When is a Martin not a Martin; Gibson not a Gibson etc

[Dbone]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Well, my question is, how do guitars of similar quality made overseas compare in price to those made by builders like Collings and Santa Cruz? Does this mean these guitars are “so high in price?” I’m not trying to be rhetorical, I don’t know the answer.

Well, like anything else, a lot of this is opinion, but I think I can offer a few ideas and theories. I can give you 3 examples that I will compare to Collings. I have no direct experience with Santa Cruz.

The top tier Yamaha LL56 that I just purchased...The quality of these things easily matches Collings. I wouldn’t trade this thing for any Collings that I have played. Without question. Other high tier Yamaha owners on this forum who have owned both Collings and high end Yamaha have said the same. I have directly compared both products. They are completely hand made and very low volume in Yamaha’s Japanese custom shop, built to a high tap tuning based standard with bracing carved optimally for each top on each guitar just like Collings, etc. An LL56 in the US can be had for 4K USD, probably less in the hands of a buyer. Lower pay in Japan? The fact that Yamaha is probably the largest instrument producer in the world more generally and can probably bring that to bear in sourcing the best woods in larger quantities at scale for less? Etc

Another example. Boucher. Definitely Collings level quality for less. 100% as good. To make it more confusing/questionable in terms of Collings pricing, Boucher is a boutique high end builder that produces only 300-350 guitars on average per year...significantly less than Collings. Canadians don’t work for nothing either. Boucher gets very expensive too when you option them, but generally are significantly less. One thing that likely makes it possible for Boucher to do their pricing is that they are a major tone wood purveyor that supplies all kinds of builders (likely even Collings). With this said he probably has a competitive advantage in this regard for his own builds.

My experience with Furch in their higher end is that, in terms of build and quality (and certainly tone) they can hang with Collings and others. They are much higher scale than Collings producing 7k to 7.5k guitars per year. With scale comes competitive advantage. I also recall reading that the average wage in the Czech Republic is significantly less than the US.

Just a few silly examples, but it makes sense to me.

The other obvious thing that helps set a product’s price is the buyers willingness to pay for it. Something which is entirely separate from whether or not that product is in fact worth that price, or better than a product of a lesser price. Branding and product perception matters.

This I do know. There are more people out there willing to accept spending 8k to 10k or more for Collings and Santa Cruz. You would be hard pressed to find as many buyers for Yamahas, Bouchers, or Furch guitars at the same prices. The latter will not generally be able to command those prices in reality, but that fact is not necessarily a function of their higher end offerings being inferior. This is my belief.

There are exceptions of course. I know Yamaha makes 20k and 50k dollar guitars, but those are exceptionally rare and special guitars. Furch is now doing custom shop builds that get crazy expensive too, but as I understand it they are new in that game.

You asked LOL hehe

[Joe Beamish]

^ Great overview. I was wondering if the price difference, which could be seen as gratuitous, also existed higher up the food chain. Apparently, to some degree, it does.

Because I am a big fan of Burt Jansch, I have always wanted to play one of those higher end Yamahas. I certainly feel that his Yamahas sound terrific. I am aware of those other brand names, but have not encountered any of the guitars so far.

[Dbone]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

^ Great overview. I was wondering if the price difference, which could be seen as gratuitous, also existed higher up the food chain. Apparently, to some degree, it does.

Because I am a big fan of Burt Jansch, I have always wanted to play one of those higher end Yamahas. I certainly feel that his Yamahas sound terrific. I am aware of those other brand names, but have not encountered any of the guitars so far.

Not sure if you are aware. Yamaha made him a special LL86 guitar. I didn’t know that until recently. He being the non-flashy guy he was only enjoyed it in the comfort of his own home apparently. He felt is was too nice of a guitar to risk taking out and about with him, so he played cheaper Yamahas day to day. Very expensive guitar those LL86s.

[tj_mangum]

To each their own. Went into a music shop on vacation several years ago and asked the owner if he had any interesting used guitars. He said, "Sorry, mostly beginner ones. I do have a Martin, but it's one of those with all the letters and numbers in the name, not like a regular Martin."
Are BMWs made in S. Carolina a BMW? Are Hondas made in Canada not a Honda?

[rwmct]

Originally Posted by tj_mangum

To each their own. Went into a music shop on vacation several years ago and asked the owner if he had any interesting used guitars. He said, "Sorry, mostly beginner ones. I do have a Martin, but it's one of those with all the letters and numbers in the name, not like a regular Martin."
Are BMWs made in S. Carolina a BMW? Are Hondas made in Canada not a Honda?

I think his view is shared by a lot of people who, when the think "Martin" they think D-18 or D-28, etc. I know I do.

I "know" the lower priced models exist, intellectually, but somehow I am always surprised when I hear about them. Whenever somebody tells me they got a Martin, I always picture the iconic guitars, and always think "oh, right, forgot about those" if it turns out to be something different.

[Cool555]

I own both a MIM and a US-made Martin. In terms of workmanship and tone, both are equally good. Do I consider both Martin guitars? Yes, I do! But I’m still conscious of the fact that my Dread Jr 2 is MIM...and my 00-15M is made in US. Why is the US-made Martin about twice the price of the MIM Martin? It is mainly due to the higher labour cost in US.

The above is my personal view. YMMV.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by tj_mangum

To each their own. Went into a music shop on vacation several years ago and asked the owner if he had any interesting used guitars. He said, "Sorry, mostly beginner ones. I do have a Martin, but it's one of those with all the letters and numbers in the name, not like a regular Martin."
Are BMWs made in S. Carolina a BMW? Are Hondas made in Canada not a Honda?

I'm not sure. But I like knowing my Santa Cruz is a Santa Cruz. There's no question where it was made or what it is. Whereas I think a McDonald's, wherever it is, is a McDonald's. That's the nature of that particular brand, and of Toyota and Honda. They're all reliable and ubiquitous, and they trade on their accessibility -- which is a good thing.

On the other hand, premium brands that extend themselves downstream give up "that regular Martin" quality overall. That's the tradeoff. They become more like a Honda.

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by 100LL

i think you’re kind of missing the point. it’s not about national pride, it’s a discussion about quality and standards and (maybe) purity.

Britain is a foreign country to me, but if I’m buying a Cockwell boat it is going to matter if it was built in the UK or India.

Hi, both this and this from birchtop :

"Yeah, Marshall and Celestion come to mind. I definitely would prefer a UK manufactured Marshall amp over their Vietnamese manu’d product (although I have a couple of each). Same goes with Celestion Speakers"

Gents, in both cases you are implying that products made in India, or Vietnam must be inferior to the UK.

Please explain to me the logic there.

[Arthur Slowhand]

I think that if a company trades on it's heritage they should make their instruments where they've always made them - or pretty close nearby, which is why made in Mexico is okay - from the perspective of a Brit - for Martin and Taylor.

It's when makers outsource to China that I object, but that's for additional reasons that we're not allowed to get into on the Forum.

The other thing that concerns me about Martin, is HPL. I know they argue that it's environmentally friendly, but I think Richlite is the limit of eco-friendly materials for a brand like Martin. It looks more like Martin are taking entry-level customers for granted; if Taylor can produce such stunningly made entry level instruments, out of wood (I don't care if it's laminated wood) then I don't see why Martin can't.