The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Plek machines be damned. The fact that Gibson no longer crafts their frets under the neck binding is indicative of the corners they cut. I played a PRS SE Santana ($800) and a 2015 Les Paul Standard ($2700) and the damn PRS played better, looked better and just felt more substantial all around. The electronics weren't as good as the Gibson, but strummed acoustically, it was obvious the PRS was more "open" or "airy." And $1900 leaves a lot of cash to buy and upgrade a few guitars. Having "Gibson" on the headstock isn't worth anywhere near what it once was.
Shame on Gibson!
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Plek machines be damned. The fact that Gibson no longer crafts their frets under the neck binding is indicative of the corners they cut. I played a PRS SE Santana ($800) and a 2015 Les Paul Standard ($2700) and the damn PRS played better, looked better and just felt more substantial all around. The electronics weren't as good as the Gibson, but strummed acoustically, it was obvious the PRS was more "open" or "airy." And $1900 leaves a lot of cash to buy and upgrade a few guitars. Having "Gibson" on the headstock isn't worth anywhere near what it once was.
Shame on Gibson!

Asian production PRS guitars always had better craftmanship than any Gibson after 1963 or somewhere.

The sound? Well the Gibson is full of holes, which wouldn't be too bad if they hadn't been randomly placed with intent to make it lighter, not better sounding.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Plek machines be damned. The fact that Gibson no longer crafts their frets under the neck binding is indicative of the corners they cut. I played a PRS SE Santana ($800) and a 2015 Les Paul Standard ($2700) and the damn PRS played better, looked better and just felt more substantial all around. The electronics weren't as good as the Gibson, but strummed acoustically, it was obvious the PRS was more "open" or "airy." And $1900 leaves a lot of cash to buy and upgrade a few guitars. Having "Gibson" on the headstock isn't worth anywhere near what it once was.
Shame on Gibson!

Asian guitars almost always have softer frets and lower quality parts. I have Gibsons that are bone stock after 30 years and still very playable- can't say the same for any imports I've owned.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Back to the original question: I can say for sure that mid-to-late '70s is a total crapshoot. I had a 1977 ES-335 that was beautiful, played well and sounded fantastic. It also had a neck twist because the three pieces of maple shifted after the neck was carved but BEFORE it was painted! And it was not a second or a blem. I considered it a great guitar and even liked the neck twist, but if someone were to pay a few grand on eBay for it nowadays they'd likely be pretty pissed.
I still own a 1977 Marauder that I bought dirt cheap in 1993 or so. The neck was like a baseball bat, the nut was cut for a narrower neck so the strings were too close together AND too far in from the sides, and the wiring was iffy and the pickguard had warped. However, the body is two slabs of mahogany, the neck is solid as a rock, and I modified or replaced every single part except the bridge & tailpiece. I knew what I was getting with both of those guitars but I would never buy a Gibson of that era without playing it first. Never.
Likewise, I played a new SG and Les Paul Special in a shop in 1996. The Special was great and I wish I'd bought it but the SG was horrible.
Those are the only two eras I have direct personal experience with.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

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- ****

Ever considered a Hamer?
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I don't have any explorer. So this is only my 2 cents. I own 3 les pauls: a 1990 standard (the guitar in my avatar), a 2004 standard plus and a 2003 classic. No one is better than the others, just different. The guitar I prefer the most is the 2004 but the 1990 has the best neck profile (medium to thin profile). My luthier told me that the 1990 is just perfect: good woods and overall impression of quality. the 2003 is one step behind. I played a 1980 custom for a while and a 1979 SG: both good guitars. in every year of production there are good instruments and bad instruments so my suggestion is to play as many instruments as possible. if you find out a guitar you like, it's perfect for you regardless it's an early 90 or a 2016.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Plek machines be damned. The fact that Gibson no longer crafts their frets under the neck binding is indicative of the corners they cut. I played a PRS SE Santana ($800) and a 2015 Les Paul Standard ($2700) and the damn PRS played better, looked better and just felt more substantial all around. The electronics weren't as good as the Gibson, but strummed acoustically, it was obvious the PRS was more "open" or "airy." And $1900 leaves a lot of cash to buy and upgrade a few guitars. Having "Gibson" on the headstock isn't worth anywhere near what it once was.
Shame on Gibson!

I believe if you get one of the "modern" Les Pauls, like the HP series, the fret will be over the bilding, while the "traditional" models will have the binding over the fret. They're not cutting corners, you have your choice.

I have a 1986 with the binding over the fret, and a 2015 with the fret over the binding. I prefer the fret over the finding, or rather, no nibs, as I regularly get the high E string stuck between the fret and the nib, something I don't experience with the modern method- not to mention without the nib you have a little more fretboard space too.

I also have a PRS, and I bought the 2015 since it was the only Gibson that quality wise was almost as good as the PRS
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

heres the straight up honest answer...............due to modern machining methods, Gibson guitars have never been so consistant as they are today. Buying the modern equipment has made them consistant and easier to manufacture. That means......things like the neck radius and machine holes like tuning pegs and fret slots are usually very consistant. Anything that is done by hand is also very easy to fix. Is that annoying? Hell yes it is but with the volume they kick out you may have to. Its the same with Fenders as well. As long as the design and wood quality is good your in the ball park, with a pro setup and any custom parts you put on or tweaks you can own a wonderful instrument. They do have a custom shop-built by hand-make it totally as close to perfect as possible-option too but this drives up the cost of the instrument to unafordable prices. Its much easier to spend a little extra money from a local guitar luthier to fix a minor problem that is usually covered by the warranty than to pay a custom shop price. Most of their stuff is just fine anyway and needs very little setting up. Why do people *****? Because they may have paid 2 to 4 grand and have to pay a luthier another 50 to 100 bucks to make it play great. Its annoying but once set up it will play great as long as you get a good chunk of wood. Thats why people say.......play it first to make sure it resonates right.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Oh! Let’s drag this one back to camp.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

No Gibson made after 2016.3 is worth having. Their quality control is garbage, if I pay that much it better be perfect. I was going over the finish with an electron microscope and found a flaw over 6 MICRONS!! Junk!! The 57s and 490s are junk too. Worst pickups ever and they cost too much!! Back when I walked uphill bothways to guitar school in barefeet, they were the good wood days!! And the auto tune? And the neck break angle? What a bad design. They all break there!!
 
Last edited:
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Yea. After March that year they started really sucking. I watched this guy on utube named Scott Grove and he told me Gibson sucks, so its gotta be true if it was on utube. I just got me a Gibson Les Paul, no regrets at all.
0303180836a.jpg
Necks awesome, the nut needs attention. Just jaw dropping to these old eyes, 3d on the top is stunning IMO. Wont be my last either
She has the Slash set, and they're ok I guess. Dont think AlnicoII likes the amount of dirt I play with and the neck pup has some boominess in there. I may just drop a set of Black Winters in there for S&G
 
Last edited:
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Gibson put out some great stuff during the 90's IMHO!!! Some people don't particularly care for the era but I loved them & the build quality was pretty on point...

I'm still trying to get my hands on a early model Nighthawk that doesn't look like it's been drug behind a truck for a reasonable price & have been for years now!!!
 
Last edited:
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Gibson put out some great stuff during the 90's IMHO!!! Some people don't particularly care for the era but I loved them & the build quality was pretty on point...

Agreed

And, not everything in recent years is rubbish. Just a good chunk of it, ha ha!

Ben1962, cool guitar, man! But, if you ask me, for the price that model goes for, there shouldn't be any issues with the nut at all...just sayin'! ;)
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Would you assume we prefer the same set up? Dont you think the nut should be somewhat high at 1st so people may adjust their own preference? If its too low, you are kinda stuck there, right? I do know this, I read the reviews from the people that actually bought Gibsons and they are usually from people been playing decades, not scrubs like me, and they are all almost 5 stars.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Oh! Let’s drag this one back to camp.
Have you still got this ?
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.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

Have you still got this ?

No, I had to sell the Faded V to put a down payment on a car. I want another one, though, a general-purpose standard V with a either a solid nitro color or a gloss translucent red.

I still have the Jackson.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

My favorite Gibson period is right before Norlin, about '67 to '68. There was a brief period when they had very narrow necks (narrow as in nut width, not neck thickness). In this period, the Les Paul was reissued as well, so for the first time both LPs and SGs were available at the same time, as separate models. I have a '68 SG Standard and a '68 ES-330.

Anything before that is generally good...though ungodly expensive, and often so hammered that it isn't so good any more.

IME, Norlin-era Gibsons were mainly odd in terms of specifications and designs, not necessarily in terms of build quality. Designs got uglier and dumber. The Les Paul got made out of more and more pieces of wood, and the neck got changed to maple somewhere in there. Not counting fretboard and headstock ears I think my '83 LP is pieced together out of 7 pieces of wood, and some earlier Norlin LPs with the pancake body were made out of 9 pieces or more. The traditional Les Paul construction is four main pieces of wood (again, not counting fretboard and headstock ears). Mind you, there is no good, hard reason to think that multi-piece guitars are tonally inferior, so that isn't my point. But it does show the general trend toward a cost cutting approach that was taken during this period.

My second favorite Gibson period is from the late '80's to the late '90's, and even slightly into the '00's. There were some damned fine guitars made during that decade or so. It looked like Gibson was back. But then...

In around 2003, I started noticing an obvious drop in build quality (though it perhaps started earlier and I just didn't notice it). It got worse and worse, such that by 2005 or so, I came to believe that every single new standard production line Gibson needed a replacement nut and to have the frets dressed. It's one thing to make guitars this way. But if you do, they should be priced accordingly. Gibson,OTOH, jacked prices up like crazy during this same period when they started skimping on attention to detail.

The Gibsons I now own are:

'68 SG Standard - perfectly built, amazing sounding
'68 ES-330 - perfectly built, amazing sounding
'83 Les Paul Custom - perfectly built, just ****ty sounding
'00 Les Paul Junior - had bad nut and fretwork, but kept it anyhow. Perfect finish, and sounds incredible.
'03 Les Paul Melody Maker - has bad nut and fretwork, but kept it anyhow. Sounds incredible, and was thrown in for free when I bought the LP below.
'04 Les Paul Standard '50's Neck - had crapy nut, bad fretwork, and finish flaws, but I kept it anyhow because I was so enamored with its beauty.
'06 Explorer - has typical modern Gibson problems, but was cheap, and I knew I was basically going to rebuild the thing anyhow
'10 or so Les Paul Special (humbuckers) - Has the typical modern Gibson problems. I got it as a gutted project to completely rebuild.

I've sold:

'02 or so LP Studio Plus - traded for an amazing 4x5 camera system. Photography is how I make a living, and it was a $1,200 (new) guitar straight across for a $20,000 (new) camera system. I miss the guitar, but the trade was a no brainer.
'02 or so ES-333 sunburst - I highly regret selling this, because despite a mediocre nut and frets, it was a good guitar, and the value has jumped significantly since. I just needed money at the time.
'12 SG Special Faded - Found it mis-marked down to $420 at Guitar Center. Snapped it up immediately and flipped it on Craigslist for a profit a few months later.
'14 EB Bass - Bought, played for almost a month, and finally decided to return for a refund due to a multitude of flaws. Good looking design, built like **** on a stick.

...and I've been paying attention to Gibsons, playing scores per year, since the mid '90's.

Point being, these things are what my opinions are based on.

As you can see, I don't own Gibsons from about Y2K onward without planning to spend $150 on nut work and fret work, at the very least...and I don't own them after about 2003/2004 unless it's a cheap major project guitar or else something to flip for a profit.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I take all this with a grain of salt. Some of the finest Fender guitars I've played were the CBS era. Maybe they were more hit or miss, I don't know but they made some fine guitars during that era. I have 3 Gibsons, a 50's a 60's and a 2017. All of them are great. I have 3 Japanese Ibanez guitars from the late 70's when they were supposed to be golden. 1 of them is so fantastic nobody has ever played it and not become dehydrated from drooling. The other 2? Nothing special, they are just mediocre at best. So despite the internet lore I think you have to decide on an individual basis regardless of the year.
 
Re: The Gibson Years, The Good and The Bad

I think about it this way...in certain eras of Gibson or Fender manufacture, you have a better chance of finding a magic one.
 
Back
Top