Gibson - Value for money?

[Hudman]

 

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.

 

 

EVERY guitar company sells a bad guitar from time to time. It's the nature of mass manufacturing.

 

If Gibson was half as bad as you guys claim no one would play their guitars.

 

I see a lot of Gibson guitars being used today.

[DarkHorseJ27]

EVERY guitar company sells a bad guitar from time to time. It's the nature of mass manufacturing. If Gibson was half as bad as you guys claim no one would play their guitars. I see a lot of Gibson guitars being used today.

 

 

Gibson has a lot of brand equity, so that is why people are still buying despite the sub-par quality if their current production. Plus the there a lot of older ones that are simply amazing.

[NealP]

I have to agree with the Gibson folks. Gibson puts out a fine guitar. Problems sometimes? Yeah, same with Martin and the others.

 

If you want to pay 2K for a guitar, you are at least going to play it, no? And all Gibbys are not 2K. Some are more, and some are less. It's as subjective as asking if blues music is any good.

 

Gibson makes good guitars. The company's focked with their policies, but the guitars are great, and worthy of passing down to your grandkids, and they to theirs.

 

Am I saying better than Martin, Taylor, etc.. ? That's too subjective for me to take on.

[Oldskool Texas]

I see a lot of Gibson guitars being used today.

 

 

You see a lot of people eating at McDonalds today, too...

 

Look, I'm not a Gibson basher. I've got my eye on an LP Junior as we speak. But Gibson didn't get a reputation for shoddy QC just because of their sins of the 70s. If that were the case, Fender would still be recovering from the CBS debacle.

 

Bottom line, I'd confidently buy any Fender USA Telecaster or a high-end Taylor acoustic off the Internet, sight unseen. But a Gibson? No way. That tells the whole story right there.

[NealP]

 

Bottom line, I'd confidently buy any Fender USA Telecaster or a high-end Taylor acoustic off the Internet, sight unseen. But a Gibson? No way. That tells the whole story right there.

 

 

 

That only tells YOUR story. I do understand what you are saying, but the only Gibsons I've played that were sub-standard were in a guitar center that had nasty strings. The others were not to my liking, only because I didn't like their style, but all were pretty consistently good guitars that were built well, and other than the conditions they were being showed in, were one of those subjective things... one likes the sound that Gibson is trying to achieve, and the look of the package, or one doesn't.

 

I like the J-45 and the Gibson 00 and Lucas. Don't care for the dreds and the Jumbos. I wouldn't have a problem with an internet purchase of one of the ones I like.

 

But that's me, and it's subjective. Gibson deserves a LOT of bashing for the way they market and treat their 1st tier customers, the shops. But they don't deserve near as much bashing for their guitars as is found here. That, my friends, is my wholeheartedly personal opinion. And an educated one, I believe.

[Brown Rug]

I wish I had one, and I hope to get a J-45 some day, but when I played that and a HD-28 side by side, I felt Martin > Gibson.

[guildfire]

Gibson quality issues are no worse that any other brand. I've played bad Martins too. I've owned 2 Gibsons and both had steller quality. I wonder how many Gibson bashers on here have actually owned one.

[boxorox]

Gibson guitars... a personal choice. I'm a Martin man through and through. Never cared for Gibsons until, well, until I heard a bitchin' Gibson. After that, I was hunting one.

If you want a Gibson, you have to look for it. You will play some dogs, you will play some good ones. But when you find the one you want, you will pay whatever it takes to have that guitar. I found mine, and to me it's a pee in your pants exceptional gutar. You may not like it, but I didn't say it was for sale, did I? I don't care what anyone thinks of it. It's like it was voiced for me, and me alone. It is MY guitar. And I love it above all others.

Yah, Gibsons are strange. Some suck. Some are mediocre. Some are even great. But if you find THE ONE that was made for you, puppy dogs and butterflies will shoot out your ass. I'm not kidding.

[sixgunner455]

I played a GREAT Southern Jumbo once that, well, if I'd had room in the budget or on a card, it'd be mine.

 

I've at least liked most of the Gibsons I've played, but none have grabbed my attention like that one did. If I ever hear that sound again, I'll probably do what it takes to own it.

[seagullplayer77]

I was at the Gibson factory and showcase in Nashville last summer and after the factory tour, I played three or four guitars in the showcase. And they were expensive guitars too---the kind that you weren't really sure you wanted to pick up because you were afraid that by some freak accident, the guitar would implode once you touched it and you'd get stuck footing the bill.

They were nice, but they were missing something. What, I wasn't quite able to put my finger on. But I knew they were missing something. My Seagulls have something that none of the Gibsons did, and they were a tenth of the price. Maybe the strings were old. Maybe my ears aren't cultured enough to appreciate a good guitar. But I was very underwhelmed with every single Gibson I played in the showcase.

Just my two cents.

[JB Jr.]

Gibson makes great guitars IMO.

There is a reason when you see a top artist on TV there is probably a 50% chance it is a Gibson.

Also for vocalists a Gibson any times just seems to accompany the human voice well.

[SkippyX]

There is a reason when you see a top artist on TV there is probably a 50% chance it is a Gibson.

Because Gibson gives them away to top artists?

[katopp]

The bottom line is, that most stores have tens of Yammies to let you pick the best one, probably still a handful of the highe prices guiyars and - at least over here - maybe even two or three Martins/Alvarez/Stonebridge... Maybe even two Lowdens, but - and that if you're lucky - one Gibson. Or none. So, if you want one, you have either to take the one and only or order it unseen and unplayed.
Meh!

[fastblueheeler]

Bull{censored}.

 

 

This is true IMO.

[NealP]

You see top artists playing them because Gibson gives them to them--not true, artists pay.

 

Gibson has quality control issues-- no more than any one else.

 

Gibson guitars sound bad-- does this even need to be addressed?

 

There are better choices than a Gibson--- yeah, ok. Opinion anyone? There are better choices than that crap box you play, too, but that's also a pretty stupid thing to say.

 

We spend so much time talking to the subjective.

 

About the only thing that really IS a true and measurable thing is that there are a host of dealers that no longer carry them because of their requirement policies.

[Hudman]

You see top artists playing them because Gibson gives them to them-- not true, artists pay . Gibson has quality control issues-- no more than any one else. Gibson guitars sound bad-- does this even need to be addressed? There are better choices than a Gibson--- yeah, ok. Opinion anyone? There are better choices than that crap box you play, too, but that's also a pretty stupid thing to say. We spend so much time talking to the subjective. About the only thing that really IS a true and measurable thing is that there are a host of dealers that no longer carry them because of their requirement policies.

 

I agree 100%.

[TN.Frank]

For electric I also like Fender and Fender style guitars. LP's are just too dang heavy. After I got a Fender style guitar I sold my Electra built LP. Only regrets was that my dad bought it for me for my 16th B-Day, not because I liked the guitar all that much.
For an acoustic, if you want a Gibson just get a Masterbilt and put the extra case into something else. Masterbilt Epiphones are pretty decent guitars IMHO. When I'm ready for another acoustic Hohner will get a close look as will Yamaha and maybe Takamine but no way in hell would I pay what Gibson is asking for one of their guitars. Don't care if they are made right down the road in Nashville, I just don't think there's enough wood or work put into em' to warrant the money that they're asking.

[Chordchunker]

You see top artists playing them because Gibson gives them to them-- not true, artists pay . Gibson has quality control issues-- no more than any one else. Gibson guitars sound bad-- does this even need to be addressed? There are better choices than a Gibson--- yeah, ok. Opinion anyone? There are better choices than that crap box you play, too, but that's also a pretty stupid thing to say. We spend so much time talking to the subjective. About the only thing that really IS a true and measurable thing is that there are a host of dealers that no longer carry them because of their requirement policies.

Agreed!!

[NealP]

Holy {censored} you guys. I'm starting to think that you read my posts....

 

Thank you for that.

[baldbloke]

 

You see top artists playing them because Gibson gives them to them-- not true, artists pay . Gibson has quality control issues-- no more than any one else. Gibson guitars sound bad-- does this even need to be addressed? There are better choices than a Gibson--- yeah, ok. Opinion anyone? There are better choices than that crap box you play, too, but that's also a pretty stupid thing to say. We spend so much time talking to the subjective. About the only thing that really IS a true and measurable thing is that there are a host of dealers that no longer carry them because of their requirement policies.

 

 

 

This attitude, I like. This to me seems very reasonable.

 

There ya go, another quote for ya Neal.

[totamus]

Based on my personal experience, Gibson focuses more on marketing than they do the actual instrument. I also would never buy a Gibson without playing it first. They are inconsistent in their sound. Greatly inconsistent.

 

A good Gibson does indeed have a nice tone, but out of 5 guitars, I would be surprised if you found 2 with really good sound. I played a J-45 (a 2010) that was very impressive, best I have heard in a while. I have owned one Gibson Jumbo from the Bozeman plant, and have played many. My opinion is based on guitars I have played.

 

FWIW, Martin makes the occasional clunker, Taylor is the most consistent, and Gibson is the most variable.

[NealP]

 

You see top artists playing them because Gibson gives them to them-- not true, artists pay . Gibson has quality control issues-- no more than any one else. Gibson guitars sound bad-- does this even need to be addressed? There are better choices than a Gibson--- yeah, ok. Opinion anyone? There are better choices than that crap box you play, too, but that's also a pretty stupid thing to say. We spend so much time talking to the subjective. About the only thing that really IS a true and measurable thing is that there are a host of dealers that no longer carry them because of their requirement policies.

 

 

'nother one, I forgot...

 

Gibson's are inconsistent --- mmmmm...ok... that means I played 3 Gibsons that I didn't even like the look of at Guitar Center with {censored}ty strings, and one had a crack because they didn't humidify.

 

C'mon, this whole Gibson thread is filled with personal opinion that means nothing. I've played some Martins that were clunkers, I've played some Taylors that I wouldn't bring home on a bet. I've played some Chinese guitars that were great, I've played some Gibsons I didn't care for.

 

But the one consistent thing about Gibson, Martin, Taylor, is the build quality was excellent. You could tell all these guys knew what they were doing when they built them.

 

Yeah, I've played a lot of new Gibsons at various dealers over the years, as well as used Gibsons. I may not have cared for the particular style, or the sound to my ear, enough to take one home, but that doesn't mean they weren't excellent guitars that someone will love and hold close for a lifetime. That just means I liked "Guitar X" better.

 

I do not own a Gibson guitar, btw. But enough of the "consistency problem". They are no more or less consistent than Martin or Taylor, although an argument could be made for Taylor, as I don't think a human hand touches them, they're built in a robotic assembly plant with one foreman and a hundred CNC machines (kidding).

[lp_junkie]

My take on it is this- I like Gibson and have been using them for 34 years but I wouldn't buy one new at today's pricing....... the used market represents a great value for the money.

This year I picked up an 01 Classic for $1200, an 08 Standard for $1400, a 96 Standard for $1000, and an 07 R9 Murphy aged Reissue for $4500- I have sold all but the 01 Classic to buy a Jeep but I got more than what I paid for the R9 and $1100 each for the Standards.

[seagullplayer77]

You see top artists playing them because Gibson gives them to them-- not true, artists pay . Gibson has quality control issues-- no more than any one else. Gibson guitars sound bad-- does this even need to be addressed? There are better choices than a Gibson--- yeah, ok. Opinion anyone? There are better choices than that crap box you play, too, but that's also a pretty stupid thing to say. We spend so much time talking to the subjective. About the only thing that really IS a true and measurable thing is that there are a host of dealers that no longer carry them because of their requirement policies.

Jeez, dude :poke: Dial it back a notch.

Your post is chocked full of just as much opinion as anyone else's is. Saying that Gibsons sound good isn't a fact. Saying that Gibson's QC is just as good as everyone else's isn't a fact either unless you've got some numbers to back it up.

And the nice thing is, you're entitled to hold those opinions . But I---and everyone else on the forum---is entitled to their opinions as well. Refuting other opinions and stating yours as a matter of fact is just plain rude .

[totamus]

But enough of the "consistency problem". They are no more or less consistent than Martin or Taylor, although an argument could be made for Taylor, as I don't think a human hand touches them, they're built in a robotic assembly plant with one foreman and a hundred CNC machines (kidding).

 

 

Bob Taylor does indeed use many CNCs and is a master of designing automated production lines.

 

You appear to be a fan of Gibson, nothing wrong with that. When you get a good one, they are great guitars. But your arguments fall on deaf ears. I know how many I have played, and know what my impression has been.

 

I also know what Gibson is doing to build their brand and increase market. Here is a link to a current job opening for outreach marketing Marketing Position (thats the guy that gets the free guitars placed in Movies, TV, events and to entertainers). Gibson has done a good business by building their brand and it works for them.

 

I just wish they focused more of their resources on the acoustic guitar line. Buying Garrison and slapping Gibson decals on that production plant's products aren't what I think of as focusing on consistency and quality.