School me on Gibson acoustics

[Tico]

Originally Posted by Pickcity

... As for Gibson hate, I suspect much of it is envy because of the prices.
Some guys just prefer other guitars and the honest ones are easy to spot, but much of the hatred is envy. ...

Well yeah, but that's true of every object that is not free.
Depending on the brand touted in a thread, it would be Martin hate, Taylor hate etc. etc.

[windfall]

I recently acquired a Taylor GS mini and a Martin 000RS1 mahogany and have spent the past few weeks enjoying getting to know them. Picking up my Gibson Dove that I've had for 11 years after neglecting it for 2-3 weeks felt and sounded like coming home.

[grinningbanjo53]

Originally Posted by windfall

I recently acquired a Taylor GS mini and a Martin 000RS1 mahogany and have spent the past few weeks enjoying getting to know them. Picking up my Gibson Dove that I've had for 11 years after neglecting it for 2-3 weeks felt and sounded like coming home.

Well ya. That's like eating TV dinners every night for a couple weeks then you finally go out for a steak dinner.

[Tico]

Originally Posted by JMW01

I am curious, what brand/maker provides the tone that speaks to you? What style of music do you prefer?

Never mind, I can see by your post history that you appear to have a Martin bias. Nothing wrong with that. I personally prefer Gibsons for singer songwriter stuff and Martins for bluegrass. I once had a Macllroy that was subpurb as a solo fingerstyle guitar. It had sustain that went on forever and I regret letting that one get away! I try to find the good qualities in all guitars.

I like some and dislike others based on my experience playing them.
Bias sort of sounds like an unfair dislike, or a negative opinion that's not based on personal experience.
Everyone has preferences.
If someone just doesn't like something that I like I'd not say they have a "bias".

I've got:
Two Guilds, a 1976 D55 bought new, and a 1977 F-212 XL.
A 2015 D-28 37 VTS Martin Authentic.
Two Taylor Big Babies.
Two Gibson electrics, a Les Paul and a ES-335.
A hand made classical I bought in Spain in the 70s.

I also love the tone of lots and lots of guitar brands that I don't own, and I also look for the good in every brand.
Can't afford everything.
Having a positive attitude and looking for good does not mean one will like everything equally.
It's okay to not like something.

[Cabarone]

Originally Posted by windfall

I recently acquired a Taylor GS mini and a Martin 000RS1 mahogany and have spent the past few weeks enjoying getting to know them. Picking up my Gibson Dove that I've had for 11 years after neglecting it for 2-3 weeks felt and sounded like coming home.

Yeah, my GAS will never be satisfied until I get another Dove...

I've had, lemme count, four Gibsons over the years, (the aforementioned Dove, a broad-shouldered J45, a '66 LG0 and the B45)...I guess I've been fortunate; they were all great sounding players.

I can't dispute the some-timey quality assertion, I just haven't experienced it yet...

The only beef I have w/them just now is they want 4K for a new Dove...sheesh...I like that new Hummingbird 12-string also, but will never have New Money...

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Pickcity

Agreed. I've owned and played them all, and pound for pound a good Gibson spanks the rest. Just what my ears tell me. They feel great too. Oh, and they don't look bad either.

+1 for the J-15. I own one and have played several and all have been excellent, no less. IMO the J-15 is the best value on the market. But...

I would love to try the Eastman. It sounds like a good value and a guitar that is very much to your liking. It sounds like you connected with the Eastman, and when a certain connection happens, don't fight it.

As for Gibson hate, I suspect much of it is envy because of the prices. Some guys just prefer other guitars and the honest ones are easy to spot, but much of the hatred is envy.

I also own a 2002 Gibson L-130 that has been my main sidekick for the past 15 years. I bought her new and she comes to life in a special way for me. I paid $1200 and it was money very well spent. Sometimes when you buy once, and you cry once, and those are happy endings, but for the deal I made I never even cried!

Do I really need to say Gibson makes great acoustic guitars?

'Envy'? Not a chance; the SJ200 I ordered had a back strip off-centre both ends by about 1/4", so did the J15 I played in a store. The J35 I recently returned was built by a 5-year old judging from the 'quality', an ES135 I ordered arrived with an off centre Tune-o-matic, missing tuner screws, missing a tailpiece screw, finish crazing, a crooked 'ES135' decal and the body was full of wood chips. The CJ165 was an embarrassment, and I won't even mention the entry level electrics which are unbelievably bad. What am I supposed to be envious of?
The only Gibson I ever owned and which was excellent in every way, was an early 2000s Advanced Jumbo. If I'm supposed to be envious of anything it's those lucky people who actually found a decent Gibson acoustic. I have been playing for 50 years and have seen Gibson quality descend to the atrocious in many, many cases.
At the prices we are being asked to pay this is completely unacceptable. I expect the same level of consistency from Gibson as I get with Martin, Fender, Taylor and Yamaha-who could clearly teach Gibson a thing or two.

[boombox]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

At the prices we are being asked to pay this is completely unacceptable. I expect the same level of consistency from Gibson as I get with Martin, Fender, Taylor and Yamaha-who could clearly teach Gibson a thing or two.

Got to agree with you on Gibson consistency and especially value for money as compared with the other bigger American makers, all of whom command a premium price over here. (That's nothing to do with a weaker pound - dealers have always operated a $1 = £1 pricing strategy.) Two of my last three six strings were both bought when I was looking for a Gibson (my Alvarez Grateful Dead 50 doesn't count): a Collings C10 and a Taylor 712e. Not one Gibson in all that time has come close to the sound, fit and finish on these and both cost less than a Gibson TV. I came close once on a Gibson J45 Custom, but the dealer wouldn't go anywhere with the price when I pointed out finish issues, which would have affected any future resale and truth be told, it didn't sound that special I could overlook them.

I get that there are good ones out there, but we don't usually see them in the UK. What is also significant is the number of second hand recent J45s which seem to appear on auction sites - I am beginning to think that many buy a Gibson, just for the sake of owning one, but then realise it doesn't measure up to the competition. I still live in hope of finding the one which justifies the price and talks to me though, as, like my B45-12, they do have a sound of their own.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by themissal

I own an Eastman E10SS, and I own a Gibson J50 (think natural top J45). I love them both, but am partial to the J50. Its more crisp, where the E10 is more "tight" with less treble. I am an amatuer, but I made a video a few weeks ago:




Oh, and everyone should have a Gibson. Everyone. No exception.

I went back and listened again several times.A lot of the difference I heard was Sitka vs. Addy. Granted, that isn't the whole story but it is a big part of it.
For the difference in money, if I had only one choice, it would be the Eastman. That Addy had some serious growl going on.
I love Adirondack over Sitka all day long.
Thanks for posting.

[cmd612]

I can't comment on the quality control issue, because I haven't experienced the problems that some others have.

As far as sound, though, it seems to me that the people who love Gibsons and the people who don't care for them often cite precisely the same reasons. There does seem to be a "Gibson sound" that either is or isn't what you want, depending on personal taste and how you're using a guitar.

In general, Gibsons seem to have a strong fundamental (or, viewed from the other direction, few overtones) and short sustain. These characteristics are what can make a J-45 in the right hands almost magical as accompaniment/rhythm behind a singer. These same characteristics are also what make Gibsons sound "dead" if you're looking for more overtones and/or sustain for, say, solo fingerstyle pieces or to be heard in a bluegrass ensemble, just to cite a couple of examples.

[Truckjohn]

I suppose I have to wonder out loud a bit... This "inconsistency" Gibson is accused of seems to stem from the effects of natural variation in wood on their design.... From what I can see - their capability of hitting dimensional targets is no worse than anybody else... Their wood quality is on par with everybody else at that price range.... And their designs are good ones...- And I have seen the same variation in tone out of Martin and Taylor..

But there is one big difference...

In the Martin universe - there are a whole host of prominent luthiers who will "Tune up" your new Martin - pushing the bracing back towards what was seen in the 30's and 40's or whatever floats your boat...

So for example - its absolutely nothing special to see a 1 year old D-18 or D-28 that has had a pilgrimage to Bryan Kimsey for his magic... And the owner is tickled pink with the results... This is just an accepted thing with Martins...

No doubt the same thing is available for Gibson.. I just have not heard about it the way I have with Martin... I am sure they exist - but I could not name the guys who are known for this.. It's not something we hear about all the time on the forums...

How about you guys?

[zmf]

Originally Posted by cmd612

There does seem to be a "Gibson sound" that either is or isn't what you want, depending on personal taste and how you're using a guitar.

In general, Gibsons seem to have a strong fundamental (or, viewed from the other direction, few overtones) and short sustain. These characteristics are what can make a J-45 in the right hands almost magical as accompaniment/rhythm behind a singer. These same characteristics are also what make Gibsons sound "dead" if you're looking for more overtones and/or sustain for, say, solo fingerstyle pieces or to be heard in a bluegrass ensemble, just to cite a couple of examples.

I think there is much truth in what you say. My main playing style is Travis picking, and I can recall listening to a vocalist strumming a big J200 that suited his singing. He let me try it out, and, while the tone was like honey, it seemed surprisingly quiet (even muted) when I fingerpicked it. A guitar for him, but not for me.

But on the other hand, I've played the same way on some custom J45 TVs, and rang out like they were amplified.

Gibsons remain a mystery to me.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by bjewell

I cannot speak for all AJs but my 2015 Advanced Jumbo Luthier's Choice put my numerous Martins in their cases. Old (pre-1950) Gibson acoustics are almost universally great. The'50's era is very good to excellent. Starts to slip in the '60s and took a nosedive in the '70s. Some of the Montana guitars made in the late '80s used epoxy glue for the neck joint. Seems like the latest iteration of Gibson acoustics are pretty happening...

The one on the left is to die for!

[devellis]

Originally Posted by Truckjohn

I suppose I have to wonder out loud a bit... This "inconsistency" Gibson is accused of seems to stem from the effects of natural variation in wood on their design.... From what I can see - their capability of hitting dimensional targets is no worse than anybody else... Their wood quality is on par with everybody else at that price range.... And their designs are good ones...- And I have seen the same variation in tone out of Martin and Taylor..

In my experience, the inconsistency goes beyond what you've mentioned.

A few years ago, I began looking for an SJ200 True Vintage. I found a host of problems on the instruments I encountered, including saddles that were a mere whisper above the edge of the bridge and saddles that were leaning in their slots. I ascribed most of that to the big-box retailers, who I suspect had their techs "improve" the guitars from their factory condition.

I then turned to 5-star Gibson dealers and found one that I liked. I bought it. But even that one had signs of tool chatter on the fingerboard. And although it could sound great, it took a lot of work to get that great sound from it. For a guitar that cost as much as it did, it really shouldn't have had the limitations that it did. And it was a lot better than the other examples I'd encountered.

There are some superb Gibsons out there, no doubt. The problem is, it takes quite a search to find them. That SJ200 was a very expensive instrument. At that price point, I could pick up other brands, grabbing instruments at random all day long, and not find any of the issues that the Gibson had. I think that's what people mean when they talk about inconsistency. It's not that there aren't great Gibsons and it's not that every "flaw" you might find on one has an adverse impact or tone or playability. It's that, at the price point of some Gibsons, you can get all the tone and none of the flaws on pretty much every guitar leaving the bench of some other makers. Now that tone won't be exactly the Gibson tone. But I'm not sufficiently wedded to that particular sound to put up with the other issues. Some folks are. I can understand that. They do have a distinct voice and it can be great. But I find somewhat different voices that I like as much or more in other makers' instruments, and without as much hit-or-miss involved.

Those who love Gibsons don't need to explain themselves or apologize to anyone. If that's the tone you're after, then a Gibson is pretty much the only place you'll find it, short of some of the custom builders making guitars in the Gibson style. I'm not trying to knock Gibson or those who bond with them but just to explain why the rest of us don't.

[skitoolong]

I recently scratched my Gibson itch that had been bugging me for a few years. It took some looking but I found one. It was harder than finding the other guitars I have ended up with, for sure

[Pickcity]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

'Envy'? Not a chance; the SJ200 I ordered had a back strip off-centre both ends by about 1/4", so did the J15 I played in a store. The J35 I recently returned was built by a 5-year old judging from the 'quality', an ES135 I ordered arrived with an off centre Tune-o-matic, missing tuner screws, missing a tailpiece screw, finish crazing, a crooked 'ES135' decal and the body was full of wood chips. The CJ165 was an embarrassment, and I won't even mention the entry level electrics which are unbelievably bad. What am I supposed to be envious of?
The only Gibson I ever owned and which was excellent in every way, was an early 2000s Advanced Jumbo. If I'm supposed to be envious of anything it's those lucky people who actually found a decent Gibson acoustic. I have been playing for 50 years and have seen Gibson quality descend to the atrocious in many, many cases.
At the prices we are being asked to pay this is completely unacceptable. I expect the same level of consistency from Gibson as I get with Martin, Fender, Taylor and Yamaha-who could clearly teach Gibson a thing or two.

I've never seen any of the problems that you stated, but I'm not saying they didn't happen to you either. I also stated that some people simply prefer other guitars and they were the honest ones.

All makers have snags at times. Even the mighty Taylor, Martin, or Yamaha...From what I've owned and played for 32 years, none of them touch Gibson, overall...But that is one man's opinion.

Some Gibson envy exists. There is no doubt about that.