Was there ever a dark era for Gibson?

[bgmacaw]

 

Originally posted by 2mcuh2soon I haven't owned a Gibson but I do try to play them from time to time at my local guitar emporium. I have never noticed anything obviously bad about them. A relative of mine ordered a new LP Standard awhile back and, although expensive, it seems like a fine instrument.

 

 

The thing is that people tend to get really picky when they lay down between $1000-3000 on a guitar, particularly one that's hyped up as the be-all-end-all of electric guitars. Little minor things common to all mass production guitars that someone might let slide or even ignore on a $400 Epiphone or Agile LP becomes a big issue on a $2000 Gibson LP.

 

It's like if you go to chain restaurant and the staff isn't quite as attentive as you would like, you may not care that much, but if you go Chez Le Expensive where a glass of water is $25 a pop then you'll bitch about the least little thing.

[erik92da]

From the new gibsons ive seen since about 03, I have to say that the LPs seem to have the most problems with SGs behind them. I dont know if its because they produce more of those models than say a V or Explorer because my 2004 Flying V is damn near perfect. I know alot of the 'QC problems' are just bad setups and im not in any way bashing Gibson. My 2 best guitars are Gibsons

[OrvilleGibson]

 

Originally posted by belair billybob So what were the issues during the Norlin years?

 

 

Ironically enough, there were some of the same issues that Gibson faced immediately after they bought the company from Orville. The new ownership group was shocked ("Shocked!") at what they had to pay for wood of a suitable grade for musical instruments. Especially the way that Orville had been making them - guitars and mandolins with literally one piece backs and sides, all carved hollow from a single piece of wood.

 

Norlin did all the things you'd expect a conglomerate to do (and like your other examples which were also conglomerates). They started making decision on production and marketing based on what things cost, how to make things cheaper, without really considering what it did to the quality and "usability" of their instruments. Again, a similar thing as to what CBS and AMF went through with their acquisitions.

 

Examples? Well, hondro has hit on a number of them. Some I can add are:

 

- the "Mark" acoustics. Great idea in theory (Schneider Kasha-based designs), but way too difficult for their factory guys to build.

- Bill Lawrence's designs: the S-1, etc. (and I can say this because I own an S-1). Great ideas in theory, but because of cost constraints imposed by the management team they couldn't be executed correctly. The sad thing is that most of those ideas only cost a few bucks per guitar.

- Over-reaction to the Synthesizer "scare". Remember the "Flying Shrimp", aka the RD series? Again, not bad ideas in theory, but not so great execution. The thought was that guitars had to have extravagant active electronics or they just couldnt' compete with Synths. The cool thing is that you can rip out the Moog electronics in an RD, install standard pickups, and you've got a nice guitar. OK, I can already hear the RD fans moaning....

- The infamous "Double X" bracing on the acoustics. This was done because the quality of construction was slipping, and to keep warranty returns down they added another set of X braces behind the main x-braces. Now there are some builders that can do this well, but not necessarily the ham-fisted production guys on the line.

 

There's a bunch more. Walter Carter is the company historian for Gibson, and his "100 years" book describes it pretty well. The guys over at the Les Paul Forum can hash it over for you in more depth if you want.

 

Hope this helps.

[geddins81]

It's funny to me....the Norlin Era is known to be Gibson's "dark" period, when the guitars they made were the absolute worst....yet we now are seeing 70's Les Pauls breaking the $3k barrier.....go figure.

[blues_rocker]

you just gotta comb em over. they produce so many guitar they are bound to have flaws in a rare fe (just like anything else mass produced). the trick w/ buying a gibson is to play more than one.. play 5 in one store, another 5 in another, and do not buy em off of MF. thats what i have discovered anyways. but when you do find that one, nothing else will compete

[K.platyops]

I've always wanted to ask this...

 

What about the guitars that came from Gibson in 1986 and 1987(I have an 1986 SG that I bought new)?

 

What is the view of the early guitars that came out right after the change in management?

 

By the way, this SG plays and sounds really nice. It's old enough that it's getting that 'aged' tone and feel. Great stuff!

[metalheadUK]

Anything post 1960..........

[JimAnsell]

I know the norlin era had its problems and quirks, but don't let that scare you off from buying one from that era. some amazing guitars came from that period.

look at how many people 70's and 80's gibsons out there in national bands.

 

i've owned plenty of gibsons from both the norlin era and the Juszkiewicz era. The bottom line is that you have to play em because there are alot of good ones, and some bad ones.

just like the gibsons of now, there were alot of bad models that came out that just didn't work, or are lower end, bad guitars.

 

I currently own 2 norlin era les pauls. an 81 custom, and a 74 deluxe. i love em both.

There is one gripe i have about norlins though. the flat, wide, "fretless wonder" frets. some people dig em, but i hated em. Gibson fretwork now is no picnic either. its alot better IMO because i like the size better, but its still nothing like it should be for how much you are paying.

 

inferior pickups? the best gibson pickups besides the original paf, imo came out in that area. shaw pafs.

 

the bottom line is that you have to play em. some are good, some are bad.

i haven't played a bad norlin les paul, and i've played some terrible newer lp's. don't let the cork sniffers convince you otherwise.

[Milkman1]

The Gibsons I played in the seventies were much better than the ones I've tried in stores lately.

 

 

I owned a 77 Les Paul Deluxe. It was a beaut.

[batotman]

 

Originally posted by JimAnsell IThere is one gripe i have about norlins though. the flat, wide, "fretless wonder" frets. some people dig em, but i hated em. Gibson fretwork now is no picnic either. its alot better IMO because i like the size better, but its still nothing like it should be for how much you are paying.

 

 

Oh yeah, the frets on the old ones are HORRIBLE!!!!

[unichord]

The Norlin thing is a myth.

 

The same guys that built the coveted '59 les pauls continued to build guitars into the 70's. They just had 10 years more experience building guitars.

 

Do you really think that management went back to the shop and ordered the workers to start building {censored}ty guitars?

 

Gibson - like any company - followed the trends in music at the time.

 

Heavy instruments was the trend at the time - it was thought to increase sustain. Guitarists were installing stuff like heavy brass bridges - anything they could do to increase mass.

 

Guitarists were demanding fast, thin necks and frets.

 

Any decline was brought on the the entry of the world market. Guitar playing exploded in the 60's into the late 70's - many companies jumped on the bandwagon. By the 70's it was a declining market - with many competitors slugging it out for market share.

 

And - like any public company - Norlin reacted.

 

It serves Gibsons PR to "diss" the older instruments - there are tens of thousands out there - all competing for current guitarists dollars.

 

Don't buy into the myth - the Norlin era was just fine.

[Help!I'maRock!]

the QC thing is very real if your only exposure to Gibson is Guitar Center. if you buy from a reputable dealer, you should have no problems with them. Many QC issues are related to how the guitar is taken care of at the retail outlet, and we all know how big box stores take care of their stuff.

 

that said, i'd rather buy a PRS anyway.

[Prages]

 

Originally posted by unichord The Norlin thing is a myth. The same guys that built the coveted '59 les pauls continued to build guitars into the 70's. They just had 10 years more experience building guitars. Do you really think that management went back to the shop and ordered the workers to start building {censored}ty guitars?

 

 

The Norlin thing is not entirely a myth. Yes, they did produce their share of great guitars, but they produced a whole bunch of dogs too...just like CBS/Fender.

 

It may have been the same guys building the guitars that built the '59 Les Pauls, but management was buying cheap wood and sandwitching it together to get it thick enough for a Les Paul body. I'd imagine that if you look at the output, the # of guitars/day in 1959 was about 1/100 what it was in say 1972.

 

Of course, Gibson had quit making the Les Paul before the Norlin takeover, so Norlin did at least revive the line. I also think the volute was a great idea, but traditionalists hated it.

[zakian]

As a child, the name GIBSON sent shivers up your spine. Limited # of models, quality. Now, what ya got. LP- this that and the other. WTF. These are cheap knockoffs. There are axe makers out there making quality instruments with the best wood available at 50-75 % the price. Gibson/Fender CAN'T TOUCH the quality of my McInturff for the price. I see you can buy gibsons at Meijers now. WTF!

[Alchemist]

Originally posted by zakian As a child, the name GIBSON sent shivers up your spine. Limited # of models, quality. Now, what ya got. LP- this that and the other. WTF. These are cheap knockoffs. There are axe makers out there making quality instruments with the best wood available at 50-75 % the price. Gibson/Fender CAN'T TOUCH the quality of my McInturff for the price. I see you can buy gibsons at Meijers now. WTF!

 

 

I hear they actualy let women vote these days too, I mean WTF!

[sultan417]

 

Originally posted by Alchemist yeah thats pretty much it... but if you believe some of the stuff said on this forum, their QC is so terrible now that you cant even find any good ones... (when in fact they are putting out some of their best stuff these days)

 

 

 

+1

 

Gibson has done a pretty good job in the past few years of getting their QC up. Even the ones at the local GC are looking better to me these days.

 

Still, i think there is a far better product out there for the money in ESP, Carvin or Ibanez or even in some of the small producers like Heritage and Robin.

[Alchemist]

 

Originally posted by sultan417 +1 Gibson has done a pretty good job in the past few years of getting their QC up. Even the ones at the local GC are looking better to me these days. Still, i think there is a far better product out there for the money in ESP, Carvin or Ibanez or even in some of the small producers like Heritage and Robin.

 

 

See I agree with you partialy on that. I dont think those other companies are better, but I think for certain products they are equal and its simply a matter of taste. Gibson isnt the be-all-end-all of guitars. But they do make some damn good ones, so do other companies. I dont see why people just cant enjoy their guitars without feeling the need to trash other companies simply because its not the product for them. I know I'm a big fan of Gibson guitars because I love the tone, but on the other hand I own 3 nice Ibanez and play them just as much. Different product, no better, no worse.

[stratopedia]

Originally posted by Alchemist See I agree with you partialy on that. I dont think those other companies are better, but I think for certain products they are equal and its simply a matter of taste. Gibson isnt the be-all-end-all of guitars. But they do make some damn good ones, so do other companies. I dont see why people just cant enjoy their guitars without feeling the need to trash other companies simply because its not the product for them. I know I'm a big fan of Gibson guitars because I love the tone, but on the other hand I own 3 nice Ibanez and play them just as much. Different product, no better, no worse.

 

As simple as that.

[OrvilleGibson]

 

Do you really think that management went back to the shop and ordered the workers to start building {censored}ty guitars?

 

 

No. But they did move from Kalamazoo, MI to Nashville, and most of the staff didn't make the move. The new ones didn't know any different.

[No Soul]

 

Originally posted by the russ post-lawsuit models are *quite* good. but Ibanez also made some dog{censored} "lawsuit" bolt-on Les Paul copies at that time too

 

 

try their Explorer and Flying V models.

And everybody knows if you want a lawsuit era Paul you get a Tokai, Burny, or Greco

[No Soul]

 

Originally posted by Bbreaker After Ted McCarty left Gibson.

 

 

best response yet.

 

I love Gibsons, own a few myself.

 

Starting with a 52 Les Paul, Ive played Gibsons from just about every year, so many different models etc etc etc. Hell, I even made a pretty penny selling them for a little while.

 

Anybody who tells you that Gibson today DOES NOT have QC problems is either

A) Lying

B) Hasnt played a Gibson

C) Doesent know what quality is to begin with

 

More often than not the mistakes and flaws are minor and hardly an issue of function or tone, but cosmetic in nature. Flaws none the less.

 

But you know what?

The old ones were the same! Not just the Norlins!

There are definitely some vintage Gibsons floating arround out there that are DOGS. Of course, who wants to admit they purchased an expensive vintage Gibson that is a POS?

 

Just wait for the price Norlin era guitars to really start climbing, and I promise you will hear less people complaining about them.

[zakian]

doesn't mean "better." You just have a better chance of quality. My 61-345. The bridge was mounted 1/8 in. too short . Go figure. BUT, That's the days when wood was "aged." Not kiln dried. I had a 56 Strat. It was a piece of JUNK. Claptons "blackie" was popular then. I painted it black and sold the bitch.

[Keelbolts]

Don't you think the fussing about Gibson is a result of unreasonable expectations? When you can buy pretty nice guitars all day long for $500 and less, expectations for $4K guitar could be unattainable.

[gibsgstd1999]

I don't agree that late 90's Gibsons have quality control issues.

Up until I bought my SG Std in 1999, new, I had never had a guitar that had that same quality- up until this day, it is still the benchmark for craftsmanship and tone, whenever I pick up somebody else's guitar and play it. I have played guitars that cost twice the price, and could never justify the cost.

The only modifcations I have made to improve the guitar are replacing the tuners (the originals were, admittingly, the only quality control issue), and getting graphtech bridge saddles.

The guitar has barely any glue marks, and no finish imperfections. Any dent, scratch, crack is due to my constant playing.

I have a nice Ibanez RG570, but it will never replace the Gibson- it is just about the most solid guitar I have ever played.

The only guitar that I have enjoyed just as much, and that I believe had even better QC was a Jackson USA RR-1 that I owned temporarily before the Gibson.

I love the pickups, the thick neck, the shorter scale length, the tone and feel of my Gibson.

If anyone in the late 90's got a Gisbon that had QC issues, I feel bad for them.

[DonP]

Here is my "dark era" Les Paul, a 1977 Custom.

 

 

Truss rod nut never turned. Lazer straight three piece maple neck (yuck-what are they thinking), over 10lbs heavy, and biting/growling 7.5K t-tops.

 

Yep, Zakk and John Sykes are right to stay away from these. I'm sure the frets are nearly gone and the neck paint played off because this is such a tone turd LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!