Anyone Know Why Taylor's Cost So Much?

[Nomad]

The fact of the matter is that producing a guitar in a country like China is less expensive than producing a product in El Cajon or Bozeman or Nazareth.

A Mahogany Eastman is every bit as much a Mahogany guitar as a D-18 or a GS5. Spruce? They all get their Spruce from the same place, more or less, and everyone's pretty much buying Ebony from Bob Taylor now, so that negates that.

American workers, though, won't work for $8.00 a day like some in China will, and that raises the price of the product. We have workplace requirements and insurance and a litany of other things which raise the price of a guitar. I'm not saying any of that's a negative thing, but they're things that drive up the cost while having absolutely nothing to do with the actual instrument.

Also, the assumption that American-made instruments are "better" because Americans make them is questionable. Eastman is putting out some great instruments right now. Lag and Guild are, too. But because the perception that an American made guitar is better, for no other reason than it's American made, the Chinese brands don't command the same prices. Their quality, though, is great.

[Herb Hunter]

My personal preference is to buy American products unless I can't afford them or they are not as good as the equivalent import. The American guitars I own are better to my ears and hands than any of the imported ones I have tried some of which were as costly as the American-made ones I chose. I am fortunate that I was able to afford them.

[Nomad]

My personal preference is to buy American products unless I can't afford them or they are not as good as the equivalent import. The American guitars I own are better to my ears and hands than any of the imported ones I have tried some of which were as costly as the American-made ones I chose. I am fortunate that I was able to afford them.

We're not actually discussing the preference for one over the other, but rather why one is so (relatively, anyway) expensive.

[Herb Hunter]

My personal preference is to buy American products unless I can't afford them or they are not as good as the equivalent import. The American guitars I own are better to my ears and hands than any of the imported ones I have tried some of which were as costly as the American-made ones I chose. I am fortunate that I was able to afford them.

We're not actually discussing the preference for one over the other, but rather why one is so (relatively, anyway) expensive.

I wonder why you took the time to post the above, why you thought it was necessary. The title of this thread is clear enough but as a result of reading your previous post, I felt the desire to make an incidental comment, a  practice that is not uncommon in informal discussions such as this one.

[Nomad]

I wonder why you took the time to post the above, why you thought it was necessary.

Well, permit me to explain:

The title of the thread is "Anyone Know Why Taylor's Cost So Much?"

Given the title of the thread, and then reading your post, it could give the impression that "preference" is a reason why they're as expensive as they are, and that's just not the case. "Preference" speaks to your willingness to pay the prices being asked, that's all.

The title of this thread is clear enough but as a result of reading your previous post, I felt the desire to make an incidental comment, a  practice that is not uncommon in informal discussions such as this one. [/size]

And, as a result of reading your post, I felt the desire to make an incidental comment, a practice that is not uncommon in informal discussions such as this.

We good?

[IanHenry]

Chaps, lets calm down, it's not worth getting stressed about!

Regards,
        Ian. 

[Nomad]

Chaps, lets calm down, it's not worth getting stressed about!

Regards,
        Ian. 

I don't get stressed.

There's no money in it.

[DaleDunphy]

An answer to the question as to why Taylor guitars are so expensive has several aspects worth considering.

I don't think Taylor, as a quality manufacturer, is gouging its customers with highly inflated prices. We love them for their consistency, beauty, tone, playability, longevity and other aspects of quality.  These quality attributes all cost money to introduce and maintain. Stories of outstanding support for owners experiencing difficulties are numerous.

For illustration, let's say that Taylor cut their prices in half and further, let's say that this move leads to them selling twice as many guitars worldwide. On the surface, this might yield roughly the same amount of revenue to Taylor.

Such a move, however,  could prove disastrous to the company's finances in terms of increased distribution costs, increased costs to maintain production volume and production quality, increased support costs etc. etc. The burden of providing the expected high quality support for a guitar worth $500 as opposed to $1,000 would likely be unsustainable.

High quality support costs money and a continuing investment in people, technology, and continuous improvements in customer service. I imagine the company has statistics that imply that support costs, let's say 3% of the cost of each guitar. That equates to $30 on a $1,000 guitar.  If a guitar costs $500, then Taylor can only afford to spend $15 on its lifetime support. A long distance phone call could cost that much.

So, I am happy to invest the going rate for a Taylor knowing that their years of innovation and consistent quality standards will provide me with a guitar I can trust to retain a good deal of its value and be a pleasure to own and play for many years.

I don't care so much where a guitar is made provided Taylor's production and quality control standards are adhered to.
 

[Nomad]

Consider bottled water for a moment.

How many companies tout their product as being something along the lines of "100% pure mountain spring water", or something similarly idyllic?

Well, here's the thing, if you're starting with pure water, there's no way to make it "more" pure. It's water. Period.

Now, go price a bottle of Evian, and then go price a bottle of Sparkletts.

Both contain, well, water. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet the Evian costs three times as much for a 1.5 litre bottle.

I've got news for you: You're not paying three times as much because the water's better. You're paying three times as much for marketing, advertising, operating overhead, etc.

None of that has anything to do with the value of the water, just as a high price does not necessarily reflect only the value of an instrument.

When you buy a Taylor (or Martin or Guild or Gibson or what have you), a lot of the money you're paying isn't going to address the intrinsic value of the guitar, but to ancillary costs wholly unrelated to the guitar itself.

People buy into the marketing. People are paying for the very marketing that's convincing them to buy a guitar. With regards to the marketing aspect, it's self-sustaining. Company A tells us Product X is good, so we all run out and buy Product X, thereby generating more cash for the Marketing Department of Company A so, when Company A introduces Product Z, they can have money to spend on marketing and advertising to tell us how good Product Z is, so we'll go out and buy that.

Eastman is putting out some very nice guitars right now. They're building guitars which, if you covered the headstock, you'd mistake for Martin, Taylor or Gibson. They look like them, feel like them and sound like them. Well, Martin, Taylor and Gibson should take note, because Eastman is doing it just as well, and for a fraction of the cost.

The "big three" lean heavily on the fact that they're "American made". It's impossible to quantify that, though. Yes, there's a certain implied value in that, but I don't know that anyone's ever been able to place an actual dollar sign on it.

[dmccrider]

I know why... because they're awesome.

That said, I would echo the sentiments of the last poster on one point, and that is to concede Eastmans provide the best tone for the money but my more expensive Taylors are superior in every way except, arguably, value.

I think it's like most higher end products designed to do something very well, you pay an ever increasingly greater amount the closer you can get to perfection.

Taylors are generally not for the indiscriminate buyer

[Rebel Heart]

Eastman is putting out some very nice guitars right now. They're building guitars which, if you covered the headstock, you'd mistake for Martin, Taylor or Gibson. They look like them, feel like them and sound like them. Well, Martin, Taylor and Gibson should take note, because Eastman is doing it just as well, and for a fraction of the cost.

Have you ever played an Eastman? I presume you play Eastmans instead of Taylors then?

I have played Eastmans, I have played several. Their tone is nowhere near as good as my Taylors. Their flagship E10Ds and E20Ds are not as nice as Martin alternatives either with Adirondack tops. Even though they are cheaper, I would rather pay more money for a Martin than settle for an Eastman, if that was the sort of guitar I was looking for.

[Nomad]

Have you ever played an Eastman?

Yes.

Unlike some people, I don't form an opinion of a guitar without actually having played it.

I presume you play Eastmans instead of Taylors then?

Why would you presume that? Presuming that would be silly.

I play neither, but have played both.

If you'd like to stop jumping to conclusions and presuming things that simply aren't true, perhaps we can have a discussion. Let me know if that within your means.

[Nomad]

Have you ever played an Eastman?

Yes.

Unlike some people, I don't form an opinion of a guitar without actually having played it.

I presume you play Eastmans instead of Taylors then?

Why would you presume that? Presuming that would be silly.

I play neither, but have played both.

If you'd like to stop jumping to conclusions and presuming things that simply aren't true, perhaps we can have a discussion. Let me know if that within your means.

Given your sarcastic quip on that last sentence, I think it is safe to presume that you are not a nice person to have a discussion with and would rather not discuss this further with you.

I'm just wondering why it is you jumped to the incorrect conclusion that you did regarding what I play. Now one can only wonder why you're afraid to explain it.

You probably can't. Noted. You're wrong, and now you don't want to discuss it anymore. Got it.

You're a Taylor fan; I get that. We all are. But to dismiss Eastman the way you have is bad business, which is exactly whay companies like Taylor and Martin haven't dismissed them. They are well aware of the quality of Eastman. Your opinion that Eatmans don't measure up is negated by the fact that Taylor and Martin realize they do.

[soma89]

That`s not typical of a yammie...to make u think why the expensive guitars are worth so much. Yamaha`s are really great.

[bobdj73]

I looked at a Gibson and a Martin before I bought my Taylor Dn3.
Seemed like a great deal to me. Just liked the sound of Dn3 better too.
( I do own a Yamaha also )