Good or bad year?

[Rasmus_m]

Hello everybody. I'm thinking about buying a used SG Standard form '98. Is this considered a good production year? I've heard some talking about some present quality issues which is the reason for my question.

[BigKahune]

I think you're okay there. But there's always gonna be something slipping by QC, and the fact that it's used, so it's best to get your hands on it and play it.

[jimmiJAMM]

Should be fine. Don't worry about a thing.

[hbomb76]

For the large-pickguard Standard, anything from the mid-90's through 2003 is fine. It's the stuff after that which can be a crapshoot for QC. For '61 Reissues the post-tapered-horn-update late-'99 through 2004 models are all pretty good, but after that it can be hit or (epic) miss.

 

H-Bomb

[lpdeluxe]

There were no years when Gibson hired orangutans to build their guitars. All are the best they could make at the time, but it occasionally happened that a faulty one slipped by -- which I understand also happens with cars and refrigerators.

 

To generalize that a particular year is "good" or "bad" is a form of astrology. Thinking that way will cause a person to pass on a superior instrument because it was made in a "bad" year, or to acquire one that's inferior but was built in a "good" year. It's more useful to inspect the individual guitar you are interested in and forget about what year it was made.

[Geff]

No but there may have been years when the wood used was of cheaper quality or other corners were cut in order to save time or money. Lets assume I could build a guitar. If you gave me a week to build one and then asked me to build the next one in half the time, would you expect them to be the same, even though both were built by the same person?

 

Gibson's luthiers could build guitars to whatever quality point the company wants them to. They have the skill but do they have the will?

Take those bevels for example that HBomb likes to go on about. It would not be difficult to get them right but Gibson seem not to care, or maybe they simply think they know better and the current design is better despite repeated comments from customers.

[BigKahune]

...To generalize that a particular year is "good" or "bad" is a form of astrology...

 

..No but there may have been years when the wood used was of cheaper quality or other corners were cut in order to save time or money...

 

I agree with H-bomb.

 

There have be well documented (in the media and the industry press) periods when Gibson has had varying degrees of QC problems - some periods bad, some periods hit or miss. Of late, 2004 was the start of a hit or miss period Gibson is still emerging from. Recently - two words: Dark Fire - should bring shivers - production is still halted as Gibson tries to correct the myriad of complaints and problems. You don't need astrology, just look at the stuff hanging on the walls at your local GC, but do it carefully.

[greg420blues]

No but there may have been years when the wood used was of cheaper quality or other corners were cut in order to save time or money. Lets assume I could build a guitar. If you gave me a week to build one and then asked me to build the next one in half the time' date=' would you expect them to be the same, even though both were built by the same person?

 

Gibson's luthiers could build guitars to whatever quality point the company wants them to. They have the skill but do they have the will?

Take those bevels for example that HBomb likes to go on about. It would not be difficult to get them right but Gibson seem not to care, or maybe they simply think they know better and the current design is better despite repeated comments from customers.[/quote']

 

I got the opportunity to tour the Memphis plant over Thanksgiving this past year and I have to tell you that ... talking to the good year vs bad year AND adding in the motivation of the workers factor ... I think it was said best:

 

PLAY THE GUITAR BEFORE YOU BUY IT. Seems as though they were throwing away some guitars in pretty decent shape. I can post some pix if you want. They red-tag them, strip them for re-usable parts, and then cut 'em up so they never leave the plant.

 

For all the whining we do about Gibson's QC, you just can't fault the occasional lemon leaving the factory. I can tell you that each guitar is inspected, played and set up before it's sent out. So, if there's finish issues or hardware issues or whatever ... maybe the guy doing the last inspection was just having a really bad day or smoked too much on his lunch break.

 

You just can't beat playing a guitar before buying it. If you don't have the cash to shell out for a nicer model, then don't buy the lesser model if you're gonna complain about the quality versus the Standard or Custom. In order to offer these models, they have to cut quality somewhere. For those who can't afford the Standard, they should be happy that they can even get the faded. If you have to replace the saddles or a nut, well .... it's still a lot less expensive than buying the standard or custom model, right?

 

I'm in agreement that you shouldn't "have" to pay for upgrades to a 700 dollar guitar ... but you have to weigh the benefits with the negatives if you're buying a cheaper model.

[lpdeluxe]

Here's something to think about: let's say, for the sake of the debate, that guitars made in some years are all bad, and some made in other years are all good (already we're into a totally untenable position, but what the heck). Now, let's document which years are good and which are bad.

 

Step one: examine every instrument to come out of the factory, year after year.

 

Oh, we can't do that! There's no practical way.

 

OK, so we contact a knowledgeable party, and ask him or her to tell us. But we're skeptics: it's not enough that the "expert" have this knowledge, but that we can determine the basis for it. "All Gibsons made during 2003 were made out of cheap wood" (for example).

 

This disregards the realities of manufacturing, including acquisition, who has departmental control over what, and so on, not to mention that it would be more likely that the "cheap wood" would enter the line say, in July of one year and be depleted in May the following year. And are we talking about a single species of "cheap wood" or multiple? I don't know of any Gibsons that are made of a single wood, and my conspiracy instincts have to work overtime to apply this principal to wood that is purchased to a low standard across species AND timed to neatly coincide with calendar years.

 

Just to drive one more nail in that coffin, how would you and I (non-Gibson employees) ever know that the wood quality was an issue?

 

Or maybe the wood is good, but the guitars are not as well made. Hmmm. That would probably require that Gibson change out the "high-quality-guitar" fixtures for "low-quality-guitar" fixtures -- if you've seen any of the Gibson factory videos, or, heaven forfend, actually done such work yourself, you'll understand that tooling and fixtures are designed to be relatively idiot-proof and to provide repeatable operations with a very low tolerance for error. Or maybe they furlough the experienced craftsmen and hire newly arrived illegal immigrants for that year (with the draconian enforcement of alien laws, that could cost a lot more than the savings, I'd think). Or do they give the supervisors a mandatory leave of absence for the year, so that the workers can do their evil worst? (This last one I'm proud of, even though -- as a person who worked his way through college in a factory, my experience does not support that view of workers.)

 

Those are all actions, the knowledge of which, is not available to thee and me.

 

Aha! I've got it! We go to our friendly neighborhood discussion forum, where persons no more knowledgeable than we are can pontificate and point fingers and pretend to prophesize.

 

Now, if you're a conspiracy believer, what they say is red meat to the dogs. Me, I think that Gibson (and other manufacturers) do the best they are able, that the workers are painstaking, and that overall they understand that turning out junk is not the best way to sell $2K- $3K guitars. I prefer to be old-fashioned, and not buy bling off the internet, but to inspect each instrument I am interested in buying so that I'm satisfied it's a good one.

 

Or maybe you can document the "bad" years?

[greg420blues]

Here's something to think about: let's say' date=' for the sake of the debate, that guitars made in some years are all bad, and some made in other years are all good (already we're into a totally untenable position, but what the heck). Now, let's document which years are good and which are bad.

 

Step one: examine every instrument to come out of the factory, year after year.

 

Oh, we can't do that! There's no practical way.

 

OK, so we contact a knowledgeable party, and ask him or her to tell us. But we're skeptics: it's not enough that the "expert" have this knowledge, but that we can determine the basis for it. "All Gibsons made during 2003 were made out of cheap wood" (for example).

 

This disregards the realities of manufacturing, including acquisition, who has departmental control over what, and so on, not to mention that it would be more likely that the "cheap wood" would enter the line say, in July of one year and be depleted in May the following year. And are we talking about a single species of "cheap wood" or multiple? I don't know of any Gibsons that are made of a single wood, and my conspiracy instincts have to work overtime to apply this principal to wood that is purchased to a low standard across species AND timed to neatly coincide with calendar years.

 

Just to drive one more nail in that coffin, how would you and I (non-Gibson employees) ever know that the wood quality was an issue?

 

Or maybe the wood is good, but the guitars are not as well made. Hmmm. That would probably require that Gibson change out the "high-quality-guitar" fixtures for "low-quality-guitar" fixtures -- if you've seen any of the Gibson factory videos, or, heaven forfend, actually done such work yourself, you'll understand that tooling and fixtures are designed to be relatively idiot-proof and to provide repeatable operations with a very low tolerance for error. Or maybe they furlough the experienced craftsmen and hire newly arrived illegal immigrants for that year (with the draconian enforcement of alien laws, that could cost a lot more than the savings, I'd think). Or do they give the supervisors a mandatory leave of absence for the year, so that the workers can do their evil worst? (This last one I'm proud of, even though -- as a person who worked his way through college in a factory, my experience does not support that view of workers.)

 

Those are all actions, the knowledge of which, is not available to thee and me.

 

Aha! I've got it! We go to our friendly neighborhood discussion forum, where persons no more knowledgeable than we are can pontificate and point fingers and pretend to prophesize.

 

Now, if you're a conspiracy believer, what they say is red meat to the dogs. Me, I think that Gibson (and other manufacturers) do the best they are able, that the workers are painstaking, and that overall they understand that turning out junk is not the best way to sell $2K- $3K guitars. I prefer to be old-fashioned, and not buy bling off the internet, but to inspect each instrument I am interested in buying so that I'm satisfied it's a good one.

 

Or maybe you can document the "bad" years?[/quote']

 

 

 

DUDE ... all I got to say is, it's nice to hear someone say what you just said. Kudos ...

[hbomb76]

You don't need astrology' date=' just look at the stuff hanging on the walls at your local GC, but do it carefully.

[/quote']

 

Actually that's enough to really justify it.

 

As far as the "play it before you buy it" mentality, one has to be concerned though, particularly in the case of limited-run editions, Custom Shop one-off's, etc., what about when you CAN'T?!?!? Then you're either stuck with a turd or you risk not ever getting a potentially sentimental piece. So that's not always a practical option. Plus, once a guitar hits the shelf at Guitar Center, it's no longer desirable by me 'cuz God only knows what's wrong with it now. Except that late-60's Junior at the one here I keep telling myself not to buy...lol

 

And yeah, some of it's personal preference, but when that preference comes out of plentiful exposure to hundreds of SG's from the last 15 years and only finding really, truly "great" ones in consistency in certain time-periods, I don't need or want to consider any of the "what-ifs" about what's going into them. I know the closest things to "perfection" (and keep in mind that's still not THAT close because of my personal appreciation for the original mid-60's models) that I've found were made between 1999 and 2004. I've been to plenty of guitar shows, and I've found MAYBE 4 Norlin-era Gibsons that I didn't think sucked the king-one. I've only seen maybe 3 '61-thru-'70 models that didn't meet the expectations I've developed in that era. And when it comes to "reissues" the '99-2001 '61 Reissue w/Maestro (USA, NON-Historic) was as close as you can get to the real deal (moreso than the Historics, sorry, Gibson...I "Won't Get Fooled Again"); runner-up being the JAPAN EXCLUSIVE (thanks for screwing us there, BTW, Gibson!) '06 non-Historic '61 RI w/Maestro. The quality for the last 5 years has been up and down, but mostly down. Go ahead and find yourself a dozen various guitars from the past few years and you MIGHT be "okay" with half of them, but upon closer inspection you'll see that about half-still have some kind of issue or another (finish, sloppy glue, etc) and out of that initial dozen ONE might actually still impress you. And trust me, guys, I'm being gracious and generous when I say that. I don't think they CAN'T do better. I just think they WON'T until people stand up and demand to get what they pay for like 6-10 years ago. You show me one recent SG that's not suffering from some kind of issue and I'll show you 20 that are. Be it corner-cutting measures, crappy finishes (color AND application), bad fretwork of whatever. It's there. Denying it or ignoring it will only make it worse. Look at me, I'm Dr. Phil.

 

Things like the "Robot" and "Darkfire" only reinforce it all. Gross. ;)

 

H-Bomb

[BigKahune]

Here's something to think about: ...go to our friendly neighborhood discussion forum' date=' where persons no more knowledgeable than we are can pontificate and point fingers and pretend to prophesize.[/quote']

 

I don't claim to have more knowledge than you or anyone else. But, I've been playing guitars since the sixties and have looked at hundreds of Gibson guitars in that time and owned several. Take it as you like... or you could drop a couple grand on a Gibson you've never seen because, well, Gibson is just so good at QC, no matter who owns the company, or where they buy their parts, or where they build their guitars. Let's see... how's that go now... oh yeah - none of that effects quality. Hey, there's the tooth fairy. Go say hello.

[Rasmus_m]

hehe, wow, some of you guys seem a little jumpy - I'm feeling right at home here when being used to Danish forums .

Some may have been my own fault: I should have informed you that I'm a lefty. I don't know how it is in other countries but here you will nearly not find a lefty hanging on the wall, not even in the biggest music stores. Regularly you will find a couple of the lower to mid quality Fenders but that just doesn't cut the mustard when you are the humbucker type o' guy, you know. For these reasons I have never tried a LH Gibson SG Standard (I own the Epi G-400) so I have nothing to compare the SG, I have recently found, to. Kind of the scenario Hbomb mentions. I would never think of buying a guitar I haven't tried, so you don't have to give me that advise :).

@lpdeluxe: Thanks for the views, I get the point, and I'm aware of the problems. The reason I asked here was to get some sort of offset to where I could maybe get more information about the SG and so on because I'm on kind of new and unknown ground.

 

@hbomb76: What is it that makes the period from the mid 90's through 2003 better than reason production periods? Do you know of sources where I can find more information?

[Schtang]

2002 to 2007 are the best years for the SG Standard (the stock PUs are just so much better than the horrible muddy pickups Gibson used in the 90's, 80's & 70's..

 

just check this beauty out - no QC issues what so ever - craftmanship top notch.

 

[Alfa Corse]

I think that before 2000 Gibson installed real Gibson ABR-1 bridge, historic correct. After 2000 this is a Nashville.

 

Actually the Gibson ABR-1 is only avalaible on Custom Shop SG.

 

Mine is a 2000 SG Standard with original stock Gibson ABR-1 bridge

 

 

[Geff]

Obviously there are those who will deny that Gibson has quality issues. All I can say is that I know nothing about which years are good or bad but there are those on this forum with a lot of personal experience of a lot of guitars who can recognise trends. Yes it is their opinion but there seems to be a significant wieght of opinions to support the trends being real as opposed to one person's imagination or bad luck.

 

There are multiple reasons why it might be that quality varies.

 

I personally can only attest to the fact that I am NOT impressed with Gibson's recent output in terms of quality at the price point.

 

And I will add to that that I simply flat out dont believe all the claims made for final QC. If they were true then every new Gibson would arrive perfectly set up with great intonation and so on and only need a quick and very minor retune to allow for the strings settling in/temp and humidity fluctuation. We all know that isn't the case. Epiphone make similar claims about their final inspection in the USA involving 15 different checks and yet my recently purchased EPI was so out of tune out of the box that I cannot believe it was ever in tune and thus cannot believe the intonation was ever checked correctly and so on.

 

As for the argument about trying a guiatr before you buy it. Well we all know we should. But why should we? We should because we know that Gibson products are notoriously inconsistent. Inconsistent = poor QA/QC. Anyone who says in the same post that QA/QC is not an issue AND that you should always try before you buy is contradicting himself. I rest my case.

[greg420blues]

Regarding the QC and stuff, here's a little insight for those of y'all who haven't had the fantastic opportunity to tour one of the plants:

 

From the outside:

 

 

 

 

Those that didn't cut the proverbial mustard; the red tag of death:

 

 

 

 

An actual red tag of death:

 

 

 

 

QC/QA setup stations:

 

 

 

 

Binding station:

 

 

 

 

Buffing stations:

 

 

 

 

Lacquer booth:

 

 

 

 

And, just because:

 

 

 

As you can see, the geetars ARE on a production line, but each (I was told) takes about a week to produce. They DO spend a lot of time on them. I'm not sure how the quality could be SO varying from one to the next, but the occasional turd does make it through.

 

Anyways, just wanted to show some of the factory. If you wanna see more pix of the factory, you can check 'em out here:

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregandash/sets/72157614689719555/

 

 

Enjoy!

[greg420blues]

2002 to 2007 are the best years for the SG Standard (the stock PUs are just so much better than the horrible muddy pickups Gibson used in the 90's' date=' 80's & 70's..

 

just check this beauty out - no QC issues what so ever - craftmanship top notch.

 

[img']http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg38/Schtang/1SGstd-1.jpg[/img]

 

 

Looks JUST LIKE mine when she was new!! I can't believe I've already worn through some of the finish ... blows my mind. I've only had her for 5 years!

 

Check out the finish. Start at the point of my middle finger knuckle ... that's not a highlight! That's worn finish along the bevel ...

 

[jimmiJAMM]

When did wristbands become all the rage with guitar players around here?

[greg420blues]

When did wristbands become all the rage with guitar players around here?

 

 

HAHAHHA ... when you get WAY overweight and sweat like a stuck pig on stage. Seriously. I sweat like nobody's business.

[jimmiJAMM]

 

 

HAHAHHA ... when you get WAY overweight and sweat like a stuck pig on stage. Seriously. I sweat like nobody's business.

 

 

 

LOL. Makes perfect sense.

[greg420blues]

 

LOL. Makes perfect sense.

 

I just refuse to get all Thin Lizzy on people and break out the 70's head/sweatband. Ain't sportin any hair on the head, so I gotta dry off somehow! Towels on stage are too "look at me, I'm a rockstar" IMHO ... So I digress to the wristbands.

[hbomb76]

@hbomb76: What is it that makes the period from the mid 90's through 2003 better than reason production periods? Do you know of sources where I can find more information?

 

You might not find any "official" information documenting the differences. I speak from my own experience (and I have plenty when it comes to SG's, being around 'em, shopping for 'em, playing 'em, etc), and even though I didn't like the look of the edgy/slabby '97 '61 Reissue I used to have, it was a well-made guitar. My '99/2000 SG '61 w/ Maestro was even better, with its improved horn tapers, better beveling and of course the Maestro option. I sold it to get the "holy grail" Historic Standard (WORST MOVE I EVER MADE) because it was touted as a "historically accurate" replica but it wasn't, and I regretted selling my '61 w/Vibrola...STILL DO. Would kill a man and his horse to get it back. Got a Historic custom made at a nice little "Custom Shop" upcharge that was a little closer to the mark, but I'd swap it for my old '61 w/Maestro because the '61 was actually a better "reissue" by comparison, and every friggin' bit as well-made. About 2004, things started getting shaky though. You can just watch eBay today and see models from then to now, compare them to older ones, and you'll see differences. Not just cosmetically (although terrible finish-work and poor/cheap orangey-looking finishes VS real "cherry" red coloring DO matter), but also in fit, hardware-mounting goofs, bad binding, horrid fret work, headstock inlays that you can peel out with your thumbnail...etc.

 

No one's written any "official" review or analysis on the depressing quality nowadays. I'm sure if someone went at 'em, Henry & Co. would sue them as fast as...oh, I dunno...as they did PRS for creating an archtop single-cutaway guitar (gasp?!?!?)! But it wouldn't hold up in court if someone like, I dunno, ME showed up as part of the defense team to point out the details after rounding up a few examples from the web (and hell, simply going to my local GC and dragging those malevolent monstrosities hanging in there to the stand...lol). If you're a new Gibson player/owner, you may never notice some of the more "minor" issues, but anyone who's owned/played a "good" one knows that nowadays the "good ones" are the rarer-finds. No offense to current buyers/customers, but seriously, there are fellow forum members who already knew from their own experiences, and even a few we've "converted" who've picked up a few choice-years' models & seen the difference. It's not our overactive imaginations or anything, it's real, whether Gibson and certain disciples thereof are willing to admit or not.

 

H-Bomb

 

PS...nothing wrong with sweatbands/armwarmers onstage, y'all. At least not as far as I'm concerned. And if you wanna' fight about it, well... ;)/

[Geff]

I dont have Hbombs experience and never will but the evidence that what he says is true is hanging in my (and your) local guitar shop! You do not need to know much about anything to feel badly finished frets with rough edges and see poor joins and lacklustre finishes etc. You wont know that they used to be better but you can safely assume Gibson would not have the reputation they do if they had always been like that!

 

And you can compare similarly priced guitars from other manufacturers to see what sort of quality and finsih you SHOULD get at that price range.

[Rasmus_m]

I have gotten photos. I don't know if you will be able to se something from them.