Larry Lion Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Folks I just bought a brand new ES-339, the antique red model. Nice guitar, etc., am happy with its playability and tone, and maybe that's all that matters. HOWEVER, I did notice some finish things that I would like to table for the group, and see if I'm alone, whether this is a Gibson issue, or not. First, the top edge of my headstock is rough. By rough, I mean that while the rest of the exposed wood on the guitar has a high gloss, nitro (?) finish, the top of the headstock feels like it was not smoother before spraying. Strange. Next, the neck binding has a definite "ridge" if you slide your finger from under the neck to the frets. I have a bunch of guitars with neck bindings, and they are all flush - except for my -339. Am I the only one? Pity there was not a complete attention to detail by the Custom Shop on this guitar, if the are design flaws. Shameful if these are quality issues! Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Larry, this is quite typical. I have a '06 335, '09 339, and an '10 330, as well as other Gibsons from the Nashville plant. They all have a little something somewhere. Not to say that Gibson couldn't do better, but it's rather rare indeed to get a 100% perfect guitar from Gibson. That said, my two most recent Memphis custom shop models come very close. Try not to focus on these minor issues & enjoy all the good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 I do enjoy the good stuff, but it is a pity that Gibson is getting sloppy: "Gibson Custom Shop" used to mean something.. Tell you what, Fender's Custom Shop quality is higher than Gibson's, while Martin's and Taylor's EVERYDAY quality is way higher than either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LerxstLee Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I do enjoy the good stuff, but it is a pity that Gibson is getting sloppy: "Gibson Custom Shop" used to mean something.. Tell you what, Fender's Custom Shop quality is higher than Gibson's, while Martin's and Taylor's EVERYDAY quality is way higher than either of them. I would recomend getting a RA# and getting that fixed as soon as possible, if it is too late to return it for a refund. When Gibson paints the guitar they also paint the binding. The paint on the binding is scraped off with a razor blade, then clear coat is applied. These ridges only get worse with time. Sometimes they are not evident at first but start to show up within a few years. If they are evident in a new instrument, the binding was probably scraped too much and the clear coat will not make it level. I am not sure if this is considered by Gibson as a "finish problem" as finish problems are never covered under the "gold guarantee", but poorly scraped binding should be. If you remember in the '70s and '80s Gibson would at least mark imperfect guitars with a B stamp on the back of the headstock. It was sold as a B-stock for a discount. I am sure you notice you no longer see a B-stock stamps anylonger. Why people take anything less than perfect for " an instrument from the Custom shop or anywhere else that is good enough with some issues", less advise you that lack of attention to detail is common now and acceptable is quite frankly shameful imHo. Sure there are some flaws you can live with if the instrument is that good, or you got a discount for that flaw. Let us know how you make out and best to you. /cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Thanks. Lerxtlee. I have a good relationship with my dealer, I'll ask them today what they can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LerxstLee Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 It is not so much the scraping off the paint of the binding, yet sometimes they do it so aggresively that they scrap too much binding off. Sometimes not enough. Sometimes uneven. I want to make that clear. /cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Jsut spoke to the dealer, he's going to replace it, no questions asked - and verified that the three other -339's in his stock do not have the ridge, so it must be a quality issue. Thanks for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidl Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Jsut spoke to the dealer, he's going to replace it, no questions asked - and verified that the three other -339's in his stock do not have the ridge, so it must be a quality issue. Thanks for your help. Glad it all worked out Larry. I got my Antique red 339 last October and could not find even the slightest flaw. It is truly a great guitar. Enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LerxstLee Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Glad to hear you have a great dealer. I am also happy they are willing to let you exchange it. If you get a chance let us know how the next one is. I am hoping it playes and sounds as well as the other. /cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted May 20, 2011 Author Share Posted May 20, 2011 Actually, I always wanted the fat neck (59 neck), so I got a bonus - same color, good finish this time, and fat neck. Life is good ... The dealer in Canada is Long & McQuade. They are amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 The replacement -339 definitely plays and sounds better. Brighter, a little more sustain (due to the fat neck?). Anyhow, I'm no shredder, so the fast 60/30 neck was probably wasted on me speed-wise, and now the -339 is closer in feel to my Les Paul Baritone, which I prefer. One small (new) quality issue on the replacement guitar, though - the saddle "groove" for the low E string is so far off centre, that if the string sits in the groove, the low E misses both pickup pole pieces, and intonation goes way off on that string. Disappointing - but this problem is easily fixed. Truly a pity that Gibson's quality has deteriorated. By comparison, I recently bought a new Martin D-35, for the same sort of money. The D-35's quality and attention to detail puts Gibson to shame, and that was from Martin's regular shop, not the custom one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 The replacement -339 definitely plays and sounds better. Brighter, a little more sustain (due to the fat neck?). Anyhow, I'm no shredder, so the fast 60/30 neck was probably wasted on me speed-wise, and now the -339 is closer in feel to my Les Paul Baritone, which I prefer. One small (new) quality issue on the replacement guitar, though - the saddle "groove" for the low E string is so far off centre, that if the string sits in the groove, the low E misses both pickup pole pieces, and intonation goes way off on that string. Disappointing - but this problem is easily fixed. Truly a pity that Gibson's quality has deteriorated. By comparison, I recently bought a new Martin D-35, for the same sort of money. The D-35's quality and attention to detail puts Gibson to shame, and that was from Martin's regular shop, not the custom one. Larry - I think the point I was trying to make in post #2 is this: Gibson's quality control has not deteriorated. It's been hit & miss as long as I can remember. They constantly go through cycles where it seems to get better, then worse, then better again. I don't say this to excuse Gibson, because it drives me nuts, too. The reality is that you've got to hunt for the good ones. As mentioned earlier, the last two Memphis examples I've bought have been virtually perfect, so it might be that Memphis is in a higher quality phase right now. And no question, Martin kicks Gibson's rear end with a consistently fine level of quality control - always has & probably always will. At any rate, glad to hear you got one that feels right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dylanita Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 My 330 from the custom shop has exactly the same problem (¿?) in the top of the headstock.. Looks like no sanding at all has been done in this area, And the headstock finish is UGLY. Also, you can see file´s scratches in the fingerboard edge. I could not see these defects before buying because did it by internet.. However, my Les Paul standard from 1989 does´t have this problem.. Its headstock is smooth and well sanded at the top and the fingerboard is perfect. Is Gibson doing things wrong in Memphis? I do not understand these things in very expensive guitars made by hand. It´s very sad . I have a Martin D28 (same price in Spain than the 330) and It´s simply perfect. Please, anybody has the same defect in the top of his "custom shop" guitars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 The replacement -339 was fine, finish wise. I wrote to Gibson, but they don't respond. I wonder if they even read these messages? They referred me to the local distributor in Canada for the latest problem (a badly notched saddle). I also recently bought a Martin D35, and a Taylor T-5, for approximately the same money, their quality was a million times better than Gibson's. But I will say this - the Gibson sounds fantastic. My 330 from the custom shop has exactly the same problem (¿?) in the top of the headstock.. Looks like no sanding at all has been done in this area, And the headstock finish is UGLY. Also, you can see file´s scratches in the fingerboard edge. I could not see these defects before buying because did it by internet.. However, my Les Paul standard from 1989 does´t have this problem.. Its headstock is smooth and well sanded at the top and the fingerboard is perfect. Is Gibson doing things wrong in Memphis? I do not understand these things in very expensive guitars made by hand. It´s very sad . I have a Martin D28 (same price in Spain than the 330) and It´s simply perfect. Please, anybody has the same defect in the top of his "custom shop" guitars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 My 330 from the custom shop has exactly the same problem (¿?) in the top of the headstock.. Looks like no sanding at all has been done in this area, And the headstock finish is UGLY. Also, you can see file´s scratches in the fingerboard edge. I could not see these defects before buying because did it by internet.. However, my Les Paul standard from 1989 does´t have this problem.. Its headstock is smooth and well sanded at the top and the fingerboard is perfect. Is Gibson doing things wrong in Memphis? I do not understand these things in very expensive guitars made by hand. It´s very sad . I have a Martin D28 (same price in Spain than the 330) and It´s simply perfect. Please, anybody has the same defect in the top of his "custom shop" guitars? My recently manufactured 330 & 339 are both virtually perfect in fit & finish. The problems you've encountered are a matter of Gibson's ongoing inconsistency in build quality, which will most likely never change. Unfortunately this means that ordering over the internet is a crap shoot. I was able to do a hands on assessment of the 339 before purchase, but the 330 is only available via the internet here in the USA, so I took a chance when a good price came along & got lucky. Again, not to excuse Gibson's inconsistency, but it's important to know this up front when considering the purchase of one. Therefore, when buying a Gibson via the internet, it is essential that your return rights are simple & straightforward. If the 330 had disappointed me, it would have gone back to the seller in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 boubouz imo, Gibson's spotty quality (and attitude) is not acceptable in this day and age. It WILL lose them business/market share, if it hasn't already. If it wasn't that their guitars sounded so damned good, I think Gibson would be long gone. In all this discussion, I did not mention that I also have a special Fender Telecaster - mass produced, compared to Gibson, I guess, but excellent quality, and Fender's staff is extremely market-oriented (i.e. helpful). So in my recent experience (Taylor, Martin, Gibson & Fender), one manufacturer stands out for its POOR quality and attitude, and that is Gibson U.S.A. Anyway, we must vote with our wallets, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 boubouz imo, Gibson's spotty quality (and attitude) is not acceptable in this day and age. It WILL lose them business/market share, if it hasn't already. If it wasn't that their guitars sounded so damned good, I think Gibson would be long gone. In all this discussion, I did not mention that I also have a special Fender Telecaster - mass produced, compared to Gibson, I guess, but excellent quality, and Fender's staff is extremely market-oriented (i.e. helpful). So in my recent experience (Taylor, Martin, Gibson & Fender), one manufacturer stands out for its POOR quality and attitude, and that is Gibson U.S.A. Anyway, we must vote with our wallets, right? Yes, we must vote with our wallets, and I can't believe how much money Gibson has pulled out of mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryancap77 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 yes ive spent alot on gibson as well...but worth every penny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyGibson Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 The replacement -339 definitely plays and sounds better. Brighter, a little more sustain (due to the fat neck?). Anyhow, I'm no shredder, so the fast 60/30 neck was probably wasted on me speed-wise, and now the -339 is closer in feel to my Les Paul Baritone, which I prefer. One small (new) quality issue on the replacement guitar, though - the saddle "groove" for the low E string is so far off centre, that if the string sits in the groove, the low E misses both pickup pole pieces, and intonation goes way off on that string. Disappointing - but this problem is easily fixed. Truly a pity that Gibson's quality has deteriorated. By comparison, I recently bought a new Martin D-35, for the same sort of money. The D-35's quality and attention to detail puts Gibson to shame, and that was from Martin's regular shop, not the custom one. Does Tone Pros make the bridges for these? Like you said, it's an easy fix. But it seems, that would be their QC as the manufacturer of the bridge. But handled through Gibson, since it's their guitar. I also agree with all comments related to Gibson's quality control. Each one is different. Could be the feel or it could be visual. Visual is sometimes good, because if it's no big deal, you can usually get a bigger discount. Not too many people walking into music stores with $2K to spend these days. A smudge on the horn of my LP garnered another $100 off of the $350 discount I already had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share Posted May 31, 2011 The dealer again came through with a spare bridge assembly, so I am happy (again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Sounds like it all worked out in the end for you, which is great news. I love my Gibsons but I certainly understand your point. I can find minor flaws in each one I own, but nothing that is serious. What does bother me, as you mentioned, is how are other companies able to be more consistent. The only guitar I've ever bought without seeing it first was my PRS. I did this with no worries because of their reputation for great QC. When I got the guitar it was absolutely flawless. Taylor is another company. Gibson must be worried about this, otherwise they wouldn't have sued PRS over their singlecut version "Les Paul" looking guitar. I don't wish any ill will towards Gibson. Their guitars sound like no other. But I truly believe that QC will eventually catch up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Lion Posted June 2, 2011 Author Share Posted June 2, 2011 Amen, Rocketman. Sounds like it all worked out in the end for you, which is great news. I love my Gibsons but I certainly understand your point. I can find minor flaws in each one I own, but nothing that is serious. What does bother me, as you mentioned, is how are other companies able to be more consistent. The only guitar I've ever bought without seeing it first was my PRS. I did this with no worries because of their reputation for great QC. When I got the guitar it was absolutely flawless. Taylor is another company. Gibson must be worried about this, otherwise they wouldn't have sued PRS over their singlecut version "Les Paul" looking guitar. I don't wish any ill will towards Gibson. Their guitars sound like no other. But I truly believe that QC will eventually catch up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.