Steven Tari Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 If Gibson is going to use lesser materials in some of their guitars, Will the price drop as well? This is the artical that made me ask the question. After being raided for the second time, and having their rosewood and ebony fretboards confiscated, Gibson has started using substitutes for these woods in their guitar production. According to an AP article they are now using composite materials and torrefied maple. Torrefied wood is a process where the wood is ‘baked’ in order to make it more stable, harder, and some luthiers say more resonant. I’ve seen it offered as an option from various small luthiers. It’s also sometimes called “Vulcanized” wood. The composite material mentioned may be something like those that Martin Guitars has been using, both on fingerbords and as back/side material. Most of these are some combination of wood and plastic compressed under high heat and pressure to create very dense strong materials. Micarta is one of the older types of composites and has been used as fingerbord material as well as for guitar nuts and bridges. The Gibsons seem to be hitting music store shelves already. So far I have only seen them on some of the less expensive Jr models.According to Nashville Public Radio, Gibson’s CEO Henry Juszkiewicz had this to say about it: “It’s different. It is not the product we would normally have built. The returns are not yet in, but it could be very injurious.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krock Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 The classic custom has a baked board and is actually quite reasonably priced but who knows about what will happen in the future about their pricing structure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff-7 Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I can see baked maple equipped guitars shooting up in price if all rosewood and ebony becomes impossible to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 "Injurious"...WTF?? I have a "baked maple" board, on my Classic Custom LP. It's Great!! There's nothing "injurious" about it, and why a perfectly great/usable material, that is not subject to shortages, or confiscation, due to being "endangered," and one that is renewable, would be "injurious" to the company that was savvy enough to use it, is beyond me. Besides, how does a CEO hope to "sell" guitars with the new materials, if he publicly denounces them, by saying they could be "injurious?" The only thing "injurious," are his lack of faith in their decisions, and saying so, in public! As far as the raids, and confiscations, being "injurious,"...well, Duh! But, they've come up with perfectly usuable, sustainable materials as substitutes, so...Move on, Henry! Fight you battles, with your lawyers, not your mouth! Someone needs a refresher course, on PR and Marketing, IMHO! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 LOL I don't think Gibson and cheaper will get used in the same sentence regarding prices and facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Yeah, Gibson has always been pretty "traditional," and so have it's product owners! What "new/revolutionary" things, they DO try, seem to blow up in their faces, more often than not. That, to me, is a lack of detailed research, into the market, not just the technology, involved. Never mind, the design (appearance) disasters. Firebird X, being a prime example! They should stick to making what they do best, and leave the "Computer toys," to other's, OR...Start a new label/brand, for that purpose, and leave "Gibson," to making the Gibson's the customers love, and want. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JellyWheat Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 "Injurious"...WTF?? As far as the raids, and confiscations, being "injurious,"...well, Duh! But, they've come up with perfectly usuable, sustainable materials as substitutes, so...Move on, Henry! Fight you battles, with your lawyers, not your mouth! CB Yeah, Gibson has always been pretty "traditional," and so have it's product owners! What "new/revolutionary" things, they DO try, seem to blow up in their faces, more often than not. That, to me, is a lack of detailed research, into the market, not just the technology, involved. Never mind, the design (appearance) disasters. Firebird X, being a prime example! They should stick to making what they do best, and leave the "Computer toys," to other's, OR...Start a new label/brand, for that purpose, and leave "Gibson," to making the Gibson's the customers love, and want. CB RIGHT ON, charlie brown! The boy's ON FIRE this afternoon, folks! I agree with you, as well as with what guitarest said, FWIW. B) J/W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Actually "traditionally" Gibson ain't been so "traditional." That dates way back to the beginning and archtops, etc. The ES175 wasn't all that "traditional." The LP crashed at first and the SG was pretty wild-lookin' in its early day. The 335 was reeeally something else when introduced - a board down the middle of an archtop with half the sides cut off to make it thinner? <grin> Dont' take this wrong, 'cuz yeah, I think the thought has been since around 1960-65 there ain't been that much radical carrying the brand. OTOH... yup, I'm not sure those of us "here" had been prepped for anything "radical" in a PR/marketing sense. And whether one liked or disliked the concept of the new "X," all would pretty well agree it was largely evolutionary rather than revolutionary. That itself might have been well-exploited since Gibson seems to me always to keep a "traditional" schtick even as it turns into something that in other ways is about half radical. But... I dunno. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JellyWheat Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Indeed, milod... INDEED! Regards, B) J/W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PP_CS336 Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Hello fellow forum members. It's been a while since I've had time to comment, but you all raise some interesting points here. My first thought is, why is the U.S. Government, through the FBI, confiscating from Gibson what they already have in stock. Hey the trees were already cut down and Gibson paid the bill to the Lumberjack so to speak. If the Feds want to save the trees (wonder what they're going to do with all the confiscated wood? ), why don't they just put a mandate on Gibson or whomever from purchasing newer stuff by not allowing the Lumber Mills to sell the stuff to them? But then again, the Government talks about a slow economy and yet it disallows American Corporations, or businesses from practicing free enterprise; so how the heck are we going to keep our own economy stimulated? The only thing Big Government is interested is in themselves, even if it means making Big Business look bad. Who the hell are they kidding? :o I agree with those saying the price on the newer "baked maple" fretboard models will go up in time. The the supply of Maple woods will become short and they will levy the price on that. What next? Will Uncle Sam then start confiscating Maple from Gibson. I don't see them raiding other guitar company manufacturers. What; did Henry forget to pay Uncle Sam his taxes this year or several? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djroge1 Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 LOL I don't think Gibson and cheaper will get used in the same sentence regarding prices and facts I'm with Fred on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Actually "traditionally" Gibson ain't been so "traditional." That dates way back to the beginning and arch-tops, etc. The ES175 wasn't all that "traditional." The LP crashed at first and the SG was pretty wild-looking' in its early day. The 335 was reeeally something else when introduced - a board down the middle of an arch-top with half the sides cut off to make it thinner? <grin> Don't' take this wrong, 'cuz yeah, I think the thought has been since around 1960-65 there ain't been that much radical carrying the brand. OTOH... yup, I'm not sure those of us "here" had been prepped for anything "radical" in a PR/marketing sense. And whether one liked or disliked the concept of the new "X," all would pretty well agree it was largely evolutionary rather than revolutionary. That itself might have been well-exploited since Gibson seems to me always to keep a "traditional" schtick even as it turns into something that in other ways is about half radical. But... I dunno. m LOL...yeah, maybe "Traditional" was a poor choice, of a word, on my part. I only meant they seem to only update spec's, or sometimes components, in THEIR "now traditional" designs, more often, than not. But yeah, SG, Explorer, Firebirds, were not "traditional" when they first appeared. Can't speak about Arch-tops, really...as most of that development was done prior to my time on earth. Although, the LP and ES lines were "new," a very few years, after I was born. But, the LP's were (looks wise) similar to some of the cutaway arch-top, aesthetics, only smaller, and solid body, of course. But, the carved top, was... at least reminiscent, of that aesthetic. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 CB.... Yup on most of what you said. The LP to me is a good example of Gibson being rather revolutionary at times, but traditionally so it looks evolutionary. I do hate to say this but yes, I'm convinced a lotta the traditional woods used for musical instruments - not just guitars - likely will disappear. It also strikes me as truly odd that imported musical instruments would not be placed under the same degree of scrutiny as wood purchases by an American manufacturer. The law itself is, as often when we attempt to protect something or another, full of potential unintended consequences once bureaucrats get hold of it. I could tell some other interesting tales, but I won't ... right now anyway. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57classic Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 The suggestion that Gibson or other guitar manufacturers should have their own tree farms is not practical. The exotic woods, ie rosewood, ebony, mahogany, koa, etc. need to grow for a very long time. I'm not talking about 50 or 100 years, much longer. It's the density of the very old trees that helps deliver resonance and tone. Old growth spruce is another example. Scientifically engineered trees might grow fast but you need growth rings, not size. That only comes from age. There is a group of acoustic guitar builders who are involved with tree farms in Alaska, I believe, to reserve and buy old growth Sitka spruce trees when it is time to harvest them. Though it may seem that guitar builders are responsible for killing lots of trees, it is the building industry, including furniture and flooring companies that use most of the lumber harvested around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I think I have that answer "M", the woods that are in question are raw blanks and not really a good or manufactured item. The guitars coming from Japan, Korea, Indonesia and China actually fall into a different Custom Category of manufactured finished goods. I would be willing to bet this is the next wave of inspections. I know I am quite outspoken here and have made a few individuals upset with me due to my position in this case. Its time we all take a look at what we are doing to this planet. The only way we get oxygen is from vegetation and one of the richest regions in the world are our rain forests. Granted we can't take it with us so some (even here) could care less about our foot print on this planet. I have children and they have children and wouldn't it be nice to know that something this generation did actually helped the longevity of this planet. Yeah its only one person but if more were cautious and actually cared it would make a huge impact. Finally I still do not understand why Gibson with thier not so traditional way of thinking did not start their own "Tree farms". While I was not in the rooms during those discussions, I know this was a concern even in the 70's. Yes Gibson was a different Company maybe it time Henry started looking at some of the ideas on his own forum and stop listening to his own PR Dept. The same Dept who has failed him especially in this last two years with these court cases and public opinion. I think the reason some take your comments against Gibson regarding the Feds is the way you put it. You clearly have an opinion that Gibson is/was in the wrong, and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion or suspicions, but you state them as though they are facts. What would be interesting is if we could see where you get your info regarding your view on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I know about the wood being raw blanks... But I will wager that imported guitars have fingerboards made from raw blanks too - and heaven knows whether the woods themselves were "legally" harvested and sold. My point specifically is that one doesn't know - and that enforcement of the Lacey Act is prejudicial against U.S. business in this case whether Gibson didn't do their paperwork properly purchasing it from an importer, not an overseas source, or not. Hang HJ if you will, or his PR department that may or may not do all that well, but the principle of the thing still bothers me - and not in an anti-Gibson way whether they're "guilty" of anything or not. Waiting two years with confiscated materials without charges ain't how I'd care to be treated either. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57classic Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I think the reason some take your comments against Gibson regarding the Feds is the way you put it. You clearly have an opinion that Gibson is/was in the wrong, and there is nothing wrong with having an opinion or suspicions, but you state them as though they are facts. What would be interesting is if we could see where you get your info regarding your view on this. That pretty much covers it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Hmm, the composite sounds similar to my Sonex's body, which Gibson called "Resinwood." After an exhaustive search I can't really find out what it's really made of. All it states is that it's a "coating surrounding an inner tone wood core," which I assume is mahogony. As far as prices, I guess it all boils down to supply and demand. PRS sells some VERY expensive custom guitars. Yet people still buy them. It's all market driven. We'll see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 My source simply stated to me that there obviously were some folks very, very unhappy with Gibson and that there's more to it. Problem is to me the amount of time involved. Murder trials don't hang around like this without anybody being charged - although sometimes it takes real time and trouble to get "evidence" with value to someone back that may or may not have been properly taken or were not returned even after the end of a case - or that may have been taken from someone only peripherally involved in a case. There's something else involved, too, with the armed intrusion into the factories. Again, I've seen major felons arrested with less to-do. Secondly it seems as if the law itself is beyond strange if we zap American manufacturers and yet "because it's in a different customs category" allow importation of material with no such documentation as required of an American company. Again, it's almost a guaranteed way to make things more difficult for an American firm to compete. I've seen other countries play similar games against U.S. ag exports which is why they've functionally put the U.S. out of the marketplace for political reasons. I dislike, but can understand that. I don't understand the degree to which the US government - and party is irrelevant overall in this comment - puts the U.S. manufacturer (workers and all) by intent into a position of lesser chance to be competitive. When it comes to your food, btw, note that you haven't a clue where your beef comes from in a chain restaurant, folks. And you might be surprised by the supply chain. U.S. ag producers fought that in Congress with bipartisan rural support and won but... the bureaucrats simply ignore that largely due to the big packers convincing them the urban electorate would be angry if the price of their meat went up. So... you can eat food from heaven-knows-where, but we'll raise #@$% about some boards purchased from an import firm, blame paperwork and no charges for two years? <sigh> Charge somebody with something or let it go. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexri Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Humans are greedy creatures; We pay to have the earth raped of its fruits, and when there's nothing left we blame others for where it all went. By the time the wood "runs out" (i.e. not be readily available for the mass production of musical instruments, furniture, etc.), the majority of (popular) music will be produced with plastic, circuit boards, and computers anyway, not wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I'm trying hard not to take sides on the specifics of this, but I've never seen confiscation of goods without any quick followup with charges. A judge generally will go along with a prosecutor until it's far too far gone. One advantage for the govt in this case is that it can handle lots of delays prior to actually charging anybody with anything. That way technically there's nothing against the "speedy trial" doctrine 'cuz nobody's been charged with criminal behavior - they've just attacked a company's ability to do business and there's little statute or case law involved to protect a business not charged, but zapped by government regardless. Again, as far as I'm concerned if something can be proven, charge 'em. Hang 'em for all I care - but just be darned careful that this particular law and this particular bit of case law doesn't turn around with unintended consequences elsewhere. That tends to happen with politically, as opposed to more practically-crafted laws. Also, in my experience, it always seems to benefit some company that managed to be in position to best respond to changes in the law... There's that swimming pool drain gate law, for example... BTW, tree farms are only practical for some species in some climates and for some time spans to turn a profit per acre. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexri Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I'm trying hard not to take sides on the specifics of this, but I've never seen confiscation of goods without any quick followup with charges. m Call me crazy, but it makes me wonder. If they hadn't had their rosewood seized would they be able to charge $999.99 for an SG Special with an obeche fretboard? "A crowd always thinks with its sympathy, never with its reason." --William R. Alger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 I'm not sure I "get it" on prices of more than a few guitars from more than a few manufacturers... but then there are lots of games to be played and components and even build quality aren't necessarily the defining bits of price tags. I think nowadays a lotta that is handled with some pretty interesting formulae that factor in lots of variables that don't necessarily have anything to do with what I might think about the price tag of this vs. that. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 M, you're a history buff. Surely this sort of thing has happened somewhere else in our world history. Government storming private business to seize assets is nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster1 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 All this wood, shortages, extinction, etc. makes me think about Christmas Trees & trees in general. The granola crunchers will tell you "it's awful to cut down these beautiful trees just for 1 month." On the flip side, what would be the trees fate if these people with actual tree farms didn't grow tens of thousands each year? And for every 1 they cut down/harvest, they have somewhere like 30-50 planted in it's place to have more "inventory" to sell for future profit. Now, many don't know that I'm one of the biggest nature lovers in an unspoiled, undeveloped manner too. I love the wild and all the beauty God created for us to Nurture, Enjoy, and Use (not use up). With 100+ yrs of massive housing growth in the USA isn't if strange we haven't run out of 2x4's or other dimension lumber? I know it's quicker growing, but it don't grow overnight!! My question is this: Why the hell is this so complex about having a non-exhaustible, quality and protected source for great tone & woodworking woods from these other countries? If these third world folks had someone tell them that they grow forests, get big $$ for the wood, keep planting/replenishing "the Christmas Trees" if you will, they'll make out like bandits. The other option for the ignorant, is to burn down forests or free cut them, sell it and plant some stupid crop we could have sold them for pennies on the $$ for what the forests would bring if sustained. Why doesn't F&W spend some of their time/resources educating these like Dept. in the other countries? One other thing, with my mild rant. Where's all the hybrid developing guru's on this? Can't they develop a smaller tree than doesn't require 50-100 yrs to grow? Maybe it wouldn't yield as many fretboards or whatever, but if it was quicker, even if not as perfect, I'd rather have that than some of the process making of other stuff to "look" like rose or ebony wood. I like to build things in my wood shop too. Not just for gits you know. Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.