Here is the ultimate coda to this thread. That is to say, I have acquired an ES-335. Actually, I acquired it over a month ago. Now, different people have gotten different things from this particular thread. It has indirectly inspired the purchase of, I think, 4 separate ES-335's at this point. A lot of stuff has gone on here in this thread, not all of it pretty.
I'm going to focus on the original concept of this thread. The perspective belonging to me myself and I. Thus, for reference, here again is that first post in all it's typo laden, long-windedness.
seenoevil II wrote: ↑Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:34 am
In this thread I hope to explore the psychology at work when we lust for certain pieces of gear. In particular, relatively expensive pieces of gear that have abundant cheaper alternatives. I have used my own experiences with wanting a Gibson es-335 here, but you could easily substitute many other things. A real Klon Centaur, a vintage Fender. There are some expensive pieces of gear that genuinely give you more for your money. Nords are expensive but have high quality sounds, Martin acoustics do have an undeniable sonic quality that cheaper imitations often fall short of. That's not what I'm talking about here.
It's a long one. Buckle up.
I will always want a Gibson es-335. I always have, and likely always will. Bizarrely though, for the past ten years at least, I have also been completely opposed to the idea.
My first ever electric guitar was my Dad's Epiphone dot that I borrowed for over a year in high school. When he wanted it back, I took my savings to guitar center and bought an Epiphone Sheraton II. I didn't have the internet at home at that point, so the only thing that I knew about either guitar really was that they were Epiphone's discount version of the Gibson es-335.
The case against the Gibson es-335:
I already own one. I still have that Epiphone Sheraton II and it still plays great. It's been my most consistently well playing guitar. It looks 90% identical to an es-335. It has the same specifications, hardware compliment, body shape etc. etc. It truly is an Epiphone version of an es-335. Of course, the electronics aren't the same high quality you can expect on a Gibson. There are also some deliberate design differences with the maple neck, large ornate headstock, binding and inlays, and the mahogany center block as opposed to maple or spruce. But, I wake up everyday with the ability to play a guitar that is pragmatically indistinguishable from the 335.
They are very expensive... on purpose. The es-335 is so named because when it was released in the 1958, it cost $335, or about $3100 in 2020 dollars. That's a lot of money. I don't have access to Gibson's ledgers from back then, so I don't know what margins they were pulling in, but Gibson always positioned themselves as a premium brand. And frankly, putting the price right in the name of the product seems a touch... ostentatious?
In the 80's, Gibson was losing a lot of market share to Japanese lawsuit guitars specifically and shredder guitars more broadly. In response, they enacted a managerial and literal retooling that streamlined operations to the point were they could compete on price with cheaper imports. But they're sales plummeted. In a head to head competition with shredders, Hamers, and Ibanezes, the consumer saw no reason to choose Gibson.
Then they arbitrarily raised their prices for no reason other than that they could. They repositioned themselves as a premium brand. The consumer (without the benefit of the internet to clue them in to what was happening), thus viewed a Gibson as an expensive status symbol. A luxurious guitar that rendered the near identical Japanese offerings inferior by virtue of the fact that it was less obtainable. With the arbitrarily inflated price tag came the irrational belief that the instrument was manufactured to more exacting standards. A fact that is made more galling when you consider that...
Gibson's quality sucks. I've never owned a Gibson guitar for longer than a week. Part of the reason why is my first hand experiences trying them in stores. I've played an $1800 Explorer that had large nitro bubbles and runs right on its top. I've played a $3600 es-335 figured top whose binding looked like an ape with a piece of broken glass had scraped it- the figuring of that top was also diagonal and only covered the upper half of the body. I've played a $2500 satin finish 335 that had a giant sap void right in the top and whose bridge was bottomed out because the neck geometry was out of whack. Then there are the countless stories from others on the interwebs. In essence, you're paying an arbitrarily high price for an item that is slapped together without much care.
It's the exact opposite of value for money.
Gibson themselves suck as a company. This has been a popular topic in the guitar forumsphere o'er the past few years. There's the lawsuits against other manufacturers. There's the public and disgusting destruction of hundreds of Firebird x's simply to reduce their taxable inventory. There's the fact that they routinely destroy slightly blemished guitars rather than pay to correct the error, improve their QC, donate them then write them off, or sell them as seconds- all so they don't dilute their brand name in the market. That might not be so bad if these guitars weren't made of precious and dwindling timber stocks- which brings me to. They violate CITES and have their stocks seized. Their last CEO was likely a Trumper. They've molded themselves into a brand for chuds.
I'm vegan. I don't use stuff made by or out of animals. It's a pretty important part of my personal philosophical make up. I don't wear leather (shoes are really hard). Bone nuts are one thing. I can swap those out no problem. Hide glue on the other hand. Well, that's just sort of in there forever.
I don't really like es-335's O've the years since those high school days with my Sheraton, I've developed some preferences visa vie the guitar. I tend to prefer longer scale lengths for their increased string tension. I prefer chunkier necks to the typically thin ones on 335s. My hands don't like narrow nut widths. Humbuckers don't really appeal to me tonally. I don't use vibrato that often, but I like to know it's there. Naturally, this means I've gravitated towards different guitars, including, obviously, the Jazzmaster. My Jazzmaster is easily my most played electric.
And yet. Despite all of these very concrete reasons not to buy a Gibson es-335, I still want to. That's what I really want to explore with this thread. What are the psychological phenomena that overcome all of these rational conclusions? Here are some of my guesses.
"Authenticity" This massively cringey concept that the current equity ownership of Gibson has trotted out actually does cut to something real. My Epiphone Sheraton II is not a Gibson es-335. A 70's Greco or Takoi, or even an Orville with a open book headstock is not a Gibson. The differences are subtle. Epiphones have always looked slightly bloated compared to Gibsons. The lines aren't quite as sharp. Lawsuit guitars have always tweaked their designs ever so slightly to avoid direct counterfeiting. The f-holes aren't cut quite as crisply and they are positioned a little differently. The spacial relationships between the control pots and the bridge is just slightly different. Then of course, there are the headstocks.
There's no denying that the OG gibson design is utterly gorgeous. I'm sure they utilized various laws of symmetry and proportion to design a very visually appealing object. The result being that any none-Gibson archtop, thinline, semi hollow, double cut, twin humbucker guitar just looks... wrong.
Even more expensive boutique brands like Collins, despite being more expensive and higher quality, just look kinda off. If you play one these None-335's, then that's what you're advertising to the world. Your guitar is NOT a Gibson 335. It's one of the rules of rhetoric, denying the frame evokes the frame. To play a 335 style guitar that isn't a Gibson, even if it's objectively better, just makes everyone think of a Gibson.
I've caught myself doing this. I see real like, working musicians who make the objectively correct decision to buy an Eastman, or D'Angelica, or Yamaha SA something or other, and I have the thought, "you wish you had a 335." Incredible instruments that sound great, play well and cost over $1000, and they are still defined by which guitar they aren't.
Status Symbol, but not of wealth. Most of the musicians in the scenes I (used to) run in are probably little lefties like me. I'd assume that for most of us the notion of a flashy display of wealth kinda makes us nauseous. None of us wear Armoni, or expensive shoes. Our clothes are thrifted. Nobody rolled up in a BMW. Yet, there are Gibsons everywhere. We all know that Epiphone exists. So do dope ass lawsuit guitars, and every other more practical alternative to needlessly expensive Gibsons. And yet, we pay a month or more of rent for the privilege.
It's a status symbol. Not of wealth. But of validity. As aspiring musicians, to be seen an instrument priced and marketed to hobbyists would make us appear to be hobbyists and not aspiring professionals. Seeing a performer bust out a Gibson immediately communicates to the audience that they are somebody who takes this very seriously. That despite playing a warehouse show attended by 30 people on a Wednesday, that they are a valid musician. Maybe one that hasn't received recognition yet, but a real one all the same.
I deserve one, damnit. The way these last two points function for me is in the sensation that I deserve a 335. What a ridiculous notion. Plainly, nobody deserves anything in this world. You get what you get and what you can manage to take. Yet, I feel I "deserve" an instrument that I know is overpriced, that I no none 1%-er can ever honestly afford, that is functionally identical to a guitar I already have, will likely come with some shoddy quality issues, that I know isn't really to my taste as a player, heck, that I won't even feel safe bringing to the sketchy neighborhoods I gig in.
I don't merely desire it. I feel a musician who works as hard as I do on my music, that has been doing it as long as I have, who is over 30 years old, who still harbors ambition as an artist needs this instrument, despite its many flaws, in order to be legitimate.
It's the dumbest thing in the world, and yet I can't shake it.
Anyway. This is something that I thought about a lot over the years. I can't think of anywhere else in the world to discuss this topic (except maybe a Gibson forum, but this is the forum I frequent). Maybe it's interesting to you. It likely isn't though. I feel like I'm turning in a research paper that nobody asked for. But, yeah. What do you think?
So, a brief description of the guitar I purchased. It's a 2021 Sixties model with T-top humbuckers and vintage spec frets. It's in a deep wine red. Exactly like the Epiphone Dot I borrowed from my Dad all those years ago.
So let's look at this guitar through the prism of my "Case Against the ES-335"
"I Already Own One"- This is the headline really. And After playing it today and A/B-ing it with my 2005 Epihone Sheraton...I prefer the Sheraton. I was disappointed by this realization. It's honestly about how nice the Epiphone is and not really a dig at the Gibson. They are different is subtle ways. Subtle being the key word because they are really really similar. It's not just a sentimental thing either. The Epiphone has medium jumbo frets. And I prefer those to the smaller vintage spec ones on the Gibson. The Epi's poly finish grabs grime equally well to the Gibson's nitro finish, but the poly let's go of that grime much much easier. The T-tops are... superior? to the Epi dumbuckers. But also they aren't. It's hard to explain. The Gibson's are lower output. They have a lot more character. But functionally, they are humbuckers. Which, in terms of my rig and the EQ settings I use, means that they're basically the same as the epiphones. Except they're lower output and lacking a little mid content. Both are too too much and need scooping and shaping. But the Epi's are enough too much, if that makes sense.
But really, all of this is splitting hairs. Basically, there's no way in which the Gibson blows the Epiphone out of the water. They are so close to each other, that little preferences come into play, and the supposedly inferior subsidiary brand makes the guitar I more want to play.
"They Are Expensive... On Purpose" They sure are. I got a really good deal on mine. This model retailed for $3,300 new. I would never pay that much for this guitar. Repeat. I do not believe that the guitar I have in from of me, and have had for over a month, is worth the monetary value of its retail price. That may seem like a throw away statement. A hot take from a hot head. But it's actually a little profound. It connotes a lack of belief in a product. A lack of belief in marketing. A lack of confidence in a manufacturer to produce a quality product.
A lot of this point is bound up in the quality control seen on this guitar, which is the next bullet point. But even if all of those concerns were not present, holding, playing, beholding this guitar and reckoning it against the monetary value expressed in varying abstractions like, over 5 times the cost of the Epiphone, or, X amount of hours worked at my job, or X percent of the typical annual salary. It doesn't pass that test. It just isn't that special. Don't get me wrong. It's a very very nice guitar. It's ably made and performs well, but it commands a premium price, but it does not provide a premium experience.
That said. Part of my reason for buying this guitar was as an investment. Excuse me as my skin craws. I don't expect to make money on this guitar. I do expect to be able to sell it for the inflation adjusted price I paid for it basically indefinitely. Basically, I'm treating it as a Series I-Bond. A place to park a few grand that will stay stable(ish) for the a while at least, while also being a guitar I can play.
"Gibson's Quality Sucks" Well. Now, I own two Gibsons. What I'll say is that Gibson uses more premium techniques and materials than most import brands, including Epiphone. However, Gibson still employees human beings to manufacture their instruments, and those human beings, at least to my eye, show the same amount (if not a tiny bit less) care to their work as any wage-earning factory worker overseas. Shocker, I know. I'm not going to enumerate all this guitar's faults as I hope to sell it some day. But, there are a few. Nothing grave, but the kind of wrinkles you'd hope $3,300 would iron out. Those, plus a couple "whoopsies" that seem distinctly American. Like that shit wouldn't fly at a Korean factory. Like there are no Samsung products with these sorts of faults. They're minor and cosmetic (and possibly why the seller moved it on so cheaply), but they are head scratchers. That said. They're the kind of whoopsies
every single vintage guitar has. I think that's just a "charm" of American manufacturing.
Gibson Themselves Suck As A Company Yes. Yes, they do.
I'm Vegan So, I kinda goofed here because Gibson only uses hide glue on acoustics and super vintage spec custom shop stuff. Run of the mill stuff like this uses good ol' polyvinyl titebond type glue. And if this is really 60's spec, that nut is nylon.
I Don't Really Like Es-335's This point is going to be the deciding factor as to whether I keep this guitar. As rightfully it should be. It's tough though because the price complicates matters. At his price, an Es-335 is not a guitar you can just have around to round out your collection. Not a "real" one anyway, at least not for a prol like me. I like the concept of the model well enough to keep one around...for less than a grand. The form factor, the tone- it's a mood. Sometimes you want to be Marty McFly or Mark MulCahey or Ted Leo. Honestly, if I could only play one kinda of guitar ever again, I'd likely choose a es-335. But I don't have to, and right now I am absolutely vibing with my Firebird. Like holy shit. It's definitely a model that inspires a desire for guitar monogamy. It can do most things pretty well. Especially these T-Tops
Brief Aside: these T-Tops. They are something. I was expecting PAF tones. Don't get me wrong. They are similar. But there's a je ne sais quois to them. I was listening to "Loaded" by VU this week and it hit me that that album was recorded almost exclusively with contemporary es-335's. THere's a kind of weediness. A yokey clarity that those tracks have. This guitar nails it. The solo's from "Sweet Nuth'n" It's dead-on. Which is so weird because you just don't expect that album to be an all-hum bucker album.
So, that was the case against the ES-335. It did and did not conform to my preconceived arguments against owning it. I then explained the seemingly irrational motivations that made me want one anyway. Let's ee if actually owning a 335 met these expectations.
{b}Authenticity[/b] I don't know. Do I feel a validation because the name on the headstock is the same as the company that invented the original? No. Not really at all. In fact, I Kinda prefer the big paddle head stock of the Sheraton. I feel it offsets the big body size better in proportion than the gibson. Like, this guitar is from 2021. Everyone who worked on inventing the es-335 is dead. Ir isn't there grandsons making this guitar either. It's the exploited laborers of the third factory Gibson moved to in order to avoid organized labor. Let's be real.
Do I prefer the unmolested design? The silhouettes and contours of the original design? Yes. Full stop. They are superior. Everything else out there is a deliberate negative mutation.
Now for some confusing vanity. I prefer my Epiphone, but only while knowing I own the Gibson. Does that make sense?
Status Symbol I haven't gigged with this guitar yet. I kinda thought I get one and immediately start exclusively gigging with it because it was just so superior. But, honestly, it feels more like I'll accidentally scratch it more that I want to show off my cool new guitar. Also, I'm head over heels for my firebird right now and frankly a Firebird is way more distinct and cool than a 335.
But I thought it'd be this whole thing. I thought it would be so so so much nicer than any guitar I already had that it would be all I wanted to play. Like a professional tool for a professional musician kinda thing. Like a contractor with DeWalt tools instead of Harbor Freight. Or like how all key players rock Nords. But no. It doesn't give me that feeling. Don't get me wrong. It is in no way shape or form a defective guitar. It's really really nice. But, just not more nice than what I already have and like.
I Deserve One Damnit Just no. It Just didn't feel like this. It's just not really that much nicer than the rest of my gear. It's just a guitar. Just another guitar I now have. I don't well with pride or admiration while looking at it. Most remarkably and unexpectedly, I feel absolutely nothing. Nothing, then nervousness that I'll hurt it somehow.
So, there you go. I don't know if this is a let down per se. Maybe my views will shift. I can't stress enough that this is a really good guitar. It is not a lemon. It plays, sounds, looks GREAT! It's just that in an apples to apples duel to the death with a virtually identical guitar that I already own, it loses (not by much). Really this is just the umpteenth endorsement of a Peerless Sheraton II. They've been played by so many pros anyway.
I also concede that my preference by be a bit unique. That many if not most people would shoot out these two guitars and handly prefer the Gibson. It's better in quite a few ways.
I dont't know what to say to surmise. Which is appropriate because that's the overall sense that acquire this "grail" guitar has given me. This ultimate unattainable goal. This brass ring always out of reach, but now grasped. It's just chilling there like "hey, I'm a brass ring. What did you expect?"
If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't have any appointments.
