Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

MV's LG Banner Reissue


JuanCarlosVejar

Recommended Posts

These are pretty fun...a few details I did not notice right away on mine...

1. There is a narrow backstripe of slightly different color mahogany.

2. The sides and x-brace have white cloth strips glued on them.

3. The fret ends do not show the T-shape that you normally see on fret ends...these are inlayed into the rosewood and you only see the tops of the frets (similar to a bound fretboard, but these are not bound...

 

some really nice details on this guitar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the reason for that decision, either.

 

John ,

 

thanks anyway ... the guitar is super awesome and I totally can see why you like it so much .

what a beautiful sound ... I'm glad to see they reissued it almost the same as yours (except for the name and the darker finish)

what a lovely guitar .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the reason for that decision, either.

 

JT you met these people and you know that they have no consideration for Gibson or it's rich history. They got what they wanted from you and moved on. Don't feel bad. There is a huge list of folks that have been played by them. Eldon Whitford, Dan Erlewine, George Gruhn, Matt Umanov,Stan Werbin and Walter Carter, to name a few. You are in good company. Do you remember when you first saw the J-35 reissue and told them they got it wrong? They couldn't stand the fact and to show everyone they were in charge they foolishly put a banner on it. How funny is that? A banner on a J-35 reissue? They have no shame.

 

They don't care and they don't know. They refuse to do even the slightest bit of research and that is why you end up with a guitar with the wrong name. I would be willing to bet that the arrangement with the music store you worked with didn't get their agreement honored either. Pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the reason for that decision, either.

 

John, the pictures of yours that show the "dark" finish almost seem too dark to me. If I had to guess based on just that picture of the whole guitar, I would have guessed some finish worked may have occurred later. The closeup looks more ok.

 

This one is original.

 

1942LG-1a_zpsc1f7970e.jpg

 

1942LG-1b_zpsd406356b.jpg

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, the pictures of yours that show the "dark" finish almost seem too dark to me. If I had to guess based on just that picture of the whole guitar, I would have guessed some finish worked may have occurred later.

-Tom

Tom,

 

No finish work has been done on mine. Willi and I have inspected it quite carefully.

 

Funny, though: I thought the same of the finish on yours. We know that the bridge has been replaced on yours (twice). Are you sure it hasn't been refinished?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

No finish work has been done on mine. Willi and I have inspected it quite carefully.

 

Funny, though: I thought the same of the finish on yours. We know that the bridge has been replaced on yours (twice). Are you sure it hasn't been refinished?

 

Our finish is indeed all original. If Willi says yours is, then I am sure it is.

 

John Arnold did the bridge work. We thought a clean reproduction of the original by a world class expert was the best solution -- just good maintenance I would say.

 

I am not sure I would have used your approach when your bridge was broken into pieces. Willi is crazy about originality, but I am not yet ready to buy into the "glue the pieces together and it is good as new." I must say if I had yours, I would probably replace the bridge with an unbroken new one. I have talked to Randy Wood about fixing the relatively common bridge crack between holes problem. He says sometime it works, but sometime it fails again.

 

Of course you can always replace yours with a new one if it fails. Is it ok so far?

 

So what happen with this reissue or what ever it is. It sounds like it was a custom order from outside and not a Gibson model -- is that right?

 

I remember when you and I were both calling them LG-3 and others were calling them LG - 2 -- I guess for the same obvious reason that new model is called LG-2. LG-1 just has too much later history -- you and I are one of the few who would not be confused by the LG-1 name. It was cool that after Willi was able to photograph the shipping ledgers, a FON was included that confirmed the name.

 

 

Best,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT you met these people and you know that they have no consideration for Gibson or it's rich history. They got what they wanted from you and moved on. Don't feel bad. There is a huge list of folks that have been played by them. Eldon Whitford, Dan Erlewine, George Gruhn, Matt Umanov,Stan Werbin and Walter Carter, to name a few. You are in good company. Do you remember when you first saw the J-35 reissue and told them they got it wrong? They couldn't stand the fact and to show everyone they were in charge they foolishly put a banner on it. How funny is that? A banner on a J-35 reissue? They have no shame.

 

They don't care and they don't know. They refuse to do even the slightest bit of research and that is why you end up with a guitar with the wrong name. I would be willing to bet that the arrangement with the music store you worked with didn't get their agreement honored either. Pity.

 

 

You can add Jorma Kaukonen and Roy Book Binder to that list too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our finish is indeed all original. If Willi says yours is, then I am sure it is.

 

And if John Arnold says the finish on yours is original, it is, too.

 

I am not sure I would have used your approach when your bridge was broken into pieces. Willi is crazy about originality, but I am not yet ready to buy into the "glue the pieces together and it is good as new."

 

Willi is a wizard. Several experienced luthiers have not detected the bridge repair. It really is as good as new.

 

So what happen with this reissue or what ever it is. It sounds like it was a custom order from outside and not a Gibson model -- is that right?

 

This thread is about the reissue. It's simply that after getting my guitar to replicate, Gibson forgot about its representations to me and to the dealer who placed the order. The dealer asked me to help with custom orders for replicas of 4 guitars, 2 of which were mine and 2 others I used in the recording project. The dealer was to get an exclusive on the new models for a specified period of time. I volunteered my services, including the guitars and x-rays, on the conditions that 1) women would build the guitars, 2) a percentage of the proceeds would go to a women's history project, and 3) I'd get to inspect the prototypes. Once I (finally) got the guitars back, Gibson ceased communicating with the dealer or me and now the guitars are showing up at other dealers, but not with the dealer who originated the project (which has since, for understandable reasons, ceased doing business with Gibson). Any notions about the gender of the builders or the distribution of sales proceeds have been forgotten, too.

 

I remember when you and I were both calling them LG-3 and others were calling them LG - 2 -- I guess for the same obvious reason that new model is called LG-2. LG-1 just has too much later history -- you and I are one of the few who would not be confused by the LG-1 name. It was cool that after Willi was able to photograph the shipping ledgers, a FON was included that confirmed the name.

 

Getting access to the ledgers was crucial to my book and to sorting out Gibson. I spent a year and half talking to various characters before I secured access. If you recall, I'd planned on meeting you and Willi in NYC at the Guthrie archives. Shortly before that, I got permission to see the ledgers and hopped a plane to Nashville. I invited Willi to join me and he arrived in Nashville a couple of days after I did. By then, with the help of my sister, I'd tabulated all of the Banner flattops. So when Willi arrived, we spent the next couple of days photographing 4,400 pages of the ledgers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This thread is about the reissue. It's simply that after getting my guitar to replicate, Gibson forgot about its representations to me and to the dealer who placed the order. The dealer asked me to help with custom orders for replicas of 4 guitars, 2 of which were mine and 2 others I used in the recording project. The dealer was to get an exclusive on the new models for a specified period of time. I volunteered my services, including the guitars and x-rays, on the conditions that 1) women would build the guitars, 2) a percentage of the proceeds would go to a women's history project, and 3) I'd get to inspect the prototypes. Once I (finally) got the guitars back, Gibson ceased communicating with the dealer or me and now the guitars are showing up at other dealers, but not with the dealer who originated the project (which has since, for understandable reasons, ceased doing business with Gibson). Any notions about the gender of the builders or the distribution of sales proceeds have been forgotten, too.

 

 

 

Getting access to the ledgers was crucial to my book and to sorting out Gibson. I spent a year and half talking to various characters before I secured access. If you recall, I'd planned on meeting you and Willi in NYC at the Guthrie archives. Shortly before that, I got permission to see the ledgers and hopped a plane to Nashville. I invited Willi to join me and he arrived in Nashville a couple of days after I did. By then, with the help of my sister, I'd tabulated all of the Banner flattops. So when Willi arrived, we spent the next couple of days photographing 4,400 pages of the ledgers.

 

It seems the suits at Gibson have acted appallingly in this project. The work yourself and others do and have done to keep Gibsons history documented and alive, and this project in particular, you deserve to be treated with more respect surely.

 

To simply stop communication is disgraceful.

 

I think you deserve some recognition and thanks for helping in making these guitars available again JT.

 

Good luck with your on going projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, I agree, if you're going to go to the bother of reissuing something, add the marketing spiel to it, then flog it as some gift from a time machine... you ought to get it right.

 

Secondly, Hogeye that's a pretty scathing assessment of the plant & people involved... you're a confusing guy, one minute it brazen attacks such as this, next its how these people are your friends etc... and labelling people bashers or apologists. You really need to pick a side of the fence and stick to it if you're going to post as strongly as you do. I'm fine with the fence jumping but it doesn't bode too well when you start lobbing about 'basher' and 'apologist' labels at others.

 

Third point, as much as we see a lot of detail geeks in here, one thing tends to get lost in the mix, Gibson corp own the features list, model names etc... you might not like it, but they do, if they want to make a slope shouldered hummingbird, banner, graptech nut & saddle and call it a hummingbird they can... if they want to want to fashion a phallic looking model and call it the Gibson viagra reissue, despite the fact one never existed before, they can.... deal with it, leave the fury at the door, remember you have the real power, either you buy or you dont.

 

Spec nazi's ought to really find a different brand, the only consistency in Gibson corps history is that it's often bafflingly inconsistent (I'm talking decisions here not QC), if you're going to dip your toe in to Gibson's you must accept that you're there to buy the one you like regardless of nomenclature anomalies. In short 'put up & shut up' you want that model with the perfect specs of the one from 19xx, save up your pennies and buy one... stop crying that 'reissue' is equated with reminiscent in modern guitar manufacturing. Or better still, if you can do it so much better, get a team, get adequate funding, get an impressive functional model, then buy the company....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, I agree, if you're going to go to the bother of reissuing something, add the marketing spiel to it, then flog it as some gift from a time machine... you ought to get it right.

 

 

Spec nazi's t

 

'put up & shut up'

 

Aha...owld PM on the rampage again...always one to stir the pot...actually a bit welcome as the board as been dead as a Nazi plank of wood for ages.

 

I agree with some of what ya say PM..they can and do build and call em what they want..... but you first start off saying you agree they should get it right..then go off on one...all mental like haha

 

You must admit..JT and this dealer who came up with the idea for the project and custom order ,sound like they have been treated very shoddily.

 

Business is business but that would definitely leave me with a bad taste... it would have been easy enough to keep these in the loop and work around Gibsons decision imo.

 

( EDIT of course we don't know the full story..but sure sounds like bad form from Gibson )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with some of what ya say PM..they can and do build and call em what they want..... but you first start off saying you agree they should get it right..then go off on one...all mental like haha

 

Not so, not mental at all.... my opinion is that if they want to call something a 1941-blabla, or a 1937-blabla, it should be dead on... Lets be honest there's little point in them using a 1941 model as the base for a 37, so they must have had/evaluated what they were going to recreate... do it right, you'll look less ridiculous. But that's all it is, my opinion, I have no claim on feature sets or naming conventions for models therefore my thoughts, wants, desires and stresses are of no value, nor importance to Gibson. That same notion goes for us all, yes even you reading this right now. I don't care how well you know your history and feature set... they're not yours to mess with, if such a thing troubles you that much you must be having an easy life and as such shouldn't you be away basking in how positive your life existence is going instead of throwing your toys out the pram like a bunch of stressed out OCD sufferers? Positivity boys, go get some.... a 16th of an inch as part of a spec for a guitar you wont actually buy being the basis for fire & fury on the internet seems pointless... if you're all about winning arguments on the net, find a good one, win, post a link to your great work....

 

You must admit..JT and this dealer who came up with the idea for the project and custom order ,sound like they have been treated very shoddily.

 

We only have one side of a story (is it really a story though?) and we all know that even piling on this 'story' does and changes nothing. I'm left with a resounding what's the point buzz coursing through the veins, know what I mean?

 

Business is business but that would definitely leave me with a bad taste... it would have been easy enough to keep these in the loop and work around Gibsons decision imo.

 

But going to a manufacturing company when you're coming from a labour of love/passion perspective is rearely going to amount to total satisfaction and big ups for their nod to perfect reproduction, is it?

 

( EDIT of course we don't know the full story..but sure sounds like bad form from Gibson )

 

There we go, that's what I mean.... that level of 2nd thought, 2nd guessing and balance would do well to be considered before we get all cooked up on the affront Gibson has to pick & choose from feature sets they own the rights to for a model they're going to put on the market. Yes they have an over-zealous and 'creative marketing department when it comes to small facts and comparisons. Yes they love a bit of hyperbole and whatnot, but show me an American company that doesn't.

 

Oh and the next time you see Hogeye call someone a Gibson Basher you should quote his post above...... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My comment about the dark top is not because it would be a correct reissue....I just think the dark brown top on JT's is one of the most attractive guitars I have seen. I like the chocolate finish more than the natural mahogany....

 

However, I would like to have seen the original intent of JT's project carried out... This batch made by women at Gibson and in support of women's history. The Kalamazoo Gal book and accompanying CD is a significant contribution to the Gibson historical knowledge base. Having correct reissues would have been a nice legacy as part of that.

 

Maybe I am fence sitting too...but what I am trying to say is...I want features (not necessarily period correct) when I choose my guitars and I think all of the hybrids are great alternatives for us all to pick from, but these guitars are part of a project and were intended to provide many of us with a modern link to that history memorialized in The Kalamazoo Gals. A very unique combination in this case makes me favor staying true to form....I have one though! Light top and all...And I love it!

Thanks again John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT you met these people and you know that they have no consideration for Gibson or it's rich history. They got what they wanted from you and moved on. Don't feel bad. There is a huge list of folks that have been played by them. Eldon Whitford, Dan Erlewine, George Gruhn, Matt Umanov,Stan Werbin and Walter Carter, to name a few. You are in good company. Do you remember when you first saw the J-35 reissue and told them they got it wrong? They couldn't stand the fact and to show everyone they were in charge they foolishly put a banner on it. How funny is that? A banner on a J-35 reissue? They have no shame.

 

They don't care and they don't know. They refuse to do even the slightest bit of research and that is why you end up with a guitar with the wrong name. I would be willing to bet that the arrangement with the music store you worked with didn't get their agreement honored either. Pity.

 

 

I hear you, JT. I hear you, Hogeye. I hope many more folks do so as well. And I say pity also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be clear that I don't mean to complain in public. Folks have asked on the forum about the status of the Banner reissue project and I've felt I needed to answer those queries. I presume that Gibson has reasons for its actions and I wish Gibson the best.

 

Please PM me if you have further questions.

 

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming about our favorite brand of guitars ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be clear that I don't mean to complain in public. Folks have asked on the forum about the status of the Banner reissue project and I've felt I needed to answer those queries. I presume that Gibson has reasons for its actions and I wish Gibson the best.

 

Please PM me if you have further questions.

 

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming about our favorite brand of guitars ...

 

 

Ok, I don't hear you, jt. I do still hear you, Hogeye.

 

my edit: No offense intended to any blooming individual or business. But, jt you have blown hot and now cold on this one. Hogeye, when I say I hear you, it is because I've been around long enough to have seen and felt the changes at the internals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...