ES 137 classic /Finish flaws

[guitaraddict1]

Hello everyone. I am new to this site.I just received my new es137 classic about 2 weeks ago. It is triburst with chrome hardware. I love it. It's everything I wanted in a gibson. I nicer headstock would have been nice. I ordered this guitar new back in Feb. None of the GC's had one. It was worth the wait. It reminds me of an epiphone sorrento only thicker. My dilemma is, since I bought it new, and it comes from the custom shop I was expecting a flawless piece of art. The top of the headstock is a little rough to touch and is missing a clear coat? It is not smooth and shiny like the rest of the guitar. Also where the neck meets the body on the side of the GBE strings there is what looks like a paint hump very tiny but visible. I was told it is because it is difficult to buff that area of the guitar (the florentine cutaway). The headstock issue I noticed yesterday. Is it worth dealing with returnig it? Id have to ship it. Also if I send it to Gibson i'm scared it will get damaged somewhere along the way. Do these 2 things de-value the guitar? I'd hate to ship it/replace it only to end up with another set of problems.I do not want to wait another 5 months for another one either. Also I'm not sure if the neck is stiky or not as I have read. I have only played it lightly since I got it due to work. ADVICE???

[bobouz]

Most Gibsons seem to be a bit rough in those two areas. My recommendation would be to focus on playability, tone, and structural integrity. If it feels good, sounds good, and everything works (electronics) & lines up right (good neck angle, no twists or humps, etc), then you might stand to do worse by exchanging it. Case in point: purchased my holy-grail natural finish 335 from GC after A-Bing it with other 335s in stock. It had been there for a little while & had a couple of very tiny dings. They said they'd be ordering another one for stock, and I could compare & do an exchange if so desired. When it came in, it turned out to be significantly inferior to the guitar I already had in hand.

[Versatile]

I agree on the playability/sound priority

 

IMO it is better to focus there than worry about a bit of over-spray etc

 

The beauty of high end Gibsons is their individuality

 

My well-loved Firebird had an orange-peel spray on the headstock which I still find 'homely' and charming

 

Every other aspect is 100%......

 

V

 

[stein]

Of corse, without seeing it or pics, it is hard to say. Also, even though it may come from the custom shop, Custom shop prices can be pretty reasonable. That means, even though it may be custom built for you, sometimes we might tend to get a little carried away in expecting the last ounce of perfection.

 

If I were to expect some of the harder to sand and buff areas to be 100% as nice as the rest of the guitar, I would expect THAT guitar to have a price I would not want to pay. Sometimes I hear of complaints about a 2000 guitar not being as nice as a 5000 guitar. SOME details matter, and some don't.

 

Another thing to consider, is no matter how perfect the finish is and how glass smooth it is made, it may all be for nothing, as in about 5 years, the wood should at least have contracted and expanded enough to not be exactly the same. ALL wood continues to change this way over time. Not that you should expect cracks or warps, but rather the standard MOST Gibsons and other high end guitars are finished are far better than they really need to be.

[CajunBlues]

The ES137 comes from the custom shop ? Dang, I bought my 2002 model new for $1200... pretty good for a custom shop guitar...

[guitaraddict1]

The ES137 comes from the custom shop ? Dang, I bought my 2002 model new for $1200... pretty good for a custom shop guitar...

 

 

Yup. You got a great deal. I love the look of this guitar, when you look at what other Gibson ES guitars go for, the es137 is a baargain. I got a great deal from GC and mine was custom ordered because they were not in stock!

[guitaraddict1]

I agree on the playability/sound priority

 

IMO it is better to focus there than worry about a bit of over-spray etc

 

The beauty of high end Gibsons is their individuality

 

My well-loved Firebird had an orange-peel spray on the headstock which I still find 'homely' and charming

 

Every other aspect is 100%......

 

V

 

[/quote

 

Thanks for the reply. I agree however, I still think certain flaws are unacceptable. I love Gibsons and Fenders, and I understand these guitars will age as everything does, but when they are new I expect the best from these 2 brands that shaped music. I don't care for PRS (nothing wrong with them) however, I have been looking at some of the woods and finishes they use and they are gorgeous. The paint and fit are perfect. QC could be better and I wish Gibson would take a stand on the issue.

[guitaraddict1]

Of corse, without seeing it or pics, it is hard to say. Also, even though it may come from the custom shop, Custom shop prices can be pretty reasonable. That means, even though it may be custom built for you, sometimes we might tend to get a little carried away in expecting the last ounce of perfection.

 

If I were to expect some of the harder to sand and buff areas to be 100% as nice as the rest of the guitar, I would expect THAT guitar to have a price I would not want to pay. Sometimes I hear of complaints about a 2000 guitar not being as nice as a 5000 guitar. SOME details matter, and some don't.

 

Another thing to consider, is no matter how perfect the finish is and how glass smooth it is made, it may all be for nothing, as in about 5 years, the wood should at least have contracted and expanded enough to not be exactly the same. ALL wood continues to change this way over time. Not that you should expect cracks or warps, but rather the standard MOST Gibsons and other high end guitars are finished are far better than they really need to be.

Thanks for the reply. I hear what you are saying however, $2000.00 is $2000.00 and these are Gibsons not their lower priced epiphones (Some Epis are real nice). I chose a Gibson because I figured they wold hold their value and be of better quality. I love the look of distressed and reliced guitars. They look like they have a story. One of my favorite things to do is visit the vintage room at guitar center hollywood. However I bought a new guitar I wanted it to look perfect especially when I show my friends. The first thing my wife said was that for the price there should not be any flaws. I could send it to Gibson but i'm scared when they repaint/refinish the top of the headstock it might get damaged in transit, or the refinish might leave overspray, smears or flaws.

[brundaddy]

Quality Control at Gibson is not the best. Why is it that off-brands can make flawless guitars but Gibsons so often have sloppy mistakes? Misaligned binding, badly inlaid headstocks, rough seams ... these are not 'charming quirks.' It is a total crapshoot when you pick up a Gibson. Yamahas, DeArmonds, Ibanezes, and many others are consistently excellent in my experience, however. I don't get it either.

[Mule 1]

Quality Control should be much better in the Custom Shop ! I have a bunch of Gibson's and the ones with the most flaws are my Custom Shop pieces. I'm buying a white 339 right now as well. With that being said it is true that tone and playability wise you could do worse. I would call them and either have that one fixed or leave that as an option in case you don't like the replacement before you return it.

 

If it's going to bother you every time you pick up the guitar deal with it now. However I can tell you some flaws you will accept over time as a part of the character of the guitar!

[stein]

Quality Control at Gibson is not the best. Why is it that off-brands can make flawless guitars but Gibsons so often have sloppy mistakes? Misaligned binding, badly inlaid headstocks, rough seams ... these are not 'charming quirks.' It is a total crapshoot when you pick up a Gibson. Yamahas, DeArmonds, Ibanezes, and many others are consistently excellent in my experience, however. I don't get it either.

One reason some of the guitars such as Ibby and Yamaha have such great looking finishes is the finish used: Poly finishes are MUCH easier to get a smooth and even finish and hides more flaws than nitro.

 

The solution to have every guitar with a nitro finish come out exactly consistant a "flawless" would be thicker sealer-NOT good for tone or weight.

 

The other option for perfection would be a process that involved more trips back and forth from the paint booth to the sander.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

So often, in threads of this topic, I see sooooooo many posts that rationalize about how it's somehow OK that these very expensive guitars come fresh from the factory with obvious flaws in fit and finish. I say, HOGWASH. NFW I'd spend that kind of dough and accept less than flawlessness! Reminds me of the idiots who purchased British automobiles (Jaguar, MG, Triumph, etc.) in years past, where they were so in love with these vehicles that they somehow could look past the fact that they didn't run half the time. It's apparent that the owners who buy these flawed examples and then ask about it here are always going to be disturbed that their guitar isn't what they expected, despite what anybody else says about the phenomenon. But I'm just a logical guy who can't understand having such a hard_n for a particular model guitar that I'd buy a crappy one, when there are plenty of others to be considered.

 

Gibson (and other companies) can and will do as they see fit, and I see no point speculating about why. But there is one thing I can do, and that's honor my own standards.

 

I wonder if anybody says, "My personal physician is a lousy doctor, but I really like him". Would you consider a paint flaw or misaligned body panel on your brand-new car "character"?

[stein]

So often, in threads of this topic, I see sooooooo many posts that rationalize about how it's somehow OK that these very expensive guitars come fresh from the factory with obvious flaws in fit and finish. I say, HOGWASH. NFW I'd spend that kind of dough and accept less than flawlessness! Reminds me of the idiots who purchased British automobiles (Jaguar, MG, Triumph, etc.) in years past, where they were so in love with these vehicles that they somehow could look past the fact that they didn't run half the time. It's apparent that the owners who buy these flawed examples and then ask about it here are always going to be disturbed that their guitar isn't what they expected, despite what anybody else says about the phenomenon. But I'm just a logical guy who can't understand having such a hard_n for a particular model guitar that I'd buy a crappy one, when there are plenty of others to be considered.

 

Gibson (and other companies) can and will do as they see fit, and I see no point speculating about why. But there is one thing I can do, and that's honor my own standards.

 

I wonder if anybody says, "My personal physician is a lousy doctor, but I really like him". Would you consider a paint flaw or misaligned body panel on your brand-new car "character"?

The other thing to consider is that often in these threads, we are going back and forth about guitars or flaws we have never SEEN.

 

If, say, the headstock at the top was really bad, we would probably all agree it is too bad. But if it was only BARELY perceptible, we might all say it was fine.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

Stein, those are good points. But regardless of perceived severity of said flaws, I have absolutely no pity for the complainers, as they could have simply purchased another guitar.

[BillyGibson]

A quick check of Guitar Center website shows the Tri-burst is in stock.

 

If you're not happy with it, exchange it. Have them order you another one.

It'll take less than a week to arive. $2K is way too much to spend if it's not

up to your standards.

 

GC will probably keep yours and discount it to the next buyer, just so they

don't have to send it back. This may be why less than perfect instruments

pass by Gibson QC, because they don't see them again.

 

Or if you like this one, get a discount on it from them in lieu of exchanging

it. I did that on my LP Trad. and am perfectly happy with it. It had a finish

flaw on the lower horn. I pulled it out of the box at GC and noticed it right away.

I was disappointed too, because I wanted to go home with it. My sales person was too

and asked what he could do. I said, maybe a discount would help. While he went to ask,

I plugged it in and played it. My wife was with me and asked, what's going on. I told her

I was asking for another discount because of a flaw. She thought it should have been perfect

too, for what I was paying, but said, you know best. It was worth another $100 off the discount

I already had. I Buffed it out when I got home and all is good.

 

As others have said, none of them are going to be perfect. So you have to find the one that has

the flaws you can live with at a price you're okay with. My ending thouht is, exchange it AND get

a discont for your troubles.

[guitaraddict1]

So often, in threads of this topic, I see sooooooo many posts that rationalize about how it's somehow OK that these very expensive guitars come fresh from the factory with obvious flaws in fit and finish. I say, HOGWASH. NFW I'd spend that kind of dough and accept less than flawlessness! Reminds me of the idiots who purchased British automobiles (Jaguar, MG, Triumph, etc.) in years past, where they were so in love with these vehicles that they somehow could look past the fact that they didn't run half the time. It's apparent that the owners who buy these flawed examples and then ask about it here are always going to be disturbed that their guitar isn't what they expected, despite what anybody else says about the phenomenon. But I'm just a logical guy who can't understand having such a hard_n for a particular model guitar that I'd buy a crappy one, when there are plenty of others to be considered.

 

Gibson (and other companies) can and will do as they see fit, and I see no point speculating about why. But there is one thing I can do, and that's honor my own standards.

 

I wonder if anybody says, "My personal physician is a lousy doctor, but I really like him". Would you consider a paint flaw or misaligned body panel on your brand-new car "character"?

 

Nice.... I agree. It's hard to swallow the errors or forget them. But after a few non-biased opinions at other shops and looking at other new 137's, I figured they aren't really flaws.The ones in the stores looked horrible though. No one sees them unless I point them out. I guess I am too critical. As you said these are expensive guitars.I'm a bit of a newbie on expensive guitars so i'm learning. My other Gibson is a Faded cherry flying V. It is easier to maintain and I am not worried about scratching it. Go figure. I will say agsin though, ..I wish Gibson put more effort on QC.

[BigKahune]

.... But there is one thing I can do, and that's honor my own standards. .....

 

+1

 

You always see a lot of excuses, advice on tolerance, and brand suggestions handed out in these threads. Bottom line: there are no excuses against personal taste or tolerance, and buying a guitar from ANY manufacturer sight unseen and played is a crap shoot.

 

I currently own five Gibson guitars - all flawless . . . . because I bought them in person after examining them and playing them. Purchasing instruments in this manner allows you to apply your own standards up front, and avoid the nasty process of deciding what to do after the delivery of a flawed instrument. Of course there are some buyers who don't have shops close enough to their location to allow in person purchases - they've got to roll the dice.

 

My advice - now that you've had the unsatisfactory happen - decide if the flaws are something you can tolerate or not. You should also take into account the playability and sound of the guitar - if these are really good it might cause you to happily overlook the flaws against the chance of getting an exchange/replacement that's inferior in these aspects. And don't forget to think about this - if you decide to keep the guitar, and the flaws still gnaw at you, you could eventually decide to get rid of it, in which case potential buyers will likely leverage the flaws against whatever asking price you set.

 

I wish you the best possible outcome.

[brundaddy]

One reason some of the guitars such as Ibby and Yamaha have such great looking finishes is the finish used: Poly finishes are MUCH easier to get a smooth and even finish and hides more flaws than nitro.

 

The solution to have every guitar with a nitro finish come out exactly consistant a "flawless" would be thicker sealer-NOT good for tone or weight.

 

The other option for perfection would be a process that involved more trips back and forth from the paint booth to the sander.

 

I was referring specifically to misaligned binding, badly inlaid headstocks, and rough seams. IIRC the Gibson guarantee does not cover any cosmetic issues -- only structural and electrical. It definitely does not cover any issues with the lacquer finish, but I wasn't talking about that.

 

I would absolutely buy a Yamaha sight unseen, even a used one. That is no crapshoot at all, I have never ever played or seen a Yamaha that had any problems -- I would have to go over a Gibson with a fine-toothed comb, however. And then do it again. That's just cosmetically speaking! And then put it through it's paces to determine if it's structurally sound... and then put it through other paces to determine if it plays well... and then check the wiring to make sure it works properly...

[stein]

Lots of good points by everyone, and gives me a lot of thoughts on what is "quality" regarding an instrument and what different poeple expect.

 

First point: we tend to think of guitars built in the '50's and 60's as the better instruments, and we buy reissues of them and copies of them. But, the QC if FAR better in the reissues than they ever were for the originals. So, at what point is it good enough? How far in excess of the holy grails of guitars should we desire as far as build quality details would be considered "FLAWED"?

 

Second point: what exactly IS a quality instrument? 1)what makes it a musical tool as opposed to a nicely finished hunk of parts. 2) what is a "flaw" in the construction that makes it worse as an instrument?

 

Now for the controversy: The VAST majority of complaints I have read about regarding Gibson QC is the finish, and regarding the finish, it is not the OVERALL appearance but the details. If THAT is what makes a guitar good or bad, then we should be asking for Norlin era quality. These problems were addressed by Gibson, Fender, Martin, etc. in the 70's and we got more flawless instruments in the details, but a lot of DOGS as tools for making music.

[BigKahune]

.... Now for the controversy: The VAST majority of complaints I have read about regarding Gibson QC is the finish, and regarding the finish, it is not the OVERALL appearance but the details. If THAT is what makes a guitar good or bad, then we should be asking for Norlin era quality. These problems were addressed by Gibson, Fender, Martin, etc. in the 70's and we got more flawless instruments in the details, but a lot of DOGS as tools for making music.

 

A well made point . . . and an angle that doesn't often surface here. B)

[SamBooka]

Ok.. so here is a silly question.

 

I buy two new ES 175s. One of them is a Monday guitar. I pay the same price for both.

 

Is it fair that when I go to sell both one of them has a poor finishing so I have to take a bigger hit on one when it is time to sell it?

 

Is it fair to retailers that they have a model that you cant sell because of a nasty headstock finish so they leave it on the wall and give all the other Gibsons a bad name? I have seen some literally horrifying ES175s recently. Are they the display models because no one will buy a 4000$ guitar where no one will even take the time to get the pickup height right? Polish the grind marks off the frets?

 

There is a reason they call it Quality Control but sometimes it means more than just quality control (like when Gibson would intentionally mismark guitars as Seconds just so they could clear them out at a lower price.) I wonder if the current mentality is just a modern version of the 70s "we cant keep up with the demand so get them out there and let the dealers worry any mistakes"

 

Someone else pointed out you dont buy new Gibson's because you want the best. You buy Gibsons for the same reason you buy Harley Davidsons... its a lifestyle.

[brundaddy]

Guess what? Today's Jap cruisers are better made than HDs. I'd like to think that while we Americans can clearly no longer make the best motorcycle on earth, we just yet may still be able to build the best guitar on earth. Martin continues to pull their weight ... Gibson, I'm not so sure. I'd like to think this kind of dialog might be read by some Gibson people and somehow do some good to improve things, instead of people lumping Gibson players in with H-D fools (and I mean that in every sense of the word).

 

Maybe you're right, Gibson players are the same as mouth-breathing idiots who *actually* think it's their patriotic duty to drink Coke and buy Disney garbage made in China.

[bluesboy323]

Ya know....

 

To me it is about how you will use the guitar at least partly. If you intend to drag it to every gig, then it is likely that fairly soon you will not be so worried about a minor flaw or two, especially if you bond with your ES-137 as I have with the one I purchased last fall.

 

That said...

 

There is no denying that standards have dropped somewhat from what they were years ago and that as long as we accept flaws that is how long we will have to expect them.

 

I love my little Blueburst even though it has a teeny tiny itsy bitsy flaw or two.

[brundaddy]

"There is no denying that standards have dropped somewhat from what they were years ago and that as long as we accept flaws that is how long we will have to expect them."

 

Sad but true. Other American makers are on top of their game, and exactly what you said is why Gibson cuts corners. "Resting on their laurels" comes to mind.

[martinh]

Apparently GC doesn't do an inspection of stock, even in this price range. I'd compare this to the "private reserve" people at Musicians friend, who do inspect every instrument before shipping it out. I know this for a fact because they called me to tell me that they had found a black spek in the finish on my new 355 flame-top, and asked if I still wanted it shipped. When it arrived, the spek was so small I couldn't find it - it took the eagle eye of one of the interns at my office to point it out to me. I was impressed.