The state of Gibson quality

[pocaloc]

I was wondering, are current production Gibson guitars considered to be high quality? I used to have a 1996 J-45 and a Gibson rep said that Gibson was on there way back at the time, but hadn't come back to the high standards that they currently have yet. I also heard a guitar store owner and his customer bad mouthing current Gibson quality. I was just curious what they general idea is right now. I'm also a member of the Gretsch pages, and they universally believe that Gretsch is producing some of the best guitars they ever have. I can testify to the high quality of an '05 Gretsch Tennessee Rose that I used to own. Are Gibson's going through a new golden era of high quality at the time? I realize I'm posting on a Gibson forum, so I guess I want to hear that they are.

[Jerry K]

Most of us who hang out here own a Gibson or six so we are probably biased. A lot of us have Martins and Taylors and Gretchs etc so maybe we're not that biased. On internet bulletin boards and music stores you can often hear people badmouthing Gibson and the usual mantra is that Gibson's quality is 'inconsistent'. In playing recently made Montana Gibsons in music stores and elsewhere I have not found this to be the case, in fact quite the opposite, remarkably good quality and consistency. These guitars are made of solid wood and each piece of wood is different so each guitar is unique. Having said that I am still pretty impressed with the consistency of quality coming out of Bozeman. To my mind it is at least as good as other factory made guitars like Martin. Gibson Montana, like Martin and other brands has consciously embarked on a program of examining vintage Gibsons, learning their construction secrets, and putting out reissues based on these older examples, and judging by the sound coming out of recent guitars, they have learned a lot. Personally I believe recent Gibsons are as good as any the company ever made. A visit to the factory last year only confirmed my opinion that Bozeman Gibsons are a quality brand.

[NevadaPic]

I have four Gibsons all of more-or-less recent vintage (2003-2008); a J-150, SJ Woody Guthrie, Advanced Jumbo and a L-200 Emmylou Harris. There is nothing about any of these guitars that suggest that their quality is anything but of the highest order. My experience with other guitar makers including Larrivee and Martin is that the quality of their guitars in no better or worse than Gibsons. I had a J-185 TV that I ordered new from an online vendor that had neck problems that did not make it unplayable but made me wonder how it passed quality control. It sounded fabulous by the way but I returned it. No doubt other guitar makers have guitars that ought not pass quality control but do as well from time to time. In any case, I have four Gibson acoustics and none from any other manufacturer any longer so Gibson has convinced me.

 

Pic

[modoc_333]

the store you heard that conversation in.... are they current gibson dealers? i hear a lot of people bad mouth for other reasons. dealers that lost the line when the buy-in requirements went up, players that can't afford them, etc, etc.

 

that being said, there are some lines that have had some issues. the acoustic line is not one of them though. they really are some of the best they've ever made.

[ksdaddy]

I do not want to step on anyone's toes here. I know people spend a lot of money on new Gibsons and their expectations are high. Sometimes folks complain about a little cosmetic flaw and I'm not saying that's wrong to do, but my own two cents (worth every penny) is that Gibsons are made by human hands. The folks at Bozeman are just that... just folks. They do their job and do it well.

 

I would much rather pick up a new Gibson in a store and say, "Hmmm, a buffing swirl!" than I would say, "Hmmm, a perfect polyester finish applied by a robot!"

 

I'd rather see "Bozeman, Montana" on the label than "Gibson, a division of Tai-Shen Heavy Industries".

 

I suspect some of us have the knowledge to micro-analyze the Bozeman era and have first hand knowledge of the QC ups and downs by month since 1988; I sure don't have that ability. All I can say is that in all my trading, buying, and selling, I have only sold one Bozeman acoustic, a Gospel that I just couldn't warm up to. I can't make that claim about older Gibsons.

 

We hold Gibson to an impossible standard sometimes. If we hopped into our time machine and went back to 1950 and shopped for Gibsons I bet we'd find flaws that would make our jaws drop when compared to what we expect nowadays.

 

I may be over-forgiving fo little flaws in a product if I know the people who built it did their best and didn't try to screw me or think they're getting away with something. An honest effort with a little flaw is much easier for me to accept than a textbook perfect product from a faceless corporation who is constantly plotting to cheapen their product and mislead the consumer. Note I didn't name names (coughfendercough).

[BigKahune]

I agree somewhat with ksdaddy.

 

My take on the issue: Gibson is doing a fine job with their acoustic guitars. However, the QC of Gibson's electric guitars is another story and the complaints emanating from there are affecting opinioins about the whole Gibson product line. For those that don't know, Gibson's electric wonder 'Dark Fire' guitar has so many problems its production has been suspended since January while Gibson tries to straighten the whole mess. Meanwhile, customers that ordered the DF in December are still waiting. This is just one example (albeit the worst) of the problems Gibson is having with their electric guitar QC.

[TheLiveSoundGuy]

I have owned many over the last 50 years. I have enjoyed each and every one of them. They also received more attention and play time from me than any of the other guitars I have owned.

 

I hope to be buried with one. (I ain't kidding either) I realize it would be of better benefit to a child perhaps, but it's a matter of principal with me. I love them that much!

 

And WELCOME to the forum Pocolac.

[kazzelectro]

I just came back tonight from the guitar shop in town that stocks Gibson and they have about 25 acoustics and as many electrics. I must have played 8 or so and they were all wonderful. Each had its own distinct sound, smelled wonderful , played wonderfully and had no apparent finish flaws.. Earlier today I went to war at the AGP forum (Taylor forum) to combat the inconsistency remarks about Gibson that were posted there. Gibsons are vastly superior to Taylor guitars. I also played a Taylor 414ce today and it buzzed all over the place...consistent? wonderful playability? Not :D/ I've owned two Martins, two Taylors, and two Gibsons and played loads of other guitars. I am definitely a big fan of Gibson.

[EdgarHF]

The day I bought my current guitar I left the house with the firm convection of coming home with a 000-28 or nothing at all. From reviews I had read and talking to others I had the informed opinion that Gibson acoustics were expensive eye candy. They were all sizzle and no steak. I, of course, received my informed opinion from either Martin owners or 'No acoustic is worth over $400' owners.

 

Lucky for me the local music store did not have a 000-28 in stock. My money also began burning a hole in my pocket. I tried an HD-28 and it sounded pretty good. I tried a taylor, I don't remember the model. It did not impress me. "No", I told the salesman, "I will not try one of those pretty sunburst Gibsons hanging on the wall".

 

"Okay just one".

 

"That sounds puurty"!

 

Next thing I know I am sitting at home with a J-45 on my lap. I would still like to get a 000-28 but I would not give up my J-45.

[DonCarlos]

I am a new J45 MC owner and happy with it. I have always wanted a J45 and finally in my old age I can afford one.

 

I have to add though even the humblest of guitars can surprise you.

 

Last week I pulled out my old Fender Gemini II, 1987, Korean built, and strummed it a bit and my wife asked if that was the new Gibson? I was stunned. She was right that the guitar had more volume and clarity. So even though I hadn't played it much in last decade, I am hanging on to it to this pawn store special I bought in 1992. There are no specs on this guitar because it was considered a cheapo acoustic. The tuners are not even marked and I could never keep it in tune. But if I had my guess the back is rosewood and although over laquered it sounds damn nice. So I think I will invest in some upgrades to it (like a setup and new machine heads).

 

Regardless of the name brand, with guitar's you just never know until you play them.

[Jerry K]

I bought a new Martin OM-21 a few years ago. I got it from Maury's Music and I happen to know that Maury drove it from the Martin factory to his shop, did some setup on it and then sent it to me. It was never played by anyone else. The upper edge of the fretboard (ie where the tiny position dots are) has a very noticeable blemish on it. Possibly there was a little knot or weak spot on the wood. This blemish is far more noticeable than anything I have ever found on my Gibson guitars. I saw it right away when I received the guitar and did nothing about it because the guitar sounds marvelous. In a few years it will probably be joined by other dings put there by me.

[pocaloc]

I've always loved the J-45. I had no problem with my 1996 model, and in fact loved it. I had to sell it for financial reasons, but I'm back now and looking at a sunburst J-45, which is my dream guitar ( I had a natural because of he great deal I got on it.) I agree that there is some sort of wierd pride, association with the history that you get with a Gibson. Thanks for the opnions. I'll just have to go play some and see if I have to have it.

[Guth]

Are Gibson's going through a new golden era of high quality at the time? I realize I'm posting on a Gibson forum' date=' so I guess I want to hear that they are. [/quote']

 

I'm on my fourth Montana Gibson guitar (built in 2008) with others dating back to 1991. In my case, tone has been the biggest determining factor in my decision to purchase the Gibson acoustics that I've owned. There are certain Gibsons that just really appeal to my ears. When it came to the Gibsons that won me over, the quality of build was far lower on my priority list. While Gibson may have entered a "golden era" of quality by Gibson's own standards, in my opinion they don't stack up against other manufacturers. Sure, Gibsons are made by human hands in a factory setting, but so are Collings, Santa Cruz, and Bourgeois guitars to name a few (there are a whole host of others). These other brands truly exemplify a finely crafted factory built guitar and Gibson's build/finish quality from one example to the next simply doesn't hold up by comparison. That's not to say that Gibson acoustics aren't well built - they are. It's simply that their attention to detail is lacking compared to other makes. It all depends on your point of reference.

 

The thing is, pretty much no other brand of guitar sounds like a Gibson does.

 

What is it that you're looking for in a guitar, what's most important to you? My suggestion would be to check out as many Bozeman-made Gibsons for yourself as possible - and draw your own conclusions.

 

All the best,

Guth

[ballcorner]

 

I would much rather pick up a new Gibson in a store and say' date=' "Hmmm, a buffing swirl!" than I would say, "Hmmm, a perfect polyester finish applied by a robot!"

[/quote']

 

Scott - there are so many times your replies contain wisdom that evades the rest of us. No matter what happens, promise you will always be here.

[Jerry K]

It has to be pointed out that the three guitar companies mentioned by Guth above are not comparable to Gibson acoustic guitars. Santa Cruz, Collings, and Bourgeois are small shop operations which have all got going quite recently and are not comparable in scale of operation, method of manufacture and number of employees to larger makers like Gibson, Martin, Guild, Taylor, etc. Collings has recently gone up to fifty employees in 2005 from 3 in 1991. The other two are very small shops. Bourgeois makes about 30 guitars a month. Here's a quote from the Santa Cruz website:

By limiting the number of instruments built, we can practice a style of lutherie born from a genuine love of the guitar, as opposed to a production line approach that might favor greater numbers at the expense of our attention to detail.

The price of a guitar from those small shops is also in a different league than a typical factory guitar like Gibson, Martin, etc. So I would discount comparisons of this sort.

[ksdaddy]

Scott - there are so many times your replies contain wisdom that evades the rest of us. No matter what happens, promise you will always be here.

 

There are a lot of things in my head that evade most people. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it's.... not so good.

[kazzelectro]

Comments have been made that the comparison to some of the more custom luthier models is not a comparison that should be made with Gibson, Martin or other the mass produced guitars. I would suggest that Gibson guitars may well stand up quite well particularly when you consider the quality or method of build. Specifically the following manufacturers produce guitars with bolt-on necks (borrowed for a thread at the AGP forum):

 

Bashkin

Bourgeois

Breedlove

Collings

Gallagher

Goodall

Hamblin

Huss & Dalton

Lakewood

McElroy

Mossman

Ryan

Tacoma

Taylor

I for one cannot accept that a bolt-on neck is comparable in any way to a dovetail joint that Gibson and Martin uses. The cheapest of guitars use bolt-ons, they are easier to manufacture and therefore cost less, and IMO guitars that cost over $2000 should not have this feature. I have played several of the above noted guitars and as pretty as they are to look at I would never purchase one specifically for reason that they are produced with bolt-on necks (not to mention a number of other questionable build practices). The one positive feature of a bolt-on neck is that it makes easy for a neck reset...well in 20 or 30 years I suppose the incovenience of neck reset is acceptable.

[kazzelectro]

By limiting the number of instruments built, we can practice a style of lutherie born from a genuine love of the guitar, as opposed to a production line approach that might favor greater numbers at the expense of our attention to detail.

 

This comment lends itself to the brainwash marketing that manufacturers use to convince the consumer why they should pay ridiculous amounts of money for substandard guitars. Graf guitars is an example of a fine custom luthier who produced guitars the way they should built....like a Gibson :D/

 

I would much rather pick up a new Gibson in a store and say, "Hmmm, a buffing swirl!" than I would say, "Hmmm, a perfect polyester finish applied by a robot!"

 

...and I agree completely with the statement above.

[G u e s t]

.

.

 

ksd - methinks the company is actually Shentai Heavy Industrial Trading.

It's all in the acronym.....

.

[stumps]

I agree that Gibson quality is top of the line, but I'd like to add one other facet:

 

Value for your money.

 

When I was shopping for guitars, I played a ton - 80% were Martins and Taylors. When I buy something I usually set a budget first, but I didn't with my guitar shopping. I wanted to see what was out there, so I tried everything regardless of price. Most everything I tried was over $2000, and nearly all the Martins and Taylors were at or over $3000. I even tried a few at the $4000 level.

 

Then I picked up the Gibson Songwriter deluxe studio at $1685 and it blew me away.

 

When we talk about "quality" we might mean a variety of things - construction, set up, finish - but the bottom line is how the guitar sounds when you play it. My Gibson looks beautiful, but it SOUNDS better than anything I tried, regardless of price.

 

The fact that the folks in Bozeman can build a guitar that sounds that great, looks beautiful, and do it for WELL UNDER the Martins and Taylors out there is quite a feat and should be praised. I am surprised at the sound every time I pick it up.

[Taylor Player]

1. Gibsons are vastly superior to Taylor guitars.

 

2. I am definitely a big fan of Gibson.

 

I agree with #2 100% but.... disagree BIG time with #1.....

 

Both are quality guitars that appeal to certain people. Heck some of us like more than one brand and can appreaciate quality even if it has a different headstock! I never start bashing other guitars for that simple reason.. (well maybe Estaban's but then are they really a guitar?!?!)

 

Different strokes for different folks. My 1993 Taylor actually was built before the "Bolt on" neck you soooo don't like. But seeing names on the list you provided (Bashkin, Bourgeois, Breedlove, Collings, Gallagher, Goodall, Hamblin, Huss & Dalton, Lakewood, McElroy, Mossman, ,Ryan and Taylor) leads me to believe that sometimes "Older" or "Traditional" is not always "Best". There are some very quality builders on that list that produce guitars that are unbeliveable! Just because Martin and Gibson stick to tradition is no reason to turn up my nose at technology that can work and provide a great guitar. I don't believe that in a blind test you or anyone would ever be able to tell by listening or playing that the guitar was a bolt neck vs. a dovetail without peaking in the soundhole to confirm.

 

I have owned a Bolt neck Taylor (2006 GSMC) and found it to be a very nice, high quality built instrument. That said, I did sell it to fund my LG1 purchase but only because I have always wanted a nice older small body Gibson. Thing is, it will be needing a neck reset in the near future and the only thing currently stopping me is the $350 to $600 cost for a dovetail neck reset. A good luthier/tech can do a neck reset on a Taylor for next to nothing. Truth be told, the Taylor I got rid of was a WAY better guitar in overall tone, quality and looks, but I personally wanted the Gibby more since I already have my 1993 612C Taylor as my #1 guitar. My two Gibsons make for very nice alternatives though and I will never get rid of any of these three guitars in my little collection. Each has a different voice, feel and appeal to me.

[ryanfender]

I think the quality is good although the tone is somewhat inconsistent. I also sometimes question their wood selection. There is a Advance Jumbo hanging at Guitar Center in Charleston, SC right now that has a 1.5 inch wood knot in the back of it. Its not the knot itself but it was close enough to the knot to add a major imperfection into the grain of the rosewood. The guitar sounds amazing but it has sat there for over 6 months. Why Gibson would use that piece of rosewood is beyond me.

[BigKahune]

1. Gibsons are vastly superior to Taylor guitars.

 

2. I am definitely a big fan of Gibson.

 

I agree with #2 100% but.... disagree BIG time with #1.....

 

+1 . . . . Taylor Player is on target in my book.

[Hall]

I agree somewhat with ksdaddy.

 

My take on the issue: Gibson is doing a fine job with their acoustic guitars. However' date=' the QC of Gibson's electric guitars is another story and the complaints emanating from there are affecting opinioins about the whole Gibson product line. For those that don't know, Gibson's electric wonder 'Dark Fire' guitar has so many problems its production has been suspended since January while Gibson tries to straighten the whole mess. Meanwhile, customers that ordered the DF in December are still waiting. This is just one example (albeit the worst) of the problems Gibson is having with their electric guitar QC.

[/quote']

 

+ 1

 

 

Steve

[pocaloc]

I was just curious what the general idea was about Gibson these days before I fork out $2000. What I've heard sounds good to me. I know that I like the sound of the J-45, and I definitely love the looks of a sunburst J-45. I don't know why, but Martin's just seem boring to me. I was considering a Martin mahogany D-15, but I know I would just be yearning for a J-45. I'm thinking of selling all of my electric gear to fund it, so I want to make sure what I get will be the end of my search. I sort of think of the J-45 as owning a piece of history as well, which is another factor that makes me want to get one again.