Do these people not read the articles, or just have no ability to understand what they're reading? Or maybe it's just blind hatred of Gibson.
I think a lot of the blind hatred stems from a weird, oedipal desire to own Gibsons from people who can't afford them for whatever reason. I think the same applies to Rickenbacker instruments. Discuss Rickenbackers online for long enough and people will start suggesting Rickenbacker should start cheaper offshore production, and bring in a budget range. Or how Rickenbacker should reissue the 4005 and sell it for 4003 prices.
Yesterday some guy was whining on Facebook that Rickenbacker weren't manufacturing 4080 basses, and that RIC need to study supply and demand (big LOL). I pointed out that Paul W would build you a 4080 bass if you have the readies. Silence! People don't want answers, only reasons to complain about why they can't have the nice shiny thing tomorrow. Guitarists and bassists are good at imagining manufacturers have a moral obligation to make the instruments they want at a price they can afford.
As Dave points out, Gibson lost their shirt on the consumer electronics side of the business. They didn't go bankrupt because they had the audacity to charge more than $1000 for a guitar! Gibson brought out those weird 100-year Les Paul guitars with the hologram on the headstock, and my local Gibson retailer sold every last one of them. Gibson instruments clearly sell to somebody, if not noisy forum dwellers.
And finally, sit down with an inflation calculator and the 1959 Gibson catalog. Gibson prices are basically much the same as they were in 1959; guitarists are just generally too dim to realise this, and think that $265 in 1959 (the catalog price of a 'burst) is the same as $265 today. Probably the same people buy a $300 Chibson because it is "just as good", then spend $300 on pickups, $200 on components and hardware, $100 on a setup...
