Trilogy
New member
Re: 79' Sg
No, I understand what you're asking.
I'm not saying any one specific Gibson had any one specific problem, I'm merely stating that Gibsons from the '70s period have the reputation of being 'substandard.'
I would venture to say that quality control was not a priority and things like materials and/or craftsmanship were 'substandard.'
You and the other gentleman made the comment which I took to explicitly imply that -
'Gibsons from the '70s have no such rep. and that the quality of Gibson guitars from that period is no better or worse than previous or later guitars.'
Is that a fair representation?
By posting those quotes I was attempting to qualify my statement about '70s Gibsons not being as well made as earlier or later Gibsons. This is what I've heard, and my quotes furhter prove that my statement was neither "bad info" or a "meaningless statement." Others (such as a credible person who worked for Gibson) share the the same opinion.
I don't know if BL was fired from Gibson or what the story behind Fender in the early 80s is, but I posted a second quote from an independent source which also makes mention about '70s Gibsons.
Perhaps Bill Lawrence is bitter about (POSSIBLY, we don't know) being fired from Gibson and so he is making up this entirely fabricated story out of spite ...
But then how do you explain the other independent accounts echoing the statements of BL (and others) about the substandard quailty? Bill resigning from Gibson could not have caused the steep decline in sales, could it?
If you or anyone else has a Gibson from the '70s that is constructed of world class materials with impeccable craftsmanship then that's great!
But be that is it may, you can't deny the fact that this reputation does exist.
Deserved or not ... you be the judge.
The Golden Boy said:
No, I understand what you're asking.
I'm not saying any one specific Gibson had any one specific problem, I'm merely stating that Gibsons from the '70s period have the reputation of being 'substandard.'
I would venture to say that quality control was not a priority and things like materials and/or craftsmanship were 'substandard.'
You and the other gentleman made the comment which I took to explicitly imply that -
'Gibsons from the '70s have no such rep. and that the quality of Gibson guitars from that period is no better or worse than previous or later guitars.'
Is that a fair representation?
By posting those quotes I was attempting to qualify my statement about '70s Gibsons not being as well made as earlier or later Gibsons. This is what I've heard, and my quotes furhter prove that my statement was neither "bad info" or a "meaningless statement." Others (such as a credible person who worked for Gibson) share the the same opinion.
I don't know if BL was fired from Gibson or what the story behind Fender in the early 80s is, but I posted a second quote from an independent source which also makes mention about '70s Gibsons.
Perhaps Bill Lawrence is bitter about (POSSIBLY, we don't know) being fired from Gibson and so he is making up this entirely fabricated story out of spite ...
But then how do you explain the other independent accounts echoing the statements of BL (and others) about the substandard quailty? Bill resigning from Gibson could not have caused the steep decline in sales, could it?
If you or anyone else has a Gibson from the '70s that is constructed of world class materials with impeccable craftsmanship then that's great!
But be that is it may, you can't deny the fact that this reputation does exist.
Deserved or not ... you be the judge.