ExMachina

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
147
Reaction score
184
The dude can list the for whatever he wants, the market will decide if that price is fair. For me personally, hell no, it's not jimmy pages les Paul were talking about.
 

Cockandballs

SS.org Regular
Joined
Aug 28, 2021
Messages
159
Reaction score
124
The dude can list the for whatever he wants, the market will decide if that price is fair. For me personally, hell no, it's not jimmy pages les Paul were talking about.
Exactly! It’s a guy who produces amazing sounding records while copying SikTh riffs.
 

PiggySmallz

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
37
Reaction score
13
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Who cares what he lists them for. Even if they were what someone considers "market price" no one here would be buying them anyway lol. The guy is unloading some of his gear and whether you like him or not his prices don't affect your life in any way. I don't really give a hill of a shit about him so I looked at what he was selling and moved on. If he wants to use the funds to buy exotic cars and Rolex watches let him do it. We all get one opportunity on this planet - enjoy it how you want to. No one's opinion really matters in the long term, including mine.
 

Thaeon

Cosmic Question Asker
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
1,950
Location
San Antonio, TX
There’s not a guitar out there that could convince me to spend money like that on it when I could spend it on two or three new Onis. Sure, I’ll have to wait a while. But That’s okay.

The prices are crazy, but that’s every time someone does one of these celebrity sales on here. I’m sure Misha’s thinking on this is, “I don’t really want to sell this stuff, but if someone is willing to show me this kind of money for it, I’ll let it go.” It’s cash grabby. And feels exploitative. Most of his fans don’t make the kind of money you would need to justify some of these prices.
 

soul_lip_mike

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
1,911
Location
Reston, VA
Most of his fans don’t make the kind of money you would need to justify some of these prices.
Weird take, TBH. All sorts of upper middle class people play guitar and could love Periphery. I’ve gone to a few of their shows and you see everything from 40’s dads in polo shirts to greasy teens in baggy pants.
 

Thesius

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
362
Reaction score
549
Location
Canada
Pretty sure every listing has "Make an Offer" turned and he doesn't expect to get what he listed them for.
 

Kaura

matching headstock fetishist
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,098
Reaction score
2,264
Location
Vantaa, Finland
Really don't understand the point of bitching over a low five figure guitar when guitars go for millions all the time on auctions. And most of those guitars cost half of what the JP7 cost new for example.
 
Last edited:

Thaeon

Cosmic Question Asker
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
1,950
Location
San Antonio, TX
Weird take, TBH. All sorts of upper middle class people play guitar and could love Periphery. I’ve gone to a few of their shows and you see everything from 40’s dads in polo shirts to greasy teens in baggy pants.

Who the hell is he exploiting? :scratch: If somebody has the disposable income to buy a rockstar's guitar they can, otherwise they won't.

Addressing both:

Yes plenty of people at all income levels enjoy Periphery. But they don’t sell millions of albums so the fan base isn’t as large as this one member’s income would suggest. He’s got as much as he’s got by making smart business decisions. Those are his words. Not mine. I find exorbitant pricing to be exploitative regardless of whether or not someone else is willing to pay. Who owned the instrument, the songs written on it, and the albums it was featured on don’t inherently increase its intrinsic value as an instrument. They’re still just guitars in the end. They aren’t old or out of production. I’m not faulting Misha for it. This is how capitalism works. Exploitation for profit. He’s playing the capitalism game really well. There ARE people who will be willing to pay for this stuff. My opinion is that it’s ridiculous whether it’s Clapton or a barely scraping by band. 1 million for a strat is stupid. Just like 15k for a Jackson is. But it’s absolutely a cash grab. And you know that it was likely instigated by Reverb themselves who looks at these influential players and see dollar signs. And part of my position is that I’m vehemently anti-capitalism. So absolutely take everything I say with a grain of salt. My worldview may be directly in opposition to your’s. I’m not here to change anyone’s mind.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
13,091
Reaction score
21,799
Location
Tokyo
Addressing both:

Yes plenty of people at all income levels enjoy Periphery. But they don’t sell millions of albums so the fan base isn’t as large as this one member’s income would suggest. He’s got as much as he’s got by making smart business decisions. Those are his words. Not mine. I find exorbitant pricing to be exploitative regardless of whether or not someone else is willing to pay. Who owned the instrument, the songs written on it, and the albums it was featured on don’t inherently increase its intrinsic value as an instrument. They’re still just guitars in the end. They aren’t old or out of production. I’m not faulting Misha for it. This is how capitalism works. Exploitation for profit. He’s playing the capitalism game really well. There ARE people who will be willing to pay for this stuff. My opinion is that it’s ridiculous whether it’s Clapton or a barely scraping by band. 1 million for a strat is stupid. Just like 15k for a Jackson is. But it’s absolutely a cash grab. And you know that it was likely instigated by Reverb themselves who looks at these influential players and see dollar signs. And part of my position is that I’m vehemently anti-capitalism. So absolutely take everything I say with a grain of salt. My worldview may be directly in opposition to your’s. I’m not here to change anyone’s mind.

It's hard to follow the capitalism logic here. You cross a dessert and find a well. Knowing you're near death, the well owner charges you $10k for one drink from the well. Of course that's exploitive, to capture limited resources and then take an exorbitant fee for it when someone needs it. However, these are resources whose value comes purely from Misha. If he didn't own it, the JP7 is just another JP7. Its additional value is only in that it was used on some Periphery albums, which is value only Misha could have given it. It's not like he bought up all the JPs and is now trying to extort potential buyers to pay some massive price hike.

I mean, I'm generally anti-capitalism too but hard to fault a guy for charging more for a guitar just because he owned it, to people who value him having owned it. But at the end of the day when I sell a guitar I want as much money as possible from it.
 

Thesius

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
362
Reaction score
549
Location
Canada
Addressing both:

Yes plenty of people at all income levels enjoy Periphery. But they don’t sell millions of albums so the fan base isn’t as large as this one member’s income would suggest. He’s got as much as he’s got by making smart business decisions. Those are his words. Not mine. I find exorbitant pricing to be exploitative regardless of whether or not someone else is willing to pay. Who owned the instrument, the songs written on it, and the albums it was featured on don’t inherently increase its intrinsic value as an instrument. They’re still just guitars in the end. They aren’t old or out of production. I’m not faulting Misha for it. This is how capitalism works. Exploitation for profit. He’s playing the capitalism game really well. There ARE people who will be willing to pay for this stuff. My opinion is that it’s ridiculous whether it’s Clapton or a barely scraping by band. 1 million for a strat is stupid. Just like 15k for a Jackson is. But it’s absolutely a cash grab. And you know that it was likely instigated by Reverb themselves who looks at these influential players and see dollar signs. And part of my position is that I’m vehemently anti-capitalism. So absolutely take everything I say with a grain of salt. My worldview may be directly in opposition to your’s. I’m not here to change anyone’s mind.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around how a dude selling a few guitars he's sentimental to is exploitave.
 

Andromalia

Pardon my french
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
8,502
Reaction score
2,796
Location
Le Mans, France
Yeah. To be clear, I'm not saying any sane person should consider paying these prices.
Some people have more money than sense, but they have a looooooooooooot of money so it doesn't mean they are stupid either. You do have people for whom 12K is one hour of revenue, who won't care being milked.
 

Sermo Lupi

SS.org Regular
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
991
Reaction score
878
Location
UK
Some people have more money than sense, but they have a looooooooooooot of money so it doesn't mean they are stupid either. You do have people for whom 12K is one hour of revenue, who won't care being milked.

Just so we're clear, you're saying the demographic of Periphery fans interested in buying these guitars make $25M per year? Where do I sign up for my paid internship?
 

getowned7474

Neck_Pro
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
346
Reaction score
241
Location
Tampa, FL
Yeah I'm in the camp of let him sell for whatever the hell he wants to. Noone is owned a luxury instrument owned by a fairly notable musician (in this community at least). Whether you think he's taking advantage of hype or that's the price he's willing to part with these instruments is sort of irrelevant imo.

If we are talking about overcharging food staples, water, medication, insulin... then that's a whole other story...
 

Thaeon

Cosmic Question Asker
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
1,950
Location
San Antonio, TX
It's hard to follow the capitalism logic here. You cross a dessert and find a well. Knowing you're near death, the well owner charges you $10k for one drink from the well. Of course that's exploitive, to capture limited resources and then take an exorbitant fee for it when someone needs it. However, these are resources whose value comes purely from Misha. If he didn't own it, the JP7 is just another JP7. Its additional value is only in that it was used on some Periphery albums, which is value only Misha could have given it. It's not like he bought up all the JPs and is now trying to extort potential buyers to pay some massive price hike.

I mean, I'm generally anti-capitalism too but hard to fault a guy for charging more for a guitar just because he owned it, to people who value him having owned it. But at the end of the day when I sell a guitar I want as much money as possible from it.

I guess the issue for me comes down to the concept of profit. And how we valuate things. For me, a tool is a tool and a resource is a resource. Who owns it doesn’t add to its intrinsic value as a tool and sentimental value doesn’t factor in fair market value either. I understand that the ownership of said musician conceptually confers rarity to the instrument. But it doesn’t do it’s job better because of that. And I don’t care how much it’s worth to him. It’s not worth more than market value in any real practical sense. I don’t like the concept of profit in general.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around how a dude selling a few guitars he's sentimental to is exploitave.

In economic theory, ‘exploitation’ is the word used when utilizing a resource to gain profit. I find the practice distasteful because by definition, you generally work out a deal that allows you to purchase a resource as below market value so that you can attempt to sell it for whatever you can above the cost of all the resources used to produce that item. In a competitive market, prices are driven down. Meaning the purchaser of the raw materials has to get better and better deals causing more and more hardship to the resource producer in order to maintain or widen profit margins. The resource producer has to keep their costs low to maintain business partnerships. With costs of resources going up or big businesses engineering non-renewable products to guarantee annual investments when a resource is naturally self renewing, say grain. Or wood even. By means of owning modified Genomes and such, we have a breakdown in the concept, as maintaining it under the expectation that we can continue to grow profits from it indefinitely is untenable. This is way off on a tangent, but it helps to explain my perspective on why I see this situation as a problem. I hate capitalism for a lot of reasons. This is one of the big ones. Even if the individual buying one of these guitars sees it as an equitable transaction, it isn’t one. Factors of authority or influence or celebrity made what would otherwise be a categorically poor decision into what looked like a good one. Knowing this, and intentionally floating an ‘opportunity’ out to invest at an inflated price is predatory business. If it were anything else in another industry and an industry heavyweight did the same thing most people would cry fowl. What about Zuckerberg’s year old laptop marked 300% above new price? Or Sniperwolf’s camera? People will still do it, sure. But it’s entirely irrational. It’s capitalizing on that irrationality that makes it exploitative. And to me…. Icky.
 

Thesius

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
362
Reaction score
549
Location
Canada
I guess the issue for me comes down to the concept of profit. And how we valuate things. For me, a tool is a tool and a resource is a resource. Who owns it doesn’t add to its intrinsic value as a tool and sentimental value doesn’t factor in fair market value either. I understand that the ownership of said musician conceptually confers rarity to the instrument. But it doesn’t do it’s job better because of that. And I don’t care how much it’s worth to him. It’s not worth more than market value in any real practical sense. I don’t like the concept of profit in general.



In economic theory, ‘exploitation’ is the word used when utilizing a resource to gain profit. I find the practice distasteful because by definition, you generally work out a deal that allows you to purchase a resource as below market value so that you can attempt to sell it for whatever you can above the cost of all the resources used to produce that item. In a competitive market, prices are driven down. Meaning the purchaser of the raw materials has to get better and better deals causing more and more hardship to the resource producer in order to maintain or widen profit margins. The resource producer has to keep their costs low to maintain business partnerships. With costs of resources going up or big businesses engineering non-renewable products to guarantee annual investments when a resource is naturally self renewing, say grain. Or wood even. By means of owning modified Genomes and such, we have a breakdown in the concept, as maintaining it under the expectation that we can continue to grow profits from it indefinitely is untenable. This is way off on a tangent, but it helps to explain my perspective on why I see this situation as a problem. I hate capitalism for a lot of reasons. This is one of the big ones. Even if the individual buying one of these guitars sees it as an equitable transaction, it isn’t one. Factors of authority or influence or celebrity made what would otherwise be a categorically poor decision into what looked like a good one. Knowing this, and intentionally floating an ‘opportunity’ out to invest at an inflated price is predatory business. If it were anything else in another industry and an industry heavyweight did the same thing most people would cry fowl. What about Zuckerberg’s year old laptop marked 300% above new price? Or Sniperwolf’s camera? People will still do it, sure. But it’s entirely irrational. It’s capitalizing on that irrationality that makes it exploitative. And to me…. Icky.
I'm not reading all that. Tldr it isn't exploitation.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
13,091
Reaction score
21,799
Location
Tokyo
Just so we're clear, you're saying the demographic of Periphery fans interested in buying these guitars make $25M per year? Where do I sign up for my paid internship?

Why didn't Misha just reach out to Jeff Bezos directly?
 


Top