Three's a crowd....on a bridge

[ParlourMan]

But then we have the brain melter.... is it still 'made in the USA' when assembled in the USA might be more applicable? How many hairs are we willing to split, if two integral parts of the construction, bridge and board are actually pac-rim, will people refer to these as 'post-Lacey-Pac-Rim' Gibson's? WIll the laminate be the next best thing 'made in USA' an all...

 

I'd be curious to see the reaction to this.....

[retrorod]

I have now got a headache....Jeesh!

[Mojorule]

As the owner of a 'Lacey Act' model myself I can appreciate the sentiments of those that say laminate parts don't belong on a guitar of that prestige, I even said so myself last month when the first big debate about it happened. I went so far as to say I wouldn't lay down my money for one and yet that's exactly what I've done just a few days ago. So now I own pre-Lacey Gibson's that get the nod of approval from the most of us and a Lacey model which will no doubt be frowned upon by a large section of the forum community. The most interesting detail is many of them will never have heard as much as a note from any of them...

 

I don't think there are many of us on here yet who own both, I am one... from a tonal standpoint there's nothing to worry about, structurally, well assuming I haven't lost my marbles I'll come back and update the thread in 20 years and 20 years after that again ;)

 

But I thought the Lacey J50 had solid bridge and board. Looks that way on the pics...

 

OK, up to speed now, having read last night's and today's posts on the 50 thread. Well the pics are a bit grainy, but the bridge looks nice on them!

[ajay]

If they aren't sanding the bridge properly are they taking the time to glue and clamp them up properly?

[michaeljohnr]

If they aren't sanding the bridge properly are they taking the time to glue and clamp them up properly?

 

 

Those are the kind of repercussions stuff like this causes.

 

This is a perfectly legitimate follow up question to the OP's post.

 

 

[ParlourMan]

Concerns breed other concerns when loosely or slimly addressed, it stands to reason....

 

As I said yesterday, I believe it would be in Gibson's interest to do a bit of spin-free disclosure here.

 

Since this issue came up, many many posters here have said they wouldn't buy another Gibson with these design compromises, I even said so myself, yet I've just laid out on a 'Lacey Act' guitar. regarding the glueing/matching, it took me 5 days to even spot it wasn't a 1-piece bridge, while I could return this guitar (an option remaining open for a further 3 weeks) I don't believe I will do so. It looks and sounds great.

 

We're in a transition period though, so the reactions will vary from knee-jerk to considered case by case, what is fairly clear is it's a fairly unpopular compromise across the board. I freely admit I would greatly prefer my recent purchase to be constructed respecting the traditional design, but it wasn't. What may help Gibson here is a reiteration that anyone experiencing issues down the line with one of these 'Lacey Act' models would be taken care of, both inside and outside the US. That much is unclear, perhaps it is covered by warranty, perhaps not, who knows.. therein lies one of the problems.

 

Customers are being asked to accept this, Gibson has to accept that the onus is on them to restore faith in the product, not for a bunch of enthusiasts to advocate or detract the situation on their behalf. Perhaps the recent news of the Fiji plant is all part of addressing 'Lacey Act' restrictions. Perhaps it's just a cost-cutting manouevre timely implemented, again who know...

 

Perhaps it's time to be open and honest, they may just remarkably boost their sympathetic supporters.

 

Thus far there are many open questions:

 

Is the laminate situation a long or short term measure...

What are the compensations for those accepting guitars that will be viewed as 'compromised' if it's a short term solution. Special warranty?

 

and so on.... way too many to list....

 

[ajay]

I saw a post somewhere from a Gibson employee who claimed that they were having problems with bridges splitting at the bore holes. This lamination would solve this problem.

 

The only thing that bothers me about his claim is, have you ever had one of your Bozeman Gibson bridges split due to being one piece? I for one have never seen an incident of this happening, and I go on a lot of guitar forums where Montana Gibsons are discussed.

 

I personally feel that they are trying to use up a scrap pile.

 

Also, if two piece fingerboards are finding their ways onto these guitsrs, wouldn't two pieces of woood that size tend to move differently from one another as they are affected by humidity or the lack thereof. Could this cause intonation problems? Plus you have laminated parts making direct contact with the soundboard. The fingerboard's resonance will not be the same with a glue layer breaking up the transference of vibration as it would with the same vibration trabelling through one solid and cellularly bound piece of wood.

 

I just will not buy another Gibson until these methods of construction are halted. Maybe Musician's Friend doesn't care, but its buyers absolutely should. They are spending the same money for a guitar made of scrap wood. What's next? Twelve piece tops and eight piece backs?

[ParlourMan]

I saw a post somewhere from a Gibson employee who claimed that they were having problems with bridges splitting at the bore holes. This lamination would solve this problem.

 

The only thing that bothers me about his claim is, have you ever had one of your Bozeman Gibson bridges split due to being one piece? I for one have never seen an incident of this happening, and I go on a lot of guitar forums where Montana Gibsons are discussed.

 

I have never seen such a thread either and I belong to a few forums were Gibson's are discussed too! While I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist, in an argument it's a plausible reasoning, I think such problem are mode than half a century away for Bozeman's output. There's future-proofing and there's future-proofing. ;) I can only once again state I think it would be to their benefit to avoid spin and come out and explain the situation.

 

I personally feel that they are trying to use up a scrap pile.

 

If not, I'd say they're reserving the good stuff they have left for 5-star limited runs, custom orders etc....

[stein]

I agree "honest disclosure" would seem to be the better approach, but in the case of "laminates", that wouldn't work.

 

"We are using up scrap", or, "we have made some design compromises" or whatever brutal truth would not go over well.

 

I think for some of the alternative woods, or the synthetic stuff, there is validity to them. Honesty works in these cases. But laminates are not defensible. "they aren't as bad as they seem" is about as good an explanation as can be had.

 

The truth is, MAYBE they aren't as bad as they seem. I wouldn't sell a good guitar if it had a few laminates, I would still use it.

 

But what concerns me is the QUALITY issue, and the confidence issue. It causes concern that either Gibson doesn't know what they are doing, OR they aren't always honest about what is INSIDE the guitar or that they are building what they say they are building.

 

As for the future, the baffling thing about it is that it clearly shows there is a disconnect between the company and the costumers. It is as though Gibson is unable to understand why customers buy thier guitars, or even what makes them good.

[ParlourMan]

Wasn't it banded about here that currently they couldn't import rosewood of the thickness required for making 1-piece bridges, it certainly wasn't anything official but I'm sure one of the other lengthy threads on this contained that somewhere in it. If that's the case, explain it... but it would be interesting to know why others are not facing the same difficulty. The lack of any explanation starts to point folk in the direction of "using up scrap".

 

Then there's been the speculation about it being behind the parting of ways between Gibson and Mr Ferguson, again lack of any clarity on the issue leads people to deduce that it does, after building the great reputation he has built in his Gibson tenure it does make sense to walk away if such a negative turnaround was commanded from above.

 

Someone stated yesterday, if these were pac-rim guitars they'd be branded as a cheaply made for details such as laminate bridges and indeed it's true that even most pac-rim stuff comes with solid 1-piece bridges.

 

It's at times like these when how a business continues is defined, by distancing themselves from the customer and doing a head in the sand routine Gibson is hurting itself, by taking a decision to come clean warts n all they may just manage to turn things to their favour, but one whiff of spin and even more folk will walk away from it. Lets just say in the brand wars among the big three Gibson has taken a shotgun aimed it squarely at it's own goal-scoring foot, pulled the trigger, blown it's toes off then sawn the leg off just under the knee to make sure it's done a good job of it, the G-brand detractors must be having a field day with this info.

 

As more and more people use the internet for user group discussion in order to obtain reviews etc... this was a quite suicidal move.

[duluthdan]

The bottom line really is the head scratching question of whether or not there is any distinguishable sonic difference. Martin launched the D-35 with a 3 piece rosewood back - decades ago - I beleve in order to have a use for pieces of rosewood too narrow for a 2 piece back, ala d-28 etc. That didn't seem to cause an uproar, and in fact they looked pretty darn nice. If for whatever reason a laminate bridge is inevitable, at least take the time and effort to make the appearance nice. Or make the total leap and just make them out of carbon-graphite.

 

The devil is in the details - the details have to be unnoticeable so as not to distract from the product as a whole. If you stayed in the finest 5-star hotel in the world and everything was stunningly perfect, but there was a small spider web in your room, what do you think the average human would remember about that trip? This is the same thing, it has to become unnoticeable. Now, how can that be done? Finish them off somehow to make them a remarkable feature.

[BigKahune]

.... Someone stated yesterday, if these were pac-rim guitars they'd be branded as a cheaply made for details such as laminate bridges and indeed it's true that even most pac-rim stuff comes with solid 1-piece bridges. ....

 

Some great comments, making for great reading.

 

Regarding PM's comment quoted above - I agree. Most would agree that a guitar made with laminate woods is, as a rule of thumb, generally considered to be inferior to solid woods (except in the case of hollow/semi-hollow body electrics for which laminates help reduce feedback).

 

Another point I've brought up before is how some manufacturers use the term "solid wood" or "solid laminate" - which is sometimes used to mean wood that is laminated from layers of thin solid pieces of the same tonewood, like Gibson's three piece bridge. This differs from "laminate" where the layers can be any type of wood (usually maple or birch) and the outside layer being of the tonewood.

 

I don't like it when the manufacturers doing these things are secretive about what types of wood they're using in their guitars. The reason they're secretive is because they know damn well a lot of buyers won't be interested in laminated woods - whether they're "solid laminates" or laminates. Unfortunately, Gibson has become one of those companies.

 

 

.

[onewilyfool]

If I had bought a $2500 Gibson, and later found out that the fretboard and bridge were were made from laminates of wood, without being informed of that prior to buying it, I would insist that the vendor give me my money back. PERIOD! This "hiding the ball", this non-disclosure of these practices by Gibson is beyond belief. Let them "claim" that it is better than solid bridges because of splitting wood, let them claim plywood fretboards are better than solid wood fretboards...let them spin it anyway they want, but DISCLOSE the change in traditional materials and building methods BEFORE someone lays out this kind of cash for a new guitar. When someone spends $2500 on a guitar they shoudn't even have to think about this!!! I personally don't think Gibson will recover from this PR fiasco. Ren left just in time, before HIS reputation was tainted by this kind of slight of hand. I don't know about you guys, but I am really dissappointed in Gibson.

[bobby b]

If I had bought a $2500 Gibson, and later found out that the fretboard and bridge were were made from laminates of wood, without being informed of that prior to buying it, I would insist that the vendor give me my money back. PERIOD! This "hiding the ball", this non-disclosure of these practices by Gibson is beyond belief. Let them "claim" that it is better than solid bridges because of splitting wood, let them claim plywood fretboards are better than solid wood fretboards...let them spin it anyway they want, but DISCLOSE the change in traditional materials and building methods BEFORE someone lays out this kind of cash for a new guitar. When someone spends $2500 on a guitar they shoudn't even have to think about this!!! I personally don't think Gibson will recover from this PR fiasco. Ren left just in time, before HIS reputation was tainted by this kind of slight of hand. I don't know about you guys, but I am really dissappointed in Gibson.

 

Try $4000 ......

 

Yes, I too may have said the same..... "give me my money back"....IF I had not played a single note on it.....but I have, and it ( the sound) is good, and looks wise, the rest of the guitar is gorgeous.

Even though the bridge is quite obvious to me now, I did not notice the layers at all until a few weeks after purchase.....by then I had bonded with the instrument. If I had noticed before handing over the $$$ it certainly would have called the purchase into question. So I feel there is a bit of a mixed blessing here....the sound is the thing that makes me not want to bring it back for a refund....the bridge was a bit of a shock, but it isn't gonna break the deal at this point.

 

I agree that Gibson has not exactly been forthright here as far as any disclosure of these material changes to the bridge(s), and yes, it is 'disappointing' that they would take this course of action.

 

As far as Ren goes, I understand that he left Gibson near the end of Dec 2011. My guitar is dated Oct 2011 sooo, do I still consider it to be a "Ren Era" guitar and be happy(er)?

[Hogeye]

.

Buc -

 

I'm not happy about the way this whole laminate/synthetic/alternative-woods switching came about. Announced after the fact on a buried webpage. Gibson should have been up front with the whole situation.

 

Now I find out (in the Lounge) Gibson may be opening up a factory (2,500 jobs) in Fiji - http://www.fijivillage.com/?mod=story&id=180412bb8e6ad9da530ee8bde3002c . WTF?!? . Is this a joke?

 

If they're going to make guitars, will they be stamped - FORMERLY MADE IN THE USA ?

How dare they open another factory without consulting with you first. Shame on Henry. I don't know what he's thinking.

 

.

[BigKahune]

How dare they open another factory without consulting with you first. Shame on Henry. I don't know what he's thinking.

 

Is a possible factory in Fiji a joke in terms of a webpage that posts fake articles, not that Henry is a joke.

 

As far as the way some of the post Lacy raids coping strategies have come about, I'm not the only one who finds some of the decisions questionable.

 

So, oh wise sage - do you know - is that Figi article about a real possibility, or is it joke?

 

 

.

[Hogeye]

I saw a post somewhere from a Gibson employee who claimed that they were having problems with bridges splitting at the bore holes. This lamination would solve this problem.

 

The only thing that bothers me about his claim is, have you ever had one of your Bozeman Gibson bridges split due to being one piece? I for one have never seen an incident of this happening, and I go on a lot of guitar forums where Montana Gibsons are discussed.

 

I personally feel that they are trying to use up a scrap pile.

 

Also, if two piece fingerboards are finding their ways onto these guitsrs, wouldn't two pieces of woood that size tend to move differently from one another as they are affected by humidity or the lack thereof. Could this cause intonation problems? Plus you have laminated parts making direct contact with the soundboard. The fingerboard's resonance will not be the same with a glue layer breaking up the transference of vibration as it would with the same vibration trabelling through one solid and cellularly bound piece of wood.

 

I just will not buy another Gibson until these methods of construction are halted. Maybe Musician's Friend doesn't care, but its buyers absolutely should. They are spending the same money for a guitar made of scrap wood. What's next? Twelve piece tops and eight piece backs?

 

Look you need to step back from the edge and get your facts right. The post you are mis-quoting was done by me. I an NOT a Gibson employee. The problem with the bridges splitting is common to all guitar builders that don't drill their bridge pin holes properly. Gibson has no more problem with bridges splitting than any other builder You never saw this happen before? Well I will be kind and not respond.

 

Fretboard intonation problems because of laminated fretboards? Are you serious? Is this the extent of your knowledge? If you have no clue you should sit back and read.

 

Do you realize that many Gibson necks are laminated and have been forever? The J-200 has a 3 piece neck and the Dove uses a 5 piece neck. They do not move because of humidity issues. In fact they are much stronger that one piece necks. The fretboard enjoys the very same reliability. You can sit back and display you lack of knowledge but let me assure you that most that post here know that laminated parts are much stronger than solid wood and much more reliable. Good Grief? A laminated fretboard, just by it's very nature, will never move because of humidity changes.

 

You display your complete lack of knowledge when you ask what is next. 12 piece tops and 8 piece backs? Some of Gibson's most expensive and sought after vintage guitars have multiple piece tops.I have seen many 4 piece Banner tops. Many of the WW11 guitars had multi piece tops. The original Banners can be found with all sorts of wood variation and they are some of the best sounding instruments available.

 

Please do us all a favor and trade in your Gibson and buy a Rainsong.

As for the rest of you? Well I will shut up an play my guitar now. Responding to your uniformed posts is just not worth the effort. Shame on all of you.

[Buc McMaster]

As for the rest of you? Well I will shut up an play my guitar now. Responding to your uniformed posts is just not worth the effort. Shame on all of you.

 

Shame on you for not grasping the gist of the issue: a change in traditional construction specifications without notice to the buying public. Cosmetic the changes may be, as I agree that structurally they are not inferior, but cosmetics are a concern for likely the majority of guitarists. You paint with much too broad a brush, sir, and bringing to mind past conflict with you, I for one am weary of your holier than thou attitude. If you like laminations on your Gibsons, fine, but don't flippantly toss aside as "uninformed" what are legitimate concerns of others.

[rar]

So, oh wise sage - do you know - is that Figi article about a real possibility, or is it joke?

.

I don't have any information about it, but I hope it's not a joke. Building a factory in Java does not imply that Gibson will be building guitars in Java. Java is an obvious alternative (to India) source of (lovely) rosewood for fretboards and bridges, and producing finished parts in Java may be a way of avoiding potential Lacey Act violations. (I have no idea what Java's export regulations look like, but, If I were Henry, I wouldn't be taking any chances at this point.) This is exactly the sort of innovative move that should have critics of laminated bridges and fretboards cheering.

 

-- Bob R

[bobby b]

Look you need to step back from the edge and get your facts right. The post you are mis-quoting was done by me. I an NOT a Gibson employee. The problem with the bridges splitting is common to all guitar builders that don't drill their bridge pin holes properly. Gibson has no more problem with bridges splitting than any other builder You never saw this happen before? Well I will be kind and not respond.

 

Fretboard intonation problems because of laminated fretboards? Are you serious? Is this the extent of your knowledge? If you have no clue you should sit back and read.

 

Do you realize that many Gibson necks are laminated and have been forever? The J-200 has a 3 piece neck and the Dove uses a 5 piece neck. They do not move because of humidity issues. In fact they are much stronger that one piece necks. The fretboard enjoys the very same reliability. You can sit back and display you lack of knowledge but let me assure you that most that post here know that laminated parts are much stronger than solid wood and much more reliable. Good Grief? A laminated fretboard, just by it's very nature, will never move because of humidity changes.

 

You display your complete lack of knowledge when you ask what is next. 12 piece tops and 8 piece backs? Some of Gibson's most expensive and sought after vintage guitars have multiple piece tops.I have seen many 4 piece Banner tops. Many of the WW11 guitars had multi piece tops. The original Banners can be found with all sorts of wood variation and they are some of the best sounding instruments available.

 

Please do us all a favor and trade in your Gibson and buy a Rainsong.

As for the rest of you? Well I will shut up an play my guitar now. Responding to your uniformed posts is just not worth the effort. Shame on all of you.

 

 

Whoa.... easy now, I did not intend to start any wars here. I understand you being upset about being 'mis-quoted' but no need to paint the rest of us with the 'shame' brush......

[BigKahune]

I don't have any information about it, but I hope it's not a joke. Building a factory in Java does not imply that Gibson will be building guitars in Java. Java is an obvious alternative (to India) source of (lovely) rosewood for fretboards and bridges, and producing finished parts in Java may be a way of avoiding potential Lacey Act violations. (I have no idea what Java's export regulations look like, but, If I were Henry, I wouldn't be taking any chances at this point.) This is exactly the sort of innovative move that should have critics of laminated bridges and fretboards cheering. ....

 

Thanks for your input Bob. I think PM mentioned that possibility too. I was hoping Hogeye would weigh in on Fiji too. BTW, Henry is definitely aware Gibson is risking customers and sales with the use of composites, laminates and alternative products, which are less desirable than traditional tonewoods -

 

From Nashville Post Published April 13, 2012 by Geert De Lombaerde:

 

After a few months of maintaining a relative quiet on the Lacey Act front, Gibson Guitar CEO Henry Juszkiewicz visited with Fox News this week to provide an outrage-filled update on his company, which still has not been formally charged with any crimes. Among his main points: Gibson in December ran out of the Indian wood it had left following last year's federal raid and it could have serious repercussions.

 

Since then, they have had to switch to less desirable alternative sources, or alternative products — including composite materials, which many purists reject. Juszkiewicz fears his company may lose market share as a result.

 

That's a different tone from Juszkiewicz's assessment in November, when he told Blake Farmer sales were holding up just fine. Also different is the fact that Juszkiewicz, who last fall was strident in his crusade against the government and its enforcement of the Lacey Act, offered the feds a deal — as long as he got back his wood.

 

 

.

[onewilyfool]

Kahune.....I think my disappointment, is that people are buying these non-traditional guitars, THEN finding out about the non-tradtional building materials. In other words, non-disclosure. I think Henry's fear of "losing market share" led them to NOT disclose the (in my opinion) inferior and non-traditional materials of construction. Hell, if they want to move away from the "tradition" of the Gibson guitar, how about thickening the headstock paddle (the wood is already in the blank, this adds no material cost) and then making the truss rod and adjusting bolt smaller. These two things would avoid a lot of Gibson's broken neck problems. But I digress......Running out of material is NOT a great argument for this. There are many suppliers of this material, and he had over two years to replenish his stocks with legal supplies (not saying his supplies snagged by the government were illegal). This just smacks of Norlin type bean counting corporate decisions that are done to maximize profit. I'm not buying. They have definitely lost my market share until they go back to the traditional materials. I think there should be some financial compensation to the folks who unknowingly bought laminated Gibsons.

 

Thanks for your input Bob. I think PM mentioned that possibility too. I was hoping Hogeye would weigh in on Fiji too. BTW, Henry is definitely aware Gibson is risking customers and sales with the use of composites, laminates and alternative products, which are less desirable than traditional tonewoods -

 

From Nashville Post Published April 13, 2012 by Geert De Lombaerde:

 

After a few months of maintaining a relative quiet on the Lacey Act front, Gibson Guitar CEO Henry Juszkiewicz visited with Fox News this week to provide an outrage-filled update on his company, which still has not been formally charged with any crimes. Among his main points: Gibson in December ran out of the Indian wood it had left following last year's federal raid and it could have serious repercussions.

 

Since then, they have had to switch to less desirable alternative sources, or alternative products — including composite materials, which many purists reject. Juszkiewicz fears his company may lose market share as a result.

 

That's a different tone from Juszkiewicz's assessment in November, when he told Blake Farmer sales were holding up just fine. Also different is the fact that Juszkiewicz, who last fall was strident in his crusade against the government and its enforcement of the Lacey Act, offered the feds a deal — as long as he got back his wood.

 

 

.

[Paul E]

I don't know if any of you get Gibson Acoustic on Facebook but there was an interesting post from them on future considerations of fretboard wood. It showed pictures of thermally modified maple, katalox, pau ferro, granadillo, african ebony, indian rosewood,and a last one were the picture was too fuzzy for my old eyes to read. I find it interesting how Gibson is trying to work out it's problems with supplied wood just like it did in the past. Laminates aside, they still make a hell of a guitar. I think change is hard to accept by alot of people.

[rar]

Shame on you for not grasping the gist of the issue: a change in traditional construction specifications without notice to the buying public. ...

But a change in traditional construction specifications without notice is also traditional. So, if you think Gibson should respect tradition, then you should accept that they shouldn't announce the change. :)

 

-- Bob R

[Hogeye]

Shame on you for not grasping the gist of the issue: a change in traditional construction specifications without notice to the buying public. Cosmetic the changes may be, as I agree that structurally they are not inferior, but cosmetics are a concern for likely the majority of guitarists. You paint with much too broad a brush, sir, and bringing to mind past conflict with you, I for one am weary of your holier than thou attitude. If you like laminations on your Gibsons, fine, but don't flippantly toss aside as "uninformed" what are legitimate concerns of others.

It's too bad that you failed to read the fine print Buc. Please go to Gibson.Com and then to the Acoustic guitar section. Pick a guitar. Oh heck any Gibson Montana acoustic. Click on it and then click on the specifications. Scroll to the bottom of the spec page and read the disclaimer. Gibson reserves the right to change the specifications of their guitars at anytime. They don't need your permission. They have given you fair warnig. I know it can be a bother to actually read the complete details. If you did then you would be among the informed.

 

If they took a vote on such matters they would never get a guitar built. This is to say, at the least, a very unusual situation and they didn't do it capriciously. They have a very difficult situation and if they were the target of a government gone wild or they did something wrong will be decided by a court. Maybe not this year. The point is that they have to keep making guitars. Do you actually want them to stop until the case get thru the courts? The decision was the best one they could make and still keep in production. The big question should be... What are they going to do if they run completely out of Rosewood???? What will you say whan they drag out the plastic bridges?

 

I think they should make the fretboards and bridges out of solid Maple. No one understands Maple like Gibson and they could be on the leading edge of technology instead of trying to muddle thru this mess.

 

Sorry if you are weary of me but.... I will always try to be the voice of reason here. If you have the need to jump on the hysteria wagon be my guest. If I call you out then take it in the spirit it was intended. My broad brush was to include all that have no idea what they are talking about.There are 4 pages of ignorance here and I doubt this will be the end. Gibson and the moderators seem to be standing above the fray. Me? Not so much. I will call you all out anytime you make ignorant statements on this forum. I don't expect to win any popularity contests here. Do I think I'm all knowing? Well Buc, I did read the fine print....What's your excuse....