#1
|
|||
|
|||
Gibson Guitar Company
Hi,
Let me start by saying that my main electric is an early 80s Les Paul, and for many years it was all I played. I was wondering what people are thinking about Gibson guitars? Are they the company they were 20+ years ago? Does anyone feel the new shop is producing the product they used to? Is anyone playing Heritage guitars (the old Gibson guys) instead? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
As a company, Gibson is in much better shape than 20 yrs ago, in the Norlin Era. ('Norlin Era' is said by Gibson fans with the same vehemence that Harley riders say 'AMF Era')
When you look at threads in forums like RMMGA and Acoustic Guitar you find a lot of polarization between those who think Gibson is great and those who think they make junk. Personally, I have played Gibson guitars that were delightful and some that were as dead as doornails. This wide variance in consistency is probably the genus of the differences of opinion. Let me put it this way while I don't think I would buy a Taylor or a Martin by mail order, I would never, never, never buy a Gibson mail order. ------------------ George Wilson |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Agree with GRW. While I've played a couple of exceptional Gibbys thru the years, they're just too inconsistent to consider buying one without giving it a good workout first. I'll take a Hamer sight unseen anyday.
__________________
Left handed, Right minded |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Using Bob Taylors Favorite post:
NO! JW
__________________
Resident Driver of the Drama Bus. Yes, I can beat a horse to death with just my right wing. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
We'll, I think they've got the late '70s early '80s beat by a country mile. In my opinion, the first products of the Nashville, hard-tooled plant were their low point. Even with that said, they still are inconsistant. I would consider buying the product they make now, but, as others have said, only in person.
Some comment that their prices are too high. I think that is attributable to the product they make. Much like the VW beetle, the old-line Gibson products, including the Les Paul, are extremely labor intensive. As time has moved on, outfits like Hamer and Paul Reed Smith have created designs which require less manual labor, and it has allowed them to put out a product of equal quality for a lower cost. Gibson has a financial boat-anchor around their neck in that their main appeal is in their high-overhead classics. But when you get a hot one, it is HOT! Bob
__________________
"It is said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes.' " Frodo Baggins to Gildor Inglorion, The Fellowship of the Ring THE MUSICIAN'S ROOM (my website) |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I can't speak to the electrics, but I've played many Gibson acoustics over the years, and I'm sorry to say that I've never played one that I liked. I'm sorry to say this because they seem to be well made and I know they have a lot of fans, but there it is. It's not that they're bad, they've just all felt like they were made for someone else, and the tone always seems like it's somewhere across the room when I play them. It's all the more obvious when I've just played a Taylor. This is all subjective, of course. YMMV.
__________________
Chris We all do better when we all do better. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
JMO
Heritage absolutely puts the Gibsons to shame. I do like some Gibsons though but the Heritage just seem to be a better guitar. I speaking in terms of current manufacturing. Some old Heritages were kid of lame. I heard that the guys that make Heritage quit Gibson after it was bought out and because they were ashamed of the quality they were being asked to produce and felt they wanted to carry on the "quality" that made Gibson famous in the first place....through Heritage.
__________________
Charter Member of the Anti-Belt Buckle Coalition I have a fine collection of dust mites. Last edited by CatchtheCat; 05-05-2002 at 09:18 PM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I have to agree on the heritage guitars. As my main stage electrics I got nothing but great play out of them. The workmanship is 60s Gibson (same people, same plant as the 60s Gibsons)and the service is like Taylors. The hardware used in the cheapest heritage rivals the best Gibson. A heritage 150 is a 60s Les Paul more so than a real les Paul. Nothing but the headstock is differant. Im not much for bashing other guitar makers but the nashville Plant really throws some junk out the door. The custom shop is differant as Ive seen some really nice Les Pauls come out from there. As far as the Montana plant and the acoustics I have to say that a few Gibson acoustics sound pretty good. I do like the SJ-2000. I played one and that baby really sung. the finsh was real nice as well and was just a real nice guitar. For those that wonder if a pickgaurd can affect sound gibson has proved that it can. I played a Dewight Yokum SM and it was bad. You need to plug that thing in. Check it out at www.gibsonguitars.com JW
__________________
Resident Driver of the Drama Bus. Yes, I can beat a horse to death with just my right wing. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: JMO
Quote:
In any event I find the quality to be no better than Gibson, and the resale value to be horrendous. Are they still using the Schaller pickups on their stock guitars? (They're not very toneful to my ears either) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know much about Heritage since I have never held one in my hands, but I do know a bit about Gibson since I own 2, and had 3 others in the recent past.
Like others have said here already, inconsistency is the key word. I have an ES-335, and an SG, both are very well made guitars, that play well, and sound great. I also had an ES-135LE that sucked eggs, and 2 different Les Pauls that were real dogs too. Actually one LP was a dog, the other was a good sounding, good playing, well finished boat anchor that could have made the Queen Mary take a nose dive....I've carried cement blocks that wieghed less. One of the main problems Gibson is having right now, is fit & finish, too many guitars are coming out of Nashville with flawed finishes, and poor set ups. Considering what you pay for them, this shouldn't be. All companies go through growing pains and weak spells, the good companies work through them....I have faith that Gibson will come through this in good time. BTW....I've never played a Gibson acoustic that I liked, but that's just me........ |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I once tried an old Kalamazoo I found hanging in a guitar shop used section. For what it was, the thing was a pretty sweet playing guitar. Every once in a while you'll come across a "prototype" from a Gibson luthier, or even something like a Kalamazoo, and it will give you a pretty good perspective on the guitars Gibson made then versus now. JMHO
Bill B.
__________________
"We're not in Kansas any more, Toto..." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I have a 1983 Les Paul Standard that I bought new. Although I have many different electric guitars (vintage Fender, Epiphone, among others), the Les has been my favorite electric for nearly 20 years. Tone from heaven, and a great neck. Maybe I just got lucky with it, I dunno.
I also recently purchased a 1965 Gibson LG 1 acoustic. This guitar has a magical tone, but, I auditioned about ten LG 1s that sounded pretty lifeless before I found this one. Just my experience. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
agreed
__________________
Chris McKee Go SPURS Go |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I'm gonna bring this thread back to life for a minute or two...
I just bought (and returned) a Gibson J-180EC special. Special because it was ebony (black) with dots (instead of those awful star markers) and laminated maple arched back (no bracing). But the fit and finish didn't quite make it. Didn't quite feel right, didn't quite sound right. But it was "gutsy" in the way that Taylors are "refined." I bought a used Gibson J-50 (1998 reissue of a 1958 model) on eBay and it is SO sweet! The J-50 is essentially a J-45 but with mahogany back and sides rather than rosewood. Perhaps I just got lucky, but this is a beauty. And it sounds just plain wonderful. Better than any of the new Martins I played (at twice the price) while shopping. There is something in the tone that is pure Gibson and it is a genuine complement to my Taylors. It is just a different (and wonderfully different) thing. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
My first guitar was a 1964 gibson J-50. I still have it and still enjoy playing it. I'm still impressed with the playability, tone and volume that comes from it. Now don't get me wrong, it's no Taylor,but I still play it often.
mw 1964 gibson J-50 1983 martin hd-28 anniversary model 2000 taylor w-14c 2001 taylor k-14c with koa top 2001 taylor 612-c blue, quilt back |