Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Why do some people dislike 2015 brass nuts?


Recommended Posts

On 9/6/2015 at 4:42 PM, norton said:

HOWEVER... a few guys on here who got a 2015 had replacement chrome plated nuts sent to them which apparently fixed the issue... but really who wants to have to go through all that nonsense when you buy an expensive item like a Les Paul...

 

very true, and it brings out the question - why did Gibson release such a soft brass nut insert in the first place?

 

they have been around a very long time, why did they ignore extensively testing the wear characteristics prior to shipping?

 

how well did the childish 'tLes Paul signature received by the buying public, everyone seems to dislike it but they went ahead with it anyway.........

The replacements are titanium, not chrome plated.  And it is really no big deal to replace them.  Brass has been used on saddles, so it shouldn't have really been a wear issue.  Possibility the particular brass used was off-spec.

As for the signature, in honor of Les, Gibson  used the last know signature of Les.  That makes it especially cool to me.  Gibson did nothing wrong there, the problem is that you and quite a few others have no respect for that signature.  That's a poor refection of you and the rest of the critics, not Gibson.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2015 at 8:16 AM, Guest Farnsbarns said:

 

If you say it enough times even you might believe it!

 

[lol]

Sure, and that is supposed to make you feel better?  Do you say that every time you hear the truth?  You must have really enjoyed being part of  the 2015 hysteria.  It has been discussed many times since then objectively and 2015 are truly great ones.  So you can quit banging that drum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Wmachine said:

Sure, and that is supposed to make you feel better?  Do you say that every time you hear the truth?  You must have really enjoyed being part of  the 2015 hysteria.  It has been discussed many times since then objectively and 2015 are truly great ones.  So you can quit banging that drum. 

Farnes posted that 6 years ago. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Wmachine said:

As for the signature, in honor of Les, Gibson  used the last know signature of Les.  That makes it especially cool to me.  Gibson did nothing wrong there, the problem is that you and quite a few others have no respect for that signature.  That's a poor refection of you and the rest of the critics, not Gibson.

I'm sure they did have respect for Les. It was stated many times in 2015 on here. They genuinely didn't like the signature aesthetic. 

BTW, I have a 2015 LP that I am very happy with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2021 at 3:14 PM, merciful-evans said:

I'm sure they did have respect for Les. It was stated many times in 2015 on here. They genuinely didn't like the signature aesthetic. 

BTW, I have a 2015 LP that I am very happy with. 

I think that is just being passive aggressive if that is truly the case.  Not liking the aesthetic?  That signature is Les Paul if you don't like it, that's disrespectful.   Nobody says you has to like it.  But to speak negatively about it and make fun of it is just wrong.  That is holding one's opinion of how it looks in higher regard than that signature.  That is a terrible display of self importance.  That is disrespectful.  There is no way to whitewash that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wmachine said:

I think that is just being passive aggressive if that is truly the case.  Not liking the aesthetic?  That signature is Les Paul if you don't like it, that's disrespectful.   Nobody says you has to like it.  But to speak negatively about it and make fun of it is just wrong.  That is holding one's opinion of how it looks in higher regard than that signature.  That is a terrible display of self importance.  That is disrespectful.  There is no way to whitewash that. 

What nonsense..,..  How is it passive aggressive to say that he didnt like the way the signature looked?  I agree, it did make the headstock look a bit ugly...

Doesnt mean for a second we dont have respect for Les Pauls legacy...  We are just saying we didnt like the way it looked on the headstock..  Just cos you respect someone, doesnt mean you have to like everything they do or anything to do with them....

Most of us also didnt like the little waving hologram on the back of the headstock.. I thought it looked tacky. Now that was more disrespectful to me, using his image in such a cheap way.

We are allowed our opinion as are you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2021 at 4:25 AM, Rabs said:

What nonsense..,..  How is it passive aggressive to say that he didnt like the way the signature looked?  I agree, it did make the headstock look a bit ugly...

Doesnt mean for a second we dont have respect for Les Pauls legacy...  We are just saying we didnt like the way it looked on the headstock..  Just cos you respect someone, doesnt mean you have to like everything they do or anything to do with them....

Most of us also didnt like the little waving hologram on the back of the headstock.. I thought it looked tacky. Now that was more disrespectful to me, using his image in such a cheap way.

We are allowed our opinion as are you.

Game, set and match. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...