Aesthetics of current low-end Gibson production

[martinh]

I haven’t been in a music store that stocks Gibsons for about 10 years, ever since the local dealer was forced out of the market by a new CG. However, I needed an harmonica for last night, and went to GC to buy one. While I was there, I got a good look at some current low-end Gibson production. EEEEwww!

 

[1] The red “faded matt” finish looks ok in photographs, but IMO it’s horrible in person. It looks like it was done with one of those “wipe on furniture refinisher” kits. The was a Firebird there with a red finish that particularly reminded me of a bad “ I went over my instrument with a 50 grit sander, didn’t quite get all the finish off, then I wiped a stain on it” casualty from a pawn shop

 

[2] There was also a LP junior with a body that was at least a quarter inch too thick, and possibly a half inch too thick. Why? Was the junior not heavy enough?

 

[3] Lots of other odd and apparently pointless finishes. A LesPaul with a glossy black front, but a satin or flat back and sides??? Why? There was also a Les Paul with a black to yellow sunburst on the front, but red stained mahogany back and sides. The combination looked like a really bad 70’s shirt.

 

 

One reason the American car industry got in trouble with imports was its belief that the way to distinguish its higher end product was to make the low end stuff look stripped down and cheap. I fear Gibson is falling for the same fallacy.

 

 

[rct]

It isn't popular here, and I realize who our hosts are, but Gibson just doesn't do cheap. Some things have always been worth saving yer money for, and I was a poor kid, so I saved hard for a long time to get a real les paul, and it was well worth it, and instilled in and impressed upon me that some things are just worth it.

 

The crappy paints, lame-o melody maker garbage toy guitars, all just junk to get parents to buy the kid a Gibson. If it's a gateway drug well I guess that's good. I would rather impress upon my kid that if you want a Corvette, a Cruz ain't going to do it no matter what the salesman says. Save yer money, get the real thing.

 

But that's just me. I have no need for these guitars these days, so I don't really matter to them just about as much as they don't really matter to me.

 

rct

[kidblast]

sort with both of you guys.. Not a big fan of any of the low budget Gibsons either and, I always thought that was what Epiphone brought to the market for Gibson???

But even that seems to be morphing into something else these days, today, there's just a lot of needless overlap - most of it seems to me to be targeted to the younger enthusiast. Gibson not the only one doing either, this is the trend with all of the manufactures. We're not buying em, so, I guess, we got no dog in the fight

[rct]

Our dog in the fight is the overall retail system. For those that don't remember, MARS took the big crap because you literally tripped over hundreds of Epiphones and Squiers to see three, 6 maybe, decent Gibsons and Fenders. You just can't sell that many crappy guitars. When GC came around here it killed the other guys by taking the big providers, Fender, Gibson, Martin, Taylor maybe, away from the moms and pops because GC moved enough volume to create the 500 thousand dollar stock thingy, whatever the amount was, which eliminated nearly all the stores at first, the tough hold outs took a while.

 

So what does a guy sell if he can't do the money it takes to keep Fender and Gibson in the store? Cheap crap, that's what he sells. That's why his store isn't here anymore, you can only sell that stuff once.

 

"There is no money in good guitars." Because you buy a good one and use it many, and you get another one because you WANT one, and you'll be content to wait it out until you have the trading fodder or the money for the next good one.

 

"There is no money in crappy guitars." Because you'll never move on to the good ones, you'll probably get discouraged, just like we did in the olden days of black and white teevee and Teiscos and you'll quit. Meanwhile, the people that actually play, take them out and use them, aren't buying your crappy guitars.

 

It's a tough business!

 

rct

[Buxom]

I saw a V in the matte finish. It was chocolate brown with gold everything. For the price of $550 in my local shop, I'd say it's worth it, but damn, it was an ugly guitar.

[AlanH]

I havent been in a music store that stocks Gibsons for about 10 years, ever since the local dealer was forced out of the market by a new CG. However, I needed an harmonica for last night, and went to GC to buy one. While I was there, I got a good look at some current low-end Gibson production. EEEEwww!

 

[1] The red faded matt finish looks ok in photographs, but IMO its horrible in person. It looks like it was done with one of those wipe on furniture refinisher kits. The was a Firebird there with a red finish that particularly reminded me of a bad I went over my instrument with a 50 grit sander, didnt quite get all the finish off, then I wiped a stain on it casualty from a pawn shop

 

[2] There was also a LP junior with a body that was at least a quarter inch too thick, and possibly a half inch too thick. Why? Was the junior not heavy enough?

 

[3] Lots of other odd and apparently pointless finishes. A LesPaul with a glossy black front, but a satin or flat back and sides??? Why? There was also a Les Paul with a black to yellow sunburst on the front, but red stained mahogany back and sides. The combination looked like a really bad 70s shirt.

 

 

One reason the American car industry got in trouble with imports was its belief that the way to distinguish its higher end product was to make the low end stuff look stripped down and cheap. I fear Gibson is falling for the same fallacy.

 

I appreciate you didn't like the look of those guitars. Out of interest, how did you feel they played and sounded if you got the chance?

[Markini]

Disclaimer I am the proud owner of two excellent sounding, fine playing and good looking LPs. A P90 studio and a Classic Custom purchased in the last 2 years.

 

But.... I had to play a boatload of Les Pauls just to find these two. Aesthetics aside, I played many a highend LP ($2500 and up) with fret sprout, poorly cut nuts, old strings (dealers responsibility), undressed frets etc.., finish flaws and so on. None of these were deal killers, but it is a hassle for the customer to get these issues rectified.

 

Example my P90 studio had the best tone to me out of a dozen I played, though I can do the work, the store volunteered for free to have the fret ends filed down (twice) the frets leveled and polished, intonation set (3 times) action and neck adjustment (twice). On the other hand the Classic Custom was a perfect as a guitar could be.

 

Not only the low ends but sometimes the mid range like the faded and reliced series have some ugly looking guitars. Speaking of kind of high end Lps I am still deciding if the Flood series with the swirls tasteful or just down right tacky looking.

 

Off topic: Currently I think that Gibson is putting out more consistent good quality guitars than ever before in my experience.

[Rabs]

I have two Standard level guitars and two of the cheaper ones a 60s Tribute Studio and a Double Cut Faded.. I love them all as much as each other...

 

I also kinda like the satin finishes(certainly on the necks). But a mix of satin and gloss on a body, now that is a bit strange. But both of mine sound and play like a good Gibson should. They are also fairly light and somehow it makes them more fun.

 

I guess its just down to personal taste, some people will like them, some wont.. I dont really like Ebony guitars but loads of people do.....

 

But really what are we talking about here.. Bling and the finish.. As long as they play and sound good then its fine. (remeber the studios are less than half the price of a Standard which to alot of people who cant afford or justify a Standard is a good compromise)

 

(but thats just my opinion :)) Its all good)

[Searcy]

I have 6 Gibson guitars that span the range of the line instruments. Three of them have deep nitro finishes and three have the faded or flat finishes. Without question the finish on my 2008 Faded SG Special which is nothing but a very thin layer of nitro with no grain filler is my favorite in look and feel. Given the choice I will usually prefer a finish that is as close to very thin oil as possible.

 

I'm also happy that Gibson has worked hard to offer a line of American made instruments that can fit any price range from $299 to $20,000 instead of pumping the market full of "Made in Mexico" Gibson Les Pauls or some such silliness. Thank god Gibson is trying once again to push in all directions and not just stand by tradition.

[kidblast]

Off topic: Currently I think that Gibson is putting out more consistent good quality guitars than ever before in my experience.

 

the condition my SG Standard arrived sight unseen in was pretty impressive.

 

The only required change was dropping the bridge a bit and resetting intonation.

 

the 4 other USA Gibby's Really never had a complaint other than I didn't like the original burst buckers in my '02 standard so I replaced them,

 

but that's a rather subjective choice.

[Zeppelinguy]

I don't care much what they look like if they play well and are cheap. However, I went to Guitar Center a few months back and tried a few of those Fadeds and wasn't impressed at all. The hardware felt like something off a $100 Dean and the knobs barely turned. The rosewood felt really dry and they just didn't sound good.

 

Maybe it was a bad batch but they felt like complete crap to me. They seemed to be a lot better a few years ago.

[Riffster]

I tried a couple of the 70's tribute line and the guitars felt cheap but the price is right IMO.

 

I have an R8 LP and a faded LP and both are great guitars at their respective price, my LP faded is a very resonant guitar, I go back and forth about selling it but every time I play it I can't bring myself to do it.

 

The fact that Gibson offers choices is a good thing, I myself got started with that LP faded I mentioned.

 

I have import guitars and I just don't think the mahognay used on those is anywhere close to what Gibson uses.

[martinh]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I understand that some players like the "near wood" look, although I don’t like it myself. Aesthetics is always a very personal choice. I think my reaction was mostly because I truly hadn't looked at guitars in a store for about 10 years, and I don't remember these faded matt finishes being around then, and I've never been keen on the "color of the month" stuff which now seems to be half the instruments on the wall. My question is more this: How much of the price of these budget models is attributable to the finish, and how much to other factors? I find it hard to believe that the difference between a $750 SG and a $1,100 SG or Flying V is simply the finish. Is the hardware or the timber, or the construction method different? Even if Nitro is a problem, either environmentally or in difficulty of application, other manufacturers seem to be able to produce a gloss finish on budget instruments by using more modern materials. Waddya think? Is this a true reflection of the production costs of a gloss finish, or is it partially drive by a desire to keep the cheaper models looking different?

 

 

[Riffster]

Nah, applying nitro is methodical and buffing requires a lot of skill and time, poly is much easier all around.

[Rabs]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I understand that some players like the "near wood" look, although I don’t like it myself. Aesthetics is always a very personal choice. I think my reaction was mostly because I truly hadn't looked at guitars in a store for about 10 years, and I don't remember these faded matt finishes being around then, and I've never been keen on the "color of the month" stuff which now seems to be half the instruments on the wall. My question is more this: How much of the price of these budget models is attributable to the finish, and how much to other factors? I find it hard to believe that the difference between a $750 SG and a $1,100 SG or Flying V is simply the finish. Is the hardware or the timber, or the construction method different? Even if Nitro is a problem, either environmentally or in difficulty of application, other manufacturers seem to be able to produce a gloss finish on budget instruments by using more modern materials. Waddya think? Is this a true reflection of the production costs of a gloss finish, or is it partially drive by a desire to keep the cheaper models looking different?

I think that most of the cost comes down to labour.. Its much quicker to produce a "faded or worn" finish and thus much lower labour costs. Gibsons are still hand finished so thus the cost (and theres the name too).

 

To make the high end gloss finishes as mentioned takes alot of time and skill.

[milod]

As far as finishes go... I ain't really got a dog in the fight. Usually I prefer a guitar with a bit less bling.

 

We've had "discussions" for ages on the pros and cons of nitro vs. poly, and basically most will agree the nitro probably is better for the guitar's sound and such, the poly probably steals a degree of sound... but largely it's a matter of taste.

 

One thing on the "two kinds of finish," a lotta guitars now are coming with an almost unfinished neck and that's largely 'cuz some folks figure the finish on a neck slows them. I dunno. But if that trips their trigger, fine by me.

 

And no question, guitar appearance is subject both to fad and to cost considerations. Personally, you'd almost have to give me a blue or pink or green guitar even if it were a top-end Gibbie archtop. I'd rather have a plain sorta fiddle than the hummingbird or dove... a gold-top LP strikes me as about as ugly as a dead skunk at the roadside after about a week. Obviously lots a folks strongly disagree with me. Which is good when Gibbie and others offer us choices.

 

Actually I'd much prefer a nice brown Studio faded to gold or silver or chartreuse any day. Obviously others like other stuff.

 

In terms of utilitarian plus price I'd see nothing at all wrong with a guitar of almost any sort having a shiny top and faded/dull sides and back.

 

I have a hunch that if HenryJ would put me in charge, I'd likely be looking at a similar model distribution, subject obviously to apparent incoming fads and such, from the under $100 Epi acoustic on up to the super-fancy Gibbies. Choices are wonderful, even when it screws up the retail chain at times with stuff you can or cannot get.

 

Now...

 

As for frets sticking out from the fretboard and old strings and such...

 

I think we darned well may be talking two different things here and one that interests me quite a bit.

 

I have to assume Gibson almost certainly does require that the frets not chop a buyer's hands into burger - when it leaves the factory. Wood shrinks when it dries. So... is it unfinished frets or a drying fretboard? As for the bad strings and such... yup, it's the store. Frankly I blame the store and transportation for a lot of neck variations on "new" instruments.

 

m

[badbluesplayer]

I hear ya, Martin, about the finishes. I think there's a little cheapening of the bottom of the line.

 

But like Searcy said, the guitars are well made and play well. And Gibson IS standing their ground as far as their traditional construction methods go.

 

I think there's also a lot more demand for the thinner finishes. It's more in style these days.

[ksdaddy]

I have to assume Gibson almost certainly does require that the frets not chop a buyer's hands into burger - when it leaves the factory. Wood shrinks when it dries. So... is it unfinished frets or a drying fretboard?

 

 

I always figured it was a Nashville humidity thing, climate control notwithstanding. Build a guitar in a humid place and then send it somewhere else more dry.... fret meat grinders.

[rct]

 

I have to assume Gibson almost certainly does require that the frets not chop a buyer's hands into burger - when it leaves the factory. Wood shrinks when it dries. So... is it unfinished frets or a drying fretboard?

 

I always figured it was a Nashville humidity thing, climate control notwithstanding. Build a guitar in a humid place and then send it somewhere else more dry.... fret meat grinders.

 

I remember well when nobody ever heard of "fret sprout", and then it was written on harmony central, and then suddenly the innernetz were full of gory horror stories of the razor sharp frets of Gibson guitars shredding shredders to shreds.

 

The wood needs to get to a certain percentage of relative humidity before it is used. Production is much higher then it used to be, so sure, some wood gets out that hasn't been dried all the way, backs off the fret ends, and BAM!

 

You got some whinya ss kid crying on the innernetz because his guitar experience doesn't match everything else that has been handed to him and made to look easy. These things hurt sometimes, callouses, frets that can wear on yer hands, and god knows we wouldn't want a guitar that weighs more than 7.6844574 pounds on a perfectly dialed in postal scale.

 

Sorry. Just get really tired of the persons that have never owned a guitar in their lives becoming the aribters of what makes a good one because their wittle hands aw huwting dem.

 

rct

[CowboyBillyBob1]

I think adjusted for inflation you can get a much better cheap guitar these days than in the '60's and '70's. They cut costs on finish, hardware and the quality and amount of pieces on a solid body. Still there are some inexpensive models that have good hardware and build quality is good as well.

 

I bought a Squire '50's Vibe Telecaster and even though the body is pine it looks and plays fantastic. As far as sound and playability I will put it against an American Standard Tele. The price is is more than 3X as much than the Squire. I used to own a 1981 American Standard Tele that was like an icepick in your ear. I just could not get the thing to work for me. Replaced the bridge pup with Texas Specials and it still was not good for me.

 

Flash forward 20 or so years and my Squire is fat with a sweet high end. Sounds like a Tele should. I thought of upgrading the pups but why?? It sounds great as is.

[milod]

I think the guitar companies and the big catalog companies - and the firms that import guitars in other countries - do a huge disservice by not mentioning the effects of climate on guitars.

 

The manufacturer tends to be blamed for problems well beyond its control.

 

Here's an Epi example from Sweetwater. I decided I wanted a nice "toss in the Jeep in the summer" guitar that wouldn't be the end of the world were it damaged. Since others would be as likely to use it, I figured a big body, AE... decent case...

 

Sweetwater sent an AJ500sce that, when it arrived, was unplayable on the treble frets.

 

Since I'm willing to believe that both Gibson/Epi and Sweetwater did check the guitar - the factory tape had obviously been removed enough to have been tested as Sweetwater claims to do - it's obvious to me that something else was in play.

 

Anyway, I sent it back. The next one had an action higher than I'd prefer, but... what the heck, this isn't the guitar I plan to play Bach on. A month to six weeks later, granted, with slightly lighter than factory strings, the thing is on the edge of fine fingerpicking playable with no messing around from me.

 

A cupla years ago I was traveling and saw a name-brand guitar just being taken out of packing boxes and put onto display. It was unplayable with the strings pretty much all touching the frets. I refuse to believe it left anybody's factory in that condition unless... unless the retailer knew of that neck setup and planned to let the instruments acclimatize to local conditions before being put on the floor. I'll wager also that the guitar likely was left in the store's shop for a month or so and may have needed to work whatsoever.

 

I short, I agree with RCT's comments.

 

Billybob too - "kids" nowadays have no idea what they have in terms of quantity and quality of quite playable guitars.

 

m