Why doesn't the Volvo comparison fit? Like a bass it is a combination of tool and enjoyment. I drive a car to get from A to B, but I chose the 300 hp version because I enjoy the fun of good torque and the strongest hifi they offer because I like to listen music loud. I play bass because I need to emit low notes, but I could do that with any decent bass, I chose Gibson because they appeal to my underdog taste and have such variety. Yes, the bass is even more for fun, but in reality I wouldn't even need a car to go to work as public transportation would take me to Frankfurt within an unbeatable nine minutes. So the Volvo is sheer luxury.
The Bicentennials were just as far or possibly even more a step from the 60ies Birds than the 87 reissues were from the Bicentennials. A Slothead EB-0 is structurally and visually farther removed from a 63 EB-0 than an SG RI is. Changes in the past are all accepted here as symbols of an era, but if Gibson brings out a Junior today it has to look exactly like a 61 model. That is - with all due respect, my dear brethren -incoherent as it presupposes that changes today are bad, but changes back in the day weren't. Explain the difference to me or is nostalgia your one and only argument?
But my main point is: You could have played that new Junior on the Woodstock stage and no one would have pointed his finger at you and yelled "Oooops, non-period-correct bass, you must be from the future, off the stage with you!".