Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Do Gibson's have more BLING!! than FENDER's!!


Kineman Karma

Recommended Posts

To me bolt on neck speaks low rent, Leo's main objective was to build a cheap easy to produce guitar, the model "T" of guitars. Gibson on the other hand is a Rolls.

 

Well, good point my friend. hmmm.. I think this was the case in earlier years...still anyhow as Fender grew and within the last few years I think their QC is awesome.

 

In relation to Gibson, I think anything they make is custom shop material...yes this is a big call I know, but if you find that right Gibbo that is well built no matter what level, the whole craftmanship of this lovely design is just timeless.

 

for me...hmmmm it's both, but at the moment because I am so addicted it is GIBSON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibson over Fender for me (except in basses..I love the Fender Basses more)

 

First off being the bolt-on neck as compared to the through body neck..the guitar on a whole feels much more solid (the Gibsons)

 

also having played both, I feel I prefer Gibsons..they just scream QUALITY!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Gibson's (generally) have more "Bling." More inlays, bindings, etc.

As to if they're "better," guitars? Ummm, matter of opinion. I love my

Gibby's...But, I also love my Telecaster's and Strat's, (and Ric's, Gretsch's,

and Epi's) too. To me, it's not a matter of "better," just different.

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

On average, Gibson has more bling guitars.

 

I like bling and I've got some guitars with bling. But I usually don't buy guitars based on bling - more playability, feel and sound.

 

But, that bling gets me sometimes. And when it does, I look for one that not only has the bling looks, but plays and sounds great too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another vote for Gibson. Much more "Bling". Binding, better inlays, usually, (dots are boring to me), Angled necks and headstocks. No bolt-on necks. Carved tops and flamed tops. Binding on necks to cover the fretwire ends,(makes for a smoother feel against the hand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do Gibson's have more bling in their appearance than Fender's, if so why and if you are both then tell us why you love their appearances!!

Yep.

It's not just their appearance.

They sound so much richer as well.

The wood feels warmer and sexier to the touch.

 

I see a 'flame' in another guitar and it's not as yummy as a Gibson flame.

I (seriously) often wonder if other manufacturers have to buy the wood the Gibson truck left behind.

Some of them look so unreal it's like a photo stuck to the wood and varnished (I recently found one which was, as it turned out).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I'm totally a Gibson guy, but to say that Fender's are the Model T of the guitar world doesn't take into account the ridiculous issues in quality control that is happening out of the Gibson factory (which I think really effects the "bling" factor). I find it a ton easier to find a Gibson with quality control issues than a Fender off the rack. It is really sad to hear about someone buying the "Rolls Royce" of the guitar world only to find out that they have to take it to a luthier because of Gibson's, spotty at best, setup and finish work. To be honest though, a friend of mine has a set neck Fender Strat that is just gorgeous! The bling with that guitar is found in it's subtle, well thought out neck heal and the flamed maple cap.....no, the bling with that guitar is the way he plays it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off being the bolt-on neck as compared to the through body neck..

 

Except for the Firebird, Gibsons are NOT neck thru. Pathetic, I know...

 

I mean you would think that for the money, Gibsons WOULD be neck thru with a scalloped heel...

 

Back ot, traditionally, Gibsons are fancier than Fenders. Buttt, Gibson's been slumming with all the 'studio,' 'faded,' and 'studio faded' models. Gibson better be careful with cranking out volume in favor of aesthetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, good point my friend. hmmm.. I think this was the case in earlier years...still anyhow as Fender grew and within the last few years I think their QC is awesome.

 

True, Gibson could learn a few things from Fender in terms of quality control. It's getting quite bad. I'm from Scotland originally and the price of Gibson has risen sharply in recent years due to a combination of the (now poorer) exchange rate, the change from Rossetti (who dealt with the importing and distribution in the uk) to whoever are running it and possibly higher rate of import tax. When I got my first gibson (lp standard), just a bit over 7 years ago, a les paul custom was 1800 gbp. Now shops sell for 2400-2600, but you may be able to knock a few hundred off. Still expensive though. The used market is kind of thriving now.

 

Another vote for Gibson. Much more "Bling". Binding, better inlays, usually, (dots are boring to me), Angled necks and headstocks. No bolt-on necks. Carved tops and flamed tops. Binding on necks to cover the fretwire ends,(makes for a smoother feel against the hand).

 

+1. Gibson just feel and sound better to me. I guess I just like the look of the old fashioned Gibson, and when I bought my first Gibson, my playing just took off. I think it was motivation to do such a beautiful instrument justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question re blingworthiness

 

IMO Gibsons in the main have more subtlety and history behind them than Fenders....cf archtops etc

 

Fenders like the Jazzmaster and Jaguar are arguably more arresting to the eye

 

Rics have beauty and functionality in equal measure

 

Gretsch's are well blinged and seem to blend with cowboy-style clothing as well as Beatles suits

 

We are talking 'shoulder candy' to be fair.....

 

V

 

:-({|=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another vote for Gibson. Much more "Bling". Binding, better inlays, usually, (dots are boring to me), Angled necks and headstocks. No bolt-on necks. Carved tops and flamed tops. Binding on necks to cover the fretwire ends,(makes for a smoother feel against the hand).

 

Not necessarily...I don't know about Fender's fret ends, but Martin at least have impeccable fret ends that are unbound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it was mentioned ... but Guilds have a lot of bling too.. At least the ones made prior to year 2000... Yes, gibsons in general have more bling than fenders... My lp custom out blings any strat or tele I have ever seen...

 

As mentioned prior, Fender basses put Gibsons basses to shame... Fender make much better basses...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me bolt on neck speaks low rent, Leo's main objective was to build a cheap easy to produce guitar, the model "T" of guitars. Gibson on the other hand is a Rolls.

 

May speak low rent when you look at it, but break the neck and you will see how much easier it is to replace it on a Fender. Break then neck on a Gibson and well unless you know a luthier or are good at it yourself, you are probably in for a HUGE bill. I actually like the idea of the bolted in neck of the Fenders, I know it will never happen but I always look at my Explorer when its hanging and say "Hmmmm what if the neck joint just crapped out" the guitar would pretty much fall into a couple piece on the floor. With that said by far between Gibson and Fender the Gibson guitars have more bling to them for sure, I have seen some Gibson's I would be afraid to play because damaging the finish might make me cry like a baby. I dunno each to there own, I like my Gibson but I also want to purchase a Telecaster (sadly a worn cherry V or LP is next)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...