"Sloppy" New Gibson Acoustics

Some folks should by all means buy a Yamaha or whatever guitar meets their assembly-line-perfect cosmetic standards. Leave the Gibsons and Waterloos to the rest of us.

[TDavis]

Originally Posted by stringjunky2

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

And, some with both.

[v32 finish]

Originally Posted by s2y

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.

I'm not saying that it isn't, I'm actually fond of Taylor. As you can see in my signature I own one of their USA models, and paid quite a bit for it. That being said, I've also seen finish issues with a 214 DLX (which I pointed out to GC, and they promptly did nothing) and also had to return a GS mini out of the box due to an over-reamed tuner peg hole. The tuner would actually wiggle when turning the peg, not alot, but enough. That's just 2 off the top of my head. I'm not trying to pick on Taylor because I think they are very consistent, but.. they have issues, as well.

Anyway, I have nothing against Taylor. . I think they've done a very smart thing by really paying attention to how their guitars ship in re: to the setup. I think they've built a reputation for themselves in this manner. It's impossible to know for a fact without the customer service numbers, or touring the final inspection areas of their respective shops, but I wouldn't say that Gibson's QC is any worse than Taylor's or Martin's. Maybe I'm going out on a limb there, but that's just my experience and what I believe.

And while I agree with most *everything* that mr. Wade says, I have to politely disagree with the comment that Gibson guitars doesn't fall into the same category as Martin, quality wise (or however it was worded). I understand what was being implied but I do think these 2 companies are both pretty much in the same category, in my opinion. Of course there are difference and at some points it just boils down to semantics but that's what I believe. everything else, spot on, though.

what else.. hmm.. thanks to Mr. Bob for pretty much mirroring my experience. (which, still, doesn't mean that is true for everyone! peoples' experiences will differ vastly, of course). In my opinion Gibson is turning out the best guitars ever. Now, if you want to debate the addition of *4* push-pull pots and a new dipswitch circuit, etc on its $3400 flagship model (Les Paul Standard), that's a different story (and a post can be found on that in the electric forum. LOL.)

anyway that's all ive got! sorry for the long reply. just meant to respond to the comment about Taylor.. overall I do think Taylor deserves accolades for building the reputation they have for consistency. It's just been my experience that sometimes reputations follow a company further than they should, and that goes both directions.. anyway, as someone who works in manufacturing and works closely with our company's QC department, it's hard to judge Gibson's Quality department when we don't really know much of anything about it . Or Martin's, or any, for that matter. How do we know they are lacking, or spot on? That's all I've got! If you got this far.. I'm very impressed thanks for reading and have a great weekend!

Cheers,
SC

[CASD57]

My J15 is perfection..... No complaints here, I think I would check to see if those were real Gibsons.. not knock offs

[rodmeister]

My guitar shopping came down to a choice between the Martin D-28 and Gibson J-45. The Martin was beautifully finished, while the Gibson showed some sloppiness. As much as I wanted to have a perfect looking guitar, I went with the emotionally satisfying tone of the J-45.

[Wade Hampton]

v32, there are longstanding differences between Martin and Gibson. For example, if you look inside of prewar Martins with a dental mirror and then do the same thing with Gibsons of a similar vintage, you’ll see what I’m talking about. It extends to record-keeping: ever since Martin started using serial numbers they have kept meticulous records and any Martin guitar with a serial number can be instantly and accurately dated with it. This is in direct contrast with Gibson’s chaotic record-keeping over the years, where sometimes as many as five different instruments can have identical serial numbers. Martin has been in the hands of the same family since 1833, while Gibson’s ownership has changed repeatedly. The list goes on.

While acknowledging the basic differences between the two companies, I wasn’t trying to imply that Gibson guitars are inferior to Martins. But there has always been a substantial difference in how these two firms operate, and that does extend to the fit and finish of their instruments.

I do agree that the quality control of Gibson acoustic guitars has improved and might even be the best they’ve ever achieved. But it still does sometimes fall short of Martin’s QC level.

Martin’s, in turn, doesn’t match that of Collings, but Collings has the best QC of any acoustic guitar company anywhere.

Hope that makes more sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[Silurian]

I like to make analogies between cars and guitars.

For me Martins/Taylors are the Mercs and BMW's of the guitar world. Attention to detail and impeccable engineering. Gibsons are more like Maseratis or Ferraris. They break down more often and sometimes bits fall off. They're all great cars but often for different reasons.

Drive what you like. Play what you like.

[SalFromChatham]

This thread makes me think of pizza.

You can go to Dominos and get a pizza that looks amazingly factory perfect symmetrical. I mean... the slices... the complete even spreading of the sauce and cheese... every pie looks the same. Every slice looks the same. Insane for a $8 pizza! Wow!

You can go to Spinoni Gardens in Brooklyn. The pizza costs so much more! And the slices all don’t look the same. And each pie is not perfectly symmetrical.


(Rolled eyes inserted here)

These threads get old.

Originally Posted by themissal

These threads get old.

I agree. Here's a good example of why:

Originally Posted by Silurian

Gibsons are more like Maseratis or Ferraris. They break down more often and sometimes bits fall off.

[rokdog49]

I think Martin's/Taylors are more like Filet Mignon or Prime Rib that you savor in small delicate bites in between sips of a fine French or Cali wine. Gibsons are like a Philly Cheese Steak that you pound down with a Bud Light.

[Vinnie Boombatz]

To those bashing Gibsons and saying their QC is sub par, their fit and finishes are inconsistent, etc., ponder me this (and for the record, I like BOTH Martins and Gibsons and own both...)

Ive had TWO Martins, one was a 2014 000-15M I was the original owner of, and about two years after buying it it needed a neck reset that Martin acknowledged but refused to cover under warranty and instead only authorized a certified Martin shop to save the bridge. I also had another 2010 D-28 I bought used and that guitars saddle kept having to get sanded lower and lower over the course of a couple short years. I've also noticed that with new Martins the neck angles can vary a bit, where a brand new Martin will have just a little saddle showing while another Martin will have quite a bit of saddle. With EVERY new Gibson Ie owned the neck angles have been ridiculously perfect and consistent, every J45 Standard I've had has had the same exact amount of saddle showing when set up to my specs, and all other measurements the same from one to another, while Martins seem a little more inconsistent.

Again, I'm not bashing Martin, and as mentioned I like both brands and own both brands.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Vinnie Boombatz

To those bashing Gibsons and saying their QC is sub par, their fit and finishes are inconsistent, etc., ponder me this (and for the record, I like BOTH Martins and Gibsons and own both for the record...)

Ive had TWO Martins, one was a 2014 000-15M I was the original owner of, and about two years after buying it it needed a neck reset that Martin acknowledged but refused to cover under warranty and instead only authorized a certified Martin shop to save the bridge. I also had another 2010 D-28 I bought used and that guitars saddle kept having to get sanded lower and lower over the course of a couple short years. I've also noticed that with new Martins the neck angles can vary a bit, where a brand new Martin will have just a little saddle showing while another Martin will have quite a bit of saddle. With EVERY new Gibson Ie owned the neck angles have been ridiculously perfect and consistent, every J45 Standard I've had has had the same exact amount of saddle showing when set up to my specs, and all other measurements the same from one to another, while Martins seem a little more inconsistent.

Again, I'm not bashing Martin, and as mentioned I like both brands and own both brands.

I’ve been reading all your posts with interest, Vinnie, and your practice with writing leads to better and more clear expression every time; also nice you share your experience with some fine acoustic guitars that some of us aspire to. I’m curious about your findings with Martin neck angles, and the topic deserves another thread. What do you think are the factors that could determine this difference between Martin and Gibson that you have pointed out?

[v32 finish]

hey Wade, thanks for clarifying. using those examples, I think you sufficiently laid out your case. I would definitely agree to those differences. Especially as it pertains to their recordkeeping. They are definitely different companies, and with different guitars and sounds.

I think alot of people gravitate towards one company or the other, and have one 'sound' that they prefer.. but I get really excited at the prospect of being able to find mind-blowing examples of each. I suppose it's human nature to compare, so there will always be threads like these. Personally I love them all!

[Vinnie Boombatz]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I’ve been reading all your posts with interest, Vinnie, and your practice with writing leads to better and more clear expression every time; also nice you share your experience with some fine acoustic guitars that some of us aspire to. I’m curious about your findings with Martin neck angles, and the topic deserves another thread. What do you think are the factors that could determine this difference between Martin and Gibson that you have pointed out?

I have no idea what leads to that, all I can do is state my experiences. I'm curious to a point, then I I'd rather just spend more time playing my guitars and spend less time trying to figure those other things out.

[TDavis]

To be very clear, since I innocently started this thread...not at all as a vehicle to “again” bash Gibson, but just as an observation since I’m not nearly as experienced as most here seem to be. I was amazed at how well the Gibson guitars I looked at played & what an amazing tone they had. Much different than the Martins I’ve owned. Not necessarily better...but different, and I like that.

As far as the “imperfections” I saw. Maybe I’m overtly OCD. Perhaps the new Bozeman Gibsons are being made in a smaller shop, using a small group of people producing closer to a true hand built guitar than maybe their competitors who are producing their instruments using more robotics & machinery...and the result is an instrument with some “human error” built in rather than machine-like perfection.

All that said, my next guitar will probably be either a Gibson J45 or Advanced Jumbo...because of how they sound to these aging ears. That they aren’t perfect calls me back to myself...because I’m far from it!

Thanks for the positive comments, those who had them. I never meant to beat a dead horse.