Will modern Gibsons become collectors items?

[CJ1973]

Buy a mid to late 90s and early 2000s Historic and put it away...you will profit from it. Best Les Pauls besides vintage.

[Steve@39]

I've been thinking back to the 70s Gibsons and Fenders I used to own and gig with back in those days. I had at least two LP Customs, early to mid 70s build and they were superb guitars in every respect. I had a Fender Tele Custom (with the humbuckers and F-hole) I bought new in '73, and it was also a gem- couldn't fault anything about the sound, build quality etc...and should never have sold it. My 09 LP '56 historic is a killer guitar, and I can't fault it. The only Gibson I had an issue with is my '07 J200 which needed a neck reset, which I though was a bit much for such as new guitar. It is however a beautiful sounding guitar and plays well now. I think there's just bad eggs in every era of guitar manufacture. Who knows if Gibsons will become collector items, as the guitar is not the dominant instrument for young guys as it was in the 50s and 60s especially.

[indravayu]

Originally Posted by CJ1973

Buy a mid to late 90s and early 2000s Historic and put it away...you will profit from it. Best Les Pauls besides vintage.

Do you know how many people have the exact same mindset? Too many! Value in vintage instruments comes not only from their inherent quality, but also their rarity - and Historics from this time period are not rare. Tons of them have been picked up by collectors and investors who are speculating that they will increase in value, most of whom will see little to no profit from them.

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by indravayu

Value in vintage instruments comes not only from their inherent quality, but also their rarity - and Historics from this time period are not rare. Tons of them have been picked up by collectors and investors who are speculating that they will increase in value, most of whom will see little to no profit from them.

I have to agree, and add that it's a factor of connections. Those 58-60 Bursts are connected to iconic music and players. People make guitars valuable, not quality.

Most Gibsons from the 50's are as finely crafted as any Paul, but nowhere near market value. A Guild Aristocrat from '59 is probably better crafted than a Burst. Spruce top, carved hollow body. Smokin' hot P90's. But not even close in market value.

Something could happen that will make a connection, but you'd need a crystal ball to know what and when. Biggest thing building right now is probably the shred guitars from the 80's because of the connection to that scene. I've seen some stupid prices on select pointly guitars, although that trend might be closing down already.

[CJ1973]

Originally Posted by indravayu

Do you know how many people have the exact same mindset?

Didn't you just answer my argument? Exactly my point. The more people think that, the more it goes up. This is simple market demand economics based on speculation. Price rise is gradual but consistent.

[indravayu]

Originally Posted by CJ1973

Didn't you just answer my argument? Exactly my point. The more people think that, the more it goes up. This is simple market demand economics based on speculation. Price rise is gradual but consistent.

The 50's Gibsons command large sums of money partially because only a few thousand were produced during the entire decade and are still known to exist.

There were thousands of Historics produced by the Gibson Custom Shop every MONTH from the 90's-00's (they supposedly crank out 75+ a day, so, like 1,875+ are made a month and 225,000+ were made in 10 years). Many of these sold for amounts well beyond market value (because they were Artist signature guitars or other limited editions) and went right to collectors and speculators (who keep them in pristine condition), unlike the originals, which overwhelmingly went to working musicians, many of them seeing tons of abuse on the road.

There's no way that these new Gibsons will be worth as much as their 50's (and early 60's) counterparts. There are too many perfect ones floating around out there, held by people who think they will fund their retirement. Ain't gonna happen!

[CJ1973]

Originally Posted by indravayu

(because they were Artist signature guitars or other limited editions)

There's no way that these new Gibsons will be worth as much as their 50's (and early 60's) counterparts. There are too many perfect ones floating around out there, held by people who think they will fund their retirement. Ain't gonna happen!

I was not referring to Artists series. More "Historic" RI. Do an eBay.
And no, please don't misquote me.
I was not saying the 90s will be the same as 50s, but they are and will continue to go up, gradually but will increment. It's simple market demand vs supply argument. Add "quality" in there and the wish to have something relatively rare.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve

The test shows, in a particular setting, people generally did not prefer the Strad over much cheaper instruments.. They actually tended to prefer the newer and cheaper instruments.

In a totally artificial test under condition that bear no resemblance whatsoever to actual performing conditions.

What diud the test actually prove, if anything?

Well, that would be that when playing blindfolded in a small, boxy hotel room with horrible acoustics the players liked the cheaper instrument.

Why might that be? Possibly because the brighter sound of an unaged instrument cuts better in an overdamped hotel room full of beds, drapes, and pile rugs that has no appreciable reverberation time and really isn't big enough for the tone of the instrument to "bloom" properly.

The test of a concert instrument is how well it works to connect the musician with the music. It';s an emotional response and you can't really measure that "scientifically", certainly not while playing blindfolded for a few minutes in a hotel room.

Sure. Go ahead and create a double blind test in a concert hall environment. I'll wait here.

Oh, right. Not really possible, is it?

BINGO!

What you "fail to grasp" is these people are scientists. They test things in a controlled environment according to a specific methodology. That methodology makes the kind of testing that you apparently want to see meaningless.

No.

They're not.

They're charlatans and hucksters.

An hotel room is not "a controlled environment". And a controlled environment is not appropriate for evaluating a concert instrument. The whole point of a great concert instrument is HOW IT MAKES THE MUSICIAN PERFORM. You can't do that in an artificial situation.

It's as stupid as trying to determine the suitability of a mixing tool by conducting an audiophile A-B test of a canned track run through it instead of using it to mix with.

And one of the "scientists" here has a commercial interest selling new violins. Hardly unbiased.

I'm baffled why you seem to want to completely disregard the study without saying why... Because it's so obvious and I'm not worthy I guess.

Accept the results at face value. If you have a specific problem with the study, speak forth. :

It's not a study. It's a promotional stunt to sell new violins.

It's a scientific as a television ad.

The truth is that there are some things which are not amenable to scientific testing.

Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve

But that's the whole point... the study adds to the mystery. Who would have thought these players wouldn't pick out the Strads? Not me! How cool is that?

Not very cool.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a very strong possibility was that what was really being tested was how the instrument interacted with a specific lousy acoustical environment that bears no resemblance whatsoever to a real concert hall.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by kennybro

69 Strats (or even just the cap necks) are connected to Jimi.

Which is actually pretty hilarious considering that Jimi regarded them as essentially disposable guitars, which should be obvious to anyone who considers the number of them he smashed and burned. The period between 1968 and 1979 was the worst era for Stratocasters ever - some really horrible guitars where sold in that period.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve

Maybe just for a moment kats you can stop trying to hard to be RIGHT. Double blind tests are all we've got.

That reminds me of the guy who cut the crap out of his hand and had to get stitches due to trying to use a knife as a screwdriver "because that was all he had".

Some tools are totally inappropriate for some purposes.

Everything else is just a guess. The results are limited, of course. Nobody in this thread is saying otherwise, except you trying to turn it into a red herring argument.

No.

The results are not "limited" - the results are INVALID.

There's a big difference.

Really, just stop.

No. Wrong is wrong.

Nobody is saying "universal truth." If you have a better idea than generally accepted scientific methodology, then display this incredible intellectual superiority of yours by detailing something better.

YOU are claiming that your double blind dogma is universally applicable. It's not. You're trying to use a knife as a screwdriver.

That's why it's a double blind test, which eliminates one reason why political polls are often biased. Since you are so intellectually superior, I don't think I need to elaborate.

Kats is not acting "intellectually superior" and isn't pretending he is. He's just able to tell the difference between B.S. and real science.

And elaboration, isn't what's needed on your part - though and careful evaluation of what people are telling you is.

It means they liked one better than the others, and it tended to be the newer ones. That's all. Not "meaningless." If I had you play a couple of Les Pauls, and asked you which one you liked better, you could probably decide for yourself. Yes, it wouldn't be the "be all and end all" and nobody is suggesting it is kats.

And what you insist on ignoring was that even if such an evaluation might be able to be made in a double blind methodology, which is highly doubtful, the conditions this particular test was conducted under render any possible results invalid. A hotel room is simply not an appropriate environment.

If you were trying to test for those aspects, yes. But.. that's not what they were asking.. because they wanted to know what the actual players would PREFER. Yes, it's imperfect, but it's what we have.

No, if that's what they wanted to know they would have conducted the test in some location that resembled a real performance space. It's not hard - most colleges have concert halls.

It's like weighing merchandise with your thumb on the scale.

I suspect they might be able to tell the difference as well in that case... but I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't either. Why? Because the test in question is a data point. It leads me to believe the differences aren't as significant as we suspected.

It's not a data point. There is nothing to be learned from this "test", except perhaps that new violins sound better in hotel rooms.

Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve

You've gotta know what you don't know. You, for example... you don't know whether or not a new instrument would appear to project as well as an old instrument in a blind test. You don't know whether an expert might indeed prefer a newer instrument. Hey, I have no problem with faith... but it's different than fact, even if fact cannot be determined yet.

How do you know what kats knows?

What we DO know is that you have a remarkable ability to ignore crucial evidence - specifically that the acoustic conditions this publicity stunt was conducted under bear no resemblance whatsoever to a real performing situation, therefore it is FUNDAMENTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to conduct a proper evaluation under these conditions.

YOU CAN'T TELL HOW AN INSTRUMENT PROJECTS BY PLAYING IT IN A HOTEL ROOM!

This study is one of the few double blind tests that I've seen on the subject, and again, it certainly suggest there may not be the huge difference our faith tells us there is.

The reason that it's "one of the few double blind tests" you've seen is that REAL SCIENTISTS are fully aware that this is not something that is appropriate for double blind testing, so they don't do it. The only people who do this kind of inappropriate pseudo-scientific nonsense are charlatans and hucksters trying to pretend they're something they're not (and frequently trying to sell you something in the process.)

And in case you're wondering, I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of what real scientists are like and scientific procedure since my daddy was a college professor and I grew up in a university environment around professors of physics, chemistry, and geology - plus there are three research biochemists in my family. And my aunt was a classical pianist in NYC.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by CJ1973

Ok folks it's getting somewhat heated in here....I'm curious to know...how many of you have owned or own a Gibson?

I owned a 1958 Gibson J-200 which was stolen from me by a crooked guitar repairman. I loved that guitar and after 30 years am still looking for it.

It was EXACTLY like the guitar on the cover of Bob Dylan's "Nashville Skyline".

I also owned a '60 SG/Les Paul Custom with 3 gold plated PAFs and the sideways vibrato (which I really didn't like, as it made bending strings difficult), a '63 SG/Les Paul Junior which I loved, and currently own about a 5 year old Les Paul Special double cutaway.

[kats]

Sure. Go ahead and create a double blind test in a concert hall environment. I'll wait here.

Oh, right. Not really possible, is it?



Quote:

BINGO!

I must have missed this earlier, but subsequent to this stunt, they repeated the test in a concert hall and the no.1 preferred instrument, from the players perspective, happened to be a strad.

Without knowing the details though, I wouldn't put more stock in that either. For me, the collective wisdom of professionals (musicians, not statisticians) is usually the best bet.

[rolandjuno6]

I think that any good quality guitar being made now which manages to remain in good playable condition in the future will be desired by at least some percentage of the guitar playing population.

[kennybro]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

Which is actually pretty hilarious considering that Jimi regarded them as essentially disposable guitars, which should be obvious to anyone who considers the number of them he smashed and burned. The period between 1968 and 1979 was the worst era for Stratocasters ever - some really horrible guitars where sold in that period.

Yeah. A dark era for Fender, IMO. Shame he didn't get to burn and smash even more of them. I've got a fairly nice 69, black maple cap right now, but it's something of an anomaly, judging from others I've played.

[FFTT]

I agree about looking at 2000-2001 Historic RI's and '84-'86 Shaw ERA RI's

Then it goes on a guitar by guitar basis for original integrity, fit and finish, desirable finishes & features etc.

Back in '93, I purchased my USA Strat Plus with Gold Lace Sensors
I've kept it all original and it has turned out to be one of the best guitars I've ever owned.
It's hard to believe almost 20 years have passed since I bought it.

The guitar still looks like it might be maybe a year old, but the neck is well settled in and perfect.
The Golds turned out to be the best of the Lace Sensors, so I'm beyond happy with my purchase.

[John Eppstein]

What everybody in this thread seems to be ignoring is that prior to the collecting mania that broke out in the late'70s, a used electric guitar was a used electric guitar and they were generally expected to DEPRECIATE, not increase in value. The really old ones started going up in the mid '70s, but not to the insane levels of today.

Most likely in 20 years prices will normalize and used instruments, except, for the really old, vintage ones from the '50s and '60s will again become cheaper than new ones.

The only reason the old guitars started increasing in value was that new electric guitars were so lousy after about 1966/67, and largely remained that way through the '70s.

[nuthinupmysleeve]

Originally Posted by kats

I must have missed this earlier, but subsequent to this stunt, they repeated the test in a concert hall and the no.1 preferred instrument, from the players perspective, happened to be a strad

Cool, very interesting... I am unable to find a record of this, can you please share a link?

[nuthinupmysleeve]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

The results are not "limited" - the results are INVALID.

There's a big difference.

Ahh. Invalid because you say so is good enough, I guess.

YOU are claiming that your double blind dogma is universally applicable. It's not. You're trying to use a knife as a screwdriver.

No. I'm saying double blind is the way to do a scientific test. No more, no less. You can test anyway you see fit, I don't care.

And what you insist on ignoring was that even if such an evaluation might be able to be made in a double blind methodology, which is highly doubtful, the conditions this particular test was conducted under render any possible results invalid. A hotel room is simply not an appropriate environment.

John, what you seem unable to comprehend is the results are PERFECTLY VALID, in the environment the test was done in. Nobody is suggesting the results would or would not have been different in a concert hall or any other environment. I can tell you, I think can tell the difference between a old Martin and a new assembly line cheapo acoustic guitar in a hotel room. But in a double blind test, could I? I would STILL think I could, but who knows?

No, if that's what they wanted to know they would have conducted the test in some location that resembled a real performance space. It's not hard - most colleges have concert halls.

Again, scientists are interested in scientific methodology. If you can devise a way to do a scientific double blind test in a concert hall, let them know. Hell, share it with me because I can't figure it out myself.

YOU CAN'T TELL HOW AN INSTRUMENT PROJECTS BY PLAYING IT IN A HOTEL ROOM!

Thank you because increasing the size of the font has a similar effect to shouting in english at a french person in Paris. Good luck with that.

But.. you are right, you can't tell how an instrument projects. Indeed.. and read closely John.. they were NOT testing "how well it projects." Think about it again before responding.

And in case you're wondering, I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of what real scientists are like and scientific procedure since my daddy was a college professor

Yea, well, excuse me for saying so, but you don't come across as having the most basic understanding of science. Like Kats, you try to invalidate a study by saying things like "you can't tell how well a violin will project in a hotel room"... a basic understanding of the study would tell you OF COURSE. That is not what they were testing John. Why do you expect they would come up with a conclusion beyond what they tested? I'm sorry, but you don't show "fairly comprehensive" knowledge of science.

[nuthinupmysleeve]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

What diud the test actually prove, if anything?

It suggests there might not be as big of a difference beween a priceless strad and a well made new instrument as people suspect. It proves that, on a certain day, a group of world class violinists chose a new instrument over a classic Strad.

It';s an emotional response and you can't really measure that "scientifically", certainly not while playing blindfolded for a few minutes in a hotel room.

Right, they can only measure what they can measure. It is what it is, right? Why add more meaning to it?

An hotel room is not "a controlled environment".

Actually, it is indeed a controlled environment.

And one of the "scientists" here has a commercial interest selling new violins. Hardly unbiased.

You are quite right. But does that one biased person invalidate ALL the other opinions of all the other players??

[Whitecat]

Originally Posted by Frank_Case

Why haven't PRS guitars appreciated like old Gibsons? They are both high quality American Made guitars. So why the difference in appreciation?

Anybody know?

No lore.

[FFTT]

Originally Posted by Frank_Case

I had a strat deluxe from that era with lace sensors. I could never get used to the lace sound. Seemed like the pickups sparkled in a strange way compared to standard single coils that I had played before.

The metal Roller Nut gives the open strings a definite extra ring.

I love the jangle and chime this guitar delivers through every one if my amps
and its perfect for noise free recording.

[kats]

Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve

Like Kats, you try to invalidate a study by saying things like "you can't tell how well a violin will project in a hotel room"... a basic understanding of the study would tell you OF COURSE. That is not what they were testing John. Why do you expect they would come up with a conclusion beyond what they tested? I'm sorry, but you don't show "fairly comprehensive" knowledge of science.

Well WTF were they testing for then?

It suggests there might not be as big of a difference beween a priceless strad and a well made new instrument as people suspect. It proves that, on a certain day, a group of world class violinists chose a new instrument over a classic Strad.

Seriously.

I promised myself not to bother with this, but that is so lightweight. You don't see the hypocrisy in this?

If they didn't include one of the most recognized traits of a Strad as part of their test criteria, how the **** can you say it proves anything.

Why is it so important for you to win this?

[nuthinupmysleeve]

Originally Posted by kats

Well WTF were they testing for then?

Are you sure you read it?

I promised myself not to bother with this, but that is so lightweight. You don't see the hypocrisy in this?

If they didn't include one of the most recognized traits of a Strad as part of their test criteria, how the **** can you say it proves anything.

Why is it so important for you to win this?

I don't care whether I "win" this or not... it's not like you "win" an internet argument. Alas, I think you just gave me insight into why you are taking your position with such passion and vehemence. To you there is only win or lose, right? If these scientists are right, then you are wrong. There is nothing in between?

Again, it doesn't really PROVE anything, for about the 15th time, other than it suggests there might not be as much of a difference as people might think, especially in a particular limited environment. No need to make it into a straw man argument. It only proves that in a particular environment on a particular day they preferred something other than a world class Strad. It suggests to me the topic is worthy of further study. It is INTERESTING.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve

Ahh. Invalid because you say so is good enough, I guess.

No. Invalid because the so-called "test" did not conform to accepted scientific procedure in numerous ways, many of which I have explained repeatedly.

It's not my fault if you're unable to understand this. I'd advise that you spend some time associating with real scientists instead of charlatans.

No. I'm saying double blind is the way to do a scientific test. No more, no less. You can test anyway you see fit, I don't care.

And I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Double blind is a way to conduct MANY types of scientific tests, but it is NOT APPLICABLE to certain types of phenomena. As any REAL scientist will tell you.

You're trying to use a screwdriver as a hammer. It's the wrong tool for the job.

Really, at this point I don't think you have the necessary background and education to understand the proper application of scientific method - or to understand when "scientific method" is simply not applicable.

The whole thing is turning into a colossal waste of time. If you don't understand by now you probably never will and you have my deepest sympathy.

But.. you are right, you can't tell how an instrument projects. Indeed.. and read closely John.. they were NOT testing "how well it projects." Think about it again before responding.

Oy, gevalt!

They were allegedly testing one concert grade instrument against another. Projection,. and interaction with room acoustics, are intrinsic parts of what makes one instrument superior to another. YOU CAN NOT REMOVE THAT FROM THE EQUATION AND PRETEND THAT YOU TEST IS VALID!

Do you not understand anything about what makes one concert grade instrument superior to another?

But you're right, in a way. They were not testing how well it projects, they were conducting a publicity stunt.

Actually, it is indeed a controlled environment.

Again, it doesn't really PROVE anything, for about the 15th time, other than it suggests there might not be as much of a difference as people might think, especially in a particular limited environment.

Oy vayismir!

No.

What is suggests is that if you set up a bullsh*t test in an inferior environment it might make it difficult or impossible for even an experienced player to make a valid judgement, due to various factors (which have been previously explained in detail) interfering with the perceptions of the test subjects.

Why not conduct the test in a culvert? It would have as much validity. Or in an anechoic chamber? Or wearing ear plugs?

But that's actually ignoring the real point, which is that even under optimum acoustic conditions you can't really do a valid double blind test of something like that because what makes an instrument great is how it makes the player interact with both the music and with other players. And you can't double blind that. It's Ethanism.

Yea, well, excuse me for saying so, but you don't come across as having the most basic understanding of science. Like Kats, you try to invalidate a study by saying things like "you can't tell how well a violin will project in a hotel room"... a basic understanding of the study would tell you OF COURSE. That is not what they were testing John. Why do you expect they would come up with a conclusion beyond what they tested? I'm sorry, but you don't show "fairly comprehensive" knowledge of science.

As your background is - what? I grew up in a university environment (my father was head of the classics department), associating with professors of physics, chemistry, and geology who were frequent guests in my parents' home and mentors of mine when I was growing up. My uncle, who gave me my first subscription to Scientific American when I was in grade school, was a research biochemist for Upjohn Pharmaceuticals in cancer research. Two of his daughters also became research biochemists and one has her own biotech firm in Utah. In college I majored in botany before switching to music theory.

I also participated in extensive double blind testing procedures as part of development of products in the high end Hi-Fi area after moving to California in the '70s, so I know pretty darn well what double blind testing can and can't do as relates to audio.

Once again - your background is - what?

[CJ1973]

Gibson Les Paul in Electric | eBay

Some of you all still think some of the Gibsons are not going to go up in value?

[nuthinupmysleeve]

Originally Posted by John Eppstein

They were allegedly testing one concert grade instrument against another. Projection,. and interaction with room acoustics, are intrinsic parts of what makes one instrument superior to another. YOU CAN NOT REMOVE THAT FROM THE EQUATION AND PRETEND THAT YOU TEST IS VALID!

Well.. It was never the premise, the test was preference. I can only try and explain it to you so many times John. I think it's all pretty obvious. Sorry.

But you're right, in a way. They were not testing how well it projects

Exactly. You can't tell how well something projects in a hotel room. It's like testing how well a 1x10 guitar combo will project in Madison square garden by trying it in a hotel room. That is a different test. This is is basic it's absurd. They were testing preference, within the limited environment, and I found the results interesting. So did a lot of people, including many of the violinists who were part of the study. Have you bothered to read the comments from the players who participated?

Why not conduct the test in a culvert? It would have as much validity. Or in an anechoic chamber? Or wearing ear plugs?

Go for it. They tested something else, but indeed, why not? Read it again, closely, and slowly. They did a study on a particular set of circumstances, with some world class players, and had some interesting results. Get over it.

But that's actually ignoring the real point, which is that even under optimum acoustic conditions you can't really do a valid double blind test of something like that because what makes an instrument great is how it makes the player interact with both the music and with other players. And you can't double blind that. It's Ethanism.

Ahem. Again, they weren't testing what makes an instrument great. Read the damn thing and figure out what they were testing. And what they were not testing.

I grew up in a university environment

John, I really I don't care about your background. You have missed some extremely basic things in this conversation. Evidently your relative's experience haven't helped your reasoning ability John. If you are going to trot out your qualifications, at least trot out your own.

Anyway, this appears to have become worthless... And worse, uninteresting.

[systematika]

Dunno, I never liked them so I don't own one. I have a Schecter Hellraiser C1 FR that both SOUNDS good with active EMGs and pickup splits, and also plays great. Easily worth another grand except it's an asian guitar so they don't command the price.

I don't care about the value of my guitars. The custom green PRS I had before this one that cost 3x more, had terrible pickups, and a lack of tone.

Why buy a guitar that I'd have to put another 300 dollars in modifications to make it more modern, when I can just buy a modern guitar design like higher end Schecters, Jacksons, etc for less money and get a better guitar?

[FFTT]

Originally Posted by CJ1973

Gibson Les Paul in Electric | eBay

Some of you all still think some of the Gibsons are not going to go up in value?

The 2000 Historic RI's were a good batch and the re-sale prices reflect that.

I looked for a 335 in 2005 and was so disappointed in the fit and finish on a $3000.00 Gibson that I ended up buying my Ibanez AF105NT.

It's hard to grasp, they've had all this time to perfect ideal production methods and still the quality control remains a total crap shoot with Gibsons.

[CJ1973]

Originally Posted by FFTT

The 2000 Historic RI's were a good batch and the re-sale prices reflect that.

It's hard to grasp, they've had all this time to perfect ideal production methods and still the quality control remains a total crap shoot with Gibsons.

yeah apparently 1993-2001 RIs are great and as the prices suggest are almost doubled or tripled in 10-15 years. Not bad.
Agree on quality control. Fender on the other hand is just a well built guitar, so quality control standards could be slightly low and it still works fine. Gibson traditionally is not as greatly crafted (IMHO) as a Fender, but has a fantastic look and sound!

[kats]

Originally Posted by nuthinupmysleeve

Again, it doesn't really PROVE anything, for about the 15th time, other than it suggests there might not be as much of a difference as people might think, especially in a particular limited environment.

That is NOT what you have being saying for the 15th time, nor has that been your implication or your innuendo. Your being disingenuous.

But I will give you: Yes, if you play two very different violins in an environment completely out of context of where they were designed to be performed - such as under water or in a hotel room, then yes the differences might not be as noticeable.

But then, who cares?

I'm on pins and needles waiting for more of your psychoanalysis of why I think what I do