Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

[dystrust]

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?

+1 to pretty much all of that

I like Gibson guitars and own four of them, but the new prices they ask are just insane considering how sloppy the QC is. It's true that unplayable guitars are rare, but guitars without some sort of issue(s) are just about non existent. I understand that nut slots may bind if I put 10s on a guitar that shipped with 9s, but those same slots should NEVER BIND with the factory strings. They may exist, but I have yet to come across a Gibson that didn't need some sort of nut work. Their 'Gibson Deluxe' kluson style tuners are also horribly inconsistent. The set on my '07 ES-335 Fatneck are rock solid, while the set on my '07 SG Standard won't hold tune for s***. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

 

[Myaccount876]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

Your Honor, I rest my case

I've played a lot of Gibsons from the past few years that I'd gladly own at the asking price. Sue me.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

Cool. If you're happy then I'm happy for you

The real question however is, for that amount of money would you feel less, as much as, or more secure in getting one sight unseen as a Suhr or US PRS or even the typical Schecter Diamond, PRS SE or Michael Kelly?

I'm not even talking 2nd hand where you can talk to the seller, I am talking buying from an on-line store you have no way to contact and no knowledge of other than the fact that it is indeed original and the exact model, year and specs as advertised and that it will come in the exact same condition as it left the factory.

I don't even need an answer, just food for thought.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

So you guys would say that the PRS SC 245 is totally worth $3,000?

I would.

But... I wouldn't buy one because I wanted a Les Paul. I'd buy one because I wanted an SC245.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

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.

They did an SC250 before the SC245. Not sure why the change happened... probably because the people who're interested in a single cut style guitar wanted a shorter scale than 25". PRS says 24.5 is closer to vintage (24.56) than Gibson's current 24.75. Never measured one myself so I'll have to take his word for it.

The Tremonti is 25", but it's not a traditional take on an LP.

Beyond that, I suspect that PRS isn't interested in cloning a Les Paul, and I doubt he could put Gibson out of business. Gibson is several orders of magnitude bigger than PRS, with a roster of artists decades deep and a direct connection to many of the most iconic periods of rock history. PRS has nu-metal, Mark Tremonti, and a bunch of guys most people have never heard of. I hear PRS is pretty popular with new country, but even then they're usually in the hands of the sideman while the frontman has a more traditional Tele or an acoustic.

 

[regan]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

You're quite right, with Gibson's history & enviable list of formal & informal endorsers I don't see them going out of business soon.

I think for PRS to make a more faithful copy af the LP would be a backwards step for them as their reputation was built upon their own innovative 'new' instruments.

However if they did make a single cut with the visual aesthetics of a gibson & the quality of a prs, gibson may not be put out of business but they'd be in danger of becoming irrelevant

 

[some_dude]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

However if they did make a single cut with the visual aesthetics of a gibson & the quality of a prs, gibson may not be put out of business but they'd be in danger of becoming irrelevant

In many ways I think Gibson is between a rock and a hard place. They have little freedom to innovate and are stuck in a perpetual cycle of having to come up with ever more authentic ways to reproduce a 50's Gibson.

That said, I think Gibson is out of touch and constantly shoots themselves in the foot when they do attempt to anything innovate or unique. The entirety of 2015 being an obvious example, but other examples being the Firebird X, or their need to put stupid markings on unique models (brass knuckle inlay, red skull inlay, tattoo style heart around the Gibson logo on the headstock, etc). If they were to produce a 7 string Les Paul that looks exactly like a classic 6 string Les Paul they'd probably sell a few, but for some reason they felt the need to replace a tone knob with a second toggle switch. What moron came up with that idea?

On the other hand, PRS has a lot more freedom. If he changes something on his guitars, people accept it. Off the top of my head he's messed with the tuners, finish, bridges, bridge posts, saddles, frets, inlays, pots, truss rod, pickups, scale length and wood selection... and people accept it. He's currently releasing a bolt on, maple necked version of a guitar that's normally a mahogany set neck... and people are going to eat it up. Could you imagine the sh*t-storm that would happen if Gibson tried to release a bolt on, maple necked version of their mahogany set neck guitars?

IMO, Gibson wants to sell you an image, PRS wants to sell you a guitar.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

I would.

But... I wouldn't buy one because I wanted a Les Paul. I'd buy one because I wanted an SC245.

There is much troof here. They do NOT sound the same. I learned this after several PRS and many many thousands spent.

That said...the newer core SC58/245 has a very old vntage vibe to them. It doesnt nail a Les Paul tone, but it is the instrument where I have the most "wow...that reminds me of the tone X got on YZ" moments in probably 20 years. There are a TON of sounds to be had in the volume, tones,and 57/08s. Somedays it reminds me of Kossoff. The next day Gary, and some days its Aldrich, and some days its Joe Pass (not that I can play on that level...just the tones reside there)


Crazy good guitars.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

There is much troof here. They do NOT sound the same. I learned this after several PRS and many many thousands spent.

That said...the newer core SC58/245 has a very old vntage vibe to them. It doesnt nail a Les Paul tone, but it is the instrument where I have the most "wow...that reminds me of the tone X got on YZ" moments in probably 20 years. There are a TON of sounds to be had in the volume, tones,and 57/08s. Somedays it reminds me of Kossoff. The next day Gary, and some days its Aldrich, and some days its Joe Pass (not that I can play on that level...just the tones reside there)


Crazy good guitars.

I've got a McCarty. To me, it's a more modern take on the Gibson sound. More Hi-Fi, less "junk". But... "junk" can also be interpreted as "character", in which case that statement would read: More Hi-Fi, less "character".

I've only played one SC245. I remember it sounding really clear, but that one didn't have the bottom end thump/thud/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that a good Les Paul has. To the right person the clarity may have made it a better guitar than a Les Paul, but that didn't make it a better Les Paul. Back then, I chose bottom end thump. Today, I'd probably go for the clarity.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

In many ways I think Gibson is between a rock and a hard place. They have little freedom to innovate and are stuck in a perpetual cycle of having to come up with ever more authentic ways to reproduce a 50's Gibson.

No, we've been thru this before. All Gibson has to do is have a well-defined traditional line and a modern line. They can appeal to far more players that way. If they're 'stuck', it's self-imposed. I'm still baffled that Gibson couldn't offer anything competitive when Super Strats exploded on the scene. That was a pitiful lack of imagination.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

I've got a McCarty. To me, it's a more modern take on the Gibson sound. More Hi-Fi, less "junk". But... "junk" can also be interpreted as "character", in which case that statement would read: More Hi-Fi, less "character".

I've only played one SC245. I remember it sounding really clear, but that one didn't have the bottom end thump/thud/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that a good Les Paul has. To the right person the clarity may have made it a better guitar than a Les Paul, but that didn't make it a better Les Paul. Back then, I chose bottom end thump. Today, I'd probably go for the clarity.

The older chambered 245s with wraptail definitely had less low end..Both of my Les Pauls ( trad, solid body-wlh set, and swiss cheese classic with 57s)have the bass on my amp at 2 oclock. and the resonance at 9oclock. I have to roll the bass to 9 oclock and the resonance just barely cracked with the 245 to get similar low end. The amount of low end, for my needs, is complete overkill with the 245. And its got the clarity. Its a much different tone than a McCarty (which I also have owned).

 

[El Supremo]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

I'm still baffled that Gibson couldn't offer anything competitive when Super Strats exploded on the scene. That was a pitiful lack of imagination.

Well, they did already have the Flying V and Explorer models which were/are quite popular with the heavy crowd. They also had their own super strats during the 80's: the U2 and M III.

 

[Myaccount876]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

No, we've been thru this before. All Gibson has to do is have a well-defined traditional line and a modern line. They can appeal to far more players that way. If they're 'stuck', it's self-imposed. I'm still baffled that Gibson couldn't offer anything competitive when Super Strats exploded on the scene. That was a pitiful lack of imagination.

Uh...they DO have defined traditional and modern lines. See all the models with a "T" in the name? That stands for "Traditional". If you don't see a "T", then it's modern. It's that elementary, and if you can't understand that, I can't help you. If that still isn't enough, there's even the Memphis line of Gibsons, which are fairly traditional/orientated for jazz and blues guitarists.

 

[astrozombie]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

Hey guys, just thought I'd share some thoughts I had today while I was at my local gc.

I picked up a 2016 standard to see if there was anything amazing about it, and I was truly let down after playing it. The nut was horrible, and super tall, the fretwork was not good at all, I could feel quite a few sharp frets, the binding in the neck was off, very inconsistent, and the paint job was also inconsistent, some spots I could clearly see blemishes. I pointed them out to a worker and he said that's how it came, and we talked about the quality control at Gibson.

I have nothing against Gibson, I actually love some of the guitars they put out. I love my 2015 traditional pro iii, but I was really let down with the "standard" of this year.

I understand it could have just been a bad one, or a thousand other factors, but I can't believe it was that way from the factory.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

This is the exact opposite of my experience with my Les Paul (2016)

I guess you just got a bad one...

 

[regan]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

^^nice top^^
just enough figure to be pretty not so much that it get's ostenatatious
(need to put the pickguard back on though!)

 

[Mincer]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

Other than 175s, 335s & 339s, they sort of gutted the ES & archtop lineup this year.

 

[Darg1911]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

Deja Vu ... same thread, different year. :bigok:

Carry on.

 

[tommersjay]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

2016 lineup is awesome. Your definition of a high nut may just be your own prognosis. Also, they have fret nibs so you are clearly wrong about sharp frets. Guitar Center doesnt have knowledgeable employees so you cannot use them as a point of reference. The guy was probably just amusing you. I have yet to meet a GC employee who actually knows Guitars on a professional level. The QC is amazing this year and my 2016 traditional matches that statement. Im not a fanboy at all, just not a fan of people bashing Gibson from an inexperienced position.

 

[pushedcrayon1]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

2016 lineup is awesome. Your definition of a high nut may just be your own prognosis. Also, they have fret nibs so you are clearly wrong about sharp frets. Guitar Center doesnt have knowledgeable employees so you cannot use them as a point of reference. The guy was probably just amusing you. I have yet to meet a GC employee who actually knows Guitars on a professional level. The QC is amazing this year and my 2016 traditional matches that statement. Im not a fanboy at all, just not a fan of people bashing Gibson from an inexperienced position.

Easy killer, I'm sure there are some truly amazing guitars put out by Gibson in the 2016 lineup. All I said was that I was dissapointed with the specific guitar I played. I'm not trying to rip on Gibson, or any of the other guitars they've made. Just wasn't happy with the one I played is all.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[Liko]

Re: Disappointed with 2016 Gibson

Unfortunately they slap the name "Gibson" on the headstock and the guitars sell themselves

Maybe with other players (or wannabes); I've had enough experience shopping for guitars to know better than to trust the headstock. Any luthier can make a good guitar, and any luthier can make a bad one. I don't own a Gibson precisely because I've never met one worth its price tag.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk