Hold on to your Gibby's, they will become known as "Pre-Fender Gibsons"

[onewilyfool]

I notice on "other" websites and forums, that they refer to "pre-Fender Tacomas" and "pre-fender Guilds"......I'm pretty sure our Gibbys will be MUCH more valuable than the ones after acquisition.......

[bkharmony]

Nah. They're going to be known as "Juszkiewiczes." Or maybe "Norlin IIs."

[DanvillRob]

I notice on "other" websites and forums' date=' that they refer to "pre-Fender Tacomas" and "pre-fender Guilds"......I'm pretty sure our Gibbys will be MUCH more valuable than the ones after acquisition.......[/quote']

 

I used to own a pre-Fender Fender!! (or maybe it was a post-Leo Fender)

[Hall]

I notice on "other" websites and forums' date=' that they refer to "pre-Fender Tacomas" and "pre-fender Guilds"......I'm pretty sure our Gibbys will be MUCH more valuable than the ones after acquisition.......[/quote']

 

So you have heard, huh. :)

[onewilyfool]

It gets pretty silly. Goodall guitars were made in California, then it went to Hawaii, now back to California. You can actually hear people argue about how pre-Hawaiian guitars are FAR superior to the Hawaiian versions, AND how the Hawaiian guitars are vastly superior to the new Californian guitars.....lol.....

 

I hear the same thing about Norlin guitars, but I've only played a few of them, and they were all pretty good sounding.... although I only have a limited experience with Norlin guitars, I don't think you can make blanket statements like that....

[Jinder]

I've played some superb Norlin-era Gibsons...and a couple of howlers-one in particular, a 1972 Southern Jumbo, that sounded like someone had stuffed it with wet laundry before it was handed to me.

 

I think that if the ship goes down or changes hands, the Juskiewicz era will be looked upon as a golden age for Gibson.

 

I have played very, very few 1988-2010 Gibson acoustics that I wouldn't own with pride. There have been a few that have passed through my hands, but I've always either regretted it (two J45s, one Dove) or simply found an identical example that I prefer the tone/feel of (my Hummingbird, for example, which was the successor to a 2006 'Bird which was very nice, but not quite in the same league as the superb 2008 'Bird that I own now.

 

So yeah, I agree-if things change, these "Golden Era" Gibsons will become pricey, I reckon.

[bkharmony]

think that if the ship goes down or changes hands' date=' the Juskiewicz era will be looked upon as a golden age for Gibson.

 

I have played very, very few 1988-2010 Gibson acoustics that I wouldn't own with pride. [/quote']

 

I agree. All these folks saying you have to look and look to find that one-in-one hundred that doesn't suck are beyond mental.

[BigKahune]

... I have played very' date=' very few 1988-2010 Gibson acoustics that I wouldn't own with pride. ...[/quote']

 

I agree. All these folks saying you have to look and look to find that one-in-one hundred that doesn't suck are beyond mental.

 

I highly doubt either one of you guys would drop a load of cash to buy a Gibson sight unseen - from mail order for example. And there's the rub. Some specimens are just plain better than others and that's why people look through a number of guitars before making a decision. Some people's "acceptable range" is narrow, causing the to look at more specimens. And, some people's "acceptable range" is wide, and they find an acceptable specimen quickly.

[ksdaddy]

I think I've only sold one Henry era Gibson acoustic, a '93 Gospel. I bought it cheap because the bass side was split almost from headblock to tailblock. I fixed it but every time I held it I saw the repaired crack. It bugged me so I flipped it. The new owner wanted to gig with it and didn't care about the crack. He was delerious with the tone and action so it all worked out.

[Taylor Player]

I highly doubt either one of you guys would drop a load of cash to buy and Gibson sight unseen - from mail order for example. And there's the rub. Some specimens are just plain better than others and that's why people look through a number of guitars before making a decision. Some people's "acceptable range" is narrow' date=' causing the to look at more specimens. And, some people's "acceptable range" is wide, and they find an acceptable specimen quickly.

 

[/quote']

 

I would tend to agree, but then again, I won't buy any guitar unless I play it first. That goes for Gibson, Martin or even a Taylor (who in my opinion is the most consistent in their quality). It is a bonding thing.

[bkharmony]

I highly doubt either one of you guys would drop a load of cash to buy and Gibson sight unseen - from mail order for example.

 

But I have. And I got a great guitar every time.

[larryp58]

Are we already writing off Gibson as we know it? I know it looks inevitable, but there's always hope. Or did I miss something in the news?

[bkharmony]

Are we already writing off Gibson as we know it?

 

That seems to be the consensus. I know I am. I'm kind of looking forward to it, actually. There's so many great things Gibson could be doing if it had competent leadership.

[Red 333]

That seems to be the consensus. I know I am. quote]

 

I wouldn't.

 

That article about Gibson not providing detailed financial reports to its lenders also said that Gibson projected to produce only slightly less sales and profit in 2009 over 2008. That's remarkable if true. Remarkable. But, being a privately held comany, we'll never know, anyway.

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have it in front of me, but I don't think that article or any other trusted source said Gibson had defaulted on any debt. If I remember, the source of all this agita is that they haven't provided their lenders the reporting due as part of their lending agreements. True, the lack of reporting (and the Chief Finacial Officer roulette that's said to be its cause) is not a good sign, but it's the defaulting on the debt itself (not the reporting) that's apocalyptic.

 

I don't have any special claim to understand Henry's thinking, but I would imagine he would offer up Baldwin, Kramer, Tobias, Wurlitzer, Slingerland, or some of the other brands before selling Gibson if forced to, or consoilidate electrical guitar building into one facility, farm out repair and restoration work, etc. to keep things afloat. That is, if he WANTS to keep running Gibson after all these years, and not retire.

 

The fact is, Gibson's going to be sold anyway at some point, just as part of the natural order of things. Henry's not going to live forever, or he may simply get bored, or an offer too good to pass up, etc. It doesn't mean the end of Gibson, unless it's sold to someone with no respect for the brand, its history, or its customers. In that sense, Henry has been an excellent steward.

 

If Gibson's corporate culture is as screwed up as has been reported here, I hope Henry will step back, look at the situation objectively, and take steps to fix it. Anyone with any business sense would, and Henry has proven himself to have excericised lots of it in the past. Lets cross our fingers and hope for the best.

 

Red 333

[nodehopper]

Some specimens are just plain better than others and that's why people look through a number of guitars before making a decision.

 

 

You have to "define" better.....yes there will be variability in tone between guitars with all manufacturers.......but "Better"?

 

I like a guitar that has strong mids ....if I play one and it is all shimmery highs ......I might say it is a dog. Someone else may like that one much more than me and think of it as the ONE.

 

I think (yes I am painting with a broad brush....but it is to make the point) many over on AGF like the more shimmery chimey sounding guitar tone.....so they go play some Gibsons and hear too much mid and think those are dogs....they hit one that has the ringing bell like tones and say..."OK, I had to play 10 dogs to find one good Gisbon....their production must be very hit and miss"

 

None of those are "BETTER" it is just personal preference for the most part. Too many think that just because a guitar doesn't float "their" boat it is bad.

[bkharmony]

I wouldn't.

 

That article about Gibson not providing detailed financial reports to its lenders also said that Gibson projected to produce only slightly less sales and profit in 2009 over 2008. That's remarkable if true. Remarkable. But' date=' being a privately held comany, we'll never know, anyway.[/quote']

 

I'm not just basing my statement off one murky financial report. I'm basing it on the fact Henry has pissed off everyone: his employees, his dealers, his financiers and most of all, his customers. Of course, I have been known to be wrong once in a while, but you can't run a business when NOBODY likes what you're doing.

 

If Gibson's corporate culture is as screwed up as has been reported here' date=' I hope Henry will step back, look at the situation objectively, and take steps to fix it. Anyone with any business sense would, and Henry has proven himself to have excericised lots of it in the past. Lets cross our fingers and hope for the best.

[/quote']

 

And please note I didn't say I think Gibson will be sold. The question was, "Are we already writing off Gibson as we know it?" Yes. Because I believe Henry will change things (not holding my breath) or sell part/all of the company. I just can't see it continuing on the way it is, particularly considering how well Fender, Taylor and Martin are doing these days.

[Red 333]

...particularly considering how well Fender' date=' Taylor and Martin are doing these days.[/quote']

 

Again, these aren't publicly traded comapnies, so we'll never know their finacial position and how they're doing. But consider this: Fender has undertaken massive price cuts on their most popular models, and then introduced a lower cost line of Teles and Strats on top of those. Martin introduced another budget line positioned between their old budget line and their standard models. I don't follow what Taylor is doing, but I would say Fender and Martin have clearly provided indications of needing to react to what must be tough conditions. And I hope it helps them do well, too.

 

Gibson, on the other hand, discontinued their new budget line of acoustics. Then they raised prices. Either there's enough demand, or they're nuts.

 

As to pissing off dealers. Well, change is tough. I'm sure there are lots of small dealers that would like to have some Gibsons on their wall. But Gibson's factories can produce only a finite number of product, and to keep them operating in a predictable (and cost effective manner), they need to maintain a dealer base who can predicatably and quickly sell a large percentage of their output, and (important!) will reorder quickly and predicatably. And repeat, ad nasuem.

 

I don't like the fact that Guitar Center and Musician's Friend and Sam Ash and Zzounds and, ugh, Best Buy are becoming the only game in town, but there it is. They sell a ton of product, and reorder it. I hate that in order to placate all these big online dealers, Gibson has to adopt a policy that causes the remaining independant dealers to have an inability to advertise online, too. I don't buy the argument that it's to motivate buyers to have to go to the store. I can't imagine a better brand embassodor than Fullers. But Gibson is taking a leaf from Apple's playbook and tightly controlling it's reseller network (an act which has been shown to have maintained higher selling prices for their products).

 

That's another reason Gibson has eschewed smaller dealers. When you're a small shop owner, and you're having a tough month, you might, in your desperation, cut a price or two in order to generate some cash to keep the sign lit. Gibson doesn't want any wheeling and dealing going on with their product in one location, because when word gets out, it impacts the perceived value of their products in all the others. Don't buy from store X, because Y will give a much better deal.

 

I'm not defending it, just trying to explain how I interpret their actions.

 

Red 333

[onewilyfool]

"unless it's sold to someone with no respect for the brand' date=' its history, or its customers. "

 

Red 333 [/quote']

 

 

You mean Fender, right???

[Red 333]

You mean Fender' date=' right???[/quote']

 

I think they've done OK by Gretsch, haven't they? I'm not asking in a rhetorical manner, I don't know enough about it.

 

If Fender were to buy Gibson, what do you fear would happen?

 

Personally, I think Congress should prevent it just onthe grounds that it doesn't seem right.

 

Red 333

[bkharmony]

I think they've done OK by Gretsch' date=' haven't they? I'm not asking in a rhetorical manner, I don't know enough about it.[/quote']

 

I think so. And Guild as well. There are worse fates.

 

I think Fender would take some of the better Epiphone models and slap a Gibson logo on them. Then get some actual customer outreach going, get the dealer network fixed, and maybe even lower the price on a few real Gibsons.

 

Sounds horrible!!!!

[Red 333]

 

I think Fender would take some of the better Epiphone models and slap a Gibson logo on them.

 

This I believe!

[Murph]

Man.....

 

Ya go to Disney World for a week and everything goes to pot.....

 

[DanvillRob]

 

I'm not defending it' date=' just trying to explain how I interpret their actions.

 

Red 333 [/quote']

 

A very insightful and intelligent analysis. Thanx

[onewilyfool]

I'm just glad I have my Ren Ferguson signed certificate of authenticity for my J-30 Firebird.....I don't think Ren would stay through a re-organization......he's way too talented to be handcuffed by a Fender type company taking over.

[sharon mk]

wait a sec guys!!

what are you talking about here??

can someone give me the story in a nut shell? whats happening with Gibson ? is there any actual danger of shutting down the whole thing or selling it to a major corp?