The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

[ken361]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

My SG is one of the best guitars I ever had 2009 model, action was a tad high. There's a store by me, when they get a guitar in they set it up pretty good and check it out b4 hanging it up. They did tell me that had a $5000 gibby come with a finger print on it and it didnt come off,think they had to mark it down nicely. I been in manufacturing all my life and things dont always come out perfect. Its up to the QC or shipper or the guy signing off the guitars to be shipped. When you look at so many each day its like yeah that looks fine ship it! then the next day he's more awake but being more picky and doesnt pass it! see what i mean? it happens, certain eras they prb fired numb nuts for letting stuff pass through.

[jmh151]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I wouldn't say certain years are good. You will not find a period of years where Gibsons were PRS quality.

You will find years where they let absolutely abysmal out of they factory that should have been destroyed, and that's generally in the 70's. Sure they made some great guitars during that time, but more absolute dogs were let out of the factory than they are now. These days there's better quality control- not great, better, that reduces the number of absolute dogs leaving the factory. Because of this, you REALLY have to play a Gibson before you buy it.

1986 was when Gibson moved the factory from Kalamazoo Michigan to Nashville and Memphis Tennessee, and revamped quality control. The Gibsons from 1986 to present will therefore be better bets at getting a good guitar than a dog.

Mind you, if you buy used, factory problems like improperly cut nuts, bad frets, are likely to have been repaired by now by subsequent owners

[uOpt]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I wonder what "dog" means here.

The typical QC issues such as bad frets and bad electronics presumably don't matter after so many years. What's left is the wood. I don't think they used better wood in Tennessee.

And of course they started swiss-cheesing (and later chambering) them around the same time. Apparently that was their answer to the cheap Mahogany being too heavy. I'd take a Michigan piece over the early works of Juszkiewicz any time.

[whatshisname]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Its up to the QC or shipper or the guy signing off the guitars to be shipped. When you look at so many each day its like yeah that looks fine ship it! then the next day he's more awake but being more picky and doesnt pass it! see what i mean? it happens, certain eras they prb fired numb nuts for letting stuff pass through.

I used to work in the quality lab, at a plant that mainly manufactured circuit boards for the government. They were for everything from missiles, satellites, the space shuttle, brakes for Boeing airplanes... We were constantly at war with the supervisors, because we would want to scrap a job, and they would sign off on it, because they needed it to ship. Sometimes we were FORCED to make up numbers, so we could ship an order. We had our jobs on the line, and with families to support, we didn't have a choice. This happened on a daily basis. These are obviously things that could cost people there lives, if a board goes bad, or doesn't work at all.

As a matter of fact, we would even take the boards and put them in the scrap boxes. They would actually go into the scrap, and ship the boards anyway.

I lost that job, because there was a very large order that I was told HAD to ship, no matter what. There was no copper plating in the component holes which means that there was no way in hell these boards would work. I ended up telling my boss that if he wanted them to ship, HE was signing off on them. I didn't want ANYTHING to do with it. The next thing I know, the SOB handed the job to the courier with MY name as the lab tech on the paperwork. Three days later, the customer threw a fit, and I was unemployed.

I'm quite sure that Gibson's (as well as any company)quality department has done the exact same thing.

[Jeff_H]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I've bought 3 Les Pauls during my playing days....all of them from eBay and made from the mid 90's thru the mid 00's. Each one of them had their own issues, but each was a quality instrument. Did they each sound like God through my Marshall....no. But each and every one of them sounded better than my Epi LP did, not that it was a bad guitar either, just not a Gibson.

Each guitar needed a complete setup to play the way I wanted it to play. One needed a new nut, one just needed the nut slots adjusted because they were binding. They all needed the action and intonation set, and I always put Grover locking tuners on them, Tone Pro's locking ABR's and stop tails and Duncan pups. Some got new CTS pots if they had the original 300k Gibson pots in them and I usually put some higher grade caps in them in a value of my preference.

After making these changes each Les Paul played much better and sounded much better, to my ears. I regret selling my Honeyburst AA flame Standard and my Goldtop Standard. Both were guitars that I would have been happy with for the rest of my life.

I am not a bit afraid to buy a Les Paul or other quality guitar sight unseen, because I know I can make some setup and hardware changes that will make it sound better to me. If after that I still don't like it, I can sell it again and make back most of my money.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't be able to get the best sound possible out of a real 59' burst, even if I was given the opportunity to own one and neither would most players.....here or anywhere else. Most violinists would not be able to do justice to a Stradivarious either, even if they played professionally. Some instruments are meant for elite players with unique talent.

My advice is simple. Be patient and look for the instrument that is as close to what you want as you can find at a price you want to pay. If you can't play it first....buy it anyway. Change the nut, electronics, some hardware if you want to and get it set up exactly to your specs. My guess is you will love the guitar. If for some reason you don't, just sell it on eBay and start again.

[Warheart]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I wouldn't say certain years are good. You will not find a period of years where Gibsons were PRS quality.

You will find years where they let absolutely abysmal out of they factory that should have been destroyed, and that's generally in the 70's. Sure they made some great guitars during that time, but more absolute dogs were let out of the factory than they are now. These days there's better quality control- not great, better, that reduces the number of absolute dogs leaving the factory. Because of this, you REALLY have to play a Gibson before you buy it.

1986 was when Gibson moved the factory from Kalamazoo Michigan to Nashville and Memphis Tennessee, and revamped quality control. The Gibsons from 1986 to present will therefore be better bets at getting a good guitar than a dog.

Mind you, if you buy used, factory problems like improperly cut nuts, bad frets, are likely to have been repaired by now by subsequent owners

The typical QC issues such as bad frets and bad electronics presumably don't matter after so many years. What's left is the wood. I don't think they used better wood in Tennessee.

And of course they started swiss-cheesing (and later chambering) them around the same time. Apparently that was their answer to the cheap Mahogany being too heavy. I'd take a Michigan piece over the early works of Juszkiewicz any time.

To Aceman: This is what I'm talking about. We have one person who says that a Gibson made in Tennessee post 1986 is better than earlier.

On the other hand, we have another person who wouldn't want to touch those guitars that are post 1986.

The quality control of these years is being questioned here.

I don't want to buy an explorer from this era if there is a greater chance of it being a sub standard guitar.

The other reason I'm asking is because theres a LOT of differing models of Gibson Explorers in the 80's.

There are:
Gibson Explorer 1976-1982
Gibson Explorer II 1979-1983
Gibson Explorer CMT 1981-1984
Gibson Explorer Korina 1982-1984
Gibson Explorer 83 1983-1989
Gibson Heritage Series 1983-1984
Gibson Explorer III 1984-1985
Gibson Explorer 90 1989-1990
Gibson Explorer '76 Reissue 1990- ****

Some of these I could use, Some of these, I would not touch simply because of specs.

I'm not going to have a chance to play these guitars before I buy them. I'm trying to increase the chances of getting one that is going to be better rather than worse.

[Bass_Medic_05]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

All of my mid to late 90's and very early 2000's Gibson Les Pauls are some of the best ones I've ever played.

I agree, solid and great tone and feel!

[GuitarGuy503]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Assuming we are talking Gibson USA stuff the stuff from the 90's-04ish seems to have been good. It's seems things went downhill from 05-08ish (rough binding, finish flaws, etc). I believe 2009 to present has improved and Gibson has gotten back on track though. I have been a member of many forums over the years and this is what I've gathered in regards to Gibson USA Les Pauls. I've only personally owned a 2004 Standard and the binding and whatnot was perfect. The only reason I parted with the guitar was because I never really bonded with it as it had a very slim neck (was supposedly a 50's neck) and didn't sound quite right to my ears.

[GuitarGuy503]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

In terms of good years for good guitars overall I think every year probably has it's hits and misses and that theres no particular consistancy. Some people believe some years were better than others but imo unless you have worked for Gibson and have tested guitars comming off the assembly line for the last 20 years theres no way for anyone to really know what the holy grail year or years were.

[Aceman]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

In terms of good years for good guitars overall I think every year probably has it's hits and misses and that theres no particular consistancy. Some people believe some years were better than others but imo unless you have worked for Gibson and have tested guitars comming off the assembly line for the last 20 years theres no way for anyone to really know what the holy grail year or years were.

The real question is "What is the percentage of dead/average/good/grail guitars from year X"

Nobody knows - but I will say that there is a bunch in each of those categories, with few in the dead, and even less in the grail categories.

But they almost all be made to good with setup and pups that do what you want.

No doubt the let more "dead" out some years than others. But there just aren't any odds on these things. The ONE you get might be any. Without feeling/hearing first....good luck!

[ToneSage]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Plek machines be damned. The fact that Gibson no longer crafts their frets under the neck binding is indicative of the corners they cut. I played a PRS SE Santana ($800) and a 2015 Les Paul Standard ($2700) and the damn PRS played better, looked better and just felt more substantial all around. The electronics weren't as good as the Gibson, but strummed acoustically, it was obvious the PRS was more "open" or "airy." And $1900 leaves a lot of cash to buy and upgrade a few guitars. Having "Gibson" on the headstock isn't worth anywhere near what it once was.
Shame on Gibson!

[uOpt]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Plek machines be damned. The fact that Gibson no longer crafts their frets under the neck binding is indicative of the corners they cut. I played a PRS SE Santana ($800) and a 2015 Les Paul Standard ($2700) and the damn PRS played better, looked better and just felt more substantial all around. The electronics weren't as good as the Gibson, but strummed acoustically, it was obvious the PRS was more "open" or "airy." And $1900 leaves a lot of cash to buy and upgrade a few guitars. Having "Gibson" on the headstock isn't worth anywhere near what it once was.
Shame on Gibson!

Asian production PRS guitars always had better craftmanship than any Gibson after 1963 or somewhere.

The sound? Well the Gibson is full of holes, which wouldn't be too bad if they hadn't been randomly placed with intent to make it lighter, not better sounding.

[jmh151]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Plek machines be damned. The fact that Gibson no longer crafts their frets under the neck binding is indicative of the corners they cut. I played a PRS SE Santana ($800) and a 2015 Les Paul Standard ($2700) and the damn PRS played better, looked better and just felt more substantial all around. The electronics weren't as good as the Gibson, but strummed acoustically, it was obvious the PRS was more "open" or "airy." And $1900 leaves a lot of cash to buy and upgrade a few guitars. Having "Gibson" on the headstock isn't worth anywhere near what it once was.
Shame on Gibson!

Asian guitars almost always have softer frets and lower quality parts. I have Gibsons that are bone stock after 30 years and still very playable- can't say the same for any imports I've owned.

[Dave Locher]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Back to the original question: I can say for sure that mid-to-late '70s is a total crapshoot. I had a 1977 ES-335 that was beautiful, played well and sounded fantastic. It also had a neck twist because the three pieces of maple shifted after the neck was carved but BEFORE it was painted! And it was not a second or a blem. I considered it a great guitar and even liked the neck twist, but if someone were to pay a few grand on eBay for it nowadays they'd likely be pretty pissed.
I still own a 1977 Marauder that I bought dirt cheap in 1993 or so. The neck was like a baseball bat, the nut was cut for a narrower neck so the strings were too close together AND too far in from the sides, and the wiring was iffy and the pickguard had warped. However, the body is two slabs of mahogany, the neck is solid as a rock, and I modified or replaced every single part except the bridge & tailpiece. I knew what I was getting with both of those guitars but I would never buy a Gibson of that era without playing it first. Never.
Likewise, I played a new SG and Les Paul Special in a shop in 1996. The Special was great and I wish I'd bought it but the SG was horrible.
Those are the only two eras I have direct personal experience with.

[Rand-O-Monium]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

The other reason I'm asking is because theres a LOT of differing models of Gibson Explorers in the 80's.

There are:
Gibson Explorer 1976-1982
Gibson Explorer II 1979-1983
Gibson Explorer CMT 1981-1984
Gibson Explorer Korina 1982-1984
Gibson Explorer 83 1983-1989
Gibson Heritage Series 1983-1984
Gibson Explorer III 1984-1985
Gibson Explorer 90 1989-1990
Gibson Explorer '76 Reissue 1990- ****

Ever considered a Hamer?