AzWhoFan wrote:
I guess by the overwhelming lack of response to my earlier post above indicates that I failed to touch a nerve. Ah well, no biggie.
Not true. Just taking it all in and filing it away in my head. You make a lot of good points. With regard to your comment about kids not being able to afford one, it seems to me that they've established Epiphone to be just that: the lower end product line that gives someone who's just starting out or has little money the chance to experience Gibson at a fraction of the cost (quality and tone aside, which I contend often betters a "real" Gibson). But it seems Gibson has very much positioned themselves as a legacy or american icon as you put it, and it's a musician's right of passage to own a real Gibson when they're ready...or worthy, as Gibson would like to believe. So who are they marketing to, exactly? Established musicians who still think the Gibson name equates to some high standard of quality? Anyone who's established or knows a thing or two about guitars knows how spotty Gibson's quality control is, so it comers down to trying a dozen or so Les Pauls before you finally find "the one". At times it's baffling how they manage to run their company and make a profit, considering they seem to make more missteps than hits (A $5000 Gibson Ripper reissue when vintage ones can be had for under $1000?!). If your chapter 9 rumor is true I wouldn't shed a tear.
Gibson, Fender, and now Rickenbacker have pretty much rested on their laurels for years, and while they'll still roll out some revamped instrument and tryintg to pass it off as innovation (much less so with Rickenbacker, who really haven't developed any new products in years), the fact is they're still continuously tinkering with the same guitar designs they created over 40 years ago (Les Paul, SG, Strat, Tele, P Bass, etc).