Gibson product ideas.

[Bodeanicus]

Re: Gibson product ideas.

I assume you're speaking to me? We'll have to agree to disagree. That's why I suggested they make the traditional boat paddle for corksniffers like yourself.

I think it looks elegant, and solves a very real practical tuning problem. Paul Reed Smith seems to agree, and he sells guitars for the obscene prices that Gibson dreams about.

Holy ******, that’s ugly. I’m sorry if it’s yours, but :chairfall

Sent from my KFGIWI using Tapatalk

 

[Silence Kid]

Re: Gibson product ideas.

I think everyone forgets about the Zero and M2 series guitars, they play great. I have no problem with the fretwork on my Firebird Zero, it stays in tune, it intonates like it should, costs under $500, is made in the US, and it even has Gibson on the headstock which of course makes everything sound better. What more do you want for that kind of money?

I played one not long ago; I'm glad you and at least one other person here really like yours, but to me it looked and felt really rough and bare-bones next to the Epiphones & Schecters and things next to it. It felt like they stopped in the middle of finishing it, the neck barely felt shaped, with useable but inconsistent frets that others have pointed out.

That said, it did seem to "stay in tune and intonate." But so does just about anything these days, and for bordering on $500 I think there are much better value choices. All but the cheapest Epiphones are much more feature-rich and feel better put together with better hardware/pickups, not to mention much better finish and final shaping. I think Gibson should ditch this model.

(And actually I think their higher-end models could have much better finishing; on my last Guitar Center excursion I was alarmed at the wavy, orange-peel-y feel of their necks vs. the smooth Epiphones. It's again, as if they decided to skip a few steps and not properly sand the necks or something.)

 

[Dave Locher]

Re: Gibson product ideas.

This is an interesting thread. I think Henry has just about destroyed the name, not just the company. I used to think of Gibsons as the pinnacle. I only owned three guitars and they were all Gibsons. (I only ever own 3 guitars - that's my limit.) I seriously considered getting the logo tattooed on my body, that is how much I admired them. Strictly as a player, not a collector. And it wasn't just snobbery because I played dozens of them over the years to find the three I really liked. I was well aware of the dogs. And I only bought used. But now...I still own one but I no longer dream at night about finding the perfect SG or uncovering an ES-150 at a garage sale.
I know I am not their target audience because I have never bought a brand new guitar in my life out of dozens bought and sold, but my point is if I won one in a contest I would be happy because it was free but not over-the-moon ecstatic. That is a big change in 20 years.

 

[zionstrat]

Re: Gibson product ideas.

That said, it did seem to "stay in tune and intonate." But so does just about anything these days, and for bordering on $500 I think there are much better value choices. All but the cheapest Epiphones are much more feature-rich and feel better put together with better hardware/pickups, not to mention much better finish and final shaping.

Interesting post, we addressed Epiphone in Part 3...

In many ways, Epi could be one of the stronger card for a Gibson reorg...

On average they have good quality and good value price points, they are much better at mass production... And they have great originals as well... Cassinos and great designs that Gibson abandoned... Blueshawk, Nitehawk, Lucille

Currently, they overlap, cannibalize and get lost in all of Gibson's model confusion...

Repositioning Epiphone will be important as soon as Gibson gives up the "we are everything" approach and decide on what they can do well.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[Silence Kid]

Re: Gibson product ideas.

TLDR, 'cheap' Gibsons in particular (up to ~$1200) often seem too cheap when you actually have them in your hands. I feel it comes down to selecting a worse Gibson so you can waive their flag, or selecting a better Epiphone and being marked by the headstock. Guess others already made that point though.

A while back I made disparaging remarks about a lot of Epiphones so I made a point to pick up more. As a result I'll use this space to check myself: They're still often not quite there for me, but they're a much better value and often a better guitar than what they're based on.

 

[mxaniac]

Re: Gibson product ideas.

Brand overlap isn't necessarily a problem if the channel partners are different. I find it interesting that Fender did the Highway One Series which is similar in price to the MIM products. I suspect they perceive that enough of a market exists in which people will only buy American that it makes sense to offer some overlapping products. IMO the lower cost Gibson products most certainly cut corners on finish, single piece bridge etc. but I thought they did a really good job on not sacrificing functionality. A MIA instrument is going to cost more to build, we have more labor laws, taxes, environmental restrictions etc. plus we treat IP as property. We build cars in America because of tax payer bailouts and we build airplanes. Then again, the 777 was built out of parts outsourced to Asia. Mitsubishi knows how to build carbon fiber wings, they learned it on Boeing's dime, Boeing doesn't. The long term picture is dismal for American manufacturing but building a quality instrument at a reasonable price will allow them to leverage off their brand name enough to own a niche in the market place. Survival will likely depend on Epiphone developing all the technology with the Gibson brand representing tradition. Gibson must realize this which is why they tried to expand but they made poor choices and over-reached. I'd give them credit for trying, but I don't believe in participation awards.

 

[Bodeanicus]

Re: Gibson product ideas.

Brand overlap isn't necessarily a problem if the channel partners are different. I find it interesting that Fender did the Highway One Series which is similar in price to the MIM products. I suspect they perceive that enough of a market exists in which people will only buy American that it makes sense to offer some overlapping products. IMO the lower cost Gibson products most certainly cut corners on finish, single piece bridge etc. but I thought they did a really good job on not sacrificing functionality. A MIA instrument is going to cost more to build, we have more labor laws, taxes, environmental restrictions etc. plus we treat IP as property. We build cars in America because of tax payer bailouts and we build airplanes. Then again, the 777 was built out of parts outsourced to Asia. Mitsubishi knows how to build carbon fiber wings, they learned it on Boeing's dime, Boeing doesn't. The long term picture is dismal for American manufacturing but building a quality instrument at a reasonable price will allow them to leverage off their brand name enough to own a niche in the market place. Survival will likely depend on Epiphone developing all the technology with the Gibson brand representing tradition. Gibson must realize this which is why they tried to expand but they made poor choices and over-reached. I'd give them credit for trying, but I don't believe in participation awards.

Brother, I appreciate the effort, but that wall of text is so vague I barely get what you're trying to say.

Sent from my KFGIWI using Tapatalk