Members Flintc Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 not really. kodak couldn't/didn't/wouldn't/whatever keep up with changes in the photography business - from amateurs to professionals. digital camera technology has grown to the point most amateurs just use the camera in their phone instead of shelling out a couple hundred bucks for a point and shoot; and every single professional photographer i know (some VERY well known) went all digital as well. failing to keep up with technology is what did kodak in.I pretty much agree with this, but not exactly as implied. Cameras per se were not Kodak's business. Kodak's top technical people were chemists, because Kodak was basically in the business of inventing, developing, and marketing ever-superior film emulsions. I know they made enormous efforts to develop film emultions that would work even in the cold and vacuum of space, for use in spy satellites. Their library of patents, doubtless hundreds of thousands of them, mostly dealt with chemistry, film substrates, and emulsions. Even today, Kodak is far and away in the lead, in the field of film and film emulsion technology. It's not that they didn't keep up, by any means. Nor is it the case that Kodak was unaware of what was happening in the world of photography - they could see that the future was digital and electronic. But if you're tied to the tracks, knowing a train is coming isn't very helpful. A camera consists of a box, a lens, and a medium to capture an image. Kodak wasn't really in the box or lens business; this was farmed out or purchased from those who DID specialize in boxes and lenses. Unfortunately, buying all three components from others, and then hiring someone to assemble them and yet others to support them, isn't a viable business model. Kodak's "value added" was the film only - and film went away. So Kodak is joining the companies who made the world's very best cathode ray tubes, for example. Kodak's specialty died a natural death. "Keeping up" with digital photography would have required being in a different field to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members elsupermanny14 Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 That would be me. For most of those years I worked for a well known family owned/ builder who truly delivered on the promise. Then we were bought out by a typical corporate monster who practiced and took full advantage of all of the Bush era insanity which is what eventually led me to hate that company and in the end to retire from it. And you are correct. I hate Gibson for the same reason I grew to hate that company. The difference between you and I is that I found that corporations philosophy of disrespect for the dignity of others repulsive and took steps to end that relationship whereas you don't seem to have those same values. In fact, in your own writings you echo the same attitudes of those self entitled Bush people you are now condemning. You seem to relish in the thought that you are somehow better than others because you have it and they don't.With that I'm going to sign off. I had to end our last conversation with a barf and if I continue I'll have to go to the kitchen and get something in my stomach in order to avoid dry heaves. Yeah you totally figured me out man. So while you label me a Bush fan boy for believing in free markets, I hope you enjoy your 15% capital gains tax. All I saw was the beginning of heavy year-over-year tuition increase from the Bush era, but yeah, but I'm the fan boy right? And yeah, I am pretty damn proud of where I am in life. Don't barf too much bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jhorne Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Just looking at them doesn't show any real difference. Both were flame maple carved tops. I hope you're kidding. The visual difference between the two guitars is like night and day. The Supreme has a flamed maple top and back, 7 ply binding on the top, 3 ply binding on the back, ebony fretboard, gold coated frets, split block inlays, mother of pearl globe inlay on the headstock, 5 ply headstock binding, gold engraved truss rod cover, and I'm sure there is more I'm missing. A Supreme is about as bad a Gibson model to compare other Les Pauls to if you're going to make some point about it being the same, just more much more expensive. The Supreme is fairly unique in construction and appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rock-lobster Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Local dealers complained that in order to carry the Gibson-label Les Paul, Gibson forced them to buy somewhere on the order of $20,000 worth of inventory little of which had any chance of selling anytime soon. Not one local dealer (out of 4 or 5 around here) that used to carry Gibson, does so anymore. They all carry Fender. And Ibanez, and Samick. I've heard this from a bunch of smaller stores too. Sucks too, it certainly can't help Gibson that their guitars mostly go to stores like GC where there's no set up work or fret dress when you're trying it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tone Deaf Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Whether you like Gibson guitars or not, I have a hard time understanding how a guitarist can't at least appreciate their place in the history of the instrument and the history of rock music and not be somewhat saddened by recent events (both internally and externally) and what may ultimately be the demise of one of the companies that started it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STRANDMAN Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Yeah you totally figured me out man. So while you label me a Bush fan boy for believing in free markets, I hope you enjoy your 15% capital gains tax. All I saw was the beginning of heavy year-over-year tuition increase from the Bush era, but yeah, but I'm the fan boy right? And yeah, I am pretty damn proud of where I am in life. Don't barf too much bro. Look, this country is split almost 50/50 on this stuff. That's just the way it is. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is those who have looking down on those who have not and those who don't serve (like Bushes disgraceful AWOL performance during his National Guard time) claiming those of us who disagree with him are unpatriotic. If todays College age Bush style policy supporters love patriotism so much perhaps they should put their life where their mouth is, join the armed forces, and earn their education the same way I did. I think it would be a good time to let this one go. I'm surprised we haven't been shut down for talking politics by now anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members elsupermanny14 Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Look, this country is split almost 50/50 on this stuff. That's just the way it is. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is those who have looking down on those who have not and those who don't serve (like Bushes pathetic AWOL performance during his National Guard time) claiming those of us who disagree with him are unpatriotic. If todays College age Bush style policy supporters love patriotism so much perhaps they should put their life where their mouth is, join the armed forces, and earn their education the same way I did. You can't throw out something we both agree on! That defeats the whole purpose of arguing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Help!I'maRock! Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 You can't throw out something we both agree on! That defeats the whole purpose of arguing! yes he can. it keeps the argument going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Steadfastly Posted January 22, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 I paid $3800 for my R9 VOS, show me something as good and that has as much character as that for $1900 or less brand new? I don't agree with what Gibson are currently doing, but they have produced some outstanding guitars.You can get a custom guitar, exactly the way you want it at Warmoth for less than $1900.00 as an example. Here's a couple more fantastic guitars for just over $1000.00 that I would much rather have than the R9.Godin XTSA for right around $1000.00 or the LXT-SA for $1500.00 ICON II or III for under $1500.00. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Steadfastly Posted January 22, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Whether you like Gibson guitars or not, I have a hard time understanding how a guitarist can't at least appreciate their place in the history of the instrument and the history of rock music and not be somewhat saddened by recent events (both internally and externally) and what may ultimately be the demise of one of the companies that started it all. Personally, I have no problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Steadfastly Posted January 22, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Here's the info on J&D:That blurb says nothing about actual Gibsons being produced there. With Epiphone being built in the Qing Dao factory, it's likely the only thing being produced in this factory are Maestro or Baldwin guitars. I believe Gibson's Kramer branded instruments are still built in Korea. On his own forum, HJ said: Thanks for the info Deatbeat. I would say you are misnamed and not a deatbeat at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STRANDMAN Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 misposted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Deadbeat Son Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Thanks for the info Deatbeat. I would say you are misnamed and not a deatbeat at all. I saw you posted the same info as I was typing that reply. I just think it's poor form to accuse a company [not just Gibson] of passing off foreign produced instruments as domestic without any proof to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STRANDMAN Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 You can't throw out something we both agree on! That defeats the whole purpose of arguing! Sorry about that. Politics is a funny thing. Sometimes philosophies converge and you wind up wondering, "what the hell was that all about?" Enjoy your life man. It sounds like you're having a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wayne2 Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Gibsons are fine. I lean towards the styling of Fender, but I picked up and played some of the fancier Les Pauls at the store and really liked them. Might buy one someday when I have more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members aenemated Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 I pretty much agree with this, but not exactly as implied. Cameras per se were not Kodak's business. Kodak's top technical people were chemists, because Kodak was basically in the business of inventing, developing, and marketing ever-superior film emulsions. I know they made enormous efforts to develop film emultions that would work even in the cold and vacuum of space, for use in spy satellites. Their library of patents, doubtless hundreds of thousands of them, mostly dealt with chemistry, film substrates, and emulsions.Even today, Kodak is far and away in the lead, in the field of film and film emulsion technology. It's not that they didn't keep up, by any means. Nor is it the case that Kodak was unaware of what was happening in the world of photography - they could see that the future was digital and electronic. But if you're tied to the tracks, knowing a train is coming isn't very helpful. A camera consists of a box, a lens, and a medium to capture an image. Kodak wasn't really in the box or lens business; this was farmed out or purchased from those who DID specialize in boxes and lenses. Unfortunately, buying all three components from others, and then hiring someone to assemble them and yet others to support them, isn't a viable business model. Kodak's "value added" was the film only - and film went away. So Kodak is joining the companies who made the world's very best cathode ray tubes, for example. Kodak's specialty died a natural death. "Keeping up" with digital photography would have required being in a different field to begin with. thanks for the info, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nicholai Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Whether you like Gibson guitars or not, I have a hard time understanding how a guitarist can't at least appreciate their place in the history of the instrument and the history of rock music and not be somewhat saddened by recent events (both internally and externally) and what may ultimately be the demise of one of the companies that started it all. I appreciate Seth Lover and Charlie Christian (yes I know he didn't make the pup), and I don't believe Gibson can die, only get better. Too big to fail indeed, and everyone forgets, even Henry says it, Modern Gibson guitars was founded in 1984. They've died before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Guitar_Dan Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 You can get a custom guitar, exactly the way you want it at Warmoth for less than $1900.00 as an example. Here's a couple more fantastic guitars for just over $1000.00 that I would much rather have than the R9. Godin XTSA for right around $1000.00 or the LXT-SA for $1500.00 ICON II or III for under $1500.00. Well I guess thats why we are all born different, if thats what you'd rather have over a R9 Les Paul, full credit to you. You might have matched on quality, but nothing else, history, resale value, iconic it has all over a Godin. When I'm an old man and my grandkids want to see my guitars, opening a case to Les Paul is gonna be far more satisfying than showing them a parts o guitar or a Godin. This is one guitar I'll keep for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nicholai Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Well I guess thats why we are all born different, if thats what you'd rather have over a R9 Les Paul, full credit to you. You might have matched on quality, but nothing else, history, resale value, iconic it has all over a Godin. When I'm an old man and my grandkids want to see my guitars, opening a case to Les Paul is gonna be far more satisfying than showing them a parts o guitar or a Godin. This is one guitar I'll keep for life. Can't really argue the historic value or grandkid thing, I'd still take a godin with a midi pup though. Now, if LP necks were skinny....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 59refin Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 I hate the position that Gibson is in now in the marketplace. If they just keep cranking out the old models they're criticized for resting on their laurels and not trying to innovate. OTOH, the biggest sh**storm in recent memory is the Firebird X. Kinda no win, don'tcha think? Maybe my problem is that I live too close to a Gibson 5 star dealer. While the latest faded SG or whatever may not knock you out, (and the majority of Gibsons that GC chooses to put on it's walls don't for me) pick up something like an L-5, a '59 ES-335 RI or one of the SJ's Montana is putting out. Sure these are not cheap guitars, but to say Gibson doesn't make quality instruments anymore is ridiculous. Haters gotta hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pine Apple Slim Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Whether you like Gibson guitars or not, I have a hard time understanding how a guitarist can't at least appreciate their place in the history of the instrument and the history of rock music and not be somewhat saddened by recent events (both internally and externally) and what may ultimately be the demise of one of the companies that started it all. I am indeed sad. I've owned a 1951 ES125, & a 1961 SG/LP. I appreciate the legacy as much as anyone, a lot more than some do. Offer me a Gibson or a Fender and If I can play the Gibson to make sure is ok, I'll take the Gibson. Make me choose without playing them, I'll take the safe bet and go with a Fender, they are a whole lot harder to screw up. Building a proper Gibson guitar is more difficult operation that building a good Strat or Tele.I currently own a 2004 RB3 Mastertone banjo. A high point in craftsmanship coming out of the Nashville acoustic shop IMO. This one is exactly as it should be. But, my experiences in purchasing this banjo is a major factor in my attitude. I saw 1st hand how HJ treated his dealers and his best employees in the process of buying that banjo.No one is sadder than me of the current state of affairs. It started downhill with the move from Kalamazoo, but that was overcome with the purchase of Flatiron in Montana, and the hiring of some good people in Nashville. But in spite of some excellent products in certain lines now and again, you never know what your gonna get from day to day, instrument to instrument. Mainly because a good manger wont stay with Henry long, eveidently hes just too big of an ass.I've have grown to dislike the current management to the point I will not buy a new Gibson product. I have decided to refuse to put money in the current owners pocket. If I run across a used one that speaks to me fine, HJs already made his margin on that one whether I own it or not.I'm not worried about the name "Gibson" disappearing. IMO the best thing that could happen is for HJ to finally bore of the guitar business and sell it, or keep screwing around until hes goes broke, and has to sell it. The name is too legendary, no way its gonna disappear for long. Hell I'd rather Yamaha own it than Henry, even if they decide to make em in China. At least Yamaha knows how to make a consistently good product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Musicscotty Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 You can get a custom guitar, exactly the way you want it at Warmoth for less than $1900.00 as an example. Here's a couple more fantastic guitars for just over $1000.00 that I would much rather have than the R9. Godin XTSA for right around $1000.00 or the LXT-SA for $1500.00 ICON II or III for under $1500.00. One day you'll wonder what the hell you were thinking when you made that post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rock-lobster Posted January 22, 2012 Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 One day you'll wonder what the hell you were thinking when you made that post What, you think one day it's just going to dawn on him that Les Pauls are amazing? He was probably thinking that Gibson makes a decent guitar at an absurd price when he made that post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Steadfastly Posted January 22, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 Well I guess thats why we are all born different, if thats what you'd rather have over a R9 Les Paul, full credit to you. You might have matched on quality, but nothing else, history, resale value, iconic it has all over a Godin. When I'm an old man and my grandkids want to see my guitars, opening a case to Les Paul is gonna be far more satisfying than showing them a parts o guitar or a Godin. This is one guitar I'll keep for life. Then again, they might say: "Granddaddy, why didn't you even buy a Godin? They have the same quality or better and were far and away the better guitar." They may not, but being of a different generation, they may. Regards, Steadfastly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Steadfastly Posted January 22, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 22, 2012 What, you think one day it's just going to dawn on him that Les Pauls are amazing? Some Les Pauls are amazing. Fewer of them these days are being made by Gibson. Both of these are well known in the guitar world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.