Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

[treyhaislip]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

That reminds me of this long Andertons video....

http://youtu.be/QnUuUjqHEMU

I remember watching that along with the Gibsons as well–I like how they run through things being honest on both (no one sided gushing.)

The funny thing is that "subtle jabs" are about the extent of what I do. MEANWHILE others on here say I "know nothing" or that I'm 'always wrong about everything', 'has no idea what he's talking about', among a myriad of other bald faced insults... which is worse?

This forum desperately needs even more skeptics and critics to keep it from becoming too enamored with the smell of it's own farts.

Whoa...how about we all show a little respect for each other and just say agree to disagree? I think the point of the original post has been fairly discussed and forum members have differing opinions on it...so lets just say such is life and move on.

 

[voggin]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

The 70s were a crap period in North American manufacturing, period. Guitars were no different. The only thing I've found, however, is that the generalization that there were more dogs made in the 70s doesn't really say anything about the particular guitar you've got in your hands.

I mean, if 20% of all guitars Gibson and Fender made in the 70s stunk, that is an absolutely horrible QC record, deserving of a bad reputation. However, it also means that 80% were acceptably built, so your odds are still pretty good the Norlin or CBS guitar you have in your hands is fine.

I've seen guys on other sites also argue that lots of the really crappy ones probably weren't kept in good condition or taken care of, so if you buy a well-loved and played Norlin today, it's even more likely to be on the good end of the spectrum.

As for guitars today, given modern manufacturing, it's pretty hard to find a lousy guitar these days at any price point. QC problems in the 70s used to mean the guitar was defective in that it couldn't be intonated or kept in tune. Now most QC complaints (about Gibson in particular) are about finer finishing points like uneven binding or file marks or bleeding paint, not about being unplayable.

 

[Diminished Triad]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

And therefore "re-issues" of the vintage models, even if for a year that may not be considered Fender/Gibson's best year, should be pretty good?

 

[allbutromeo]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

Yes... "should" being the key word there

 

[AlexR]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

The reissue will depend on the quality in the factory on the day it is made, not the quality in the factory in 1970-something

 

[jtees4]

Re: Early Gibson Les Pauls/Leo Fender Fenders

I like nice guitars that play and sound good. I don't care how old they are. There are good and bad from all years. I am old. In 1976 I went to buy an amp (which I did)....the guy had been a Fender employee and he had a Strat proto type from the 50's, it was a normal looking maple neck (but worn), the body was never finished, and was not a fully formed Strat shape. There was no question it was real based on the way the unfinished wood was worn down, it was smooth like glass from not having any finish on it. Anyway....I am a Gibson guy....that Strat was amazing. The neck had an amazing feel to it, just incredible, and the guitar sounded great. But I have also played modern Fenders that were great. I have had many SG's and Les Pauls. I have found great specific guitars from the 60's, 70's 80' 90's, and 2000's....just a fact. I have found '97 and "04 to be specific good years for SG's....don't have a clue why, but that doesn't mean other years can't be great too. There really is no rationale behind saying anything is good or bad without playing it.