Where Gibson went wrong

[Luke Duke]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

This has no relevence in most areas. Costs come down with mechanization, technology, & mass output. Look at what a VCR cost 25 years ago, around $1,000...put that in your calculator to get today's "price." The late model VCR's are 10 times better, and less than 10% of the price of the originals. How do you calculate that, professor? Or how DVD players and wide screen TV's have plunged in price over the years. What would an $800 Ford Model T made in the 1920's cost with today's dollars? Would that be a fair price? Your "FWIW" is not worth anything, except to confuse some people here. Thanks.

Oh excuse me Mr. All Knowledgeable, I'm sorry for my transgression and beg for your forgiveness.

Mechanization helps absolutely, but where are the mechanized binders? Where are the mechanized gluers? Where are the endless fields of Honduran mahogany. Bulk purchases or not things aren't as cheap as they were. As an accountant you of all people should know that. Not to mention how much are you going to pay for labor?

You think Gibsons are overpriced and should be priced like their import equivalents, we get the picture.

Luke

 

[guitfiddle]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

For Gibson, it's about making fewer guitars, with the same profit.

Sure, more units at a lower price = more money than fewer units, but if the sales are steady enough--and obviously they are--, fewer units priced higher = the same amount of cash.

It's not like Henry J just up and said one day "I'd like to sell fewer guitars and make way less cash."

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

This has no relevence in most areas. Costs come down with mechanization, technology, & mass output. Look at what a VCR cost 25 years ago, around $1,000...put that in your calculator to get today's "price." The late model VCR's are 10 times better, and less than 10% of the price of the originals. How do you calculate that, professor? Or how DVD players and wide screen TV's have plunged in price over the years. What would an $800 Ford Model T made in the 1920's cost with today's dollars? Would that be a fair price? Your "FWIW" is not worth anything, except to confuse some people here. Thanks.

All that price-plunging you refer to is all about advances in making microprocessors ever smaller and cheaper for fancy electronics. An electric guitar is a different animal, a relatively low tech "machine" that doesn't benefit much from making microprocessors smaller. There's nothing to gain for the musician in making the guitar microscopic and getting the wood from bonsai-ed trees or something. The scale length has to pretty much stay in the 24-26" range and you still need somewhere between 5 and 10 lbs. of wood, etc.

 

[JOLLY]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Tell them what you think.

http://www2.gibson.com/Gibson/Talk-2-Us.aspx

Am I the only one that noticed I posted this in the second freakin post? Apparantly yall just wanna bich for the sake of bichin. If you wanna at least try and make a change then tell them. Pissin and moanin at each other ain't gonna do crap.

Go straight to the source. I have no idea if they'll do anything about it, but it's a hell of alot better than cryin on here over spilled milk.

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Methinks some people will cry over anything just to hear themselves (read what they've typed?) speak.

 

[theboatcandream]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I'm sitting here jamming on my $90 Epiphone having a blast. Y'all need to simmer down some.

 

[drunkinminer]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Do you suppose that Fender makes more money off their MIA line? Or their MIM line? Rumour is that the last price increase was done to push customers away from their MIA guitars and towards the MIM guitars as they're more profitable.

+1
The guitars coming out of the Ensenada, Mexico plant are becoming more and more popular then the US made Fenders. When I bought mine I tried everything I could to find the one and that included the US made models but when I tried the MIMs they were of far better quality.

The lineup of MIMs is pretty impressive too. the Road Worn series, Jimmy Vaughn Strat, Muddy Waters Tele, the Classic Series, Classic Player, and the Standard Series just to name a few (there are more). Besides where do you think Fender get alot of there bodies and necks. they are shipped from the Corona plant.

As for Gibson outsourcing work to other countries. the argument I use is just look at the MIJ Fenders from the 80's. At the time not alot of people sought them out but not they highly sought after.

 

[Karn Evil 9]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

buy a hamer instead!

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Gibsons are just two humbuckers and a Tune-O-Matic on an expensive piece of wood, buyers have to brag about said wood to compensate for lack of a guitar.

Strange anti-Gibson quote of the year candidate. What is any other guitar but 2 or 3 pickups and a (fill in bridge mfr here) bridge on an expensive or cheap piece of wood?

Not sure I understand the point -- do we need 50 switches or a trem or a built-in iPod and video games before we no longer "lack a guitar"?

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Strange anti-Gibson quote of the year candidate. What is any other guitar but 2 or 3 pickups and a (fill in bridge mfr here) bridge on an expensive or cheap piece of wood?

Very strange indeed. At least with a Gibson, the neck's properly attached, the tuners aren't all jammed together on one side, you don't need string trees, and the bridge PU is very usable because it's not 100% treble and nothing else. Leo's goal with his designs was to cut production costs, period; to praise him for quality, tone, and good looks is pretty strange, as anything along those lines was an accidental by-product.

Gibson on the other hand, kept workmanship & tone in the forefront and didn't gut the LP Std & Custom to cut costs. They introduced new affordable Special & Junior models instead. They never downgraded the Std & Custom to save a few bucks. Every model of Fender's was centered around cheap production. There never were any high end models; everything was entry-level.

Anyone who does some looking will find that the other guitar manufacturers in the 1950's were appalled at how cheap & ugly Fenders were; they set a new low in luthier standards. Fenders were an embarassment to the luthier trade & it took the public a while to warm up to them, especially the Tele; honest. You may like them now, but they're nothing to brag about. Cheap designs are still cheap designs.

 

[Zerberus]

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.

With a few months experience it´s easy to split a wedge of maple and bookmatch it while gluing it on the top. It´s not that there´s no bookmatch step but it just isnt apparent that it´s being done becasue it´s part of the next step

 

[guitfiddle]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Very strange indeed. At least with a Gibson, the neck's properly attached, the tuners aren't all jammed together on one side, you don't need string trees, and the bridge PU is very usable because it's not 100% treble and nothing else. Leo's goal with his designs was to cut production costs, period; to praise him for quality, tone, and good looks is pretty strange, as anything along those lines was an accidental by-product.

Gibson on the other hand, kept workmanship & tone in the forefront and didn't gut the LP Std & Custom to cut costs. They introduced new affordable Special & Junior models instead. They never downgraded the Std & Custom to save a few bucks. Every model of Fender's was centered around cheap production. There never were any high end models; everything was entry-level.

Anyone who does some looking will find that the other guitar manufacturers in the 1950's were appalled at how cheap & ugly Fenders were; they set a new low in luthier standards. Fenders were an embarassment to the luthier trade & it took the public a while to warm up to them, especially the Tele; honest. You may like them now, but they're nothing to brag about. Cheap designs are still cheap designs.

Dude, do us all a favor and stop parading your opinions around as fact. Just enjoy the things you enjoy about Gibsons without acting like all other guitar designs and view points are somehow less worthy than yours.

You have Leo Fender among a handful of others to thank for the very existence of the Les Paul in the first place, and if it were the perfection you say it is, then why would you change the magnets in every single pickup you've ever had from them? What's more, if they were perfect, then why on Earth would Gibson have dropped it only 8 years into it's run? On the other hand, ask yourself why the Tele has NEVER been discontinued.

The fact that you can't get useable tones out of a Tele does not in any way mean that they aren't there.

 

[drunkinminer]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Dude, do us all a favor and stop parading your opinions around as fact. Just enjoy the things you enjoy about Gibsons without acting like all other guitar designs and view points are somehow less worthy than yours.

You have Leo Fender among a handful of others to thank for the very existence of the Les Paul in the first place, and if it were the perfection you say it is, then why would you change the magnets in every single pickup you've ever had from them? What's more, if they were perfect, then why on Earth would Gibson have dropped it only 8 years into it's run? On the other hand, ask yourself why the Tele has NEVER been discontinued.

The fact that you can't get useable tones out of a Tele does not in any way mean that they aren't there.

:clap:

 

[phil_104]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Boat has nailed it. It's like publicly finding fault with the babe from the local rich family we'd all secretly jump at the chance to ask out if we thought she'd ever have anything to do with us. If not for the secret attraction, the gripers would all find better things to do with their time.

(Lucky me, I'm playing the field with 4 of 'em -- 355, R9, LP Std, LP Special.)

My guitar cost about the same as a LP standard, and I tried a few the day I bought mine. Not everyone gripes about envy, as I have owned gibsons, and sold them.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Dude, do us all a favor and stop parading your opinions around as fact.

Most people in here are doing just that.

Just enjoy the things you enjoy about Gibsons without acting like all other guitar designs and view points are somehow less worthy than yours.

Ditto.

You have Leo Fender among a handful of others to thank for the very existence of the Les Paul in the first place,

???

and if it were the perfection you say it is, then why would you change the magnets in every single pickup you've ever had from them?

Read his post more carefully.

a) He didn't say Gibsons were perfect. He is responding to the post that somehow 2 pickups and a Tune-o-matic makes a guitar inferior.

b) Again he didn't say Gibson pu's were perfect. But magnet swapping isn't necessarily a put-down of the stock guitar, just customizing for personal tastes. With Fenders you can't swap magnets without swapping the whole pickup.

The reason people swap mags in Gibsons (and humbucker guitars in general) is because they can. If it were possible to do with Strats and Teles, you can bet there would have been and still would be plenty of mag-swapping going on there too. They wouldn't have had to wait for Seymour to invent the 5/2, you'd have some guys with 6 different Alnico grades per pickup just for giggles.

PS -- Now with the one piece plastic bobbin being used in many models (instead of the old-school 2 flats glued to the magnets), you can actually swap and even change the stagger.

What's more, if they were perfect, then why on Earth would Gibson have dropped it only 8 years into it's run?

The dropping had nothing to do with LP flaws but an attempt to totally change the LP design which gave us the SG. In 1959-60, sales of the LP were flagging, triggering the attempt to revamp the LP design. But Les Paul hated the SG and so he and Gibson divorced.

Then a few years later Bloomfield and Page and Duane and everybody's brother started showing up on stages and album covers with this can't-get-it-anymore model and the demand for it blew up. Les Paul and Gibson patched things up and the rest is history.

 

[ibanezrocks]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Blueman is hijacking a thread with posts about how great Gibsons are that contain little fact and mostly just bash Fender? :wrf: this is unexpected.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Most people in here are doing just that.

+1.

Myself included. 'Tis the nature of the whole internet forum thing.

 

[phil_104]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

+1.

Myself included. 'Tis the nature of the whole internet forum thing.

Tis also the nature asking for people's opinions on where a company went wrong.

 

[guitfiddle]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

The dropping had nothing to do with LP flaws but an attempt to totally change the LP design which gave us the SG. In 1959-60, sales of the LP were flagging, triggering the attempt to revamp the LP design. But Les Paul hated the SG and so he and Gibson divorced.

Then a few years later Bloomfield and Page and Duane and everybody's brother started showing up on stages and album covers with this can't-get-it-anymore model and the demand for it blew up. Les Paul and Gibson patched things up and the rest is history.

Which just proves that the LP took time to warm up to, not the Tele. The success of the Tele was what spurred Gibson to undertake the LP in the first place(hence the Leo reference...if the Tele had flopped Gibson wouldn't have wasted their time).

And, if a design doesn't have flaws, why would they change nearly everything about it? Does not compute.


@ blueman335, Sorry I came off too harsh there, but seriously, would it kill you to use "IMO"?

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Dude, do us all a favor and stop parading your opinions around as fact...Just enjoy the things you enjoy about Gibsons without acting like all other guitar designs and view points are somehow less worthy than yours...You have Leo Fender among a handful of others to thank for the very existence of the Les Paul in the first place.

Zhang & I were responding to a baffling post about Gibsons being a "lack of a guitar" and the obvious conclusion was that Fenders were somehow much better. Where Gibson has "gone wrong" has been in management decisions, not designs.

Les Paul had been trying to get Gibson interested in producing solid & semi-hollowbody guitars years before Leo came out with his. Gibson finally listened to Les Paul after the Tele was introduced. Les Paul was the innovator.

It's not a matter of any designs being "less worthy" than others; play what you like. It's that some were created to be cheap to produce, others weren't. It's what you do with them that matters. Players have done amazing things with Strats and gotten wonderful tones (like Hendrix), but it doesn't change the intent of the original design. Calling Gibsons a "lack of a guitar" is pure opinion, and not one easily understood. But "opinions" are okay if you agree with them, right? Then they're verging on "fact."

Apparently I'm the only who's ever expressed an opinion here! Thank God you haven't done that yourself. Really, take out the opinions on this forum, of which almost entirely consists of players saying what they like and don't like, and there is no forum.