Maybe someone can explain to me why Fender offers "relic" or "distressed" guitars and they sell very well and are very popular right now, while Gibson hasn't jumped on that bandwagon yet. Gibson offers reissue guitars but they aren't worn or distressed looking. I just don't understand the attraction of owning a already worn looking guitar.

_________________
Life is like a sh*t sandwich. The more bread you have, the less sh*t you have to eat.

I think it's because Gibson chooses to spend thier producton dollars on making more quality acoustics and more styles of electrics instead of waisting money beating up a perfectly good guitar like Fender.

agreed, +1

I think it has more to do with the fact that Fender has mastered the relicing process to the point that they can produce it in a production environment. Its also bad taste to copy your competition, thats like admiting that your competition has come up with something better than what you offer. I think this might be the case with Gibson and Fender. They are both good at what they do.

What are you talking about? Gibson offers relic guitars too, they just call them "aged".

_________________
Tune Low, Play Hard & Floor it!

thats not entirely true. I just did a quick search and it looks to me like the Gibson "aged" (VOS) guitars are more like a reissue rather than a "worn relic".

I'm pretty sure that Gibson does offer some relic style guitars, but they are not as radically operated upon as the Fenders.

(I don't quite understand the attraction of guitars like that, but obviously many people find them attractive, so thank heaven for the option!)

Quality like the Experience Hendrix, Robot, Darkfire and Reverse V?

_________________

As far as guitars are concerned, objectively Gibson is the biggest innovator and has the broadest line of superb products. I like my Fender a lot, but Fender only sells basically two guitars that really matter. Everything else is variation for marketing purposes, collaboration with other companies (like Roland), and a few oddball models. That's not a bad thing. Fenders products are excellent and they do a great job with them, and sell them for reasonable prices when you consider the quality and performance you get.

I don't agree with that. Quality is worth it.

_________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

Gibsons are expensive, but I believe that some are worth it. I have one, the ES335, and it was definitely worth it. It's incredibly good sounding and incredibly versatile.

Let us see a picture of it. I love the ES335! Please.

I dont see a quality that matches their prices however.

_________________

Not that I no much about guitars but I sure do see reason for prices.. The additional time and work needed for a quality set neck guitar. Plus they are Plek setup so not many could get away bad!!!!

_________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

Nope... like the Les Paul, SG,
Flying V, Explorer, ES335 & thier
Hummingbird & Dove acoustics.
Great, Classic guitars, one & all.

While i wholeheartedly agree that Gibsons
are way overpriced, there's no denying that
they make very high quality instruments.