The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

[Warheart]

I've been trying to do some research on Gibson guitars in general and I was wondering, What were the years that Gibson quality was the best? Specifically between 1976-2010, but feel free to comment otherwise.

I would also like people with experience with the particular years they comment on to chime in, your opinions hold more weight to me because well, you have done the comparison yourself. For Example: If you've never played a 1979 Les Paul Custom, please don't trash talk them. If you play an Epiphone, that's not a Gibson.

^^^^ I don't want this to turn into a Gibson bashing thread at all, that's not the point of this question.

The reason I'm asking is, I'm looking to pick up another Explorer, and I'm trying to find out when the Gibson quality lived up to its name.

For some, I know Norlin era Les Paul's are the Good stuff, others seem to hate them.

Thanks in advance guys!

 

[JOLLY]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

All of my mid to late 90's and very early 2000's Gibson Les Pauls are some of the best ones I've ever played.

 

[voggin]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I can only comment on an SG custom I once owned. I got it second hand at a pawn shop, dirt cheap around "92. It was apparently made in the late 70's - early eighties. Bearing in mind I wasn't the original owner, but also bearing in mind it had no obvious damage or repairs, it was quite disappointing: dead tone, a very strange neck profile, and some bad fit and finish (inlays, headstock and neck binding). The pickups were kinda "meh".

A friend of mine has one from the early seventies, and it's great. I've since played newer ones, and they were terrific, too. So from that (obviously) very small sample, there seems to have been an era of lesser quality around the late seventies-early eighties (a Les Paul freak friend of mine seems to confirm a similar experience...great 1970 LP, great 1990's one and a dud somewhere in the middle, since sold).

Sort of similar to the history of North American manufacturing in general. Post-OPEC decline in late seventies, then good quality again. Must have been the hangover from too much coke in the disco era!

 

[whatshisname]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

There are good and bad from all eras, including the Norlin years, but I won't get into all of that. But, from your post you already know that...

The Gibsons from the early '90s seem to have a good rep, and my '05 Les Paul is absolutely unreal. I also had a mid '70s Custom that was awesome, and out of all of my guitars, my '05 Faded Flying V will be buried with me. I love it that much.

I think they are making some great guitars right now. I gotta say, that whatever you get, your chances of getting a great guitar are much better than any of the resident Gibson bashers would have anyone believe. Some of these guys act like Henry broke up their parents marriage, or something. SHEEEESH. :lol:

 

[these_go211]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

my 2010 sg standard is amazing. everything about it is top notch. no quality issues at all. my 2005 sg classic showed up in perfect condition as well. seems like they are on a roll.

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Good question! I've played about a quarter of a million Gibsons, and can say that about 88 - 2001 are the best, with peak years of 1994-96 for Gibson, Fender, and PRS in terms of wood and craftsmanship.

Around 2003, Gibson quality slipped a tiny bit, then picked back up around 2007.

In evaluating this period, I'd say that the wood and necks are great, and the setups are spotty. They've all looked good, but I've seen the nuts cut all over the place.

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I played a lot of new Gibsons in 2005-2007, and I pretty much fell in love. The only reason I didn't buy an LP Classic was a certain cherry sunburst Soloist that won my heart and most of my disposable income right around then. I did come out of that period with a Faded V that I still love and play a lot.

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

It's actually surprising to see Gibson bashing threads from the 90's till now. They've been consistently great instruments. The big issue is always the way the nut was cut. They tend to be a tiny bit high, and that's fine, since it allows the user to decide, but it gives a bad impression of Gibson sometimes. When you pull a PRS off the wall, it plays like Paul himself set it up. With a new Gibson, it feels like someone glued a nut on, strung it up, and hoped for the best. It's usually OK, but not a pro setup.

 

[Dr.K]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Played a new LP Studio today, it was most likely built in '10. The quality was second rate. That's the only one I've seriously experienced.

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

It's actually surprising to see Gibson bashing threads from the 90's till now. They've been consistently great instruments. The big issue is always the way the nut was cut. They tend to be a tiny bit high, and that's fine, since it allows the user to decide, but it gives a bad impression of Gibson sometimes. When you pull a PRS off the wall, it plays like Paul himself set it up. With a new Gibson, it feels like someone glued a nut on, strung it up, and hoped for the best. It's usually OK, but not a pro setup.

The nut was high on my V. I didn't mind. It wasn't bone, so I was going to get it replaced anyway. I hadn't notice myself, but the tech knew after having it in his hands for thirty seconds. All better now.

 

[Jessie's ghost]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Played a new LP Studio today, it was most likely built in '10. The quality was second rate. That's the only one I've seriously experienced.

What was wrong with it?

 

[whatshisname]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

What was wrong with it?

It was overpriced. The Epiphone next to it played like a great '59.

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

You know why Gibson gets a bad rep by Gibson bashers? It's because they go to GC and pick up a Gibson with a nut that's cut a tiny bit high (Gibson not only does this because they're mass produced, but because guys who buy $2000 guitars usually want to dial the setup to their exact liking.) But what do you expect when it's got 9's, high action, and maybe out of intonation a tiny bit? That's how Gibsons come.....always have.

But, when you install 10's or 11's, cut the nut to absolute perfection, and intonate it so everything is true across the neck....and add to that some handwound pickups. These are the Gibson guitars you should experience.....ones that are completely dialed in.

And the same goes for any brand. That's why I never give credit to anyone with a review of a guitar off the wall at a store. Your opinion is worthless....you may as well have just shut up and listened. Music store experiences are not worthy of reviews.....ever.

 

[Warheart]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Good question! I've played about a quarter of a million Gibsons, and can say that about 88 - 2001 are the best, with peak years of 1994-96 for Gibson, Fender, and PRS in terms of wood and craftsmanship.

Around 2003, Gibson quality slipped a tiny bit, then picked back up around 2007.

In evaluating this period, I'd say that the wood and necks are great, and the setups are spotty. They've all looked good, but I've seen the nuts cut all over the place.

This re-affirms what I've been led to believe about Gibson! Good info!

 

[LedSabbath]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

It was overpriced. The Epiphone next to it played like a great '59.

I got to agree, Epiphone definitely seems better than Gibson at this point. They don't put the time and effort into it anymore.

 

[whatshisname]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

You know why Gibson gets a bad rep by Gibson bashers? It's because they go to GC and pick up a Gibson with a nut that's cut a tiny bit high (Gibson not only does this because they're mass produced, but because guys who buy $2000 guitars usually want to dial the setup to their exact liking.) But what do you expect when it's got 9's, high action, and maybe out of intonation a tiny bit? That's how Gibsons come.....always have.

But, when you install 10's or 11's, cut the nut to absolute perfection, and intonate it so everything is true across the neck....and add to that some handwound pickups. These are the Gibson guitars you should experience.....ones that are completely dialed in.

And the same goes for any brand. That's why I never give credit to anyone with a review of a guitar off the wall at a store. Your opinion is worthless....you may as well have just shut up and listened. Music store experiences are not worthy of reviews.....ever.

Not only that, but the guitars at GC get so damn beat up by everyone abusing them. For instance-I picked up a Zakk Wylde Custom one day, and the tone control, and jack plate, were broken. I couldn't even plug it in. Not to mention the fact that the strings were dead.

Did that reflect back on Gibson in any way? No, of course not. Some of these other folks would walk away calling it a piece of junk.

Like I said earlier, my recent Gibsons(in fact any Gibson I've ever owned) came set up pretty nicely from the factory. But as you stated, I still set them up for my own personal preference. I've done the same with ANY guitar I've EVER owned.

 

[Warheart]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

There are good and bad from all eras, including the Norlin years, but I won't get into all of that. But, from your post you already know that...

The Gibsons from the early '90s seem to have a good rep, and my '05 Les Paul is absolutely unreal. I also had a mid '70s Custom that was awesome, and out of all of my guitars, my '05 Faded Flying V will be buried with me. I love it that much.

I think they are making some great guitars right now. I gotta say, that whatever you get, your chances of getting a great guitar are much better than any of the resident Gibson bashers would have anyone believe. Some of these guys act like Henry broke up their parents marriage, or something. SHEEEESH. :lol:

By all means, I could always use enlightening on the Norlin era!

Also, from my experience, at my local Gibson dealer, I've seen far too many cosmetic flaws on 2010 Customs and Traditionals, which is why I'm asking this question.

Edit: Some are because its a floor model and has been played a lot yes, but others, like, paint on the binding under the clear coat and what not, thats coming from the factory.

 

[whatshisname]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I got to agree, Epiphone definitely seems better than Gibson at this point. They don't put the time and effort into it anymore.

You seem to have missed my sarcasm...

 

[voggin]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

You know why Gibson gets a bad rep by Gibson bashers? It's because they go to GC and pick up a Gibson with a nut that's cut a tiny bit high (Gibson not only does this because they're mass produced, but because guys who buy $2000 guitars usually want to dial the setup to their exact liking.) But what do you expect when it's got 9's, high action, and maybe out of intonation a tiny bit? That's how Gibsons come.....always have.

But, when you install 10's or 11's, cut the nut to absolute perfection, and intonate it so everything is true across the neck....and add to that some handwound pickups. These are the Gibson guitars you should experience.....ones that are completely dialed in.

And the same goes for any brand. That's why I never give credit to anyone with a review of a guitar off the wall at a store. Your opinion is worthless....you may as well have just shut up and listened. Music store experiences are not worthy of reviews.....ever.


Excellent point. I tend to blame music stores more for bad set ups than manufacturers. They have to ship these things all over the world, to different climates, etc., so my guess is they give them the most rudimentary or generic set up they can. But there's no excuse for a store to charge someone big $ for an item they haven't bothered to at least make sure is in decent shape. I mean, they ship cars with the paint covered, seats in plastic, parts not put on, but you would never see a car dealership leave one like that on the lot, let alone let someone test drive it.

It's also a pet peeve of mine that new guitars usually come with .009's. Most people play at least .010's. If you are used to a higher guage, a set of 9's can make a nice guitar feel like a toy. From a purely greedhead/capitalist point of view, if I were selling guitars I'd want them all to feel as nice as possible to as many people as possible so that when they took it off the wall out of curiosity they may end up with an incurable case of GAS.

 

[Dr.K]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

It was overpriced. The Epiphone next to it played like a great '59.

Not even close, The Epi just played better than the LP Studio.