matiac Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 They could keep the same vendors, craftspeople, and guitar building process as Gibson has now, the only thing that really would have to change would be the names on the ownership papers. Yeah, they thought the same thing when they stole Guild from people had been working there 20 plus years, and weren't willing to re-locate, and they had to find work elsewhere. And look at Gretsch, yeah, their ok guitars now, but aint near what they were before Fender raped 'em. The people supply the nutz-n-bolts would be the same yeah, but they just wouldn't be the same. I personally would be DAMN glad I had a real one before Fender made a fake one that wouldn't be nearly the guitar they are now. Just my opinion...I would feel pretty strongly about the fact a Gibson wasn't a Gibson anymore, were it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverbursted Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Can you say Vintage Kramer??? What a rockin' machine. Would not touch a new one. Sorry to say, Gibson is just as guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiveSoundGuy Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 they will keep their shareholders happy' date=' and thats what it is all about. that keeps the Gibson shareholders happy.[/quote'] There are no shareholders. Both these companies are privately held. Basically, William (Bill) Mendello, owns and controls Fender, and Henry E. Juszkiewicz owns and controls Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverbursted Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I stand corrected, about the Shareholders. It's still all about the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiveSoundGuy Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I stand corrected' date=' about the Shareholders. It's still all about the bottom line.[/quote'] Agreed on the bottom line. It doesn't matter who owns, or wants what, whoever offers the most money for any company these days wins. It really is that simple. Employees, product, location, none of that matters in the end. What you're really buying is "The Books" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Henry E. Juszkiewicz owns and controls Gibson. Wouldn't that be nice? To own Gibson...think about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverbursted Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 It's too bad, but this is the material that "Golden parachutes" are made of. I think I'm going to hug my "real" Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson CS Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I cant believe how anti-Fender some guys are in this forum! lol Look at the bright side guys. Look how much our Gibbys will be worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 And just a quick reminder to everyone that Gibson supporters shouldn't throw stones at Fender and its treatment of the nameplates that it buys. Remember that only a few short decades ago, Gibson bought its stiffest hollow-body competitor--Epiphone--and shut it down and turned the nameplate into the marketable cover for Gibson imports. How much of the storied Epiphone history is literally gone? I received an email a few weeks back celebrating Epiphone's anniversary or something like that, and it made no reference to the pre-Gibson days whatsoever, and with good reason: except for a few cursory reproductions of Epiphone models, Gibson basically has erased all the great history. In their day, Epiphone hollow-bodies were at least as highly regarded as were Gibsons, and there were many people who felt they were superior. Gibson probably could have learned much by keeping the Epiphone line intact and continuing to evolve the models that were truly great. And don't forget either that Gibson already makes bolt-on necks--Telecaster bodies, no less!--through the Valley Arts line. That Brent Mason signature model ain't being made by Fender, folks. That might be more telling about which company is in the more acquisitive mode these days. Henry has already said publicly that he wants to take Gibson into the Fortune 500 as a "lifestyle" company. That idea scares me more than even the prospect of Fender owning Gibby. Ignatius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson CS Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Ignatius... Well put! Gibson isnt innocent either. I see old videos of artist playing old Epi's, and I think to myself to where that company is now. Maybe they will buy PRS next? lol Eliminate the compatition by buying them out, then make sub- par instruments using the name. Although, I do hear some new Epi's sound pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Although' date=' I do hear some new Epi's sound pretty good.[/quote']Agreed, deepblue, agreed: some of the new Epi's are quite good. For many years, they were very bad, though, and we have no one to blame but Gibson for that. And my larger point is that even the new Epi's are NOT the same specs as the originals, except for a couple re-issues here and there, like the Lennon Casinos. Otherwise, all that is left of Epiphone are the corporate name and a few model names that are randomly assigned to imports designed overseas. A very sad end to the great history of Epiphone. That being said, I have been watching a Revolution Casino in a local shop, but I can't bring myself to try it out because I can't imagine paying $2500 for an import. Ignatius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson CS Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Ignatius... The Revolution Casino...Isnt that the John lennon model? I believe I saw one at L&M here in Ontario...Nice looking guitar. Do you know what bothers me about Epi's the most? The headstock. I just think its butt ugly...not much imagination went into that design. To each his own I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverbursted Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 You guys are right, Gibson itself has a track record of gobbling up companies and while retaining their names, has allowed, or dictated, that they would become inferior products to the Gibson line. Epi and Kramer are great examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 In 1957 Gibson bought Epiphone but at the time they were under the impression they were buying tooling, parts, etc for Epiphone uprgiht basses. I don't think they fully realized what they were buying until the trucks showed up in K'zoo. And I believe I read that Epiphone called GIBSON and said, "take this stuff off our hands", and the scrap price (for lack of a better phrase) was about $35,000. Not exactly a hostile takeover as defined in 2008. And for the next 13 years the name was kept alive and the guitars made side-by-side with the Gibsons. It gave potential dealers a chance to carry quality guitars without infringing on a Gibson dealer's territory. It wasn't until 1970 that they applied the name to JapCrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaresz Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 In 1957 Gibson bought Epiphone but at the time they were under the impression they were buying tooling' date=' parts, etc for Epiphone uprgiht basses. I don't think they fully realized what they were buying until the trucks showed up in K'zoo. And I believe I read that Epiphone called GIBSON and said, "take this stuff off our hands", and the scrap price (for lack of a better phrase) was about $35,000. Not exactly a hostile takeover as defined in 2008. And for the next 13 years the name was kept alive and the guitars made side-by-side with the Gibsons. It gave potential dealers a chance to carry quality guitars without infringing on a Gibson dealer's territory. It wasn't until 1970 that they applied the name to JapCrap.[/quote'] Thanks Ks daddy! This is exactly the point I was about to make as it regards to Epiphone. Which had no solid body to compete with in the late 50's, which was obviuosly the trend. Epiphone was going out of business and looking for potential purchusers. In fact Ted McCarty was approached personally if I remember reading correctly. As far as Epiphones storied history name me any higher of a heyday than the early 60's with Lennon, Harrison, and McCartneys purchases of Casinos, or McCartneys Texan! As ksdaddy pointed out it wasn't until sales of Epiphones dropped off again that there production was moved to overseas. As a last point of interest, I do believe the the Epiphone Elitist line is assembled in the US with higher quality parts, and the signature line of Lennon models are completely made here. I own 2 Casinos, one of which is an import model, and the quality and craftmanship is much better than the one tex/mex Telecaster I did have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matiac Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Ignatius...Well put! Gibson isnt innocent either. I see old videos of artist playing old Epi's' date=' and I think to myself to where that company is now. Maybe they will buy PRS next? lol Eliminate the compatition by buying them out, then make sub- par instruments using the name. Although, I do hear some new Epi's sound pretty good.[/quote'] I have no complaints with my Epiphone...except that weird looking peghead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiveSoundGuy Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Wouldn't that be nice? To own Gibson...think about it... Just think, to be able to walk the factory floors, and select any model at any time and do with it whatever you wanted. It makes me want to call the paramedics just thinking about it. I would O.D. for sure! Could one be any closer to God? On a side note: Thanks to Archer for a great topic thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedphantom Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 If Fender were to buy Gibson, there would have to be some sort of change on all levels which would effect the end product. Fender and Gibson have been there from the beginning of electric guitars, they must exist as separate entities otherwise where would the new developments in sound and technology come from? I'm not sure if Gibson would've created the Robot Guitar technology had Fender not come up with the VG Strat. They do each other a whole lotta good. Besides, I don't think Gibson would let themselves be sold nor would the wider guitar community allow it. The whole world of music would stop it from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 In 1957 Gibson bought Epiphone but at the time they were under the impression they were buying tooling' date=' parts, etc for Epiphone uprgiht basses. I don't think they fully realized what they were buying until the trucks showed up in K'zoo. And I believe I read that Epiphone called GIBSON and said, "take this stuff off our hands", and the scrap price (for lack of a better phrase) was about $35,000. Not exactly a hostile takeover as defined in 2008. And for the next 13 years the name was kept alive and the guitars made side-by-side with the Gibsons. It gave potential dealers a chance to carry quality guitars without infringing on a Gibson dealer's territory. It wasn't until 1970 that they applied the name to JapCrap.[/quote'] ksdaddy-- You missed my point. I wasn't talking hostile takeovers, and in fact, as far as I know, none of Fender's purchases have been hostile takeovers. Fender has approached companies for sale or in trouble with offers that were accepted. And while Epiphone was not doing well at the time of the Gibson takeover, here is what the Epiphone employees thought of it: according to Epiphone: The Complete History by Walter Carter, there were so few guitar parts to give to Gibson because the remaining Epiphone employees burned almost all the remaining stock! And Gibson never made any of the actual Epiphone guitars; it bought the name for the sake of the upright bases, yes, but no less than Ted McCarty developed the idea to "rebrand" Epiphone with an entirely different set of guitars that were meant to be "almost Gibson" or experiments that Gibson would never try within its own namebrand. The Epiphone line was set up in another building from the start in order to make sure that the Epiphone line was never mistaken for a Gibson duplicate. We can argue the finer points, but in the end, the result is the same: Epiphone spent a few short years as an innovative branch of Gibson, yes, but it was not the original Epiphones that were produced. It was a new brand of instruments onto which Gibson attached the Epiphone name. The Casino, by the way, is one of those almost-Gibsons: it was never an original Epiphone but was a Gibson-created knock-off of the ES-330. And no, the heyday for Epiphone was not with the Beatles, and it is just this sort of view that proves how much Gibson ignores the Epiphone history: the Epiphone heyday was in the 1930s and '40s when Epiphone was making some of the very best archtop guitars available anywhere. Gibson was on the ropes at that time, and the story of who bought whom could have gone very differently if the Stathopoulo family had used better business sense. And Aasresz, while I too have seen many good Epiphones of late, I do want to make sure that everyone is clear that the only thing that happens in the United States on any Epiphone is at most "final assembly," which no one seems to know quite what that means. All the parts and all the forming of bodies and necks, finishing, etc., still happens overseas (except for the pickups on the few models that receive Gibson pickups). I recall a thread in the old forum that expressed a lot of frustration at the facts that all the parts of the Revolution Casino (again, except the pickups) were made overseas and that those parts actually are not made to spec. The irony of this supposed inability to recreate an Epiphone model is that the Casino is a Gibson invention to begin with! All this is to say that if you look around, you will find plenty of people on both sides of the fence who say that Gibson and Fender have been buying up potential competitors and not treating them as well as they could. I know that many audiophiles feel very wary of Gibson's acquisition of TC Group, and they are sure that Gibson will run it into the ground. I'm not saying this is true: I'm merely pointing out that both Gibson and Fender are seen in similar ways throughout the music industry. Last point: speedphantom, some people might argue that the whole Robot/VG move in instruments actually suggests that both Fender and Gibson are running out of new ideas as it is. I'm not saying I agree; I am merely pointing out that there are more than a few people who would argue that Gibson and Fender have been treading water for a while in terms of innovation. Ignatius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaresz Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Ignatius......... You have expressed your opinion thourghly, and I don't diasagree with your premise. Nor do I mean to turn this thread into an Epiphone one. Though I would like to point out that in citing the Beatles with Epiphone it is because, more so than any other artist using an Epphone, they will be forever linked for obviuos reasons. Lastly, I have found in the Casino's I have owned that they are of excellent quality for their cost. I did not feel that same about the Fenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
led floyd9 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Wait, if Fender bought Gibson, would that mean that Fender would also own Epiphone, Baldwin, Maestro, and all the other companies Gibson owns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEF13 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 where did u hear that fender wanted to buy gibson? and what other companies are fender interested in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiveSoundGuy Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Wait' date=' if Fender bought Gibson, would that mean that Fender would also own Epiphone, Baldwin, Maestro, and all the other companies Gibson owns?[/quote'] That would all be in the finer points of the paperwork, but basically...Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLiveSoundGuy Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 where did u hear that fender wanted to buy gibson? and what other companies are fender interested in? Welcome to the forums. You need to go back and read the first few posts in this thread. This is strictly rumor and speculation at this point. No one has posted any shred of proof whatsoever that this is even being considered by anyone. Ironically it is a sick but fun rumor to kick around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaresz Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Ironically it is a sick but fun rumor to kick around. For purely sick humor, and speculation it has defintely become one of the most visited threads in the forum lately. It like the horrible car crash that you kust can't take your eyes from! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.