Where Gibson went wrong

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Not sure.

People don't strand in the middle of nowhere when the guitar goes on strike.

Most Gibson flaws are things that make you send it back for warranty replacement, and Gibson clearly hopes that a lot of people don't notice, don't know their rights or don't play the thing in the first place. Plus more fall out of warranty before a real customer buys them.

Gibson seems to work under a "10% returns accepted" policy, or some number above that. Pretty standard for consumer businesses that don't need to send the stuff back to Asia.

I suspect that the average guitar buyer isn't inspecting their guitar in great detail. Provided they actually try it before they buy it, they buy the one that feels nice and plays well (if they're smart), or the one that looks coolest (if they're not so smart). If the guitar has small finishing flaws that don't affect the sound or playability, chances are they'll never know it's there.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Ok, and that doesn't bother you in the least?
My God for that price one should be looking to find a flawed one, not the other way around!!!

If for instance Michael Kelly and Schecter (from the Asian front) or Washburn and Peavey (from the USA front and I purposely chose the kinda major but still not that big companies) can do it then I REALLY don't see why you should knowingly turn a blind eye to their sloppiness!

I mean, take 10, 20, 50 MK Patriot Customs or Limited or Supreme (the models closer spec-wise to the Standard and upwards but for a FIFTH of the cost) and you'll be "lucky" if you find A SINGLE ONE with less than perfect fretwork OR crooked inlays OR uneven binding OR finish flaws.

I honestly don't mind them charging FIVE TIMES what the Koreans charge for their guitars but at the very least make sure that they're AT LEAST on par (quality-wise) with theirs!!!

 

[smauk43]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I love all of three of mine, Studio, Traditional, and Explorer. Sure I played some that weren't as good as the ones I eventually took home. I'll be honest with you, I wanted to check out a PRS SC 245 when I ended up with the traditional. And while EVERY PRS I have ever played was indeed a fine insturment and I never found any with any flaws to speak of, the Gibson I own was right on par with the PRS, and cheaper. I'm not knocking PRS, they are a great company and produce excellent products. But when you find a comparable quality Gibson, the PRS price makes me look for a Gibson. Yes, I may look longer to find a "good" one, but you can find it.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I honestly don't mind them charging FIVE TIMES what the Koreans charge for their guitars but at the very least make sure that they're AT LEAST on par (quality-wise) with theirs!!!

If Gibson started using the technology that'd be required to achieve that level of consistency/accuracy Gibson fans would loose their minds and rant endlessly about how Gibson's lost their way and b*tch incessantly about how the CNC manufacturing process have robbed the Les Paul of it's soul.

Personally, I'm not all hung up on little cosmetic details. I play my guitars, not leave them in a glass case. I'm going to add way more 'finishing flaws' than the factory ever did. The important thing is that it sound and play great. Whether there's a spot on the guitar where if you look at it hard enough you can see that the hand applied binding isn't as perfect as a robot would've made it doesn't matter to me.

 

[theboatcandream]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

If Gibson started using the technology that'd be required to achieve that level of consistency/accuracy Gibson fans would loose their minds and rant endlessly about how Gibson's lost their way and b*tch incessantly about how the CNC manufacturing process have robbed the Les Paul of it's soul.

I see you've been to the Les Paul forum.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Ok, and that doesn't bother you in the least?
My God for that price one should be looking to find a flawed one, not the other way around!!!...charge FIVE TIMES what the Koreans charge for their guitars but at the very least make sure that they're AT LEAST on par (quality-wise) with theirs!!!

+1. There is NO excuse for having so many flaws on that high a percentage of high-end instruments. It's sloppiness, arrogance, & indifference. No one can justify the inconsistency & lack of quality control for guitars in that price range. Where's their pride in what they produce? And saying "Oh, that's just Gibson" is lame. They're not earning what they charge for their guitars. I read that Epiphone is far more profitable than Gibson; they may have cheaper materials & labor, but they seem to have tighter quality control. Gibson should be embarassed. When a large part of your product line retails for $2,000 to $4,000, someone in that plant better find the time to make sure that the quality is first rate on everything. Does the QC guy have a drinking problem, or does management simply not care? And BTW, Gibson guitars are not handmade.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

If Gibson started using the technology that'd be required to achieve that level of consistency/accuracy Gibson fans would loose their minds and rant endlessly about how Gibson's lost their way and b*tch incessantly about how the CNC manufacturing process have robbed the Les Paul of it's soul....

...I read that Epiphone is far more profitable than Gibson; they may have cheaper materials & labor, but they seem to have tighter quality control. Gibson should be embarassed. When a large part of your product line retails for $2,000 to $4,000, someone in that plant better find the time to make sure that the quality is first rate on everything. Does the QC guy have a drinking problem, or does management simply not care? And BTW, Gibson guitars are not handmade.

Blueman335 here pretty much covered me.
Yes, if Epiphone can do it then Gibson SHOULD be able to do it too, after all they produce FAR more Epiphones than they do Gibsons.

And don't tell me you really believe Gibsons are actually hand build.
The first time a human hand gets to do anything is with the final sanding, assembly and finish. That's pretty much it really...
(P.S. Notice how that's two out of three the BFG never had?)

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I see you've been to the Les Paul forum.

Been, and left. I like Les Pauls, but I don't like them that much.

And don't tell me you really believe Gibsons are actually hand build.
The first time a human hand gets to do anything is with the final sanding, assembly and finish. That's pretty much it really...

The tops are cut by hand, bookmatched, then put into a machine router for cutting the body shape. The top is then attached and bound (for gluing, not the binding) by hand. The carve top is then done in a CNC router, then completed (by hand) during the sanding process.

I've heard that the carve tops on the Custom Shop models are done slightly different... not sure of the details.

I'm also not sure when and how the binding is applied, though I assume it's after the carve top is routed and before the final sanding.

The neck is cut by hand, shaped by machine, then by hand, the fretboard glued by hand, the veneer installed by hand, the frets installed by hand and polished by hand, the neck sanded by hand, and eventually set into the body by hand.

I believe that in 2007 they added a Plek machine to do the final setup the neck and help with QC issues in regards to uneven frets and deadspots. I'm not sure if Plek'ing is a Custom Shop only thing or if it's also done on regular models.

The finish is applied by hand and buffed by hand. The fretboard waxed by hand. The electronics, tuners, nut and bridge are installed by hand.

I think I got it all in the right order...

And BTW, Gibson guitars are not handmade.

Not totally handmade, just somewhat handmade.

 

[vladmarr]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

i do wish that they would stop trying to do too many improvements and updates, sometimes the tried and true is better than all the the fanciest gadgets. they should focus on small improvements, like better locking tuners, bridges, saddles, nuts and frets. yeah my gibby has all the "fancy" new gadgets, but it wasn't why i bought it, i fell in love with the feel and the sound of it. all the other stuff, was just bonuses or stuff i would change with after market stuff anyways.
maybe, gibson figures that some serious guitarists will upgrade their guitars anyways and they feel that they don't need to worry about over all quality. i mean, how many of us can grab a soldering iron and drop in some SD pups, some tools to change the tuners, etc?

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

some_dude, man, don't want to bust your bubble but that's pretty much how everybody does it including the Koreans.

You just described in better detail what I was saying; Everything that can be done by machine is done by machine, the rest is by hand. It doesn't get much less "hand-made" than this (can't really expect a machine to bookmatch the top or glue it to the body...)

 

[BigJoe77]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I saw a show on the Discovery or TLC or something like that where they showed the Gibson factory and the process of making a Les Paul. It's a little different than what has been described.

They took a piece of maple, split it down the middle and opened it up flat. They then glued these 2 pieces to a slab of mahogany (that came from the supplier in the pre-determined block size). There was no bookmatching step, because all you do is split it and open it up. This was glued and clamped together and put on a curing rack for several days. This rectangle of maple and mahogany was loaded in to a cnc machine where the shape was cut out, the top was carved, and the routings for the neck joint, binding and pickups were created.

The neck process is pretty much as was described, but, short of the inlays, that's pretty much how all necks are made. The "hand" sanding steps are partly romantic throwbacks and partly necessities to clean up from the cnc machine. That's true on both the body and the neck.

The gluing of the neck joint was done about like you'd see people slap a cheeseburger together at McD's. Squirt some glue, stick 'em together. They glossed over the tuners, bridge, and pickup installation.

Sort of like going to an Anheuser-Busch tour isn't going to a brewery as much as it is going to a beer factory, this was the same thing. It's a guitar factory, not a luthier's shop.

I think the passion for this issue is based on the fact that people care that Gibson means something in the world of music. Even people that don't like or play their stuff know that the industry as a whole, and music history, will suffer greatly if something happens to them.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

maybe, gibson figures that some serious guitarists will upgrade their guitars anyways and they feel that they don't need to worry about over all quality. i mean, how many of us can grab a soldering iron and drop in some SD pups?

+1. A lot of Gibson owners on this forum have swapped out their stock PU's for Duncans or other brands. That's a big wake up call for Gibson, the inventor of HB's. I expect to change out PU's on a $400 Epiphone. To do that on a $3,000 Gibson means there's a problem. They should be should be setting the standard with HB's & P-90's, and dominating aftermarket PU's, instead they're way back in the pack.

I have 5 models of Gibson PU's, and have needed to change the magnets in all of them: the A2 neck HB's are dull & muddy (A5's fixed that), the 498T is a kind of bright (an A8 basically turns it into a C8), and on the bridge, the '57 Classic & 490T have much better definition and output with an A4. They've been have making HB's for over 50 years. Why can I, a rank amateur, in 5 minutes make all my Gibson PU's sound noticeably better? Of course this involves the use of A4 & A8 magnets, and Gibson "just doesn't use those" because of the slightly extra cost of keeping more kinds of magnets in inventory (not that the minimal additional cost would be covered in Gibson's current retail pricing). If I can afford commonly available A4 & A8 magnets, Gibson certainly can. With Duncan's, at least half of mine sound best with the stock magnets. All it takes is someone to care.

One of the great mysteries of our time: Why is the 498T paired with the 490R? This is the worst pairing I'm aware of. The neck is dark & prone to mud, the bridge is very bright & scooped. You have little chance of getting an amp setting that will work for both PU's. They use these in dozens of models, including LP's that retail for nearly $4,000. This questionable pairing has steered many players to Duncan & DiMarzio. And the worst part is that with different magnets (A8 498T/A5 490R) these sound very good together. The 490T/490R pair is used on some of their lower-priced guitars, and these PU's are okay but nothing to rave about. But with an A4 & A5 respectively, they come to life and are excellent PAF's. No one there could have figured this out?

It's makes you wonder if they listen to their own guitars, and if they listen to the guitar-playing market. Are they so steeped in traditional & old habits, that they refuse to make improvements in the sound quality of their products? Who in Gibson management said their current meager PU offering is cast in stone and never to be questioned? That, combined with loose quality control & high-end pricing, is not the way to survive the worst economic collapse in 70 years. What they're doing is similar to the auto company's approach, and it's doubtful it will work for any market for long.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

It doesn't get much less "hand-made" than this (can't really expect a machine to bookmatch the top or glue it to the body...)

Yes, it can. Compare a Fender to a Gibson. Fender's were purposely designed to be easy to to make, and they are (not that they don't still have alot of hand assembly, but there is no requirement to actually 'build' any part of it aside from gluing the fretboard to the neck, and on the maple fretboard models there's no requirement to even do that.). Gibson didn't plan it out that well.

I also never said the Koreans did it any different (although they do use machines to fret the necks, which is why the frets on Epiphones have a tendency to lift). They just get paid a lot less (though more than the Chinese), and considering how much of the work is actually done by hand rather than by machine that equals a huge cut in production costs.

We could keep running this around in circles, but you guys are just helping me reinforce points I made earlier in the thread.


I don't even know why you guys care so much? I mean, it's obvious you're pissed at Gibson's QC and/or pricing or something. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet. Go by a Hamer or Heritage, tell everyone it's better than a Gibson, then call it a day....

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I saw a show on the Discovery or TLC or something like that where they showed the Gibson factory and the process of making a Les Paul. It's a little different than what has been described.

They took a piece of maple, split it down the middle and opened it up flat. They then glued these 2 pieces to a slab of mahogany (that came from the supplier in the pre-determined block size). There was no bookmatching step, because all you do is split it and open it up.

What you just described is bookmatching.

This was glued and clamped together and put on a curing rack for several days. This rectangle of maple and mahogany was loaded in to a cnc machine where the shape was cut out, the top was carved, and the routings for the neck joint, binding and pickups were created.

They skipped steps as the body initially needs to be routed separate from the top. It's how they get the channel for the wiring and chambering/swiss cheesing done.

The neck process is pretty much as was described, but, short of the inlays, that's pretty much how all necks are made. The "hand" sanding steps are partly romantic throwbacks and partly necessities to clean up from the cnc machine. That's true on both the body and the neck.

I've never figured out how the inlays are done. Are they machine routed or hand cut?

The gluing of the neck joint was done about like you'd see people slap a cheeseburger together at McD's. Squirt some glue, stick 'em together. They glossed over the tuners, bridge, and pickup installation.

That's pretty much it. It's part of the reason I think most set-neck/bolt on neck arguments are kinda dumb.

Sort of like going to an Anheuser-Busch tour isn't going to a brewery as much as it is going to a beer factory, this was the same thing. It's a guitar factory, not a luthier's shop.

I've seen a couple of Luthier's post threads on the LPF. They do more or less the exact same process, they just have to move the router by hand using a template and jig, though some of the better equipped ones have routers that'll do this automatically.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Ok man, now you're just being dense as hell.
Gibson doesn't build Strats and Teles, they build LPs, SGs, Explorers and Vs (out of which only the very first needs any amount of additional work to a Strat or Tele really).

So, within the context of what kind of guitars they build they've already got them as far from hand-build as possible, only using human hands for what they can't use machines.

So, in the context of the amount of automation in conjunction with the fact that they charge a hand a a leg for their guitars we return to the very valid and still not in the least answered (by you or anyone else really) point of why the heck can't they have a better and more consistent quality in their products.

You wanna charge 5 times what the Asians charge for their guitars?
Fine, just DO YOUR JOB RIGHT AND AT LEAST MAKE YOURS ON PAR WITH THEIRS.
You don't do it any different than they do, they use pretty much the same amount of automation and the same methods as you so you really have no excuses not to do at least as good a job as they do.
That's it really.

Oh, and BTW, BigJoe77 was right, you don't just take a body and a neck, squirt some glue in the pocket and put them together. Believe it or not there actually is an optimum angle at which the neck and body must be at, an angle that very few of-the-rack LPs get right.
3 guesses why is that?

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Ok man, now you're just being dense as hell.

No, I'm just not being easily persuaded to your point of view.

Anyway, you're covering territory that's already been covered. Gibson doesn't make perfect guitars because they don't have to make perfect guitars. People will keep buying them anyway and they know this. Now, my intent isn't actually to defend this position... it's more to play devil's advocate on it. However, I suspect that I have been drawn into defending it by defending my past comments.

Anyway, the thread topic is "Where Gibson went wrong", and I'm arguing that it's hard to say that this is where Gibson is going wrong when they're selling guitars like mad-men to a generations of adults and teenagers who think a Les Paul is a hard rock/punk/metal icon despite the fact that it's really not all that great for metal (lets face it... there's way better options out there), not a punk icon until pop-punk bands started touring multi thousand dollar Mesa/Bogner rigs, and they were generally so unpopular prior to Slash that you could buy them used relatively cheap through most of the 80s.

Further, many attempts to actually improve the guitar just piss off their customers. Actually, any changes that don't make the guitar more like an authentic 1959 Les Paul replica piss them off, even though the actual 1959 Les Paul is still a flawed design.

A good example is the neck angle you complain about. The short tennon was initially devised to help rectify this (and reduce costs) as the neck angle could be determined at the time of setting rather than the time of manufacturing the neck (keep in mind we're talking late 60s/early 70s machine tolerances here). This is kind of a handy feature when Les Paul carve tops tend to vary from guitar to guitar depending on the guy who sands it.

Instead, people complain about it because it's not a long tennon.

I'm sure that with a little time and effort Gibson could come up with a manufacturing process that spits out picture perfect Les Pauls, but then Gibson's affectionados would all lament about how Gibson sold out for profit and how the Les Paul is now just as soulless as a PRS (not my opinion... I have no problem with PRS... but hang out on places like the Les Paul Forum and you'll know what I'm talking about).

In short, it's a no win situation for Gibson. They're ****ed if they do and ****ed if they don't.

 

[KeeperOS]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Sigh, the sad part about this is that you're not that far from the truth really.
However to a certain degree that's also their fault for not thinking through how the method they use to try and fix sth will screw up sth else as well.

But yeah, about the "Being as soulless as a PRS" part, that's just the guitarist's fault 100%...

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Anyway, the thread topic is "Where Gibson went wrong", and I'm arguing that it's hard to say that this is where Gibson is going wrong when they're selling guitars like mad-men to a generations of adults and teenagers...Further, many attempts to actually improve the guitar just piss off their customers.

No, they're not "selling guitars like mad-men", not at nearly $3,000 for LP's. Epiphone is selling far more guitars, and providing the bulk of the profits. It could be argued that Gibson is no longer sustainable without Epiphone's cash flow. A main complaint here is that Gibson has turned it's back on the average working man. That upsets us. They definitely "went wrong" with that. How do these get out the door, and more importantly, what's going on in the factory that keeps causing them? It's not that hard, it's part of running a business. And if the "excuse" is that Gibson can sell guitars regardless, than it's proof of how bloated & arrogant they've become.

A big part of the "improvements" are maintaining consistent quality standards, so that when someone spends $1,000 to $4,000 on a Gibson, they can count on all the details being done right. That's not too much to ask for. If you can scrape togther $3,000 to get the guitar you always wanted, and then find a number of sloppy flaws, it's kind of disappointing.

Yes, they're in business to make money. They could sell more guitars by raisinng quality & lowering prices; they could dominate the non-Fender market. They'd make a lower profit percentage, but much more in total profit dollars, which is what really matters...cash flow. I'm a Controller; believe me, I could cut some waste & inefiiciencies there if they can't figure it out.

Apparently the didn't have enough vaild ideas for the "guitar of the week." They've wasted money on developing & retooling goofy models that don't sell. Most companies like to make a 5% profit after expenses. The labor & materials for these weird guitars comes out of that 5% profit. What a misuse of funds that is!

As far as new models, how about more twin and triple P-90 guitars, and more with an HB/P-90? And give a switch to link these PU's in series. They need new PU models to catch up with Duncan & Dimarzio. What players want isn't bizarre body shapes & flashy new colors; they want more & better tones, and that's where Gibson puts little effort. Do away with vari-tone switches and HHH models; Use P-90's and P-94's instead. Make some HSH & HSS P-90 models, starting with a "Super SG", which should have been done 25 years ago. Put the Jimmy Page system in a bunch of guitars. Artie's coil swap mod should be standard on most HH guitars. It's really pretty easy to come up with valid models that the public will want...instead they pissed away tens of thousands of dollars making Reverse V's? Gibson could be so much more.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

But yeah, about the "Being as soulless as a PRS" part, that's just the guitarist's fault 100%...

I agree. It's just a block of wood and strings until you pour your own soul into it.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

The simple fact is that there is no way to make an American worker function with the perfection of a robot, the way that an Asian worker would be happy to nod and just do it. What you gonna do, fire a trained American worker? Where'd you get a new glue monkey? The Asian maker will have dozens of possible replacements who are eager to learn at their doorsteps.

As an American business you cannot base your business plan on perfection.

The result is that American made consumer products that aren't life critical (cars are a different matter) are made with a certain expectation of warranty returns. I have been told that Ovation operates under a 20% return rate assumption.

A business like Gibson produces something non-life critical, and it is repairable, and the factory is right in the U.S. Seeking perfection will raise the cost by more than -say- those 20%, or 15% or whatever it is for Gibson.

Or in other words: the highest profit margin for an Asian maker might be in seeking a as close to 0% return rate as possible, and you just toss the returns and give them a new one. For Gibson things are different. An expected return rate that is significant has a higher profit margin.