My Gibson concept guitar

[ksdaddy]

I was daydreaming this morning and pondered changes in the acoustic line if I were driving the bus. I know some radical changes I'd make but that's not what this post is about.

 

I've always felt there was a place for a budget guitar in any brand. I know Gibson has Epiphone, Fender has Squier, 'back in the day' Martin had Sigma, Guild had Madeira, but what I'm speaking about is a modern day version of the B-15, LG0, JG0, J-40, etc.

 

Hear me out.

 

Gibson bought Garrison. Garrison didn't 'make it' for reasons known only to Chris Griffeths, Henry, and other key people. I maintain it wasn't because they put out a poor product. I've always liked the Griffeths bracing system; it seems like it would streamine the assembly process and reduce the potential for mistakes. When Gibson attempted to make guitars in the Garrison factory, they chose to not use the molded bracing system. The product they put out looked more like an all-wood Garrison with a Gibson decal. The list price made it so most people would rather save (or borrow) a little more and get a 'real' Gibson.

 

Enough of that. Most of what I just wrote was my opinion and interpretation of past events.

 

Scott's concept guitar:

 

Assuming the tooling is still in St. John's, ship it to Bozeman. Or Nashville. Or Memphis. Point is, the machines to mold the bracing, shape the necks, all that, is already there. Bring it over here so it can be used.

 

Use the Griffeths bracing system. The body's 'bones' is made out of two injection molded pieces. It works. It even has the binding built in. They sound good. I have never played a 'dud' Garrison.

 

Top, sides, back? Here's where it will make some people squirm. The top could be spruce or cedar. Use what is available. Sides and back? Ditto. For the spec sheet, call it 'hardwood'. Take a lesson from Robert Godin and use sustainable wood. Score enough mahogany for 100 guitars? That's what the next 100 will be made from.

 

Birch? Guess we're going to be cranking out some blondes this week.

 

Finish - satin natural. No sunburst, no green sparkle. Got a few that look like absolute poo because of ugly wood? Set them aside, when you get a dozen, stain them dark.

 

Pickguard - 40s J45 teardrop.

 

Bridge - traditional belly up.

 

Garrisons have bolt on necks. Fine. No shame in that. If they have the CNC machine used to make Garrison necks then they can surely program it to shape the blanks into a traditional Gibson profile (which would open up a whole 'nother can of worms but you get my sentiment).

 

If they want to use baked maple or some weird stuff for fingerboards, that's cool too. Dot inlay, no neck binding, etc

 

Gibson open book headstock and traditional block letter decal. No special designation, no "Ultra Whiz Bang Series" BS incorprated in the logo or TRC, just "Gibson". No phenolic overlay, just hit the headstock with a couple layers of clear, slap the decal on and seal it up.

 

So what you're going to end up with is a most generic of guitars but with recognizable Gibson attributes. And it could be made in one of the existing Gibson factories so there's less "it's not a real Gibson" stigma. It will be every bit a Gibson. Natural wood (whatever that may be that week) some traditional "looks", sustainable wood, a proven design both in durability and sound, and if done right, it could have a decent street price.

 

And I would call it the J-1.

[zombywoof]

I have no experience at all with Garrison guitars. But folks I know whose opinions I trust have and they speak very highly of them. Kind of one of those builders that should have made it but did not.

 

But you will recall the last time Gibson had one of those and now for something completely different impulses - the Mark series. They crashed and burned. Personally, I did not like them as I found the low ends anemic. But I do not think that is why they came and went so fast. Their demise was directly related to the refusal of guitar players to veer from the "traditional" and embrace something that did not look like it had been in the Gibson catalog for 30 or 40 years.

[j45nick]

Sounds a bit like brand dilution to me. Presumably, these would have a significantly cheaper price point than a standard Gibson. But they would still be US-made, so the labor cost is never going to get down to the Epiphone level.

 

In the grand scheme of things, the cost of wood is probably only a couple of hundred dollars per standard guitar, so I don't know how much lower you could price these compared to an entry-level standard Gibson, which has a street price of, say $1500.

 

If they are priced between a top-end Epiphones (AJ-45 at $600 street) and standard entry-level Gibson (J-15 at $1500 street), they might siphon off business from both of those product lines, although you might consider that price point as filling an existing gap.

 

Both Martin and Taylor have pretty much "covered the spread" when it comes to pricing, so I suppose it's not an irrational business model.

 

I don't know how much additional production could be accommodated in Bozeman with the existing staff and facilities, or how much market demand there would be for a guitar with construction outside the Gibson norm.

 

It's an interesting proposal, but I have no idea how practical it might be.

[onewilyfool]

I never played a Garison, but a local dealer had a sawed-in-half body hanging on their wall. It was intriguing. You know guitar making is so entrenched in tradition, that is VERY hard to overcome. The inertia of traditional guitar technology is almost immovable. So when someone like Garrison comes along with "new" technology, it is often not readily accepted. Of course, new technology for technology's sake, is useless unless that technology makes for a better sounding guitar!!! I'm anticipating that some technology will come along, some man made material for tops and backs, some technique of bracing or bracing material, some body shape, that will make a guitar sound as good as or better, than, say, a 1930's Martin D-28…for example. But even if this happens, imagine the reaction….lol……imagine the flame jobs over at AGF. Imagine the brand-loyalty arguments…lol! It wasn't carbon fiber for me, although I've played some "interesting" sounding CF guitars, but not to my taste "sound wise" But better believe it, if these CF guitars sounded BETTER (so to speak) than a vintage Martin….a lot would resist, but a few would buy!!! So I hear ya Scott…..It would be a great technology to revive…IF (and only if) these new guitars sounded good, AND were at a price point between Epi and Gibby, AND if they wouldn't eat into the profit margins of the upper and lower brands. Lot of "if's"

[ksdaddy]

Lot of "if's"

 

Oh, you better believe it. My concept would likely never WORK in the real world but I do miss the days when a person could buy a Fender Musicmaster knowing it came from the same building as a Jaguar. Or a J-40...or a Guild D25.....D-18.... okay, maybe that last one was a stretch.

 

And maybe "Gibson" is the wrong company to be trying to re-invent the wheel. Seems like whenever they try to do that, they get shot down.

 

Yet Seagull has a no-frills guitar with no stain, no binding, barely any finish, the rosette is hot stamped, it's made from whatever wood is at hand.... and it's a killer guitar. List price $435.

 

List Price $435.

 

I guess my frustration is that ANY company can make an expensive guitar. Just like 100+ years ago there were many expensive car companies. Henry Ford comes along and changed that.

 

Someone can sit in an office, stroking their beard and pondering whether 3 pounds of abalone is enough and if 4 pounds is too much, and how much money they can squeeze out of the cork sniffers. To me, that takes no talent. I put that in the same category as a singer who works on an album for 18 months. I have much more respect for the Troggs recording "Wild Thing", likely in one take.

 

I have the most respect for a company who can put their product in the hands of the common man. That's just about impossible for an American company to do nowadays but even sadder, it's not even on their wish list.

 

A couple years ago there were brand new Melody Makers selling for under $300. I know it can be done. They weren't Les Paul Customs and they were never meant to be.

 

But hey, there's a reason Henry is a bazillionaire and I'm late on my light bill.

[onewilyfool]

Well prices for Gibson's are far outstripping inflation...in 1934 with the Gibson Jumbo Flattop. It originally cost $45.00. $45.00 in 1934 would be worth $800.49 using inflation calculators on the web……...

[modoc_333]

If that's not your radical idea, then I want to know what is! Haha. I'm just kidding.

I do think that's too much change for that market right now. Maybe later.

Also most of those companies make those cheaper models in another country. Gibson would need a Mexico plant like the others to pull of the price point. I have talked to them about a cheap 3/44 guitar but the cost of labor and all would still make it as much as a J15.

 

As for the failure of Gibson in Canada... I have been told that the real problem was not being able to keep up a decent workforce there. They had trouble replacing people when they left and getting new ones hired and trained to a decent level. Probably just one of many factors though.

 

Keith

[QuestionMark]

What really might be being discussed is Gibson entry level guitars. If you recall, the entry level Gibsons in the 60's were referred to as 'student models' . But that was also in the days when car manufacturers believed that auto buyers would first buy a Chevy, then upward buy a Pontiac, Buick, Olds, and then maybe if they did well, a Caddy. Ford did the same with Fords, Mercury. Lincolns. That marketing strategy fell by the wayside as did Pontiac, Olds, Mercury and now both Lincoln and Cadillac are trying to desperately convince buyers they are not just Fords and Chevys that sell for way more.

 

Those student guitars oh the 60's turned out to be no longer considered student instruments by today's vintage guitar standards and thus the student guitar designation isn't even known in today's marketplace.

 

The mindset of buy an Epiphone and then when you can afford one, a Gibson still is around... But some of the solid too Epi's are holding their own and making Epi owners just stick with what they have.

 

Seems to me Gibson had. Workingman's j-45 that was a lower priced Gibson equivalent to yester year's lower priced student models. But all it did was eat away at players buying J45's.

 

And, somewhere Gibson decided to just be a Buick or a Cadillac and leave the entry level marketplace to Epiphone. What they could easily do is take one of the modern day Epi's that are really good and slap a Gibson headstock on it as a student or entry level guitar. But, all they would really be doing is diluting their USA made brand for a few bucks made on the foreign made model. And, in the long run would hurt the brand's reputation. Fact is an entry level Gibson is today's lower priced Gibson copy marketed as an Epiphne...much the same as KSDaddy's described concept guitar. Leaving no room for an actual entry level Gibson other than the still higher priced than Epiphone like the J15 or J35.

 

I think Genry knows what he's doing. I think Martin is only doing their lower priced guitars because their Sigma brand did' establish itself like Epi did. Fender's Squire brand didn't exactly either, plus the Fenders and Squires and foreign made vs USA made Fenders has become so confusing I personally can't figure out what is what anymore with an instrument that has six tuning pegs on the side from the company.

 

Your thoughts?

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

[Hogeye]

My thoughts and a bit of history if you will Jazzman.

Epiphone was on the ropes and Gibson was looking for a line of stand up bass guitars to add to the line. I won't go into the details as they are very well chronicled in Walter Carter's fine book on the subject. After lengthy secret negotiations Gibson bought the Epiphone company on May 10th 1957.

 

Gibson's Ted McCarty got the stand-up bass line he wanted and then he found out that Epiphone was also a very good guitar. Gibson was having a brand problem as the dealers were protected by having rights to sell in territories. This limited the production of guitars to a restricted number of franchise dealers. To get around this production problem McCarty realized he could make Epiphones to the old specs and offer them to dealers as a Gibson made product. This expanded the production capabilities. Epiphone was never branded as a lesser Gibson. It stood on it's own merits and as a company has always considered itself as equal to Gibson in every way. This exists even today.

 

David Berryman and Jim Rosenberg took control of the Epiphone division when Dave and Henry bought Gibson. Their intent was to make Epiphone every bit as viable as Gibson and their plan never considered making Epiphone an entry line to Gibson but and equal partner in the branding of the Gibson company. This would be a line of equal quality but available to the music dealers that were competing with the Gibson Franchise dealers. The Epiphone line was and is a separate brand equal to Gibson in every way. To stay competitive with the market place it was decided to make the Epiphone guitars off shore but to Epi. specifications. In a brilliant move Dave and Jim made Gibson copies as an entry level into the general Epi line. These took off like wildfire and to ensure quality control and production Epi opened it's own plant in China. It was only by clever marketing and industry positioning that Gibson franchise dealers started the silly notion that Epi. was a lesser quality line. They did this to protect their franchise.

 

Epi. is a remarkable stand alone company under the Gibson umbrella. It's solid wood flat-tops are a rival to any of the Martin,Taylor,or Gibson counterparts.

 

This will be debated forever and there is no right or wrong here. It is what it is.

 

Now to the Garrison issue. When Henry bought Garrison his intention was to make a Gibson product to compete with his partner Berryman's Epiphone division. How wild is that? The internal skeleton bracing system as soon found to be a drawback to production. It was the determining factor in the demise of the Garrison company. There were plenty of other problems and most were brought on by the Canadian government. Henry didn't understand the Canadian economy when it came to the workforce and I won't comment on the difficulties as there are many Canadians on the forum and I don't want them to think one political system is more productive than another. It just is what it is. At the end of the Garrison experiment Bozeman was making almost all of the Garrison guitar parts this included the braced tops as well as the necks. There were regular shipments to the Garrison plant. The Montana G.M. was also the G.M. in charge of Garrison and it soon became apparent that the strain on the G.M. was hurting both divisions. Henry tried but it just didn't work.

 

KSDaddy's ideas are sound and he could probably make it work if he had several hundred million dollars and a 20 year window. I would buy one. I would also buy a Canadian made Gibson as the majority of the guitar was made in Bozeman. It was a shame to close the Garrison plant.