Gibson Guitar Company

[Erm]

Hi,

Let me start by saying that my main electric is an early 80s Les Paul, and for many years it was all I played.

I was wondering what people are thinking about Gibson guitars? Are they the company they were 20+ years ago? Does anyone feel the new shop is producing the product they used to?

Is anyone playing Heritage guitars (the old Gibson guys) instead?

[GRW3]

As a company, Gibson is in much better shape than 20 yrs ago, in the Norlin Era. ('Norlin Era' is said by Gibson fans with the same vehemence that Harley riders say 'AMF Era')

When you look at threads in forums like RMMGA and Acoustic Guitar you find a lot of polarization between those who think Gibson is great and those who think they make junk. Personally, I have played Gibson guitars that were delightful and some that were as dead as doornails. This wide variance in consistency is probably the genus of the differences of opinion. Let me put it this way while I don't think I would buy a Taylor or a Martin by mail order, I would never, never, never buy a Gibson mail order.




------------------
George Wilson

[leftydude]

Agree with GRW. While I've played a couple of exceptional Gibbys thru the years, they're just too inconsistent to consider buying one without giving it a good workout first. I'll take a Hamer sight unseen anyday.

[JW]

Using Bob Taylors Favorite post:

NO!:) JW

[Bob Womack]

We'll, I think they've got the late '70s early '80s beat by a country mile. In my opinion, the first products of the Nashville, hard-tooled plant were their low point. Even with that said, they still are inconsistant. I would consider buying the product they make now, but, as others have said, only in person.

Some comment that their prices are too high. I think that is attributable to the product they make. Much like the VW beetle, the old-line Gibson products, including the Les Paul, are extremely labor intensive. As time has moved on, outfits like Hamer and Paul Reed Smith have created designs which require less manual labor, and it has allowed them to put out a product of equal quality for a lower cost. Gibson has a financial boat-anchor around their neck in that their main appeal is in their high-overhead classics. But when you get a hot one, it is HOT!

Bob

[cpmusic]

Originally posted by GRW3
As a company, Gibson is in much better shape than 20 yrs ago, in the Norlin Era. ('Norlin Era' is said by Gibson fans with the same vehemence that Harley riders say 'AMF Era')

Fender fans feel the same about the CBS Era. :)

I can't speak to the electrics, but I've played many Gibson acoustics over the years, and I'm sorry to say that I've never played one that I liked. I'm sorry to say this because they seem to be well made and I know they have a lot of fans, but there it is. It's not that they're bad, they've just all felt like they were made for someone else, and the tone always seems like it's somewhere across the room when I play them. It's all the more obvious when I've just played a Taylor.

This is all subjective, of course. YMMV.

[CatchtheCat]

Heritage absolutely puts the Gibsons to shame. I do like some Gibsons though but the Heritage just seem to be a better guitar. I speaking in terms of current manufacturing. Some old Heritages were kid of lame. I heard that the guys that make Heritage quit Gibson after it was bought out and because they were ashamed of the quality they were being asked to produce and felt they wanted to carry on the "quality" that made Gibson famous in the first place....through Heritage.

[JW]

I have to agree on the heritage guitars. As my main stage electrics I got nothing but great play out of them. The workmanship is 60s Gibson (same people, same plant as the 60s Gibsons)and the service is like Taylors. The hardware used in the cheapest heritage rivals the best Gibson. A heritage 150 is a 60s Les Paul more so than a real les Paul. Nothing but the headstock is differant. Im not much for bashing other guitar makers but the nashville Plant really throws some junk out the door. The custom shop is differant as Ive seen some really nice Les Pauls come out from there. As far as the Montana plant and the acoustics I have to say that a few Gibson acoustics sound pretty good. I do like the SJ-2000. I played one and that baby really sung. the finsh was real nice as well and was just a real nice guitar. For those that wonder if a pickgaurd can affect sound gibson has proved that it can. I played a Dewight Yokum SM and it was bad. You need to plug that thing in. Check it out at www.gibsonguitars.com JW

[Shemp]

Originally posted by CatchtheCat
Heritage absolutely puts the Gibsons to shame. The guys that make Heritage quit Gibson because they were ashamed of the quality they were being asked to produce and felt they wanted to carry on the "quality" that made Gibson famous in the first place....through Heritage.

I've played some very fine Heritage models, but I've also played a few that were quite poor (a friend of mine is a dealer, and dropped the line a couple years back because of inconsistency). I was told that the guys who started Heritage "left" because they were laid off when Gibson moved to Nashville?? I was also told that some of them were the same folks building the guitars during the 1970s and early 80s when Gibson quality was in the pits??

In any event I find the quality to be no better than Gibson, and the resale value to be horrendous. Are they still using the Schaller pickups on their stock guitars? (They're not very toneful to my ears either)

[Tony Mig.]

I don't know much about Heritage since I have never held one in my hands, but I do know a bit about Gibson since I own 2, and had 3 others in the recent past.
Like others have said here already, inconsistency is the key word. I have an ES-335, and an SG, both are very well made guitars, that play well, and sound great. I also had an ES-135LE that sucked eggs, and 2 different Les Pauls that were real dogs too.
Actually one LP was a dog, the other was a good sounding, good playing, well finished boat anchor that could have made the Queen Mary take a nose dive....I've carried cement blocks that wieghed less.
One of the main problems Gibson is having right now, is fit & finish, too many guitars are coming out of Nashville with flawed finishes, and poor set ups. Considering what you pay for them, this shouldn't be. All companies go through growing pains and weak spells, the good companies work through them....I have faith that Gibson will come through this in good time.

BTW....I've never played a Gibson acoustic that I liked, but that's just me........

[b-squared]

I once tried an old Kalamazoo I found hanging in a guitar shop used section. For what it was, the thing was a pretty sweet playing guitar. Every once in a while you'll come across a "prototype" from a Gibson luthier, or even something like a Kalamazoo, and it will give you a pretty good perspective on the guitars Gibson made then versus now. JMHO:)

Bill B.

[wjcurtis]

I have a 1983 Les Paul Standard that I bought new. Although I have many different electric guitars (vintage Fender, Epiphone, among others), the Les has been my favorite electric for nearly 20 years. Tone from heaven, and a great neck. Maybe I just got lucky with it, I dunno.

I also recently purchased a 1965 Gibson LG 1 acoustic. This guitar has a magical tone, but, I auditioned about ten LG 1s that sounded pretty lifeless before I found this one. Just my experience.

[worshipvertical]

Using Bob Taylors Favorite post:

NO:)

agreed

[meridian]

I'm gonna bring this thread back to life for a minute or two...

I just bought (and returned) a Gibson J-180EC special. Special because it was ebony (black) with dots (instead of those awful star markers) and laminated maple arched back (no bracing). But the fit and finish didn't quite make it. Didn't quite feel right, didn't quite sound right. But it was "gutsy" in the way that Taylors are "refined."

I bought a used Gibson J-50 (1998 reissue of a 1958 model) on eBay and it is SO sweet! The J-50 is essentially a J-45 but with mahogany back and sides rather than rosewood.

Perhaps I just got lucky, but this is a beauty. And it sounds just plain wonderful. Better than any of the new Martins I played (at twice the price) while shopping. There is something in the tone that is pure Gibson and it is a genuine complement to my Taylors. It is just a different (and wonderfully different) thing.

[levifly]

My first guitar was a 1964 gibson J-50. I still have it and still enjoy playing it. I'm still impressed with the playability, tone and volume that comes from it. Now don't get me wrong, it's no Taylor,but I still play it often.
mw

1964 gibson J-50
1983 martin hd-28 anniversary model
2000 taylor w-14c
2001 taylor k-14c with koa top
2001 taylor 612-c blue, quilt back:)

[grip]

I concur with the others that Gibson consistency over the years leaves a lot be desired. However, find a good one and you won't be disappointed. I think a good Gibson, such as J45, Hummingbird, Dove, or J200 are far and away the best strumming guitars. Taylors and Martins do other things better, but give me a good Gibson for strumming, especially rock strumming.

[virtuoso]

Originally posted by grip
I concur with the others that Gibson consistency over the years leaves a lot be desired. However, find a good one and you won't be disappointed. I think a good Gibson, such as J45, Hummingbird, Dove, or J200 are far and away the best strumming guitars. Taylors and Martins do other things better, but give me a good Gibson for strumming, especially rock strumming.

I tried a humming bird the other day, it was pretty, well not bad, just nothing at all special, looks nice and classy though.

As for LP's I think they are the best looking electrics (short of highend customs from private luthiers), but close inspection have shown they are not as intricately made for 4 grand. seriously, for that much money, there shouldn't be any rough spots on finish and the end of the frets shouldn't be painted with the bindings.

They are good guitars still, just ridiculusly priced.

Never played a Heritage, although it be nice to try a new jonny smith. (oh yeah, I definitely pay to have the headstock changed, even if it allows for better string angles, it's just down right ugly, but that's my opinion)

[grip]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by virtuoso
[B]

I tried a humming bird the other day, it was pretty, well not bad, just nothing at all special, looks nice and classy though.


You do have to find a good one, which isn't easy. If you can find one from the 60's, they tend to be pretty good. I haven't tried a new one recently.

[Hondo]

I have a Heritage 575, which is their version of the Gibson 175. I love it. I had their new pickups put on after I purchased it, which made it even better. I talked to the guy who invented the pickups when I called the factory to find out some things about the guitar.

I was told that the plant in Kalamazoo was purchased because those guys didn't want to move.

I don't see that their resale is awful. I couldn't find one like I wanted used when I was looking, so I bought new. I felt like the 575 was every bit the guitar the 175 was for about 1/2 the price.

[grindstaff]

I just restrung my gibson...a '37 l-30 or something. It's an archtop...pretty cool and loud.

You know, it's seems like it would be easier and cheaper to make an electric guitar than an acoustic.

[meridian]

I picked up a used J-200 last week. Hey I don't want to put any more money in the stock market right now, so used guitars it is! At least I get to have some fun with my money and probably get it all back+ if/when I sell 'em.

J-200s are just plain magnificent! Versatile, killer tone, volume like no other when you want it, sweet for fingerpicking. And mine has been pretty well played (so much so that the engraving in the pickguard is half worn off!).

Gibsons are not as refined as Taylors, but have their own "magic."

[Roman]

I have a Gibson Les Paul Custom - 1976, a Southern Jumbo - 1968, and a J-55 - 1980(?) . . . anyhow, I don't play the Les Paul much but when I do I am always pleased with it (other than it weighing a ton).

But, I do like acoustics and my J-55 is a wonderful and special guitar. Brazil rosewood back and sides, sunburst top, and plays like a dream. The sound is just beautiful. This guitar has a slight parabolic back which I think helps produce such a rich and full sound. As a matter of fact, it's going in for a neck reset and refret this coming weekend . . . I can't wait to get it back!

Roman

[RV Doc]

Thought I'd chime in a bit about Gibson guitars. I can only speak for the acoustic side of the house though.

Gibson certainly has a different voice than either a Taylor or Martin for that matter, so any A/B or /C comparison is simply a very subjective and moot point at best. In fact, my main three guitars are, (you guessed it, one of each) Taylor W14ce, Gibson J-200 and Martin D-28.

While virtually every Taylor is quite nice, I have found over the years that Gibson guitars must certainly be hand picked and there is very little consistency thoughout the Gibson line, except for the "Norlin years," which were consistenly awful!

For exceptional Gibson acoustic guitars, look for vintage 30's, 40's and early 50's of just about any of their models (if your wallet is big enough). From the late 50's to mid to late 60's, Gibson produced some very fine acoustics, but you really had to look carefully. Some were dogs, but some were excellent. Starting in about 1969 or so, just about every Gibson acoustic should be avoided.

But beginning in about 1990 or '91, the Bozeman plant started using the old technology and put some pride back into their workmanship and the instrument quality improved. Many of the newer reissues are some fine sounding guitars, but you still need to look carefully. I have a 1991 Koa J-200 that has settled in to one outstanding rhythm guitar. My 1991 Nick Lucas Special is a great little fingerpicker. I also have a 67' J-45 that I usually keep in high-strung tuning for backing rhythms when I record. It sounds great at regular pitch also. The mahogany has really mellowed over the years. I have owned this one since 1970.

I didn't mean for this to drag on, but I basically wanted to express that not all Gibson acoustics are faulty. But you have to really search out the gems. Whereas you could just about choose any Taylor off the rack and it will be very consistent and balanced most of the time.

Apples and oranges? A variety of fruit is a good thing!