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

[hifivic]

Originally Posted by will-d

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.

With ONE post you declare that a Gibson fit and finish is equal to a Collings or a "designer" label like a Bourgeois! You would be wise to stay away from such sensational proclamations! I'm sure your new L-OO is a great sounding guitar certainly a classic model with a long history!

[hifivic]

Originally Posted by Will Kirk

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.

THIS is reality folks, their typical QC in my experience also. I've owned 8 Historic Custom Shop models........2 R-4's, 1 R-6, 3 R-7's and 2 R-8's and EVERY single one had cosmetic fit and finish issues like gaps between the neck binding and the fretboard that you could put a playing card in! Has anyone ever heard of Fender or PRS or Suhr having broken headstocks?

[Murphy Slaw]

I've owned many dozens of Gibsons over the last 45+years and have never owned a bad one.

I would have never BOUGHT a defective guitar in the first place, but I have never even seen a bad one. If I had, I would have not bought it.

[DenverSteve]

Originally Posted by Murphy Slaw

I've owned many dozens of Gibsons over the last 45+years and have never owned a bad one. I would have never BOUGHT a defective guitar in the first place, but I have never even seen a bad one. If I had, I would have not bought it.

I have to agree. When sampling many Gibson's to purchase one (several times over the past 5 years) I've liked some more than others. That's natural. However, I've never found a single one that wasn't wonderfully built and excellent guitars. I've always purchased one when looking and have never failed to find a real gem.

[jt1]

I tell what I think is a fun and informative story in my book, Kalamazoo Gals.

One of the Gals—the women who built Gibson guitars during WWII—I interviewed was a guitar inspector. She was the only inspector during her tenure at Gibson. When she told me her dates of employment—1943 through 1945—I told her that I had something in my car that she’d seen before. I scampered out of her house, grabbed my minty 1943 Banner SJ, and carried it into her living room. She re-inspected it, seven decades after her original inspection, and pronounce it fit. The only Gibson ever to have passed inspection twice by the same inspector, with 70s years lapsing between inspections!

Here’s my guitar, in its original case (on edit, a better pic of the guitar):



I asked her about the inspection process during the War. She received no training and no direction. So, she simply looked for what she thought were imperfections. She placed rejected guitars in one rack and approved in another. Each day, her boss, a man, would stop by, work through the rejected guitars, say of each one, “Ah, hell, this is fine,” and transfer it to the approved rack.

I’m not sure that Gibson has ever deviated much from this process.

[drbluegrass]

Originally Posted by Will Kirk

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.

Well, there you have it. Straight from a dealer. That adds a heck of a lot of cred to the issue. This pretty much convinces me...there is indeed a QC issue at Gibson. Whether I own one or not.

However, if a Youtube video is any indication, the one comparing the standard J45 and Vintage J45 is pretty impressive. I especially like the the sound of the vintage reissue. I could overlook some minor QC issues (a little extra glue here and there, etc.) for tone like that. Both are great sounding guitars, IMHO...as far as you can tell from a video. And I'm more of a boutique guitar guy.

Before I saw the video, if I was looking for a really good J45 I wouldn't have even considered a Gibson. Last one I tried sounded dead compared to other brands. But those two in that video have at least somewhat restored my faith in Gibson made "J" guitars. If I was looking for a "J" style guitar now Gibson would certainly be in the mix. But the competition is brutal and there are some killer boutique versions of the J45 (i.e. Kopp, Walker, Fairbanks, Prewar Guitars, etc.). But, at least I would now try a Gibson. And I'm guessing they would be pretty competitive. But, they would have to win the A/B test, or, no go.

[drbluegrass]

I thought I'd mention some of the finest guitars I've ever owned and some of the worst guitars I've owned were Gibsons. One stands out in particular. But it wasn't an acoustic guitar.

All my guitar playing life (57 years) I dreamed of owning a Gibson L5CES jazz archtop. I loved everything about their looks. They just oozed class. And while perusing the Gibson catalog I could just hear those warm jazz tones. Well, as I got older I eventually was able to custom order one. I waited almost 2 years for it. And it was gorgeous. However, I immediately noticed when I opened the case for the first time, the 9th fret fretted out on both the 1st and 2nd strings. I couldn't even play it, straight from the factory. I had to take it to a tech about 1:45 away from my home. He fixed the guitar and charged me for it. I paid for the repair since I'd already waited about 2 years and didn't want to wait another extended period of time. Then some time later I was admiring the guitar while it was in it's stand, and I noticed the tailpiece and nut were mounted off to the left...noticeably so, all the way down to the peg hole. How could this be on a Gibson custom shop guitar or any other Gibson guitar??!! I was soooooooo disappointed! That was it. I sold the L5CES and was left with a very bitter taste in my mouth regarding Gibson guitars.

Fast forward a few years. I was heavily into jump blues and swing jazz and was looking for a guitar to use for the genre I was so into. I just happened to come across a killer looking cherry red, Gibson ES5 Switchmaster with 3 P-90 pickups. It was a one off, brand new guitar from the Gibson custom shop. Ughh...the Gibson custom shop. Well, I knew I could return it if it didn't meet my expectations. So, I pulled the trigger.....and hit a bulls eye!! Incredible guitar!! Great tone, craftsmanship, fit and finish. Great everything. Gibson really redeemed themselves with this guitar. I subsequently ordered a Gibson chambered, '54 Reissue Gold Top Les Paul. It too was a bulls eye. Fabulous guitar.

The reason I wrote this post is to verify that Gibson instruments, at least in the past, have indeed been hit and miss when it comes to tone, craftsmanship, fit and finish, etc. Sometimes when they've been bad they've been really bad. And sometimes when they were good they've been really good. Gibson is quite capable of building outstanding instruments...as good as any of the boutique brands. But because they're capable of it doesn't necessarily mean they always do. It's been my experience they've been very inconsistent.

Gibson, for the last few years, seem to be turning out some very decent acoustic guitars. But, whereas I might order a guitar, sight unseen, from a reputable boutique builder, I would never do that with a Gibson. Do I think Gibson has turned out some outstanding guitars the last few years? You bet!! I would be very interested in either of the guitars in that video. But for those who think Gibsons are not hit and miss, you're fooling yourself. That could happen in the not too distant future with new management. But we'll just have to see. For the meantime I'm gonna' find me one of those Gibson Vintage J45 reissues, like the one in the video, and play the heck out of it.

[davidd]

I have owned at least a hundred guitars over the last 50+ years of playing and my Gibson electrics and acoustics are as good as any I've owned. I'll take both of my 2016 and 2017 J45's any day over my 2013 Martin D18 which is a great guitar also. If you want perfection get some slick poly encased import guitar and enjoy, or get some "boutique" model and pay 2 or 3 times as much. I'll take a few glue drips and move on with a real Gibson and enjoy the experience a Gibson gives me. The same way I enjoy a Fender, Gretsch, Martin etc. People that get dental mirrors and inspect the inside of an acoustic have bigger issues than Gibson QC to deal with.

[Paddy1951]

Originally Posted by davidd

I have owned at least a hundred guitars over the last 50+ years of playing and my Gibson electrics and acoustics are as good as any I've owned. I'll take both of my 2016 and 2017 J45's any day over my 2013 Martin D18 which is a great guitar also. If you want perfection get some slick poly encased import guitar and enjoy, or get some "boutique" model and pay 2 or 3 times as much. I'll take a few glue drips and move on with a real Gibson and enjoy the experience a Gibson gives me. The same way I enjoy a Fender, Gretsch, Martin etc. People that get dental mirrors and inspect the inside of an acoustic have bigger issues than Gibson QC to deal with.

Amen, Amen...

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by davidd

I have owned at least a hundred guitars over the last 50+ years of playing and my Gibson electrics and acoustics are as good as any I've owned. I'll take both of my 2016 and 2017 J45's any day over my 2013 Martin D18 which is a great guitar also. If you want perfection get some slick poly encased import guitar and enjoy, or get some "boutique" model and pay 2 or 3 times as much. I'll take a few glue drips and move on with a real Gibson and enjoy the experience a Gibson gives me. The same way I enjoy a Fender, Gretsch, Martin etc. People that get dental mirrors and inspect the inside of an acoustic have bigger issues than Gibson QC to deal with.

Nothing has changed my J45 into anything other than what it is...a well-made instrument.
I call to mind a plethora of tales of poorly made guitars over time of all brands and specifically from the "big one". This also includes issues with guitars from custom builders. Wow, who knew.

[Kerbie]

The vast majority of this thread has been positive. Let's try to keep it that way. A reminder to the Gibson fans... sharing stories of poor experiences is allowed. A reminder to the Gibson foes... experiences must be shared politely. Thank you.

[Larry Mal]

I'll add a couple of things about Gibson guitars:

1) I wish that they did a better job of sending the guitars out with good setups. I understand why they send them out with high action and such, but it makes for a very uninspiring guitar on the showroom floor. You have to have faith that you will be able to get the guitar to be where you want it to be, and Gibson seems to think that their brand reputation will be enough to take you there but my opinion is the opposite is true. It took me a while to overcome the negative perception I had about Gibson acoustics and give them a try, and once I did that, I was sold once and for all.

2) My worry is that the bankruptcy will lead to worse guitars. I don't really see how they can reasonably be made to be better from where I sit. But I can imagine how they might become worse very quickly.

3) It also took me a while to appreciate everything that Gibson brings to the table. If you are like a lot of people, you are more familiar with other types of sounds. And Gibson certainly does have models that will bring you those sounds, but they also have guitars that do uniquely Gibson things. My J-35, for instance, is a very dry and strident guitar, almost percussive and metallic in some ways. You hear a good amount of the string and a very good amount of the fundamental.

If you are used to a reverberant, lush Martin type sound, it may seem lacking. Put a microphone in front of it, though, and it sits in the mix just perfectly with very little need to tweaking.


Just some thoughts. Gibson acoustics are great, give them a try. They are as good as anything out there.

[Steadfastly]

It seems Gibson has had more issues than any other major guitar mfr. over the last number of years. Some of these issues must be real, like the headstock issue. With all that has been said, they do make some very fine guitars but you do pay for them.

[davidd]

Originally Posted by Steadfastly

It seems Gibson has had more issues than any other major guitar mfr. over the last number of years. Some of these issues must be real, like the headstock issue. With all that has been said, they do make some very fine guitars but you do pay for them.

What headstock issue? Gibson headstocks have been breaking for decades because the design which contributes to the overall tone also creates a weak area prone to breakage if the right mishap occurs. We've known this forever..... it isn't a QC issue but an intentional way of crafting the neck.

I'll admit Gibson has made some stupid corporate decisions over the years and yes there was a period between the mid seventies and mid eighties when things weren't that great quality wise but there were still some good ones that were built also. The same occurred at Martin and Fender not to mention GM, Ford and Chrysler. My 2001 R8 LP is as good an LP as I've laid my hands on, headstock issue and all.

[hangil210]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

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

See below:

Originally Posted by Larry Mal

1) I wish that they did a better job of sending the guitars out with good setups. I understand why they send them out with high action and such, but it makes for a very uninspiring guitar on the showroom floor. You have to have faith that you will be able to get the guitar to be where you want it to be, and Gibson seems to think that their brand reputation will be enough to take you there but my opinion is the opposite is true. It took me a while to overcome the negative perception I had about Gibson acoustics and give them a try, and once I did that, I was sold once and for all.

Well, this gentleman sums it up really nicely. I am not saying the action must be perfect, since the perfect action is different for everyone. But still, the guitar out of the box must have an action decent enough to play mostly anything so that the player is able to get a feel for that particular guitar. If the action is too high, playability decreases and the guitar would be making unintended poor sound. Then, how would you make your decision? Is Gibson really expecting us customers to buy a guitar just based on their reputation and famous model name, making a leap of faith? What if the sound is not what you want even after you went through all the setups and experiments with different strings? Nonsense.

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

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 RussL30

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.

Okay, for those who are saying Gibson is perfectly fine... Your experience is yours. Your personal experience with a particular company CANNOT be the reason for dismissing everyone who is questioning the company's QC or making them sound like conspiracy theorists. What others have experienced is as true as yours. Please respect it.

Also, what does brining up issues with Gibson's QC have to do with whether one likes Gibson sound or not? Those two are totally different things. I love Gibson sound and that is why I have started this thread in hopes of seeing better guitars from them. How could you say that one hates Gibson guitars just because he/she is talking about their QC being poor? Fact is a fact. As you can see there are lots of other Gibson fans sharing their stories in which they had to deal with Gibson's poor QC.

In addition, I have never said that Martins, Taylors and other guitar companies are perfect in their QC. What I and other people who also commented on this thread are saying is probably that there is a seemingly higher occurrence of defects from Gibson (which implies their poor QC) than other companies. The employees working in guitar shops that I have talked to confirms that; they return Gibson guitars much more than other companies' guitars after inspection.