PRS announces new John Mayer signature Strat style giutar

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
If you have the numbers then by all means please share them so we can have an informed discussion

.

Originally Posted by JeffreyAK

Likewise.

Wrong again, I am not making a value vs mfg cost judgement assumption , you are.
I have no need for the numbers because I am not making any assumption
So can we conclude you do not have the numbers and are simply running on conjecture ?

[paulp1960]

Originally Posted by JeffreyAK

The PRS head alone is $5990, while the top 100W Marshall head (JVM410, 4 channels, each with 3 different gain stage options) is $2500, less than half the price, https://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...nnel-tube-head And you're paying a lot extra for the Marshall name (lots of other 100W tube heads in the $1000-2000 range, without the Marshall name), whereas in amplifier world I don't know that many people have ever heard PRS amps. I imagine it sounds nice, but $6K worth of nice...

I dont know that Marshall looks quite cheap considering the amount of valve circuitry in there, it really is a monster of an amp.

[LouieAtienza]

This whole thread just shows that every silver lining's got a... touch of grey...

See what I did there?!

[JeffreyAK]

Originally Posted by paulp1960

I dont know that Marshall looks quite cheap considering the amount of valve circuitry in there, it really is a monster of an amp.

I'm really happy with my 210, in fact in hindsight I wish I'd sprung a bit more and gotten the 410 combo instead! The 410 has some additional different voices that the 210 doesn't have. But the 210 has a huge tonal range - it doesn't do crystal clean (like for acoustic guitar) very well, but everything from a tiny bit dirty to really, really dirty, with any of my pickup combinations and playing styles, it does really well.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by JeffreyAK

Not at all, it's simply marketing. You pay a big premium for a Mercedes or BMW name, you pay a premium for a Fender or Gibson or Martin name, you pay a premium for a Marshall name, and yes, some people are willing to pay a premium for anything that has a PRS name on it.

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yes "at all" actually. Unless you have the specific manufacturing production design build method, labor and materials and distribution cost numbers in front of you, it is simply pure speculation best. And is an argument from ignorance and a comparative false equivalency, both known as a logical fallacies , to use as the base, for the unsupported assertion that it is a function of marketing the name only. Cars or Guitars. As is the specious self justification for the assertion that people purchasing such products are doing so only because of name and not for any possible real added value .

If you have the numbers then by all means please share them so we can have an informed discussion. And if the numbers corroborate you assertion I will gladly rescind my assertion of false equivalency.

It is entirely possible to post your personal reasons as to what you think, prefer, and what you think is the best value range for a given product without bringing conjecture about mfg. marketing or other people's motives into it. If your thinking is reliant upon and based on such conjecture, it is perhaps time to rethink.

Make no mistake I personally would not pay $6k for an amp head, no matter the actual value, period . But that has entirely to with my personal budget range criteria and desire. Without knowing the actual production costs vs retail, I would not presume to make uninformed categorical judgements as to the value of gear beyond my personal budget desires and concept of value per dollar I am willing to pay , nor would I make judgements about the motives or reasoning of people who do purchase such products.

Switching to a serious post for a moment, I believe what you gents are discussing is called brand equity -- and it's a concept that's almost universally accepted in key areas such as finance, accounting and certainly marketing.

Essentially brand equity is the premium that one would pay for a product/service of a given brand over a comparable product/service that is unbranded. That's the simple version. For the complex version, you can Google it...

A company like PRS would most definitely have healthy brand equity.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Switching to a serious post for a moment, I believe what you gents are discussing is called brand equity -- and it's a concept that's almost universally accepted in key areas such as finance, accounting and certainly marketing.

Essentially brand equity is the premium that one would pay for a product/service of a given brand over a comparable product/service that is unbranded. That's the simple version. For the complex version, you can Google it...

A company like PRS would most definitely have healthy brand equity.

I would suggest that while that is related it still is a different subject than what we were discussing. For one thing it is a concept generally applied to much broader market products like Kleenex brand tissue or Bayer aspirin, more so than to niche market products like electric guitars . And for example even if we say it could be said to also apply for PRS, it would be more in the form of the brand being known for excellent fit and finish and good components , So if that is brand equity, then it is earned value added and has substance beyond simply paying "a big premium for the name", which was the assertion and discussion we were having . Which I am still saying is unfounded without knowledge of the actual costs involved in production.

[Steel and wood]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Honestly, even the PRS he previously played wasn't one of PRS' finest...

The conversation probably went like this:

PRS: Hey John, I'm mostly known for building an alternative to Gibson guitars, you know that, right?
JM: Yeah of course, Paul, I still remember the lawsuit episode.
PRS: Come on, buddy, that was a lot blow!
JM: Hahaha...
PRS: Seriously though, I have an idea, John.
JM: I'm all ears, buddy.
PRS: I want to build you a real signature guitar.
JM: Really? I'm so flattered.
PRS: I'd like to conquer some of the Fender market. I want Fender players to look at my guitars and think that they could switch to PRS and still be cool.
JM: Genius. But how will you pull that off?
PRS: Well, I'd like to build a guitar that looks just like a Strat but with a PRS headstock.
JM: Wow that's an amazing idea! It's going to look weird but cool!
PRS: I'm so excited! We can offset the tuning machines to make it look even cooler! So when people see you with the guitar, they'll think, "Wow that's a beautiful Strat" until they see the headstock and go, "What the heck?"
JM: Man that is so cool. People are going to think it's ugly but they're still going to buy it because there's my signature on it.
PRS: We'll call it the Silver Sky.
JM: I'm in love with your idea. Let's do it.

PRS "We'll call it the Silver Sky but will offer it in black like your old Stratocaster and even red John" .....

Too much fun with this post!

[808K]

This guitar has “small” frets. I’ve never played a guitar with small frets. What should I expect?

(A lot of people on other sites are not happy with the small frets.)

[Scotso]

the silver sky? A brother from another mother that you cannot share parts with

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by 808K

(A lot of people on other sites are not happy with the small frets.)

Have any of them actually played one, or are they typical internet spec-chasers?

[808K]

Originally Posted by eatswodo

Have any of them actually played one, or are they typical internet spec-chasers?

Honestly don’t know. But you ask a good question.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I would suggest that while that is related it still is a different subject than what we were discussing. For one thing it is a concept generally applied to much broader market products like Kleenex brand tissue or Bayer aspirin, more so than to niche market products like electric guitars . And for example even if we say it could be said to also apply for PRS, it would be more in the form of the brand being known for excellent fit and finish and good components , So if that is brand equity, then it is earned value added and has substance beyond simply paying "a big premium for the name", which was the assertion and discussion we were having . Which I am still saying is unfounded without knowledge of the actual costs involved in production.

I hear what you're saying. I had a similar discussion with my dad about leather jackets...

I think the point at which extra money ceases to generate better quality depends on the individual.

That said, I agree with you that in the case of PRS, you're not just paying for the name. PRS guitars are considered "high end" by many but in reality they're honestly priced guitars. You'd be hard pressed to find better built guitars in the same price range as their standard models.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

This whole thread just shows that every silver lining's got a... touch of grey...

See what I did there?!

Very subtle, Louie, very subtle...

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by Steel and wood

PRS "We'll call it the Silver Sky but will offer it in black like your old Stratocaster and even red John" .....

Too much fun with this post!

Notice the colour of the silver Silver Sky is actually called Tungsten. Very clever...

Seriously, if this guitar becomes a success, I will publicly apologize profusely.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Notice the colour of the silver Silver Sky is actually called Tungsten. Very clever...

Seriously, if this guitar becomes a success, I will publicly apologize profusely.

Tungsten Sky just doesn't roll off the tongue as well...

---------------------------------------------------------------

I feel my two 1984 Kramer Barettas would leave this thing in the dust - 1-3/4" nut, 14" radius, Floyd Rose... Many would argue the opposite. Which is great, because there are so many guitars out there to choose from. This guitar could sell like sliced bread; it doesn't change the fact that I think it's fugly! But, one man's fugly is another man's beauty!