Gibson, how does thou suck, let me count the stripes....

AlexR said:
It really doesn't matter what other brands do or don't do. Its a wholly irrelevant argument.
Click to expand...

So - as long as Gibson does it, it doesn't matter because if you want a Gibson (meaning the badge) that's what you get???

Mmmm-k. We know where you stand.
 
jeremy said:
i think you hit the nail on the head. $2500 is a standard gibson, if you want a premium instrument then you spend $5k and up. how much was your budokan?
Click to expand...

A lot more than that. However...What I paid for was...

An exact reproduction of Ace Frehley's 1974 stage guitar, down to every lacquer crack, every ding, every spot of rust being hand placed to insanely accurate levels.

And THAT makes sense, as it would for the same thing in a Page #1, a Pearly Gates, or any of a few other Les Pauls where there are only a couple hundred in existence.

And again - what I'm willing to pay for, probably not the same as everyone else.But that's a lot more effort than a simple flamed Standard.
 
Mincer said:
Well, they might keep Epiphone in places like GC, but I bet they could get more for the Gibsons if they were in a specialty Gibson shop...and sell you a $50 T shirt at the same time.
Click to expand...

Dave - you are scaring me man! You are guitar player - like a real musician. This is some deep high level business insight you are throwing down.

As Epiphone gets better...they move them in GC's where people are more likely to pay that kind of scratch, than primo Gibby prices.

Then, you set up Gibson Garages...maybe in conjunction with Ford's Garages - Grab a Burger, Grab a Guitar kind of thing.

Then you start phasing out the stock at GC's near the Garages - perhaps based on low sales, or maybe economic ability etc. You place your Garages in NY, LA, Chicago, etc...places where they have enough LP mArket to shut out GC's

If you are a GC and want to sell REAL Gibsons, you get a small number, and a limited selection. Low end, Standards, maybe a few Customs. And you are not anywhere near a Gibson Garage. Or maybe GC can only have real Gibson if they have high enough Sales. Or until a Gibson Garage moves in the neighborhood.

I know GC hates the Gibson forced buy as much as Gibson hates the guitars rotting on the wall because price too high...Purchased is purchased, whether GC or a consumer. But putting them in the market for real counts too!

It would be like selling Lexus to dealers, but nobody buying them. Just going for test drives.
 
Aceman said:
Dave - you are scaring me man! You are guitar player - like a real musician. This is some deep high level business insight you are throwing down.

As Epiphone gets better...they move them in GC's where people are more likely to pay that kind of scratch, than primo Gibby prices.

Then, you set up Gibson Garages...maybe in conjunction with Ford's Garages - Grab a Burger, Grab a Guitar kind of thing.

Then you start phasing out the stock at GC's near the Garages - perhaps based on low sales, or maybe economic ability etc. You place your Garages in NY, LA, Chicago, etc...places where they have enough LP mArket to shut out GC's

If you are a GC and want to sell REAL Gibsons, you get a small number, and a limited selection. Low end, Standards, maybe a few Customs. And you are not anywhere near a Gibson Garage. Or maybe GC can only have real Gibson if they have high enough Sales. Or until a Gibson Garage moves in the neighborhood.

I know GC hates the Gibson forced buy as much as Gibson hates the guitars rotting on the wall because price too high...Purchased is purchased, whether GC or a consumer. But putting them in the market for real counts too!

It would be like selling Lexus to dealers, but nobody buying them. Just going for test drives.
Click to expand...

I think we got ourselves a business plan.
 
I think the harsh critiques of Gibson would diminish if the prices also diminished. When there are other builders out there that are priced similar and their work is superior and the wood is more carefully selected, that is a recipe for harsh criticism. My bigger complaints have to do with fretwork and attention to finer details. For the price Gibson charges, those things should never come under scrutiny. Music Man, PRS, Knaggs, Suhr, Anderson, and many others rarely have issues with frets and the finer points. If they do, it is rare and those companies are often very quick to rectify the situation.
 
Don't agree other companies don't have these problems. Almost all my Fenders had fret problems when new. But people don't complain because the guitar was affordable and the fix is cheap and easy. Do agree price is main complaint here. If all those Gibsons were $699-$999, Ace probably wouldn't have started this thread.
 
See, that’s the point. I don’t expect perfection on a mid-priced guitar (~$300-800).

Over $1k I expect a much better instrument. Over $2k it should be nearly perfect.

Other companies’ QC DO matter, because it sets an industry standard. It shows that the AVERAGE production in that price range is at a high level of quality.

Gibson has rested on their laurels for far too long. That’s why I do not own one. I get tempted occasionally, then I see the poor QC on a premium priced guitar.

NOPE!

Ace: check the neck joints. Back in the ‘90s, nearly all of them had paint bubbles.
 
orpheo said:
199218563_3630547320419305_7607986506639317719_n.jpg

Aceman: better? Yeah, I forgot to dust off the knobs haha. Oh, and this one? On sale for 750. Not 7500.
Click to expand...

She’s GORGEOUS!

want!
 
shred4Him said:
I think the harsh critiques of Gibson would diminish if the prices also diminished. When there are other builders out there that are priced similar and their work is superior and the wood is more carefully selected, that is a recipe for harsh criticism. My bigger complaints have to do with fretwork and attention to finer details. For the price Gibson charges, those things should never come under scrutiny. Music Man, PRS, Knaggs, Suhr, Anderson, and many others rarely have issues with frets and the finer points. If they do, it is rare and those companies are often very quick to rectify the situation.
Click to expand...

I agree that frets, and especially nuts, etc are far greater concerns than wood, which is primarily an aesthetic thing. But for $3k, I'm paying for aesthetic! For $300 I can get a Chinese Jackson with excellent frets.
 
I've got a pic of a top on a LP Trad I got new a handful of years ago (and returned) that absolutely sucks. I'll dig it up.
 
Aceman said:
I agree that frets, and especially nuts, etc are far greater concerns than wood, which is primarily an aesthetic thing. But for $3k, I'm paying for aesthetic! For $300 I can get a Chinese Jackson with excellent frets.
Click to expand...

To be honest I'd much rather have a botched nut or high fret than sh!tty wood. Changing or upgrading a nut is no big deal while replacing a crap body sounds stupid. That being said, we are on the same page that for premium coin neither fret, nor wood issues should be present.
 
Yeah, I don't think people would complain if this was an Epi. But at $2-$4k, I want PRS catalog-type wood. You shouldn't have to pay $10k for great matching flame or quilt. Also, maybe it is time to ween guitarists off exceedingly rare woods. If flame maple is too expensive, start using other flame woods (they are out there). Or make up for the lack of flame with amazing playability and sound. Don't build a guitar that people want to mod before they even get it delivered.
 
Aceman said:
I agree that frets, and especially nuts, etc are far greater concerns than wood, which is primarily an aesthetic thing. But for $3k, I'm paying for aesthetic! For $300 I can get a Chinese Jackson with excellent frets.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree with that at all. My take is that regardless of a personal aesthetic preference, which I agree more with yours, the frets, nut, finishing, etc, better be amazing at those prices.
 
Aceman said:
Hey - noted that opinions vary.

That said, let's all be honest; If you are buying flame, you want flame. I don't think anyone would argue that they

a) Want the flame to be symmetrical. Either all the way, 75% across or whatever, but symetrical
b) They may prefer tighter or larger flame. Obviously flame is rated loose to tight A, AA, AAA, AAAA etc...

So, yes - IMO, based on those two very simple criteria, these are fails. Waiting on someone to say "Hey - I like really random, non-matched, different tightness flame tops".

I can see the appeal of the dirty Bengal or whatever it is. I have seen way better versions. The bottom line is a lot of companies do a while lot better (without making them veneers) for less than $1500.

I believe my "opinion" reflects that of the majority of buyers. But please - do explain your opinion and how it is different. Remember - I am a fan of the Plain top for full disclosure. I believe I only have three flame tops in my stable - all veneer, and I'm OK with that. Especially since they were all under $300.
Click to expand...
I'll semi-disagree on A. It should be symmetrical if it's a two-piece top. However, one-piece tops can look *great* and are rarely symmetrical.
 
I am not exactly picky but they look good to me (well, ok, the exhibit c looks a little eh).

Really, though, i own 4 gibsons and none are flame topped (granted, none were $3000 either)
 
Last edited:
Open lane said:
I am not exactly picky but they look good to me (well, ok, the exhibit c looks a little eh).

Really, though, i own 4 gibsons and none are flame topped (granted, none were $3000 either)
Click to expand...

See - if I take a step back and think about a lot of other guitars I can say "You know, that is fantastic. Not my thing - but obviously amazing"

If you can't look at a 5k guitar and just go "That is fantastic" regardless of style, something is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top