[EuroAussie]

Made me wonder as they two biggest guitar shops here in Prague have Taylors and Furch, both which have Elixirs from the factory.

While Im not a big fan of Elixirs overall, I have to admit they do a great job in giving that piano like tone and they just keep their zip ... forever. I have six month old Elixirs on my Hummingibird and while they look cruddy they still have the sparkle.

I wonder how many less 'full of socks' stories we would hear if Gibson used coated strings from the factory.

They dont have to be Elixirs, but for example the Cleartones longlife. Im using these on my Martin 00-15 and now have them on my SJ, seems to go long, long time and still retain the woody, dry tone without sacrificing tone quality.

Just a thought..

[ParlourMan]

I'd be raging if they started using Elixirs, I'm allergic to them, it would make any guitar trials over a couple of minutes long result in blistered fingers and not being able to play for a week or two.... 10 minutes and I'd have Chernobyl fingers!

[pfox14]

Probably because coated strings are more expensive. Just a guess

[EuroAussie]

But think about it Paul. If you only have to change coated strings once every few months compared to few weeks given how much play they get in the showroom, it probably makes the coates strings cheper. Thats unless they sell straight away, then its no issue !

pfox14, on 11 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Probably because coated strings are more expensive. Just a guess

[ParlourMan]

Plenty Gibson's are shifting off the floors and walls of shops everywhere though, EA, maybe it's a case of you're more used to your own sounds/setups so much so that you dislike the generic setups now? If so it's going to make it harder and harder for you to find a guitar on the average floor that you will like...

My guess is that the simple answer is: If they're selling now, it's not broke, so why fix it?

From a personal stance, if I go to a guitar shop are they going to restring half a dozen guitars away from Elixirs so that I can try them? No... OK 2-3k sale just lost.

[moej45]

Gotta agree thought that the strings they have one them in the store usually sound like Junk. There is a Gibson five star dealer near me and they move a lot of used gibby acoustics and they always are strung up with spanking new strings and usually EXP's. They always sound better than the brand new gibsons and I am NOT talking about a 1955 J45.....5-7 years used

[merseybeat1963]

Im very disappointed that Henry Jan*^%#@!c decided to stop manufacturing Gibson strings and is farming the job out to D'Addadrio.
I've been using Gibson's Nickle Platted Steel xl .036-.009 since 1975. They are/were the most flexible strings with really great sound...whatever the formula was it was great, I don't trust D'Addario is going to follow Gibsons reciepe..at all. I still have maybe 15 sets left from my last order but it'll have to be Ernie ball in future..echh!
Man I loved those strings
And the "L5" Strings .049-.011 Pure Nickle were perfect too...Like most businessmen loyalty is a one way street.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

merseybeat1963, on 11 April 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Im very disappointed that Henry Jan*^%#@!c decided to stop manufacturing Gibson strings and is farming the job out to D'Addadrio.
I've been using Gibson's Nickle Platted Steel xl .036-.009 since 1975. They are/were the most flexible strings with really great sound...whatever the formula was it was great, I don't trust D'Addario is going to follow Gibsons reciepe..at all. I still have maybe 15 sets left from my last order but it'll have to be Ernie ball in future..echh!
Man I loved those strings
And the "L5" Strings .049-.011 Pure Nickle were perfect too...Like most businessmen loyalty is a one way street.

Nick ,

use those 15 you have slowly .
maybe even put away a set or two just to have them and use them somewhere in a few years.


JC

[JohnnyReb]

moej45, on 11 April 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Gotta agree thought that the strings they have one them in the store usually sound like Junk. There is a Gibson five star dealer near me and they move a lot of used gibby acoustics and they always are strung up with spanking new strings and usually EXP's. They always sound better than the brand new gibsons and I am NOT talking about a 1955 J45.....5-7 years used

Yep I'll second this. Every Gibson I tried in a store sounded dead as a door nail. The reason I always went home with a Martin. But it wasn't the guitars, it was dead strings. I dunno if it's because the owners are less attentive to the Gibsons or what, because the strings never seem dead on the Martin lineup.!hmmm

That dry thumpy sound of a Gibby doesn't mix well with dead strings. it makes them sound super dead compared to some other guitars. I think it would be a good idea to string them up with coated strings to prevent the " tried a Gibson today and there all duds" thing. I think this is the main cause for all the rumors and bad reviews. There's nothing worse than dead strings on a Gibson, but there's nothing like a good gibson either

So yea I'd fully support coated strings on new guitars. They would sound ALOT better than ones that die during shipping and arrive one the floor dead, and people labeling them as duds. If owned a store I'd prob slap Elixers nanos on every one. Some people hate them but at least the guitars wouldnt be dead.

[ParlourMan]

I would agree that the masterbuilt strings are not for those with acidic hands, they can kill a set in a sitting or two... so it stands to reason some will sound a bit iffy, I mustn't have acidic sweat as I can get a while out of a set of masterbuilts without the dead effect. I do agree though that maybe there not the best strings out there for a lot of players though, you only need look at the list of complaints to see that. However, I do hope they don't switch to coated strings, esp Elixir.

Perhaps this is the reason we see so many "dull", "dead" comments regarding Gibson over on the other place... many folk can't see past the strings. I always try to look at any floor model as 'this is the one that's getting mucked about', if I like the playability I'd still say it's a good guitar. The first thing I'd do with any guitar is change the strings anyway.

I suppose there will never be a 'please all' solution, some folk prefer a brighter twang, some like a duller thump. Perhaps that's also the solution for Taylor players who are finding it a bit bright, whack a set of Gibson strings on and acid those babies up!

[zombywoof]

pfox14, on 11 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Probably because coated strings are more expensive. Just a guess

You are so cynical.

[JohnnyReb]

ParlourMan, on 11 April 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

I would agree that the masterbuilt strings are not for those with acidic hands, they can kill a set in a sitting or two... so it stands to reason some will sound a bit iffy, I mustn't have acidic sweat as I can get a while out of a set of masterbuilts without the dead effect. I do agree though that maybe there not the best strings out there for a lot of players though, you only need look at the list of complaints to see that. However, I do hope they don't switch to coated strings, esp Elixir.

Perhaps this is the reason we see so many "dull", "dead" comments regarding Gibson over on the other place... many folk can't see past the strings. I always try to look at any floor model as 'this is the one that's getting mucked about', if I like the playability I'd still say it's a good guitar. The first thing I'd do with any guitar is change the strings anyway.

I suppose there will never be a 'please all' solution, some folk prefer a brighter twang, some like a duller thump. Perhaps that's also the solution for Taylor players who are finding it a bit bright, whack a set of Gibson strings on and acid those babies up!

Well switching to coated strings don't mean your stuck with them for life it's to at least give show floor guitars a chance to sound half decent and boot the all Gibsons are duds thing. I'd rather play a counted string I don't like and at least get a decent idea of how the guitar sounds than have to play a dead set and walk away disappointed. And heck I wouldn't buy a guitar somewhere that wouldn't put my string of choice on before I took it home. So it would be a short term aggravation for those who don't like coated, but could have a long term effect on how Gibsons are judged in a store

[rar]

pfox14, on 11 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Probably because coated strings are more expensive. Just a guess

Gibson acoustics shipped with Gibson's patented Hydrophobic coated strings*, which retailed for around $35 a set, from the time they were introduced until Gibson stopped making them. So I doubt cost enters into the choice of the current strings. The problem is that they are constrained to use Gibson strings (except for some brief periods when Elgin couldn't supply them in quantity to Bozeman), for obvious reasons. When Gibson stopped manufacturing coated strings -- shockingly, there wasn't that much of a market for $35 strings, no matter how long-lasting they were claimed to be -- Bozeman was forced to move to the uncoated. More recently, I'm not sure whether D'Addario offers EXP coating as an option to people who spec their own strings, as Gibson doea. It could also be that the Powers The Be in Bozeman think coating compromises tone. That they definitely care about string quality is shown by the fact that they demanded 80/20 strings (not yet available anywhere other than the factory) be added to the existing PB lineup.

-- Bob R

* Well, coated-ish. They actually just had stuff between the winds and down in the core, but most of the outer surface was bare wire. The idea was that they would last as long as coated strings but feel like uncoated strings. I actually liked them quite a bit. They came back into very limited production, quietly, shortly before the Elgin shutdown. I don't know whether sny made it up to Bozeman, but the product reps had them in limited quantities for use in restring guitars in shops. There were tentative plans to reintroduce them as a product, but it never happened.

[merseybeat1963]

JuanCarlosVejar, on 11 April 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Nick ,

use those 15 you have slowly .
maybe even put away a set or two just to have them and use them somewhere in a few years.


JC

I can see my self at Sothebys in 10 years trying to out bid dealers for those Original Gibson Vintage guitar Strings..sold to the bald guy..$1200.. : )

[zombywoof]

Would be a pain for me as I don't like coated strings so would be asking the guy behind the counter to restring it for me. I am sure that would make me real popular with the store.

[j45nick]

JohnnyReb, on 11 April 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

That dry thumpy sound of a Gibby doesn't mix well with dead strings. it makes them sound super dead compared to some other guitars.

That's a pretty good summary of the problem, IMHO.

[Tarrr]

Taylor uses coated strings because when you pick up that beautiful, poly coated instrument, it feels as good as it looks (can we get an amen for the marketing department). Maybe I'm old school but I change my ej17s every 4-6weeks.... never a dull moment. Its personal preference but I don't like coated strings.

[ParlourMan]

Wasn't Lennon rather famous for leaving his strings on for a ridiculous time given the frequency of usage? I'm sure it was discussed on here recently that his J-160 had strings on that were over a year old when they recorded <track name I can't remember>, seems to be plenty people generation after generation of people trying to get a Lennon sound on their guitars. One of the things I like about the Gibson Masterbuilts is they sound quite organic out the packet, sure they do dull down quicker than other strings I've used, but certain other strings have annoyed me senseless until I've played them in and sweated them a few times. I think guitars with pickups and direct to the PA can sound a bit too zingy for me with brand new strings, yet the same ones a week later can sound great.

[Madman_Greg]

For me coated strings have their place. They are good if you play live as they last a bit longer. I use them on my guitars if I have no plans to record as they last longer.

But I absolutely hate then once you stick a decent microphone in front of guitar, even if they have worn in a bit I find them too zingy. So for recording it is not coated strings for me.

But in terms of a guitar in a shop that may be there for months or possibly even longer and knowing that a lot of shops are struggling at the moment with the way the economy is. The last thing they want is an additional expense every few weeks to change strings on 100 acoustic guitars. So, coated strings would seem to make sense to me. Either shipped from the factory, or replaced by the shop / dealer assuming they realise that the guitar will not be sold in a number of days, but may take months to shift.

And while we are on this subject, never in any shop have I been offered a cloth to wipe down a guitar after I have finished playing it. I normally take my own tuner with me to check intonation etc..., perhaps I should take a cloth as well as a hint.

[Morkolo]

pfox14, on 11 April 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Probably because coated strings are more expensive. Just a guess

That'd be my guess too. 4 or 5 dollars per guitar can save a lot of money in a big production.