Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
- Thread starter pushedcrayon1
- Start date
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
Me three. Its ALOT of money, but I feel like the guitar is THERE for that kind of cash when it comes to quality of wood, finish,hardware, etc. Everything is built like I could tour with it for a lifetime just like it is out of the case. I dropped down to 9s and thr high e nut slot needs a little work to raise it up, but thats my issue. Even the screws,truss rod cover,rings, and knobs on the thing feel like a million bucks.
Same with the USA Hamers I have owned. RIP.
Me three. Its ALOT of money, but I feel like the guitar is THERE for that kind of cash when it comes to quality of wood, finish,hardware, etc. Everything is built like I could tour with it for a lifetime just like it is out of the case. I dropped down to 9s and thr high e nut slot needs a little work to raise it up, but thats my issue. Even the screws,truss rod cover,rings, and knobs on the thing feel like a million bucks.
Same with the USA Hamers I have owned. RIP.
chadd
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
I've played dozens (possibly even into the hundreds) of Gibsons over the last few years and not seen the problems that I read about on the internet forums. The ones I've played in GCs are usually abused by people that have no intention of ever buying them (unless they hit the powerball), but I haven't seen glaring manufacturing problems on any of them. If anyone wants to complain about the way the prices went insane or the way they constantly switch specs, I'm right there with you. By and large, the stuff they are building now is as good as at any time in the last 50 years. I have owned (or still do own) Gibsons from each of those decades and played tons of others as well, I'm not just basing this off of one or two instruments.
I've played dozens (possibly even into the hundreds) of Gibsons over the last few years and not seen the problems that I read about on the internet forums. The ones I've played in GCs are usually abused by people that have no intention of ever buying them (unless they hit the powerball), but I haven't seen glaring manufacturing problems on any of them. If anyone wants to complain about the way the prices went insane or the way they constantly switch specs, I'm right there with you. By and large, the stuff they are building now is as good as at any time in the last 50 years. I have owned (or still do own) Gibsons from each of those decades and played tons of others as well, I'm not just basing this off of one or two instruments.
regan
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
I'm absolutely convinced these are superior instruments to 'real' LP's but (without being rude) but to me, compared to Gibson's they come a poor 2nd in the looks dept
I like the look of prs standard & santana models but no matter how much I'd like to own one I just can't get the single cuts to settle on the eye, the headstock, cutaway & the carve of the top just don't look right,& if I'm going to buy a LP part of it's cos she's a looker. Yes aesthetics I know, & beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.
If PRS did a more traditional take on a LP ,with their build quality,a headstock easier on the eye, 25" scale, flame maple binding & bird inlays at a comparable price point they'd probably put Gibson out of business.
I'm absolutely convinced these are superior instruments to 'real' LP's but (without being rude) but to me, compared to Gibson's they come a poor 2nd in the looks dept
I like the look of prs standard & santana models but no matter how much I'd like to own one I just can't get the single cuts to settle on the eye, the headstock, cutaway & the carve of the top just don't look right,& if I'm going to buy a LP part of it's cos she's a looker. Yes aesthetics I know, & beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.
If PRS did a more traditional take on a LP ,with their build quality,a headstock easier on the eye, 25" scale, flame maple binding & bird inlays at a comparable price point they'd probably put Gibson out of business.
Christopher Caruana
New member
regan
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
Hence the 245 I guess?
I though they may have been 24.75", the 25" prs I've played without doubt have to have the perfect scale length, short enough to be loose for bends but with just the hair's breadth needed to not get too crowded.
You can tell it was no accident that length was settled on
Hence the 245 I guess?
I though they may have been 24.75", the 25" prs I've played without doubt have to have the perfect scale length, short enough to be loose for bends but with just the hair's breadth needed to not get too crowded.
You can tell it was no accident that length was settled on
dystrust
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
I was at a guitar clinic with Paul about 10 years ago where he explained how he settled on scale length. He said that his first guitars were 24.5" scale because it was easier to calculate and place frets slots at that scale, but Fender players didn't care for them. He switched to 25" scale because he claimed it was equally easy to place the fret slots and it would be a happy medium between 24.75 and 25.5" scales. Also the SC250 is essentially the same as Jeff & Christopher's guitars, but 25" scale.
I was at a guitar clinic with Paul about 10 years ago where he explained how he settled on scale length. He said that his first guitars were 24.5" scale because it was easier to calculate and place frets slots at that scale, but Fender players didn't care for them. He switched to 25" scale because he claimed it was equally easy to place the fret slots and it would be a happy medium between 24.75 and 25.5" scales. Also the SC250 is essentially the same as Jeff & Christopher's guitars, but 25" scale.
JeffB
Let it B
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
They sound and play very different though. The (USA) SC250s were chambered, had the wrap around bridge, and phase II. tuners which were steel posts. Stiffer to play, clearer (annoyingly so, IMO), harder midrange, more low end focus.
That said, I love the feel of the 25" scale over anything else.
They sound and play very different though. The (USA) SC250s were chambered, had the wrap around bridge, and phase II. tuners which were steel posts. Stiffer to play, clearer (annoyingly so, IMO), harder midrange, more low end focus.
That said, I love the feel of the 25" scale over anything else.
regan
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
I'd take a custom 22 while not as pretty as a gibson I wouldn't say they're ugly.
What frustrates me is every two bit guitar maker in the world make a visual clone of a LP so why doesn't PRS just go out and make the best LP in the world & when gibson gets their panties in a twist all they have to do is pull out a cheap chinese burny & go 'what's yer fekin' problem?'
I'd take a custom 22 while not as pretty as a gibson I wouldn't say they're ugly.
What frustrates me is every two bit guitar maker in the world make a visual clone of a LP so why doesn't PRS just go out and make the best LP in the world & when gibson gets their panties in a twist all they have to do is pull out a cheap chinese burny & go 'what's yer fekin' problem?'
treyhaislip
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
I had two mid 2000's Gibson Les Paul Studios and didn't have any quality issues with either one of them. I feel that for the price the Studios are a great deal for a USA made guitar–binding and fancy tops are cool but not something I want to pay that much money for. While I miss the worn black Les Paul I had, I didn't care for the necks personally.
I have never bonded with a PRS, and sorry but that is one of the ugliest headstocks out there. I love their finishes though–especially their blues.
I've come to love Warmoth and Musikraft because you can get the neck profile, fretboard radius, desired wood material that I want personally. I wish they had a true Les Paul shape but its not the end of the world for me and my HH Strat gets the tone I would want out of a Les Paul style guitar.
I would say go with what feels best to you–PRS and Gibson don't do it for me but its not because of quality.
I had two mid 2000's Gibson Les Paul Studios and didn't have any quality issues with either one of them. I feel that for the price the Studios are a great deal for a USA made guitar–binding and fancy tops are cool but not something I want to pay that much money for. While I miss the worn black Les Paul I had, I didn't care for the necks personally.
I have never bonded with a PRS, and sorry but that is one of the ugliest headstocks out there. I love their finishes though–especially their blues.
I've come to love Warmoth and Musikraft because you can get the neck profile, fretboard radius, desired wood material that I want personally. I wish they had a true Les Paul shape but its not the end of the world for me and my HH Strat gets the tone I would want out of a Les Paul style guitar.
I would say go with what feels best to you–PRS and Gibson don't do it for me but its not because of quality.
KeeperOS
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
What frustrates me isn't so much Gibson but rather the people defending them and continue buying them.
Why SHOULDN'T Gibson stay the course when flak or no flak they keep building their instruments worse and worse, keep upping their prices and people still buy them?
They're a business and as long as their product sells and they can get away with cutting as many corners as they possibly can then why shouldn't they?
I see people (here too) saying that their guitars can be amazing, you just have to wade through a couple of dozens of dogs to find the diamond in the rough.
I'm sorry but that might have been acceptable for an Epi or a Squier, MAYBE an MiM Fender but in no way should it be acceptable for an MiA instrument.
I mean, how often have you heard anyone say "I visited my local guitar store and tried a Suhr Pro Series Modern that they had on their wall, man what a DOG!"?
And Suhr's "production" models cost about 2/3ds what a Gibson Standard does.
Y'know, a couple of days ago I received in my inbox an email from SD, asking me to fill out a questionnaire about their pedals and one of the questions was to the effect of "does it mean anything to you that a product is made in the USA?". I had to think long and hard but in the end I had to be honest and answered "not at all".
6 years ago, when I wanted to scratch my LP itch I looked at a dozen or so Michael Kellys that I literally took them out of their boxes and every single one of them was perfect.
Fit, finish, attention to detail. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And we are talking about MiK instruments that cost 1/10th what an LP Std costs.
But like I said, as long as people keep buying them, why shouldn't Gibson keep building them like they do?
What frustrates me isn't so much Gibson but rather the people defending them and continue buying them.
Why SHOULDN'T Gibson stay the course when flak or no flak they keep building their instruments worse and worse, keep upping their prices and people still buy them?
They're a business and as long as their product sells and they can get away with cutting as many corners as they possibly can then why shouldn't they?
I see people (here too) saying that their guitars can be amazing, you just have to wade through a couple of dozens of dogs to find the diamond in the rough.
I'm sorry but that might have been acceptable for an Epi or a Squier, MAYBE an MiM Fender but in no way should it be acceptable for an MiA instrument.
I mean, how often have you heard anyone say "I visited my local guitar store and tried a Suhr Pro Series Modern that they had on their wall, man what a DOG!"?
And Suhr's "production" models cost about 2/3ds what a Gibson Standard does.
Y'know, a couple of days ago I received in my inbox an email from SD, asking me to fill out a questionnaire about their pedals and one of the questions was to the effect of "does it mean anything to you that a product is made in the USA?". I had to think long and hard but in the end I had to be honest and answered "not at all".
6 years ago, when I wanted to scratch my LP itch I looked at a dozen or so Michael Kellys that I literally took them out of their boxes and every single one of them was perfect.
Fit, finish, attention to detail. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And we are talking about MiK instruments that cost 1/10th what an LP Std costs.
But like I said, as long as people keep buying them, why shouldn't Gibson keep building them like they do?
LazNovak
New member
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
A friend of mine bought a new ES175 several years ago (mid 2000's). One tuner wouldn't turn and had to be replaced, one PU ring was installed backwards, and it had no strap pins. Not what he expected with a $3,500 guitar.
A friend of mine bought a new ES175 several years ago (mid 2000's). One tuner wouldn't turn and had to be replaced, one PU ring was installed backwards, and it had no strap pins. Not what he expected with a $3,500 guitar.
KeeperOS
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
Of course there are model-wide corner cuts to hit a specific price-point but it is well above said price-point and mostly has to do with construction/configuration choices, like a simpler construction or cheaper hardware or electronics and not lack of quality.
Yep, mine is the now-discontinued Patriot Limited but every single MK I have played since then has been like mine, immaculate. Of course not all of them SOUND the same but all individual guitars of the same model always do PLAY the same, plus in all of them fit and finish is always perfect for that particular model.
Of course there are model-wide corner cuts to hit a specific price-point but it is well above said price-point and mostly has to do with construction/configuration choices, like a simpler construction or cheaper hardware or electronics and not lack of quality.
Which does beg the question: Why Did He Buy It?(™)
Last edited:
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
Mail order. He thought he could rely on Gibson quality.
Mail order. He thought he could rely on Gibson quality.
Myaccount876
Amira-Maker
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
You think today's Gibson sucks, so you vilify the people that spend their money how they want to? Way to go.
You think today's Gibson sucks, so you vilify the people that spend their money how they want to? Way to go.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
The tuners Gibson uses are often crap, for sure.
But a reversed neck pickup ring is absolutely correct for a vintage-style ES-175. In the old days, rather than order specialized rings, Gibson just reversed their existing pickup rings to better fit the dip in the top near the neck joint. Yes, it makes the pickup lean a little bit the wrong way...but if it was flipped like a normal ring, it would lean even worse the other way.
The guitar should have come with ONE strap button only: the one at the bottom/butt end of the guitar. Old 175's did not come with an upper strap button.
The tuners Gibson uses are often crap, for sure.
But a reversed neck pickup ring is absolutely correct for a vintage-style ES-175. In the old days, rather than order specialized rings, Gibson just reversed their existing pickup rings to better fit the dip in the top near the neck joint. Yes, it makes the pickup lean a little bit the wrong way...but if it was flipped like a normal ring, it would lean even worse the other way.
The guitar should have come with ONE strap button only: the one at the bottom/butt end of the guitar. Old 175's did not come with an upper strap button.
Last edited:
regan
New member
Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson
I don't think any consumers are being vilified.
The point is if any manufacturer can drop the quality of their product which in hand saves production costs & still sell said product at the same price in the same quantities, economics state that's the business model to follow.
I own & owned Gibsons & will cotinue to do so, if I can pick up a good deal in the used market. But the fact of the matter is the quality of Gibsons instruments hasn't been their selling point since the early 70's
Jimmy Page,Eric Clapton,Keith Richards,Robby Krieger,Joe Perry,BB king,Slash,Duane Allman,Randy Rhoads,Gary Moore,Peter Green, Mike Bloomfield etc have been THE selling point it's more lucrative than a golden egg laying goose & this isn't going to change any time soon,
I don't think any consumers are being vilified.
The point is if any manufacturer can drop the quality of their product which in hand saves production costs & still sell said product at the same price in the same quantities, economics state that's the business model to follow.
I own & owned Gibsons & will cotinue to do so, if I can pick up a good deal in the used market. But the fact of the matter is the quality of Gibsons instruments hasn't been their selling point since the early 70's
Jimmy Page,Eric Clapton,Keith Richards,Robby Krieger,Joe Perry,BB king,Slash,Duane Allman,Randy Rhoads,Gary Moore,Peter Green, Mike Bloomfield etc have been THE selling point it's more lucrative than a golden egg laying goose & this isn't going to change any time soon,
