Wanna hear your opinion/info about Gibson bankruptcy... Will their QC get better?

[will-d]

As somebody who just unboxed a 2018 Gibson L-00 12 fret yesterday, final inspection was done on 7/2018, I can attest this guitar is equal to any standards I've seen from Martin/Taylor/Collings/Yamaha etc or for that matter the designer labels. Fit and finish is flawless, the action, which is subjective, was better than any guitar I've owned out of the box before. The sound and playability are awesome. I own three Martins between 2 and 50 years old, a mid-80's Yamaha FG 332, as well as an Fender American Strat. I love the fat neck on this Gibson, much more than the Tayloresque neck on my 2017 Martin 0-18. The LR Baggs pick up sounds great only plugged into my old Vox AC-30. The sound of a Gibson is there, which is what I wanted, a completely different sound than any of my Martins. Maybe a little louder than any of them, even the D-28.

Originally Posted by hangil210

Their action height is not as high as it used to be

Is action out of the box really an indicator of QC? Or anything?

I think Gibson Montana has been knocking it out of the park for years. My 2012 J-45 and my 2014 LG2 had exactly zero issues.

Originally Posted by hangil210

Wow... Maybe some people really cannot notice the sound differences.

Crazy thought: maybe some people like sounds that you don't.

[Muddslide]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

I have always scratched my head at the sheer number of limited edition guitars Gibson offers as well as variations of stock instruments. Maybe I just miss the day when you walked into a music shop and you had three choices if you wanted a slope shoulder guitar - a J-45, J-50 or SJ. Yeah, some neck and finish options would be great but do we really need 90+ variations of the J-45 in any given year.

I feel ya. Agree totally, but it's certainly not just Gibson that does this. Martin and Fender are also well into this...a dozen variations of a model, scores of signature models...many of the signature models are made for people I've never heard of. Increasingly true the older I get.

Heck, not long back Gibson had an (electric) Keifer Sutherland model!

[Guitaurman]

I have a bit of experience in the corporate world and have talked extensively with several CEOs. Their focus was always on the bottom line, and their fiduciary responsibilities to the stock holders. If I understand Gibson's financial troubles correctly, they were not caused by the guitar portion of the company. It was their diversification. If the guitar portion is profitable, not much will change. The CEO will be selling off or radically changing, non profitable parts of the corporation. He probably won't focus much on the day to day activities of the portions of the company that are profitable. Gibson's QC problems, real or imagined, will be the focus of the individual plant managers and their staffs. QC probably won't be addressed on guitars unless it causes a drop in sales/profitability. They aren't going to invest much into anything that doesn't produce a return on that investment.

[RussL30]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

Is action out of the box really an indicator of QC? Or anything?

I think Gibson Montana has been knocking it out of the park for years. My 2012 J-45 and my 2014 LG2 had exactly zero issues.

I agree. I have two Bozeman Gibsons, one made in 96 and my LG2 in 2014 and both have zero quality control issues and are just as well made as my Taylor. I think a lot of the QC issues get overblown by those just may not like the Gibson sound.

[Larry Mal]

Frankly, I'd be more concerned about a Martin these days. I bought one recently and the neck angle was put on too shallow, so I had to sand the saddle down to virtually nothing and still the action was too high for me.

So, I just assumed that it was a rare bum guitar, but I've since read that this is more common than I had assumed.

I mean, that is some lame quality control right there.

Gibsons, though, I've been ordering them sight unseen on the internet and they are just great.

[mdshax]

Originally Posted by Guitaurman

I have a bit of experience in the corporate world and have talked extensively with several CEOs. Their focus was always on the bottom line, and their fiduciary responsibilities to the stock holders. If I understand Gibson's financial troubles correctly, they were not caused by the guitar portion of the company. It was their diversification. If the guitar portion is profitable, not much will change. The CEO will be selling off or radically changing, non profitable parts of the corporation. He probably won't focus much on the day to day activities of the portions of the company that are profitable. Gibson's QC problems, real or imagined, will be the focus of the individual plant managers and their staffs. QC probably won't be addressed on guitars unless it causes a drop in sales/profitability. They aren't going to invest much into anything that doesn't produce a return on that investment.

I think you get the Wall Street Journal award for the thread. My guess would be the current CEO will spend most of his next couple years undoing the acquisitions Henry made. There are probably ways to expand the guitar business, and I for one would love to see Gibson abandon its five-star dealer model, but seeing as the company just went through restructuring, I don't think anyone is going to muck about with the areas that are actually running in the black. The low-hanging fruit is to tackle the areas where money is being thrown away and to think later about where you might be leaving money on the table.

[Nick S]

Re: acoustic - My 2003 Advanced Jumbo is a really good guitar. Neck angle good too. Not everyone agrees that "QC" is a problem. As with bridge pins, though, my hearing may be going bad and I don't really know if my guitar is in tune.

[SuperB23]

If you have spent much time playing Gibson acoustics from the 30s and 40s its shocking how far from those tonally they are now. At least from 90-2007 or so they were much closer to those old gems.

[D. Churchland]

Gibson has never had "great QC". This year alone I've had about 21 Gibson's in my shop from each of the "eras" and they all had their own issues.

A few examples, all of this was from the factory.
37 Advanced Jumbo had a dovetail that was not square to the neck block. The neck was cut to fit the body and the dovetail simply functioned as the attachment method.

40s L-00 had been assemble slightly out of square. Meaning that the bridge sat *Slightly* closer to one side of the top than the other.

68 Hummingbird Had a 3/16" thick 3 ply laminated 4 1/2" wide bridge plate

53 J45 bridge plate was cut incorrectly, with the ball ends of the strings sitting right at the edge of the plate causing a massive overbelly in the top

45 J45 had a 4 piece Mahogany top and a 2 piece back.

2007 J200 had a saddle slot that was cut slightly wrong resulting in an extremely out of tune B and E string.

The one thing that all of these guitars had in common was that they sounded great once they were all fixed up.

Granted all of these were from drastically different periods of history/leadership in the company. But I've learned that some companies just do not make perfect polished instruments. In fact nobody really does, whether you see the imperfections or not, that's where it's different.

If by "QC" you mean that you'll get a guitar that's perfectly setup right from the get go. Not going to happen with them.

But if by QC you'll get a guitar that doesn't have the occasional finish imperfection? That's a bit more plausible. Whatever Gibson does they just need to keep trimming the redundancy with all their variants of models and just make a 1 or 2 of each kind. Plus a pay raise for their average worker might help the morale a good bit.

[Jeff Scott]

Originally Posted by hangil210

1) Is this GC guy telling the truth?

Originally Posted by GibbyPrague

I often find the guys on this forum have a million opinions, but when asked for real evidence to back up thier claims and accusations often they are not able to deliver.

I have real world, first person accounting of GC employees lying. It can be pretty ugly out there.

Originally Posted by Steadfastly

...Gibson. They have got to be the most confusing company to pick a guitar from.

After Fender, that is, right?

Originally Posted by SuperB23

If you have spent much time playing Gibson acoustics from the 30s and 40s its shocking how far from those tonally they are now. At least from 90-2007 or so they were much closer to those old gems.

How did those guitars sound when they were brand new?

[Paddy1951]

Originally Posted by Muddslide

I feel ya. Agree totally, but it's certainly not just Gibson that does this. Martin and Fender are also well into this...a dozen variations of a model, scores of signature models...many of the signature models are made for people I've never heard of. Increasingly true the older I get.

Heck, not long back Gibson had an (electric) Keifer Sutherland model!

The number of models of Gibson, Martin, Taylor and even Guild guitars is because of marketing competition. There is a certain school of thought that says if Acme guitars can get a retailer to stock a greater number of their models, there will be less physical space and money left for the competitions' guitars. This may not be applicable to the big box stores but certainly is to smaller concerns.

This approach is not limited to guitars.
Anybody remember clear Pepsi? Now, did the world really need clear cola? Not really. But if it had been a success, there would be less shelf space for.....

The coyote DID buy the Acme OM. [emoji38]

[aknow]

I've been buying Gibson's since 1969. My 2018 SG HP is as good (almost) as my '64's. And it's flawless.

[Steadfastly]

Originally Posted by hangil210

Yeah same. But that changed starting from 2019. Their lineup of new models are not confusing, just sticking with the stables. For example, they are making only standard and custom models for J-45.

The acoustic side is quite simple compared to the electrics. Have you ever tried to figure them out? You need to be an expert with a photographic memory.