What's Cheap?

[sambo]

I'd say much lower than 900.

I've played gutars, with my best objective head on, that cost over a thousand that were complete rubbish and under 300 that were great.

But as you say yourself personal preference is a huge part of how we identify guitars as "good", which makes even your "best objective head" irrelevant, no?

In other words, your second paragraph seems to cancel out your first.

[Kilby]

TBH 900 was chosen simply to allow for dealer markup, bit of figured wood (if that floats your boat) and some luxuries.

If a large scale mfgr can't manage that, then they ain't going to manage it at 1600 either. And indeed price is no guarentee of quality just the same as buying to a lower budget isnt a guarantee of cr@ppiness. It's always a case of buyer beware.

If I was buying a LP style guitar it's unlikely to be a Gibson, in the case of an SG then a faded model would be a potential purchase. Simply down to my perceived value of the instrument

However we almost all have our illogical love affairs, for some it's fancy tops, inlays, custom paint jobs or whatever. For some a AAAAA top is worth 10K I don't understand it but it's their choice

I actually think we are saying the same thing, but we are aimply haggling over price.

But as I said near the start, if you buy something cos it's cheap then it will usually work out a lot more expensive, cos the odds are that you will have wasted your money. Set a sensible budget at the start, don't increase the budget if you see a shiney thing and be wary of absolute bargins. Most of know this but seldom pull it off successfully :(

[MDV]

I'd say much lower than 900.

I've played gutars, with my best objective head on, that cost over a thousand that were complete rubbish and under 300 that were great.

But as you say yourself personal preference is a huge part of how we identify guitars as "good", which makes even your "best objective head" irrelevant, no?

In other words, your second paragraph seems to cancel out your first.

By 'objective' I meant 'within the realms of what I think is good and not' referenced against what the guitar is claimed to be for/supposed to do, and of course genuinely objective things like build quality.

So in this sense everyones 'objective head' is different, and it was teh wrong term, but the point was that it was ignoring price/hype/reputation/artist ascociation and so on. Just the guitar in your hands as you find it.

[dave_mc]

I don't think anyone's arguing that, the question is does the amount they're spending justify the cost of the end product?

depends on the company, i think.

i'd also like to agree with mark's excellent post on the previous page (especially about economics) :drink: ; i wasn't arguing with the fact that things were too dear- i was arguing with indy's point that no guitar should cost more than £200 (or something like that, anyway).

[MDV]

And cheers Dave and Mark!

[sambo]

By 'objective' I meant 'within the realms of what I think is good and not' referenced against what the guitar is claimed to be for/supposed to do, and of course genuinely objective things like build quality.

So in this sense everyones 'objective head' is different, and it was teh wrong term, but the point was that it was ignoring price/hype/reputation/artist ascociation and so on. Just the guitar in your hands as you find it.

Yeah I know where you're coming from, although I disagree slightly with a couple of the finer details. :)

[Kilby]

The £200 business is where it all started (and the reason I responded) but from there it broke.

[dave_mc]

And cheers Dave and Mark!

:drink: