Twang Gang Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 You have to hand it to the copywriters. Clearly the objective here is to use much less wood (1/3 less for back and top, 1/2 for the neck). And in light of the scarcity of wood (specifically mahogany)that ain't such a bad thing. But nowhere in the description that I could find does it mention what type of wood is used?? So they used a lot less wood but still ask $6200 MSRP. As always the proof is not in the pudding, but in the playing. I would be concerned about the strength of the joint at the headstock? The joint at the body not so much. Where are we at again, 120 years? Seems that if this truly was a better mousetrap from a design standpoint someone might have come up with it sooner. Then again when wood was plentiful no need to try to change age old contruction technique. Not rushing in to trade my L5 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 You have to hand it to the copywriters. Clearly the objetive here is to use much less wood (1/3 less for back and top, 1/2 for the neck). And in light of the scarcity of wood (specifically mahogany)that ain't such a bad thing. But nowhere in the description that I could find does it mention what type of wood is used?? So they used a lot less wood but still ask $6200 MSRP. As always the proof is not in the pudding, but in the playing. I would be concerned about the strength of the joint at the headstock? The joint at the body not so much. Where are we at again, 120 years? Seems that if this truly was a better mousetrap from a design standpoint someone might have come up with it sooner. Then again when wood was plentiful no need to try to change age old contruction technique. Not rushing in to trade my L5 though. @8:15 in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Let's take a look at that Guild! Yes Rev, that's the one. Used to own & had a real fondness for the tone of an X-braced Gibson-made Wards archtop from the '30s, which is what attracted me to the design of this Guild. Imho, a lot of guitar for the money, and the single-coil DeArmond sounds pretty darn sweet. As for the new Gibson, my guess is it's sporting parallel tone bars rather than X-bracing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 What's that strange smell?.............. P. Hello Pippy! Reminds me of the smell coming from farming equipment. I'm not buying (figuratively AND literally) the propaganda regurgitated in this description. How many "buzz" words and phrases can be put into a four paragraph write-up of a single guitar: Solid-formed Ve-netian cutaway simple elegance Eco-Friendly Proprietary construction impressive list of features significant advancements open tone grain is redirected instead of severed proprietary process thats been in development for several years Redesigned Neck-Less Wood headstock is grafted to the neck shaft precision glued Tone that Lives and Breaths Hello Larry! To be honest, after reading this, my confidence was thoroughly shaken in Gibson. I wouldn't have expected such an attitude from a 120-old, highly-acclaimed company. Unbelievable! I just stop it here, for the sake of the company of the great people - I call my friends -, here at the Forums... Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevDavidLee Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 @8:15 in Finally they get around to talking about the guitar subject of this thread in the last 2 minutes of the video & I focused maybe more than I should have regarding the Gibson reps comments about their wood usage. "We can now get two necks out of the same amount of wood instead of one" and.. what was it - "3 formed tops out of the same wood we used to get one"? I dunno - sounds like they've figured out a way to get more guitars out of less wood to make more profit out of less material. I mean that's how it translates to me. Maybe I'm just getting to be a more grouchy traditionalist in regards to what I expect if I'm dropping over $6k into a guitar. And the Gibson reps comment about making a "custom shop type guitar more affordable for more people" - I almost threw up a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I don't see a new Gibson in my future. I applaud Henry for keeping Gibson in the US but there is no justification for the prices charged. None. Sorry. Fire me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Just to clarify something. I do actually like the guitar. I'd love to have one. Going through the buzz-words used in the spiel mentioned by Larry my reaction to most of them at the top-end is "..Yeah. Fine. And?..." 'Solid-formed'? OK. 'Venetian'? I like Venetian. 'Simple Elegance'? That too. 'Eco-friendly'? Good idea. 'Proprietary...stuff'? Fair enough. After that, though, things get dubious; 'Impressive list of features'. What, precisely? 'Significant Advancements'. Compared to what? And for whom? 'Open Tone'. Excuse me??? I get the 'Grain is redirected...' bit. Top is bent not carved. But...this doesn't mean there is no grain-severing going on, of course. All it means is that the grain severing process stopped one stage earlier in the top-shaping process. Finally from 'dubious' we go to 'ridiculous'; 'Headstock is grafted to the neck shaft'. And that's a good thing? 'Precision glued'. As opposed to being executed by a drunken monkey? 'Tone that lives and breaths'.... There's that smell again. And there are two e's in 'breathes'. ...I think this guitar is basically, a mistake someone at Gibson made thinking it would be worthwhile to build...I can...see where it can likely be a well built, good sounding guitar... But there isn't a market for this. And in fact, is OPPOSITE of what the 6k market expects. It even has the features of "cheap" that those in the market point to to justify the 6k market guitars... Reserving judgement Gibson would build this. With the greatest of respect, Stein, I'm 100% certain Gibson will be going down this path in future. Had someone told me in 2013 that Gibson were going to adopt 'Fret-over-Binding' on their bound-neck guitars from 2014 I'd have had a chuckle at their expense. Had someone, on April 1st last year, posted a thread showing the proposed changes for 2015 most folks hereabouts (I'm guessing) would have thought it to be an April Fool's joke. Gibson can do whatever they like with their products. Many people love many of the new features and in many cases I can see why they are considered improvements. What I find disingenuous, however, is their rationalisation of many of the new features. How can fret-over-binding - used by all the cheapest manufacturers on the planet - be more costly than cutting-forming-shaping-finishing nibs? How can a scarf-jointed neck "enhance the guitar's overall sound performance"? I'm going to stop before the writs start to fly. This duplicity is much worse than snake-oil selling; it's further evidence of a once-great company selling-out. See y'all around. Pip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drog Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I still reserve judgement until I olay one. It should really come down to how it sounds, feels and workmanship. I have been eyeing an L5 but they start at $8500 and up. So this guitar is in line with a L4 (last year price). I already have an ES175, want a solid wood Gibson. As for pricing, it is what it is and its not going down. Either pay or don't buy. Myself, I have no issue in spending that much on a guitar but I want quality for it. For me Gibson has always delivered in quality, I am expecting this guitar to be just as good. I guess once I get my hands on one I will know. Many people have no problem buying a $30,000 car or $2,000 computer or $3,000 t.v., many people replace them in 5-10 years? This guitar I will have for a lifetime and will probably break even or make money if I decided to sell it in 20 yrs. Maybe I just have too much disposable income, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 When I jumped into this discussion I was assuming the $6299 price tag was MSRP, and "street price" would be about $3500-$4000. But, upon further review, I now see the $6299 is Wildwood's "Our Price", which I suppose is MAP. As I don't know the mathematical formula between MAP and MSRP, but do know the MSRP to dealer cost ratio, I really wonder what the street price of this guitar could be. AND... with all that said, $5000 still gets you a pre-owned L-5, and $3000 will get you any flavor of L-7 you desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 and $3000 will get you any flavor of L-7 you desire. Or a used Golden Eagle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevDavidLee Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 'Precision glued'. As opposed to being executed by a drunken monkey? ' Pip. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - best post ever! Made my day Pip - thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Even, this beautiful, traditionally crafted instrument costs just $5.999: http://www.wildwoodguitars.com/products/13184003.php?CategoryID=341&n=99# Definitely all the innovative features are absent, though. Cheers... Bence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I think personally that it's difficult to figure what to build in this level of instrument since its so far from being a mass market guitar, as are all Gibson archtop full-hollow instruments. For example, I'd not be interested because I prefer the smaller body. The Guild instrument has a longer scale than I'd prefer - I already have my Gretsch 16-inch body with the longer scale and it just ... isn't ... quite ... as handy as the shorter scale. Also, I think the Epi archtops make a good entry to the archtop world, and there has been nothing but major praise for the new Epi 175 premium excepting the matte finish compared to the fancier shine of a Gibson or the Epi's similar-size Joe Pass and its bigger siblings. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 In defense of the "general" design, I would like to reiterate that this is an ACOUSTIC guitar. An acoustic archtop is a VERY different animal than an electric archtop with holes cut in the soundboard for mounted pickups and controls. My point is, regardless of price point and construction details, comparison to any "ES" or "CES" model, is not really a valid discussion. Same goes for the Pacific Rim mfg's. There are very few choices in "new" acoustic archtop models from any mfg. So, it's nice to see Gibson offer an acoustic archtop. It's just sad to see the Asian construction details at a USA price point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 ...it's nice to see Gibson offer an acoustic archtop. It's just sad to see the Asian construction details at a USA price point. Succinctly put, Larry. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFord Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Does anyone have any direct experience with the Heritage archtops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Yes, but it's been about 10 years or so. Not good experience at all. The dealer that was pimping them eventually put all of his Heritage stock up for like another 40% off retail, even 50% at the end, so he could get them out of his store. I haven't seen a Heritage since, and I'm pretty glad. Could have been a bad time for them, could be the way they do stuff all the time, I don't know. "Rising tongue"s, that is, the finger board coming up at the neck/body join, was the main problem, and I do mean problem. Like, "hey man, I just BOUGHT this effing thing..." kind of problem. After that was neck twists, probably half of his stock ended up back in for twisting necks, all were skinny e side of the nut moving back, heavy e side moving forward. Weird that, but there it was. I patiently play any Heritage anyone has, nod my head and make nice sounds about it. I don't care who makes them, I don't care where they make them, I don't care how much Orville DNA is sprinkled on each one, I wouldn't give you a hundred bux for ten of them has been my experience. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rct Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 That store closed in 2001 I see, so it was more like 15 years ago or so. rct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I had a 1986 Golden Eagle for a couple years. I got a decent deal on it and sold it for a decent price. I had mixed feelings. I didn't note any of the issues RCT stated but that could have just been good luck on my part. I thought the neck was kinda squared off, if that makes any sense. There's no doubt it was a Cadillac and I liked it just as much as I did any L-7 I've owned. Short answer, I'd take another chance on one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 twisting necks, all were skinny e side of the nut moving back, heavy e side moving forward. Sadly I've had that same experience with 70s Gibsons with 3 piece maple necks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 So, it's nice to see Gibson offer an acoustic archtop. It's just sad to see the Asian construction details at a USA price point. That's it right there. The "new" details on this guitar are new to Gibson, but there is NOTHING newer or better about this guitar. These construction details have been available for years, and on the CHEAPEST of instruments. I am really confused and surprised Gibson would try this, or expect it to be excepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 .The Guild instrument has a longer scale than I'd prefer - Actually, the Guild A-150 Savoy has a short scale (24.75"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Yup... 17-inch body though... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnappi Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 From their page... "The headstock is grafted to the neck shaft, which also runs in a continuous grain, insuring strength where a guitar is typically vulnerable and further enhancing the guitar's overall sound performance. Where the neck meets the body, the heel block is precision glued to the neck shaft, and features a precision dovetail joint." Look at any cheap import if you want to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 From their page... "The headstock is grafted to the neck shaft, which also runs in a continuous grain, insuring strength where a guitar is typically vulnerable and further enhancing the guitar's overall sound performance. ..." Look at any cheap import if you want to see it. Marketing blurbs as always. It would mean that all of my guitars and basses, half of them Gibsons, have an inferior neck-peghead transition. Unfathomable how a scarf joint would have improved the tonal qualities of all those mediocre late-1950's Les Paul guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.