WTH Gibson?

[NegativeEase]

I think everyone should educate themselves on the concept of hyperbole and hysteria on social media before trying to tow the party line on the quality of Gibsons.

Are their years where QC was considered lower on average than other years -certainly. Did they still produce a measure of exemplary guitars in those years too? Certainly.

But just mouthing Gibson suck and make an inferior product is social media hysterics.

It's silly.

 

[Securb]

I think everyone should educate themselves on the concept of hyperbole and hysteria on social media before trying to tow the party line on the quality of Gibsons.

Are their years where QC was considered lower on average than other years -certainly. Did they still produce a measure of exemplary guitars in those years too? Certainly.

But just mouthing Gibson suck and make an inferior product is social media hysterics.

It's silly.

.

 

[JB_From_Hell]

Here's a rundown on the Gibsons I've owned. Not trying to convince anyone of anything about them, and no second-hand depictions or hyperbole.

I've said this on here a million times, by my '62 LP/SG was built with either the bridge mounted too far forward, or the neck glued in the wrong spot. When the joint let loose (sitting safely in its case) and it took a trip to the luthier, he ended up putting a nearly half-inch thick chunk of mahogany in to make it play in tune for the first time ever.

The $10k Gibson Master Model F5 mandolin I owned sounded pretty good, played pretty good, and had the absolute sloppiest half-ass finish job on the top underneath the fretboard extension. Was it relevant to the functionality of the instrument? Obviously not, but it sold for ten-thousand freaking dollars. Maybe do as good of a job as Northfield does on a $2900 instrument?

My Les Paul Studio is incredible, and I can't get over how much I love it. From the factory, it came with the wrong pickups and controls. It's getting new pickups and point-to-point wiring, plus I'm going to replace the switch cover and jack plate (both cracked when I was removing them). Once it has the right pickups, you'll never hear me gripe about it again.

The earlier LP Studio I had prior to that was a freaking boat anchor (the newer one is under 8 pounds). Aside from the absurd weight, there was nothing really wrong with it, but I have zero regrets swapping it for an LTD M-1000.

Prior to that, I had a Melody Maker, can't remember what year, but sometime from the early-mid 2000s. I'm aware it was by far the cheapest MIA Gibson you could get, and it showed in spades. Whatever the hell the paint was felt sludgey and was obviously not very even. The fingerboard was noticeably narrower than the neck, perhaps from the thick blue sludge. I remember next to nothing else about it, and it was the first Gibson I owned.

My mid-60's SJ is fantastic, no complaints... except that my Eastman AC420 was like $600, has a more full tone and is significantly louder. If you're trying to play with an acoustic ensemble, those last two things really, really matter.

 

[treyhaislip]

BUT they still exist and are recognized as the standard. Business mistakes and marketing practices aren’t directly related to the quality of their product. That’s a logical fallacy and you know it.

Logical Fallacy? :lmao:

They do still exist...screwed over their debtors and THEN started suing the likes of Dean and Jericho (on top of having the most obnoxious ad campaign I've ever seen with their "play authentic".)

The standard? Definitely iconic but debatable on the "standard". I would argue Martin is the standard for American made acoustics (one of their acoustics is the most expensive guitar ever sold at auction not to mention they are the oldest guitar company in the USA.) For electrics, I think an argument could be made for Fender as the standard (the Telecaster was the most recorded guitar for decades.)

 

[formula73]

Logical Fallacy? :lmao:

They do still exist...screwed over their debtors and THEN started suing the likes of Dean and Jericho (on top of having the most obnoxious ad campaign I've ever seen with their "play authentic".)

The standard? Definitely iconic but debatable on the "standard". I would argue Martin is the standard for American made acoustics (one of their acoustics is the most expensive guitar ever sold at auction not to mention they are the oldest guitar company in the USA.) For electrics, I think an argument could be made for Fender as the standard (the Telecaster was the most recorded guitar for decades.)

Check the meaning of the phrase. I stand by my statement.

Business practices of the current ownership doesn’t make the guitars bad. The guys on the shop floor don’t gaf about who sues who.

That said, Jericho had it coming. They make an obvious clone of an E2 CMT and advertised it openly. That was mfn stupid. Dean…yeah…that is a little much. I side with Dean on that case.

 

[Securb]

.

 

[GuitarDoc]

I've owned over a dozen Gibsons since 1960. Still have 5.

 

[NegativeEase]

I've owned over a dozen Gibsons since 1960. Still have 5.

Why? didnt you hear ... they all are terrible

 

[treyhaislip]

Check the meaning of the phrase. I stand by my statement.

Business practices of the current ownership doesn’t make the guitars bad. The guys on the shop floor don’t gaf about who sues who.

That said, Jericho had it coming. They make an obvious clone of an E2 CMT and advertised it openly. That was mfn stupid. Dean…yeah…that is a little much. I side with Dean on that case.

There is no logical fallacy in my post--you should check the meaning! :deal:

You said "If they were such mediocre trash, they would have fallen by the wayside decades ago" and I simply said that they did file bankruptcy. Both in the 80s and 2010s, Gibson has been close to falling by the wayside several times...that is an unarguable fact.

Funny enough, they were practically bankrupted in the 80s when they were saved by the guys that are currently to blame for overextending Gibson causing bankruptcy (the robotuners debacle, the whole "lifestyle company", trying to expand into non-guitar markets, etc.) If you look up what turned Gibson around in the 80s there was literally an emphasis on improving quality.

I don't recall ever saying Gibson made bad guitars--I've owned 2 Gibson Les Pauls and 3 Gibson acoustics (2 purchased new and 1 purchased used) along with over 10 Epiphones. The quality of the finish was not great on any of the Gibsons with tuning issues on the Les Pauls as well as the MK-72. My high end Martins and Taylors are flawless--no smudges, no so rough spots, no thick spots...and brand new had no playability issues and perfect tuning stability.

I love the J45 sound but my Eastman E10SS had a better finish and longer sustain. Without looking at the brand on the headstock, the Eastman felt like the $3,000 guitar and the Gibson felt like the $1,000 guitar. That is my main beef with Gibson. When you look at other similarly priced guitars, Gibson's, to me--just my opinion, does not justify the price tag.

 

[Chris Pile]

When this thread hits 10 full pages I want Mincer to close it, because stupid.

 

[treyhaislip]

When this thread hits 10 full pages I want Mincer to close it, because stupid.

 

[Chris Pile]

And it will be my idea to close it.

 

[chadd]

When this thread hits 10 full pages I want Mincer to close it, because stupid.

Yes, it was stupid to post an article full of obvious half truths and misleading comments from someone that was in open violation of IP laws. Stuff like this devalues the site

 

[Fender_Punk]

I'm pretty sure that if I made and sold a vehicle under the Jolly name that was exactly like a Corvette, I'd get my ass handed to me on a silver platter as well

But it would be so much cooler than a regular Corvette! :drive:

 

[GuitarDoc]

Why? didnt you hear ... they all are terrible

They're not all terrible. In fact, many of them are great (even though I've had to repair several Gibsons that I bought brand new). But none of their prices are justified...WAY overpriced for the quality received. My decision to buy them was purely emotional. Gibson relies on emotional sales (buying reputation and name recognition) rather than buying value (xxx quality for xxx $). Almost every other brand is a better "value" than Gibson.

 

[NegativeEase]

They're not all terrible. In fact, many of them are great (even though I've had to repair several Gibsons that I bought brand new). But none of their prices are justified...WAY overpriced for the quality received. My decision to buy them was purely emotional. Gibson relies on emotional sales (buying reputation and name recognition) rather than buying value (xxx quality for xxx $). Almost every other brand is a better "value" than Gibson.

I was being facetious, I don't think their terrible at all -most are brilliant guitars -I think a few stinkers every year recently have created a ridiculous social media narrative and silly hysterics. Gibson makes killer guitars and people want something to talk about.

Criticism of Gibson's corporate behavior recently is more valid than the quality of their guitar they produce now IMO.

I do believe GIbson has the right to try and protect exact replicas of their product, AND I do believe companies have the right to test this because Gibson has never defended their shapes for 50 years -which is a requirement for keeping a trademark or patent, however a few of Gibson's shape they themselves lifted off luthier traditions like the headstock shape -so I think it's funny they can sue over something they stole themselves.

 

[treyhaislip]

Criticism of Gibson's corporate behavior recently is more valid than the quality of their guitar they produce now IMO.

As a non-fan of Gibson, I can agree with that. Still, I was disappointed by the finish and fretwork on my Gibson J45 & Gibson Advanced Jumbo–my Taylor 714 and Martin D18 are literally flawless in comparison.

I think it's funny they can sue over something they stole themselves.

*cough cough* double cream Dimarzios... :stooges: (technically didn't "steal" but definitely didn't create)

 

[Demanic]

Yeah, Im not saying the design and creation of the VW wasnt a Nazi initiative.

Im saying the Volkswagen company you have known your whole life (VAGCOM) was a British organized private enterprise.

I'm not trying whitewash the Nazi origin. -But the VW company is not a Nazi enterprise in the same way NASA is not a NAZI enterprise -thats all

Speaking of NASA, ever hear of a guy named Wernher von Braun?
lol

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk

 

[Aceman]

I have said before - I can walk into a GC, grab a random Gibson off the wall, and play a gig. 10 out of 10 times.

That said - for the price they charge - I expect the guitars to be technically and cosmetically flawless. They would pass that test somewhere between 7-8 out of ten times. Unacceptable.

I own four of them. Three of them I had in my hands before I bought them. 2 were used.

My freely was was flawless per-se, except a slight bind on the g string. Easily fixed by running a wound d string through and rolling the edges a touch. I considered this a reasonable issue and bear them no ill will. It took a bit of playing for me to notice it.

And, when I'm not an idiot on a guitar forum, I'm a Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt. For what Gibson does and what they charge - they suck.

 

[Demanic]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk