Gibson's on line, and Fuller's Vintage Guitar

[Paul E]

It wouldn't surprise me that Gibson would only allow custom models on the web site of some dealers like Fullers and Wildwood ,then the standard models on big box websites like Muscians Friend, ect., because they seem to move more of Gibsons products. M.F. and G.C. easily out sell Fullers and Wildwood in Gibson guitars. It's big business in hard economic times.

[bkharmony]

While the majority of the folks on this forum would agree with you' date=' I don't. The majority of Gibson acoustics I've played were a tonal disappointment (to put it mildly). I'm not talking about guitars that weren't set up properly or simply needed new strings. These guitars were duds, void of any energy or life (and yes, I do realize the impact that a good setup can have). Your average shopper out for a day at the local Best Buy might purchase such an instrument because they look great and carry the Gibson name. "Hey if it costs this much, it must be good, right?" While a more discerning customer is easily put off by such guitars. This scenario would certainly explain Gibson's recent strategy.

 

I realize that many on this forum are serious Gibson enthusiasts, and I mean no disrespect. I can't imagine anyone here purchasing a guitar that they're not happy with. I simply am offering up the point of view of someone thinks that we are currently living in the age when some amazing acoustic guitars are being built by many different companies/individual luthiers and have owned/played many of them. From a tonal perspective, sometimes Gibson manages to hit one out of the park. Those remain the guitars that catch my attention - no other acoustic guitar out there sounds like a great Gibson. That's why I love places like Fullers, you can play a whole bunch of Gibsons to potentially find "the one". But from what I've seen, much of the time Gibson manages to simply build instruments that look great hanging on the wall. From my perspective, those are the guitars you are seeing returned in large quantities.

 

Guth

[/quote']

 

Couldn't disagree more. I think Red 333's got it right.

[bkharmony]

I realize this thread pertains to internet, but I found this interesting and still mostly on-topic. Just returned from the only authorized Gibson dealer in Dallas-Fort Worth (other than GC and BB), and they had a whopping 3 Gibsons on the wall: 2 J-45s and a Songwriter.

 

You could look at this two ways: 1) Gibson shouldn't have to support a dealer who isn't pushing their product, or 2) Gibson should be doing more to get their product into this store! Their walls were covered with Takamines, Seagulls and Yamahas. If you blinked, you missed the Gibsons. Now, the Gibson Corp. may not like working with small-timers like this, but there are a LOT of people that go into this shop. And it's one of the only places in one of the USA's largest metroplexes where you can actually hold a Gibson. WHY wouldn't they want people to interface with their product?! I just don't get it! Are they trying to destroy their own company?

 

P.S. When did Seagull become so huge?

[QuestionMark]

P.S. When did Seagull become so huge?

 

They became huge awhile back by putting out a high quality instrument at a really affordable price...plus, it is one that is built in North America-Canada. Players took to it as an alternative to high end guitars or overseas imports if someone needed to go that route. I first heard of them via word of mouth.

 

The only thing I don't like about Seagulls are their headstocks...they're too small in my opinion. Not sure why that matters...but, it does look too small for the guitar (IMO)...but, they are descent playing and sounding guitars.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

[Swicket]

I have a huge aversion to big box stores. The thought of high-end Gibsons in Best Buy turns my stomach. But I absolutely love my J-45, bought used from someone who bought it new at GC. It is the 'right' guitar for me and will always be. Even after playing that gorgeous Kopp K35 at the boutique shop where I buy my strings. Despite it all, Gibson is still doing something right.

[dwolf]

"Well-- this may all be another Tempest in a Teakettle, as they say.

 

"Fullers is planning on being back on line--they need to dot a few i's and cross a couple t's" Hoss at 2:05 (sorry, don't know how to get the quotes to show up in the blue boxes)

 

Well Hoss, I hope you are right and they are going to be back on line. As I wrote initially, I called Fuller's yesterday afternoon and was told quite clearly that they had to take the guitars off the site at Gibson's direction. It was as clear as that. The salesman was very apologetic and accomodating. Now, it will be interesting to hear what has transpired since yesterday, or whether I was given partial or false information by a sales clerk who may not have known the whole story. Or, maybe Gibson is paying some attention to these discussions. I seriously doubt that though--I'm far too cynical. Guitar Rez in Austin is another high end Gibson Acoustic dealer whose website lacks anything other than a brief statement that they are a dealer. Something's up with their policy--too few Gibsons on any site except the big chain stores. Maybe Fuller's has managed to work something out. I really hope so. Like several others, the last couple guitars I bought were not guitars I'd planned on buying until I saw them on the internet. I agree that I buy some things from GC and MF, but I'd really rather support local brick and mortar stores. Otherwise, we won't have a choice. I'm sure interested in seeing how this plays out.

Dwight

[bkharmony]

They became huge awhile back by putting out a high quality instrument at a really affordable price...plus' date=' it is one that is built in North America-Canada. Players took to it as an alternative to high end guitars or overseas imports if someone needed to go that route. I first heard of them via word of mouth.

 

The only thing I don't like about Seagulls are their headstocks...they're too small in my opinion. Not sure why that matters...but, it does look too small for the guitar (IMO)...but, they are descent playing and sounding guitars.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff[/quote']

 

Right. I understand all that, and in fact nearly pulled the trigger on one a few times myself for those very reasons. What I mean, is literally *when*. I don't even recall seeing one five years ago. Was it just the last couple years?

 

P.S. I totally agree about the headstocks. I wonder how many more they'd sell if they fixed that.

[sfden1]

I rarely go into a GC, have never found a guitar there worth buying, including a Gibson. Never buy from MF or BB either and never will. The whole Gibson internet/dealer strategy seems baffling to me and self-destructive. I'm in SF and there are only two places left in the entire city of over 700,000 people where one can get a hands on with a Gibson, GC and Haight Ashbury Music. Neither has a great selection, though H/A is far better than GC. The closest large Gibson dealer is in San Jose, an hours drive away. That seems just crazy to me.

 

There are hundreds of small dealers around the country who have Gibson's. That they can't at least show pictures and a description of their inventory on the internet, even if you have to call for a price, seems to me to be the height of folly.

[eds111]

Guys, Gibson's reasoning is quite simple: They want to sell less guitars.

 

Why else would they be so difficult on small, reputable vendors? Why else take free advertising off the web and alienate serious guitar buyers like you and I?

 

In a tough economy it's time to cut back on production, to save on the electric bill. Fuller's is probably moving too much product, and Gibson takes issue with that!

[aymeric22]

I tell you, I'm looking forward to seeing Gibson bought by another company... at last.

[clayville]

Five or six years ago Gibson changed their policies regarding the ability of independent dealers marketing individual new guitars online. The reason, as far as I know, was that regional or territorial exclusivity granted to dealers was being "undermined" in the eyes of some by shops that were very good and very aggressive at online marketing. Folks like me (and many of you) would surf the web looking around for fine guitars, fall in love with the pretty pictures and/or the great service offered by the best shops and then take a chance and purchase guitars that would "parachute" into another dealer's exclusive territory. Especially if your "local" dealer didn't have what you wanted. It's my belief that smaller volume dealers without strong internet presences complained that they couldn't compete.

 

Related: dealers do have stocking level requirements to retain that exclusive territory... so there's a sort of circular push/pull between the dealers and Gibson: "I can't sell that many because my exclusivity is being undermined" presumably being a common complaint of that time. That's what I think the online policy change was really about.

 

I own a CS-356 that I bought new in 2003 from a shop on the other side of the country because

a) no shops within 200 miles of Boston (!!) had any.

I fell in love with the pretty pictures online and GAS grew quickly.

c) I trusted the reputation of the dealer (investigated on the web).

d) they had invested in a special run of guitars with custom features/colors (one of the largest single investments by an independent dealer to that time as far as I know) precisely because they knew they could market them effectively, nationwide and even internationally.

 

Several very good indie dealers operated essentially that way back then, and there were seemingly lots of non-standard guitars available.

 

Personally, I think it's a very short-sighted policy to punish the most capable, creative and savvy dealers in an effort to prop up the weakest. And to formulate a policy that essential hides the best examples of Gibson's own craftmanship from the public. But... Gibson sells a lot of lines, probably wants simplicity of manufacturing, and... I'm not looking at the numbers (the volume, the dollars) like Gibson does.

[Rambler]

Personally' date=' I think it's a very short-sighted policy to formulate a policy that essential hides the best examples of Gibson's own craftmanship from the public {for example} no shops withing 200 miles of Boston (!!) [/quote']

 

The dearth of Gibson in he Northeast (closest dealer is in NYC) makes it so hard to test drive new models, or for used ones to get passed around. Dont see =dont play= dont buy? Maybe if they eased up on the stocking requirements, they might be out there a little more. But its not just Gibson. The Maple Leaf, a small shop in Vt recently canceled its Martin dealership on similar grounds. J

[BigKahune]

A very intersting thread with some really good comments. And yes, I've purchased from Fullers. Jeremy is so good.

 

Five or six years ago Gibson changed their policies regarding the ability of independent dealers marketing individual new guitars online. The reason' date=' as far as I know, was that regional or territorial exclusivity granted to dealers was being "undermined" in the eyes of some by shops that were very good and very aggressive at online marketing. ... ...dealers do have stocking level requirements to retain that exclusive territory... so there's a sort of circular push/pull between the dealers and Gibson: "I can't sell that many because my exclusivity is being undermined" presumably being a common complaint of that time. That's what I think the online policy change was really about. ...[/quote']

 

+1

 

Gibson, behind the scenes, has for many years been spending a lot of time on dealer licensing agreements and territories in efforts to protect their brand and support their prices. Gibson can pull the trigger very quickly when they see something they don't like. In my town, some years ago, Elderly Instruments got their dealership agreement pulled when they got caught advertising below Gibson's set "Minimum Advertised Price". They still don't have it back. This can work both ways, just as clayville has described. Gibson has agreements it has to honor.

 

Gibson spent years setting up these agreements, territories and stocking requirements and the over the past decade, the popularity of internet shopping has been killing all the work Gibson did setting this all up. You can bet Gibson is going to be working like crazy to try and preserve the network and territories they set up. I think we're just beginning to see the fallout from the consequences of internet marketing and the Gibson brand.

 

I don't like any of this because it sets up dealerships based on money and not on quailty of service. For me, clayville nails it right here:

 

.. Personally' date=' I think it's a very short-sighted policy to punish the most capable, creative and savvy dealers in an effort to prop up the weakest. And to formulate a policy that essential hides the best examples of Gibson's own craftmanship from the public. But... Gibson sells a lot of lines, probably wants simplicity of manufacturing, and... I'm not looking at the numbers (the volume, the dollars) like Gibson does.[/quote']

 

+1000000000000000000000000000

 

And I would agree that over these last years, the consistency of quality has suffered due to some of Gibson's manufacturing and marketing choices. I've too have noticed that you've got to play through more are more specimens to find a Gibson "That's Good Enough". Very ironic. They've gone from "Only A Gibson is Good Enough" to "You can eventually find A Gibson That is Good Enough". In my view, sad, but there's a grain of truth there.

[tw2_usa]

 

I've too have noticed that you've got to play through more are more specimens to find a Gibson "That's Good Enough". Very ironic. They've gone from "Only A Gibson is Good Enough" to "You can eventually find A Gibson That is Good Enough". In my view' date=' sad, but there's a grain of truth there.

 

[/quote']

 

+1

[clayville]

The only other caveat I can think of to throw into this discussion is that, perhaps, the original ban on internet marketing of individual guitars was actually the enforcement of an existing policy (broadly defined) rather than a "new" policy in some regards (see the "territorial exclusivity" notion above).

 

Not long after the ban was instigated five or so years agoi, it seemed it was 'liberalized' a bit for a select few independent dealers. Since that time, some dealers have fallen on or off the good graces for various reasons -- presumably advertised pricing, stock levels, etc. Currently, it seems Dave's, Wildwood, and Music Zoo -- very good marketers all -- are able to show individual guitars, which is more than was the case six months or so ago as far as I can tell.

 

And... FWIW, elsewhere on the forum I actually started a thread thanking Henry for the change... even though it's unclear to me how much of this resulted from a given dealer's actions re: buy-in and how much from a change in Gibson policy.

[Guth]

And I would agree that over these last years' date=' the consistency of quality has suffered due to some of Gibson's manufacturing and marketing choices. I've too have noticed that you've got to play through more are more specimens to find a Gibson "That's Good Enough". Very ironic. They've gone from "Only A Gibson is Good Enough" to "You can eventually find A Gibson That is Good Enough". In my view, sad, but there's a grain of truth there.[/quote']

 

Yes, this mirrors my experience. I had a friend visiting from out of town last year who had been looking for a good mahogany acoustic, preferably a slope-shoulder design. He had been strongly considering Gibsons and had found a few vintage instruments that appealed to him, but the prices were a bit too steep. When he played my J-45 TV he was very impressed - he really loved playing the guitar.

 

We have a 5 star Gibson dealer here in town so we paid them a visit. My friend played numerous Gibsons and we both agreed that none of the slope-shoulder models that they had in stock (and they probably had 8-10 in stock at the time) were anything to write home about, and a number of them were truly disappointing - void of life with bass strings that simply thud when plucked like they were strung up with twine. None of the Gibsons in stock could come close to matching the vibrancy that my guitar has. I was bummed, but not really surprised based on my previous experiences. Ironically, my friend ended up with a Santa Cruz Roy Smeck replica guitar that he is very happy with.

 

I have a much easier time accepting some of the cosmetic flaws that people on this forum mention from time to time. I personally value tonal quality far above the aesthetic virtues of any given guitar and would much rather see Gibson focus on this aspect of production. That said, I do believe that this is the most difficult aspect of instrument manufacturing to control, especially in the quantities that Gibson is producing. When it comes to tone, the folks at Bozeman with true luthier skills can only have so much impact on the instruments being produced as a whole. Perhaps this is why many of those that are truly concerned about this aspect of guitar building (such as Kopp and Walker) end up leaving to make their own mark in the guitar world. Even if they could have more impact, I'm sure that many of these guys would end up leaving based purely on their passion for instrument building and wanting to do their own thing. This of course is a natural progression as all guitar manufacturers experience similar losses, from Martin to Collings and Santa Cruz.

 

All the best,

Guth

[Hoss]

My experience differs from several who have posted here. The last store I visited with Gibsons on the wall had a high percentage that were exceptional sounding instruments.

 

But I wonder about those new guitars that might not sound great, and if my impression of them might not change if I came back in six months. IMO, many new guitars are in 'shock'. Or rather, the tree(s) that they came from is in shock, and still thinks it's a tree. Some instruments take time to make that transition from a living tree to a guitar.

 

I've only bought three brand new guitars, and each changed dramatically over time.

 

It's conceivable that the guitar we all dismiss as being 'dead' today might sound pretty good a year from now. My lone Martin is a good example. It was made in 1999. I bought it new in 2002. Think of that - Martin makes a ton of guitars and warehouses them. When it gets an order for that model, it ships the guitar. My guitar hit the store in 2001. It was already TWO years old when it went up on the wall. People played it and put it back. On the day I walked in, it was three years old. It sounded great to me, and several others who heard it. AS in: "that's the best sounding guitar here" great. (John Greven played that Martin and told me to 'never' sell it. So far, I've taken his advice to heart.)

 

Gibson doesn't warehouse, and guitars are shipped out after inspection. They hit the wall brand spanking new. It's something to consider.

[onewilyfool]

Can you spell "ANTI-TRUST???"

[rar]

... When it comes to tone' date=' the folks at Bozeman with true luthier skills can only have so much impact on the instruments being produced as a whole. Perhaps this is why many of those that are truly concerned about this aspect of guitar building (such as Kopp and Walker) end up leaving to make their own mark in the guitar world. Even if they could have more impact, I'm sure that many of these guys would end up leaving based purely on their passion for instrument building and wanting to do their own thing. ... [/quote']

 

Just in the interests of historical accuracy, neither Kevin Kopp nor John Walker left "to make their own mark in the guitar world". They left when the Custom Shop was closed and custom production was more or less integrated with regular production. On leaving, Kopp made a living primarily by doing repairs -- he was Martin-authorized, and some have conjectured this experience has influenced his own designs -- and Walker moved on to working for another well-known manufacturer. I don't know of any cases of anyone who's left Gibson "based purely on their passion for instrument building and wanting to do their own thing", but there's lots of stuff I don't know.

 

-- Bob R

[QuestionMark]

Right. I understand all that' date=' and in fact nearly pulled the trigger on one a few times myself for those very reasons. What I mean, is literally *when*. I don't even recall seeing one five years ago. Was it just the last couple years?

 

[/quote']

 

Just saw your post from earlier...as FYI, per an internet search Seagulls began being produced in the early to mid-1980s. To me it seems like I started seeing and hearing about them circa 2000 or so.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

[Guth]

Just in the interests of historical accuracy' date=' neither Kevin Kopp nor John Walker left "to make their own mark in the guitar world". They left when the Custom Shop was closed and custom production was more or less integrated with regular production. On leaving, Kopp made a living primarily by doing repairs -- he was Martin-authorized, and some have conjectured this experience has influenced his own designs -- and Walker moved on to working for another well-known manufacturer. I don't know of any cases of anyone who's left Gibson "based purely on their passion for instrument building and wanting to do their own thing", but there's lots of stuff I don't know.

 

-- Bob R

[/quote']

 

Fair enough, and thanks for the details.

 

All the best,

Guth

[Guth]

My experience differs from several who have posted here. The last store I visited with Gibsons on the wall had a high percentage that were exceptional sounding instruments.

 

I can believe that. We have a store here in town that doesn't have a problem sending back guitars that they receive which they feel don't hold up from a either a build-quality or tone perspective. This dealer doesn't cary Gibson by the way. At any rate, the new guitars that they sell all tend to sound fairly decent. I think that the manufacturers are much less inclined to send something out blindly when they know a shop is going to take the time to scrutinize the product before placing it on the wall. Perhaps the Gibson dealer in your area practices similar constraint before putting their guitars out for sale.

 

The examples of funky sounding Gibsons that I've referred to elsewhere in this thread aren't going to change much with time. A guitar either has clarity in the lower registers or it doesn't. The bass (or the midrange, or the trebles for that matter) might come alive a bit more with time as the guitar "opens up" and gains some volume in the process, but the characteristics that I'm talking about don't really change with time. I've played plenty of older guitars that also share this quality. I'm also not saying that Gibson is the only builder that can produce a guitar that sounds like this, they just seem to have a higher percentage of guitars that fall in this category than a number of other notable builders.

 

Like I've mentioned on this forum before, some time back I was approached by one of the younger salesmen at our local Gibson dealer who was all fired up over a particular J-45 they had recently received. He was really talking it up and had me excited for a chance to play it. All it took was one strum to realize that he and I had a very different idea of what a good guitar sounds like. This difference in what appeals to each of us should not be overlooked. Hoss, I'm not sure what you consider to be a good sounding instrument. I personally am very impressed by a number of Gibsons played by Russ Barenberg, Jackson Browne and Roy Book Binder (as a few examples that exist on various recordings). There are plenty of others, but these are the examples that immediately come to mind for me.

 

It is simply incredible to me that from a tone perspective and given the costs of the instruments, Gibson is capable of building both some of the best, and some of the worst examples of guitars I've ever had a chance to play. That is the thing that blows my mind, and also why I can understand some of the "Gibson bashing" that takes place on other forums. Gibson is somewhat all over the map when it comes to the sound of the guitars they build. If this is not intentional on Gibson's part, then I wish that they were paying more attention to this aspect of their guitars and worry less about the various requirements they are placing on their dealers.

 

All the best,

Guth

[Hoss]

All it took was one strum to realize that he and I had a very different idea of what a good guitar sounds like. This difference in what appeals to each of us should not be overlooked.

 

Well, that could be a factor!

 

But I have heard guitars 'open up' dramatically. I have one myself. I'd ordered the guitar new and when I got it, was so disappointed I just put it away. Completely dead. In a few months, it was starting to wake up, and four years later is clear across all strings and up the board.

 

And I've played guitars that never did open up.

 

But personal taste is hard to account for, isn't it? I also have a vintage guitar that is remarkably clear and loud. Standing offers to buy it from a couple collectors and a player. But I never play it-- it stays in the closet. It's just 'too' clear, with more sustain and not enough warmth for my taste. (and it's a Gibson. So there you go! )

[clayville]

This ain't exactly a News Flash, but to me acoustics -- from any maker whatsoever -- show more variety from example to example and from week to week than, say, electrics. The wood, the combination of elements in the parts, the setup, the age, the humidity that day, and the half-life of the strings are all major factors. I know for sure that my '95 J-100 Extra and my '00 Taylor 812ce both sound generally much better than the day I bought them new, but I also know that they sound better a few days after a string change than they do a few weeks later. And when shopping, a lot is in the mysterious "feel" of an unfamiliar guitar.

 

Trying to weigh all those factors in a few minutes in a guitar store (a noisy one or an empty one) is a difficult challenge at best. Expecting uniformity is folly. But... taste is taste.

[BigKahune]

... But personal taste is hard to account for' date=' isn't it? I also have a vintage guitar that is remarkably clear and loud. Standing offers to buy it from a couple collectors and a player. But I never play it-- it stays in the closet. It's just 'too' clear, with more sustain and not enough warmth for my taste. ...[/quote']

 

+1

 

When it comes to sound and tone, I'm impatient. For me, an acoustic must have the sound/tone I want when I look it over and play it, or it goes back on the wall. I'm not going to wait months or years to see if the guitar opens up. Because of the variability in sound/tone, craftsmanship and feel, every guitar has to be evaluated individually. That's why I always get my hands, eyes and ears on an acoustic before I buy. Sure, after a purchase the sound/tone might change some, but at least going in, I know it had what I was looking for when I made the purchase. And just because I'm not enthused by a particular specimen doesn't mean someone won't think it's great.