fortyearspickn Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 For me, I don't care if it's a true vintage, reissue of whatever year, historic, classic, mystic, if it's made with hide glue or gorilla glue(...lol...) etc. If the guitar has great playability for me, sounds good and is in good shape, then I'm interested. Trying to keep-up with all the variations Gibson does of each model will drive you crazy and it's not worth it to me. When I buy a guitar, I just want what I feel is a good guitar for me (for the money). Agree !!! I think it's been clear for a few decades with the various terms Gibson uses in naming new models - "vintage", 'true vintage", "re-issue", that they aren't attempting to create an anatomically correct 'reproduction'. They have Hummingbirds that fly in the face of the specs of what the first H'Birds and 'traditional/standared" H'Birds are based on. They have Signature Models that aren't exact copies of what the performer actually USES, and they ship them all in cases that aren't period - specific. The 'naming conventions' used by Martin are equally confusing - even if they do a better job building 'reproductions'. I guess if I were interested in a 100% accurate guitar, car, Monet, or anything - I'd buy an original, or become so knowledgeable about the original that I'd spot a fake a mile away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hall Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 For me, I don't care if it's a true vintage, reissue of whatever year, historic, classic, mystic, if it's made with hide glue or gorilla glue(...lol...) etc. If the guitar has great playability for me, sounds good and is in good shape, then I'm interested. Trying to keep-up with all the variations Gibson does of each model will drive you crazy and it's not worth it to me. When I buy a guitar, I just want what I feel is a good guitar for me (for the money). Amen, as in me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars68 Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 Agree !!! I think it's been clear for a few decades with the various terms Gibson uses in naming new models - "vintage", 'true vintage", "re-issue", that they aren't attempting to create an anatomically correct 'reproduction'. They have Hummingbirds that fly in the face of the specs of what the first H'Birds and 'traditional/standared" H'Birds are based on. They have Signature Models that aren't exact copies of what the performer actually USES, and they ship them all in cases that aren't period - specific. The 'naming conventions' used by Martin are equally confusing - even if they do a better job building 'reproductions'. I guess if I were interested in a 100% accurate guitar, car, Monet, or anything - I'd buy an original, or become so knowledgeable about the original that I'd spot a fake a mile away. I understand the concept of loosly basing new guitars on vintage models, and mixing old an new features. I find this perfectly fine, and actually sometimes preferable (I think the current J-45 Vintage is a perfectly good example). However, naming a guitar a "1947 reissue" changes the perspective. To me this indicates that at least some attention has been given to the most fundamental appointments of an actual 1947 guitar. Having a "1947 reissue" in rosewood and with the wrong logo, is just as bad as reissuing a 1966 Chevy Corvette, using the body shape of a Volvo Lars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Kristofferson called Cash a "walking contradiction." Maybe he was also talking about Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.