Gibson Last straw...

[blueman335]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

I love Gibson's designs from the 1950's & 60's, but that won't be enough to carry them through the 21st century. I'm still baffled at the rise and dominance of the super Strat 25 years ago, it's wild popularity, and why Gibson didn't counter with an effective campaign of an HSS or HSH version of an SG or some other sleek solid body. The HHH concept was weak from day one and never was any competition (likewise no one copied that).

Using one or two P-90's or mini-HB's with a full-size bridge HB would have been a nice alternative in the 1980's, with a 5-way lever! A variety of neck-thrus! Gibson was asleep at the wheel. Same people who made the pricing decisions. Maybe if they would have followed market tastes a couple decades ago and offered a bigger and more current product line, they would have made enough profit so that they didn't have to raise unit prices to such lofty levels. Keep the historic stuff, but also stay in touch with what young players want.

And Gibson, look at any current music gear catalog. The high-end American-made Fenders are under $1,500, and most models are $1,000 or less. Then look at the Gibsons and be prepared for cardiac arrest. Come on...your materials & workmanship are 2 or 3 times better? Kind of hard to believe.

 

[octavedoctor]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

The closest Gibson came to meeting the challenge of the Kramer/Jackson/Charvel/Ibanez threat was the U2. Not a very successful design with a host of problems...

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

I've not played many Gibsons. But EVERY GIBSON I'VE EVER PLAYED (not joking) had some issues. Everyone.

Funny how opinions differ. I've owned many Gibsons, probably owned more than you've played (see my sig links for a sample) and I've only found issues with a few, and the issues were minor. My most regular observation would be sharp fret ends on unbound necks of lower end models due more often than not to a dry fretboard and shrinkage after sitting in a music store for who knows how long, most notibly with ebony. But again, in the bigger picture these flaws were far and few between. IMO the internet folklore of Gibson QC far exceeds truth.

 

[metlking]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

IMO the internet folklore of Gibson QC far exceeds truth.

Yep, seems to be the cliche' thing these days........

 

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

IMO the internet folklore of Gibson QC far exceeds truth.

If any of my local shops that carried Gibson 10 years ago still dealt with them, I'd be very apt to agree with you. The way people go on and on about it sounds extremely exaggerated and tough to buy.

Unfortunately, I've spoken with the owners of at least four local places that quit selling them because Gibson would consistently ship them screwed up guitars. The proprietor of my favorite shop ran into somebody he knew from Gibson at NAMM after he'd split. The guy asked why he left, and he said he would receive a $2000 guitar with a broken tuner, send it back, and get a replacement with a finish flaw and a bunch of sawdust in the case.

FWIW, he now sells PRS (claims 8/10 can go straight onto the wall out of the box) and Music Man.

 

[karpathion]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

i love my gibson ( its the best axe ive ever owned) but a gem is a gem i found an ibanez art-300 that is just as good but it took me playing 5 of them before i found one i bonded with. play what feels good. thats all tha matters. who cares what name is on the headstock. hell i have a hondo 2 lp clone that i still play on a regular basis. and it is a reliable good guitar. who cares, if it makes you feel good do it. it's that one in a million that makes it all worth while.

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

a bunch of sawdust in the case.

I have seen some sawdust in a case before, but I don't consider that a flaw.

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Fenders are shot in poly, which requires less sophisticated environmental protection equipment. Less expensive timber selection and a simpler construction process all play a part in them being less expensive than a Gibson.

 

[octavedoctor]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Fenders are shot in poly, which requires less sophisticated environmental protection equipment.

I don't think that's got anything to do with it. To start with, it's is nonsense to say that polyester requires less sophisticated protection; two pack polymer lacquers contain toluene di-isocyanates which have far higher toxicity that the toluene and xylene solvents in nitro cellulose. The extraction and personal protection equipment required is probably much the same for both. Of more significance is the time scale involved. Cellulose lacquer is a longer process because it's air-drying as opposed to the one shot, catalytic cure of polyester and acrylics.

Even with this however, the unit cost of producing a Gibson guitar is surprisingly low. I was recently quoted a figure of $125 as the unit manufacturing cost but I don't know how much faith to put in that although the guy who told me is very clued up (trade insider ) so i've no reason to doubt him.

Less expensive timber selection and a simpler construction process all play a part in them being less expensive than a Gibson.

That's true, Gibson construction is more complex, and wasteful as well. Not only is mahogany more expensive but they are one of the few manufacturers to use quarter-sawn billets (on some models anyway) and the neck is milled out of a single billet rather than built up from planks using scarf joints for the headstock rake.

IMO the internet folklore of Gibson QC far exceeds truth.

I've heard this before. I have two things to say: Firstly, people are more likely to go and post on a forum that the Gibson they have just payed $2500 for is a pile of poo than they are likely to say that it is wonderful; positive comments tend to be in response to negative ones. If you buy a guitar and it's great, you take it for granted as that's what you expect. If it's crap then you complain about it. So naturally the internet is a place where negative opinions abound on everything. That's why it's such a fertile breeding ground for myths and conspiracy theories.

Secondly, are users qualified to judge a manufacturer's quality control? The majority of players that I see wouldn't know a correctly tempered intonation if it got up and bit them on the arse; that's why they come to me.

To get a true picture of a manufacturer's quality control you really need to speak to the people who repair them professionally for a living. I've spent the last twenty-five years of my life correcting the bridge position on various Gibsons and putting right elementary errors in the set up. I work on around 750 guitars a year. If only 10% of them were Gibsons that means i've probably had around 2000 pass through my hands.

Every now and then i'll post a question on a forum about, say, "why is it that Gibson can't seem to get the bridge position consistently correct?" and i'll get flamed by some guy who owns three and reckons they're perfect...

Which of us do you reckon has seen the bigger sample and has the more informed opinion?

 

[Pierre]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Funny how opinions differ. I've owned many Gibsons, probably owned more than you've played (see my sig links for a sample) and I've only found issues with a few, and the issues were minor. My most regular observation would be sharp fret ends on unbound necks of lower end models due more often than not to a dry fretboard and shrinkage after sitting in a music store for who knows how long, most notibly with ebony. But again, in the bigger picture these flaws were far and few between. IMO the internet folklore of Gibson QC far exceeds truth.

This is not an opinion. Like you said, you mostly played good ones. I just happened to have played bad ones. Maybe one day I'll come across a good one? But I have no interest whatsoever in any Gibsons not because of the brand or prices, but because of the sounds.

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

This is not an opinion. Like you said, you mostly played good ones. I just happened to have played bad ones. Maybe one day I'll come across a good one? But I have no interest whatsoever in any Gibsons not because of the brand or prices, but because of the sounds.

It is an opinion. And FWIW the below part of what I wrote sounds more sarcastic than I had intended when I wrote it. Sorry about that.

I've owned many Gibsons, probably owned more than you've played (see my sig links for a sample)

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Which of us do you reckon has seen the bigger sample and has the more informed opinion?

You, obviously.

Secondly, are users qualified to judge a manufacturer's quality control? The majority of players that I see wouldn't know a correctly tempered intonation if it got up and bit them on the arse; that's why they come to me.

So the rest of us players are too stupid to know anything about our guitars because we don't repair them for a living? I don't fix automobiles either, but I sure know the difference between a Datsun and a BMW when I drive them.

 

[octavedoctor]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Now the thing is, as most of the people on here who know me can attest, I don't have an ego. I simply report things as I find them. Numbers don't lie; if you want to know what the most reliable car on the market is you don't ask an owner, you ask a mechanic.

I've played nice Gibson's as well but we are talking about consistency of quality control and for that it's not enough to be able to tell the difference between a Datsun and a BMW (in any case that would be comparing two different manufacturers, which is a different thing) you would have to have seen enough to know where the commonplace problems are.

 

[TattooedCarrot]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

if you want to know what the most reliable car on the market is you don't ask an owner, you ask a mechanic.

I see your point, but owner surveys are very useful as well.

Bottom line is I just don't agree with your position that just because we don't repair guitars for a living like you, our opinions and experiences with them regarding QC are invalid. I also believe QC issues are very subjective to the perceptions of the individual owner and what they consider a flaw. I am pretty easy going and don't worry about little things on my guitars so I do not have a critical eye. Others are so anal they perceive flaws another person just can't see staring right at it. There's a lot more variable to the whole QC debate than something truly wrong with the guitar.

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

QC issues are QC issues...wrongly placed bridge, too deep nut pockets, with variations from guitar to guitar...that is not subjective.
Plus on some they hide it under the paint, if it is a solid colour.
The latter might not bother a user really, but if you are charged with changing the nut.....well that is a different matter, in modern times with so many tools to use that can give you a consistent product, it is not like they make a few guitars

 

[octavedoctor]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

i think owner surveys are useful to manufacturers if they are properly conducted; if a manufacturer does a poll of it's buyers and they all report the same problem, or a majority of them do then that will carry more weight than some upstart like me pointing out that Gibson consistently put their bridges in the wrong place for a properly tempered intonation. The problem is when there are specific technical deficiencies which only a technician can be expected to spot.

But such a properly conducted user survey is a completely different kettle of fish from an internet forum such as this where the sheer quantity of objective experience shared by professional techs such as myself and Zerberus cannot help but outweigh the highly subjective experience of users who have seen a considerably smaller sample of guitars.

Furthermore, have you considered that as a user, the guitars you see may not be a representative sample? I have worked with retailers since 1989 and have seen a huge number of factory fresh Gibsons. When I discovered in the early nineties, that Gibson were failing to connect the screening wire on the cable connecting the 3-way switch with the main control compartment - resulting in an unholy buzz which was completely curable but which most owners either accepted or weren't aware of - I began routinely connecting this on every Gibson that passed through my hands whether it was new or old and whether I was getting paid for it or not (at least until, after about eight years Gibson finally cottoned on to it themselves).

For me, it was five minutes work which they had failed to undertake at the factory and which was very little effort for me to finish off but which made a big difference to the guitar's performance.

My point being is that if you bought your guitars from a responsible retailer who took the time to iron out the problems in the set up then your opinion of Gibson's default factory standards are not based on observation of them, but of someone else's corrective work. That's the main reason I discount user opinion, not because I think all users are stupid, but because their opinion is not fully informed and is often coloured by their expectations.

 

[octavedoctor]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

QC issues are QC issues...wrongly placed bridge, too deep nut pockets, with variations from guitar to guitar...that is not subjective.
Plus on some they hide it under the paint, if it is a solid colour.
The latter might not bother a user really, but if you are charged with changing the nut.....well that is a different matter, in modern times with so many tools to use that can give you a consistent product, it is not like they make a few guitars

That's good point Rid, i often find myself having to change the nut on a Gibson because it is too low once the arc relief has been properly adjusted. This is an elementary mistake in the set up procedure.

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Yeah those we get in plenty too....anyways I nearly busted a few bloodvessels when I had to change the nut on AH^DKs LP...
Had a look, looked fine, and started to tap it off gently as I normally do...nothing happend!
Looked again....and tapped once more, the thing exploded in bits, and I did it gently...and I was like WTF!!!
Had a look at the nut, and discovered that they had routed the pocket way too deep.
Decided to redo it again later on, as I did not have the right tools for it here, as it was supposed to be a easy nut change...well it was not.
He got his strange brassnut.
But it was not a routine job for sure.

 

[Axl H]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

Yeah those we get in plenty too....anyways I nearly busted a few bloodvessels when I had to change the nut on AH^DKs LP...
Had a look, looked fine, and started to tap it off gently as I normally do...nothing happend!
Looked again....and tapped once more, the thing exploded in bits, and I did it gently...and I was like WTF!!!
Had a look at the nut, and discovered that they had routed the pocket way too deep.
Decided to redo it again later on, as I did not have the right tools for it here, as it was supposed to be a easy nut change...well it was not.
He got his strange brassnut.
But it was not a routine job for sure.

Hehe no.. wasnt that nut in like 6-7 pieces or something? It looked like you had hammered it out or something.. Hey atleast brass wont do that

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Gibson Last straw...

hammered

Tapped...I never hammer anything on guitars......maybe I should hammer yours!