Dumping on Gibson

[rar]

I wish that Gibson was easier on their dealer policy and there could be more dealers in my area.

 

A lot of you have heard my rants on this subject before' date=' but, for those who haven't, here I go again.

 

Martin builds more than five times as many acoustic guitars as Gibson. So does Taylor. This means the viable options are basically

 

(1) Few, but relatively well-stocked, Gibson acoustic dealers

 

(2) Many poorly-stocked Gibson acoustic dealers

 

A lot of shops would like to have a J-45 and a J-200 to hang on the wall along with a much wider selection of Martins and Taylors, but Gibson decided to drop these "sell one or two a year" dealers in order to keep a smaller number of dealers better supplied.

 

Despite oft-heard complaints, if you find out the actual numbers, the buy-in to be a Gibson acoustic dealer is not at all unreasonable. Suffice it to say that, if you can sell a Gibson acoustic a month, you can be a Gibson acoustic dealer. If you can't, well, Gibson's attitude is that we Gibsonites better off taking our business elsewhere. Martin's and Taylor's dealer requirements are not all that radically different.

 

-- Bob R

[davenumber2]

Bob R,

 

I've noticed in a lot of your posts that you seem to have some "inside" info on many topics. Are you associated with Gibson in some way?

[rar]

I've noticed in a lot of your posts that you seem to have some "inside" info on many topics. Are you associated with Gibson in some way?

 

No. I do have friends who work there and a few more who used to. After hearing some of their stories about working for Gibson , that's about all the association I can handle.

 

BTW, if Gibson employees were allowed to post here, you'd have heard about the details of the requirements to be a Gibson acoustics dealer directly from the horse's mouth a long time ago. They get pretty frustrated at not being able to correct all the misinformation that floats around, and encourage those of us with the straight dope to post it here.

 

-- Bob R

[Taylor Player]

Great information Bob...

 

I didn't know that about the number of guitars made by Gibson. I assumed that Gibson, Martin and Taylor were probably similar in their production numbers. I learned something already in 2010!

 

I don't know about Martin but I do know that Taylors dealings with small shops sounds pretty similar to Gibson. They have certain quotas that need to be met to be a Taylor dealor as well. In my area, I am very lucky to have a shop like the Podium nearby which stocks all kinds of beautiful guitars including Taylor but unless it is used, I have not seen Gibsons in there. The place I see Gibson guitars all the time is Guitar Center and now Best Buy.... personally I would rather deal with the guys working at the Podium as all are acoustic guitar lovers. When I go into GC or BB, I typically am helped by a Shread head who knows very little about acoustics. Still, I have to say I keep going to the big stores to check out the Gibsons on the wall and know if I have any important questions, all I have to do is pop into my favorite forum here to get good answers. Now that I have a son going to college in Lacrosse Wisconsin, I am very happy to know that Daves Guitars there is a huge Gibson dealer. Everyone at that shop seems to be in the same caliber of salesperson at the Podium so I now have a great shop that I will be able to get to a couple times a year or more to drool over the new Gibsons on the wall and old Gibsons in the private collection upstairs!

 

That said, I feel for those of you not as fortunate to have several great guitar shops fairly close.

[Hoss]

IMO, it's still all about the Contract. I've heard Gibson's version- and I've also heard the retailer's version. What might seem to be 'reasonable' from one perspective isn't always the case.

 

It has less to do with quotas and more to do with other contract variables.

 

Naturally, If I had a music store-- I'd find a way to get Gibsons on the wall.

 

Here in Seattle, we have few options. American Music used to be a Gibson dealer-- they've mysteriously disappeared from display. A so called 'five star' dealer up north is too much of a pain to deal with. (You can't actually touch any guitars--a salesperson asks you what you want to hear, HE takes it off the wall and Plays it for you. If you say a magic word, he may deem to allow you to hold the Gibson. Of course, the entire time, you're getting a sales pitch about the guitar and half of the information is wrong....)

[sfden1]

You can't actually touch any guitars--a salesperson asks you what you want to hear' date=' HE takes it off the wall and Plays it for you. If you say a magic word, he may deem to allow you to hold the Gibson. [/quote']

 

My first reaction when I read this was "your kidding, right?". Since I've never seen you do that Hoss, I can only say I wouldn't bother either. At my local shop (Haight-Ashbury Music) , the Gibby's in the acoustic room are hung too high for the average school kid to reach and a salesman has to get them down for you. But he will then leave and let you play to your heart's content once he sees your not a shredder.

[62burst]

... Gibson guitars do not necessarily stand out on a first strum like a Martin. However' date=' after spending some time and exploring the sounds of my j-45 I found that the Gibson sound grows on you and now I prefer it to... [/quote']

 

A good observation on how the quintessential short-decay J-45 sound is less tangible than something more sweet, or ringing. Not many players would want the reverb set to "11" when they go electric.

 

Re: the original post; I just finished my hunt for a J-45 TV. I went thru considerable effort (and scary expense) to put five 2009 J-45's (2 TV's and a Custom Shop) in the same room for an a/b/c/d/e comparo. Conclusion: you know what? They all sounded great. Just my luck, the ugly duckling of the bunch had "it". It's the keeper.

 

But all of those new Gibson Acoustics played great, no quality control/intonation probs. Kudos to the Bozeman shop.

[ManNamedLear]

It seems as though most people here are extremely satisfied with Gibson. This is possible only if one or all of the following are true:

 

1. Every poster plays only vintage Gibsons.

2. Every poster has gotten very, very lucky.

3. An extreme bias exists amongst forum members.

 

 

Over 75% of the Gibsons I have played were products of poor craftsmanship. Of course, all of these were built in Nashville, and none of them were vintage. Gibson is currently cranking out some amazing guitars; they are also building some terrible ones. (I'm not talking about the "cheap" models such as the Melody Maker.) I had to play 6 ES-345s before i found one that didn't have multiple surface and structural flaws. (The one I ended up with is exquisite, but it was the only good example I was able to locate.)

 

Almost every vintage Gibson I've played have been incredible instruments. Even the ones that were poorly maintained were amazing. From what I understand, however, incredibly low morale at the Memphis and Nashville factories has led Gibson to produce some less-than-satisfactory guitars.

 

There was a time when every guitar Gibson built was beautiful. It can be done again. If the company weren't suffering from mismanagement, I'm sure there wouldn't be any complaints.

 

I'm not trying to "hate" on Gibson. I only own one stringed instrument that isn't a Gibson. I just know they can do better.

[sfden1]

It seems as though most people here are extremely satisfied with Gibson. This is possible only if one or all of the following are true:

 

1. Every poster plays only vintage Gibsons.

2. Every poster has gotten very' date=' very lucky.

3. An extreme bias exists amongst forum members.

 

 

Over 75% of the Gibsons I have played were products of poor craftsmanship. Of course, all of these were built in Nashville, and none of them were vintage. Gibson is currently cranking out some amazing guitars; they are also building some terrible ones. (I'm not talking about the "cheap" models such as the Melody Maker.) I had to play 6 ES-345s before i found one that didn't have multiple surface and structural flaws. (The one I ended up with is exquisite, but it was the only good example I was able to locate.)

 

Almost every vintage Gibson I've played have been incredible instruments. Even the ones that were poorly maintained were amazing. From what I understand, however, incredibly low morale at the Memphis and Nashville factories has led Gibson to produce some less-than-satisfactory guitars.

 

There was a time when every guitar Gibson built was beautiful. It can be done again. If the company weren't suffering from mismanagement, I'm sure there wouldn't be any complaints.

 

I'm not trying to "hate" on Gibson. I only own one stringed instrument that [i']isn't[/i] a Gibson. I just know they can do better.

 

Interesting, but speaks only to the electrics, which are made in Nashville, not the Bozeman made acoustics, which in my experience are have been excellent. Just my $0.02.

[bscha]

I have not had any issues with the Bozeman made acoustics. Sure some are better than others, but all I have played have been good sound guitars.

[dallasblues]

I've noticed some inconsistencies in their work too. My ES 335, that I bought new a couple of years ago, is a pretty good sounding guitar and it feels nice. But MAN... the tuners really suck! Any amount of string bending sends it into chaos. And with as much money as I've spent on Gibson's product, it oughtta stay in tune. Like I said... Otherwise, its a really nice guitar and I'm quite proud of it but their attention to detail has put a really annoying thorn in my side.

[Guth]

It seems as though most people here are extremely satisfied with Gibson. This is possible only if one or all of the following are true:

 

1. Every poster plays only vintage Gibsons.

2. Every poster has gotten very' date=' very lucky.

3. An extreme bias exists amongst forum members.[/quote']

 

While it sounds like your experiences have all been with Gibson's electric guitars, I'll follow up with my own observations based on my experiences with Gibson's acoustic guitars. If you look at a number of my posts here, you'll find that many times I've pointed out that I've been less than satisfied with a large percentage of the Gibson acoustics that I've played. However, the small percentage of their guitars that have appealed to me have been amongst my all-time favorites, regardless of the name on the headstock. This isn't limited to Gibsons from one particular period. I would also point out that I've played a number of vintage Gibson acoustics that didn't do it for me either, including some pre-war examples up through guitars produced in the 60's, so this is nothing new.

 

As an example, a nearby shop has vintage Gibbie (I believe it is a SJN model). To me, this guitar sounds "funky" to the extreme - it is like it is strung up with spaghetti noodles for strings, there is nothing dry or "woody" about it (the qualities that I'm looking for), yet they are selling it for $2,999 and sooner or later somebody will end up buying it. I can't imagine that anyone who would walk out of that store happy with that guitar would enjoy my 2008 J-45 TV. And maybe that is the key.

 

From the perspective of tone at least, I think there are multiple sets of Gibson enthusiasts. A lot of folks must be drawn to the funkier, more compressed sounding examples that are out there as this represents a good percentage of the acoustics Gibson makes. Another group of folks are after the drier, woodier, more open sounding tone that appeals to me. There is no right or wrong, just different strokes for different folks. I suppose one thing that ties us all together is the appeal of the look of Gibson guitars.

 

I'm sure there is some bias here as well - it happens with all brands. Typically, only the most fanatical are going to be participating on a forum such as this.

 

Regardless, I see no reason for a dealer to flat out put down other brands that they don't carry. Afterall, we are all just looking for guitars that appeal to each of us as an individual based on our own preferences.

 

All the best,

Guth

[rar]

Apparently we can all agree that Nashville quality leaves a lot to be desired. (That's nice! I thought we couldn't agree on anything!)

 

While Bozeman has certainly done much better, their record is not entirely unblemished. There was a bad period around the time of the Centennial when ramping up production too quickly resulted in variable quality. And there was an infamous GM who decided that using less expensive materials would result in higher profits and managed to cause a dip in quality for awhile. But, since about 2002, quality has been consistently good and only getting better. I just hope the trend continues!

 

-- Bob R

[fortyearspickn]

Knowing only a little about guitars, but a little about business management - I think it is, as others here have written, foolish for a retail business to denigrate products they cannot retail. It is possibly also foolish for those here who have more insight than the teenager trying to get a dealer to trust him with a $4,000 guitar, yet also slam Guitar Center for their shop worn merchandise - to suggest that the management at Gibson is inept because they choose to produce fewer guitars so they can provide more attention to detail. That is a sound strategy employed in other industries, from wristwatches and beer to stereos and automobiles. All businesses experience issues such as Gibson has. Families do and people do: I would hate to be thought of as being a 'low quality person' because some feel I have 'issues'.

It may also be inappropriate to assign a level of quality to guitars being produced today in Boz based on random, individual experiences with decades old guitars many of which were probably subject to poor treatment after leaving Gibson. Few today slam Hondas or Toyotas in spite of the fact that they were low-end junk when first manufactured. Finally, it may also be foolish to extrapolate the quality or lack of quality of an electric product line to an acoustic. The last Ford I owned was a four year old '76. I didn't like it as much as Chevy's I've owned since. But it would be unfair of me to tell one of my sons not to buy a new Mustang based on my fuzzy memory of opinions formed when I didn't really know enough about cars to legitimately have an opinion. I've never owned a Martin nor a Taylor, so I would never presume to express an opinion of them even though I've played them at GC and preferred the sound and feel of Gibsons. Ten minutes with one guitar doesn't provide me with enough data to form an opinion or render a judgement.

In conclusion, I appreciate the fact that this forum is not being infiltrated or influenced by Gibson management. There is enough intrusion in our lives - at least here we only have the occassional troll.

I apologize if this was too long. I try not to write too often here. (Quality instead of Quantity - Hopefully!~) Jim

[DAS44]

No company, not even PRS, who's QC is legendary (in a way at least) turns out 100% flawless guitars. NO CHANCE OF IT HAPPENING.

 

Course I have a thing for Gibsons seems the last time I was GASsing for somethin that wasnt a Gibson was..... 3 months ago. Wow didnt realize it had been that long until now.

[BillyTweed]

My first guitar was a '65 Gibson Melody Maker and I still have it. It's a great little guitar, and lately I've set my Fenders aside and starting playing the little bugger again.

 

But when it comes to acoustics I've always been a Martin man. I have several Martins, but have settled in (for the moment) with the big 12-fret dreadnaughts as my favorites. That's about as far away from a Gibson acoustic as you can get. The Martin 12-frets are super resonant and surprisingly different in tone than the standard 14-fret dreadnaughts.

 

But as I've gotten into old time and country music, I decided to give the Gibson acoustics a try. So I bought a '69 J-50 last month from a great vintage store in Seattle. It's first Gibson acoustic I've ever owned. What a tone this guitar has. I love it and it's got me interested to try more Gibsons, both vintage and new.

 

I tried out a few new Gibsons at a Guitar Center (worst place in the world to look at guitars, but they're the only acoustic Gibson dealer I know of in town) and there was only one in the bunch I'd remotely consider. Most of them sounded plain awful. They only had a handful of Gibson dreadnaughts, so I can't say I did a proper survey.

 

But I think I'll stick to the vintage Gibsons. Perhaps the new Gibby just need some breaking in. I've certainly found that to be true of Martins. Most new Martins are pretty stiff until they've been played in. That's why most of the Martins I buy are at least 3 or 4 years old. By then (if the owner actually played it, of course) you can tell if it's a keeper.

 

Maybe the same is true of Gibsons, but I so rarely see used ones around town that it may be a moot point anyway.

[J185-4Me]

 

... I tried out a few new Gibsons at a Guitar Center (worst place in the world to look at guitars' date=' but they're the only acoustic Gibson dealer I know of in town) and there was only one in the bunch I'd remotely consider. Most of them sounded plain awful. They only had a handful of Gibson dreadnaughts, so I can't say I did a proper survey.

 

 

 

[/quote']

 

Interestingly, I stopped at two Seattle-area GC's this week, and played some of their Gibson stock too, and had the opposite response.

 

At the one GC, I played a '65 J-50 priced in the upper 2K range that -- IMO -- a sane person would have been nuts to purchase based on tone, when there was a perfectly fine and better-sounding brand new Hummingbird Artist priced about 1K less, and a new J-45 priced a few hundred less than the "vintage" J-50.

 

The SJ-200 'Standard' that they had in stock was wonderful, imo, and would have been a very nice acquisition.

 

Hit and miss, I suppose -- I have also seen some pretty good used/vintage stuff at the Evil Empire, from time to time. Sometimes horribly overpriced, sometimes quite reasonably priced.

 

Fred

[BillyTweed]

I played a '65 J-50 priced in the upper 2K range that -- IMO -- a sane person would have been nuts to purchase based on tone' date=' when there was a perfectly fine and better-sounding brand new Hummingbird Artist priced about 1K less, and a new J-45 priced a few hundred less than the "vintage" J-50.[/quote']

 

Point well taken, Fred. I realized after I posted that though I don't have much experience playing vintage Gibsons, that my experience with vintage Martins is that they are also hit and miss. I didn't mean to imply that vintage Gibsons would be uniformly great guitars. The one I got is fantastic, but they won't all be that good.

 

Anyone who thinks vintage guitars are going to sound great just because they're old is very naive. And unfortunately, the value of vintage guitars is mostly associated with their collectability, not their sound. I rarely buy vintage instruments online because without hearing and playing them, it's just a pig in a poke, no matter how legendary the instrument may be.

 

Buying from a reputable dealer and talking to them on the phone is the only way I will buy a guitar (old or new) without playing it. eBay sellers all seem to think their guitar is "a cannon" to the point that the term actually turns me off when I hear it.

 

I sell my guitars mostly on Craigslist now because I want the person to come play it, hear it, and KNOW not only that it's a great guitar, but also that it's the right guitar for them.

 

So thanks for setting the record straight. Vintage guitars can be good, bad, or ugly, despite their high price tags.

 

---William

[milod]

I s'pose I really shouldn't on this one but...

 

It seems to me that there are so many variables in guitars that we seldom consider. Every piece of wood is different; that means the bracing as well as the top.

 

One reason I went to Ovations in the '70s - besides that they were the first real EAs I had access to - was that where I lived and how I traveled to gigs, I didn't want to see yet another guitar damage itself from the weather factor as had happened to me too often from say '65 into the '70s.

 

Oddly the two, a 14-fret nylon and a 14-fret steel string (County Artist and as far as I can tell the original Electric Legend), ended up with a cracked top on the nylon from "the weather factor" and an overall lessening of sound quality - and yet an increase in sound quality on the steel string regardless of more string pressure, etc., etc.

 

I know this ain't the place to say nice things about the rather faddish Ovations then or now, although I still think they're rather practical if less than perfect, but in a sense the two purchased the same year have been an interesting "laboratory study" of woods. They looked almost identical, and likely were close in wood quality... and yet...

 

I'm also not sure that, as one might do with an automobile, one can consider an apparent irregularity of finish a "lemon" if the instrument has superior sound to one's ear and superior playability.

 

I don't play so much acoustic nowadays as I did in the 60s and 70s, but I know I've always tried to consider each instrument, electric or acoustic, as an individual piece.

 

Each is subtly different and I wonder sometimes unless one obviously is a "second" or has an obvious physical and functional defect, if we're not somewhat overly critical of individual pieces.

 

m

[sfden1]

milod, I would agree with you. I think there's altogether too much expectation of perfection these days, particularly of the cosmetic kind. The desire for machine made perfection in a man made wooden instrument seems at times very unrealistic to me, even out of place. Howard Klepper, a wonderful luthier here in Northern California, speaks of the "makers mark", referring to the subtle tooling marks and minor finish imperfections left in a hand made instrument and laments that to please customers so many builders feel the need to spend time to eliminate any trace they were ever there, instead of putting their energy into improving the tone. When you look at a Stradivarius for instance, you can see the marks left by his hand. Same thing if you look at an 1800's Martin or most vintage Gibson's. Very cool imo, but such a thing would hardly be acceptable to most buyers these days.

[milod]

I'm afraid I don't know or have access to any wonderful luthiers and the much-older friend who gifted me a mandolin he made was of the "country-farmer craftsman" school. In spite of a formica fingerboard - yup - the darned thing sounds good. It's nice to play. It's ... real.

 

Better than that, it's a piece an old friend gave me that he had built himself. That's kinda a long story made short.

 

But yeah, it seems to me almost as though we're again going through a 1950s "dump the antique oak dining room table for steel and formica" era of sorts.

 

m

[dem00n]

Ahh gibson.

A lovely company.

I think gibson is one of the few guitar companys that will stand the test of time.

Along with fender,martain, PRS and so on.

 

 

Really dont listen to fools who say gibsons are bad.

They must deaf.

Or only played really bad gibsons?

[zombywoof]

From the music store owners I know, the minumim investment in stock required to get Gibsons in the store is pretty high. So many, many smaller stores cannot afford to even carry new guitars. I would be willing to bet the store folks, wanting to make a sale, would certainly try and steer in you another direction.

[zombywoof]

Ahh gibson.

A lovely company.

I think gibson is one of the few guitar companys that will stand the test of time.

Along with fender' date='martain, PRS and so on.

[/quote']

 

 

Many will stand the test of time, they will just end up being owned by Fender.

 

The rumors keep popping up that Gibson is going to be sold to Peavey. Of course, those same rumors have been floating about for years. Maybe not such a bad thing as Hartley Peavey certainly has a passion for building guitars. And think of what all those pre-Peavey Gibsons would all of sudden be worth.

 

One thing I will never understand about Gibson though is why, during all those years, they never attempted to bring Ted McCarty back in and tap his incredible knowledge of guitar design and how to build them. Paul Reed Smith did early on and it sure as heck paid off for him.

[lbvllac]

Ahh gibson.

Really dont listen to fools who say gibsons are bad.

They must deaf.

Or only played really bad gibsons?

 

 

From the music store owners I know' date=' the minumim investment in stock required to get Gibsons in the store is pretty high. So many, many smaller stores cannot afford to even carry new guitars. I would be willing to bet the store folks, wanting to make a sale, would certainly try and steer in you another direction.[/quote']

 

I went to a store near my place just yesterday. Those folks had a whole collection of Taylors and a few Martins too. No Gibsons. After demonstrating the guitars and explaining to me how good Taylors were (which is true indeed), I asked the seller why there weren't any Gibsons in their store. He retorted that he'd never played a Gibson that really sounded, and that the last few copies they'd received had been sent back after testing because the staff thought they weren't good enough. The guy even went as far as bashing a really good instrument I"d bought from them on the previous year.

 

Needless to say I didn't buy their story. I just smiled and thought about our discussion on this thread. I may not buy anything from that store again.