Is this the JT SJ ?

[modoc_333]

What does a law professor have to gain by posting fantasy stuff here?

 

 

Making his publisher happy by selling copies of his new book?

[modoc_333]

after reading my post, i realize it looks like this IS the reason. I don't want it to come off like that. I'm just saying what I always have: Let's not jump to conclusions based off of one side. these things always have 2 sides... and sometimes 22 sides.

[Jerry K]

Well, some aspects of this aren't really open for debate. Facts can't really be spun as having two sides. For example we know JT met with somebody at Gibson. Sent them guitars. Guitars were built and adverts crafted around this cooperation. At some point the contact at Gibson stopped communicating with JT. This much has played out in real time on the forum in front of our eyes. I know JT to be an honorable fellow. He is definitely not shitting us about this. Unfortunately stuff like this has happened before.

[ParlourMan]

The power of a positive balance sheet, Jerry lad.

[gov]

The power of a positive balance sheet, Jerry lad.

 

i think you meant to say leveraged balance sheet.

[ParlourMan]

i think you meant to say leveraged balance sheet.

 

Indeed... but is this really the place to speculate on leverages, golden ratio measurements etc.... I'm not sure. Could be fun I guess, but could be 50 shades of grey for a lot of others here (and I don't mean the racy version).... I'm game if you are. I got banned the last time though.

[fortyearspickn]

Gibson Montana, as a division along side pianos, electric guitars, etc, does not have its own balance sheet. It has an operating budget with production, sales and expense goals. Behind that, a plan on product mix and marketing strategies. Corporate may force down unrealistic goals that include, for example, the elimination of custom shop "one offs", or simply cutting the variety in the number of H'Bird or J45 variations. Balance sheets, debt ratios, etc are higher level concepts which, when cooked by coo rate, translate to marching orders for each of the divisions. I am guessing the Banner Project was viewed as competing with resources (plant capacity) needed for the J35, J15, strategy.

[ParlourMan]

Gibson Montana, .... does not have its own balance sheet.

 

Almost categorically false I'm afriad 40. The only way to manage corporation wide offsets and any concept of pooling of entities is to have extremely well detailed 'microeconomic' (if you will) views of every entity involved. A non-negotiable requirement my friend. We can toss ideas about on the concepts of centralised purchasing leverages, Entity bolstering, entity vs corporational taxation models, compliance, legal etc... A million speculative possibilities could be discussed, but, to entertain the idea that fine-grain details down to the n'th degree are not known to the corporations senior administrators for every factor of every entity would be dead wrong. People may speak generally in course-grain detail to keep it snappy and digestible, but it has to be based on very astute data collection. Lest we forget we're not exactly talking about some laissez-faire management style but about intense, high-turnover management overseen by a notoriously autocratic leader.

 

I am guessing the Banner Project was viewed as competing with resources (plant capacity) needed for the J35, J15, strategy.

 

Successful companies in the luxury goods markets will always cater to every budget segment of the scale... what we see in the new 'budget' lines is Gibson's response to the other sector leaders delving into the sub-luxury markets. They're simply trying to maintain their presence and share of a market sector that was driven to a new upper price ranges based on financial downturns in the economy. You can easily see Gibson's tactics here in the designer clothes market, the car market etc etc... I daresay if they could get away with it, they wouldn't be making anything that sells at the prices J-35's and J-15's do.

[fortyearspickn]

Almost categorically false I'm afriad 40. The only way to manage corporation wide offsets and any concept of pooling of entities is to have extremely well detailed 'microeconomic' (if you will) views of every entity involved. A non-negotiable requirement my friend. We can toss ideas about on the concepts of centralised purchasing leverages, Entity bolstering, entity vs corporational taxation models, compliance, legal etc... A million speculative possibilities could be discussed, but, to entertain the idea that fine-grain details down to the n'th degree are not known to the corporations senior administrators for every factor of every entity would be dead wrong. People may speak generally in course-grain detail to keep it snappy and digestible, but it has to be based on very astute data collection. Lest we forget we're not exactly talking about some laissez-faire management style but about intense, high-turnover management overseen by a notoriously autocratic leader.

 

 

 

Successful companies in the luxury goods markets will always cater to every budget segment of the scale... what we see in the new 'budget' lines is Gibson's response to the other sector leaders delving into the sub-luxury markets. They're simply trying to maintain their presence and share of a market sector that was driven to a new upper price ranges based on financial downturns in the economy. You can easily see Gibson's tactics here in the designer clothes market, the car market etc etc... I daresay if they could get away with it, they wouldn't be making anything that sells at the prices J-35's and J-15's do.

 

 

 

 

PM, while I agree with your agreeing with me on point #2, I respectfully (so far) beg to differ on point #1.

The Balance Sheet as a financial statement is only accurate at the entity level - the entity being the entire corporation, not the divisions. The Balance Sheet is primarily made up of long term assets and liabilities which are managed by corporate. These are account balances, not transactions, which cannot be applied at a lower organizational level like sales and expense transactions on the Income Statement.

I'm not saying Dudley Do-Right Bankers might not ask a corporation to provide division level Balance Sheets - but. they will only get a mathematical exercise where some accountant divided everything up between the divisions based on sales, square footage, or employees.

While you can have a "Balance Sheet for Dummies - by division", it is neither an accepted accounting concept, or a management tool. Yes, you can take the plant & equipment by division and identify that, and the associated depreciation. And some of the liabilities and cash. But none of the equity.

Yes - some anal retentive corporate weenies will try to create division balance sheets when so ordered by a CFO too lame to tell the CEO they're meaningless. But, no one in their right mind would use a financial statement which is 2/3rds simple allocations - to make management decisions relative to divisions operations.

[Jerry K]

I think you guys are way off base. This has nothing to do with corporate balance sheets. If anything this is more like extremely localized peculation. I am not privy to what happened and JT is a very cautious and gentlemanly type so we'll probably never know. But I think I can read between the lines here. In the past, when someone like Eldon Whitford supplied a classic vintage piece for them to copy, as a reward they were provided with the first reproduced copy, or a prototype or some such guitar.

[Sir EL84]

Well neither here or there, but I purchased this model a few months ago from Daves,simply looking for a large-necked jumbo.

I'd be happy to answer any specific questions regarding the guitar as best I can.

Thanks,

Joe

[Stefano Sunburst]

Hey SIr EL84, that SJ sounded good when it was listed at Dave's.. Looks like one of the FEW new Gibsons with a big THICK neck. What is the neck profile like, C,V, D, etc.?? It's a full 1 3/4" width at the nut, right? Does it sound good for flatpicking? Congrats on the new guitar.

Swang on,

[Sir EL84]

Yes, 1.75" (or thereabouts) width. It's a huge neck, but not uncomfortable in the least. Definitely not a "V" shape, but a very deep, rounded profile with plenty of shoulder.

The sound is very Gibson. The trebles are very full sounding but also sparkly, Mids are very punchy & pronounced, while the bass - maybe because of the Adirondack, newness, or both is present, but still developing. ..certainly more than enough for recording.

 

I really like the lighter shade of stain used on the back, sides & neck. You can really see the grain.

The cream tuner buttons are a nice touch.

I have yet to have this setup properly, but it plays well stock from the factory. I think the strings are sitting a little low at the nut. Not low overall, just too much nut material up there. Easy fix or a tech.

I've tried both lights and mediums and while it handles the 13's great... loud, more bass etc... there's something about the 12's that I like on this guitar. Maybe more nimble for me. If I were a heavy strummer, I wouldn't have any reservations using mediums. The guitar, and especially the neck, can handle it just fine.

 

What I'm not totally sure about- the Adi top. I think after many trials (mainly with Martin) I may just be a Sitka type of guy.

I'll see if I can post some pics soon.

[Stefano Sunburst]

Thanks Sir EL84, for the details. The big neck and lighter weight tuners are a HUGE improvement IMHO. I played a new stock J45 today at GC and the big, heavy Grover Rotomatic tuners and narrower nut threw me off. Most players prefer the "faster" neck, but I like 'em big and fat with light weight open back tuners. The Adi top should open up and mellow out, the more you play it. I also prefer the lack of binding on the neck. Binding looks good, but it looks like an extra set of strings when I play. Probably something I'd get used to. Les Paul, said the same thing in an interview. One of the Pauls he played at his regular gig at the Iridium lacked binding. The only newer Martin that has a neck that tempts me is the D18 1937 Authentic, but it's not really all that thick at the first fret (about .85-.87) but thickens up pretty quick to about 1.00. Feels good and sounds great, but is pricey and kind of hard to find. They changed the D18A to the 1939 version, with a 1 11/16" nut. Love Gibson Jumbos for that fat mid range and smooth tone. Even my L00 sounds good for flat picking old time jazz standards and finger picking just sbout anything. Fortunately it has a big, thick, V neck.

Swang on,