Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

repeat of norlin era


ckledzepplin

Recommended Posts

The obvious question: if it was so flawed you can't tolerate it' date=' why did you buy it?

 

Just curious.[/quote']

 

when i purchased the guitar I played it for quite some time and it played and sounded wonderful. i bought it, took it home and was fooling around w/it for a few days. one evening I sat in another part of my apartment which has a little better lighting than where I generally play at home, and while I wasn't looking for it, I saw the light catch a little nick on the back of the neck. problem was, once I noticed it I was able to feel it. you know how when you buy a new guitar the back of the neck takes a short time to break in because of what I believe may be the nitro finish on the back of the neck? well, that build up is naturally on the back of this neck as well - I am guessing I must have felt it before, but chalked it up to just needing some breaking in and playing out. the nick was very small - and I really could only see it if the light hit it right - but I was still able to feel it and knew it would not go away.

 

once I realized that it was a nick and not the natural breaking in process, I went back to exchange it for another one that was there - the one with the plastic being screwed in wrong and the dent on the back - I did notice the problems and pointed them out to the guy who sold it to me (actually he's an old friend going all the way to high school) ... that's why the order was placed for a new one.

 

to be fair, they did have a couple of absolutely beautiful faded tobacco models - I would have absolutely taken them home if they had been in washed cherry.

 

I'm not saying all Gibson guitars come out looking like the two mentioned above. I'm not even saying that it's the norm. I am just saying that a majority of QC complaints against Gibson are really things that are preventable to begin with, and should be noticeable during the inspection process. Despite what I consider to be a relatively small group of naysayers have to say, Gibson has deservedly earned a reputation as a leader in making some of the world's finest instruments - when you are in a position of leadership, it's incumbent upon you to set the example for others to aspire to.

 

While large in number, these are small complaints which require a small amount of time to get a better handle on - and it's really the only reason why people who can afford to purchase the guitar of their choice shy away from Gibson. People wind up going with something like a PRS because of the craftsmanship and appearance - despite it not sounding as good or having the "soul" you mentioned - which I totally agree with. If Gibson had the same approach to the QC that lesser guitar manufacturers have, the disparity and gap in sales and market dominance would widen to a staggering degree.

 

Believe me, I'm not on a Gibson bashing rant - if anything, I'm on their side completely. It's the reason I point it out. I want to see the best out of something I really believe in.

 

That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't understand why Gibson produces so many models of the LP--Classic' date=' Standard, Traditional, Studio. It makes no sense. It just creates a ton of confusion in the market. [/quote']

 

Giddyup! My feelings exactly. Reissues excepted, why not just have a standard (built like the traditional) available in both 50s and 60s neck, a Custom, and a Studio? That would cover the bases nicely. I'm worried Gibson is going to end up pleasing no one by trying to please everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...