The current state of Gibson guitars.....?

[Oscar]

In another recent thread Gibson guitars took quite a beating (overpriced, "crappy quality, ashamed to be a Gibson owner, etc).

 

While it's definitely true that you're paying good money for the Gibson name on the headstock, does this mean that their stuff is crappy?

 

Up until a few years ago I've always played Fender instruments. I had to sell my last Fender axe to make ends meet when my first child was born. A year later, I went shopping for an electric guitar. I was intent on getting a Tele (again), but then I stumbled over a Gibson that isn't being made anymore: Les Paul Gem Series

http://www.gibson.com/products/gibson/lespaul/images/gem-guitar.jpg

I played a Ruby Red one for about 20 minutes, then picked up a couple of American-made Strats and Teles, and that was that. Much to my surprise, the Fenders could not match the solid, high-end feel and the complex, rich sound of the Gem. I bought it for next to nothing, brand-new. They're to be found at very reasonable prices and people seem to be pretty happy with them (don't take my word for it: check out Harmony Central\'s Gem Page ).

 

So I guess you could say I've become a 'believer' . But I'll readily admit that Gibsons aren't as consistent as Fenders. With that I do not mean that some are bad and some are good, but rather that they tend to sound different. You have to play it to see if it suits you, you shouldn't buy any Gibson because your buddy has the same one and you liked it. I do not think that Gibson is making crappy products, but they are incredibly expensive. They're like the Harley Davidson of the guitar industry: image. And talking of image, I think their marketing department is doing an excellent job with their current line of ads, such as this one (slow server, may take a bit of time to load):

http://members.tripod.lycos.nl/otimans/gibson_ad.jpg

 

So, what do y'all think about Gibson these days? Are they compromising quality while still being insanely expensive, or are they top-notch guitars for which they charge a top-notch price? And are there any Gibson bargains out there, such as my Gem?

 

[ 02-20-2002: Message edited by: Oscar ]

[jef5f]

I got my new Gibson yesterday. It is solidly made, nice looks, good feel, and great tone. There is only two models of Gibson's that I have never like. One is the RD. Can't stand the way they feel and I don't even know the other model (made during the late 80's and early 90's). Gibson quality has always been good. Unless I just need or want the Strat single coil sound, I play Gibson every time.

 

The Gibby I got yesterday is a Les Paul DC Studio. A 98 model, NOS.

[Tedster]

Well, I'd like to buy another Paul. Mine was stolen back in '79. I made the mistake (you've got to consider the time frame) with a Gibson E2 Explorer. Sounded like mud. Got rid of it, bought a Washburn A-20. Still have it. Screams, but definitely not a Paul. Right now I mainly play a Strat, which kinda fits my playing style...sorta.

 

Now my 14 year old daughter is bugging me for a Les Paul, mainly because one of her heroes plays one (the kid from Sum 41, actually a pretty good power pop band...good melodies, musicianship not bad, high energy). Well, I told her to keep bugging, mainly her mother, because although I'll not buy her a Paul (she has a Strat, plus she can use my Washburn for the humbucker sound) I will buy myself one that I'll let her use anytime.

[jaccursi]

This is an interesting discussion. Comparing Gibsons to Fenders is like comparing Hondas to Cadilacs. They were never meant to be the same. While they compete on some levels, they were designed with two different goals in mind. Gibsons have always been more expensive, they always will be. Leo Fender didn't even play guitar! Fenders were made to be cheap and easy to build.

Consider that Gibson moved to a fully automated factory 16 years ago. They literally "don't make 'em like they used to." If you want a "real" Gibson, you need a Heritage. These guitars are made in the original Gibson factory in Michigan, and they look and feel much better than Gibsons (IMO)

By they way, Gibson does not create those ads, they pay a very respected advertising firm. Don't forget that this is where a large portion of that sticker price is going. Not to mention that everyone's "hero" is most likely paid a fortune (these days) to play that LP on stage.

Working at Sam Ash, I saw some pretty shady Gibsons. For the price, you have every right to expect a perfect guitar, not one with crooked, funny looking inlays, or saddles that were cut wrong and had to be replaced.

So in response to the original question, yeah, they're way over priced. There are so many alternatives out there that people don't even consider, because they don't have the brand recognition. Its really ashame.

[jaccursi]

[ 02-20-2002: Message edited by: jaccursi ]

[jef5f]

Say Tedster, you wanna buy my 80 LP Firebrand?

[tld]

Anyone happen to try any Heritage guitars? I've been hearing some great stuff about them from Gibson fans.

 

Tom

[Chip McDonald]

Their high end guitars are "ok". Except...

 

For that much money you can get a Suhr or an Anderson and have money left over, and it's going to be better. That's ridiculous. They're too busy making "collectors items" and selling to the lawyer and doctor market.

[cwittler]

Gibson is a brand name that has very strong consumer confidence behind it. This allows Gibson to manufacture "adequate" quality products at a premium price to an affluent client base that pretty much has more money than brains. Hooray for Gibson! That doesn't mean that everything they make is totally not worth it. I recently bought a Les Paul Standard Double Cut Plus which was very well made and very well priced...$1200 on the street (don't pay more!).

Heritage guitars are basically Gibsons in that these guitars are made by former Gibson craftsmen at the old Gibson Kalamazoo plant. There is a lot of folklore surronding this plant and many believe that the best Gibsons were made there. Most agree that Heritage offers better quality than Gibson, especially in terms of dollar value.

Where old Gibsons vs. new Gibsons are concerned, the debate is endless as to whether or not the new guitars are higher quality than the old ones. I think they are, on average, in only one aspect. Back in the old days of Kalamazoo, the craftsmen didn't really take much care in the wood selection that went into those famous old, much sought after guitars. They would walk out to the wood pile and grab whatever was there. Half of it would go into the furnace, the other half into a guitar. In that regard, I think that Gibson vintage re-issues are slightly more reliable than their originals (if you can find one that is not a forgery...buyer beware!).

[michael saulnier]

We're a nation of Brand Identity.

 

Gibson has invested, and continues to invest heavily in building its brand. If they can tie Gibson to other popular brands like NASCAR and Madonna, and Playboy, and Corvette... well, it's a huge victory for them.

 

There's really no innovation happening from a guitar making POV, I mean they're relying on the continued success of models that were developed decades ago... and their recent attempts at new products have largely flopped.

 

Also, they have "lost" much of the credibility they got for free from the high visibility players. If you watch VH-1 or MTV for a few hours... (I know, a painful experience), if you see guitars at all, they're more likely to be PRS's or Ibanez's than LP's... (of course there are some exceptions)...

 

Gibson doesn't seem to think they gain much market share by spending a lot of money improving or QC'ing their guitars. It seems they believe the only way for them to grow is to target more "un-educated" buyers who don't discriminate on quality, but rely on brand to tell them what's good.

 

All that said, I have, like, and use my '93 LP Standard. It's got some flaws, but it's a fun guitar to play and it sounds great. The only reason I have it though... I found it used w/case for $800 two years ago... That's about the right price...

 

guitplayer

[D. Gauss]

» The current state of Gibson guitars.....?>>

 

that would be tennessee.

 

-d. gauss

http://www.betteroffdead.com

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by d gauss:

» The current state of Gibson guitars.....?>>

 

that would be tennessee.

 

-d. gauss

http://www.betteroffdead.com

 

And Montana! (All acoustics, not mandolins, banjos or resonators, however.)

 

As I just stated in another thread. The truth about Gibson has been pegged pretty well by several posters on this forum.

 

There are good and bad. They are evolving the practice of resting on their laurels. (Attempting to recreate every nuance of 1950's design, as best they can approximate.) They're flooding the market with product because of the boom in instrument sales in the 1990's.

 

The following are my opinons, based on 10 years in MI retail and 26 years playing guitars. Nothing in the following is derived from my tenure at Gibson Guitars. (Other than learning Henry E. Juszkiewicz's name and when he bought Gibson.

 

I've stated many times that Gibson is kin to Harley Davidson and is similar, both in it's strengths and weaknesses. Harley was already an icon, but was known for being a mechanic's bike. (If you couldn't fix it yourself, you wouldn't want to own it.) In the mid 1980's Harley reinvented itself for yuppies.. because they had money and were SPENDING IT on toys! An article on Harley, in the Chicago Tribune, at that time had a quote from a Harley exec. that I'll paraphrase.:

 

The new image of Harley will look like this; You're in your car when you notice a group of leather clad bikers on Harleys pull up behind you. A streetlight turns red and you have to stop. They pull up beside you. Then the meanest looking biker glances at you and starts pointing and shouting at you! He takes off his helmet and shades and... it's your dentist!

 

At about the same time Henry E. Juszkiewicz bought Gibson with some investors. He proceeded to (knowingly or unknowingly, I don't know which,) follow Harley's lead and put modern manufacturing with vintage design and ever increasing attention to detail to win back many vintage Gibson lovers and attract new buyers. He pushed up prices, too. Value is in the eye of the buyer, and people lined up for Gibson's in droves.

 

At the time I thought Gibson had dug it's own grave. I was working at GC in late 1991 in Chicago. Several Strat-look-alike-based guitar companies had been flying high (Ibanez, Washburn, etc.) with low priced competition for Fender guitars. Meanwhile, we had Gibson's on the wall, languishing for buyers. Beautiful as they were, I didn't see the value for twice the price as the Ibanez's and Fenders. But that push for classic products.. cars, motorcycles, guitars.. made Gibson a mint in the next few years. Some products were good. Many new products, as previously stated, failed miserably. They loaded the line with high priced instruments and left budget pieces to the Epiphone line. I believe there is a desire to build high quality products at Gibson, but there's always the spectre of Henry expecting a high volume output. He's the majority owner, they're not a public company, so he can decide to do just about anything with the company at a whim. He answers to noone. Can you imagine the pressure on other high level management to change guitars into net dollars.

 

That means volume first. It can be no other way unless Henry changes his philosophy. It's that simple.

 

Check around, play several instruments and you'll find a great Gibson guitar. You may have to visit several stores before you find one that suits you and is built and setup properly, but they're out there.

[freddynl]

I did not see any bad gibson guitars at all in the past.

I own three gibsons and I bought my first in 1970. (almost vintage)

This is a cherry sg de luxe which survived 10 years gigging.

And I am not exactly a carefull person, so it was beaten up a lot.

It's technically still in excellent condition.

 

The two others are a rd artist gold plated and an acoustic western model.

 

The rd artist is a great sounding guitar and very undervalued in my opinion, technically in excellent condition as well.

The gold hardware sucks though.. it slowly gets little spots.

(sorry don't know the english word for this.)

 

The acoustic is good, but I would not consider it any better as a simular yamaha model.

I mostly use an ovation acoustic if I need one.

 

I do own a stratocaster and a telecaster as well and a Ibanez RG serie.,

 

Each guitar has it's function, so I cannot not say which guitar is the best! There ain't best guitars in my opinion and I agree with other posters that Gibson looks a bit overpriced if compared to f.i. Ibanez, which is as solid made as gibson, but let's face it they all have there own unique sounds. (as long as you don't use effect boxes)

 

By the way I use the guitars mainly as follows;

 

santana type of music ; gibson SG

blues - rock ; fender strat

prog.rock ; ibanez rg

jazz/new age ; gibson rd artist

 

Any kind/multi use ; fender telecaster de luxe

(has two large humbuckers)

 

 

my two cents

[Wickerman]

With Gibson and Epiphone both, it totally depends on the Guitar. I bought a 02' Epiphone SG used for $300. Someone bought it, returned it and I snatched it up. I've been looking around a lot and I've only heard one Gibson SG that sounded better. It was a Angus Young sig. I played another Angus model and it wasn't anywhere near as good! It's amazing how much the same model differs. Same with Epiphone. They make some Les Pauls for $600 that are better than a lot of Gibson's that run $2000 and up. Then again, some of that same model Epi are real dogs. I played a Gibson BB King "Lucielle" model and LOVED it so I was exstatic when I saw one at the local Guitar Center, I pulled it off the wall and started strumming it unplugged and it didn't feel right. I plugged it in anyway and it sounded terrible! Well, compared to the other I'd played. I wouldn't pay more that about $500 for it. It was nasty! It was real thin though a Fender Bassman reissue! I pulled down an Epiphone "AlleyKat" and it sounded beautiful. Same amp, same cable, same EQ. It really depends on the guitar...

[trick fall]

Gibson pisses me off, but that's because I'm left handed and I don't want an SG or a Les Paul Deluxe. I'd really love a Junior, but they just don't make them lefty. If I could get that new dual cut away jr with the stacked P-90's the credit card would get exercised tomorrow even if the wife would kill me.

 

I do think Gibson's are much more hit and miss than say Fenders are. But ya know some guitars have charm and others don't. Over the summer I purchased a Tokai 335 knockoff and it blew an early Seventies Gibson 335 I tried away.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by trickfall@yahoo.com:

Gibson pisses me off, but that's because I'm left handed and I don't want an SG or a Les Paul Deluxe. I'd really love a Junior, but they just don't make them lefty...

 

Check out Southpaw Guitars in Texas. If memory serves, it's www.southpawguitars.com . They specialize in lefty guitars, and sometimes order runs of instruments that Gibson otherwise does not make in lefty configurations. I usually don't like buying guitars by mail, but with limited lefty offerings, this may be the only way to get what you want. Good luck.

[Lee Flier]

I'm a lefty too but I play righty. Good thing, it would suck to have to find lefty models of all my fave vintage guitars!

 

I definitely agree that Gibson is getting into some very lame territory these days, which sucks, seeing as they've been my favorite guitars all these years. Glad I'm not in the market for a new one!

 

--Lee

[UrbanMongoose]

Waaaaalll, I gotta weigh in on this!

There are good, valid and interesting points being floated on the topic. If half of the naysayers speak the truth, (And I assume you do, y'all...), I guess I was lucky with my Gibson.

 

As far as electrics go, I've been playing Fenders for ever, in particular, a '62 Tele and a '97 Jimmy Vaughan Strat, (Then called the Tex-Mex). I love 'em both, but when it came to playing, say, 'We Don't Get Fooled Again' at stage volume, well, something was missin' in my arsenal.

 

I bought a '99 Les Paul Classic. Bought it online for a very good price, then had my local guitar guy set it up for me, (A CRITICAL element of any guitar playing well, in my opinion: If we don't have a talented guitar person who knows how and what we play setting up our instrument, we are not getting the most out of the axe, period.)

When my wife walked in that evening, and I was playing it, she was standing in the hall with a stunned look on her face, her comment was "Now I know what all the fuss was about!"

 

This thing is a wonderful axe, with amazing power, tone and sustain. The neck, (A so-called '60's slim taper'), is awesome; playing and practicing on it has made me faster and cleaner, all around, on everything I own.

 

The stock 496R and 500T pickups DO scream to wake the dead in lead mode on My Fender Deluxe amp. I've played it through a Marshall JSM2000 DSM Dual Super Lead head and a 1960A 4x12 cabinet; It blew away everything around it. Guys with swankier, more expensive PRS models love mine. Not to say PRS isn't gold, 'cause they are, but my LP is no slouch.

 

I've played some of the genuine McCoy old LPs and SGs - there are many gems, some so-so's, and a few dogs among them - I guess it has as much to do with how they're treated as what they started as in that regard...

 

I will find a way to own a SJ-200 reissue acoustic one of these days, if I can figure out a way to justify it to my wife, that is....

 

Overall, I wouldn't trade my LP for anything, period!

 

Thanks, y'all for a great topic!

[DC]

I've personally thought Gibson's have sucked since they moved their plant to Nashburg in the late 70's. Also had a friend that worked there and Gibson's mentality toward their workers further convinced me that I don't want any of their overpriced crap.

[tld]

I used to have a '67 sunburst ES335TD (stolen in the last 70s...sob). I remember going into music stores in the late 70s and early 80s and checking out the current 335s. I swear they seemed to weigh about a third what my 67 did...made me wonder right away.

 

By the way the serial of that 335 was 103620 (hey ya never know).

 

Tom

[Oscar]

For that much money you can get a Suhr or an Anderson and have money left over, and it's going to be better.

Uhhhh....that depends on where you live! In the US or Canada: definitely! In Europe? Forget it! I'd have to go deep into Germany to get an Anderson or Suhr guitar, and even if I found one it would be as least as expensive as a "normal" Les Paul (all US-made axes cost appreciably more in Europe, often even twice as much). And yes, I think you have a point when you say that those brands offer better value for money.

 

With Gibson and Epiphone both, it totally depends on the Guitar [....] I pulled down an Epiphone "AlleyKat" and it sounded beautiful. Same amp, same cable, same EQ. It really depends on the guitar...

Oh, right on the mark! Gibson and Epi have a consistency problem. I must say, however, that I haven't played a bad-sounding or bad-playing Alleykat yet (although I did have to return one to the shop that had a glue problem in the neck - cracks all over! Got a new one, 's a GREAT guitar).

 

Fenders are much more consistent. Give me any Squier strat, a workbench and an hour of time, and I'll hand you a guitar good enough to gig with! The differences between individual instruments are a lot smaller than with Gibsons and Epi's.

 

The trick is to spot Gibsons and Epi's that actually are good deals. It can be done, and if you succeed you'll get amazing guitars for amazing prices! Gibson has extensive info on their site on discontinued models: check it out! These models sometimes go for very little and are bang-for-buck champs. Just be sure to check the axe out from top to bottom, take your time, have the store install fresh strings before trying it and be critical as hell. I was, and I found two absolute killer guitars that'll be with me for the rest of my life (if they don't get nicked, that is).

[dave251]

Originally posted by UrbanMongoose:

(A CRITICAL element of any guitar playing well, in my opinion: If we don't have a talented guitar person who knows how and what we play setting up our instrument, we are not getting the most out of the axe, period.)

As a long time guitar mechanic, I couldn't agree more...I've seen more than my share of Gibsons that would be great IF the proper setup had been done. I won't argue the fact that they're overpriced...but you can get 40% off list at most "superstores"....

 

Dave

[Guitarzan]

as with anything, a guitar should be judged on its own merits. a name on a headstock may or may not signify quality. it is sad that once a company gets to a certain point ,profit margins and the usual corporate crap kick in. but this doesn't guarantee a shitty guitar. it doesn't help, unfortunately. being in canada i can't justify 2900 bucks canadian on a les paul. it is sad that everything ( guitars included) are made in more automated factories every day, and cost cutting is a corporate way of life. personally i despise hype and resting on past glories. but i still think i would like a good paul, but i would never pay that kind of price. if you had 2 identical guitars, at the same price , one made by machine and one made by hand with the same workmanship and tone, the only difference would be where does the cash you spend end up? my point is, buy what sings to YOU. but i would not be comfortable giving my money to ad guys, corporate dudes, and fluff. i want my money to be paying for the product plus a respectable profit of course. it is sad that large entities like gibson, fender and prs have to use so much hype. let the products speak. i myself don't really care what artist plays what model. i do find the artists set ups to be informative. just my two cents ( whats that in american?)