do we think prices will come back down to some semblance of reality?

[Powdered Toast Man]

Still, for historical accuracy, there were student model guitars offered well before the '80s and less expensive than the Strats & Teles of the day.

Yeah, and that makes the Duosonic $1540 in todays money. Not a cheap guitar

$149 in 1956 was more than 2 weeks average wage in the USA ($63 per week)
According to google the average weekly wage in 2021 in the USA is $1003 so a $500 Squier is, what, 3 or 4 times cheaper than the old days?

I think we have a semantics disconnect. I was commenting on PTM's first paragraph in his post in regards to "Fender was NEVER a beginner or even an intermediate player's guitar." Leo Fender did indeed offer student-level guitars - the Music Master and the Duo-Sonic in the mid-1950's and then of course, the Mustang in '64. They were still less expensive than Strats and Teles. Maybe not as affordable as folks would have liked, but they existed and it's historical fact.

I do not disagree with anything he mentioned in the second paragraph.

So, just to point something out: Fender was NEVER a beginner or even an intermediate player's guitar. Back when they were new in the 1950's the option was either A) Tele or B) Strat. And both of them were $2000-$2400 guitars when adjusted for inflation. That's the same price range as the AmPro and American Original lines today.

Fender didn't offer any "discount" or lower tier options until the 1980's when they launched Squier and the Mexican plant/models. That means for the entire first 30-35 years of Fender being a thing, there were no middle class or cheaper options in their lineup.

Still, as was pointed out the STUDENT model in 1956 would be $1549 in today's dollars.

Say a Classic Vibe guitar is $499 today. It would have had to been offered for around $48 in 1956. Did Fender or Gibson offer anything in that price range in 1956?

The cost of the student model Musicmaster and Duosonic was basically the same as an American Pro2 in today's dollars. If anything Fender offers way more value per dollar today than they did in the 1950's.

Anyway, we're arguing over nothing. The takeaway should be that anyone thinking prices higher than they've ever been, well technically they're still more affordable than ever given historical comparisons.

[Larry Mal]

I'd say in 1956 the electric guitar had not yet exploded, by the time it did, in the 60's, Gibson and Fender responded with such things as the Gibson Kalamazoo line. Those probably would have been priced comparably with the Squier guitars now.

I checked into it, and a Gibson Melody Maker in the first year of production would have cost $99.50, or a little under a thousand dollars today.

That being said, though, Gibson dropped the 60's Kalamazoo line, and if it would have been more profitable they would have kept it up.

What changed, though, was that Gibson moved Epiphone to Japan in 1970, not coincidentally the year that the American made Kalamazoo line of guitars was ended.

Gibson had found, like Fender found later, that the variable that could most be controlled for profitability was the cost of labor, and that eliminating American workers in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere was the key to success (if you call that success).

[Surfysonic]

Still, as was pointed out the STUDENT model in 1956 would be $1549 in today's dollars.

Say a Classic Vibe guitar is $499 today. It would have had to been offered for around $48 in 1956. Did Fender or Gibson offer anything in that price range in 1956?

The cost of the student model Musicmaster and Duosonic was basically the same as an American Pro2 in today's dollars. If anything Fender offers way more value per dollar today than they did in the 1950's.

Anyway, we're arguing over nothing. The takeaway should be that anyone thinking prices higher than they've ever been, well technically they're still more affordable than ever given historical comparisons.

Once again, I never disputed the economic aspects.

The comment, "Fender was NEVER a beginner or even intermediate player's guitar" at it's face value, is historically/factually incorrect.

Instead, maybe "Fender NEVER provided an affordable player's guitar" would have been more apt for the economic conversation and I wouldn't have commented. I'm only concerned with mischaracterizing historical fact (unintentionally or otherwise). It's all about the context, I guess.

Again, simple semantics disconnect.

[Larry Mal]

I think it can be said that Fender, using American labor, and making guitars up to the standards of Fender guitars, priced student guitars at a high price point back in the 50's.

There were cheaper electric guitars back them, but remember that Fender had positioned themselves not as a cheap guitar maker but as a premium guitar maker, with designs that were forward thinking, innovative, and nothing you could get from anyone but Fender.

That's the fundamental difference between then and now, these days, using foreign labor, and with difference marques that indicate different quality, Fender has come to have an offering in every price point conceivable.

And this was not their business philosophy in the 50s and 60s.

[JSett]

This ^

Fender have done very well in making sure they have something for every budget. If a kid goes into a guitar shop with $300 in their excited hands there's a guitar they can sell them there and then. If the guitar is $350 then the kid isn't gonna wait and save more...they'll buy something else. So by Fender having a guitar on the rack at $300, $350, $400, $500, $600 etc etc then they cater to every budget that walks in the door.

It's very clever. Simple, but still clever.

It wouldn't bother me if they started at 500, jumped to 1000 then up in ever increasing chunks - but I'm not that restricted by budget. A lower-priced model, an intermediate model and then a pro-level model is probably the most efficient way to do it (plus the 'extravagant' CS option for the wealthy) but they would instantly lose a massive market share.

And complaining that lower models aren't up to scratch is silly really...if Fender made their lower models as good as the high end ones then where's the incentive to spend more?

[Larry Mal]

And complaining that lower models aren't up to scratch is silly really...if Fender made their lower models as good as the high end ones then where's the incentive to spend more?

Well, that's the thing, right? They do have a big problem with that.

I talked about how the MIM Jazz bass I had from the early 2000s was a piece of shit, using two of the same sized pickup. That's not an accident, Fender clearly has the Jazz bass template that laying around and if anything it was more work to make it poorly than well since they had to come up with a new routing template to make the guitar wrong.

At that point it was just a deliberate handicapping of the cheaper guitar.

Now they don't seem to care about that, and as has been said, the Mexican made "Standards" are every bit as good as the American made "Standards", that is, they are OK off the rack.

Clearly we've seen another shift with Fender where they have basically decided that their bread and butter is guitars made in Mexico and overseas. It would not surprise me at all if they shut American production down- as it is, what percentage of their guitars sales are made in the States at this point?

So with Squier, you do see not only guitars made to a lesser standard (still a radical improvement from back in the day) but you also see a different name on the headstock, and no matter what anyone says to themselves, that shit matters.

But the Fender lineup is a mess, and I really have no idea why they are bothering with American "Standard" guitars at this point at all, except for that it would look bad if they didn't. The Mexican factory is more than capable of making the Professional line, the Vintera is a couple of tweaks away from being as good as the AVRI, and so on.

[Larry Mal]

And anyway, to get to the question at hand: what you are seeing is the new reality as far as pricing goes. This is what shit costs now.

With Fender, they probably want to you just reconcile yourself to Mexican made guitars, if that's what your budget allows. That's how Fender will get prices down to "some semblance of reality". They've kicked up the quality of all their guitars over the last several years from Squier on up, and their expectation is that you will forget about where it was made and just buy the appropriate guitar that your budget allows for.

Inflation hit, and prices aren't going to come down, I can't imagine. But at the same time, the big guitar makers have great options for any budget now, your expectations just have to align with their products.

[øøøøøøø]

Say a Classic Vibe guitar is $499 today. It would have had to been offered for around $48 in 1956. Did Fender or Gibson offer anything in that price range in 1956?

Gibson had a guitar called the L-48 that was literally $48. It was made until 1957.

They also had the Kalamazoo and Recording King lines selling budget-friendly models from the early 1930s.

[JSett]

The deliberate handicapping is indecorous of them, but not unusual practice across a multitude of industries (not that that makes it right).

Making guitars in the USA is expensive....the cost of living is high and people need paying a higher living wage than elsewhere. I'd hate to see them abandon all USA manufacturing - maybe just keeping American Vintage Reissues and Custom Shops there as you're already catering to a more discerning and selective audience (and usually with more money to spend). Shutting it down might have a domino effect on their fanbase and reputation.

And their bread & butter is understandably going to be the plethora of options available in the lower end of their offerings as considerably more people have 300-800 to spend on a guitar than 2000-5000!

Gibson had a guitar called the L-48 that was literally $48. It was made until 1957.

Am I right in thinking that's an acoustic/archtop?

[øøøøøøø]

Gibson had a guitar called the L-48 that was literally $48. It was made until 1957.

Am I right in thinking that's an acoustic/archtop?

Yes, as were the overwhelming majority of all guitars made in the mid-1950s.

Solidbody electrics were bizarre specialty items until several years later.

It’s much more expensive to make an archtop than it is to make a Telecaster or even a Les Paul.

Which raises the more important point--economies of scale are entirely different now than they were in the 1950s and even the 1960s. That's one reason why attempting to draw parallels using historical data might mislead.

A Telecaster is a highly-mature technology with robust and varied supply chains.

Just because I can get an arduino or raspberry pi for 6 bucks today doesn't mean the same amount of computing power should've cost the inflation-adjusted equivalent in 1956, you know? The inflation calculator is fun, but this is just not a useful application of that data.

[JSett]

Of course, I'm just not that familiar with early Gibsons and their number designations.

[JSett]

So, it's worth noting then that Gibson started making budget-friendly, entry level guitars, after approximately 30 years of business?....pretty much how long it took Fender to do the same.

[øøøøøøø]

So, it's worth noting then that Gibson started making budget-friendly, entry level guitars, after approximately 30 years of business?....pretty much how long it took Fender to do the same.

Are there meaningful conclusions to be drawn from that, though?

Correlation ≠ causation, and all that

[JSett]

Are there meaningful conclusions to be drawn from that, though?

Correlation ≠ causation, and all that

Probably not it was just an observation. And likely just an utter coincidence.

[mackerelmint]

Fender's "student models" fit in the budget friendly entry level guitars category, no?