ES 137 classic /Finish flaws

[Wadhams!]

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.

 

On top of that, I'm positive the 137's are in the private reserve section, so it may be safer through them.

[DRIFTER]

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.

 

 

The bottom line is that Gibsons finishes at any price level suck. I own a Gibson ES 137 Custom (lacquer) a Yamaha SA 2200 (poly) and an 83 Ibanez AM 205 (poly). The fit and finish of the two Japanese made models show an almost fanatical attention to detail and quality that is in a whole other league than Gibson is willing to achieve. I'm not saying Gibson can't. I'm saying the are not willing to. At the end of the day a guitar finish is nothing more than a paint job. Whether it's done in lacquer or poly should have nothing to do with the quality of finish other than the fact that lacquer is more expensive to do. As any painter will tell you it's all in the prep. It's painfully obvious to me that at the premium prices Gibson asks for it's guitars they are charging for a first rate lacquer finish and not investing the time and man hours to achieve it. Simply put you ain't getting what you payed for from Gibson.

 

As a side note the idea that lacquer somehow contributes to better resonance of the top and body is wishful thinking at best. It should be remembered that these semi hollows are not Martin D28's. They have thick laminate bodies and tops and solid wood blocks running through their bodies which makes worrying about resonance on this type of design a bit of a moot point. If you want to verify that statement simply A/B your 137 against a Less Paul with the same pups. Note how they sound almost exactly the same. Now A/B your 137 against your flat top acoustic. Note how they sound nothing alike. At any rate all three of the guitars I have mentioned are pretty much universally acknowledged as having great tone regardless of the type of finish.

 

Given the above my statement to Gibson, which I think most would agree with is, either give us the quality lacquer finish you are charging us for or do the damn things in poly and lower your prices because what you are doing now is nothing less than fraudulent.

[bobouz]

The bottom line is that Gibsons finishes at any price level suck.

Not so with my last two Gibson purchases, an '09 339 & '10 330L. The finish is virtually flawless on these two guitars.

[BigKahune]

The bottom line is that Gibsons finishes at any price level suck. I own a Gibson ES 137 Custom (lacquer) a Yamaha SA 2200 (poly) and an 83 Ibanez AM 205 (poly). .... a guitar finish is nothing more than a paint job. ....

 

You've got a lot to learn. <_<

 

Hopefully you don't give any misinformed members nightmares. Sell your Gibson's and collect your plasticized guitars; leave Gibson's to people who understand the difference between plastic and lacquer. You're welcomed to your opinion, but don't think you can trash Gibson on a Gibson forum and not have anyone call you on it.

[SamBooka]

As a side note the idea that lacquer somehow contributes to better resonance of the top and body is wishful thinking at best.

 

Strip the finish off all your guitars and see if you really think it makes a difference

 

If you want to verify that statement simply A/B your 137 against a Less Paul with the same pups. Note how they sound almost exactly the same. Now A/B your 137 against your flat top acoustic. Note how they sound nothing alike.

 

if you want to really AB these things.. do it unplugged. If you actually try it you will notice a different between the 137 and the Les Paul.

Lets take this a little further. If you have a friend, have him to hold an empty can against the body of your les paul while you play a few chords.

Next, try it without the can. Hear the difference? I never said it would sound good but you see my point. Now imagine that can is make of wood and big and glued to the sides of your guitar and put some F holes in it. AHA!!

 

Comparing a 137 to a flattop is comparing apples and elephants..I think that is pretty obvious to everyone here.

 

I am not disagreeing with the original poster. I can go to the 3 major G! dealers around here and find finish flaws (or serious setup issues, or fretwork issues) on probably half the guitars.

[bluesboy323]

I own several Gibsons. Most are "vintage". All my older gibsons were bought in person and all were more or less perfect. I recently added my first two "modern" Gibsons. A Gibson Songwriter accoustic and my Es-137. The two were worlds apart. The ES-137 had no flaws beyond needing a good setup. On the other hand, the Songwriter's saddle was a 1/4" too far forward and had numerous finish flaws. To the point, I purchased both from Musician's Friend because I am now semi-retired and live as far from civilization as I possibly can and still purchase toilet paper. When I called them to return the accoustic they told me no prob we'll resell it as a #2. I told them I considered that fraud and they told me that "some" people would be fine with this minor flaw! I asked them if they understood intonation at all and the conversation went somewhat beyond the rabbit proof fence at that point. In the end they knocked $400.00 off the price of a very nice Guild, which they promised to and evidently did inspect minutely and I satisfied myself with writing an acid tongued review of the now re-listed guitar which they actually printed. Now obviously Gibson should never have allowed the Songwriter to leave their hands and Musician's Friend.... Well.... 'Nuff said there. The point is, NEVER buy a guitar you can not inspect for yourself.

 

All is not well at Gibson but they still make fine instruments. You just can not trust them to do so blindly at this point.

[powerwagonjohn]

My 2009 L-4CES was perfect when I bought it with no finish flaws at all. Same with the 1959 historic ES-335 I played at the store last week. In fack I can't get the ES 335 out of my mind. Thanks John

[bobouz]

The point is, NEVER buy a guitar you can not inspect for yourself.

I used to firmly believe that, too, but things have changed. In this day & age where so many instruments might only be available via internet retailers, I've rolled the dice two straight times & come out a winner. As long as there's a 30-45 day return period, I now consider this to be a viable option.

[bluesboy323]

I used to firmly believe that, too, but things have changed. In this day & age where so many instruments might only be available via internet retailers, I've rolled the dice two straight times & come out a winner. As long as there's a 30-45 day return period, I now consider this to be a viable option.

Ok...... I'll amend my statement to Buyer Beware..... Musician's Friend did make an effort to appease me and returned my guitar with no fuss though they seem quite happy to resell an expensive (imo) complete loss to the next poor blister without mentioning what I consider to be a flaw that makes the instrument unusable at any price. I have purchased purchased perhaps 3 total guitars and a couple keyboards, 3 amps and assorted this and that from them with only the one horrific experience to be fair. I myself will never buy another guitar without seeing it first.

[DRIFTER]

The good news is that no matter how awful Gibsons finishes become and they have become pretty damn awful it absolutely will not effect the value. Evidently and for whatever reason Gibson still retains a fan base that will remain product loyal no matter how badly Gibson screws them. It's the equivalent of a Chevy owner saying,"yes the paint on my Chevy flaked and fell off, the chrome rusted and the windows rattle. But, in the end it's all worth it because I have that Chevrolet logo screwed to my trunk lid.

 

The problem in my view is Gibsons stubborn refusal to give up on lacquer finishes. Don't get me wrong I think a finely done lacquer finish is one of the prettiest things on earth. I own several lacquered guitars that were done properly and they are a thing to behold. What's missing with Gibson however is the "finely done" part. I own two Gibsons, a 137 Custom, and a LP Studio. Both have numerous finish flaws. I shop a lot of guitars and I have to say that Gibsons with finish flaws have become the rule rather than the exception.

 

As we all know a well done Nitro finish adds greatly to the cost of producing a guitar and Gibson will not hesitate to cite that as justification for their over the top pricing. However the fact is that Gibson is having their cake and eating too. You can bet they are including the cost of a first rate lacquer finish in their pricing. The problem is that they are not delivering the first rate finish you are paying for. Shame on you Gibson.

[stein]

The good news is that no matter how awful Gibsons finishes become and they have become pretty damn awful it absolutely will not effect the value. Evidently and for whatever reason Gibson still retains a fan base that will remain product loyal no matter how badly Gibson screws them. It's the equivalent of a Chevy owner saying,"yes the paint on my Chevy flaked and fell off, the chrome rusted and the windows rattle. But, in the end it's all worth it because I have that Chevrolet logo screwed to my trunk lid.

 

The problem in my view is Gibsons stubborn refusal to give up on lacquer finishes. Don't get me wrong I think a finely done lacquer finish is one of the prettiest things on earth. I own several lacquered guitars that were done properly and they are a thing to behold. What's missing with Gibson however is the "finely done" part. I own two Gibsons, a 137 Custom, and a LP Studio. Both have numerous finish flaws. I shop a lot of guitars and I have to say that Gibsons with finish flaws have become the rule rather than the exception.

 

As we all know a well done Nitro finish adds greatly to the cost of producing a guitar and Gibson will not hesitate to cite that as justification for their over the top pricing. However the fact is that Gibson is having their cake and eating too. You can bet they are including the cost of a first rate lacquer finish in their pricing. The problem is that they are not delivering the first rate finish you are paying for. Shame on you Gibson.

With respect, I am convinced you don't have much practical knowledge about various finishes, as well as aspects of labor and cost. So, the statement you make about whether we are getting what we pay for or not is not an informed opinion.

 

If you have ever applied a finish, perhaps you might be aware of how different types of finish are easier to work with than others. Or perhaps you might have been in a position to be paid for the time you put into something, and be responsible for how much labor is involved regarding the cost of the final product. The way you write, it sounds like you do not have practical experience in either.

 

Seriously, if you think a poly finish is the way to go, and you don't think you should pay for labor, then you ARE wasting YOUR money buying any Gibson. You should be buying and playing cheaper guitars made overseas the way they build them.

 

But, at any rate, trying to convince others that Gibsons should be made like the cheaper made guitars you prefer is not a shame on Gibson.

 

And, if you truly want the extra effort to be involved to not have what is in your view flaws, then these products are available to you. You just have to be willing to either pay for the cost in wages to do it, or be willing to use labor that doesn't pay the workers a descent wage such as a sweat shop. Good luck finding a better guitar that way.

[BigKahune]

.... no matter how awful Gibsons finishes become and they have become pretty damn awful it absolutely will not effect the value. ....

I shop a lot of guitars and I have to say that Gibsons with finish flaws have become the rule rather than the exception.

..... the fact is that Gibson is having their cake and eating too. You can bet they are including the cost of a first rate lacquer finish in their pricing. The problem is that they are not delivering the first rate finish you are paying for. Shame on you Gibson.

 

TROLL

[Betz]

With respect, I am convinced you don't have much practical knowledge about various finishes, as well as aspects of labor and cost. So, the statement you make about whether we are getting what we pay for or not is not an informed opinion.

 

If you have ever applied a finish, perhaps you might be aware of how different types of finish are easier to work with than others. Or perhaps you might have been in a position to be paid for the time you put into something, and be responsible for how much labor is involved regarding the cost of the final product. The way you write, it sounds like you do not have practical experience in either.

 

Seriously, if you think a poly finish is the way to go, and you don't think you should pay for labor, then you ARE wasting YOUR money buying any Gibson. You should be buying and playing cheaper guitars made overseas the way they build them.

 

But, at any rate, trying to convince others that Gibsons should be made like the cheaper made guitars you prefer is not a shame on Gibson.

 

And, if you truly want the extra effort to be involved to not have what is in your view flaws, then these products are available to you. You just have to be willing to either pay for the cost in wages to do it, or be willing to use labor that doesn't pay the workers a descent wage such as a sweat shop. Good luck finding a better guitar that way.

 

Well said.

 

These clichés get old. Here is a current sample:

 

Gibson: The finish / QC is terrible.

 

Fender Guitars (with the bolt-on neck): The neck alignment is terrible

 

Fender Amplifiers (except imports costing less than $150.00): There’s only $100 worth of parts in there. I could build a better amp for half the money. And mine would sound better, too.

 

I find it significant that you rarely hear this type of trash talk about a Gretsch. People who dig a Gretsch know they are quirky, they are going to have issues, it is going to take some work to get them right and to keep them right. It is part of the experience.

 

I have a candy-apple red ES-137 Custom. People notice when she comes out of the case. Plays like a dream, and between the pups and the Varitone she can handle anything. To think of holding that guitar and being able to only see a blemish; how sad.

[bluesboy323]

Well said.

 

These clichés get old. Here is a current sample:

 

Gibson: The finish / QC is terrible.

 

Fender Guitars (with the bolt-on neck): The neck alignment is terrible

 

Fender Amplifiers (except imports costing less than $150.00): There’s only $100 worth of parts in there. I could build a better amp for half the money. And mine would sound better, too.

 

I find it significant that you rarely hear this type of trash talk about a Gretsch. People who dig a Gretsch know they are quirky, they are going to have issues, it is going to take some work to get them right and to keep them right. It is part of the experience.

 

I have a candy-apple red ES-137 Custom. People notice when she comes out of the case. Plays like a dream, and between the pups and the Varitone she can handle anything. To think of holding that guitar and being able to only see a blemish; how sad.

 

 

My personal angst with my latest Gibson experiences are with Musician's Friend primarily.

 

If you play any guitar any length of time you are going to have some finish issues sooner rather then later, so because a guitar arrives with a minor issue or two is not a game breaker for me. That said, It is nice if you start with something approaching perfection and there was a time when you would not have seen some of the flaws we are seeing from the Custom Shop. (They occurred but were weeded out before they got to the user in most cases)

 

To me, it is a little like bad officiating in the NFL. A ref gets a play or two wrong and you have to wonder what else he is missing.

 

You may recall I said I would not buy another guitar unseen.... Well.... I'm gonna buy one of Carvin's new efforts soon.... I suck. :blink:

[DRIFTER]

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.

[/quote

 

I own two Gibsons myself (Studio and 137 Custom) and I'd love to hope along with you but I'm afraid it's far to late for that. The Japanese have been kicking our butts especially Gibsons since around the mid 70's. Here's the real article original "339" that Gibson now claims to have invented. Looks like they were only about 20 years behind the curve on that one.

 

And, I'm afraid the Japanese Yamahas are every bit as good as their bikes.

 

The funny thing about it is that whereas Fender had its "CBS" years and Gibson had its "Norlin" and now evidently its "Henry" years the Japanese have just kept on pumping out great guitars at 1/2 the price year after year with no exceptions. No wonder we can't keep up with them.

 

83 IBANEZ AM 205

 

 

YAMAHA SA 2200

 

[martinh]

I have personally worked with Nitro a lot, and it is not a difficult material to use. In fact, it is much more forgiving than more modern poly-based and catalytic finishes. Even an amateur like me can get a good finish. However, IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME. A thin finish inherently requires better surface prep, more coats, and time spent rubbing down between coats. The quality of a good nitro finish is, in my book, mostly due to the continuous leveling between coats. If one has access to a clean sterile spray environment, modern "one coat" thick finishes provide excellent results with one quarter the labor. I have seen several Gibson nitro finishes on expensive instruments that were simply not that good, often in areas where the large buffing wheel would not reach. To increase quality would take more labor. I guess the fundamental question is how much of a premium a consumer is willing to pay for a traditional nitro finish.