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

I'm not anti-Gibson but I *was* disappointed with the two I previously owned. This had nothing to do with the top, just tuning issues and other quality problems. This was 20+ years ago and the few standards I've played since (recently) did give me the impression the company is improving things--a 4 or 5 guitar sample doesnt tell the whole story.

I wouldnt drop $2k+ on a standard that didnt have a great top. AAA or better quality finish or I wont even consider it. A goldtop or ebony color is the only exception to that
 
gsammo79 said:
the few standards I've played since (recently) did give me the impression the company is improving things--a 4 or 5 guitar sample doesnt tell the whole story.
Click to expand...

Still holds though that a "premium" guitar manufacture should be, well, premium. premium price = premium quality, premium finish, premium everything.

And as you say - quality is improved. Still waiting for someone to chime in and say "Gibson quality and appearance is outstanding in every way across the board"

And we aren't going to hear it. I fully support your $2k = AAA or go home. I'd settle for a well done AA...but again, tastes vary.
 
If I'm dropping $5K on a big name, I'm getting a custom PRS. Can't think of a single reason why "Gibson" would ever come to someone's mind at that price point, but that's just me
 
Masta' C said:
If I'm dropping $5K on a big name, I'm getting a custom PRS. Can't think of a single reason why "Gibson" would ever come to someone's mind at that price point, but that's just me
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people who always wanted a Gibson when they were a teen but couldn't afford one. Now that $5k is like $20 to the rest of us, they can get one. And those same people have been out of the game long enough that they have no idea who PRS is.
 
In my humble opinion...

the guitar mags had, in the past at least, an important role to play in the assignment of legendary status to brands like Gibson, Fender & Marshall principally that were associated with rock legends back in the day. There were most likely many other factors too.
They haven't done much to clarify that current products may not necessarily always be built to the highest of standards.

They are now almost household names even for those who don't play a musical instrument.

They all use their brand to sell as much product as they possibly can.

Gibson position their products at the higher end of the market. They know their brand name sustains that.

There is way better value available but for many, many people they expect to get the best when purchasing a Gibson. The less they know about the details of what makes one guitar better quality than another, the less likely they are to question that assumption.

Ergo the real quality of the product is not as important as the perceived quality for the majority of their market or at minimum a very large proportion. Until that changes they are golden, although various factors could bring it crashing down.

Would I buy a Gibson if I came across an example I liked? Sure, why not.
...for market value? Not a chance.

There are any number of other products, music related or not, that are sold for prices well above their real value but because of brand name people are prepared to pay what the market dictates is the value.
 
And the definition of "Value" in Lean is defined by three things:

1. Change the form or function - they turned wood & electronics into an instrument
2. Get it right the first time; Debatable, but lets call it good if it works.
- which is superseded only by one thing, and the thing that truly defines value vs waste
3. The customer is willing to pay for it.

But that is really the question isn't it?
- How many do they make?
- How many do they sell?
- What is Revenue, Net Income, and Costs?

Would you LOVE to know?!?!?!?!
 
Don't know if they've exited CH11 yet (GBSB seems to still be delisted on the market), so real numbers will be hard to get.

D&B on Gibson Brands revenue, company profile
https://www.dnb.com/business-direct...nds_inc.9609596247569f59b5e591ad5e92cc00.html

SEC filing shows 'reported' sales figure (who knows actual)
https://sec.report/Document/0001837932-21-000001/ (from January 2021
https://sec.report/Document/0001541355-12-000001/ (from Henry's time)

Some financials (EBITDA etc.) reported prior to CH11
https://www.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2018/05/gibson-guitar-maker-faces-chapter-11-music/

Interesting comparison view of competitors on this page. (Interesting that Fender is 3x Gibson in revenue; and Hofner makes as much as Taylor; wouldn't have guessed that)
https://www.owler.com/company/gibson
 
Brand complaint threads like this perhaps should be in the Off Topic Section? They add little value to the collective knowledge base and actively seek to invalidate a lot of folks' experiences. Just a thought to take or leave, certainly easy enough to not click on it, but "it's not a good look" as one might say.

For the record, I landed a Gibson SG last year for $600. The guitar is absolutely fire. It completely changed how I view the instrument of electric guitar, and I'm able to count my musical life in decades. Would I pay several thousand dollars for a life-changing instrument? You bet. Would I do my due diligence to find one that does that? I sure hope so!
 
Last edited:
alex1fly said:
Brand complaint threads like this perhaps should be in the Off Topic Section? They add little value to the collective knowledge base and actively seek to invalidate a lot of folks' experiences. Just a thought to take or leave, certainly easy enough to not click on it, but "it's not a good look" as one might say.

For the record, I landed a Gibson SG last year for $600. The guitar is absolutely fire. It completely changed how I view the instrument of electric guitar, and I'm able to count my musical life in decades. Would I pay several thousand dollars for a life-changing instrument? You bet. Would I do my due diligence to find one that does that? I sure hope so!
Click to expand...

How does it not add value? Different perspective that Gibson is not the best, anymore, despite its history.
 
Obsessive Compulsive said:
How does it not add value? Different perspective that Gibson is not the best, anymore, despite its history.
Click to expand...

Not saying it shouldn't be discussed. But similar to the Bonamassa thread it just seems more like Off Topic content than Guitar Shop content. Just one guy's opinion, not really invested one way or another. I was really surprised to find a Gibson that I could afford AND liked. Never thought twice about them before GC had one in the used section and I thought what the heck, try it.

Honestly discussions about Gibson's demise send me into a time warp. I started playing guitar in 2000, and remember back then that people felt Gibson had declined. So I guess for me the conversation about Gibson has never been about anything other than "they've declined but you can find a good one if you look hard". Hopefully mine is a good one, it sure is inspiring, but I do worry about it breaking. It feels fragile...
 
Last edited:
Aceman said:
.

I believe my "opinion" reflects that of the majority of buyers. But please - do explain your opinion and how it is different.
Click to expand...

Late to the party & no offense but I think this is the problem.

If you were correct & most buyers thought like you, Gibson wouldn't be selling those guitars like that & I'm pretty sure all three of the ones you posted will sell & will sell to extremely happy buyers.

& what you're seeing as "quality" is not a quality issue at all.. I have a Les Paul Traditional that I bought for $1,800 with a perfectly matched flame top, even across the whole top.

I think most Gibson Les Paul buyers want some part of that classic 50s vibe. I bought mainly Traditional & Classics because the pearloid tuners are a must have for me.. sounds silly,, I know. But I don't see the Standard/Custom as superior guitars. Just different. More expensive for things I don't want. Like stainless tuner buttons, non-weight relief, etc...

& luckily book matched & even flames aren't some of the things they expect us to pay for as you can find them on some of the lowest priced Les Paul's (like a Studio Plus or something they offer from time to time).
 
thunderkyss said:
If you were correct & most buyers thought like you, Gibson wouldn't be selling those guitars like that & I'm pretty sure all three of the ones you posted will sell & will sell to extremely happy buyers.
Click to expand...

I like your theory. All reasonable points. That said - they will never sell me anything like that. But - the question, as stated, is: How many Les Pauls REALLY get made, and how many sell, where & at what price point? Wouldn't we all really like to know. And bankruptcy a second time suggests that all is not well in the state of Tennessee....

I find the amount on a wall, the number of people playing them, and the speed at which they "move" just based on casual observation highly questionable.
 
I think they aren't very picky about the instruments that go to GC. I don't think you'd see tops like that in a specialty store or in the new Gibson store.
 
I actually think exhibit A looks great. "B" is probably perfect for a Page fan, and "C" isn't my thing.

So A would sell to me, B to a lot of people and C would have a more specialized customer base. Don't see how that's a QC issue. I have a flame-y PRS, and it's a lovely guitar, but generally I'd take some thing like A over a PRS super-flame. Just personal preference/taste.
 
Just because someone likes it, it doesn't mean it has no qc issues... I love my Indo Jacksons, but I could point out a couple of QC issues (mostly aesthetic). Mind you, I bought three perfectly playable, yet not flawless guitars for the price of a (hopefully) perfectly playable , yet not flawless Les Paul.

Likeing it or not likeing it is subjective, but QC should be objective and up to par with the asking price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top