Leaving the factory: Bone, Plastic, or Tusq?

[GuitarLight]

I'm sorry Hogeye, but I can't see the reasoning behind Gibson's use of such cheap bridge pins.

 

To keep the cost down...?

 

Of all the components that go into the building of an expensive guitar, the cost of the bridge pins has to be the most insignificant. If you or I can buy a set of bone bridge pins from AllParts for $12 retail, how much do you think it would add to Gibson's cost to buy enough similar pins, for say... a thousand guitars, at Manufacturer's wholesale prices? Maybe three or four dollars per set? (Maybe...?)

 

If Gibson really believed that bridge pins had any significant impact on a guitar's tone, it would make very little sense for them to skimp on that specification and, at the same time, go through all the arduous quality control procedures that are an integral part of their acoustic guitar production.

 

I think it's more likely that they just don't believe (as your last paragraph seems to indicate you also do not believe...) that bridge pin material has any impact on the quality of a guitar's sound.

 

In fact, if they believe that it does matter, shouldn't Gibson warn their new guitar customers that the Company assumes the buyer of a new Gibson guitar will be changing the pins, and explain that that's the reason the plastic bridges pins they've included on the acoustic guitar (for which that customer may have just paid as much as $4,000), are of such inferior quality compared to the rest of that instrument's components?

 

It makes no sense for Gibson to build a guitar like my "SJ-200 True Vintage" (with an MSRP of $6,330) and then expect me to have to correct defects in the quality of its sound because, (in the name of "keeping the cost down"...MSRP $6,330...?) they have made the decision to use some parts that they know are at a level of quality which is far below that of the rest of the guitar's construction and design standards.

 

I really HOPE the reason that Gibson's bridge pins are so cheap is because they don't think the material of the bridge pins has any impact on the quality of a guitar's sound at all.

 

While I can't agree with that premise, it might, at least, help to explain their use of such inferior quality bridge pins on such expensive acoustic guitars. Trying to cut back costs on a quality guitar by using what are known to be less than quality materials makes no sense at all...

 

If Gibson had chosen quality bridge pins for any of the many new Gibson acoustic guitars that I currently own, I wouldn't have had to buy replacements from Bob Colosi at his retail prices. I didn't have to go into that retail market to replace (at top dollar prices...)the bridge pins on any of my new Martin acoustics.

 

Gibson is just trying to save me money?.... I don't think so...

 

Obviously, I am a player who does believe that the use of different materials for bridge pins can have a definite impact on the quality of a guitar's sound... and for the small extra amount that it would cost Gibson, I believe they should supply their customers with a product that is "quality" from top to bottom, instead of assuming that the buyer will know where the builder has made compromises that may negatively impact tone (unless remedied by that buyer, after purchase).

 

Jack6849

+ 1

[GuitarLight]

.

Incongruent.

 

Charge top dollar for so called high quality, esthetically pleasing, high end guitars.

 

Include crappy looking plastic bridge pins with said guitars.

 

Some people think Gibson is making a good decision here. Those people should visit some other forums and get a look at the many people thank think Gibson makes bad decisions in more aspects of its business then just bridge pins.

 

Bridge pin from a $3500 J-200 - the two halves don't even line up - crap -

 

It's a Gibson.