Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Gibson 635 W HP Acoustic


mule#1

Recommended Posts

So I go into the local GC and there are Gibson acoustics on clearance. I just purchases a Hummingbird not to long ago so wasn't really looking to buy but I tried out a 635 high performance. From the minute I picked it up I was blown away!! It's hands down the easiest playing guitar I have ever picked up. The tone .......amazing! I'm a traditionalist by nature so I've not been crazy about Gibsons HP marketing, but this guitar is absolutely awesome. The body is about an inch thinner but the guitar has great tone and is loud! Just thought I'd throw this out there in case anyone sees a great deal they don't overlook it. It is made in Montana with Sitka spruce top and has a maple neck. The back and sides are walnut and I'm really liking the sound of it. It has the warmth of mahogany with the sparkle of maple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m a traditionalist too, and the first couple of HPs I played didn’t do it for me. Having said that, I’ve tried a few since (the jumbo and the parlour, I forget the names) which have impressed me hugely.

 

If I was after a new guitar now, I’d buy an HP665/AG parlour. Wonderful little instrument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but sounds like a taylor

 

good to hear jinder was impressed with some of the hp line because mule1 sounded like either a deep state gibson plant, or someone who did not have other good acoustics and was basing conclusions on sound relative to the acoustic sound of his signature line electrics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but sounds like a taylor

 

good to hear jinder was impressed with some of the hp line because mule1 sounded like either a deep state gibson plant, or someone who did not have other good acoustics and was basing conclusions on sound relative to the acoustic sound of his signature line electrics

 

Definitely not a Gibson plant lol. I just really wasn't expecting to be impressed with it so wanted to share that I was wrong on my first impression. As for it sounding like a Taylor.... I traded my Taylor 414 Fall Limited rosewood for this guitar. It blew the Taylor away! It is different than my Gibson hummingbird in a good way. Certainly plays better than the hummingbird though I have never tweaked that. I just like the way Gibson acoustics sound. I never cared for the Taylor electronics. The LR Baggs in both of my Gibson acoustics sound really good. The 635 only has a volume but it's good. Like I said I only shared this because when they came out I wrote them off. Probably based on the HP Les Pauls I've tried and not liked.

 

I have never posted in this section and have not been on the forum in a while. Thanks for the feedback!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome Newbie!

Congrats on your new Gibson - We need to hear more here from folks who've pulled the trigger on the new Bozeman product line.

How do you like the RichLite FB ?

 

Thanks it's good to be back! As for the richlite it plays and sounds really good. I personally don't think it affects play at all all. Does ebony sound better? I guess that's subjective. I will tell you I got a great deal on a LP Custom reverse burst new and loved the guitar! But I returned it because it had a richlite board and was worried about resale value. I bought. 2010 Ebony LP Custom with an ebony board. So I don't mind it but don't want to pay too much for it either. In a way it was probably stupid to get rid of it for that reason since it was a great guitar but that's my mindset. The Taylor that I traded for it had and I've been a board. But since this guitar is all sustainable woods I bought into the rich light board. And it sounds and plays great so I sold myself on sound and playability. However like I said I got a great deal on clearance for it. I probably would have had a problem paying $1700 for the richlite!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not a Gibson plant lol. I just really wasn't expecting to be impressed with it so wanted to share that I was wrong on my first impression. As for it sounding like a Taylor.... I traded my Taylor 414 Fall Limited rosewood for this guitar. It blew the Taylor away! It is different than my Gibson hummingbird in a good way. Certainly plays better than the hummingbird though I have never tweaked that. I just like the way Gibson acoustics sound. I never cared for the Taylor electronics. The LR Baggs in both of my Gibson acoustics sound really good. The 635 only has a volume but it's good. Like I said I only shared this because when they came out I wrote them off. Probably based on the HP Les Pauls I've tried and not liked.

 

I have never posted in this section and have not been on the forum in a while. Thanks for the feedback!

good to hear your report and hearing it corroborated by jinder

 

the too bad it sounds like a taylor was not directed to your post

 

they are beautifully made but they sound like taylors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As they say experience is the best teacher and I have never been closer to one of these guitars than the pictures in the Sweetwater catalog. Maybe I am just old schoolin that I cling to the belief the deeper the body the more sound you can coax out of the thing. And this Gibson obsession with cutaways and thin bodies just leaves me scratching my head. Even if I liked the guitar though I am not sure I could live with that pickguard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As they say experience is the best teacher and I have never been closer to one of these guitars than the pictures in the Sweetwater catalog. Maybe I am just old schoolin that I cling to the belief the deeper the body the more sound you can coax out of the thing. And this Gibson obsession with cutaways and thin bodies just leaves me scratching my head. Even if I liked the guitar though I am not sure I could live with that pickguard.

 

If you think of it ... The Everly brothers guitar from the 60's was already applying the "thinner body" concept so Gibson should not be ashamed of revisiting said concept. They did it again with the 3" deep Super Dove a few years ago and now I bet are just expanding on the idea of the thin body Hummingbird Dark x Eric Church.

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome, I am in the same boat in respect of the first time I tried the new HP line I was not too impressed. Since that time I have liked the new line models that I have picked up. So I recently tried the AG parlor and really liked it and will have one with in the next 30 days or so. I am not normally a fan of the richlite FB but I have to admit in the past couple years the richlite fb seems to have been improved, it used to seem "sticky" to me me now seems smooth. Congrats on your new HP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprisingly I like the sound of the thinner body. It's brighter in a good way than my hummingbird. And quite honestly it's as loud or louder as well.

 

It is not uncommon to equate "brighter" with "better." It is all about balance. Problem is that something else ends up being a bit more sudbued. My CF-100E because of the location of the center of the X brace to the bridge tends to sound brighter than an LG-2. But is also gives up a bit on the low end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As they say experience is the best teacher and I have never been closer to one of these guitars than the pictures in the Sweetwater catalog. Maybe I am just old schoolin that I cling to the belief the deeper the body the more sound you can coax out of the thing. And this Gibson obsession with cutaways and thin bodies just leaves me scratching my head. Even if I liked the guitar though I am not sure I could live with that pickguard.

We 'old guys' were drawn to the Gibson sound and aesthetic as we found it at the time. Other instruments, too, as the old Harmony guitars and their like offered another dimension. As Gibson and currently available newer 'budget' instruments (not to mention current newer Martin models) work to broaden their appeal for younger players in terms of sound and aesthetics, it doesn't surprise me that we aren't always impressed. That doesn't mean we should feel any differently, though😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record. No one is buying the "new" lineup of Gibson offerings. They resorted to going to a four day work week as the inventory was building up to the point that they were going to have to rent higher capacity warehousing. Once they saw this trend did they try to correct the inventory problem? No they just kept churning out the unwanted guitars.

 

Don't be dismayed as Martin has the exact same problem. Martin has a record of shipping three year old guitars from inventory to unsuspecting dealers and customers. Not a big deal unless you want a "new" guitar. Me? I like the idea that you will be getting a vintage collectable new out of the box.

 

The problem with the Gibson situation is that they will, and are, losing highly skilled and trailed employees that need to work full time in Bozeman's higher than average living economy.

 

It's time to stop putting the lipstick on the pig and go back to the basics. Gibson has been devaluing the guitars for some time now and you the buying public has been going along by drinking the Marketing dept Kool-Aid. Fret board and bridge material. Flubber pickguards. Inferior lacquer. Non-traditional woods and the list goes on. Maybe it's time for them to trot out the old double X brace again? It's fine to resort to these practices it's just wrong to raise the price of the guitars while cutting back on the quality. There are even people that post here that think it's fine that the "new" Gibsons sound like Taylors. Pititful...

 

Norlin did it in the beginning of their tenure and it worked for a bit but.... You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Quite a few of the posters here have drunk the Kool-Aid but not all of us. Every time one you extolls the virtues of Flubber or "new " fast drying lacquer you just embolden the Marketing dept profit seekers to reach new lows.

 

Gibson Montana will wake up soon and get back to the business of building real guitars and this "era" will be just another blip in the rich Gibson history. Well one would hope so. Maybe some who post here will have differing views. Lets hear 'em. I will be interested in hearing the defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record. No one is buying the "new" lineup of Gibson offerings. They resorted to going to a four day work week as the inventory was building up to the point that they were going to have to rent higher capacity warehousing. Once they saw this trend did they try to correct the inventory problem? No they just kept churning out the unwanted guitars.

 

Don't be dismayed as Martin has the exact same problem. Martin has a record of shipping three year old guitars from inventory to unsuspecting dealers and customers. Not a big deal unless you want a "new" guitar. Me? I like the idea that you will be getting a vintage collectable new out of the box.

 

The problem with the Gibson situation is that they will, and are, losing highly skilled and trailed employees that need to work full time in Bozeman's higher than average living economy.

 

It's time to stop putting the lipstick on the pig and go back to the basics. Gibson has been devaluing the guitars for some time now and you the buying public has been going along by drinking the Marketing dept Kool-Aid. Fret board and bridge material. Flubber pickguards. Inferior lacquer. Non-traditional woods and the list goes on. Maybe it's time for them to trot out the old double X brace again? It's fine to resort to these practices it's just wrong to raise the price of the guitars while cutting back on the quality. There are even people that post here that think it's fine that the "new" Gibsons sound like Taylors. Pititful...

 

Norlin did it in the beginning of their tenure and it worked for a bit but.... You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Quite a few of the posters here have drunk the Kool-Aid but not all of us. Every time one you extolls the virtues of Flubber or "new " fast drying lacquer you just embolden the Marketing dept profit seekers to reach new lows.

 

Gibson Montana will wake up soon and get back to the business of building real guitars and this "era" will be just another blip in the rich Gibson history. Well one would hope so. Maybe some who post here will have differing views. Lets hear 'em. I will be interested in hearing the defense.

 

Interesting post. You’ve identified the problems, but what are the solutions? If the shop floor workers are on a four day week due to overstocks, the marketing department profit seekers clearly aren’t very emboldened as the profit they’re seeking isn’t materialising...as we have been made aware by several reports in the last couple of years, Gibson is haemmhoraging money and not turning a profit.

 

The question isn’t about the problem, it’s about the solution. The fact is, as much as getting “back to the basics” is a nice ideal, it’s not really a solution for a company who has been churning out L-00s, J45s, Hummingbirds and SJ200s (the “basics” in terms of Gibson products) for time immemorial now.

 

We, as a forum, are arguably some of-where Gibson acoustics are concerned-some of the most picky, fussy and obsessive people out there. That’s why we post here...we care about this stuff!

 

However, the average guitar buyer looking for a pro level acoustic guitar doesn’t give a harsh fart about flubber Vs celluloid, or Ebony vs Richlite, or fast drying lacquer Vs slow drying lacquer. The layman buyer wants a guitar that looks, sounds and plays right.

 

Of all my acoustics, the one I write with the most and generally find the most inspiring to play in a room is my 1990 Hummingbird, paddle jointed neck, Fullerplast finish and all. I don’t think about those things when I play it, because it feels wonderful and sounds amazing.

 

The solution to the problem (in my opinion) isn’t to change the guitars or working methods, it’s to find a way to persuade people to buy the things. The MAJOR issue here is pricing. Gibson prices are utterly ridiculous, the guitars just flat-out aren’t worth the money that Gibson are asking for them.

 

An example is thus: recently I was in a guitar store and played a very nice Hummingbird Standard. Right next to it was a Sigma copy of a Hummingbird. So similar visually I had to do a double take...I picked it up and it played very well and sounded terrific. Pickup and case included, it was £479 versus £2400 for the Gibson. The Gibson was maybe 10% better overall, but nobody in their right mind who relied on music for their income would buy the Gibson over the Sigma unless money was of no concern.

 

If the Gibson was £1750, it would make more sense, but few musos I know can drop nearly 2.5k on a guitar like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jinder touched on good points. The one that most stands out is his comment about the Sigma vs the Gibson. In the US, we do not get the new Sigma due to some legal distribution matter involving the old Martin Sigmas and the new company’s Sigmas. But, the essence of the point is that imported mass produced (meaning machine manufactured) guitars now have very close quality to the hand-made (if one can still call it that) US made guitars. Yet, the mass produced imported guitars sell for a whole lot less than handmade guitars. We all know at one point the imported mass produced guitars and the US handmade guitars once had a big gap between their quality. And, though many of us do not want to face it, that large gap is just not there now.

 

I run a twice a month music jam. Instruments need to be acoustic. I have been running it for 17 years. Used to be the jammers only brought in new Gibsons and Martins they bought. Now, those same musicians are bringing in new Epiphones and exclaiming how can they make them so good so inexpensive! These are older players who also own Gibsons and Martins. Younger players I come across are buying the imports and claiming they are great. I own a few now myself, besides my Gibsons, and feel the same.

 

I suspect that Gibson now makes the majority of its money’s from guitars now through their Epiphones. And keeps their Gibsons high priced in case anyone wants to spend the money and buy one, which obviously many still do. They have been careful to not dilute the brand with lower priced good Gibson imports (made at their Epi plants), because there is still a demand for US made Gibsons at high prices. But, they have to know they are competing against their own Epiphones which now have high quality at inexpensive prices. Why woukdn’t Gibson keep it going this way. I know this side of the forum doesn’t like to talk about how good and inexpensive Epiphones are now, but their high quality and mass market certainly has to figure into everything Gibson does.

 

Thoughts?

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the Martin Behind The Scenes Tour yesterday. I loved the tour. I love my D18.

 

However, to be clear, they are not immune from marketing gimmickry, and my fantastic tour guide was honest as hell in acknowledging as such.

 

Richlite? Ya mon. Just like ebony. Only cheaper and with less regulation.

 

tiA5BfGl.jpg

 

 

Custom wood choice where you get to order a custom and hand pick your own wood for $15,000 and up? No problem.

 

78a38qXl.jpg

 

VfTANFNl.jpg

 

 

At one station, our guide pointed out that where they used to glue certain wood parts together and wait 45 minutes for cure, "today this machine speed-cures it in 45 seconds". Everywhere, parts of the manufacturing process have been streamlined and made more efficient (cheaper). Robots sand, route, carve necks, apply finish, and polish.

Authentics are made entirely by hand. Now, putting specs and neck sizes aside, would the hand built one be better than one made with the exact same specs, but with the CNC routes, exact finish, etc utilized? I am not sure. I havent played an Authentic to know whether a D18 version is worth 3 times what the standard costs.

 

Back to Gibson. I played the new HP versions and were not impressed. And I nearly always like the new standard traditional models I play (Bird, J45, etc). I think the traditional models coming out of Bozemon are still fantastic, and the pricing - inflation adjusted - is really no different than what one cost 20 or 30 years ago. And despite competition from fantastic Asian imports (I have an Eastman E10ss in my fold), the Gibsons are still lighter, fuller, growlier, and better guitars - and in my opinion worth twice the price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would the hand built one be better than one made with the exact same specs, but with the CNC routes, exact finish, etc utilized?

 

THIS is a massively important question. Does hand building add or subtract attention to detail? Sure, a human is constantly refining their craft and perfecting their skills, but a CNC machine doesn’t have to do that-barring a mechanical failure or software glitch, it gets it right every time.

 

What hand building does is maintain the traditional individuality and variability of instruments-I’ve never played a pair of SJ200s that sound the same. One luthier may be able to get close in terms of tolerances between two guitars, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Dave won’t build a guitar that sounds like the one Sally just built, which won’t sound like the one that Duane built, which won’t sound like the one Juanita just built.

 

Is this a good thing? I think so. Owning an individual instrument is a big part of what makes people bond creatively and personally with their guitars.

 

I have nothing against Taylors, but every Taylor 612, say, sounds and plays just the same as the others. They’re CNC built to such tight tolerances that they’re all just clones of one another. Great if you’re touring and fly into Maine and want to buy a guitar exactly the same as the one you just accidentally left in your hotel room in Manitoba, but that’s not my cup of tea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my aged and convoluted way of thinking, all this has gotten out of hand. If Gibson is working a 4 day week, and nothing 'new and exciting' is moving, there's a problem. If an import instrument can match the tone, construction, and playability of a domestic one at a fraction of the cost, there's a problem. If Gibson prices are spiraling upward every year, there's a problem. If the 'real thing' is being constructed with synthetic materials, there's a problem. If things have gotten to where discussions like this are valid (and they are), there's a problem. This, to me, is an insane situation. At some point in the fairly recent past, something went over the edge and here we jolly well are, stuck with bad results. I don't have the expertise to determine what went wrong, but it feels as though that needs to be identified before anything positive can begin to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My perspective is, as players and collectors, we simply just get to enjoy all the great guitars out there. Henry J, Chris Martin, and Bob Taylor are the ones who have to stress over how to market them, deal with creditors, how to maximize profits while balancing quality, how to balance the handmade and machine made resources, how to handle demand, pricing, etc. These are actually great times for players and collectors with all the great guitars being made and out there. Being a manufacturer has to be a bit trying. Let’s hope they are prudent in their decisions.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The solution to the problem (in my opinion) isn’t to change the guitars or working methods, it’s to find a way to persuade people to buy the things. The MAJOR issue here is pricing. Gibson prices are utterly ridiculous, the guitars just flat-out aren’t worth the money that Gibson are asking for them." Jinder

Amen!...........Mule#1, thanks for this post. I've been looking to read more on the newer acoustic line-up.msp_thumbup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point in the fairly recent past, something went over the edge and here we jolly well are, stuck with bad results. I don't have the expertise to determine what went wrong, but it feels as though that needs to be identified before anything positive can begin to happen.

What went wrong? As with most complex issues, there's no simple one-size-fits-all answer. Rather there are multiple causal factors, some of which we can probably identify rather easily, others which we may never be able to figure out. Off the top of my head, here are a few:

 

> In 2001, Gibson and Guitar Center cut a major deal, and Gibson's big-box marketing move ratchets into full swing. Long-time Gibson dealers are squeezed out, many of whom have strongly supported the product for decades & helped create positive buzz around Gibson products (because they actually knew something about guitars & cared about the product - as opposed to your not-yet-shaving GC "associate." Production must now ramp up dramatically, because the marketing model is based on volume of sales. Uh oh.

 

> Martin, Taylor, (& Fender electric) plants in Mexico pump out good quality instruments that say Martin & Taylor on the headstock. They are able to capture a huge chunk of the entry level market, and your GC "associate" is able to crow that "it's a Martin (or Taylor)" to the youngster & his dad. When the kid's ready for his next guitar, what's he going to buy? Is Gibson going to even be on his radar?

 

> Baby boomers are aging out. Let's face it, a lot of us around here are pretty stinkin' old. I'm 66. We grew up with a lot of low end crap guitars in the '60s & '70s, and yearned for the quality American brands. Many of us have been fortunate enough to acquire the guitars we dreamed about, but are we still going to keep buying beyond retirement? Not me. Haven't bought a new Gibson since 2014. The youngest generations behind us, for the most part, have now been enjoying their highly playable Mexican or Pacific Rim instruments for years.

 

> Market saturation & a glut of good used guitars. Where do all these guitars go that have been getting pumped out for years? They've got to go somewhere, and a whole lot of them end up for sale on ebay, reverb, etc. There are fewer reasons to buy new, when so many excellent-to-mint examples are out there at a fraction of the cost, not to mention the ongoing availability of high quality vintage pieces for people who still care about them.

 

There are, of course, more key market factors & decisions that have been made by Gibson in the past that have led to where they corporately are today, but these few jump out at me. Personally, I don't feel terribly vested in Gibson's success at this point. I do want to see them make it, but they've really made some poor choices since 2001, and ditching devoted dealers (one of whom was a friend of mine & very pro-Gibson), was one that is not easy to forget. They're going to have to make better choices rather soon, and dig themselves out of this situation of their own making.

 

With less room for error in the guitar market, a solid foundation for Montana would be to build the highest quality acoustics based on traditional models you possibly can, promote that quality, and deliver the product at a reasonable price point. And guess what? That is exactly what Gibson had undertaken under Ren's direction in 1999 with a new & highly revamped line of more accurate traditionally based models. Industry accolades followed, but then the big-box marketing love-fest with GC was born a short two years later, along with those critically increasing production numbers.

 

For most of us here, over the years we have cherry-picked some very fine Gibson examples. But what do Martin, Taylor, Larrivee, Collings, Santa Cruz, and others have that Gibson does not? An enduring reputation for consistently delivering a quality product. That is the foundation to emulate, and building such a reputation in both the acoustic and electric arenas is, imho, going to be crucial to Gibson's future success - regardless of units sold & economic footprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What went wrong? As with most complex issues, there's no simple one-size-fits-all answer. Rather there are multiple causal factors, some of which we can probably identify rather easily, others which we may never be able to figure out. Off the top of my head, here are a few:

 

> In 2001, Gibson and Guitar Center cut a major deal, and Gibson's big-box marketing move ratchets into full swing. Long-time Gibson dealers are squeezed out, many of whom have strongly supported the product for decades & helped create positive buzz around Gibson products (because they actually knew something about guitars & cared about the product - as opposed to your not-yet-shaving GC "associate." Production must now ramp up dramatically, because the marketing model is based on volume of sales. Uh oh.

 

> Martin, Taylor, (& Fender electric) plants in Mexico pump out good quality instruments that say Martin & Taylor on the headstock. They are able to capture a huge chunk of the entry level market, and your GC "associate" is able to crow that "it's a Martin (or Taylor)" to the youngster & his dad. When the kid's ready for his next guitar, what's he going to buy? Is Gibson going to even be on his radar?

 

> Baby boomers are aging out. Let's face it, a lot of us around here are pretty stinkin' old. I'm 66. We grew up with a lot of low end crap guitars in the '60s & '70s, and yearned for the quality American brands. Many of us have been fortunate enough to acquire the guitars we dreamed about, but are we still going to keep buying beyond retirement? Not me. Haven't bought a new Gibson since 2014. The youngest generations behind us, for the most part, have now been enjoying their highly playable Mexican or Pacific Rim instruments for years.

 

> Market saturation & a glut of good used guitars. Where do all these guitars go that have been getting pumped out for years? They've got to go somewhere, and a whole lot of them end up for sale on ebay, reverb, etc. There are fewer reasons to buy new, when so many excellent-to-mint examples are out there at a fraction of the cost, not to mention the ongoing availability of high quality vintage pieces for people who still care about them.

 

There are, of course, more key market factors & decisions that have been made by Gibson in the past that have led to where they corporately are today, but these few jump out at me. Personally, I don't feel terribly vested in Gibson's success at this point. I do want to see them make it, but they've really made some poor choices since 2001, and ditching devoted dealers (one of whom was a friend of mine & very pro-Gibson), was one that is not easy to forget. They're going to have to make better choices rather soon, and dig themselves out of this situation of their own making.

 

With less room for error in the guitar market, a solid foundation for Montana would be to build the highest quality acoustics based on traditional models you possibly can, promote that quality, and deliver the product at a reasonable price point. And guess what? That is exactly what Gibson had undertaken under Ren's direction in 1999 with a new & highly revamped line of more accurate traditionally based models. Industry accolades followed, but then the big-box marketing love-fest with GC was born a short two years later, along with those critically increasing production numbers.

 

For most of us here, over the years we have cherry-picked some very fine Gibson examples. But what do Martin, Taylor, Larrivee, Collings, Santa Cruz, and others have that Gibson does not? An enduring reputation for consistently delivering a quality product. That is the foundation to emulate, and building such a reputation in both the acoustic and electric arenas is, imho, going to be crucial to Gibson's future success - regardless of units sold & economic footprint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good news here is that Gibson is back to work. They are on the 5 day week again and all is well.

 

The point I have been trying to make over the last 6 or so months is just that when a company is forced to make short cuts to the product they should pass the savings on to the customer. The customer is getting less quality and the price should not be adjusted up for it. There is a fine line to be walked for Gibson. The new laws concerning wood and other materials are beyond the control of Gibson so they are forced to adjust.

 

If you are changing your production values then that should be reflected in the price. Richlite? Fine. It needs to be done. Just stop fleecing the consumer by raising the price for something that clearly costs less to produce. All of the cost saving measures should be done by the company and if they passed the savings on to the consumer everyone would benefit. Sales would increase and production could equalize.

 

The relentless pursuit of production numbers is a failed approach. If your warehouse is filling up identify the problem and implement solutions. Cutting the production by sending employees home is not a realistic approach. I don't have any answers but I choose to say this. If you can lower prices I think sales would increase and then the production will stabilize.

 

Lots of good comments here and all viewpoints are valid. No trolls at work just good honest opinion on how people feel for our favorite brand of guitar.

 

If you find yourself in a hole stop digging. Well Gibson and Martin need to keep digging and find the solution to the real problem. Keep digging but find out how to increase sales. International sales are the key right now and the exchange rate will dictate most of that along with the change in dealing with the wood crisis. Smarter folks than me will have to figure this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...