Re: 2016 Gibson
I think some people have unreasonable expectations expecting perfection in an imperfect world.
As do I. But I am not one of them. I have high expectations for a guitar company that has traditionally had high quality, and which banks on that old image to give themselves high-class status and high prices today, while turning out an inferior product. Perfection of every last detail on every last guitar is impossible. However, that is what should be striven for if you bill yourself as a high-end guitar company, with the prices to back it up.
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.
What thread were you reading, man! I panned the bass' build quality, then said it sounded "fine," and that I was trying to find a way to see past its flaws and just enjoy it. I still haven't made my final decision; I may yet return it. The ONLY reason I even want to try to enjoy it is because it is a good looking body style to me. However, this somehow gets turned into your above statement. I don't get it.
Additionally, you seem to think that my opinion is based on one recent experience. But I've had this opinion for over 10 years, and it just keeps growing as it is reinforced time and time again. I've explained how my opinions on modern-day Gibsons are not based on that bass, but on observation over a 25 year period, playing probably thousands of Gibson guitars, as well as my ownership of probably a dozen of various ages/periods over the years. The bass didn't form my opinion. It simply disappointed me that it matched my opinion in every way. Every now and then I will give Gibson the benefit of the doubt, when the price is good, hoping for something I can tolerate because it looks good. But I haven't paid full pop for a Gibson since 2001 or 2002. Not one single new Gibson I've played in 13-14 years has made me say, "Man; I have to have this thing. It's totally worth the price." I used to say that fairly often about their guitars. My 2001 Jr. was a $700 guitar, and it it built so much better than my 2004 Standard, which cost almost 3x as much. I had this Studio Plus from about the same time period, and it was a model Gibson in my eyes. It was so good that I bought it even though I thought it was ugly (wine red flame with gold hardware). I even had a low-end ES-333 that smoked any 335 I've seen in the past 10 years in terms of attention to detail by the builders. This is recent history, not some magical golden age 50 years ago.
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.
First, it's not "a fact." It's your highly generalized opinion. Secondly, tons of companies make great sounding instruments that also have a price point that matches their build quality. Thirdly, I don't think you are correct, as one of the biggest complaints about Gibsons is the tone of their stock pickups. Funny. I feel the opposite as you. The new Gibsons are the ones you want to put on the wall, because they look great from 10 feet away.
The truth of the matter is there is not a single guitar ever made that is perfect in every way. It doesn't exist.
I don't think it does either. But there is such a thing as maintaining very high quality of craftsmanship, and a maintaining a price that matches your quality.
Gibson just gets a bad rap for what, their price point and a few bad guitars put out there?
Uhm....no. They get a bad rap from a pretty low percentage of thinking and attentive people because of a absolute glut of mediocre guitars out there, priced as if they were built by magic Tennessean wood elves. They get a bad rap from this small percentage because over the past 10-12 years, their prices have gone through the roof, while their build quality has declined. They get a bad rap from these people because they have no pride in their work any more. They get a bad rap, again, only from a small percentage of us, for selling a high-end image, backed by only a mediocre product. This doesn't even get into the way they run their factory and treat their employees, or the whole wood debacle and their insane response to it!
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.
Fenders are priced to match their quality. Gibsons are not. That said, I totally disagree. I find Fenders far more consistently well built.
