2016 Gibson

[JeffB]

Re: 2016 Gibson

If I want a Les Paul for $2800, ill buy a PRS SC245

As an owner of over 2 doz Les Pauls, and having owned several USA PRS, including this as my current #1...



I can say that while Paul has come much closer than the old models with the wraparound, there are still differences. The PRS has a more aggressive attack and midrange. It's a bit more like a Les Paul that's been hitting the gym. Which is why I bought it. I don't like Les Pauls with HO output pickups. And most Les Pauls are very tame and even tone-ed naturally. So this takes care of the extra snap, and does it with PAF level output pickups. It's more "focused" and not as loose.

That said, the SC245 and 57/08s, sounds more vintage to me than any other Les Paul I have had with PAF style pickups. I have played a few old 50s Pauls as well early 0s 335s, and SGs. I cut my teeth on 1954 ES125 (P90). It's like PRSH concocted some kind of vintage mojo juice and injected it into this model. It's very different from the previous USA singlecuts, including the original 245s. It sounds OLD, but plays like a demon.

/end tangent

 

[Christopher Caruana]

Re: 2016 Gibson

As an owner of over 2 doz Les Pauls, and having owned several USA PRS, including this as my current #1...
View attachment 66483


I can say that while Paul has come much closer than the old models with the wraparound, there are still differences. The PRS has a more aggressive attack and midrange. It's a bit more like a Les Paul that's been hitting the gym. Which is why I bought it. I don't like Les Pauls with HO output pickups. And most Les Pauls are very tame and even tone-ed naturally. So this takes care of the extra snap, and does it with PAF level output pickups. It's more "focused" and not as loose.

That said, the SC245 and 57/08s, sounds more vintage to me than any other Les Paul I have had with PAF style pickups. I have played a few old 50s Pauls as well early 0s 335s, and SGs. I cut my teeth on 1954 ES125 (P90). It's like PRSH concocted some kind of vintage mojo juice and injected it into this model. It's very different from the previous USA singlecuts, including the original 245s. It sounds OLD, but plays like a demon.

/end tangent

Not to mention the build quality and such are a million times better than anything Gibson puts out

 

[Shooter.556]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I saw a sneak peak yesterday. Gibson got away from that zero fret crap and went back to traditional. I like the new SG and the Explorer and Flying V. Mainly because I have enough Les Pauls and want of those..

 

[LedSabbath]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I am honestly gonna probably wait for the 2015 models to drop in price, grab an LP, and swap the autos for Grovers. The zero fret is an innovation I really like and I also prefer wider necks.

Also, why is their a $700 difference in the Studio Faded and Studio Gloss?

 

[TRex]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I am honestly gonna probably wait for the 2015 models to drop in price, grab an LP, and swap the autos for Grovers. The zero fret is an innovation I really like and I also prefer wider necks.

Also, why is their a $700 difference in the Studio Faded and Studio Gloss?

Honestly, it's probably a wood choice difference they arnt advertising.

 

[B2D]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I feel bad for some of the smaller/independent stores that are authorized Gibson resellers. These guys pay "licensing" fees to Gibson. They can't advertise their Gibson stock online. They have to buy X amount of certain kinds of stock and keep 'em on their shelves. And now they are stuck with the 2015 turkeys and no one will buy them, because they'll all wait for the 2016 models now.

This is PRECISELY what is happening to a local independent music shop that's a Gibson dealer. A colleague of mine is the GM and he's having to blow out the 2015's at cost to make room for the '16s.

 

[BloodRose]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I feel bad for some of the smaller/independent stores that are authorized Gibson resellers. These guys pay "licensing" fees to Gibson. They can't advertise their Gibson stock online. They have to buy X amount of certain kinds of stock and keep 'em on their shelves. And now they are stuck with the 2015 turkeys and no one will buy them, because they'll all wait for the 2016 models now. I wonder if Gibson also considered how much this is going to damage their dealer network...

Speaking from actual observation and not just trying to fling mud, it really does not seem they worry about the dealer networks too much.. Which really is sad. But Ive seen many dealers over the years stop carrying Gibsons due to factors like this. Raised costs, minimum order requirements, inability to advertise certain ways, things like this where the dealers have to eat costs. It's almost like they have gotten so vain, that the dealers have to suffer for the honor of being able to sell Gibson guitars... OR simply be big enough to eat the costs.. Again, my observations.

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: 2016 Gibson

Not to mention the build quality and such are a million times better than anything Gibson puts out

Most of the time I would say PRS his a higher build quality than some Gibsons but it is not a million times better at all. Not even close. Expecially if we are talking Gibson Custom Shop guitars. Gibson CS are some of the best guitars you can buy 9 times out of 10. This statement is just more internet Gibson bashing at best.

 

[Darg1911]

Re: 2016 Gibson

Honestly, it's probably a wood choice difference they arnt advertising.

Probably that and definitely the finish. I found some specs (not on the Gibson site) that state that the 2016 Studio's are modern weight relieved while the 2016 Studio Faded (and the Tributes) are chambered. If that is accurate, I assume they are using the denser, heavier mahogany on the cheaper faded studio's and tributes and lightening them up by chambering rather than using the lighter woods and modern or traditional weight relief. But I wouldn't swear on Gibson's reasoning. Whatever the case, I would definitely play them first because, personally, if I didn't want a chambered LP, I wouldn't buy a faded just because it's 700 bucks cheaper. Nothing wrong with a chambered LP if that's what you want. But if it isn't what you want, saving the money isn't going to make it so.

 

[GilmourD]

Re: 2016 Gibson

Probably that and definitely the finish. I found some specs (not on the Gibson site) that state that the 2016 Studio's are modern weight relieved while the 2016 Studio Faded (and the Tributes) are chambered. If that is accurate, I assume they are using the denser, heavier mahogany on the cheaper faded studio's and tributes and lightening them up by chambering rather than using the lighter woods and modern or traditional weight relief. But I wouldn't swear on Gibson's reasoning. Whatever the case, I would definitely play them first because, personally, if I didn't want a chambered LP, I wouldn't buy a faded just because it's 700 bucks cheaper. Nothing wrong with a chambered LP if that's what you want. But if it isn't what you want, saving the money isn't going to make it so.

Gibson's website has also had A LOT of mistaken specs on it in the past. It's because they copy and past and then slap on a model name without thinking about the connection.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I still think $2799 is too high to ask for a LP std.

It is, at the level of quality at which they are built. For that price, the thing had better be a god-damned work of perfection in craftsmanship. But for anyone who actually knows how to judge the quality of a crafted wooden object, let alone a tool like a guitar, it is obvious that not enough care is put into the making of these guitars any more to justify the high-end image of Gibson guitars. If they want to make mediocre guitars, it's really fine by me. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is with these mediocre guitars being billed as fine, high-quality instruments when they are not.

In ten years, the price of a Les Paul Standard has increased by 40%, while the wood quality has become more questionable, and the build quality has gone downhill. It seems like anyone they've had who is truly a good builder is either quit or fired due to crazy management, or in the custom shop, an environment which actually allows a builder to do his or her best work. Those remaining at the regular factory are not only not the highly skilled builders in the field, but they are treated so insanely by management and corporate bosses, that they probably aren't given the opportunity to turn out a consistently good product, even if they are technically capable of doing so. The company is simply too big for its britches, and keeps attempting to grow every year, when it cannot do so without sacrificing quality – a disease all too common in corporations. Grow, grow, grow, at ANY cost. That's great for the executives over any given decade-long period, but it completely tanks the company's reputation in the long term.

 

[Christopher Caruana]

Re: 2016 Gibson

Most of the time I would say PRS his a higher build quality than some Gibsons but it is not a million times better at all. Not even close. Expecially if we are talking Gibson Custom Shop guitars. Gibson CS are some of the best guitars you can buy 9 times out of 10. This statement is just more internet Gibson bashing at best.

If we are talking custom shop stuff, Ill take PRS private stock over anything gibson custom shop puts out, any day of the week. I promise you if you go into any store that carries both gibson and prs; take 5 gibsons and a 5 prs's off the shelves and you'll probably have to put 3 of the gibsons back because of some issue, but all 5 of the press's will play beautifully. Now of course every company has their bad batches, but yes, it is a fact that PRS's quality control is far superior to Gibson's. Its not internet bashing, its the truth

 

[Darg1911]

Re: 2016 Gibson

Gibson's website has also had A LOT of mistaken specs on it in the past. It's because they copy and past and then slap on a model name without thinking about the connection.

Yes, I've heard that. I would never rely solely on the listed specs/details on Gibson's site if I were looking for something specific. And I wouldn't go by a dealers listed specs alone because they may just be a copy and paste of the already inaccurate Gibson details/specs. Not to bash Gibson, but listing accurate details isn't brain surgery. They could, at least, post consistently accurate details. It's not too much to ask, I don't think.

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: 2016 Gibson

If we are talking custom shop stuff, Ill take PRS private stock over anything gibson custom shop puts out, any day of the week. I promise you if you go into any store that carries both gibson and prs; take 5 gibsons and a 5 prs's off the shelves and you'll probably have to put 3 of the gibsons back because of some issue, but all 5 of the press's will play beautifully. Now of course every company has their bad batches, but yes, it is a fact that PRS's quality control is far superior to Gibson's. Its not internet bashing, its the truth

I would almost believe you are sharing an unbiased opinion until you said you would take PRS private stock over Gibson custom shop any day of the week. Gibson's custom shop instruments are beautiful and are right on par with any private stock instrument out there and in some cases even better. That's the truth.

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: 2016 Gibson

It is, at the level of quality at which they are built. For that price, the thing had better be a god-damned work of perfection in craftsmanship. But for anyone who actually knows how to judge the quality of a crafted wooden object, let alone a tool like a guitar, it is obvious that not enough care is put into the making of these guitars any more to justify the high-end image of Gibson guitars. If they want to make mediocre guitars, it's really fine by me. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is with these mediocre guitars being billed as fine, high-quality instruments when they are not.

In ten years, the price of a Les Paul Standard has increased by 40%, while the wood quality has become more questionable, and the build quality has gone downhill. It seems like anyone they've had who is truly a good builder is either quit or fired due to crazy management, or in the custom shop, an environment which actually allows a builder to do his or her best work. Those remaining at the regular factory are not only not the highly skilled builders in the field, but they are treated so insanely by management and corporate bosses, that they probably aren't given the opportunity to turn out a consistently good product, even if they are technically capable of doing so. The company is simply too big for its britches, and keeps attempting to grow every year, when it cannot do so without sacrificing quality – a disease all too common in corporations. Grow, grow, grow, at ANY cost. That's great for the executives over any given decade-long period, but it completely tanks the company's reputation in the long term.

I think some people have unreasonable expectations expecting perfection in an imperfect world. Even you yourself, who purchased an open box Gibson bass had the option to return it but chose to keep it and put up with the cosmetic blemishes because the instrument sounds so good. At the end of the day Gibson makes great sounding instruments and that's a fact. If you are buying a guitar to play it, a Gibson is always a top choice. If you want something to hang on the wall then buy something else even though many Gibsons are gorgeous as well.

The truth of the matter is there is not a single guitar ever made that is perfect in every way. It doesn't exist. Gibson just gets a bad rap for what, their price point and a few bad guitars put out there? As if companies like PRS and Fender never put out a bad guitar. In fact, IME Fender had put out far more duds and bad QC guitars than any company I've ever seen and yet nobody ever bashes them. Neck pockets that don't line up, crooked pickguards, bad frets, gouges in the wood, bubbles in the finish on their necks, saddles that cut strings when brand new and the list could go on.

 

[astrozombie]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I'm interested in purchasing a Traditional model myself. I don't know which is the best year but I'm assuming that a 2016 model would suffice. I'd get the Custom 24 i've been dreaming of but I'm afraid I'll always wonder what having an actual Les Paul would be like.

 

[voggin]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I've always wondered, if a $2000 Gibson should be perfect, what would a $5000 Collings be? Perfecter?

Same with a $1200 Fender or a $2500 Suhr.

I don't know enough perhaps about US pricing, but in Canada a PRS is generally way more expensive than a Gibson USA. An SG is priced more in line with the PRS "S2" series. So saying a 4K PRS is better than a $1999 Gibson is not a particularly shocking observation, to me.

I own 3 Gibsons, so I might be accused of bias, but they sound great, play great and look pretty nice. I don't know what else I'm supposed to be looking for in a guitar. And I've never paid more than $1600 CDN (used) for them.

 

[GilmourD]

Re: 2016 Gibson

Yes, I've heard that. I would never rely solely on the listed specs/details on Gibson's site if I were looking for something specific. And I wouldn't go by a dealers listed specs alone because they may just be a copy and paste of the already inaccurate Gibson details/specs. Not to bash Gibson, but listing accurate details isn't brain surgery. They could, at least, post consistently accurate details. It's not too much to ask, I don't think.

I've owned Epiphones that I knew were different than the specs listed on the site from taking them apart. They just don't care.

 

[ian86]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I really wish they would kill that cheesy tuning devise attached to the back of the headstock

 

[Christopher Caruana]

Re: 2016 Gibson

I really wish they would kill that cheesy tuning devise attached to the back of the headstock

I think they got rid of the them for 2016