Where Gibson went wrong

[drunkinminer]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Excellent points brought up here.
The price of Gibson guitars are pretty insane in Australia.
We're talking 5 grand minimum for a Les Paul Standard.
Peter Crossley,who has posted his custom guitars up for us to look at on this forum, could make me a guitar, with my choice of pickups/electronics/everything basically, for 2.5 grand.
I don't even get those choices on a 5 grand Gibson.
I could never justify spending 5 grand on a guitar when I get one with better playability, electronics, more expensive pickups, better quality woods etc, for half the price.
Some would argue "But it doesn't have the Gibson name on it", but that kinda stuff comes from the mouths of ignorant players.
People that know their stuff, will know it doesn't matter that it doesn't say Gibson on the headstock, because the name has so much stigma attached to it, a lot of guys would rather their headstock says anything but Gibson.

I agree "headstock snobbery" seems to be a problem for alot of people. I have two MIM Fenders and have had a number of people who have said to me that they weren't real Fenders because they were not made in the US. But for me it wasn't about where it was made but just a platform to mod and I would take my two modded MIM over any US Fender anyday.

 

[sinrman68]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I think Gibson just steps over their toes with new models and variations...do what you do and do it well!

 

[sinrman68]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Excellent points brought up here.
The price of Gibson guitars are pretty insane in Australia.
We're talking 5 grand minimum for a Les Paul Standard.
Peter Crossley,who has posted his custom guitars up for us to look at on this forum, could make me a guitar, with my choice of pickups/electronics/everything basically, for 2.5 grand.
I don't even get those choices on a 5 grand Gibson.
I could never justify spending 5 grand on a guitar when I get one with better playability, electronics, more expensive pickups, better quality woods etc, for half the price.
Some would argue "But it doesn't have the Gibson name on it", but that kinda stuff comes from the mouths of ignorant players.
People that know their stuff, will know it doesn't matter that it doesn't say Gibson on the headstock, because the name has so much stigma attached to it, a lot of guys would rather their headstock says anything but Gibson.

Yeah!!!

 

[ES350]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

With the kinds of sounds people want to produce (which really are all retro one way or another, from 40's bebop to 80's metal), these are the designs that get the sounds...I have some custom archtops; pretty fancy stuff. When we sat down with my old beat-up ES 350, even the luthier had to admit there was no contest, at least to our ears. I don't mind spending 3-5K on a guitar if it's a keeper, a lifer...but not a new guitar, whatever the make.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I think one idea is they should try are bolt on necks. I know alot of people (me being one) steer clear of Gibson because if the neck breaks sometimes it cheaper to just swap necks then repair. Also they should improve the headstock (make stronger) because if a Gibson falls on it's headstock it's just as well to kiss it goodbye but a Fender on the other hand are built like tanks. that must be why I'm such a fender fan. you can abuse them and they still keep going.
Thats what I think they should at least try who knows it just might be the next big thing for gibson.

Look at this from the other (Gibson) perspective: they would lose their remaining customers in droves. As a proud defender of Gibson's designs, let me tell you, bolt-on necks are associated with beginner models and would be abhorent on a Gibson. For anyone breaking necks and dropping guitars, then guitars aren't really practical for anyone with that lack of coordination. They ought to have a more rugged, klutz-proof instrument, like a piano or tuba. I have a collection of Gibson-design electrics, and never, ever broke a neck, dropped a guitar, knocked one over, or felt the need to swap necks. But then, I'm the kind of guy that wipes down my guitars every time I play them, and puts them away in a hard case. Changing necks is a Fender mentality that does not apply to Gibson. Gibsons are not meant to be tossed around and "abused", certainly not at those prices. Teenagers may beat up their cheap MIM Strat, but they sure won't treat a $3,000 LP Standard like that (not if they had to pay for it themselves). Maybe the marketing slogan should be: "If you can't take care of your instrument, get a Fender. Do you really care what happens to it?"

Gibson owners would not see any benefit in buying a guitar that they can bust the neck off of, and easily replace it. This is an entirely different mind set than what you're used to. Bolt-ons would kill far more Gibson sales than the few it would add. Trust me.

 

[Petrovsk Mizinski]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

And Fender didn't? Solid state amps, the Lead II, Antigua finishes, PCB amps built like cheap DVD players, 10,000 useless variations on the Strat/Tele, reissues of 70's models that nobody wanted the first time around, 5K+ Custom Shop models of bolt on guitars?
Just sayin...

Well, speaking in terms of strictly non signature, usual production models, not counting relics/reissues, take this into account: (Aussie prices bear in mind):
Fender American Deluxe Strat, 3399 AUD
Les Paul Standard, 5 large

The top shelf Fender is cheaper than an LP that isn't even range topping.
Argue "it costs more to build" all you like, but come on, it's the 21st century, we know by now that the 7 grand you pay in Australia to buy a Les Paul Custom wasn't that much more expensive to make compared to a Strat Deluxe to justify being more than double the price of the Strat.
I think that's a pretty reasonable explanation as to why people are becoming increasingly reluctant to hand over their hard earned dollars to Gibson.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I think the thing most folks are mad about is that their standard, basic model is almost 3,000 dollars.

Shave a $1000 off that price and you'd be closer to the mark. Standards float between $2000 and $2500, depending on options.

Defenders will say "you can't make a quality guitar without incurring a great cost," but you can; just look at PRS's SE line.

But Hunter, that's in Asia!

Yeah, and they're still finished better than the Gibsons and oh, about 1/6th the price.

You can't make a quality guitar in America without incurring great cost. American workers cost more than Asian workers.

Instead of comparing the price of a Les Paul to a PRS SE, compare the price of a Les Paul to a Custom 22.

 

[Petrovsk Mizinski]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Look at this from the other (Gibson) perspective: they would lose their remaining customers in droves. As a proud defender of Gibson's designs, let me tell you, bolt-on necks are associated with beginner models and would be abhorent on a Gibson. For anyone breaking necks and dropping guitars, then guitars aren't really practical for anyone with that lack of coordination. They ought to have a more rugged, klutz-proof instrument, like a piano or tuba. I have a collection of Gibson-design electrics, and never, ever broke a neck, dropped a guitar, knocked one over, or felt the need to swap necks. But then, I'm the kind of guy that wipes down my guitars every time I play them, and puts them away in a hard case. Changing necks is a Fender mentality that does not apply to Gibson. Gibsons are not meant to be tossed around and "abused", certainly not at those prices. Teenagers may beat up their cheap MIM Strat, but they sure won't treat a $3,000 LP Standard like that (not if they had to pay for it themselves). Maybe the marketing slogan should be: "If you can't take care of your instrument, get a Fender. Do you really care what happens to it?"

Gibson owners would not see any benefit in buying a guitar that they can bust the neck off of, and easily replace it. This is an entirely different mind set than what you're used to. Bolt-ons would kill far more Gibson sales than the few it would add. Trust me.

While I don't fully agree with all what you said, because even people that take care of their guitar obsessively can still have things happen to their instrument beyond their control.
Let's say hypothetically, your car is rammed in the side by a madman running a red light (hence, not your fault technically) with the guitar locked in it's flight case, but the case is thrown out of the car and partially breaks, causing it to open, your guitar is spilled out, the headstock bites the dust and your neck is cracked.
That's the sort of time where you'd want a bolt on for sure.

But that said, even as someone who doesn't really play the style of music you do, who plays a 7 string super strat with Ibanez on the headstock (bolk neck to boot, but it works for my purposes) and owns an Epi LP-100 that I don't play much because I don't get along with guitars without tummy cuts and I'm a 25.5 inch scale guy for the most part, I can still say I defend the Gibson design too, because I do not question a good Gibson guitar's ability to do some magic in the hands of a player that knows how to work it
Would I buy a Gibson with a bolt neck, say if it were an LP standard that had a bolt neck instead of a set?
I still would, but if given the choice of a bolt neck Gibby or a set neck, the set neck would be my choice by miles
Gibson, with their LP and SG models, means set neck to me.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Well, speaking in terms of strictly non signature, usual production models, not counting relics/reissues, take this into account: (Aussie prices bear in mind):
Fender American Deluxe Strat, 3399 AUD
Les Paul Standard, 5 large

The top shelf Fender is cheaper than an LP that isn't even range topping.
Argue "it costs more to build" all you like, but come on, it's the 21st century, we know by now that the 7 grand you pay in Australia to buy a Les Paul Custom wasn't that much more expensive to make compared to a Strat Deluxe to justify being more than double the price of the Strat.
I think that's a pretty reasonable explanation as to why people are becoming increasingly reluctant to hand over their hard earned dollars to Gibson.

Australians get raped and pillaged by their distributors because they know you can't exactly jaunt across the border to buy it elsewhere.

In the US the Fender Vintage, Time Machine and Custom Classic series Strats retail in the same price range as a Les Paul Standard/Traditional, and the American Deluxe series is only a few hundred less. Custom Shop Strats retail in and around the same price as Custom Shop Les Pauls.

If you're on a budget, you can buy a Junior for under a $1000, a Vintage Mahogany for $1000, and a Studio for a little over $1000.

 

[Ayrton]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I have many nitro guitars (including self-finishing), but the only ones with sticky neck were Gibsons.

Ditto...

I think it has something to do with the polymerized nitro Gibson use.

 

[The Golden Boy]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

As has been mentioned, a lot of the goofy guitars like the reverse V and stuff are those "guitars of the week" and special limited runs.

Gibson, like Fender, knows where their niche is. Fact is, people want a Les Paul to be a Les Paul. Not a Les Paul crossed with a super strat.

 

[BigJoe77]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

You can't make a quality guitar in America without incurring great cost.

Sure you can. The RI Gibson Melody Makers made in Nashville are quality guitars for about 4 bills. Just like the PRS SC 250 doesn't incur a 500-600% upcharge due to labor costs over the Singlecut SE, Gibson/Epi doesn't either. If the Melody Maker isn't your cup of tea, fine. That doesn't make it a poor quality guitar. The Gibson LP Studios are right around a grand and still close to the same price point of a MIA Fender Standard.

I've made the point before and I'll make it again. They charge what the market will bear. It's basic economics of supply and demand. When demand outpaces supply, the buyers become less price sensitive and the sellers can raise their prices. When supply outpaces demand, buyers become more price sensitive and prices will drop. Based on the prices, demand is outpacing supply right now.

I don't know that Gibson has gone wrong, per se. They are still able to create a product that people are willing to pay a premium for and are constantly backfilling their catalog with Epi's and lower featured Gibson's at the lower price points. Their quality is hit and miss, but it has always been hit and miss. Fender has similar cycles.

If you think their new GOTW and special run designs stink, fine. I can't argue that point, both because I think a lot of them stink and because design is so subjective. At least they are trying new things. They will get beat about the head for trying new things that may crash and they'll get beat about if they don't make anything but the same old, same old.

 

[Moonsorrow]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I agree with BigJoe77....I have a Gibson 59 RI Melody Maker that is an amazing guitar,not only for the money but period! It cost around the same actually a little less then the PRS SE`s (which are made in korea vs. Gibson USA)and is a way better guitar imo. No need to upgrade the Gibson but the PRS SE`s can use better pups,nut,tuners,bridge....you get the point.

 

[ibanezrocks]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I think they have really turned around actually. Stupid limited production models are nothing to get upset about and their production models are a lot better than they were 10 years ago. We've lost the gothic series, the voodoo series (probably other ones I'm forgetting) and gained the Les Paul Junior, and Melody Maker (a proper one, not the pine one they made before). They've had some good ideas that even if they don't stick around will likely be collector pieces some day like the carved top SG and Les Paul Access.

People ***** about Gibson all the time and probably always have because they're still among the most popular guitar brands out there. Just like Fender they have to balance tradition with improvements to stay competitive but also not alienate the vintage crowd. Personally I don't think that's an easy job. Some things they've done seem unexplainable, but I think we can point out things most guitar companies have done that are stupid and never made sense.

Where did Gibson go wrong? When they became popular and had enough people paying attention to them to piss someone off no matter what they did.

 

[dystrust]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

For the record, I think a good example of this is the Les paul access. Might be blasphemy to some, but a Les Paul with a locking trem and a carved heel will appeal to some, and I can see it selling because it has the classic looks and other features of the classic design.

The Les Paul Access is a great idea and a pretty nice guitar, but I think they missed the boat on the price point. I know it's made in the Custom Shop instead of on the USA production line, but $3500 is ridiculous. If they could offer a Les Paul Standard with the Access upgrades at a similar price point, then they might have a viable guitar. Going the way they have, they've priced the guitar out of reach of those who'd actually play it IMO.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Sure you can. The RI Gibson Melody Makers made in Nashville are quality guitars for about 4 bills. Just like the PRS SC 250 doesn't incur a 500-600% upcharge due to labor costs over the Singlecut SE, Gibson/Epi doesn't either.

The SC250 is a $2800-$3700 guitar. The PRS SC is $650. That's a 430%-530% up-charge. I know you were trying to make a point, but I'm not following it...

If the Melody Maker isn't your cup of tea, fine. That doesn't make it a poor quality guitar.

The Melody Maker is no where near as labour intensive as a Les Paul. No maple top, no carve top, no need to bookmatch tops, routed pickguard/drop in electronics, no binding, dot inlays, etc. It's basically a Telecaster in a Les Paul shape with no switch and a fake neck pickup, thus actual labour costs will be relatively minor compared to manufacturing a Les Paul.

I agree that Gibson charges what the market will bare... my point was more that the outrageous prices that everyone *****es at Gibson for having are competitive with both PRS and Fender pricing.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

While I don't fully agree with all what you said, because even people that take care of their guitar obsessively can still have things happen to their instrument beyond their control.
Let's say hypothetically, your car is rammed in the side by a madman running a red light (hence, not your fault technically) with the guitar locked in it's flight case, but the case is thrown out of the car and partially breaks, causing it to open, your guitar is spilled out, the headstock bites the dust and your neck is cracked.
That's the sort of time where you'd want a bolt on for sure.

And this happens how many times in a century? You'd personally get a bolt-on in the event that the car you're driving get rammed by a red light runner & the guitar in the back seat flies out the window? And someone, anyone, thinks Gibson should make bolt-ons for this reason? I've just crossed over into the twilight zone.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

The Melody Maker is no where near as labour intensive as a Les Paul. No maple top, no carve top, no need to bookmatch tops, routed pickguard/drop in electronics, no binding, dot inlays, etc.

It doesn't cost a grand or two to carve a piece of wood, or bookmatch a top. And wiring in several electrical parts doesn't cost hundreds of dollars. You've got about $300 dollars of PU's, hardware, & pots in a Gibson, at retail price; their cost is less than half that. There is no cost-justifiable reason for Gibson's pricing. It's strictly what they can get away with, and these days, that's totally changed.

 

[BigJoe77]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Sorry somedude. I think we were sort of making the same point that pricing is sort of similar. I was just highlighting that the labor costs aren't a 600% upcharge worth of costs. With all of the automation involved, there just isn't that much touch labor in mass producing guitars.

I still stand by my point about the Melody Maker. Gibson is providing its own proof in producing a high quality instrument in America. If it doesn't have the options, that's fine. Those are options. Sort of like saying that Ford doesn't make a truck for the working man any more because the quad cab, step side, 4x4 with heated leather seats, navi system and satellite radio is almost $40k.

Unless, of course, the Melody Maker is considered ugly, then it would fit in the OP's point about bad design being the root of Gibson's shark jumping.

 

[drunkinminer]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Look at this from the other (Gibson) perspective: they would lose their remaining customers in droves. As a proud defender of Gibson's designs, let me tell you, bolt-on necks are associated with beginner models and would be abhorent on a Gibson. For anyone breaking necks and dropping guitars, then guitars aren't really practical for anyone with that lack of coordination. They ought to have a more rugged, klutz-proof instrument, like a piano or tuba. I have a collection of Gibson-design electrics, and never, ever broke a neck, dropped a guitar, knocked one over, or felt the need to swap necks. But then, I'm the kind of guy that wipes down my guitars every time I play them, and puts them away in a hard case. Changing necks is a Fender mentality that does not apply to Gibson. Gibsons are not meant to be tossed around and "abused", certainly not at those prices. Teenagers may beat up their cheap MIM Strat, but they sure won't treat a $3,000 LP Standard like that (not if they had to pay for it themselves). Maybe the marketing slogan should be: "If you can't take care of your instrument, get a Fender. Do you really care what happens to it?"

Gibson owners would not see any benefit in buying a guitar that they can bust the neck off of, and easily replace it. This is an entirely different mind set than what you're used to. Bolt-ons would kill far more Gibson sales than the few it would add. Trust me.

Blue I think you miss understood what I was trying to say. What I meant was not someone treating their guitar poorly but (and I've seen this happen) someone trips over and bumps into your Gibson it's just as well to kiss it goodbye. Won't see that happen with Fenders. I've heard of one guy who got his run over by a van when it fell out and the van backed over it. He thought it was toast but when he opened up the case it except for the fact it was out of tune was fine.