Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Randwulf

All Access
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Randwulf

  1. Well, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I worked for Gibson from the late 70s through the early 80s at the Nashville plant, back when it was new.  Norlin Industries owned the brand at that time. I built Les Pauls and SGs. We were always changing things and experimenting with new tone woods. We actually ran a batch  of Les Paul bodies made of oak, if you can imagine that. The things weighed a ton. Then there was The Paul made of walnut, which were actually good guitars. The Firebrand was another short-lived LP and SG model. Models come and go. It's all about the bottom line, which is the way of things. Get 'em while you can. 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  2. Thanks, kidblast. Yeah, that's what I figured. If they were selling them, they'd still be making them.  They are good guitars, though, or at least the studio version is, which is the only one I have experience with.  I would think more people would be into them. I guess folks just prefer the more classic Gibson models.  Yes, I'm glad I got one. And I'll be keeping it.

  3. Thanks again, Sgt. Pepper. Seems like a strange way to run things. I think the G-45 is a winner--sustainable woods, solid wood construction, and, to me, a really nice tone. I have enjoyed the walnut/spruce combination. Granted, I haven't played $2,000+ Gibson acoustics, but that's the point; the G-45 represents Gibson tone and quality in an affordable, relatively speaking, guitar. The discontinuation doesn't make sense to me unless the powers-that-be have decided to go with the J-15, which is damn near twice as much as the G-45. Oh, well. 

  4. I was wondering if the G-45 has been discontinued. If so, does anyone know why? I have the Studio version and think it's a really nice guitar , especially for someone who wants a Gibson but can't  afford an expensive one. Thanks.

×
×
  • Create New...