Do You Ever Feel Like Iconic Guitar Brand's 'offshore' Guitars Aren't The Real Thing?

[stephenT]

I think it's great that "Iconic Brands" offer less expensive, imported guitars.

For many it's a way to enter the market and have a nicely designed acoustic.

It's kinda silly (IMO) to suggest they are not the "real thing". If the company puts it's name on the headstock, that's what it is.

I'm sure the OP didn't mean to make buyers of major brand imports feel like they were cheated.

[Kevin Bishop]

Originally Posted by dyna

That said, the Guild M-20 and M-120 is like comparing apples and oranges.
The M-120 is an ok guitar, the M-20 is superior in every way.

I am interested in this thread dyna, I looked up both, they both are solid Hogs, why is the M-20 superior in every way? I am not a Guild expert. Is the M-120 not made at the parent company?

[Kevin Bishop]

Great words right there, I visited you youtube channel ... awesome!!

[Taylor Ham]

The kernel of the matter is whether or not the line of offshore guitars is of equal quality. It's about the kind of person making the guitars, not so much about where they are made. Usually, there isnt as much training and QC that goes into the budget / offshore lines, and the devil is in the details. There are fine guitars made all over the world, from Furch in Cz to Eastman in China, to Yamaha in Japan, which if I'm not mistaken, used to be looked at like China is now. I think everyone understands this.

When we buy from a brand with a rep, we expect a level of quality that mostly isnt found when penny pinching.

[Kevin Bishop]

You stated what I posted soon after the OP in a better way, Bravo, I like your analogy. I think I was harsh...

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Wellington

Such a snobby question, and though I have nothing against these guitars and I own a MIC Yamaha, as opposed to the more expensive MIJ models, and though I've been considering Guild Westerly guitars for a while, in my case I can't help but have that feeling of "it may be an awesome guitar, but it's not a REAL Guild . . ."
It's terribly snobby, and I wouldn't even own a USA Guild (because of cost, and me being a two job lower income guy trying to get his family by!) if it weren't for my amazing wife crowdfunding among family and friends for me 30th birthday to get the Guild . . .

But I felt this way before. I had seriously considered some made in Mexico Martins, and even though I'd be perfectly happy with it and I thought some of them sounded really good (road series) and I would totally buy one, I didn't see them as a 'real Martin'. In that case, it wouldn't have prevented me from buying a road series though.

Why is this an attitude? Does the location of something being made make it or not make it the real McCoy? Maybe, maybe not.

So back to Guild browsing. I'd like to try another smaller body guitar for the heck of it, like the M-20 or M-120. I can't afford either right now anyway, but the M-120 sounds just as good to my ears judging by the reviews, however I prefer the satin finish on the M-20. But inside, now having such a special USA Guild (for what it's worth, it's not about being made in the U.S for economic reasons or American jobs, I'm Canadian) I feel like the M-120 won't be the 'real McCoy', though it wouldn't be a deal breaker, I would just feel like there would always be a disclaimer attached to that guitar, that's it's not a USA Guild. It probably has to do with the original country of origin. For instance, I'm still saddened by Larrivee now being made in the U.S instead of Canada where it was birthed and grown, nothing against the U.S though.

Anyone else feel like this? Again, before I'm torn apart, I don't look down on any of these guitars as guitars, but I feel something is disconnected from the name essentially.

Obviously the argument against this notion is these guitars are still designed by the companies and made to spec in their own factories outside the U.S or Japan or whatever.

What do you think?

I think if it says 'Guild' on the headstock it's a Guild, irrespective of who built it or where.

[Rmccamey]

But if you buy 5 different Guilds made in 5 different countries do you get 5 guitars with the same materials, construction, fit and finish?

"I think if it says 'Guild' on the headstock it's a Guild, irrespective of who built it or where."

[The Bard Rocks]

I think it is normal for there to be an element of, let's say, "distrust" for many on an off-shore model from an established American company. I am not talking just guitars here. And to be honest, if those companies want to expand and be competitive, they look to expand in areas with lower taxes and cheaper labor. But since they have facilities and capable employees in the US already, it usually does not make sense to just shut them down, so they continue to manufacture their best grades in the home location. And if you want to command the higher prices for the best you make, you trumpet the "American-made" catch words around.

I know this is a simplification and there are plenty of other reasons why companies move elsewhere, but this scenario is still common. And it is natural for folks to revere the goods still made here, through national pride or because the products made here by that company are better.

[FingahPickah]

Originally Posted by Taylor Ham

The kernel of the matter is whether or not the line of offshore guitars is of equal quality. It's about the kind of person making the guitars, not so much about where they are made. Usually, there isnt as much training and QC that goes into the budget / offshore lines, and the devil is in the details. There are fine guitars made all over the world, from Furch in Cz to Eastman in China, to Yamaha in Japan, which if I'm not mistaken, used to be looked at like China is now. I think everyone understands this.

When we buy from a brand with a rep, we expect a level of quality that mostly isnt found when penny pinching.

I'd say you nailed it.

[srick]

Back in 1979, I bought a Takamine F365, 'lawsuit copy' of a Martin. I had no idea that there was any controversy, but was happy to get the Martin clone at a far lower price. I was pretty inexperienced, but I did know of Martin's reputation.

So the marketing concept is as old as the hills - it's just that many brands have brought it 'in-house'.

Rick

PS - I would love to still have that guitar, but it was claimed by an old girlfriend when the relationship broke up. Her words were, "You owe me this." She later went on to become a divorce lawyer!

I also dropped the idea of playing guitar for the next 30 years picking it up again in my 50's, so I guess that was the true revenge.

[Wellington]

Originally Posted by srick

Back in 1979, I bought a Takamine F365, 'lawsuit copy' of a Martin. I had no idea that there was any controversy, but was happy to get the Martin clone at a far lower price. I was pretty inexperienced, but I did know of Martin's reputation.

So the marketing concept is as old as the hills - it's just that many brands have brought it 'in-house'.

Rick

That's probably the freshest perspective I've heard in this thread so far, really interesting way to look at it, the lawsuit era simply being brought in house now, I think this encapsulates my inner feelings exactly!

The lawsuit copys could be incredible guitars, I've tried hard to get my hands on a few, I would love one, but it's still a copy.

[Emil]

From a marketing perspective this is whats called meta value. Kotler wrote book after book on the subject.

A product consits of three parts.
1. The actual product.
2. The add ons
3. The meta value

Let’s say you want to buy a car. On one side you have a Mercedes. On the other a Toyota.
The actual product is the same. It’s a car and both are high quality.
The add on’s for a car could be a world wide support from really good service centers. Both Toyota and Mercedes will provide this.
But the Mercedes will have the meta value.

In general the meta value is what makes people pay premium price. It is the thing you cant see or put your finger on when getting the Mercedes. In this case it will be the emotions triggerd inside. Just the fact that you are driving a high end German made car. And maybe also the fact that you know that others know that.

We are humans and on one hand we’re complex. In other ways we’re not.
We pay extra for how something makes us feel.
Not all brands can provide meta value. It takes time, good products, smart marketing and a loyal customer base to build that.
Martin has it.
Gibson pretty much survived thanks to it during a long period of time because brands with high meta value have more loyal customers that will stand up for the company or product.

You can also create meta value with having a limited production and if you’re also able to combine it with quality you’re the winner (Huss & Dalton, Santa Cruz, Collings, Froggie etc).

For a ”off shore” guitar company to get that will take time due to the fact that they historicly been struggling with quality issues (not all) and the products are easy to come by.
Still, the market for electric guitars got there quicker due to good builders in japan early on. The acoustic will get there soon enough.
Knowing this still does not make me think less of US made guitars. Im still willing to pay for meta value.

[dyna]

Originally Posted by Kevin Bishop

I am interested in this thread dyna, I looked up both, they both are solid Hogs, why is the M-20 superior in every way? I am not a Guild expert. Is the M-120 not made at the parent company?

I have played them both. Of course this is highly subjective, but to me the Oxnard M-20 was louder, warmer and more dynamic. It is not the fact that the M-120 is made in China that makes it inferior. But it is. It is smaller, harsher and thinner sounding. Maybe because it is covered in thick plastic laquer.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by merlin666

Where it is made is just one factor. Typically the original guitars have some premium features and use better materials than their offshore label copies. For me there is also the aspect of who makes the guitars, as you can visit most North American factories and talk with the workers or call and chat with someone on the floor. I own New Hartford built Guilds and Ovations and would not consider a Westerly Series Guild or Celebrity Ovation even though they may be very nice guitars and perfectly capable of doing the job. But if one of the overseas models is all you can reasonably afford then they are very good options.

You would be amazed at the quality of guitars made outside America. Cort, for example, build guitars for Fender, Gretsch, Ibanez, Epiphone, Schecter etc., etc. Their own-brand guitars are sensationally good.
A chap called Phillip McKnight who does youtube demos pulled apart a recent Mexican made Strat. ALL the parts, including pickups, were identical (according to attached labels), to what was fitted to the old American Standard series.
As far as I'm concerned a good instrument is a good instrument regardless of where it's made or who made it.
My recent experience with US-made Fender and Gibson models has been less than satisfactory. If I can get better quality for less money that, to me, is a win-win. Here's an example; a super jumbo at a quarter of the cost of the Gibson equivalent and four times the quality (I speak from experience with both marques).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A12-LKtdOJI

[KevinH]

For me, where a guitar is made is low on the priority list. But it has affected my buying decisions in a couple cases. Years ago my guitars were mostly Taylor. I decided I wanted to get a Martin, for a different sound. And I wanted it to be made in Nazareth, not because it's MIA, but because the history associated with Martin had some appeal.

The same thing swayed me to Furch when I was choosing a travel guitar. Even though they don't have as a long a history as Martin, they do have an interesting history.

All of this is somewhat illusory anyway, given that many parts of guitars from the larger manufacturers are made by CNC, and components are often sourced worldwide.