The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

[Warheart]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I'm not afraid of doing my own setups either...If I do get an explorer, I can't justify a new one cause I'm just gonna rip all the electronics, change to a tone pros and locking tuners.

I guess basically I'm looking for the best woods and construction Gibson has to offer!

 

[Jessie's ghost]

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.

Epiphone is definitely better at making jigsaw puzzles glued together out of sketchy-looking wood, then sealing them up in a hard catalyzed jacket of poly finish that's nearly impervious to musical resonance, and topping it all off with soft hardware that dampens vibration and pickups generally lacking in tonal nuance.

Yes, much better.

 

[Aceman]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I do not think there is anyone year that can generally be said to good or bad for Gibson regarding quality - if by which you mean the sound, the feel, the construction.

If you mean a spot in the wood, the binding neatness, or paint splotch...or as was mentioned, the original setup, I don't know - or care.

I currently have a 73, a 79, and a 96. I have played about 25% of what Joe has. Not one of them sounded crappy or felt bad period. Some sounded amazing acoustically, and of corse the pickups varied. But overall, not a turd. Some that I was offended by the price for the style or features or an off-colored inlay. But never an issue performance wise.

 

[whatshisname]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I think it all comes down to if the neck feels good. I honestly believe that just about any guitar can be made to be perfectly playable, with a good setup. Things like weight, and tone are subjective.

My Dean Michael Schenker Custom was horrible, when I first got it. It played like hell, but it sounded great. After I lowered the nut, which was WAY too high, and did a complete setup, it plays wonderfully.

 

[DonP]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

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!

I could write a lot having 6 LPs and 2 SGs, but as I do not have any Explorers, I don't think I should comment. I do like the Explorer models and would love to get a Pro or a white Explorer with an ebony fretboard.

I will say you should do a lot of reearch and know what you are looking for. As I bought more and more Les Pauls, I got specific on what I was looking for. For example, when I wanted a Custom, I specificly wanted a Norlin witha maple neck and a solid body. I waited patiently and scored a 77 on ebay for $1360 in Jan 2006.

 

[Warheart]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I could write a lot having 6 LPs and 2 SGs, but as I do not have any Explorers, I don't think I should comment. I do like the Explorer models and would love to get a Pro or a white Explorer with an ebony fretboard.

I will say you should do a lot of research and know what you are looking for. As I bought more and more Les Pauls, I got specific on what I was looking for. For example, when I wanted a Custom, I specifically wanted a Norlin with a maple neck and a solid body. I waited patiently and scored a 77 on eBay for $1360 in Jan 2006.

I couldn't agree more with you!

The explorer I want should be a '76 reissue, TOM and pick guard with a Rosewood fretboard.

Very nice score man, at an incredible price! I'm pretty sure I'd love to have your 77 Custom. That would be my ideal LP. I played a 79 and would have bought it, if I could have afforded it.

That's pretty much how I'm gonna go about it, I'm doing my research now, but, I'm just not sure what YEAR explorer I would want to get, I just want the woods and construction to be top notch, and I'll handle everything else!

I've read too many reviews about the 1984 reissue w/o pick guard that really put that guitar down, It makes me hesitant to just buy one without playing it.

 

[IanBallard]

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.

I'm sorry, but if I spend $3000 on an instrument, it better kick ass, scream and give me a raging BJ before bedtime.

 

[Aceman]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I still think cork sniffing the year is missing the point. Why TF do you care if it was made yesterday or in 68 - as long as it plays and sounds good?

Yeas - if you need an ebony finger board because you dig the snap and brightness and quick attack - fine....

But based on purely year? That is foolishness that smacks of Blues lawyering or collecting, not guitar playing. Which is cool - but say that's what you want.

I have not heard any sensible reason for wanting a particular year of Explorer other than some are better than others. And old dudes who have played four decades of LP's etc...aren't saying that. Hmmmm....

Why do you care about the year? Neck profile - ok. Neck wood - ok. Weight - perhaps. Pups - like we won;t change those anyway. Paint job - might make sense...but not really? Because Player X had one - totally reasonable?

Again - in the 70's they are likel to have maple necks (explorers???) and T-tops. Of cvourse you could trip across an Explorer Pro with binding and flame and Dirty Fingers...in the later 70's. You just can't generalize like that very well. And explorers - I would suspect - are much more similar year to year than LP's. Just not as many models/versions.

I'll say this - and I'm sure their are people who won't agree: The are 59 LP's that sound and play like crap. Not every PAF is Pearly Gates. I'd argue that MOST are not!

 

[richard parker]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Looked for a new guitar for a long time and played quite a few. There's a great guitar shop next to my office - good or bad thing depending on whether I've got any cash to spend which isn't often. Eventually got a Gibson Firebird Studio which I think was built in06. Flawless in every respect and way better than anything else I tried. Forgive me I even like the 498/490 pickups.

 

[uOpt]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I don't support the ~2000 theory. All my Gibsons have been 100% randomly better or worse.

Les Paul-wise of course there is some whacky construction in the late 1970ties and right afterwards they start punching holes into Les Pauls.

Cheap models from the 1970ties can be very problematic, including SGs, though.

 

[ken361]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

My SG is one of the best guitars I ever had 2009 model, action was a tad high. There's a store by me, when they get a guitar in they set it up pretty good and check it out b4 hanging it up. They did tell me that had a $5000 gibby come with a finger print on it and it didnt come off,think they had to mark it down nicely. I been in manufacturing all my life and things dont always come out perfect. Its up to the QC or shipper or the guy signing off the guitars to be shipped. When you look at so many each day its like yeah that looks fine ship it! then the next day he's more awake but being more picky and doesnt pass it! see what i mean? it happens, certain eras they prb fired numb nuts for letting stuff pass through.

 

[jmh151]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I wouldn't say certain years are good. You will not find a period of years where Gibsons were PRS quality.

You will find years where they let absolutely abysmal out of they factory that should have been destroyed, and that's generally in the 70's. Sure they made some great guitars during that time, but more absolute dogs were let out of the factory than they are now. These days there's better quality control- not great, better, that reduces the number of absolute dogs leaving the factory. Because of this, you REALLY have to play a Gibson before you buy it.

1986 was when Gibson moved the factory from Kalamazoo Michigan to Nashville and Memphis Tennessee, and revamped quality control. The Gibsons from 1986 to present will therefore be better bets at getting a good guitar than a dog.

Mind you, if you buy used, factory problems like improperly cut nuts, bad frets, are likely to have been repaired by now by subsequent owners

 

[uOpt]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I wonder what "dog" means here.

The typical QC issues such as bad frets and bad electronics presumably don't matter after so many years. What's left is the wood. I don't think they used better wood in Tennessee.

And of course they started swiss-cheesing (and later chambering) them around the same time. Apparently that was their answer to the cheap Mahogany being too heavy. I'd take a Michigan piece over the early works of Juszkiewicz any time.

 

[whatshisname]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Its up to the QC or shipper or the guy signing off the guitars to be shipped. When you look at so many each day its like yeah that looks fine ship it! then the next day he's more awake but being more picky and doesnt pass it! see what i mean? it happens, certain eras they prb fired numb nuts for letting stuff pass through.

I used to work in the quality lab, at a plant that mainly manufactured circuit boards for the government. They were for everything from missiles, satellites, the space shuttle, brakes for Boeing airplanes... We were constantly at war with the supervisors, because we would want to scrap a job, and they would sign off on it, because they needed it to ship. Sometimes we were FORCED to make up numbers, so we could ship an order. We had our jobs on the line, and with families to support, we didn't have a choice. This happened on a daily basis. These are obviously things that could cost people there lives, if a board goes bad, or doesn't work at all.

As a matter of fact, we would even take the boards and put them in the scrap boxes. They would actually go into the scrap, and ship the boards anyway.

I lost that job, because there was a very large order that I was told HAD to ship, no matter what. There was no copper plating in the component holes which means that there was no way in hell these boards would work. I ended up telling my boss that if he wanted them to ship, HE was signing off on them. I didn't want ANYTHING to do with it. The next thing I know, the SOB handed the job to the courier with MY name as the lab tech on the paperwork. Three days later, the customer threw a fit, and I was unemployed.

I'm quite sure that Gibson's (as well as any company)quality department has done the exact same thing.

 

[Jeff_H]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I've bought 3 Les Pauls during my playing days....all of them from eBay and made from the mid 90's thru the mid 00's. Each one of them had their own issues, but each was a quality instrument. Did they each sound like God through my Marshall....no. But each and every one of them sounded better than my Epi LP did, not that it was a bad guitar either, just not a Gibson.

Each guitar needed a complete setup to play the way I wanted it to play. One needed a new nut, one just needed the nut slots adjusted because they were binding. They all needed the action and intonation set, and I always put Grover locking tuners on them, Tone Pro's locking ABR's and stop tails and Duncan pups. Some got new CTS pots if they had the original 300k Gibson pots in them and I usually put some higher grade caps in them in a value of my preference.

After making these changes each Les Paul played much better and sounded much better, to my ears. I regret selling my Honeyburst AA flame Standard and my Goldtop Standard. Both were guitars that I would have been happy with for the rest of my life.

I am not a bit afraid to buy a Les Paul or other quality guitar sight unseen, because I know I can make some setup and hardware changes that will make it sound better to me. If after that I still don't like it, I can sell it again and make back most of my money.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't be able to get the best sound possible out of a real 59' burst, even if I was given the opportunity to own one and neither would most players.....here or anywhere else. Most violinists would not be able to do justice to a Stradivarious either, even if they played professionally. Some instruments are meant for elite players with unique talent.

My advice is simple. Be patient and look for the instrument that is as close to what you want as you can find at a price you want to pay. If you can't play it first....buy it anyway. Change the nut, electronics, some hardware if you want to and get it set up exactly to your specs. My guess is you will love the guitar. If for some reason you don't, just sell it on eBay and start again.

 

[Warheart]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I wouldn't say certain years are good. You will not find a period of years where Gibsons were PRS quality.

You will find years where they let absolutely abysmal out of they factory that should have been destroyed, and that's generally in the 70's. Sure they made some great guitars during that time, but more absolute dogs were let out of the factory than they are now. These days there's better quality control- not great, better, that reduces the number of absolute dogs leaving the factory. Because of this, you REALLY have to play a Gibson before you buy it.

1986 was when Gibson moved the factory from Kalamazoo Michigan to Nashville and Memphis Tennessee, and revamped quality control. The Gibsons from 1986 to present will therefore be better bets at getting a good guitar than a dog.

Mind you, if you buy used, factory problems like improperly cut nuts, bad frets, are likely to have been repaired by now by subsequent owners

The typical QC issues such as bad frets and bad electronics presumably don't matter after so many years. What's left is the wood. I don't think they used better wood in Tennessee.

And of course they started swiss-cheesing (and later chambering) them around the same time. Apparently that was their answer to the cheap Mahogany being too heavy. I'd take a Michigan piece over the early works of Juszkiewicz any time.

To Aceman: This is what I'm talking about. We have one person who says that a Gibson made in Tennessee post 1986 is better than earlier.

On the other hand, we have another person who wouldn't want to touch those guitars that are post 1986.

The quality control of these years is being questioned here.

I don't want to buy an explorer from this era if there is a greater chance of it being a sub standard guitar.

The other reason I'm asking is because theres a LOT of differing models of Gibson Explorers in the 80's.

There are:
Gibson Explorer 1976-1982
Gibson Explorer II 1979-1983
Gibson Explorer CMT 1981-1984
Gibson Explorer Korina 1982-1984
Gibson Explorer 83 1983-1989
Gibson Heritage Series 1983-1984
Gibson Explorer III 1984-1985
Gibson Explorer 90 1989-1990
Gibson Explorer '76 Reissue 1990- ****

Some of these I could use, Some of these, I would not touch simply because of specs.

I'm not going to have a chance to play these guitars before I buy them. I'm trying to increase the chances of getting one that is going to be better rather than worse.

 

[Bass_Medic_05]

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.

I agree, solid and great tone and feel!

 

[GuitarGuy503]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Assuming we are talking Gibson USA stuff the stuff from the 90's-04ish seems to have been good. It's seems things went downhill from 05-08ish (rough binding, finish flaws, etc). I believe 2009 to present has improved and Gibson has gotten back on track though. I have been a member of many forums over the years and this is what I've gathered in regards to Gibson USA Les Pauls. I've only personally owned a 2004 Standard and the binding and whatnot was perfect. The only reason I parted with the guitar was because I never really bonded with it as it had a very slim neck (was supposedly a 50's neck) and didn't sound quite right to my ears.

 

[GuitarGuy503]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

In terms of good years for good guitars overall I think every year probably has it's hits and misses and that theres no particular consistancy. Some people believe some years were better than others but imo unless you have worked for Gibson and have tested guitars comming off the assembly line for the last 20 years theres no way for anyone to really know what the holy grail year or years were.

 

[Aceman]

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

In terms of good years for good guitars overall I think every year probably has it's hits and misses and that theres no particular consistancy. Some people believe some years were better than others but imo unless you have worked for Gibson and have tested guitars comming off the assembly line for the last 20 years theres no way for anyone to really know what the holy grail year or years were.

The real question is "What is the percentage of dead/average/good/grail guitars from year X"

Nobody knows - but I will say that there is a bunch in each of those categories, with few in the dead, and even less in the grail categories.

But they almost all be made to good with setup and pups that do what you want.

No doubt the let more "dead" out some years than others. But there just aren't any odds on these things. The ONE you get might be any. Without feeling/hearing first....good luck!