"Sloppy" New Gibson Acoustics

[Wade Hampton]

Well, first of all, Gibson guitars have never matched the quality of fit and finish that has characterized Martin guitars. They're two very different companies, and if you go back and take a look inside 1930's Gibson guitars with a dental mirror, you might be appalled by the overall sloppiness and glue blobs left over in what most would agree are iconic, magnificent-sounding guitars.

Other prewar guitar icons can be even worse in this regard: look inside an old Weissenborn or Larson Brothers guitar and you might be really shocked by what appears to be almost haphazard interior construction. Yet those instruments sound great.

If anything, Gibson acoustic guitars being built today are more consistent and have better quality control than instruments built over decades of previous company history.

As for the photo showing the orange peel in the finish on the back of a Les Paul's headstock, as Vinnie pointed out, that guitar wasn't built in the same factory as Gibson's acoustic guitars. It was built in Gibson's electric guitar factory in Memphis, Tennessee.

If there's a worse location than Memphis to build guitars and then spray them with nitrocellulose lacquer, I can't think of it. (Okay, New Orleans might be worse.) With its muggy climate, Memphis is not an optimal location to try to cure a guitar finish as finicky as nitrocellulose.

As pointed out in the press and in this thread, Gibson does have quality control problems, and ever since Henry Juszkiewicz and his cabal of Wall Street cronies and co-conspirators bought the company they've also deployed an approach toward their dealers that can only be described as controlling, inflexible, and overbearing. They've also been very inconsistent, arbitrarily changing longstanding policies seemingly at whim that damage their relationships with their dealers with neither apology nor explanation.

Of all the major guitar manufacturers, Gibson is definitely the most difficult to do business with, even for those who want to do business with them.

But the GibsonMontana plant where the acoustic guitars are built is a kind of gem, really, run by some good folks making some good guitars. It's far enough away from Gibson corporate headquarters that Henry the J can't just drop in on casual basis and wreak havoc as often as he does at their other locations.

To get back to the point of this thread, anyone who feels that modern Gibson acoustic guitars are sloppy in their interior construction and represent a decline in Western Civilization really owes it to themselves to visit a vintage guitar dealer. Take a dental mirror with you to take a look inside the body cavities of some prewar Gibson guitars. I promise you, it's an eye-opening experience, and it'll give you some perspective.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Well, first of all, Gibson guitars have never matched the quality of fit and finish that has characterized Martin guitars. They're two very different companies, and if you go back and take a look inside 1930's Gibson guitars with a dental mirror, you might be appalled by the overall sloppiness and glue blobs left over in what most would agree are iconic, magnificent-sounding guitars.

Other prewar guitar icons can be even worse in this regard: look inside an old Weissenborn or Larson Brothers guitar and you might be really shocked by what appears to be almost haphazard interior construction. Yet those instruments sound great.

If anything, Gibson acoustic guitars being built today are more consistent and have better quality control than instruments built over decades of previous company history.

As for the photo showing the orange peel in the finish on the back of a Les Paul's headstock, as Vinnie pointed out, that guitar wasn't built in the same factory as Gibson's acoustic guitars. It was built in Gibson's electric guitar factory in Memphis, Tennessee.

If there's a worse location than Memphis to build guitars and then spray them with nitrocellulose lacquer, I can't think of it. (Okay, New Orleans might be worse.) With its muggy climate, Memphis is not an optimal location to try to cure a guitar finish as finicky as nitrocellulose.

As pointed out in the press and in this thread, Gibson does have quality control problems, and ever since Henry Juszkiewicz and his cabal of Wall Street cronies and co-conspirators bought the company they've also deployed an approach toward their dealers that can only be described as controlling, inflexible, and overbearing. They've also been very inconsistent, arbitrarily changing longstanding policies seemingly at whim that damage their relationships with their dealers with neither apology nor explanation.

Of all the major guitar manufacturers, Gibson is definitely the most difficult to do business with, even for those who want to do business with them.

But the GibsonMontana plant where the acoustic guitars are built is a kind of gem, really, run by some good folks making some good guitars. It's far enough away from Gibson corporate headquarters that Henry the J can't just drop in on casual basis and wreak havoc as often as he does at their other locations.

To get back to the point of this thread, anyone who feels that modern Gibson acoustic guitars are sloppy in their interior construction and represent a decline in Western Civilization really owes it to themselves to visit a vintage guitar dealer. Take a dental mirror with you to take a look inside the body cavities of some prewar Gibson guitars. I promise you, it's an eye-opening experience, and it'll give you some perspective.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

Great post!

I think many are expecting perfection in every possible way, which is a bit unreasonable with a production line made instrument made of organic materials assembled by humans. These people break out their magnifying glasses and seem to go over the guitar with a fine-tooth comb. I'm sure if that's your goal to find small imperfections and inconsistencies, you could arguably do this with most production guitars in the same price range from most manufacturers. Interestingly enough it seems like so many seem to put more emphasis on these arguably small inconsistencies over how the guitar actually sounds.

[Denny B]

Originally Posted by joelhunn

Just read a link to a rolling stone article that said much the same thing. Among their many problems, QC complaints from dealers have been very high

I'm old enough that I remember Rolling Stone magazine panned every LP Led Zeppelin ever released...

I can't trust the QC of a mag like that...

[Big Band Guitar]

I didn't think my 1968 Gibson was "sloppy" and by itself isn't. When I compare it to the fit and finish of my Eastman it is.

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by joelhunn

Just read a link to a rolling stone article that said much the same thing. Among their many problems, QC complaints from dealers have been very high

Electric or acoustic? Two very different beasts produced in two different facilities in two different states.

[v32 finish]

Honestly I'm pretty tired of seeing posts like these.

I think Gibson sold somewhere near 200,000 guitars last year, so I think it's a bit unfair to say that just because you saw a little glue inside them, they are sloppy as a brand. I can almost guarantee with a similar super-limited sample size, there are similar issues with any other brand. Martin, Taylor, etc.

It would be the same as if I made a post saying "Wow, you know, I went into guitar center today and saw 3 Gibson acoustics in there. the fit and finish was impeccable. I'm sure glad they've gotten their QC under control, this just tells me that their guitars are all pretty much perfect".

Doesn't work that way. I can't speak to every single guitar Gibson Montana has made, but I can tell you that I've owned three Gibson acoustics this year alone, and I've played probably in the order of 20 more between my 2 local shops. Simply BECAUSE of posts like this, I am always a bit more keenly aware of their fit, finish, and sound. I've been looking for some proof, ANY reason why people may think this way, and quite frankly, every single one has been nothing short of impeccable. now, I didn't go into each one with a dental mirror, but I have made a habit (thanks AGF) of scrutinizing pretty closely and I do look inside, under good light and at different angles. (we're talking at least 25 guitars here, mostly J45's, J15's, AJs.. with a few other randoms mixed in, Songwriters, SJ, etc).

Anyway, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it's pretty tiresome to me. Some may remember in another post I detailed how even a GC emloyee pretty mercilessly bashed their whole brand because of a tiny gap near the heel on a 335 -- this, with probably a half dozen potential customers nearby, and with 10 acoustics hanging on their wall that quite frankly put *every other guitar in their acoustic room* to shame. Quite literally. Including, specifically, the Big M and the Big T. (now to be fair on this front, as well, their selection of said brands wasn't stellar, either).

Anyway, I just wanted to offer my perspective. I think it's part human nature (gossip), with a kernel based in truth; from what I've read, Fender and Gibson both suffered pretty bad QC issues in the late sixties thru the 70s.. but in my experience, Gibson Montana has made some of THE BEST guitars that I've been able to find. And I've made a pretty extensive hobby of being exhaustive re: trying them all.

Just sayin'. You shouldn't judge an entire brand so severely based on a few flaws. Me, personally, I haven't seen any, but I'm sure they're out there. But I've also seen them in other brands too.

At the end of the day, I think it's truly a great time to be a player and/or collector, so . . . don't sweat the small stuff. When it's all said and done, I plan to have fine examples of *each* of the Big 3, as well as a few more from small-bench type shops, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to do so. I sure won't be influenced by a couple little spots of glue.




cheers,
SC

(PS. just want to add- I don't intend this to be disrespectful towards you personally, OP, not at all. I understand you're just making an observation, and I don't blame you for reporting what you see... I hope you understand that I'm commenting mainly on a fascinating and sort of disturbing trend I've seen specifically aimed at Gibson. they aren't perfect, but I don't think they deserve 20% of the criticism they get. thanks for your post, sir! )

[boombox]

Originally Posted by Big Band Guitar

I didn't think my 1968 Gibson was "sloppy" and by itself isn't. When I compare it to the fit and finish of my Eastman it is.

I've got a '68 B45-12 and wouldn't say it is sloppy and I set my workmanship bar very high ie against Collings. That said only once have I come across a new Gibson that came anywhere near my Collings and my Huss & Dalton, in this case, a J45 Custom. It did sound and play beautifully, but I wasn't going to pay full price for a guitar with several finish flaws, in case I didn't bond with it and had to let it go and take a bath.

I'm not saying there can't be many perfect examples out there though. Perhaps in my case, with so few Gibson dealers in the UK, and therefore a smaller selection of guitars, those less than perfect will stand out - a bit like those adverts on TV where they say 85% of women liked such and such shampoo, but the sample size is only 121 or similar. It's probably unscientific for us Limeys to come up with a generalisation, but we can only speak based on our own experiences, however limited. I'm glad to see that there are so many good ones out there, as I still harbour dreams of a Gibson slope some time in my future. As fazool's sig goes "the wand chooses the wizard": I just haven't bumped into my j45 yet.

[Bob Womack]

I've been playing Gibson guitars for forty-one years and have some small insight into them. I'm fully aware that their electric and acoustic lines have always exhibited hit and miss finish QC. Little flaws seem to be exhibited in every example I've owned. Because I've been in the market for a couple of Gibsons, I've had my eye on them the last couple of years to see what the corporate attitude has been towards finish. I can report that every Gibson acoustic I've had in my hands on in the last couple of years has had the best fit and finish I've ever seen on Gibson acoustics.

And now over to Gibson electrics, because they also can give us a glimpse of the corporate finish ethos. I've purchased two Gibson electrics in the past few years which were gloss-finished professional models. Focusing on the two gloss models, both from the Nashville shop, these guitars had the best fit and finish I've ever seen on a Gibson. There's over forty-one years of observation of Gibson there. And what's more, one of these guitars, the one with the best fit and finish, left the factory a month after the bankruptcy was announced.

Do with it what you may. I was actually rather surprised and impressed by the latest examples.

Bob

[s2y]

Originally Posted by v32 finish

I can almost guarantee with a similar super-limited sample size, there are similar issues with any other brand. Martin, Taylor, etc.

This forum and TGP may not be fond of Taylors, but the QC is pretty outstanding on the USA models. I don't have experience with their import line.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

To get back to the point of this thread, anyone who feels that modern Gibson acoustic guitars are sloppy in their interior construction and represent a decline in Western Civilization really owes it to themselves to visit a vintage guitar dealer. Take a dental mirror with you to take a look inside the body cavities of some prewar Gibson guitars. I promise you, it's an eye-opening experience, and it'll give you some perspective.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

I find it quite amusing that Gibson are criticised for supposedly 'sloppy' finish and Waterloo make a selling feature out of deliberate Golden Era 'sloppiness'.

Marketing is everything.

[nitram]

I wonder how many critics of the lack of "perfection" they ascribe to Gibson acoustics are capable of demonstrating how impeccable their playing is to justify how those guitars have let them down.
Certainly, fit and finish matter, but, at a given point one decides whether the sound and playability trump aesthetics.
That is where,in some cases, the categories "collector"vs,"player's" guitar determines the outcome.
If you like it-you buy it.

[davidd]

What they ought to do is do a relic finish a la Eastman and all this would be a moot point.

[Frankie2blue]

As the old saying goes, “Only a Gibson is glued enough”

[Jaden]

I noticed a marked improvement at my local retailer after the first J-15 and 35s hit the market - since then they’ve all looked impressive. When I first started checking them out about 5 years ago, orange peel finish and choked-off response seemed more common. These days the product looks like it’s from a whole different company (good).

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by nitram

I wonder how many critics of the lack of "perfection" they ascribe to Gibson acoustics are capable of demonstrating how impeccable their playing is to justify how those guitars have let them down.
Certainly, fit and finish matter, but, at a given point one decides whether the sound and playability trump aesthetics.
That is where,in some cases, the categories "collector"vs,"player's" guitar determines the outcome.
If you like it-you buy it.

Some people buy with their eyes and some buy with their ears.