Is Gibson going through what Fender did in the 70s with QC?

[webe123]

This is not a putdown of Gibson guitars, as they make some of the finest instruments I know, but I really wonder about this article and shocking pictures they have posted on their OWN website! Here is the link:

 

http://www.gibson.com/products/custom/csu/summer9.html

 

I just can't understand WHY they would make those pictures public? If they are only test dummy guitars and not actual production models, the article does not hint at it! The top neck joint is a standard US made Les Paul. The bottom picture is a Custom shop reissue Les Paul.

 

It makes me wonder if Gibson is going through a bad Quality control era, like Fender did in the 70s when CBS took over?

 

It also just seems to me, that for the prices that Gibson charges for their US guitars, the neck joints would be a lot tighter!

 

I wonder what is going on in quality control?

[James-Italy]

Dude.

 

The pictures are showing the difference between a long-tenon and a standard tenon. They aren't trying to impress with their "perfect fit". If it really made a difference to most people, don't you think Gibson would have "slanted" the photo to show you the best possible fit? FWIW I don't see anything wrong with the QC here at all. Remember these are hand-made instruments, not machine-made perfect cuts.

 

I've bought 3 new Gibsons in the last year and a half and each one was perfect. Maybe just my dumb luck, but for me the quality is excellent. Want to find out more about Gibson QC? Go test drive one then tell me what you think. Maybe they aren't worth the money, but that's another discussion.

[Guitarzan]

i would suggest if you (gibson) were going to cut a guitar in half, you would use a poorly excecuted one.

they should have given some more details though, i am sure lots of people wonder if those are normal joints.

[Werewolf by Night]

Is Gibson going through what Fender did in the '70s with QC?

 

I'd say they already did, under Norlin in the '70s! (Well, maybe that was more a matter of design and materials.)

 

Well, I've seen evidence of poor consistency amongst Gibsons, even little things about my own two, so I can understand a little head-scratching there.

 

James is right about those pictures, though; they've been circulated a lot on the 'net lately, usually under misunderstanding or total misrepresentation!

[webe123]

Originally posted by Caevan O'Shite:

Is Gibson going through what Fender did in the '70s with QC?

 

I'd say they already did, under Norlin in the '70s! (Well, maybe that was more a matter of design and materials.)

 

Well, I've seen evidence of poor consistency amongst Gibsons, even little things about my own two, so I can understand a little head-scratching there.

 

James is right about those pictures, though; they've been circulated a lot on the 'net lately, usually under misunderstanding or total misrepresentation!

But that is the point I was making. The reason people are drawing the conclusions they are drawing, is beacuse so little information is on that site, so it leaves people to wonder if those are production models or not. But to me, no matter HOW you present them, most people will just draw the wrong conclusion. By putting up those pictures, it seems they are cutting their own throats. It's just bad PR.

 

It also gives people who have a thing against Gibson, more ammo to say their guitars are not well made. I am just waiting for Ed Roman to jump in on those pictures and say "aha....see I told you Gibson didn't make good guitars".(even though he would probably lie to his mama to sell someone a quicksilver guitar instead of a Gibson) I can just see it now.

[Werewolf by Night]

Well, maybe they'll change that 'page, or delete or replace it; but now that it's been so widely quoted 'n' copied- often out-of-context, and/or only in part- its fate as a little thorn is sealed for... well, a long time.

 

But, the folks at Gibson probably just view it- if at all- as the kind of chatter that's always gonna be going on in the general background of the internet, no matter what you, I, or they say or do. Kinda like people posting that J and Silent Bob are "f#&%!n' clown-shoes".

[Dave da Dude]

It struck me more as a technical discussion of the merits of the two DESIGNS, having nothing to do with Quality Control. They make the point that both designs are set (glued) necks, in effect making both designs act as one piece of wood.

 

I perceive them pointing out the difference in manufacturing techniques / designs having only a slight difference.

 

To each their own paradigm. However, I do agree that it would tend to make me look for a vintage LP instead of a new one.

 

Dave

[dave251]

http://www.gibson.com/products/custom/csu/images/summer/tenonhalf.jpg

 

http://www.gibson.com/products/custom/csu/images/summer/tenon.jpg

 

This is the same advertising bullshit Gibson has been putting out since the early 1900's....

 

Here's a quote from that page....

 

"With a set neck instrument, whether a violin or a guitar, the neck and body are joined using traditional dovetail joinery. Like fine furniture, the opposing tenon and cavity are joined permanently with wood glue so that the neck's angle and playability last for the life of the instrument without the tonal compromises associated with plates and bolts."

 

Let's examine first the "fit" of the joints, and why they're like they are.

 

The shorter rounder joint is obviously cut in this manner to facilitate the gluing operation. The glueing fixture is used to determine the alignment, particularly the neck angle. The ONLY cut that has to be accurate on the neck itself is the part that fits against the outside of the body. A TON of glue will have to be used to fill in the voids( with any gluing operation, the old axiom "less is more" really does apply) . The longer "tenon" appears to use the tenon itself, in addition to the cut between the heel and body, to align the neck, in otherwords, a simple C clamp will join the two, rather than an elaborate and expensive fixture.

 

Speaking from my experience with CNC while at PV, the longer tenon is as easy to do....IF YOU HAVE GOOD CNC PROGRAMS, GOOD FIXTURING ON THE MACHINE, AND A QUALIFIED OPERATOR WHILE THE MACHINE IS RUNNING. And it's a pain in the ass to keep all of these operating in concert with one another; the benefit is a more accurate, and probably better sounding joint.

 

Regarding the quote, THE ABOVE PHOTOS ARE NOT DOVETAIL, but mortise and tenon. The way the description reads, it's confusing at best, although the photos do tell the story. As far as a glued in neck maintaining stability over a bolted neck....well, that's just plain bullshit too. There are arguments both ways as to which design is superior; after working in the business for over thirty years, as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.

 

This is indeed a bungle from the Gibson advertising team ....but the sad truth is that many players will buy into the hype that is generated. A kernel of truth regarding the construction of the joint...but more so because the "longer" tenon is more accurately cut, rather than the length contributing to the tone. A "real" dovetail(as long as the shorter tenon) would be more effective than either, as it would INCREASE the tightly fit gluing area. IMHO....

[Werewolf by Night]

I am reminded of a few things here...

 

For starters, Dan Erlewine has pointed out that he feels that his joinery skills in particular, and guitar building ability in general, were not as great as he would like in the Guitar- "Lucy"- that he built for Albert King. Yet, Lucy was Albert's favorite guitar, and he even owned an original, vintage '58 or '59 Gibson Flying V, as well!

 

I played an incredibly cool, vibey old '50s vintage Gretsch "Round Up", G-brand, belt-buckle, knotty pine top, and all. I loved the woody, warm, personable feel, tone, and personality that it had by the bucket. But I'd bet there was a LOT of glue and sloppy tolerance in its neck-joint; I understand that's par for the course with many a gretsch. It was still a wonderful guitar in its own right! (Too bad its collector's-item status had put its price up well over five-grand; I really liked that guitar, and would've snapped it up if I could've! The new "reissues" aren't anything like that one...)

[Chipotle]

As an owner of two early nineties Les Pauls, I was disappointed when I saw these pictures. It's like Gibson is saying, "This badly fitting joint is the best we're going to do for our base model. However, if you pay double to triple the price, we can do it right."

[Major Tom]

Heck, I'd pay an extra $1500.00 for a re-issue to make sure I got the longer neck tenon - that's reasonable don't you think? I'm glad they pointed out how inferior their $2500 (street price) standard models are.

 

[Werewolf by Night]

dave251- Your excellent post had not yet appeared in my browser before I began to type-up my reply there; I don't want you- or anyone else, either- to mistake it for a contradiction of your sound info and opinions!

 

I agree with you overall; and I think that a well-executed bolt-on joint would actually be more stable in the long-run than a better-than-half-@$$3d set-neck, mortise-and-tenon joint! At least, I don't recall hearing of anyone having a neck re-set on their '50s vintage Strat or Tele... (Not uncommon for vintage Gibsons, Martins, etc.)

 

Chipotle- as the owner of two mid/late '90s Les Pauls, I know EXACTLY what you mean there!!

 

Major Tom- your sarca- I mean, point is not lost on me!

[James-Italy]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

Heck, I'd pay an extra $1500.00 for a re-issue to make sure I got the longer neck tenon - that's reasonable don't you think? I'm glad they pointed out how inferior their $2500 (street price) standard models are.

 

Actually the street price for a new standard is @ $1500 and a '57 Re-issue (with long-tenon) is @ $1800, to the best of my knowledge.

 

Not to you MajorTom, but in general:

I play Gibson guitars and I drive Porsches. Strange how both of them get so much bad rap by the general public. So often I hear how they are overpriced and resting on their histories. Maybe it's so, but both of them give me total satisfaction. Without a doubt the standard comment I hear most is "not worth the money, you can find something that offers the same performance for less money". I'll leave it to anyone who has the chance to objectively try out different makes and models to decide for themselves. You probably know where my opinions lie.

 

Porsche has been really sharp with their "There is no substitute" ad campaign over the years, while Gibson doesn't spend the same kind of money on advertising and I've never seen anything that caught my eye. But, you guys ever hear of a band called The Darkness? You can love them or hate them, but you can't deny they are about having fun and making Rock n' Roll. They do songs with 1, 2 even 3 guitar solos. Guess who gave them their guitars and sponsored them BEFORE they became stars? Yep. Gibson.

 

Gibson bashing is always easy. I don't turn a blind eye to them and I'm sure Gibson is not perfect by any means. But... I tend to defend them because I've had really good experiences so far. And, I think they get ragged on a lot, not because they make shitty guitars but because they make expensive guitars.

 

Food for thought.

[Chipotle]

That's a sloppy neck joint. You can drive around in Rolls Royces drinking vintage wine with Brazilian super models but it's still a sloppy neck joint. If Porsche made an engine in which the pistons did not match the holes in the block, would that be acceptable?

 

Personally, far from bashing Gibson, I thought that buying a Gibson meant I was paying a premium for a properly made guitar, not just a "brand." Why should the consumer have to pay more, or worse, be responsible to evaluate the quality of the neck joint? Every Gibson should be made with the best possible neck joint. If the long tenon is superior, it should be integrated into every set neck guitar they manufacture.

[Guitarzan]

well for what its worth , the neck on my LG is tight as scrooge and for a bolt on i wouldn't say its lacking anything. Godin (for the record) has stated it spends up to 45 minutes on the neck and body coupling. pull one apart and you will find wood on wood, no finish on either neck heel or body pocket. could explain the resonance that the old girl gives me. a set neck isn't always better sounding or have more sustain. i never thought this way until i tried an LG.

[James-Italy]

Originally posted by Chipotle:

That's a sloppy neck joint. You can drive around in Rolls Royces drinking vintage wine with Brazilian super models but it's still a sloppy neck joint. If Porsche made an engine in which the pistons did not match the holes in the block, would that be acceptable?

 

Personally, far from bashing Gibson, I thought that buying a Gibson meant I was paying a premium for a properly made guitar, not just a "brand." Why should the consumer have to pay more, or worse, be responsible to evaluate the quality of the neck joint? Every Gibson should be made with the best possible neck joint. If the long tenon is superior, it should be integrated into every set neck guitar they manufacture.

You missed my point Chipotle.

I WAS NOT saying that since I drive a Porsche, my connosieur tastes allow me a better view on the matter, come on man.... I was simply making a comparison to another manufacturer of expensive products that gets bashed because competitors offer similiar performance (on paper) for much less money. And so many people rag on Porsche because Car & Driver shows the 0-60 times of (whatever sports car) to be faster than Porsche. Go to a race track and drive with an expert driver and you will recognize immediately the qualities of a Porsche. Oh, and if Porsche made engines with pistons that did not match the block the darn thing wouldn't run.

 

Now, if Gibson makes a guitar with a standard tenon and one with a long tenon, can you or anyone else tell the difference between the two when in the hands of an expert guitarist? Really hear the difference. I doubt it man. On the LesPaulForum this subject has been beat to death. The best quote I've ever read there is something like this, "When the band kicks in, can anyone tell if it's a long tenon?"

 

Gibson is trying to sell guitars and keep the "brand" image high. That's what they do. They explain why the long tenon is better so they can charge more for guitars that have it. I agree that it would be nice if all of their guitars have them. But, if that meant that Gibson had to raise already high prices on the Standard models what would you say? Anyone who buys a guitar just because of the "brand" deserves whatever they get. I would like to think most of you buy a guitar because of how it plays and feels, regardless of the name. That's what I did.

 

Lastly, since the photos show a "sloppy neck joint" can you, or anyone, show me a properly fitting neck joint? I'm ignorant on the matter and would love a comparison photo of what a properly fitting joint should look like. Since it seems so obvious to everyone what a sloppy one is, what is good one like? I've never built a guitar by hand, maybe you guys that have can help me out.

[webe123]

Originally posted by James-Italy:

Originally posted by Major Tom:

Heck, I'd pay an extra $1500.00 for a re-issue to make sure I got the longer neck tenon - that's reasonable don't you think? I'm glad they pointed out how inferior their $2500 (street price) standard models are.

 

Actually the street price for a new standard is @ $1500 and a '57 Re-issue (with long-tenon) is @ $1800, to the best of my knowledge.

 

Not to you MajorTom, but in general:

I play Gibson guitars and I drive Porsches. Strange how both of them get so much bad rap by the general public. So often I hear how they are overpriced and resting on their histories. Maybe it's so, but both of them give me total satisfaction. Without a doubt the standard comment I hear most is "not worth the money, you can find something that offers the same performance for less money". I'll leave it to anyone who has the chance to objectively try out different makes and models to decide for themselves. You probably know where my opinions lie.

 

Porsche has been really sharp with their "There is no substitute" ad campaign over the years, while Gibson doesn't spend the same kind of money on advertising and I've never seen anything that caught my eye. But, you guys ever hear of a band called The Darkness? You can love them or hate them, but you can't deny they are about having fun and making Rock n' Roll. They do songs with 1, 2 even 3 guitar solos. Guess who gave them their guitars and sponsored them BEFORE they became stars? Yep. Gibson.

 

Gibson bashing is always easy. I don't turn a blind eye to them and I'm sure Gibson is not perfect by any means. But... I tend to defend them because I've had really good experiences so far. And, I think they get ragged on a lot, not because they make shitty guitars but because they make expensive guitars.

 

Food for thought.

As I said earlier, I think they make some of the finest instruments I know, but when it comes to stuff like this, then yes, I think it needs the attention of the public. That is not a putdown of Gibson guitars in any way, but rather showing others what they (Gibson) have already posted on their OWN website.

 

And no matter HOW you view it, it just adds up to bad PR, because most people will misunderstand them, even if those are not production models! Which may I point out the article never said one way or another. So it does leave you wondering. And that is bad news for a company known for it's quality.

 

Also I am looking on ebay and other places right now for a Gibson Studio, don't think for a minute I have something against Gibson for posting this! If I did, I can assure you I would not be trying to buy a product of theirs. I had a 1996 Gibson Les Paul Studio and am hunting around for another one, It had a sound I can't get out of my head and I wished I would not have sold it. But there was something going on that makes me wonder about thier construction methods in that webpage and I just posted about it. Thats all.

[James-Italy]

Originally posted by webe123:

As I said earlier, I think they make some of the finest instruments I know, but when it comes to stuff like this, then yes, I think it needs the attention of the public. That is not a putdown of Gibson guitars in any way, but rather showing others what they (Gibson) have already posted on their OWN website.

 

And no matter HOW you view it, it just adds up to bad PR, because most people will misunderstand them, even if those are not production models! Which may I point out the article never said one way or another. So it does leave you wondering. And that is bad news for a company known for it's quality.

 

Also I am looking on ebay and other places right now for a Gibson Studio, don't think for a minute I have something against Gibson for posting this! If I did, I can assure you I would not be trying to buy a product of theirs. I had a 1996 Gibson Les Paul Studio and am hunting around for another one, It had a sound I can't get out of my head and I wished I would not have sold it. But there was something going on that makes me wonder about thier construction methods in that webpage and I just posted about it. Thats all.

Fair enough! I wasn't accusing you or anyone else of Bashing the ole Gibson, just ranting in general.

 

You make a great point here-

"I had a 1996 Gibson Les Paul Studio and am hunting around for another one, It had a sound I can't get out of my head and I wished I would not have sold it."

 

When you had your Studio, did you care what kind of neck joint or construction method it had? Would you care what neck joint "the one" you are looking for has if it has the perfect feel and tone for you?

 

Why is it bad PR if people misinterpret the photos? Is anyone really buying a guitar because of Gibson's website PR? Shouldn't people be trying out guitars so they can decide themselves? Personally, I don't think they are selling less guitars because of these photos. Does the general public even know what a GOOD QC neck joint looks like? Seems everyone except me sees bad QC in the photos, am I the only one around that is ignorant about neck joints? I'm still waiting for a good example so I can try to pick out where the bad QC is.

 

I think the reason Gibson has those photos on their "Custom Shop" web site is because Gibson charges more for Custom Shop and historic reissues. Experts correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they make Custom Shop/Reissues in a seperate production facility with different construction methods. One of those is using a long tenon and they are demonstrating what that is in the photo. Sorry, I miss how this is bad PR.

 

Good luck on your Studio quest!

[webe123]

Originally posted by James-Italy:

Originally posted by webe123:

As I said earlier, I think they make some of the finest instruments I know, but when it comes to stuff like this, then yes, I think it needs the attention of the public. That is not a putdown of Gibson guitars in any way, but rather showing others what they (Gibson) have already posted on their OWN website.

 

And no matter HOW you view it, it just adds up to bad PR, because most people will misunderstand them, even if those are not production models! Which may I point out the article never said one way or another. So it does leave you wondering. And that is bad news for a company known for it's quality.

 

Also I am looking on ebay and other places right now for a Gibson Studio, don't think for a minute I have something against Gibson for posting this! If I did, I can assure you I would not be trying to buy a product of theirs. I had a 1996 Gibson Les Paul Studio and am hunting around for another one, It had a sound I can't get out of my head and I wished I would not have sold it. But there was something going on that makes me wonder about thier construction methods in that webpage and I just posted about it. Thats all.

Fair enough! I wasn't accusing you or anyone else of Bashing the ole Gibson, just ranting in general.

 

You make a great point here-

"I had a 1996 Gibson Les Paul Studio and am hunting around for another one, It had a sound I can't get out of my head and I wished I would not have sold it."

 

When you had your Studio, did you care what kind of neck joint or construction method it had? Would you care what neck joint "the one" you are looking for has if it has the perfect feel and tone for you?

 

Why is it bad PR if people misinterpret the photos? Is anyone really buying a guitar because of Gibson's website PR? Shouldn't people be trying out guitars so they can decide themselves? Personally, I don't think they are selling less guitars because of these photos. Does the general public even know what a GOOD QC neck joint looks like? Seems everyone except me sees bad QC in the photos, am I the only one around that is ignorant about neck joints? I'm still waiting for a good example so I can try to pick out where the bad QC is.

 

I think the reason Gibson has those photos on their "Custom Shop" web site is because Gibson charges more for Custom Shop and historic reissues. Experts correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they make Custom Shop/Reissues in a seperate production facility with different construction methods. One of those is using a long tenon and they are demonstrating what that is in the photo. Sorry, I miss how this is bad PR.

 

Good luck on your Studio quest!

Well as someone pointed out in the gear page post I had, it really makes no difference to me weather or not it has a long or short tenion, as long as the quality truly is there and I don't have to go replacing the neck in 6 weeks, but the reason I say it is bad PR, is because when people see those photos, they AUTOMATICALLY assume the worst.

 

Which, I must admit seems like they are saying you are buying a less than quality guitar if you get a regular les paul as opposed to a historic. If it was my company, I would want to sell my guitars, ANY model I had, any way I could and put the best face on them. But with those pictures, it is almost as if they are just pushing the historic series over the regular series and this gives them the right to give you an inferior product if you don't buy the right model. Even though I know that you have to judge each instrument on it's own merit! There are some off the line regular les pauls that could wipe the floor in tone compared to historic models and then there are some vice versa.

 

But my whole point was, that those pictures don't have much statements behind them, leaving people to wonder what they are actually implying. So to me THAT is bad PR!

 

I mean, what are they really trying to say?? That you shouldn't buy a regular les paul, because you will get an inferior product compared to a historic?? What if someone doesn't have the extra cash for a historic? Are they then screwed??

 

To me, it just leaves it open for questions that go unanswered, therefore, some people may draw the wrong conclusions about it.

[Guitarzan]

i just want to point out something, this isn't a knock on gibson. when it comes to high prices i feel that cost cutting at manufacturer usually ends up as more profit, not cost savings to the consumer.

James pointed out that the price of a standard would inflate from including long tenons on all LP's. could be true, but how come the price didn't get better when they changed the tenon to a shorter and easier to manufacture method?

this may be why some people have a negative attitude toward Gibson.

i would love to have a Les Paul or Sg but its partly because its mystique.