Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Brag and Rate Your Best Local Mom & Pop Gibson shop


Dave F

Recommended Posts

Of the 15 guitars I have had pass through my hands in the last 4 or 5 years, I bought exactly 2 locally. I via Craig's List and 1 on consignment in a small guitar store I saw listed on Craig's List. Every other guitar was an internet purchase ; 5 from Fullers before they removed the Gibson listings; several Ebay, forums, etc. There are no mom/pop Gibson dealers where I am and GC is a mess. Lucky for me, my recent Martin purchase was it. I'm done. But, I have to believe that Fullers , and any other store like them has been done a serious disservice by Gibson in removing their ability to effectively advertise on line. To those of you who have a good store with a good selection nearby, enjoy as it's uncommon. Gibson got a lot of business from me via Fullers. I probably wouldn't have bought all those guitars otherwise.

 

Sounds like I was on the same line as you. In the past few years I bought a couple Martins and Gibson's and sold off most of my solid body fenders and a few others and said I was done. Then I played a new Fender a couple weeks ago and had to buy it. I guess I'm not as done as I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sounds like I was on the same line as you. In the past few years I bought a couple Martins and Gibson's and sold off most of my solid body fenders and a few others and said I was done. Then I played a new Fender a couple weeks ago and had to buy it. I guess I'm not as done as I thought.

I hear ya Dave. But, next month I will mark 3 yrs. quitting smoking; meaning, I know I can do it. I've made up my mind I'm finished. I have an embarrassment of riches deserving of greater skill, as it is. I like to think I've gotten in/out at the right time and some day my little collection will be out there in the world again. Keep an eye out! It's the good sh*t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibson doesnt do Mom and Pop, right? Stocking requirements.

 

What do consider Mom and Pop? Jerry already mentioned the number. Do the arithmetic and you'll see that you have to sell maybe one and a half Gibsons a month to be a dealer. Looked at another way, you have to make between around $6K (if you discount aggressively) and $18K (if you can get away with just matching internet prices) per annum selling Gibsons to be a dealer. That's a pretty small percentage of what it takes to keep a store open, pay a few employees, eat, and keep a roof over your head. Seems to me that if you can make a living selling guitars, you can be a Gibson dealer if you want to. If you have a store with a few guitars for sale in it, but make your money selling other stuff, maybe not.

 

You know, if they lightened up on that, they might have better distribution.

They have their distribution they way they want it. If a store isn't not interested in stocking a reasonable range of product or isn't capable of selling it, why would Gibson want it as a dealer? Given relative production numbers and the similarity of their stocking requirements, there should be something like six or eight Martin dealers, and a like number of Taylor dealers, per Gibson acoustic dealer. I don't know the actual ratio, but that could be about right. If Gibson had as many dealers as Martin and Taylor, it would be a disaster for them and us -- most dealers would have maybe one Gibson, making it way tougher to find what you're looking for than it is now.

 

Come to think of it, that's kind of the way things were in the Not-So-Good Old Days. Lots of "Authorized Gibson Dealers" with one J-45 and one Hummingbird that have been hanging on the wall for years because the store is actually in the business of selling cheap imports. You really think that was better than the way it works now?

 

-- Bob R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 on what Rar said.

 

I think we sometimes see an instinctive reaction of 'how come it's so hard to find Gibson acoustics'. The answer in part is they actually don't make very many: 60 or 70 a day and those shared out among the US, europe, Japan, etc. Only that many people in the world are having a Gibson new guitar day on an average day.

 

I remember somebody at Gibson, Ren probably, saying Japan would take all of Bozeman's output if the company would let them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, Jerry,

 

I'm not disputing these points, numbers in mind it almost makes sense. What doesn't make sense is dealers with a decent inventory and also being a fairly well reputed bricks & mortar store not being allowed to advertise their stock online. They've clearly invested in the lines, may even stock several samples of a model at a particular time, yet now are forced to withdraw any type of advertising that they sell these products.

 

Surely in a fair competition scenario, businesses investing in becoming a Dealer, 5-star or Independent should be allowed to operate both sides of the business, physically and online. At that point it all starts to look a bit cloak & dagger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numerous things pointed out in this thread have much to do with the fact that the three Gibson acoustics I own were all purchased used, from Mom & Pop dealers that I had established a relationship with, but who were not authorized Gibson resellers. The last new guitar I bought was a Martin. Not only did I really like the guitar, but I wanted to support that particular dealer. Had that same dealer been an authorized Gibson reseller, chances are that I would own at least one or two Gibsons at this time that I had purchased new.

 

Gibson chooses how they want to distribute their guitars, just as I choose how I want to distribute my money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the arithmetic and you'll see that you have to sell maybe one and a half Gibsons a month to be a dealer. Looked at another way, you have to make between around $6K and $18K per annum selling Gibsons to be a dealer. That's a pretty small percentage ..."

 

You are closer to the business end of it than I am, Bob. Still, cant help but feel that while 6-18k might be 'small' for a mid-size store, it is a high step for a smaller

shop, especially if paid up front and turnover is slow. We've got Martin/Taylor dealer here who's turnover is glacial.

 

[besides] 'They have their distribution they way they want it."

 

That I dont doubt. Getting out to the foothills would be a benefit to folks who care to sample the goods instead of having something shipped. But there is probably not enough in it for them to bother

 

 

 

 

For customer satisfaction, though, its hard to beat a local local buy. Ive turned over several guits in the last five years and the only solid keeper in the bunch (my National) from a M&P. Rambler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to give Willis Music in Florence KY a "10".

I'm horrible to deal with when I'm shopping around and they always seem to match my best deals.

They are an authorized Gibson, Martin, Fender and many other brands that I don't buy.

That's hard to do when you realize what the factories force them to buy to stay in that status.

If they don't have what I want, they get it in and still meet any other deal I come up with and take me on my word.

They have an authorized repair shop on site.

Earlier this year they ordered me a J200.

It took about a month to get it and the day I got it was only about 6 days from when it got signed off in the factory.

Almost like picking it up from the factory.

Last week I bought a Fender from them. They beat everyone's deal. Their taxes put them a little over my best deal, but I think they're worth it.

 

 

Sounds like a great place. I'm a fellow Kentuckian so a big " howdy" to you friend :)

 

Unfortunately I have to drive to Nashville to see any Gibsons. I live on the KY Tn border above Nashville so it isn't to bad of a drive. Just wish we had a smaller place like yours in Florence to check some gibbies out. I've started to develop some anxiety in large public places so GC is a tuff time for me anymore. Maybe I live to far back in the woods I dunno

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... What doesn't make sense is dealers with a decent inventory ... not being allowed to advertise their stock online. ...

Well, I guess this discussion has come full circle.

 

Surely in a fair competition scenario, ...

"Fair competition", in this sense, isn't the objective. The objective is to allow local music stores to stay in business, which requires protection from competition against against dealers who who don't have to maintain a staffed brick 'n' mortar facility, or have some other advantage that make it impossible for the local dealer to compete. (This is nothing new. Gibson has been in the business of protecting their dealers from competition for nearly a century, offering them exclusive territories and whatnot.)

 

If you assume that local dealers offer valuable services that "everyone" wants to preserve, this is a classic case where unbridled free competition and buyers making decisions based on their own best interests will lead to a result that "everyone" agrees is suboptimal. When you make your decision to buy from whoever offers the lowest price, you recognize that your decision hurts your local dealer, but also it is extremely unlikely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Everyone reasons the same way. So the dealer goes out of business -- even though "everyone" preferred the dealer staying open to getting the lowest price. In other words, we have a classic case of the public goods problem.

 

If you don't care whether local music stores survive, that's fine. But Gibson cares, and is going to do what they can to keep them around. More and more are failing, despite the "unfair competitive advantages" that Gibson (along with Martin and Taylor and a host of other builders) provides them. Gibson wants Fuller's to succeed. But they want them to do it by selling Gibsons to people in the Houston area and to people who don't have a local dealer, not to people who live a few blocks from Jim's Music Center in Tustin, CA, or Spring Music in San Gabriel, CA, or Grayson's Tune Town in Montrose, CA, or ... , because they want those dealers to survive too.

 

-- Bob R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess this discussion has come full circle.

 

Full circle is better than 1000 miles just to try one....

 

The objective is to allow local music stores to stay in business

 

The objective is to sell guitars

 

If you don't care whether local music stores survive, that's fine. But Gibson cares

 

So how does that explain Dealers being stripped of status because they're not shifting enough product?

 

and is going to do what they can to keep them around.

 

Or will strip the dealership, or restrict the ability to advertise your inventory in favour of someone who's willing to invest more with the Gibson care package regarding rights exclusivity.

 

More and more are failing, despite the "unfair competitive advantages" that Gibson (along with Martin and Taylor and a host of other builders) provides them.

 

Well, if we've people here advocating a 2000 miles trip just to try one because Gibson prefers you to go to a store, they're not exactly making it easy are they?

 

Gibson wants Fuller's to succeed. But they want them to do it by selling Gibsons to people in the Houston area and to people who don't have a local dealer, not to people who live a few blocks from Jim's Music Center in Tustin, CA, or Spring Music in San Gabriel, CA, or Grayson's Tune Town in Montrose, CA, or ... , because they want those dealers to survive too.

 

-- Bob R

 

 

Only the fittest survive, Bob, this is a long term flawed plan, why not allow everyone to sell, set a pricing that allows the smaller boys to compete with the larger orders, everyone has fair game and offers of extra services and the "homely" feel, what if Jim from down the road is a bit of an A-hole to customers and people don't want to give him their money, your model ends up with them going elsewhere anyway and probably not being a Gibson dealer he asks around on the AGF and starts to look at Martin, Taylor, H&D, Collings, 2nd hand etc etc.. you get the picture. Gibson have the power here because demand outstrips supply, therefore they can use that leverage to make all things equal, a choice that is not made, any spin otherwise is marketing banter to cover bowing down to big-boy order numbers.

 

Sorry to be crude but its true.... If Gibson utilises a policy that tries to tell people where to spend their money, that's an intrusive piece of business logic that warrants fairly severe criticism.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Gibson utilises a policy that tries to tell people where to spend their money, that's an intrusive piece of business logic that warrants fairly severe criticism.

 

 

Now that Gibson Montana appears to have set the goal of increasing production by a significant amount, it will be interesting to see if or how the marketing approach changes over time. I don't pretend to know or understand Gibson's marketing strategy, but it blows me away that the five-star dealer who wins the "independent Gibson dealer of the year" award isn't allowed to advertise their Gibson inventory online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob said:

The objective is to allow local music stores to stay in business, which requires protection from competition against against dealers who who don't have to maintain a staffed brick 'n' mortar facility, or have some other advantage that make it impossible for the local dealer to compete. (This is nothing new. Gibson has been in the business of protecting their dealers from competition for nearly a century, offering them exclusive territories and whatnot.)

 

 

to which you replied:

 

The objective is to sell guitars

 

 

I don't think you are understanding something here. Any one of a number of markets would happily absorb all the Gibson acoustics produced in a year. They have no difficulty unloading their guitars. The question is how to parcel out this limited supply. The guitar market Darwinism you propose will ensure that no brick and mortar stores will exist in a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you are understanding something here. Any one of a number of markets would happily absorb all the Gibson acoustics produced in a year. They have no difficulty unloading their guitars. The question is how to parcel out this limited supply. The guitar market Darwinism you propose will ensure that no brick and mortar stores will exist in a few years.

 

No, Jerry, obviously I'm not understanding something, the policy as stated and the end implementation are not exactly reconciling with each other. The Darwinism you mention is already in effect, the protection is counter-productive when some retailers are not allowed to advertise online, Gibson has to realise that it's a fundamental of modern business. The Darwinism you fear wouldn't apply if prices were set across the board, bricks & mortar will always exist, lest we forget "you have to try one before you buy one", from the horses lips apparently.... Don't forget you are talking about a global business here, it's not just the US, many posts here are very US-centric..

 

As you say they are in a fairly advantaged position due to demand outstripping supply, that being the case, they have several business choices in front of them, the recent news of extra shifts and ramped up production will raise the usual QC alarm bells, all things being equal I think we have to look at those facts as a clear indicator that what I said above rings true "The objective is to sell guitars"

 

..and aren't we always arguing about bricks & mortar cutting to match online pricing, thus reducing the margins anyway, seems to me you're trying to play two sides of the argument, what's next advocating turning off the internet? Darwinism or not, businesses adapt or they die. Advocating a 2000 miles round trip to try before you buy is a very very clear way to drastically reduce your customer base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread here. So here in the Heart of the Heart of Dixie, is the largest metro area in the state so we have a pretty good selection of stores. One GC, one Five Star Dealer and several Ma and Pa stores. I make the rounds to most at least once a month (and the 5 Star as offen as possible because they will educate me and let me play new Gibsons until my fingers bleed should I so desire). Modoc will also let me buy one every few months at realllllll reasonable prices.

 

The Mom and Pop stores, mostly, are great places but rarely have any used Gibsons, and never new ones. The most local (to me) guy told me what Gibson requires (I won't repeat because I don't know how acurate) but very few small shops could stand that. Each of the smallies sort of have a special niche and offer non Gibson pleasures aplenty ..... like the one that claims to be 82 years behind the times ...... guy drives a Model A Ford to work every day and wears a leather apron .... makes concertinas using hand tools.

 

Ya'll have heard me brag on Bailey Brothers. They keep about 20 new Gibsons on the wall at any one time, several slopes, several jumbos, a parlor size or three, an HB or three, usually a TV version of the afore mentioned. Generally a special Gibson or three ... like the JB or a couple of Ren's that passed through. Also the staff is great and go out of their way to establish a relationship with a customer. Ask Dchristo who drives from the Fla panhandle to central 'bama. They have a dedicated acoustic room that keeps the teenie shredders isolated to the electric side. That's the bragging I have to do. Wish I could do it for the small shops.

 

As for the GC, they have recently increased their quota of Gibbies but then there are all the down sides to a GC that we have discussed too much already.. Pricewise, they will beat the lowest advertised price but finding someone there who can give you an answer or even knowledgeably negotiate with you is often a problem.

 

So, should you have the pleasure of passing through the fine State of Alabama, set aside some time for the 5 Star and play all kinds of Gibson and make it to at least Homewood Music and then to Fretted Instruments just because actually love acoustic stuff ...... that's my brag and each that I've named gets a 10, but for different reasons.

 

After reading what you all have posted I feel pretty lucky. I guess that good 'cause ain't nutin' else happening here except great bass fishing, crazy politics, and Alabama football. Ummmm might be enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a great place. I'm a fellow Kentuckian so a big " howdy" to you friend :)

 

Unfortunately I have to drive to Nashville to see any Gibsons. I live on the KY Tn border above Nashville so it isn't to bad of a drive. Just wish we had a smaller place like yours in Florence to check some gibbies out. I've started to develop some anxiety in large public places so GC is a tuff time for me anymore. Maybe I live to far back in the woods I dunno

 

If I lived by you, I'd be making trips to the Music Outlet in Seiverville. I love that store. Except for certain special models their Martins, Gibsons and Fenders are 40% off list with no hassel. They're already priced that way. They also carry quite a few other lines. I don't get around too much, but that's the most impressive guitar shop I've been in. I would consider it a Mom & Pop store. Only downfall is the 9.5% tax. Since you're in KY, pick it out and then have it shipped. They'll also set it up for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The objective is to sell guitars

We were speaking of the objective that drives the policy. Actual companies have more than one objective. One Gibson corporate objective is to sell guitars. That is not the objective that drives this policy. Corporate objectives are not consistent, and some are not even consistent with selling as much product as possible. Tradeoffs are made.

 

So how does that explain Dealers being stripped of status because they're not shifting enough product?

If by "stripped of status", you mean lost internet sales authorization, this has never happened.

 

Or will strip the dealership, or restrict the ability to advertise your inventory in favour of someone who's willing to invest more with the Gibson care package regarding rights exclusivity.

You don't pay extra for the right to advertise on the internet. You do not receive the right either by buying enough stock or by moving sufficient stock. You do not lose it by failing to buy or sell enough. It is true that you can be stripped of your dealership if you fail to sell any Gibsons -- as previously explained, given that there aren't enough to go around, they prefer to stock dealers that actually sell them. The objective in restricting the number of dealers is to benefit us end users, not dealers (as I explained quite awhile ago).

 

Well, if we've people here advocating a 2000 miles trip just to try one because Gibson prefers you to go to a store, they're not exactly making it easy are they?

They aren't. I am.

 

Only the fittest survive, Bob,

True. But one of the benefits of human civilization is that we get to decide the fitness metric. (Stephen Hawking is pretty darn fit, because we set things up so that he is.) Gibson is doing what they can to shape the ecological niche so that relatively small local dealers are fit enough to survive. (As are Martin and Taylor.)

 

this is a long term flawed plan,

If they stick to it, I guess we'll find out. The good news is that it's working fine right now, and, if and when it stops working, they can change it.

 

why not allow everyone to sell, set a pricing that allows the smaller boys to compete with the larger orders, ...

Well, for starters, that's illegal. Dealers can sell for whatever price they want to. It's true that Gibson could drop dealers who sold at what they consider to be too low a price -- lots of boutique makers, such as Collings, do that -- but it's pretty difficult to get the info required for effective enforcement.

 

Sorry to be crude but its true.... If Gibson utilises a policy that tries to tell people where to spend their money, that's an intrusive piece of business logic that warrants fairly severe criticism.

That is a ludicrous exaggeration of the actual situation. Gibson's restriction on internet advertising of stock and best-price is a practical, moderate response to what they perceive to be a serious problem: people buying guitars without playing them first. Gibson concentrating their stock at a relative small number of dealers is a practical, moderate response to a pair serious problems: inadequate supply to meet demand, and guitar buyers who visit an "Authorized Gibson Dealer" looking for a Gibson only to find nearly nonexistent stock and salespeople who push other brands. They're in a position to set some rules, and they've chosen rules intended to make buying from a local dealer more attractive than it was back a few years ago when any Yahoo could offer Gibsons on eBay at a few percent over dealer cost because he had zero overhead. If they'd chosen differently, attractiveness of the options would be affected. Why in the world should they make a choice other than the one that they believe most likely to produce the results they prefer?

 

They're not telling you where to spend your money. They and their dealers jointly create your Gibson buying options. Gibson is trying to arrange things so that buying from your local dealer, if you have one, is the option you will find most attractive, which is not at all the same thing as telling you where to spend your money. They're approaching the objective from both ends, improving the experience of buying from your local dealer (by ensuring that the dealer will have a reasonable range in stock) and making buying from a non-local dealer just a hair more difficult (in most cases, you have to make a phone call to check a dealer's stock and get a price quote, although buying via a couple of browser clicks is possible for folks who are willing to pay a little more in order to avoid the exertion of dialing the phone :) ).

 

I have no what you mean by "intrusive piece of business logic". What exactly is this intrusion, and what do you think is bad about it?

 

-- Bob R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were speaking of the objective that drives the policy. Actual companies have more than one objective. One Gibson corporate objective is to sell guitars. That is not the objective that drives this policy. Corporate objectives are not consistent, and some are not even consistent with selling as much product as possible. Tradeoffs are made.

 

It had remained fairly adult till that point Bob, thanks for the kindergarten business lesson and underhanded insult.

 

If by "stripped of status", you mean lost internet sales authorization, this has never happened.

 

That's what was spoken of earlier, if you say not fair enough

 

They aren't. I am.

 

Thatnfully it says Gibson on the headstock and not Rar in that case.

 

True. But one of the benefits of human civilization is that we get to decide the fitness metric. (Stephen Hawking is pretty darn fit, because we set things up so that he is.) Gibson is doing what they can to shape the ecological niche so that relatively small local dealers are fit enough to survive. (As are Martin and Taylor.)

 

We're including comedy too, excellent, cheers

 

 

Well, for starters, that's illegal. Dealers can sell for whatever price they want to. It's true that Gibson could drop dealers who sold at what they consider to be too low a price -- lots of boutique makers, such as Collings, do that -- but it's pretty difficult to get the info required for effective enforcement.

 

It doesn't have to be, Bob.

 

That is a ludicrous exaggeration of the actual situation. Gibson's restriction on internet advertising of stock and best-price is a practical, moderate response to what they perceive to be a serious problem: people buying guitars without playing them first.

 

So they have a problem with the majority of their sales? What a treacherous business predicament to be in.....

 

Yahoo could offer Gibsons on eBay at a few percent over dealer cost because he had zero overhead.

 

You'd be surprised.

 

 

Gibson is trying to arrange things so that buying from your local dealer

 

and yet the vast majority are sold at big-box stores, in between the threads slating the condition of the inventory of course....

 

I have no what you mean by "intrusive piece of business logic". What exactly is this intrusion, and what do you think is bad about it?

 

 

I thought it was fairly easy to understand, authorised dealer who isn't someone you might want to support or give your money, Vs a decent and commendable dealer somewhere else closer than the next authorised one several hundred miles away or your infamous 2000 mile round trip, the only thing is you don;t know about the other guy because he's not allowed to tell you he sells Gibsons.

 

Have a lovely weekend Bob

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It had remained fairly adult till that point Bob, thanks for the kindergarten business lesson and underhanded insult.

 

 

 

That's what was spoken of earlier, if you say not fair enough

 

 

 

Thatnfully it says Gibson on the headstock and not Rar in that case.

 

 

 

We're including comedy too, excellent, cheers

 

 

 

 

It doesn't have to be, Bob.

 

 

 

So they have a problem with the majority of their sales? What a treacherous business predicament to be in.....

 

 

 

You'd be surprised.

 

 

 

 

and yet the vast majority are sold at big-box stores, in between the threads slating the condition of the inventory of course....

 

 

 

 

I thought it was fairly easy to understand, authorised dealer who isn't someone you might want to support or give your money, Vs a decent and commendable dealer somewhere else closer than the next authorised one several hundred miles away or your infamous 2000 mile round trip, the only thing is you don;t know about the other guy because he's not allowed to tell you he sells Gibsons.

 

Have a lovely weekend Bob

 

 

 

Actually, PM it is my experience that dealers can advertise they stock Gibsons - they just can't refer to the models/prices in their ads. They ask you email or call. So, from my point of view - this is not at all 'cloak & dagger' on the part of Gibson as you stated earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's really ironic, going back to the original purpose of this thread, is that Elderly, in Lansing, Mi., who is no longer a Gibson dealer, probably has more Gibson's hanging on their wall than most 5 star dealers. True, they are, obviously, all used, but they run the range of real vintage to only a year or two old.

 

Anybody know what happened to the relationship between them and Gibson to have them stop carrying them??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, PM it is my experience that dealers can advertise they stock Gibsons - they just can't refer to the models/prices in their ads. They ask you email or call. So, from my point of view - this is not at all 'cloak & dagger' on the part of Gibson as you stated earlier.

 

Point of view though, isn't it? Only as valid as my own you could argue....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody know what happened to the relationship between them and Gibson to have them stop carrying them??

Most people think the the root of the problem is that Stan competed with Henry to purchase Gibson when it was going under in '85, lost, and was very unhappy about it (partly because it's easy to dislike Henry and partly because Stan thought Gibson should go to someone with a musical industry track record). This resulted in bad blood between them, various squabbles, and ultimately Elderly's authorization getting yanked for alleged violations of their dealership agreement (although it may have.been a case of "You can't fire me! I quit!")

 

-- Bob R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people think the the root of the problem is that Stan competed with Henry to purchase Gibson when it was going under in '85, lost, and was very unhappy about it (partly because it's easy to dislike Henry and partly because Stan thought Gibson should go to someone with a musical industry track record). This resulted in bad blood between them, various squabbles, and ultimately Elderly's authorization getting yanked for alleged violations of their dealership agreement (although it may have.been a case of "You can't fire me! I quit!")

 

-- Bob R

 

Whoa, thanks for that. If that's true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), that makes a lot more sense than some of the stories I've heard. So Stan had the capital to buy Gibson, even at a bargain price? I knew Elderly was a big and prosperous shop, just didn't think it was doing that well, especially back in '85.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Stan had the capital to buy Gibson, even at a bargain price?

He was part of a group of bidders. The way I heard it, he put the group together was definitely the lead. But I don't know how much of the money was his.

 

-- Bob R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, thanks for that. If that's true (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), that makes a lot more sense than some of the stories I've heard. So Stan had the capital to buy Gibson, even at a bargain price? I knew Elderly was a big and prosperous shop, just didn't think it was doing that well, especially back in '85.

That was the start of the hard feelings. The reason Elderly is no longer a Gibson dealer is far darker than that.

 

Gibson has always had a very small production of banjos, mandolins, and Dobros. When Gibson consolidated all production in Nashville they decided to offer exclusive access to several of the bigger catalog dealers. There were 4 or 5 catalog dealers that could sell Gibson Bluegrass instruments. They had to sign a contract with Gibson that stated that Gibson would be offered exclusively and no other brands. It seemed reasonable and Elderly signed the contract. This went on for several months and then Elderly advertised a "Chinese" banjo that looked like a Gibson and sounded like a Gibson for several thousand dollars less. This was a clear violation of the dealer agreement Elderly and Gibson had signed. Henry terminated the relationship stating the very clear violation and he offered to buy back all of Elderly's inventory. Stan refused to send back the inventory and an out of court settlement was agreed on. At the time Henry felt he had been pushed into a corner as if one dealer got away with the violation the rest would as well and the whole distribution scheme would fall apart.

 

I don't know who the bad guy was but I will say this. If you sign a contract with Henry you had best keep the terms as he has a team of sharks in Gnashville that love to sue folks. They even sued the U.S. government. The results are still out on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...