Has Gibson stopped using laminated fretboards and bridges???

[jt]

For those who don't know, Korea and Japan don't have the stringent Save The Planet /Lacey restrictions we have here.

 

Japan and South Korea are both CITES member countries and Japan is one of the strictest enforcers.

[jt]

The U.S. federal government seized all the rosewood thick enough to make non-laminated bridges and fretboards, and would not allow Gibson to purchase more, claiming Lacey Act violations. Now that the government has given up and effectively admitted that there was no Lacey Act violation by returning the wood.

 

Gibson acknowledged violating the Lacey Act and paid $300,000 to settle the dispute. The government's statement upon announcing the settlement: "The agreement is fair and just in that it assesses serious penalties for Gibson's behavior while allowing Gibson to continue to focus on the business of making guitars."

[ParlourMan]

Gibson acknowledged violating the Lacey Act and paid $300,000 to settle the dispute. The government's statement upon announcing the settlement: "The agreement is fair and just in that it assesses serious penalties for Gibson's behavior while allowing Gibson to continue to focus on the business of making guitars."

 

So are they still claiming its a shake-down and succumbing to a technical submission in order to move things along or actually admitting to violations? Seems odd that relatively few to no other manufacturers were in the same boat in decision terms.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

For those that can not follow the links from JT

 

here is a quote from Gibson CEO H Juszkiewicz

 

---- For the last year, he said, the criminal proceedings in court had effectively cut off Gibson from sources of hardwood in both Madagascar and India, and its luthiers were forced to make guitars with laminated fret-boards or fingerboards made of woods not traditionally used in guitars, which some customers did not like. "The alternative was pretty onerous," he said. "We would have had to have gone to trial and we would have been precluded from buying wood from our major source country. For the ability to carry on with the business and remove this onerous Sword of Damocles, if you will, we feel this is about as good a settlement as we can get." ----

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They got busted..tried to fight it..then decided to pay a fine so they can keep getting the woods and building guitars

 

EDIT

 

here is another quote from the article

 

Gibson purchased “fingerboard blanks,” consisting of sawn boards of Madagascar ebony, for use in manufacturing guitars. The Madagascar ebony fingerboard blanks were ordered from a supplier who obtained them from an exporter in Madagascar. Gibson’s supplier continued to receive Madagascar ebony fingerboard blanks from its Madagascar exporter after the 2006 ban. The Madagascar exporter did not have authority to export ebony fingerboard blanks after the law issued in Madagascar in 2006.

 

 

 

 

i would guess that other manufactures..where not caught out and had made sure their suppliers where acting in accordance with the law.

 

Thanks JT for links

[ParlourMan]

Touché, I'm on a smartphone, only showed up as text until I refreshed the entire page again.

[jt]

Seems odd that relatively few to no other manufacturers were in the same boat in decision terms.

 

Not odd at all. In 2008, Gibson, Taylor, and Martin toured Madagascar and were informed that all sources were supplying illegal woods. Taylor and Martin then refused to buy any more wood from those sources. Gibson increased its orders.

 

Here is my relatively detailed explanation in the New York Times.

 

Here is my explanation a little over a year ago in the Journal of the American Bar Association. In print, the ABA Journal piece was a cool "illustrated guide" to the case.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

Not odd at all. In 2008, Gibson, Taylor, and Martin toured Madagascar and were informed that all sources were supplying illegal woods. Taylor and Martin then refused to buy any more wood from those sources. Gibson increased its orders.

 

Here is my relatively detailed explanation in the New York Times.

 

Here is my explanation a little over a year ago in the Journal of the American Bar Association. In print, the ABA Journal piece was a cool "illustrated guide" to the case.

 

So it seems from your ABA Journal piece JT..the law covers a certain thickness of wood, this being 10mm and has a importation code for that wood. this thickness requires the wood to be finished..ie: for finger boards it would be shaped and frets added in India

 

there is a different code for thinner wood..being 6mm and Gibson's import forms had the wrong codes ( I am paraphrasing here so I hope I get it close ) this does not require the wood to be finished for import

 

So it makes sense , to me anyway, that the layered boards and bridges where constructed out of the legal thinner woods that Gibson could get there hands on at the time. And where not made out of Scraps of wood laying around gathering dust in the Gibson factories to save Gibson a few dollars, as some folk like to believe. ?

[jt]

Del,

 

You've got it!

[bobouz]

Gibson acknowledged violating the Lacey Act and paid $300,000 to settle the dispute. The government's statement upon announcing the settlement: "The agreement is fair and just in that it assesses serious penalties for Gibson's behavior while allowing Gibson to continue to focus on the business of making guitars."

Thank you JT for a clear reality check.

[rar]

Gibson acknowledged violating the Lacey Act and paid $300,000 to settle the dispute. The government's statement upon announcing the settlement: "The agreement is fair and just in that it assesses serious penalties for Gibson's behavior while allowing Gibson to continue to focus on the business of making guitars."

I see that I should have been more explicit as the specific purported Lacey Act violation I was referring to, which I thought the context made obvious. The Gov't gave up on the claim that import of the Indian rosewood seized in 2011 -- the only wood that is relevant to the current discussion of laminated Gibson Acoustic bridges and fingerboards -- was a violation of the Lacey Act because export of the rosewood was a violation of Indian law. Returning that wood was an admission on the part of the Gov't that the seizure was not justified, despite some waffling about "unclarity". As you pointed out, "the government has resolved that it 'will not undertake enforcement actions related to Gibson’s future orders, purchases, or imports of [wood] from India, unless and until the Government of India provides specific clarification' regarding its legality or illegality." I'm no lawyer, but I think the Powers that Be are supposed to decide whether an act is a crime before they start punishing people for performing it, rather than punishing first and scratching their collective head while trying to figure out whether the act was a crime second. :) In any event, no more need for laminated bridges and fretboards, and there really shouldn't have been in the first place.

 

There was never any issue as to a "technical foul" having to do with the 2011 shipment, but that had nothing to do with Gibson beyond a claim that they failed to exercise due diligence in examining the paperwork when they received from LMII. Gibson's only admission of serious wrongdoing was with respect to the import of the Madagascar ebony seized in 2009, which is not germane to the present discussion.

 

-- Bob R

[jt]

Thank you JT for a clear reality check.

 

Thanks! I really appreciate the comment. I've been striving for years to inject data and rationality into the debate. I confess that after half a dozen articles in publications ranging from international law texts to guitar magazines to the New York Times and have done as many radio and TV interviews I find myself exhausted. Learning that folks appreciate my dispassionate presentation of information meant a lot.

[zombywoof]

Not odd at all. In 2008, Gibson, Taylor, and Martin toured Madagascar and were informed that all sources were supplying illegal woods. Taylor and Martin then refused to buy any more wood from those sources. Gibson increased its orders.

 

[

 

 

I was watching a show on the monkeys of Madagascar or something on the Animal Planet station and they filmed a whole pile of fretboards in a hut. They then cut to the Gibson factory.

[jt]

I was watching a show on the monkeys of Madagascar ... who ... cut to the Gibson factory specs.

 

Those monkeys are incredibly talented! :)

[GuitarLight]

Yea it's true. Better off with an Epiphone. At least your not paying $2000 to $3000 for laminated parts.

[Guth]

Hey Guth, not a problem, just glad they stopped this practice, not good for image.

 

Agreed, 100%

[stein]

Gibson acknowledged violating the Lacey Act and paid $300,000 to settle the dispute. The government's statement upon announcing the settlement: "The agreement is fair and just in that it assesses serious penalties for Gibson's behavior while allowing Gibson to continue to focus on the business of making guitars."

Don't take this wrong, as I truly appreciate your contributions not just to this forum, but your efforts to write abd report about it as well.

 

But these articals contain statements by the government guys that are in contradiction to what I have read in the actual settlement. I don't have a link, but I remember the wording of the settlement was specific that NIETHER party admitted any wrongdoing, and that none would be required.

 

Do you recall reading the settlement? Is this correct?

 

I think it is, and if so, I would have serious concerns about wether or not these who are saying Gibson admitted wrongdoing, if they are telling the truth. Or if they have a right to say it.

 

The scary thing, is if so, what could anyone actually DO about it?

[ParlourMan]

Without trying to ignite it again, and cheers to JT for his input, it would have made moer sense to use the illegal/legally dubious woods for the fretboards and source the bridges from elsewhere, as was pointed out they could be obtained for as low as $18 single unit customer price, corporate price for a few thousand units would have been much lower. Now, even if effort was required to Gibsonify them and took it to a unit cost to Gibson of $18 dollars who would really have grumbled on an extra $20 or so on the price of a guitar that costs over 2K anyway?

 

I understand the age-old argument about wartime laminates multi-part constructions, no rods etc... but 1) it wasn't a global marketplace then 2) it was very different circumstances when viewed rationally. It's made & sold as a fairly elite choice for manufactured guitars, bean-counter decision it may have been but it reeks of brand power will sell them over concerns about a concession in building specs. Other options were open to them.

 

 

 

* again I'll add, I have two Lacey Act models, love them both.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

Without trying to ignite it again, and cheers to JT for his input, it would have made moer sense to use the illegal/legally dubious woods for the fretboards and source the bridges from elsewhere, as was pointed out they could be obtained for as low as $18 single unit customer price, corporate price for a few thousand units would have been much lower. Now, even if effort was required to Gibsonify them and took it to a unit cost to Gibson of $18 dollars who would really have grumbled on an extra $20 or so on the price of a guitar that costs over 2K anyway?

 

I understand the age-old argument about wartime laminates multi-part constructions, no rods etc... but 1) it wasn't a global marketplace then 2) it was very different circumstances when viewed rationally. It's made & sold as a fairly elite choice for manufactured guitars, bean-counter decision it may have been but it reeks of brand power will sell them over concerns about a concession in building specs. Other options were open to them.

 

 

 

* again I'll add, I have two Lacey Act models, love them both.

 

Yes, as you have kindly mentioned about 50 times PM.

 

I hoped JT's explanation of the matter would have soothed the naysayers somewhat..and afforded Gibson some slack. As pointed out in the articles from JT Gibson was effectively banned from sourcing the woods from the desired countries.

 

We do not know the business decisions that had to be taken when suddenly all their Rosewood blanks are confiscated..they where effectively unable to build guitars.. so what could they do ? Stop production until they could acquire the woods from a completely new source ? How long would that have taken? Weeks ? Months ?

Then you have all the marketing and advertising already stating guitars built with specific woods... what you going to do..pull it all and spend a couple of million on a whole new marketing campaign ( ok maybe an exaggeration..and we know spec's can and will change at any given time..but still a consideration )

 

Then we have the 2.4 million it cost Gibson in legal fee's alone. I think we should be grateful Gibson didn't go under from this fiasco...it could have happened!

 

They are a business and they worked around this attack on them in the best.. most cost effective way they could, as any successful business must.

 

At the end of the day...it seems it has not hurt the company from a buyers point if view in any way. Except for some internet ranting..I think they did the best they could with a very bad situation.

 

And as an aside....99% of the members here I have the most respect for when talking guitars and Gibson..are the ones who generally say it means not one tosh to the overall historical desirability or quality of the Gibson brand.

[ParlourMan]

Yes, as you have kindly mentioned about 50 times PM.

 

No need to be snide, Derek, we're all entitled to our opinion, we put up with you singing from the same sheet many times on many threads, it's only courtesy to afford the same for others. And as much as I do agree with the criticisms it's why I always say I'm a multiple Lacey Act model owner and love both.

 

 

They are a business and they worked around this attack on them in the best.. most cost effective way they could, as any successful business must.

 

Would cartier sell diamante and get away with it if they got busted for a load of blood diamonds? Would Rolex charge full price for Casio's if some aspect of their manufacture was compromised? I doubt it, it's an extreme set of examples, that's true, but it's also the perception many people have based on the appearance of the word 'laminate' anywhere, I'm sure you've been an advocate of 'all solid woods' many times on this board yourself.

 

And as an aside....99% of the members here I have the most respect for when talking guitars and Gibson..are the ones who generally say it means not one tosh to the overall historical desirability or quality of the Gibson brand.

 

You're effectively saying you only respect an argument that aligns with your own there, Del, that's not how to win hearts & minds mate. I offer no contest to that stance, I feel no need to, it speaks for both sides adequately on its own.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

No need to be snide, Derek,

 

 

You know I'm only jousting with ya PM

 

but seriously mate... since this whole thing started you constantly keep repeating what you have said so many times before.... do you have anything new to add to the matter?

 

Would cartier sell diamante and get away with it if they got busted for a load of blood diamonds? Would Rolex charge full price for Casio's if some aspect of their manufacture was compromised?

 

 

ROFL

 

come come PM you can do better than that... ridiculous hypothetical comparisons with no bearing on the actuality of the situation.

 

You're effectively saying you only respect an argument that aligns with your own there,

 

No, I am merely stating a truth. That is. The members I personally think seem to know most about guitars and Gibson in general...all seem to hold a similar view on this matter.

 

 

I find the debate somewhat interesting..and again thank JT for shedding light on the technicalities of the matter. At least we have not yet succumb to some of the more ridiculous staements this topic has raised in the past.

 

I think it is now comprehensively covered in it's entirety , no ?

[ParlourMan]

You know I'm only jousting with ya PM

 

but seriously mate... since this whole thing started you constantly keep repeating what you have said so many times before.... do you have anything new to add to the matter?

 

Typical deflection. As for anything new... do you?

 

 

come come PM you can do better than that... ridiculous hypothetical comparisons with no bearing on the actuality of the situation.

2-4K guitars bearing any other brand name and we'd all be laughing our heads off saying WTF??? FACT!

 

 

No, I am merely stating a truth.

 

Truth and sales affected are very different things, Del.. clearly many repeat customers here have said they wouldn't buy one... The fact I did buy one states my case quite clearly, as does the countless iterations of agreeing with the criticism but providing a reminder I love both guitars and don't hold the opinion that it's a lesser sound etc.... you own one, I own two, my say is as worthy of appearance as your own. Simple statement of fact.

[EuroAussie]

Will I need to take my HB TV with the laminate bridge for a 12 month service check to make sure its not unglueing ?

[ParlourMan]

Will I need to take my HB TV with the laminate bridge for a 12 month service check to make sure its not unglueing ?

 

;)

 

Forgot you had one as well, EA... my best guess is single piece bridges are probably not as strong as the corss-grained 2-pieces over a 30-50 year period, but we'll see. Both my lacey act models are the gigging guitars anyway so any damage they take will be because they get used a lot, all part of the cost of doing business really...

 

I'm sure it'll annoy, Del for some reason or other but I will say I do agree with the criticisms regarding the business choice, but removing desirability and all the other blah-blah that has become associated with these threads, I'd say my guitars were as decent as anybody's with a single piece bridge.

[BigKahune]

.

One other thing that bothers me about the Lacey Act layering is that Gibson wasn't upfront with it. Many customers were unaware of the layering at the time they purchased one of these guitars and found out about it some time after purchase - there were comments about this on this forum and others.

 

The strength and stability of laminated wood was highly touted in this debate, as well as the green aspects of laminated products. So I'm curious as to why Gibson isn't now offering layered fingerboard/bridge as an option. Is it the additional cost of layered wood production? Or is it because fingerboard/bridge layering is something Gibson knows most customers would avoid if they know about it?

 

 

.

[j45nick]

.

The strength and stability of laminated wood was highly touted in this debate, as well as the green aspects of laminated products. So I'm curious as to why Gibson isn't now offering layered fingerboard/bridge as an option. Is it the additional cost of layered wood production? Or is it because fingerboard/bridge layering is something Gibson knows most customers would avoid if they know about it?

 

.

 

 

It clearly costs more to do the laminated components, and probably wastes more wood to produce them. Gibson's touting of the virtues of laminated components was disingenuous at best, since they've now gone back to more traditional solid components, which are faster and cheaper to produce.

 

I suspect in the future that debates over the merits of the Lacey guitars will be similar to the discussions we have now about the merits of banner-era guitars with laminated necks, multi-piece and laminated backs and sides, and no truss rods.

 

If you break eggs, make an omelet.....