What are the darkest years of Gibson QC?

[Blille]

Not just trying to bash Gibson again.

It would be helpful to me (and probably others) to know which recent years are "safer" to buy and which ones to avoid without playing first.

For some reason I think 2015-2016 were the worst but I'm not sure if I was unlucky.

I have a 2018 ES-330 done in Memphis I'm very happy with though.

 

[gsammo79]

I'm gonna grab a new LP soon and always wonder the same thing when I'm browsing guitars. They let me down bigtime in the late 90s once.

 

[Mincer]

I think the late 70s were worse than more recent times.

 

[beaubrummels]

I have Gibsons from the following years: 1990, 1994, 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2019, and any issues with quality (like fret ends, nut carve) seemed to be commensurate with the price point / level of instrument and fairly common types of things across other manufacturers I have had instruments from like Fender, Gretsch, Rickenbacker, Yamaha, Regal, whatever. But that was just my experience. Others maybe had more issues with Gibson than other manufacturers. Based on my experience, I have to wonder how much of the perceived issues are magnified by the price/expectations vs actual problems unique to Gibson.

 

[NegativeEase]

Agree with late 70s, and the 2003-05ish area ere the ones that I broke headstocks in cases (broke 3)

as for recently, my buddy has a 2016 SG where the truss ross is out of adjustment -so he has to play 12s in order to keep the neck in profile -as he doesnt want to replane the fretboard to adjust for the lack of truss range from Gibson.

I have a 2007 SG Standard that is perfect.

I just got borrowed a 2021 Gibson SG and it is damn perfect.

 

[GuitarStv]

I have it on good internet forum authority that the period from 1894 - present is the worst. Exploding headstocks everywhere!

 

[AlexR]

I think the late 70s were worse than more recent times.

Nah, if we're talking pure QC like paint issues, file marks and the like then the last 10 years has by far been the worst. There were 'second' guitars sold in the 70's/80's with finish blemishes - but by now there is no way to tell what these were given the other aging effects. Nowadays these seem to be sold as completely new full priced items judging by the amount that get posted on forums.

By most accounts, the biggest issue in the 70's/80's was the mahogany density, which made for a greater range of tone than at other times. You'd get super dark guitars and then other bright ones.

But you shouldn't hit and hope when it comes to buying a Les Paul. Their multi-wood construction seems to lead to a great deal of variability. More than any other guitar I've tried, some just seem stiff and others play effortlessly.

 

[Securb]

I have 5 Gibsons ranging from 2002 - 2019 and they are all great guitars with no flaws. There is a saying that happy customers tell no one, unhappy customers tell everybody. I think the QC thing with Gibson is more myth than fact.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Seems that consistency is the biggest issue, based on people being divided on having bought one with no flaws vs one that's bleh. Unless you've personally played/inspected 50 guitars in a sitting, it's harder to be objective. For my part, I've seen some howlers over the years, and others that were fine.

The 70s-early 80s are seen as a funk because of the looser tolerances, specs deviating from 50s-60s, changes in lumber quality, and just weird stuff. Still, they built some premium things, like the 25/50 LPs, E2 Explorers and so on.

I suppose part of the reason why people rag on Gibson is because they tout themselves as a premium brand (also reflected in prices) with unparalleled cultural capital, so when a pricey guitar has flaws, folk see it as hypocritical. The histrionics with the bankruptcy, Henry J., and Caterpillars crawling over Firebird Xs adds to the drama. The market has changed as well – several makers play a high level game (e.g. PRS), and guitars under 1k have become amazing in the past decade, it's stiff competition. The name has power, but only so much, and it can be a two edged thing. In any case, it puts them under extra scrutiny.

I think a lot of people nowadays simply buy over the internet without seeing/playing, then they get their knickers in a wad when it arrives less than perfect. Gotta cop a feel, or adjust expectations if buying sight-unseen.

 

[chadd]

I think the late 70s were worse than more recent times.

Yeah, Norlin era was by far the worst era for Gibson guitars. The kinds of things people criticize them for now are nothing compared to the hot garbage they put forth in the 70s. 70s Gibsons are what made the the late 50s and 60s stuff so sought after in the first place.

 

[ICTGoober]

I have it on good internet forum authority that the period from 1894 - present is the worst. Exploding headstocks everywhere!

Give me a fucking break.

I have owned Gibson guitars and basses since the mid-70's, and had vintage stuff and new. I was an authorized Gibson repair guy for about 15 years starting in the 80's. It doesn't seem to matter what year it was made - once in awhile one slips by the OC guys.

Same with Fender - owned old stuff to today. I was a Fender repair guy the same time, and their stuff had way more problems in total. I don't hear anyone making lame ass lies about them.

 

[Securb]

I think there is a lot of parroting on this topic and people just regurgitating what they have read on the Internet, back out on the Internet for someone else to read and regurgitate.

Agreed. Usually, when I see someone bashing Gibson it is someone that doesn't own one. Followed up with the comment they don't own a Gibson because they can get a better guitar for less money.

 

[Bogner]

The easier and better question is what are the bright years for Gibson QC?

 

[80's_Thrash_Metal]

Here's my 2 cents worth.
I own 4 Gibson's. (3 within the last year)
All of them are stellar instruments.
none of them are top tier.
I have Zero complaints about anything, they all sing.
They are better than I deserve.

I'm pretty sure the other Steve was just joking about the headstocks... I laughed anyway.

 

[Ascension]

Nah, if we're talking pure QC like paint issues, file marks and the like then the last 10 years has by far been the worst. There were 'second' guitars sold in the 70's/80's with finish blemishes - but by now there is no way to tell what these were given the other aging effects. Nowadays these seem to be sold as completely new full priced items judging by the amount that get posted on forums.

By most accounts, the biggest issue in the 70's/80's was the mahogany density, which made for a greater range of tone than at other times. You'd get super dark guitars and then other bright ones.

But you shouldn't hit and hope when it comes to buying a Les Paul. Their multi-wood construction seems to lead to a great deal of variability. More than any other guitar I've tried, some just seem stiff and others play effortlessly.

Was working for a Gibson dealer in the late 80's and it was horrific. We got guitars stamped as seconds we never found the blemish on but also high end guitars with horrific issues. It was a real crap shoot on what would show up on an order then.We sent a number of guitars right back in that era.

 

[chadd]

Agreed. Usually, when I see someone bashing Gibson it is someone that doesn't own one. Followed up with the comment they don't own a Gibson because they can get a better guitar for less money.

I've only owned a couple dozen over the years, but everything I have left is 2010 or newer. The newer stuff is far more consistent than the 70s and 80s stuff I owned and far better. All of that goes out the window when you talk about particular guitars. Generalizations are irrelevant at that point. Most of the flaws people post are things I never would have noticed.

 

[Ascension]

Here's my 2 cents worth.
I own 4 Gibson's. (3 within the last year)
All of them are stellar instruments.
none of them are top tier.
I have Zero complaints about anything, they all sing.
They are better than I deserve.

I'm pretty sure the other Steve was just joking about the headstocks... I laughed anyway.

They were very hit or miss in the mid to late 80's as the QC was pretty none existent or at the least very inconstant.. I saw it first had working for a dealer. Some really good guitars and some really BAD guitars are what we got. Most of the really crappy guitars likely haven't survived for the most part but trust me we saw some real crap from them in the late 80's!!

 

[Ascension]

I've only owned a couple dozen over the years, but everything I have left is 2010 or newer. The newer stuff is far more consistent than the 70s and 80s stuff I owned and far better. All of that goes out the window when you talk about particular guitars. Generalizations are irrelevant at that point. Most of the flaws people post are things I never would have noticed.

Guarantee you would have noticed some of the crap we got! Remember one Les Paul in particular that the bridge was set so far off it was impossible to intonate.

 

[chadd]

Guarantee you would have noticed some of the crap we got! Remember one Les Paul in particular that the bridge was set so far off it was impossible to intonate.

It looks like you're talking about the 80s stuff that I said was awful. The file marks or finish flaws I see people railing about over the last few years are generally imperceptible without magnification.

 

[AlexR]

Guarantee you would have noticed some of the crap we got! Remember one Les Paul in particular that the bridge was set so far off it was impossible to intonate.

There were a few from the 50's like that too.
You get them in all eras. There are more than a few SG's even now have a neck angle like a Les Paul....so the bridge has to sit so jacked up the bridge pickup is almost out of the rout to be the right volume compared to the neck.

The biggest problem people had in the 70's and 80's was the lack of history to compare it to before that. A couple of years of the Les Paul before it got discontinued, and then of course the spec changes happened before they really got into the stride of ramping up production.
But any close look at 50's guitar will show you they are just as random......a quick look at BOTB or burstserial shows an incredible inconsistency. There are some guitars where the mortice was routed so out of centreline that the D or G string is inline with the 'centre' maple seam at the tailpiece......but that sort of thing tends to get glossed over by those wanting to idolise the 50's at the expense of other eras.