Binding

[LarryUK]

I've put a thread on the semi acoustic board.

Some people disagree with me.

My question is. Is this finish on the binding acceptable on a high end guitar?

[LarryUK]

This one

[FennRx]

looks a bit rough to me , however if the guitar sounds/play great i would use any cosmetic flaws as haggling points.

[badbluesplayer]

What's the owner supposed to do? Throw the guitar in the trash?

 

If it's not acceptable, don't buy it.

[LPguitarman]

Unacceptable for purchasing new unless you want to use it to negotiate the price down, assuming it sounds and plays great.

[LarryUK]

I wasn't going to buy it. There's a post on the semi acoustic side about a guitar that been supplied with a poor finish.

So out of interest I was looking at the guitars on Ebay. This one was for sale. It's a 2001 175.

But I personally thought the finish was poor for a high end guitar.The F holes are roughly finished and the nibs are uneven.

The folks on that side didn't agree. Yet this is a custom shop job.

I wouldn't have accepted it new like that.

Would any of you?

[Jantha]

No, that's not acceptable given the price of those guitars. I would't accept it.

[Riffster]

NO way, if I bought it online, it'd be going back.

 

In my experience the main Online Retailers have a great return policy, I have returned 2 guitars until I received one that was acceptable, no hassles no problems, why settle for a guitar with noticeable cosmetic issues when you can return it.

 

Edit: my reply focuses on online retailers since I would not buy a guitar like this if I had the chance to inspect it before buying it.

[LarryUK]

NO way, if I bought it online, it'd be going back.

 

In my experience the main Online Retailers have a great return policy, I have returned 2 guitars until I received one that was acceptable, no hassles no problems, why settle for a guitar with noticeable cosmetic issues when you can return it.

 

Edit: my reply focuses on online retailers since I would not buy a guitar like this if I had the chance to inspect it before buying it.

Have a look at the Ebay ad. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/2001-Gibson-ES-175-ES175-Wine-Red-Flametop-335-336-/160479435468?pt=Guitar&hash=item255d51dacc

I'm not out to knock a seller or Gibson. But some of the sellers on Ebay have these close up pics. I've looked at loads and I've never seen one like this. I've scrutinised some Les Pauls and they were perfect. I find this one had lots of faults. It's almost like it was a second, The f holes are rough. I'd have thought they'd have sanded them smooth at the factory, The nibs on the neck are very uneven with groove marks etc.

I don't think it's just me.

If you look at Craigaboy's post on the semi section. His new 336 is bad and he's sending it back. Rightly so.

[BigKahune]

Just a thought . . . looking at it . . . being rougher than you'd expect from Gibson . . . despite the fact the seller says no breaks or repairs, that horn might've been smacked enough to crack the binding and then repaired.

[L5Larry]

Just exactly how many threads are necessary to discuss a small "nick" in the binding.

 

As has been suggested by a Gibson employee in the OTHER thread, you should do some research on how these guitars are made. They are handmade by actual people with tools in their hands. Each and every one will be a little different and show some "maker's mark".

 

A little mfg info on the "finishing" process: After the color coat is applied, the binding is scraped by hand with a RAZOR BLADE to remove the stain or color on the binding before the clear coat is applied. Looks to me like the "scraper" had his/her razor blade at an angle and put a little gouge in the binding with the corner of the blade during this process since the mark seems to be under the clear coat. Yes, a couple of flat passes with the blade would have smoothed this area out, but it was either not noticed, or deemed acceptable.

 

I know of no handmade product of any kind of which I could not find some "flaw". My L-5CES is signed by one of Gibson's most famous luthiers of the second half on the 20th century (James Hutchins), and it shows many signs of being a hand built instrument, and I would have it no other way.

 

The final quality control inspection is done by the consumer. If you deem the product unacceptable to YOUR standards, simply DON'T BUY IT.

[Jantha]

Sure, it's a little cosmetic flaw. No, it's not worth throwing away the entire guitar for a cosmetic flaw. Yes, if the guitar sounds and plays spectacularly, then something like that can be used as leverage to knock the price down a bit.

 

To me, it's more about principal. Look at what it says at the top of the forum.. "Prestige, Quality...". If I'm going to pay a premium price for a guitar, then yes, I expect premium quality.

[BigKahune]

If brought that to my shop for a look they'd asked me if it fell or got smacked.

 

 

 

 

And the nut and fret inlays are a bit sloppy. I've got an SJ-200 with crown inlays - perfect fit no filler. Of course, comparing Bozeman to Nashville is apples and oranges.

 

[BigKahune]

Yes.

 

When I look at a used guitar, one of the things I look at closely is the neck joint. The possibly cosmetic issue with the binding on the horn is only bothering me because of the neck/top joint on the treble side - kinda looks like there's a possibility something might have happened. It could just be expansion and contraction, but a better pic of the area would be nice. The nut may have been worked for heavier gauge strings or even replaced. And I'm just surprised with the fill around the fret inlays - using filler makes it look like lower quality work. Anyway, there's nothing scary, and overall the guitar looks gorgeous. But, when contemplating dropping a pile of cash, the seemingly cosmetic issues should be looked at carefully to be sure another issue isn't hiding.

[LarryUK]

I saw the inlay's as well.

But I won't comment any more as it seems that some people take offence if you criticise Gibson.

I wouldn't say anyone has worked on the guitar. the neck looks as if it's not been played much.

It's obviously a second that got through.

If you look at the other guitars that the seller's has got for sale. You'll find nothing like this one.

[BigKahune]

If that ES-175 played like a dream with great tone/sound, and the neck joint checked out, I'd buy it - if I was into red - I like natural and burst.

 

 

I bought it used. That's a Westerly with a carved solid spruce top. B)

[Nick Beach]

I personally have zero problems with anything I saw in those pics. If I was in the market for a 175 I'd jump on that one quick.

 

Personally if I was looking for a guitar with ZERO flaws, I wouldn't look at Gibson, or any large name manufacturer for that reason. I'd be looking for some guy in his work shed that makes four guitar a year and has nothing to do but make me as happy as I can possibly be. That way I know I'd be getting something flawless.

[mrktwn]

Yeah ditto pretty much what everybody says. Thats as good as it gets. Its not terrible. I guess. They seemingly cant

sand anything flat these days, thats my only beef with the "built by hand" feature of newer Gibsons. Thats solid body models not hollow/semi hollow, though. But hey its a beautiful guitar! Have you played it? If I thought it sounded good and played good, I'd want it. Those are mostly cosmetic issues, that do indeed come from a hand finishing. Gee, maybe the "problem" is related to keeping good

or talented employees?

[sparky scott 29]

I think that if you decent money on a guitar, you should get what you pay for.

If it's chinese, and cheap, then that's what you should get.

But if you order online, that's a different story.