Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

VERY Expen$ive SGs


jimmiJAMM

Recommended Posts

Yes, and if Gibson knew better they'd be using those as the template for the Historics so some of us will buy guitars from them again and help keep them from having to lay off more employees and such!

 

With a few exceptions, the '65 models represent overall the best body shapes, contours, bevels, tapering and hardware. What do ya' say, Henry???

 

H-Bomb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Hbomb,

 

Isn't the late SG Custom (3 pup) pretty close to the specs of the early '60s models? I was looking at a white one the other day, and it looked damn good. The price was better than a reissue too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do ya' say' date=' Henry???H-Bomb[/quote']

 

H-bomb I found this, which shows his attitude to people who actually play their instruments.

 

I toured the world for a couple years as a clinician for Gibson. At almost every show, I had "musicians" coming up to me bemoaning the massive price increases in Gibson instruments. (like I had something to do with it.) So I think to myself, I am going to relay these sentiments to the CEO Henry Juszkiewicz next time I see him.

So am at NAMM at the Gibson hospitality suite, I strike up a conversation with him and tell him of my experiences on the road all over the world. He laughed and said "I don't care about "musicians", they don't have any money. I want professionals (ie, doctors, lawyers, stockbrockers,ect.) with disposible income. I set the value point and they buy it." Give it up to him, it pretty much worked as planned, he pushed it as far as he could go, then seemed to back off a bit on pricing in recent years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

H-bomb I found this' date=' which shows his attitude to people who actually play their instruments.

 

I toured the world for a couple years as a clinician for Gibson. At almost every show, I had "musicians" coming up to me bemoaning the massive price increases in Gibson instruments. (like I had something to do with it.) So I think to myself, I am going to relay these sentiments to the CEO Henry Juszkiewicz next time I see him.

So am at NAMM at the Gibson hospitality suite, I strike up a conversation with him and tell him of my experiences on the road all over the world. He laughed and said "I don't care about "musicians", they don't have any money. I want professionals (ie, doctors, lawyers, stockbrockers,ect.) with disposible income. I set the value point and they buy it." Give it up to him, it pretty much worked as planned, he pushed it as far as he could go, then seemed to back off a bit on pricing in recent years.

[/quote']

 

 

I don't tolerate a lot of "Henry Bashing".

 

Say what you will, but first, let's go back in time. Without Henry, there very well would be no Gibson today.

 

Not "Made In U.S.A.".

 

Bozeman is building the finest acoustics on the Planet. Today.

 

Memphis is building the ES-339's (and more) and mine is PERFECT.

 

Nashville is putting out some pretty nice stuff lately too, eh?

 

:-s

 

Just sayin'.

 

I'd LOVE a new SG designed by H-bomb, and if we keep b!tchin, we'll get one.

 

But remember, a business has to make money to keep the lights on. Building guitars in the United States has to be a nightmare with the legal/treehuggers/taxes/insurance, ect.

 

I say Henry saved Gibson decades ago. He just needs to touch up a few details........

 

Murph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Hbomb' date='

 

Isn't the late SG Custom (3 pup) pretty close to the specs of the early '60s models? I was looking at a white one the other day, and it looked damn good. The price was better than a reissue too.[/quote']

 

Not sure what you meant by "late SG Custom", ya' mind clarifying for a brain-dead rocker? :-#

 

 

H-bomb I found this' date=' which shows his attitude to people who actually play their instruments.

 

I toured the world for a couple years as a clinician for Gibson. At almost every show, I had "musicians" coming up to me bemoaning the massive price increases in Gibson instruments. (like I had something to do with it.) So I think to myself, I am going to relay these sentiments to the CEO Henry Juszkiewicz next time I see him.

So am at NAMM at the Gibson hospitality suite, I strike up a conversation with him and tell him of my experiences on the road all over the world. He laughed and said "I don't care about "musicians", they don't have any money. I want professionals (ie, doctors, lawyers, stockbrockers,ect.) with disposible income. I set the value point and they buy it." Give it up to him, it pretty much worked as planned, he pushed it as far as he could go, then seemed to back off a bit on pricing in recent years.

[/quote']

 

It's sad, but it's hard not to believe nowadays...at least to some degree.

 

 

 

I don't tolerate a lot of "Henry Bashing".

 

Say what you will' date=' but first, let's go back in time. Without Henry, there very well would be no Gibson today.

 

Not "Made In U.S.A.".

 

Bozeman is building the finest acoustics on the Planet. Today.

 

Memphis is building the ES-339's (and more) and mine is PERFECT.

 

Nashville is putting out some pretty nice stuff lately too, eh?

 

:-

 

Just sayin'.

 

I'd LOVE a new SG designed by H-bomb, and if we keep b!tchin, we'll get one.

 

But remember, a business has to make money to keep the lights on. Building guitars in the United States has to be a nightmare with the legal/treehuggers/taxes/insurance, ect.

 

I say Henry saved Gibson decades ago. He just needs to touch up a few details........

 

Murph.

[/quote']

 

Good points too. I mean, for the most part, the revamping of '86 breathed new life into a Gibson that was on its last leg (not a lot of people realize just how close they came to kaput). So definitely, Henry was on a good track when he threw some of his stank on it. I do think, however, that somewhere along the line priorities got a little crossed and some of the current "pride" is unfounded and grossly stretched. Memphis and Bozeman? Absolutely, pretty nice stuff, and consistent to boot. Nashville? Eh, it's a crapshoot for quality, and of course you know my big rants about the accuracy on "reissues" and whatnot. I think the USA AND Historic/Custom Shops could use a kick in the pants, and maybe we'd see some stuff that equals or exceeds what the satellite shops are putting out. I wouldn't even b!tch and moan about the current prices on stuff if you REALLY got what you paid for (even 9 years ago I was MORE than happy to dish out for the quality back then...even on "close-but-no-cigar" reissues). Some unwelcome, obvious corner-cutting (sadly parallel to the US auto industry) has become the "norm", and that ain't the Gibson I went in debt buying guitars from...lol Like you said, some tweaks and some minor fixes and we could have killer instruments for the current cost and a LOT more people would be happy (and correct me if I'm wrong, but in most cases it would create multiple purchases by some of us). And we could praise where we criticize now. Lastly, I do think if they'd listen to a few of my suggestions (as a lot of you seem to be on the same page in some respects), SG's across the board, from the staple Specials and Standards to the '61 (or "65"...lol) reissues to the Historics and even maybe the as-yet-unmade "68" reissue (?) would see some cosmetic improvements which would be the envy of those cats who spent the cost of a Lexus on a vintage one. Factor in some better quality-control and consistency, and I'd be willing to bet a LOT of folks would be slapping their approval on the next generation of Gibsons, instead of playing around at different stores trying to "find a good one". They ARE a business, and that's a fact, first and foremost. But there comes a time when you have to decide what keeps you in business, and to make sure you don't lose sight of the consumer. Then it's a decision of whether you wanna' be a "good" business, or a "bad" one. I don't think we as consumers are unreasonable, even picky S.O.B.'s like me. I think we just want to be proud in the guitars we play (and spend our hard-earned cash on), and that makes us the best customers you could ask for. :D

 

H-Bomb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Good points too. I mean' date=' for the most part, the revamping of '86 breathed new life into a Gibson that was on its last leg (not a lot of people realize just how close they came to kaput). So definitely, Henry was on a good track when he threw some of his stank on it. I do think, however, that somewhere along the line priorities got a little crossed and some of the current "pride" is unfounded and grossly stretched. Memphis and Bozeman? Absolutely, pretty nice stuff, and consistent to boot. Nashville? Eh, it's a crapshoot for quality, and of course you know my big rants about the accuracy on "reissues" and whatnot. I think the USA AND Historic/Custom Shops could use a kick in the pants, and maybe we'd see some stuff that equals or exceeds what the satellite shops are putting out. I wouldn't even b!tch and moan about the current prices on stuff if you REALLY got what you paid for (even 9 years ago I was MORE than happy to dish out for the quality back then...even on "close-but-no-cigar" reissues). Some unwelcome, obvious corner-cutting (sadly parallel to the US auto industry) has become the "norm", and that ain't the Gibson I went in debt buying guitars from...lol Like you said, some tweaks and some minor fixes and we could have killer instruments for the current cost and a LOT more people would be happy (and correct me if I'm wrong, but in most cases it would create multiple purchases by some of us). And we could praise where we criticize now. Lastly, I do think if they'd listen to a few of my suggestions (as a lot of you seem to be on the same page in some respects), SG's across the board, from the staple Specials and Standards to the '61 (or "65"...lol) reissues to the Historics and even maybe the as-yet-unmade "68" reissue (?) would see some cosmetic improvements which would be the envy of those cats who spent the cost of a Lexus on a vintage one. Factor in some better quality-control and consistency, and I'd be willing to bet a LOT of folks would be slapping their approval on the next generation of Gibsons, instead of playing around at different stores trying to "find a good one". They ARE a business, and that's a fact, first and foremost. But there comes a time when you have to decide what keeps you in business, and to make sure you don't lose sight of the consumer. Then it's a decision of whether you wanna' be a "good" business, or a "bad" one. I don't think we as consumers are unreasonable, even picky S.O.B.'s like me. I think we just want to be proud in the guitars we play (and spend our hard-earned cash on), and that makes us the best customers you could ask for. [-(

 

H-Bomb[/quote']

 

It seems that the one I saw was a Custom Shop offering after all, and is quite a bit more expensive than I was led to believe. The one I saw had the stop bar tail piece, so I thought it was a regular issue of the SG Custom.

 

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/SG/Gibson-Custom/SG-Custom-with-Maestro-VOS/Features.aspx

 

How close are the specs on these to the '63 models they are copied from? They look pretty close to me, but if there are significant differences, could ya point them out?

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems that the one I saw was a Custom Shop offering after all' date=' and is quite a bit more expensive than I was led to believe. The one I saw had the stop bar tail piece, so I thought it was a regular issue of the SG Custom.

 

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/SG/Gibson-Custom/SG-Custom-with-Maestro-VOS/Features.aspx

 

How close are the specs on these to the '63 models they are copied from? They look pretty close to me, but if there are significant differences, could ya point them out?

 

Thanks.[/quote']

 

Well, Google "1963 Gibson SG Custom" and in a few photos you'll see some cosmetic differences. Playability-wise and overall sound is close enough not to nitpick, but the cosmetics (which are just as important to me as feel and sound with a "REISSUE") are off. The main differences are the overall front-view outline and the cutaway horn-tip tapering. They bevel the bodies and horns on them pretty well (and if they'd use that beveling on the '61 RI it'd be a near-perfect guitar aside from the finish and lack of Vibrola), but since for some ungodly reason they decided NOT to properly taper the tips of the horns to a smaller point like the originals, so that's a dead giveaway from 20 yards away for me. I've only seen 2 EVER (out of thousands from late '60 to '66) of that era guitar with non-tapered horn tips, so it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. That and the overall outline of the majority of the originals featured a tad bit more of faux-symmetry (the bottom horn was a wee bit longer on the originals).

 

My biggest complaints are cosmetic, yeah. But they're legit (or at least just as legit as the guy wanting the 5-A top on his Les Paul). :-k

 

H-Bomb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...