J
Jessie Sammler
Guest
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
:lmao:
That's the spirit!
:lmao:
That's the spirit!
Gibson went bankrupt?
- Thread starter Kevincharles
- Start date
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
Wow - great discussion. There are a lot of great pro Gibson points here, particulalrly EP. Good job bro.
Still - I think there is a serious core problem at Gibson.
I do not agree with the price point info. Many of those other brands run a huge business in lower end guitars to hold up the high end. The whole Gibson/Epiphone deal is SOOOOO different than the fender one just because it says Epiphone. In the 50/60's, maybe that worked. Not today. To a kid, the MIM Fender IS a fender. The Epi LP is NOT a Gibson. even though they are the same general quality of guitar.
Also - the Luxury item model requires perfection. There are NO crappy Rolex's, Ferraris or H&K's. If you are going to be top of the line you need to be top of the line. Too many Gibsons in that price range are not.
Then there is the 'innovation' issue. Again - Apple is about innovation. People do not long for the Apple IIe. Gibson is a historic brand - they need to do it like they always did with minor perfection. Robot guitar - that's a Steinberger deal. Tone Pro's bridge - that would be a Gibson thing.
And I don't believe all of this "we sell a boatload of Gibsons" stuff Any one store - maybe. But I'd really like to see the books.
Gosh I wish i got in on this thread early! So much to discuss....Let's all get together at a bar for the Gibson corporate summit!
Wow - great discussion. There are a lot of great pro Gibson points here, particulalrly EP. Good job bro.
Still - I think there is a serious core problem at Gibson.
I do not agree with the price point info. Many of those other brands run a huge business in lower end guitars to hold up the high end. The whole Gibson/Epiphone deal is SOOOOO different than the fender one just because it says Epiphone. In the 50/60's, maybe that worked. Not today. To a kid, the MIM Fender IS a fender. The Epi LP is NOT a Gibson. even though they are the same general quality of guitar.
Also - the Luxury item model requires perfection. There are NO crappy Rolex's, Ferraris or H&K's. If you are going to be top of the line you need to be top of the line. Too many Gibsons in that price range are not.
Then there is the 'innovation' issue. Again - Apple is about innovation. People do not long for the Apple IIe. Gibson is a historic brand - they need to do it like they always did with minor perfection. Robot guitar - that's a Steinberger deal. Tone Pro's bridge - that would be a Gibson thing.
And I don't believe all of this "we sell a boatload of Gibsons" stuff Any one store - maybe. But I'd really like to see the books.
Gosh I wish i got in on this thread early! So much to discuss....Let's all get together at a bar for the Gibson corporate summit!
J
Jessie Sammler
Guest
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
For some reason, I like minor imperfections on a Gibson-style guitar. Granted, some of you have described specific quality control issues that would be unacceptable even to me, but sometimes I like a handmade look to certain items. I usually don't like guitars that look like they were made for a museum; I like things that were built to play. Having some character flaws and beauty marks actually sells me on a guitar, in that capacity.
For some reason, I like minor imperfections on a Gibson-style guitar. Granted, some of you have described specific quality control issues that would be unacceptable even to me, but sometimes I like a handmade look to certain items. I usually don't like guitars that look like they were made for a museum; I like things that were built to play. Having some character flaws and beauty marks actually sells me on a guitar, in that capacity.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
Gibson's golden years (McCarty era) were all about cutting-edge innovation. That's a tremendous legacy and should be continued with pride. Unfortunately that won't sell many guitars 50 years from now. They need to strike a better balance between maintaining tradition and continuing the spirit of innovation. I see no reason why the inventor of HB's should be outdone by so many aftermarket PU manufacturers. Why do so many Gibson owners swap out the stock PU's?
Nor do I see the point in continuing to market their few duds of the 1950's, like vari-tones & HHH guitars (why not HSS or HSH using P-90's? Just about everybody else figured out that a single coil works much better in the middle). When no one copies certain ideas from an industry leader, it tells you those ideas didn't work. So drop them yourself and move on.
They promote ancient design failures and then miss opportunities for updating current models. Why sit & watch as Super Strats carved out a huge piece of the market, when a 'Super SG' (HSS or HSH using P-90's, with a 5-way & Floyd) could have offered some competition and become a market staple. A clear case of being asleep at the wheel. And since Gibson is trying to appeal to young metal heads with certain models, why not go all the way and have a special line for them with wild colors & graphics? Other manufacturers do it. The future is the kids starting out today, and Gibson/Epiphone approaches this half heardtedly.
Keep the traditional designs as your backbone, but expand product lines for other tastes. Get the kids hooked so they'll buy your instruments when they get older. That nostalgia thing. We buy them because we grew up with Gibson being a major force, but competition has taken a lot of that away and they're growing up today with other brands. Adapt or you can gradually be phased out of the market. The average teenage player does not care what Ted and the boys did in the 1950's. That only gets you so far. Give them more to get excited about, that's relevant to them today.
Gibson's golden years (McCarty era) were all about cutting-edge innovation. That's a tremendous legacy and should be continued with pride. Unfortunately that won't sell many guitars 50 years from now. They need to strike a better balance between maintaining tradition and continuing the spirit of innovation. I see no reason why the inventor of HB's should be outdone by so many aftermarket PU manufacturers. Why do so many Gibson owners swap out the stock PU's?
Nor do I see the point in continuing to market their few duds of the 1950's, like vari-tones & HHH guitars (why not HSS or HSH using P-90's? Just about everybody else figured out that a single coil works much better in the middle). When no one copies certain ideas from an industry leader, it tells you those ideas didn't work. So drop them yourself and move on.
They promote ancient design failures and then miss opportunities for updating current models. Why sit & watch as Super Strats carved out a huge piece of the market, when a 'Super SG' (HSS or HSH using P-90's, with a 5-way & Floyd) could have offered some competition and become a market staple. A clear case of being asleep at the wheel. And since Gibson is trying to appeal to young metal heads with certain models, why not go all the way and have a special line for them with wild colors & graphics? Other manufacturers do it. The future is the kids starting out today, and Gibson/Epiphone approaches this half heardtedly.
Keep the traditional designs as your backbone, but expand product lines for other tastes. Get the kids hooked so they'll buy your instruments when they get older. That nostalgia thing. We buy them because we grew up with Gibson being a major force, but competition has taken a lot of that away and they're growing up today with other brands. Adapt or you can gradually be phased out of the market. The average teenage player does not care what Ted and the boys did in the 1950's. That only gets you so far. Give them more to get excited about, that's relevant to them today.
ksmith63
New member
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
I think one thing Gibson does wrong is that they can't decide if they want to be either (a) cutting edge or (b) historic. The robot guitars are cool examples of cutting edge but not used widely enough to make them catch on or even be worth the price. I should also point out that I have yet to see a Gibson Historic Reissue (or whatever they are called) that is actually faithful to the original. Example: The original SG's top horn.
I think one thing Gibson does wrong is that they can't decide if they want to be either (a) cutting edge or (b) historic. The robot guitars are cool examples of cutting edge but not used widely enough to make them catch on or even be worth the price. I should also point out that I have yet to see a Gibson Historic Reissue (or whatever they are called) that is actually faithful to the original. Example: The original SG's top horn.
Iron Horse
New member
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
mg:
1000 $ for plywood:kabong:, TOM, tuners, pickups, and some other parts is a bit steep, IMO. Especially since for that kind of money I can buy a two-piece mahogany body & one-piece mahogany neck Gibson SG Standard.
Whaddayamean needlessly? They don't need more money to cover bigger costs in manufacturing the guitars?
Fender American Standard Stratocaster costs at the moment about 1100-1200 $.
In 1954 the Stratocaster cost $249.50, this would cost $1976.71 in 2008.
Back in the 50's, the Strat and Les Paul cost the same, BTW. Les Paul Am Std now: 2000 - 2500 $, so Gibson prices have doubled since then. Of course Fenders involve less handwork, but Gibsons have cut that too.
That is true. But then again, it's not run by Orville Gibson's family anymore, just the name and the basic guitar models have stayed.
Of course they are... In their Chinese Epiphone factory
mg:1000 $ for plywood:kabong:, TOM, tuners, pickups, and some other parts is a bit steep, IMO. Especially since for that kind of money I can buy a two-piece mahogany body & one-piece mahogany neck Gibson SG Standard.
Whaddayamean needlessly? They don't need more money to cover bigger costs in manufacturing the guitars?
Fender American Standard Stratocaster costs at the moment about 1100-1200 $.
In 1954 the Stratocaster cost $249.50, this would cost $1976.71 in 2008.
Back in the 50's, the Strat and Les Paul cost the same, BTW. Les Paul Am Std now: 2000 - 2500 $, so Gibson prices have doubled since then. Of course Fenders involve less handwork, but Gibsons have cut that too.
That is true. But then again, it's not run by Orville Gibson's family anymore, just the name and the basic guitar models have stayed.
Chas
New member
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
Also - the Luxury item model requires perfection. There are NO crappy Rolex's, Ferraris or H&K's. If you are going to be top of the line you need to be top of the line. Too many Gibsons in that price range are not.
Great point Ace. You should not have to swap out any hardware on a 3k guitar IMO.
Also - the Luxury item model requires perfection. There are NO crappy Rolex's, Ferraris or H&K's. If you are going to be top of the line you need to be top of the line. Too many Gibsons in that price range are not.
Great point Ace. You should not have to swap out any hardware on a 3k guitar IMO.
Zerberus
Baron Von Shred
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
I also find it a bit comical when people chastise Gibson for not innovating.... First off because every time they bring something truly new to the table like the digital and robot guitars people are up in arms about it and denounce it as crap before it even hits the market, and more importantly becasue I see a lot more Innovation coming from Gibson than from PRS and Fender combined.... What was the last truly new thing Fender did? Ah, they opened a factory in MEXICO... oh, ups, been done before.... The last great "innovation" from PRS that I can thin of was the Singlecut, and I´d hardly call that an innovation....
Most don´t. The overwhelming majority of guitarists are not people like us that like to tinker and tweak, but will buy a guitar, have it set up, and bring it into the shop as soon as something´s wrong. These people do not care about aftermarket mods to a guitar, they either like it the way it is or won´t buy it.
I also find it a bit comical when people chastise Gibson for not innovating.... First off because every time they bring something truly new to the table like the digital and robot guitars people are up in arms about it and denounce it as crap before it even hits the market, and more importantly becasue I see a lot more Innovation coming from Gibson than from PRS and Fender combined.... What was the last truly new thing Fender did? Ah, they opened a factory in MEXICO... oh, ups, been done before.... The last great "innovation" from PRS that I can thin of was the Singlecut, and I´d hardly call that an innovation....
Last edited:
Empty Pockets
BadHairDayologist
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
Jessie said earlier something about liking the small imperfections you get in some expensive Gibsons...most people don't get that those slight imperfections are the mark of a handmade guitar. The human hand can't make 300 perfectly flawless to the original spec Les Pauls every day. They couldn't even do it in the 50's.
Somebody mentioned the horn on the reissue SG's looking wrong...if you look at lots of real VINTAGE SGs, you'll see that the horns are almost never uniform. They were hand-sanded to a point and all of them were slightly different...now that they employ CNC they can get closer to 'spec' quicker but that's still the way they do it.
1. I don't think you have ever heard or played a Zoot Suit otherwise you would know how silly you sounded just then.
2. American Standards cost $1250 right now. When i first started working at my shop they were like $850...making them seem like an attractive upgrade from a worn finish Gibson...suddenly they're priced to compete with SG Standards and just aren't worth it to me.
Gibson's prices have actually gone DOWN since i started working there...61 Reissue SGs used to be $2499...now they're $1999...more examples like that.
Anyway, Zerb makes a really good point...when you look at the Big 3, you see Fender trying to make the same old stuff for cheaper, you see PRS who did all of their innovating like 20 years ago, and you see Gibson and they're making the vintage stuff, the modern stuff, and the super cutting-edge stuff. I sell mostly VOS and reissue Les Pauls, not so much standard-series or whatever...dudes who want locking tuners tend to play ESP's haha...but i sold exactly 10 robot guitars last month with another one going out the door tomorrow so...take that for what you will...
Jessie said earlier something about liking the small imperfections you get in some expensive Gibsons...most people don't get that those slight imperfections are the mark of a handmade guitar. The human hand can't make 300 perfectly flawless to the original spec Les Pauls every day. They couldn't even do it in the 50's.
Somebody mentioned the horn on the reissue SG's looking wrong...if you look at lots of real VINTAGE SGs, you'll see that the horns are almost never uniform. They were hand-sanded to a point and all of them were slightly different...now that they employ CNC they can get closer to 'spec' quicker but that's still the way they do it.
Of course they are... In their Chinese Epiphone factory
1000 $ for plywood:kabong:, TOM, tuners, pickups, and some other parts is a bit steep, IMO. Especially since for that kind of money I can buy a two-piece mahogany body & one-piece mahogany neck Gibson SG Standard.
Whaddayamean needlessly? They don't need more money to cover bigger costs in manufacturing the guitars?
Fender American Standard Stratocaster costs at the moment about 1100-1200 $.
In 1954 the Stratocaster cost $249.50, this would cost $1976.71 in 2008.
Back in the 50's, the Strat and Les Paul cost the same, BTW. Les Paul Am Std now: 2000 - 2500 $, so Gibson prices have doubled since then. Of course Fenders involve less handwork, but Gibsons have cut that too.
That is true. But then again, it's not run by Orville Gibson's family anymore, just the name and the basic guitar models have stayed.
1. I don't think you have ever heard or played a Zoot Suit otherwise you would know how silly you sounded just then.
2. American Standards cost $1250 right now. When i first started working at my shop they were like $850...making them seem like an attractive upgrade from a worn finish Gibson...suddenly they're priced to compete with SG Standards and just aren't worth it to me.
Gibson's prices have actually gone DOWN since i started working there...61 Reissue SGs used to be $2499...now they're $1999...more examples like that.
Anyway, Zerb makes a really good point...when you look at the Big 3, you see Fender trying to make the same old stuff for cheaper, you see PRS who did all of their innovating like 20 years ago, and you see Gibson and they're making the vintage stuff, the modern stuff, and the super cutting-edge stuff. I sell mostly VOS and reissue Les Pauls, not so much standard-series or whatever...dudes who want locking tuners tend to play ESP's haha...but i sold exactly 10 robot guitars last month with another one going out the door tomorrow so...take that for what you will...
Last edited:
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
That is no excuse for e.g. fretboard edge bindings that are cracked over the frets, the reason for which is that they used insufficiently aged fretboard wood. This is a dimeshuffler thing, not a "human touch" thing.
The same goes for outright incorrectly cured nitro, which you find as either fog around the neck joint or as sticky neck syndrome and often enough both. Even I could get a properly hardened nitro finish out of reranch spraycans on my first attempt with no environmental control. Why can't Gibson?
What about Gibson specifying that a SG Standard body is 2 pieces max and you see 5-piecers pop at at MLP? Is that a "human touch" manufacturing thing or is it the actions of a fraudulently acting company with a mad CEO?
That is no excuse for e.g. fretboard edge bindings that are cracked over the frets, the reason for which is that they used insufficiently aged fretboard wood. This is a dimeshuffler thing, not a "human touch" thing.
The same goes for outright incorrectly cured nitro, which you find as either fog around the neck joint or as sticky neck syndrome and often enough both. Even I could get a properly hardened nitro finish out of reranch spraycans on my first attempt with no environmental control. Why can't Gibson?
What about Gibson specifying that a SG Standard body is 2 pieces max and you see 5-piecers pop at at MLP? Is that a "human touch" manufacturing thing or is it the actions of a fraudulently acting company with a mad CEO?
Last edited:
Kevincharles
New member
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
yeah wow i havent checked back in a couple days but this is a great discussion.
and another note on Gibsons being affordable, i just bought my first SG for 400 dollars, without a case and its road worn but still, its a gibson SG.
yeah wow i havent checked back in a couple days but this is a great discussion.
and another note on Gibsons being affordable, i just bought my first SG for 400 dollars, without a case and its road worn but still, its a gibson SG.
Empty Pockets
BadHairDayologist
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
^^ exactly.
^^ exactly.
Empty Pockets
BadHairDayologist
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
haven't encountered any of this personally and if it were to happen i would send it back with my store's warranty.
where are you guys playing all of these messed-up guitars?
haven't encountered any of this personally and if it were to happen i would send it back with my store's warranty.
where are you guys playing all of these messed-up guitars?
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
Innovations can be truly usable ideas, or they can be novelty gimmicks, like Reverse V's, Zoot Suits, robot tuners, etc that have an extremely slim chance of ever catching on with anyone. They're the duds of today, like vari-tones & HHH's were 50 years ago. Some of it is crap. You can tell that early on. Learn from your mistakes.
How about instead of wasting limited resources on sideshow tricks, Gibson puts some R&D into getting creative and expanding their PU line. And although they're late coming to the party, a line of Super SG's and Super V's (HSS and HSH with a 5 way & a Floyd) would have much better chances of selling than the above two guitars, as would some affordable models with creative color schemes & graphics geared for teenagers. The 'Goth' line is like what Henry Ford once said about his cars "You can have them in any color you want, as long as it's black." How about getting artistic? Kids will buy other brands if you can't make any more effort than that. Us baby boomers will only be around and buying guitars for just so long. Gibson doesn't seem to have a viable 'Plan B' for the up & coming generation. To teenagers, the 1950's is almost prehistoric. Like it or not, Gibson has to innovate while it honors it's history; it will gradually fade into the background if it depends totally on what it did in the 1950's. People change, tastes change. Companies change or get left behind. Many examples of that in the last 100 years.
Here's a lesson in how not to be a 'historical' company: the new 50th Anniversary V's and Explorers: "A precise recreation with all the appointments of the debut model, consistent with the 1958 original." Sounds interesting, right, and for about $8,000 you'd think you're getting the next best thing to the original. What are the PU's? Ceramic 500T/496R. So much for them honoring their traditions. This callous disregard for their own history turns people off, and takes away the arguments that they are a 'historic' company. That's just an excuse for the lack of good ideas since McCarty left.
To me, they have the richest history of any electric guitar maker. Once the golden years were over, they've struggled to regain their footing and have made many poor decisions since then. Fender ran past them and became the world's symbol of the electric guitar. All the more amazing when you consider that Fender's top two designs were over with by 1954, and at that time Gibson hadn't yet introduced: humbuckers, the LP "Burst", the 335 family, SG, Flying V, Explorer, and Firebird. To have that incredible legacy and fumble it, and keep fumbling... I love Gibson for what it was, not what it is. Different people, different mindset, different company.
Innovations can be truly usable ideas, or they can be novelty gimmicks, like Reverse V's, Zoot Suits, robot tuners, etc that have an extremely slim chance of ever catching on with anyone. They're the duds of today, like vari-tones & HHH's were 50 years ago. Some of it is crap. You can tell that early on. Learn from your mistakes.
How about instead of wasting limited resources on sideshow tricks, Gibson puts some R&D into getting creative and expanding their PU line. And although they're late coming to the party, a line of Super SG's and Super V's (HSS and HSH with a 5 way & a Floyd) would have much better chances of selling than the above two guitars, as would some affordable models with creative color schemes & graphics geared for teenagers. The 'Goth' line is like what Henry Ford once said about his cars "You can have them in any color you want, as long as it's black." How about getting artistic? Kids will buy other brands if you can't make any more effort than that. Us baby boomers will only be around and buying guitars for just so long. Gibson doesn't seem to have a viable 'Plan B' for the up & coming generation. To teenagers, the 1950's is almost prehistoric. Like it or not, Gibson has to innovate while it honors it's history; it will gradually fade into the background if it depends totally on what it did in the 1950's. People change, tastes change. Companies change or get left behind. Many examples of that in the last 100 years.
Here's a lesson in how not to be a 'historical' company: the new 50th Anniversary V's and Explorers: "A precise recreation with all the appointments of the debut model, consistent with the 1958 original." Sounds interesting, right, and for about $8,000 you'd think you're getting the next best thing to the original. What are the PU's? Ceramic 500T/496R. So much for them honoring their traditions. This callous disregard for their own history turns people off, and takes away the arguments that they are a 'historic' company. That's just an excuse for the lack of good ideas since McCarty left.
To me, they have the richest history of any electric guitar maker. Once the golden years were over, they've struggled to regain their footing and have made many poor decisions since then. Fender ran past them and became the world's symbol of the electric guitar. All the more amazing when you consider that Fender's top two designs were over with by 1954, and at that time Gibson hadn't yet introduced: humbuckers, the LP "Burst", the 335 family, SG, Flying V, Explorer, and Firebird. To have that incredible legacy and fumble it, and keep fumbling... I love Gibson for what it was, not what it is. Different people, different mindset, different company.
75lespaul
New member
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
This is one of the coolest threads since my Jesus guitar thread.....j/k.
I really like the ideas for guitars that Blueman is throwing out there. How I would have LOVED to have seen those guitars...when I had money, ha ha. Great ideas man, I love'em.
This is one of the coolest threads since my Jesus guitar thread.....j/k.
I really like the ideas for guitars that Blueman is throwing out there. How I would have LOVED to have seen those guitars...when I had money, ha ha. Great ideas man, I love'em.
ibanezrocks
HardtailPisser
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
I partially agree with the blue man... where I disagree is about the robot guitars. I think the robot guitars, if the technology was perfected, could be big sellers in the future.
It would be possible to make a very classic looking and sounding guitar that automatically tuned itself at the push of a button, to whatever tuning you wanted. It might also be possible to make this technology fairly cheap (>$200). If they made it available as an upgrade feature and it didn't ruin the look of the guitar and worked as it should, I think people would go for that.
To me thats useful innovation. I don't consider anything else they're doing innovation, as making a backwards version of a guitar doesn't help anything.
I partially agree with the blue man... where I disagree is about the robot guitars. I think the robot guitars, if the technology was perfected, could be big sellers in the future.
It would be possible to make a very classic looking and sounding guitar that automatically tuned itself at the push of a button, to whatever tuning you wanted. It might also be possible to make this technology fairly cheap (>$200). If they made it available as an upgrade feature and it didn't ruin the look of the guitar and worked as it should, I think people would go for that.
To me thats useful innovation. I don't consider anything else they're doing innovation, as making a backwards version of a guitar doesn't help anything.
Aceman
I am your doctor of love!
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
You know - the pickup thing, Blueman, is a really great point. And the 500/496 in the repro V/explorers is just a glaring tragedy. That points out the brain damage of the company perfectly. I wonder how many of those sold? I'd be dropping Seth's in there faster than you could say Ted McCarty. I guess they couldn't swing it for 8 grand and keep the profit margin. Hard to believe they put PG's in the Gibbons model!?!?!?! I wonder how that happened?
I have a small surprise for you guys regarding Gibson...stay tuned later this week.
You know - the pickup thing, Blueman, is a really great point. And the 500/496 in the repro V/explorers is just a glaring tragedy. That points out the brain damage of the company perfectly. I wonder how many of those sold? I'd be dropping Seth's in there faster than you could say Ted McCarty. I guess they couldn't swing it for 8 grand and keep the profit margin. Hard to believe they put PG's in the Gibbons model!?!?!?! I wonder how that happened?
I have a small surprise for you guys regarding Gibson...stay tuned later this week.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
But that's the thing, your statement is full of "if's". Maybe one day self-tunings guitars will be the norm, but they aren't perfected yet, and therefore not that appealing. Gibson could use the money much more effectively developing products that are ready to market now, and therefore have more cash flow coming in.
But that's the thing, your statement is full of "if's". Maybe one day self-tunings guitars will be the norm, but they aren't perfected yet, and therefore not that appealing. Gibson could use the money much more effectively developing products that are ready to market now, and therefore have more cash flow coming in.
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
Why don't some of you find out the actual sales figures of some of these newer models before lambasting them for it? This gets old real quick.
Just because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean that everybody doesn't like it. Heck, I could care less about vintage correctness and all that crap. Who cares if the binding isn't just so in the horn area of a LP, who cares of the tuners aren't the vintage green key. Freakin' a, just make a solid playing guitar that sounds great. Oh, wait a minute, they do. LP Traditional Pro, LP Custom, LP Studios, SGs, just to name a few.
Why don't some of you find out the actual sales figures of some of these newer models before lambasting them for it? This gets old real quick.
Just because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean that everybody doesn't like it. Heck, I could care less about vintage correctness and all that crap. Who cares if the binding isn't just so in the horn area of a LP, who cares of the tuners aren't the vintage green key. Freakin' a, just make a solid playing guitar that sounds great. Oh, wait a minute, they do. LP Traditional Pro, LP Custom, LP Studios, SGs, just to name a few.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: Gibson went bankrupt?
I don't think the 500T/496R was a cost decision, but rather a blatant disregard of their own tradition. Someone who spends $8,000 on a meticulous 50th Anniversary reissue Flying V and wants it to actually sound like the original (like it's supposed to); what do you do? Replace the PU's with PAF's and reduce the collector value of the guitar, or live with hot ceramic PU's that don't sound anything like an original V? They've created a dilema for any potential buyer. For that much money, it should be as advertised, just like the original.
This is classic 'ivory tower management' out of touch with reality. They can't even do their own history right. These are people who bought the licensing for the name & models; they're not the same 'Gibson' that created the original innovations & masterpieces. Those people are long gone, and a new set of know-it-all 'suits' are calling the shots.
I don't think the 500T/496R was a cost decision, but rather a blatant disregard of their own tradition. Someone who spends $8,000 on a meticulous 50th Anniversary reissue Flying V and wants it to actually sound like the original (like it's supposed to); what do you do? Replace the PU's with PAF's and reduce the collector value of the guitar, or live with hot ceramic PU's that don't sound anything like an original V? They've created a dilema for any potential buyer. For that much money, it should be as advertised, just like the original.
This is classic 'ivory tower management' out of touch with reality. They can't even do their own history right. These are people who bought the licensing for the name & models; they're not the same 'Gibson' that created the original innovations & masterpieces. Those people are long gone, and a new set of know-it-all 'suits' are calling the shots.