Why are Fenders so much cheaper?

What makes fender so much cheaper then Gibson. Is it the woods, the design (bolt on neck compared to set necks? or is it that Gibson pay there builders more money?
Look an epiphone les paul (made in korea or china) is the same price as a fender standard telecaster (made in mexico)

Well, on the standard Fenders, you don't have flamed/quilted maple tops and stuff.

but that can't be the only reason i mean flame maple tops don't cost $2000-$3000 and the fender that have them aren't that much

Image, hype, promotion, a sense of the exclusive, these factors will dictate pricing... Correct me if I'm wrong, but was there not a point during the 1970s, maybe early 80s where Gibson and Fender were very close in price?

But certain Gibsons do require more work than others-- and a V is not an SG is not a LP. A Strat is a Strat, some just have different appointments.

There is a lot more to making a Les Paul vs a Fender Strat. A Les Paul is a thicker chunk of Mahogany, vs the flatter/thinner body of a Fender (ash/alder). Also, the maple cap has to be carved and shaped....no carving or shaping of a Strat. There is also binding on a Les Paul vs no binding on a Strat. Binding has to be put in place by hand, scraped by hand...ect. More labor. There is also binding on the neck.

Speaking of the neck, the peghead on a Gibson is angles at 17 degrees, which requries a seperate piece of wood to be fastened/joined. The neck also has to be set and glued. Fender's are a much simpler, straight piece of wood that simply fits into a routed pocket and bolts on. This allows more tolerance in the neck pocket...often on fenders there can be an 1/8 gap beteen the neck and the pocket wall. I had to shim 2 of the strat necks I owned to get the string allignment right. The tolerance on a Gibson neck pocket has to be much tighter since there is only the glue and the tightness of the pocket to hold it in place for life. Fender gets 4 bolts to hold it in place.

There are inlays on the fretboard that require more manual labor than the small dots on the Strat. Also consider the finish. Most LP's are a burst finish, which requires more painting passes, and more skilled painters. The finish is nitrocelluos on Gibsons, which requires more steps to polish and finish, more curing time, ect. Fenders get a poly coat....except for some of the custom shop jobs. Also, there are far more solid color fenders than sunburst finishes.

I've probably missed some area's, but essentially there is a ton more labor, and more raw material cost that go's into a Les Paul. We won't discuss the fact that I think for what they charge, they can do a better job of quality control...but you get the idea. More steps requiring more hand labor = higher labor cost= more cash out of our pockets to buy one.

PRS=CNC=Big $$$


Originally Posted by Jeff_HThere is a lot more to making a Les Paul vs a Fender Strat. A Les Paul is a thicker chunk of Mahogany, vs the flatter/thinner body of a Fender (ash/alder). Also, the maple cap has to be carved and shaped....no carving or shaping of a Strat. There is also binding on a Les Paul vs no binding on a Strat. Binding has to be put in place by hand, scraped by hand...ect. More labor. There is also binding on the neck.

Speaking of the neck, the peghead on a Gibson is angles at 17 degrees, which requries a seperate piece of wood to be fastened/joined. The neck also has to be set and glued. Fender's are a much simpler, straight piece of wood that simply fits into a routed pocket and bolts on. This allows more tolerance in the neck pocket...often on fenders there can be an 1/8 gap beteen the neck and the pocket wall. I had to shim 2 of the strat necks I owned to get the string allignment right. The tolerance on a Gibson neck pocket has to be much tighter since there is only the glue and the tightness of the pocket to hold it in place for life. Fender gets 4 bolts to hold it in place.

There are inlays on the fretboard that require more manual labor than the small dots on the Strat. Also consider the finish. Most LP's are a burst finish, which requires more painting passes, and more skilled painters. The finish is nitrocelluos on Gibsons, which requires more steps to polish and finish, more curing time, ect. Fenders get a poly coat....except for some of the custom shop jobs. Also, there are far more solid color fenders than sunburst finishes.

I've probably missed some area's, but essentially there is a ton more labor, and more raw material cost that go's into a Les Paul. We won't discuss the fact that I think for what they charge, they can do a better job of quality control...but you get the idea. More steps requiring more hand labor = higher labor cost= more cash out of our pockets to buy one.

1. Couldn't have said it better myself Jeff

Also keep in mind that an MIM Fender is more comparible to an Epiphone, price, quality, and buildwise. (I know that could be a big can of worms, but I don't want to get into a huge post about QC)


Originally Posted by Jeff_H
Speaking of the neck, the peghead on a Gibson is angles at 17 degrees, which requries a seperate piece of wood to be fastened/joined.

AFAIK,except for the 'wings' on the side of the headstock, Gibson necks are 1-piece from tenon to the tip of the headstock. the standard epis have scarf joints on the headstock but not on gibsons.

fenders dont cost as much because the tend to be more no frills int erms of their design. With a gibson you need binding, as mentioned by jeff is very tedious labour. even a high end vintage re issue strat would cost less than a standard line LP i believe (correct me if im wrong) Its all due to material and labour costs basically. Perosnally i think that holds an advantage and a disadvantage when you play fender. Overall though they are still top notch guitars!

Fenders are the Model Ts of guitars


Originally Posted by CurlyFenders are the Model Ts of guitars

quot;The Model T comes in any color you want, as long as it's black.quot; Henry Ford.


Originally Posted by Boston JoePRS=CNC=Big $$$

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Gibson doesn't shape trees in to guitars with just chisels ya know.

Yup Jeff nailed it...

Lots more wood (and more expensive mahogany...),lots more labor.


Originally Posted by DeadSkinSlayer3Also keep in mind that an MIM Fender is more comparible to an Epiphone, price, quality, and buildwise. (I know that could be a big can of worms, but I don't want to get into a huge post about QC)

Not really. MIM's are very high quality, probably a notch or two higher than Epi's. At one point, they were built with American made bodies and necks (not American Standard, but made here), and then assembled in Mexico. I don't know if that is still true today though.

That's as far as I'm going on this one....lol.


Originally Posted by TheArchitectWhat the hell does this have to do with anything? Gibson doesn't shape trees in to guitars with just chisels ya know.

True, Gibson does use some CNC routers and mills to cut the bodies and the rough neck shape but the necks are hand sanded to final shape and profile. That is why no two are exactly the same.

uh... haven't seen this mentioned yet. Gibsons have a set neck and after the neck is set, it costs a lot more to fix the guitar if something goes screwy in production. with Fender they can pop another neck on, end of story.


Originally Posted by TheArchitectWhat the hell does this have to do with anything? Gibson doesn't shape trees in to guitars with just chisels ya know.

No need to be angry, PRS is a fine company-- we're all players here... take a deep breath.

Some of the Gibsons are certainly cheaper to produce than others, but there are still some more time consuming features appointed to most of the Gibson line.

My point about marketing led to the PRS reference; some smaller manufactures do the same type of crafting and inlay as PRS but without the aid of machines; all done by hand at essentially the same price. Of course, Fender has been using CNC methods since the 1970s... And so has Peavey (are their woods any worse than those used by Fender or PRS?).

I may jest, but I mean no harm.

As a luthier myself, I can tell you that a Fender is ALOT easier to build than a Gibson. A Gibson LP is by far way more complex to build. Should there be a $1000 difference between the 2? Nope!!!! That is just Gibson cashing in on their name!!!!


Originally Posted by ErikHNot really. MIM's are very high quality, probably a notch or two higher than Epi's. At one point, they were built with American made bodies and necks (not American Standard, but made here), and then assembled in Mexico. I don't know if that is still true today though.

That's as far as I'm going on this one....lol.

MIM's are very good quality for the price and alot better quality that Epi's!!! I personally think there is not much difference between a MIA and a MIM! I think it is easy to make a MIM blow the doors off of an off the shelf MIA!!!