Gibson may be able to leverage 2-3k per instrument out of Les Paul's legacy once they get their heads back on straight, but that's a custom shop price for a bass, and for that much money, the basses they have turned out recently don't even begin to justify that kind of investment. The 2015 Thunderbird I tried, tonal irregularities of the EB pickups aside, was a trash instrument with uneven, misshapen body wings of varying thickness, flaking finish and terrible neckdive, even for a T-Bird, and the retail price for that: $2600. With almost any other manufacturer, that price point is for a premium instrument.
Gibson may be able to put that pricetag on a Les Paul guitar and sell thousands regardless of quality issues so long as they don't do something stupid like make robo-tuners mandatory or alter the iconic headstock signature, which of course, they did. Bassists needs basses that can be played without falling apart and if I'm plunking down what amounts to a decent used car, I want a quality instrument that is completely different from the ocean of Fender clones out there. Gibson has a huge innovative history to draw from, but they have consistently demonstrated that the bottom line trumps ALL other considerations, a penny-wise/pound foolish notion for a brand trying to position itself as a "lifestyle" refined above other makes. Harley Davidson can sell non-working Harleys to middle aged doctors and professionals with too much disposable income, but basses are rarely bought as wall decoration; they have to work as basses and Gibson's current offerings don't. Their own Memphis instruments showcase that people WILL pay for quality, but Henry can't seem to bring that same mindset east.
