Gibson sends out a warning to copycats

[Larsongs]

14 hours ago, pippy said:

 

Yup.

I have absolutely no idea how much the law firm employed by Gibson charges by the hour but perhaps it's time for Gibson to consider the financial implications of dragging this case through every court in every country in every continent of the world. I'm no Ivy League educated lawyer but even I realise that  Gibson have less than a snowball's chance in Hell of, ultimately, being victorious in this crusade - whether they are in the wrong or in the right.

A precedent has now been not only set but, after reconsidering various matters on appeal, reaffirmed by the Supreme Courts which officiate in these matters for all European markets.

Time Out for a serious rethink, chaps.

Pip.

Seems like the winners will be the Lawyers... Regardless of outcome they get their Fee. Gibson should study this very carefully before spending millions on Lawsuits right after Restructuring from Bankruptcy... 

Primary Focus should be continuing to build the finest Guitars in the World. Guitar Players know the difference & still, many want the Best.

[merciful-evans]

18 hours ago, 'Scales said:

Yeah, maybe we could start a list of genuinely good ideas from the past 50 years that actually could have been useful to most players in either guitar design or features.

Gotta admit I'm struggling to think of much.....locking tuners maybe?

 

Locking tuners is a good example, but they are popular.

 

I'll go with non wood guitars. The heatwave has thrown a back bow into my favourite guitar. 

But my cheap Switch (plastic) guitar never varies. A high end non wood example is the Swiss Relish (modular pickup) design. That would be stable too I reckon. 

['Scales]

4 hours ago, merciful-evans said:

 

Locking tuners is a good example, but they are popular.

 

I'll go with non wood guitars. The heatwave has thrown a back bow into my favourite guitar. 

But my cheap Switch (plastic) guitar never varies. A high end non wood example is the Swiss Relish (modular pickup) design. That would be stable too I reckon. 

Popular is fine...I'm actually thinking of designs and features that would be useful to the majority of players that weren't available more than 50 years ago. Popular is a good sign in this case.

if formed plastic guitars can be made from recycled material they could be a good thing in the future. Low cost, environmentally friendly, strong and potentially light weight....who knows?

[merciful-evans]

16 hours ago, 'Scales said:

Popular is fine...I'm actually thinking of designs and features that would be useful to the majority of players that weren't available more than 50 years ago. Popular is a good sign in this case.

if formed plastic guitars can be made from recycled material they could be a good thing in the future. Low cost, environmentally friendly, strong and potentially light weight....who knows?

 

Ok I get that. However, players have been ignoring useful design features for much more than 50 years.

Also, many design features less than 50 years old have been adopted and remained, while others have not survived, though they were arguably just as useful. 

Survivor examples include peizo pickups, laminate guitar necks. Straight string  path headstocks, coil taps/splits, fanned frets etc.

 

[badbluesplayer]

As much as we're busting on these guys, somebody'd better buy a guitar from them, just to keep them hanging, no?  If I had figured out how to sneak another one into the house, I'd'a bought another by now.

[pippy]

On 6/30/2019 at 3:54 PM, merciful-evans said:

Survivor examples include peizo pickups, laminate guitar necks. Straight string  path headstocks, coil taps/splits, fanned frets etc.

 

Perhaps you (or anyone else!) could help me out in understanding something here, m-e. And I'm not trying to be funny; I'm being perfectly serious.

For the first 5 years of my life as a player I used only guitars with 'Gibson'-style string-path headstocks. For the next 25 years I played both these style and also straight-path but mostly, say 90%, straight-path - and almost all of them Strats. For the last 15 years I've been playing both styles but mostly (80%?) Gibson style. I've never ever noticed nor felt that one style was inherently, intrinsically better than the other style.

I've just had a little play on some Gibsons; a couple of Fenders, the D'angelico and the Di Mauro and I can't notice nor feel anything different.

What are the advantages of a straight-path headstock? I have no problems with tuning stability; no issues with sticking nuts; no issues at all.

What am I missing?

Pip.

[Black Dog]

And Gibson responds:

https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibson-shifts-from-confrontation-to-collaboration-in-copycat-row

[pauloqs]

2 hours ago, pippy said:

 

Perhaps you (or anyone else!) could help me out in understanding something here, m-e. And I'm not trying to be funny; I'm being perfectly serious.

For the first 5 years of my life as a player I used only guitars with 'Gibson'-style string-path headstocks. For the next 25 years I played both these style and also straight-path but mostly, say 90%, straight-path - and almost all of them Strats. For the last 15 years I've been playing both styles but mostly (80%?) Gibson style. I've never ever noticed nor felt that one style was inherently, intrinsically better than the other style.

I've just had a little play on some Gibsons; a couple of Fenders, the D'angelico and the Di Mauro and I can't notice nor feel anything different.

What are the advantages of a straight-path headstock? I have no problems with tuning stability; no issues with sticking nuts; no issues at all.

What am I missing?

Pip.

 

I also have never experienced tuning issues with Gibson style headstocks in properly set up instruments. Once the nut is properly slotted and lubricated the guitar will stay in tune. I can only suspect that one of the problems were before Gibson started slotting nuts on PLEK machines, there was the added difficulty of the G and D strings slot angles that I conjecture they didn't always get it right. I can't say for sure, because Gibson were above my budget when I got my first electric guitar.

I think there is a huge conflation of effects going on. I believe the drying process of the neck wood, how the nut is slotted, how making sure the tuner is installed correctly (yes, I've seen a few cases where the bolt on the tuners were too loose causing the guitar to go out of tune) play a huge role on tuning stability. One example is the PRS SE line. In 2016 and 2017 the Achilles heel of those guitars were poorly slotted nuts causing binding and thus tuning instability. People would usually throw money at the guitar getting locking tuners, US made bridges, and replacing the nut on those guitars. Yet, every single one that I've encountered with tuning instability issues were remedied by simply appropriately widening the nut slots in accordance with the string gauge being used.

I'm fortunate own and have owned a handful of PRS and Fender guitars and all my Gibson guitars stays in tune just as well as the straight through headsock style. Heck, my first electric guitar was a Samick Gregg Bennett Avion 3, which had a LP-esque shape and a headstock very similar to PRS'. That guitar obviously needed a setup from factory and once that was done, the guitar stayed in tune super well. However, before that it was just a nightmare of a guitar that didn't stay in tune, frets were all over the place and intonation was way off. Still not bad for a $299 guitar and the market standards of when I got it. I'll concede that it is easier to cut the nut slots by hand on a guitar with a straight through headstock style. However, it is no more challenging if you're just changing the shape of the slots by deepening and/or widening existing slots. 

I know that setup in a lot of places these days only include truss rod and action adjustment, intonation and conditioning of the fretboard. However, frets, nut slots, pickup height are normally overlooked or only included in a higher priced setup package. That's why I learned to do all these things on my own and have done it on several of friends' and bandmates' guitars. I've dissuaded a few people of getting new guitars or swapping pickups with fretwork, setting up the action at the nut and a bit of fret work (leveling, crowning, and getting rid of sharp edges). 

[SteveFord]

I just read that article and fully appreciate what they're saying about counterfeits.  Nobody wants to get stuck with a Chibson.

It was also nice not to see "iconic" used once in the entire piece.  

YAY!!!

[merciful-evans]

13 hours ago, pippy said:

 

Perhaps you (or anyone else!) could help me out in understanding something here, m-e. And I'm not trying to be funny; I'm being perfectly serious.

For the first 5 years of my life as a player I used only guitars with 'Gibson'-style string-path headstocks. For the next 25 years I played both these style and also straight-path but mostly, say 90%, straight-path - and almost all of them Strats. For the last 15 years I've been playing both styles but mostly (80%?) Gibson style. I've never ever noticed nor felt that one style was inherently, intrinsically better than the other style.

I've just had a little play on some Gibsons; a couple of Fenders, the D'angelico and the Di Mauro and I can't notice nor feel anything different.

What are the advantages of a straight-path headstock? I have no problems with tuning stability; no issues with sticking nuts; no issues at all.

What am I missing?

Pip.

 

I have had the issues you describe Pip. In fact it was probably the first question I asked after joining this forum in early 2015. 

I had just bought my 1st Gibson; a new 339. The G string would not respond to tuning and stubbornly remained at a steady pitch as I attempted to raise it. Until 'ping' it shot up in one go.

When I mentioned this here. Everyone seemed familiar with both the problem and the solution. There were nut sauce recommendations & recipes; advice about opening the nut slot with emery paper etc. So enough other players knew plenty about the issue I was experiencing.

I also was already an experienced player. I have been playing since 1970, just never owned a Gibson before. So I had to do some work on my brand spanking new guitar just to get it usable. I opened and reshaped the nut slot minimally and then used a graphite/oil mix as lubricant there. Later I bought some Big Bends Nut Sauce. 

So (as an experienced Gibson user), you have had 0% experience of this problem.  By contrast, my experience of the problem with Gibsons was 100% at this point. 

It wasn't the only job I had to do. The signal was being lost intermittently, so I had to fish the switch assembly out of the f-hole to clean the contacts. So keyhole surgery was another newly acquired skill right there. 

I dare say all this invalidated my warranty immediately, but I wanted that particular guitar (certainly not any of the other 339s I had tried out) and I sure as hell wasn't going to traipse back and forth to Guildford (Andertons) every time I encountered a problem. 

 

 

 

[pauloqs]

7 hours ago, merciful-evans said:

 

I have had the issues you describe Pip. In fact it was probably the first question I asked after joining this forum in early 2015. 

I had just bought my 1st Gibson; a new 339. The G string would not respond to tuning and stubbornly remained at a steady pitch as I attempted to raise it. Until 'ping' it shot up in one go.

When I mentioned this here. Everyone seemed familiar with both the problem and the solution. There were nut sauce recommendations & recipes; advice about opening the nut slot with emery paper etc. So enough other players knew plenty about the issue I was experiencing.

I also was already an experienced player. I have been playing since 1970, just never owned a Gibson before. So I had to do some work on my brand spanking new guitar just to get it usable. I opened and reshaped the nut slot minimally and then used a graphite/oil mix as lubricant there. Later I bought some Big Bends Nut Sauce. 

So (as an experienced Gibson user), you have had 0% experience of this problem.  By contrast, my experience of the problem with Gibsons was 100% at this point. 

It wasn't the only job I had to do. The signal was being lost intermittently, so I had to fish the switch assembly out of the f-hole to clean the contacts. So keyhole surgery was another newly acquired skill right there. 

I dare say all this invalidated my warranty immediately, but I wanted that particular guitar (certainly not any of the other 339s I had tried out) and I sure as hell wasn't going to traipse back and forth to Guildford (Andertons) every time I encountered a problem. 

 

 

 

 

But you can’t attribute the problem to the design of the headstock. Once the slots were reshaped and lubricated, the problem went away, right? Some people argue that headstocks where the strings pass straight through the nut, like with Fender, PRS, Music Man are better and far superior designs that help with tuning stability. A poorly slotted nut will inevitably lead, regardless of headstock shape, to problems of tuning instability. Conversely, provided there isn’t any problem anywhere else in the guitar, such as the nut, a Gibson style headstock will be just as stable as other straight through designs. 

[pippy]

7 hours ago, merciful-evans said:

I have had the issues you describe Pip. In fact it was probably the first question I asked after joining this forum in early 2015. I had just bought my 1st Gibson; a new 339. The G string would not respond to tuning and stubbornly remained at a steady pitch as I attempted to raise it. Until 'ping' it shot up in one go. When I mentioned this here. Everyone seemed familiar with both the problem and the solution. There were nut sauce recommendations & recipes; advice about opening the nut slot with emery paper etc. So enough other players knew plenty about the issue I was experiencing.

 

Yes, m-e, when I think about it you are quite correct. I, too, remember there being many posts quite a few years ago where folks had experienced tuning problems due to badly cut nuts (I'm guessing there was no more to it than that). I wonder if there was a different method being used to cut the slots for both the instruments made prior to a particular date and also since a particular date? All my Les Pauls were made before end-of-play 1995 so perhaps nut-fitment underwent a slight chance in terms of procedure at the factory after this date?  Perhaps Gibson has managed to get on top of the early niggles with the PLEK system as I don't remember having seen any nut-ping-problem-posts for a few years now.

5 minutes ago, pauloqs said:

But you can’t attribute the problem to the design of the headstock. Once the slots were reshaped and lubricated, the problem went away, right?......(so) provided there isn’t any problem anywhere else in the guitar, such as the nut, a Gibson style headstock will be just as stable as other straight through designs. 

 

So if I read the situation correct the straight-through system seems, in essence, simply to be less prone to nut issues but a properly cut nut on the Gibson type peghead should make their style just as stable as a properly cut Fender style? That would make sense from the point of view of my own experience.

Thanks, both, for the replies!

Pip.

[Black Dog]

4 minutes ago, pippy said:

 Perhaps Gibson has managed to get on top of the early niggles with the PLEK system as I don't remember having seen any nut-ping-problem-posts for a few years now.

 

I think this is probably correct.  I haven't had any problems with my Gibson LP nuts, which have all been PLEK'd.  But, my recent experience with Warmoth is a little different but may be relevant.  Both of the nuts on my Warmoth's needed some hand dressing.  They cut their nuts by CNC which is basically what PLEK is.  It cuts them well as far as width and depth but they still need some cleaning up, if you will.  I suspect that maybe when Gibson first started PLEK'ing maybe they didn't think that was necessary.

[jdgm]

May I add is that it is generally easier to do behind-the-nut tricks (harmonics, bends) with a straight-through string path.

If you are cool enough to be able to do that stuff......

[merciful-evans]

4 hours ago, pauloqs said:

 

But you can’t attribute the problem to the design of the headstock. 

 

Yes I can.

Once the slots were reshaped and lubricated, the problem went away, right? 

Once reworked and lubricated, the problem reduced. I still use the BB Nut Sauce for string changes on the 339 on an ongoing basis.

To my way of thinking, no nut should ever need reshaping or lubricating. If the headstock design is ok, then why does this occur? If it doesn't occur often, then why do so many people know so much about it?

 

 

 

[Rabs]

Also I think they are using Graphtek graphite nuts.. That in itself should eliminate  the issue. 

Another weird thing about that is that Gibson probably get blank nuts BUT the standard replacement Graphteck offer for a LP slots right in and their pre slotted nuts are perfectly rounded at the back side of the nut where its lopes off to the tuners..  

So all Gibson need to do is buy the pre-cut ones and stop doing it themselves.

[pauloqs]

11 minutes ago, merciful-evans said:

 

Yes I can.

Once the slots were reshaped and lubricated, the problem went away, right? 

Once reworked and lubricated, the problem reduced. I still use the BB Nut Sauce for string changes on the 339 on an ongoing basis.

To my way of thinking, no nut should ever need reshaping or lubricating. If the headstock design is ok, then why does this occur? If it doesn't occur often, then why do so many people know so much about it?

 

 

 

 

I'm still a bit confused. Could it be the nut slots still needs further reshaping? Have you completely eliminated the possibility that the nut slots aren't causing the instability? I'm not trying to invalidate your experience. I'm honestly curious. The reason I ask is that once I ensured absolutely zero nut binding on all my guitars and every Gibson and Martin I've worked on, there were absolutely no tuning issues. Granted, I've only started doing this type of work about 4 years ago, when I decided I was tired of paying a tech to do these things and have to wait to get my guitars back for up to a week, because of how backed up some of the techs get in my area. I also don't work on guitars professionally so I don't have the same volume as a professional tech. However, I enjoy working on guitars and have been setting up guitars free of charge for friends, bandmates and acquaintances I usually jam with. 

Conversely, I lost count on how many PRS SEs from 2015 to 2017 I had to reshape and lubricate the nut slots. The worst one was a guitar which had the slot for the high E so tight, the owner had to push his 9 gauge string in to fit inside the slot. Needless to say those guitars didn't stay in tune at all. As someone who geeks out with other guitar makers enthusiasts, beyond the guitars I've worked on, I've read of many people swapping nuts, bridges and tuners on those SEs to address tuning instability. I conjecture that in at least 99% of those upgrades could have been avoided with a proper nut slot reshape. 

I don't use nut sauce because I refuse to pay that much for a tube that little, which I concede lasts a long time. I personally use pencil led. I do that to all my guitars and guitars I work on, including PRS and Fender so I can't speak for a counterfactual where no graphite is applied to the slots. I use a 0.5mm mechanical pencil, which I use to paint the interior walls of the slots. 

 

[merciful-evans]

12 hours ago, pauloqs said:

I'm still a bit confused. Could it be the nut slots still needs further reshaping? Have you completely eliminated the possibility that the nut slots aren't causing the instability? I'm not trying to invalidate your experience. I'm honestly curious. The reason I ask is that once I ensured absolutely zero nut binding on all my guitars and every Gibson and Martin I've worked on, there were absolutely no tuning issues.

 

I'm sure further rework could make  difference of some sort, but I've stopped short of where I think the change could be adverse. 

It also sounds as if you have more lutherie experience than I do. However, I have been playing 49 years and my work was in mechanical engineering.  One aspect of the discussion which is without any doubt in my mind is this: A straight string path is more efficient. There is no 'wasted' potential energy creating sideways tension on the nut. Yes I know it can be made to  work, but it is a poorer design. IMO its a design flaw.

Your remark about PRS string binding describes a nut slot too narrow for the .009" string gauge. That is a manufacturing flaw. Its not a design flaw. 

Your experience is informative, but until I experience anything similar, I have to remain guided by my own experience; such as it is. 

Thanks for asking.

[badbluesplayer]

Speaking of badly cut nuts, since Gibson sets up the guitars with 9's now (another brilliant Henry move), anybody who plays 10's has a "badly cut nut" right out of the factory.  So if you use 10's, like 500% of the public, you'll need to go to the luthier and have the nut reworked for 10's, or buy yourself a set of nut files and do it yourself. 

Doh! 

[Big Bill]

1 minute ago, badbluesplayer said:

Speaking of badly cut nuts, since Gibson sets up the guitars with 9's now (another brilliant Henry move), anybody who plays 10's has a "badly cut nut" right out of the factory.  So if you use 10's, like 500% of the public, you'll need to go to the luthier and have the nut reworked for 10's, or buy yourself a set of nut files and do it yourself. 

Doh! 

My new Lester came with 10's

[pauloqs]

3 minutes ago, badbluesplayer said:

Speaking of badly cut nuts, since Gibson sets up the guitars with 9's now (another brilliant Henry move), anybody who plays 10's has a "badly cut nut" right out of the factory.  So if you use 10's, like 500% of the public, you'll need to go to the luthier and have the nut reworked for 10's, or buy yourself a set of nut files and do it yourself. 

Doh! 

 

They have just moved to 10s this year. 

[pauloqs]

4 hours ago, merciful-evans said:

 

I'm sure further rework could make  difference of some sort, but I've stopped short of where I think the change could be adverse. 

It also sounds as if you have more lutherie experience than I do. However, I have been playing 49 years and my work was in mechanical engineering.  One aspect of the discussion which is without any doubt in my mind is this: A straight string path is more efficient. There is no 'wasted' potential energy creating sideways tension on the nut. Yes I know it can be made to  work, but it is a poorer design. IMO its a design flaw.

Your remark about PRS string binding describes a nut slot too narrow for the .009" string gauge. That is a manufacturing flaw. Its not a design flaw. 

Your experience is informative, but until I experience anything similar, I have to remain guided by my own experience; such as it is. 

Thanks for asking.

 

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the case that you want to keep potential energy between the nut and the bridge?Any energy beyond the nut or bridge is energy loss? Isn’t that why there is the need to angle the strings beyond the nut and the bridge?

You're absolutely right to want to experience it for yourself and not just take someone’s word for it. 

[pippy]

30 minutes ago, pauloqs said:

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the case that you want to keep potential energy between the nut and the bridge?Any energy beyond the nut or bridge is energy loss? Isn’t that why there is the need to angle the strings beyond the nut and the bridge?...

 

...and why (most) Fender guitars like the Strat and Tele had / have one string tee on the first two strings (and, later on, had two string tees for the first four strings set in pairs)?...

Pip.

[Black Dog]

The string path to the tuners is just another potential force, or set of forces on the string.  It's the same idea as the discussion we had about the break angle at the bridge.  Obviously, the string has to be in firm contact at each end (the nut and the bridge), hence the need for a break angle, or something to fix the string in place like a Floyd Rose system.  Guitars with a straight string path have just one break angle at the nut and guitars with an angled path have at least two.  If you cut the nut slot at an angle you can minimize it but there are still additional forces on the string in the nut.  That's always going to make those strings a little more fussy to tune.  But, if you have a properly cut nut and keep it clean and lubed it's not a big deal.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Black Dog

[merciful-evans]

1 hour ago, pauloqs said:

 

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the case that you want to keep potential energy between the nut and the bridge?Any energy beyond the nut or bridge is energy loss? Isn’t that why there is the need to angle the strings beyond the nut and the bridge?

 

 I suppose that would make a case for headless tuners. I don't think of it of critically important. 

My point is that the nut is more than a fixed point for the string scale. It also has the function of channeling/directing the string to its anchor point. The string under tension is  resistant to a sharp break angle, but we need the downward angle to allow the string to vibrate freely. The additional sideways pull of a Gibson style headstock creates a compound break angle which is now spoiling the alignment through the straight nut slot and creating additional sideways tension against it. That is less efficient and arguably more likely to contribute to binding.