons and does not reflect poorly on any instruments.

My opinion...
Martin

[Methos1979]

For me it's less about brand bias as it about pride of ownership. My current favorite guitar is a gorgeous 12 fret custom shop Martin that I bought new up around the $4k mark. It is by far the most expensive guitar I've ever purchased primarily because I bought it new, a first for me as I normally buy used. It's beautiful and it sounds incredible and I love it.

By comparison, my son-in-law has a Seagull dread that I bought for him used as a Christmas present several years ago for around $250. Every once in awhile when I'm over visiting I grab it off his wall and play it and I'm astounded at just how great that guitar sounds. Does it sound better than my custom Martin? Probably not. I say probably because I've never A/B'd them. But I can say it's darn close.

That said, I'd take the Martin any day over the Seagull. Why? Because I can afford it and I like nice things. There used to be truth in the mantra that it's best to buy 'as much quality as you can afford' but with today's guitar manufacturing technologies you can buy a whole lot for a lot less and still get excellent tone and quality.

And I think that is a very good thing as it affords those with less means to have access to great sounding instruments. It's the same with cars and motorcycles. A price point for everyone.

[archerscreek]

I don’t care about name brands. And I love to save money, so I’d rather buy a less expensive item if it delivered what I wanted. But some guitars just don’t do it for me. They don’t give me what I want. No matter how many times I tried them out, it was just a waste of time. And this is true for models/body shapes, neck specs, as well as brands.

[Tnfiddler]

I won't mention any brand names in this post, but a few months ago I tried out several off-shore made models from one particular brand and was really impressed with them, under my ear. When I was at a festival this Saturday, a guy had A dread of this brand in a REALLY great looking model that I wasn't familiar with. When it was played by one guy in a jam session, I thought it sounded really good. Then it went to a band practice session before they took the stage and I REALLY got to listen to it and while it sounded good, it had a weird "boxy" tone that I've heard in several different models of lower-price guitars, regardless of the brand. Now that I'm on my 2nd guitar of a certain boutique builder, I've grown to want more of what I call a "complex" tone in an acoustic. I'm not saying you won't get that out of lower-priced or mass-produced instruments, but I think there is a complexity in tone that is finessed out of a hand-built, all details pored over build that is harder to find unless you go the boutique build route. While my 41 is AMAZING, it still lacks the overall fullness of both of my BK guitars. I jammed with a guy for hours Saturday who was playing the "standard" of bluegrass dreads and while it sounded great, it was very one-dimensional, tone-wise and that "thumpy and dry" bass sound is the main thing you heard. I guess I'm just super picky in the tone I want.

[Pura Vida]

If they were truly that close, I'd consider taking the $250 Seagull and apply the $3750 towards something else that I enjoy equally b/c I wouldn't be getting any additional playing satisfaction for that additional 15x in price. There are no wrong answers.