Gibson - Value for money?

[baldbloke]

Another thread here today got me thinking about buying a Gibson. Then I saw the price of them. Eek! I think that diminished my enthusiasm. It ain't gonna happen anytime this decade, I shouldn't think.

 

I know Martin and Taylor, Collings and all the other respected brands can be expensive but the Gibsons, on my brief investigation, seem to start at the high price end of the scale.

 

I've a fair idea what to expect for the money when it comes to Martins and Taylors but I haven't had much of a chance to try out Gibsons. Are the Gibsons equivalent value for money?

 

I don't want to encourage a Gibson bashing fest. I really don't. It's been done too many times before. But, in general, are Gibsons fairly priced? Or is it a marketing thing? E.g. If it's expensive it must be good.

[FretFiend.]

I am pretty much in agreement with you. It's not really that I don't like Gibson guitars. It's just that I can't seem to like them well enough to justify their admittedly high price.

 

I've considered Gibsons a couple of times, but I always got sticker shock. Lots of other brands out there are better values IMO.

[kujozilla]

I second Fret. Also, their quality control on acoustics is a bit too lax IMHO.

[guildfire]

Are they good value for money? In general, I would have to say no.There are other options.

Are they worth the money? Yes, if you find one that you like and can afford it.

I have a Gibson. Its a lower end model but I really like the tone - different tone than my other guitars. Great quality on mine too. Used to have a Hummingbird. Didn't like that one as much, so I sold it.

[Theflyingturtle]

I went to Bozeman and met a kid who worked in the acoustic factory and we talked for a while. He told me that most of the guys that work building guitars can't afford to live in Bozeman since rich people and movie stars have moved in to go skiing in the winter. With property values through the roof he commutes from the next town. I guess no one working in the factory is getting rich unless they push pencils. Who knows?

As for the comparative value question, my ears tell me that Gibson acoustics are very overpriced. I do play and enjoy the used J-45 I got a couple of years ago but that is because it was a good fit for me. Somehow THAT guitar seems to match my vocals better than any other guitar I have ever played. I sing and sound better with the Gibson. Everyone says so. However, for the over two grand Gibson wants for a new one I could not possibly justify it in any way. To me a Gibson is a very solid guitar. But I would not pay thousands for "solid". Two grand will get you a very generous, magical sounding guitar and you won't have to look very far. So in short, as a guitar that stands on its merits I don't think they're very good. However, as an accompaniment to vocals it seems pretty useful.

The bottom line: I truly enjoy my J-45 when I sing and play but I have GAS for the day I finally buy my first really acoustic guitar.

[roughtrade]

They will hold their value. I don't like them as well as I do Martins, though.

[kujozilla]

They will hold their value. I don't like them as well as I do Martins, though.

 

 

They will not, however, accrue in value the way Martins often do.

[timmay8612]

I own one, but would not encourage you to buy one. None of the other Gibsons in ANY price range had the magic that mine has. I'm convinced its a fluke. So much the better for me though. I'd spend your money elsewhere unless you really fall hard for the sound. That being said, I don't really care for the restrained highs, overly warm inarticulate midrange and bass that characterizes the Gibson sound. So take my advice with the proverbial grain of salt.

[guildfire]

I like the Gibson sound, but the question is do you like it enough to pay the price and ignore other options?

[baldbloke]

Thank you folks. That has all but eliminated my Gibson gas.

[Oldskool Texas]

I owned a beautiful Custom Shop J-45 for a little while that I purchased for $2100. I would say it compared very favorably to similarly-priced guitars from Martin and Taylor. In the end, I didn't bond with it I'd hoped I would.

 

Moral of the story: play everything in your price range that you can get your hands on before even narrowing it down to a brand name. I didn't expect to fall in love with a Taylor, but that's exactly what happened.

[kujozilla]

Thank you folks. That has all but eliminated my Gibson gas.

Sorry.

[FretFiend.]

I once was an electric player. In that sphere, Gibson rules, hands down. Wouldn't consider anything else. IMHO of course.

[kujozilla]

I once was an electric player. In that sphere, Gibson rules, hands down. Wouldn't consider anything else. IMHO of course.

 

 

I like Teisco... :poke:

[guildfire]

I once was an electric player. In that sphere, Gibson rules, hands down. Wouldn't consider anything else. IMHO of course.

 

 

Fender.

[C70man]

If you can play a J45 from 66 or earlier, you wouldn't ask the question. Seriously, they are that nice an instrument. Are there better...sure, but no other guitar I have played over 40 years sounds like a vintage J45. In fact, no two J45's really sound alike.

You have to like the sound, the look, the feel, etc. I'm one that REALLY loves the sound of a vintage J45/J50.....but play before you buy and do your research. There are a lot of different sounds based on different builds. That is the bracing, the bridges, the saddles, nuts, woods, etc.....just like any other guitar.

If I found the right vintage J45/50...price wouldn't matter much to me, it would be worth it.....whether or not I could afford it.

[baldbloke]

Sorry.

 

 

For stopping gas?

 

Kuj, that's a good thing. I was just tinkering with the idea of a Gibson. It was a fleeting thought. Just on the verge of investigating them. Who knows, I may have fallen in love with them (that still may happen in the future) or I may have thought "meh". Either way, the dreaded gas monster has been avoided for the time being.

 

I'm pleased though, to have so many folks speak well of thier Gibsons. They do seem to be fine instruments.

[BLUtunes]

As others have said, Gibson makes some SUPERB guitars. Unfortunately, they tend to be vastly overpriced and Gibson has some serious quality control issues, as well.

[Danner]

You only live once, in the course of decades, whether the guitar cost $1000 or $3000 doesn't amount to much at all. How many people here have 5 or 6 $500 guitars?

 

And yes, I spent $3000 on a Gibson, and wish I had done so 20 years ago, they are wonderful instruments, heirloom quality, fill you with pride, and are a joy to own in every way.

 

Buy one fine Gibson and enjoy it for a lifetime, or buy, well, whatever, and wonder if you should have gone Gibson ...

[Danner]

, as well.

 

 

Bull{censored}.

[SkippyX]

...(snip)... or buy, well, whatever, and wonder if you should have gone Gibson ...

 

Gotta (respectfully) disagree there.

 

Gibson makes some beauties, no doubt about it, but there are plenty of fantastic guitars out there that don't say "Gibson" on the headstock.

 

Martin, Guild, Larrivee, Taylor all spring to mind.

 

Check out a Guild D50 and get back to me.

[katopp]

If it sez "Gibson" on the Headstock
And it has no fugly OTT adornments
And it has no sloped shoulders
And it has no garish pickguard
And it has no "Rhinestone Cowboy" bridge
And it's not finished in burst
And it sounds good and plays nicely
And it's not priced twice as high as the competition

Then you can bring it on.

That said, my next build will be an all-maple SJ200 with just dot or simple block inlays and a simple Martin-style bridge.

[Hudman]

Martin and Taylor have models made in Mexico and USA models with less bling and less expensive options to keep their entry level models under $2000.

 

Gibson has a Canadian made line with bling in the under $1500 range but their main line of USA made guitars come with all of the bling and expensive options.

 

When you compare the high level Martin, Taylor and Gibson guitars you will see that they are priced very similar.

 

The Gibson quality control rhetoric is based off the 1970's and 1980's. The current line is equal in quality to anything made by Martin. I don't think anyone comes close to Taylor in quality control because they use a lot of CNC machinery and a neck joint that is flawless.

[Oldskool Texas]

The Gibson quality control rhetoric is based off the 1970's and 1980's.

 

 

This is untrue. Out of the five Gibsons I've owned, two had issues.

 

My 2008 CS ES-339 had a neck tenon that looked like it had been cut by farsighted beavers, then packed with sawdust and glue. The neck pickup required the ring to be flipped in order for the pickup to be level with the strings. Small file marks were evident on the fretboard, and the area where the neck meets the body had an unfinished area and lacquer splashed on the binding.

 

My 2006 CS J-45 had an errant blob of glue on one of the top bracings, and a finish flaw where the neck meets the body.

 

None of these were deal-killers and the guitars sounded great, but to dismiss Gibson's well-documented quality-control shortcomings as "rhetoric" ignores an unfortunate truth about the brand. Yes, sometimes their QC problems are overstated, but their reputation for inconsistency is deserved, IMO.

[DarkHorseJ27]

Gibson's quality control is almost non-existent currently, so if you really want a Gibson I would try as many as you can and find one that is worth the price. Most Gibsons, acoustic or electric, aren't worth the retail price, so it might be a while before you'd find a good one. But if you do find a good one its . Another option might be looking at older/vintage Gibsons, from when the quality control was better. But then you'd probably be paying more $.