Gibson (Slash) Gold Top Paint Speck

[Rjohn12]

Hello All:

I have a quick question. I just received a brand new Gibson Les Paul “Victoria” Gold Top. I went with the Gold Top because I think it would be really nice and unique in my collection of guitars. What I noticed was a small red speck in the paint that’s barely noticeable unless you were inspecting the guitar. It’s embedded and smooth.  There also a little scuff on the back probably from when they were doing the setup. Otherwise the feel, setup and if you’re not focusing the red paint speck, it’s really a beautiful guitar and amazing to play. This is my first real Gibson Les Paul. 
 

The slight scuff in the back, that would probably buff out. But that’s gonna happen eventually because I bought this guitar to play and hopefully a lot. The red speck though, it kind of bothers me but I also think I’m overthinking. I did have an Epiphone and that paint was flawless so why wouldn’t a guitar like 5 times the cost be flawless too? It was a burst finish so maybe my issue is common with Gold Tops? Even if it’s some foreign debris beneath the paint, I can’t see it hurting the paint over years right? Part of me wants to deal and treat this like it’s just a unique maybe even birthmark. The other part thinks for $3200, the finish should be flawless. I really don’t think I want to part with the guitar because otherwise I find it amazing and feels great to play. Just curious what others would think about this on a guitar this expensive?  Sorry this was apparently a long winded quick question. 

[Pinch]

2 hours ago, Rjohn12 said:

Hello All:

I have a quick question. I just received a brand new Gibson Les Paul “Victoria” Gold Top. I went with the Gold Top because I think it would be really nice and unique in my collection of guitars. What I noticed was a small red speck in the paint that’s barely noticeable unless you were inspecting the guitar. It’s embedded and smooth.  There also a little scuff on the back probably from when they were doing the setup. Otherwise the feel, setup and if you’re not focusing the red paint speck, it’s really a beautiful guitar and amazing to play. This is my first real Gibson Les Paul. 
 

The slight scuff in the back, that would probably buff out. But that’s gonna happen eventually because I bought this guitar to play and hopefully a lot. The red speck though, it kind of bothers me but I also think I’m overthinking. I did have an Epiphone and that paint was flawless so why wouldn’t a guitar like 5 times the cost be flawless too? It was a burst finish so maybe my issue is common with Gold Tops? Even if it’s some foreign debris beneath the paint, I can’t see it hurting the paint over years right? Part of me wants to deal and treat this like it’s just a unique maybe even birthmark. The other part thinks for $3200, the finish should be flawless. I really don’t think I want to part with the guitar because otherwise I find it amazing and feels great to play. Just curious what others would think about this on a guitar this expensive?  Sorry this was apparently a long winded quick question. 

Gibson  QC is not perfect, as has been discussed here time and time again, but this would fall under the category of "New Gibson Syndrome". It fades in time. I wouldn't do a thing to it except enjoy it. 

[Eracer_Team]

If you play it a lot it will dull where your picking/strumming arm rides

if you live in an area where there are mosquitoes and you play outside (even in just your backyard) bug repellent will take the nitro surface off of it

if you play out and you have a music or mic stand in front of you, you’re surely to nick it (esp end of headstock)

bet if I took you to the car dealership we could find cars 40,000 to $80,000 that have paint issues 

just saying not picking 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Eracer_Team

[NighthawkChris]

If your first Gibson gives you any doubts, back to the shop it goes. Don’t overthink it here. Adios

[kidblast]

Unfortunately, when it comes to Gibson finishes - Flawless is not really something that you can 100% bank on.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

I'm saying it is what it is.

if you can't live with it, send it back, but the next one could have similar or be worse, or not play as well.

So it's only something that you can decide on.  We can't answer that one way or the other. 

[jdgm]

As above - if you can live with it, well it does make the guitar uniquely recognizable.

[merciful-evans]

I can live with much worse than that, but its not about me. 

Quote

...and amazing to play.

and if it sounds great too... 😀

[Rjohn12]

Thank you everyone for these comments. This is really helpful!! I’m gonna think about this one and of course make the decision that’s right for me.  But knowing what others think about this is super helpful. I know I love the guitar and shouldve invested in a Gibson Les Paul years ago! 

[bobalu]

Unfortunately Gibson Quality Control is not very good (well documented on various discussion boards and forums - including this one).  The problem is, as others here have mentioned, is that there is no assurance that any new one reordered will be flaw free.  And odds are it will not be.  Just be prepared to keep returning it until a properly made one is received.   It's pretty disappointing that you have to do this for such a pricey instrument whose manufacturer claims is "top quality".  😐

[badbluesplayer]

Pretty much all Gibsons are going to have  some sort of finish imperfection, however minute.  It doesn't mean it's not well made.  It doesn't mean anything, really.  It certainly doesn't have anything to do with whether the guitar is a keeper or not. It's the nature of the nitro finish.

[Pinch]

If it's a great sounding and playing guitar, you'll regret returning it.