I was chatting to a guitar tech today about Gibson guitars

Freebird

And he said the modern Les Paul's are "overpriced rubbish", and the 80's & 90’s produced some of the best models he has worked on.

I was quite taken aback, as I thought the new plekked stuff was supposed to be good?

This is not meant to be a Gibson bashing thread, I'm just sharing what a very experienced luthier who is working at the coalface had to say.

Elwood

Did he have a pair of nostalgia safety goggles on?

Did he say what is better than in the older models. Was it just mojo 

I'm not bashing either. Just interested with specifically what is better in older ones?

Moloch

I have owned many Les Pauls, including four of varying models dated from between 1987 and 1999, as well as ones from 2006 to 2015. That luthier is more or less correct. There is a truly massive class gap between the older ones that I've owned and the more recent ones.

That's not to say that there are no good recent ones. Far from it. However, the average standard from the mid-'80s to 2000 was significantly better.

fftc

Do you think he sees every new Gibson or just the shit ones that need fettled?

Freebird

Elwood said:

Did he have a pair of nostalgia safety goggles on?

Did he say what is better than in the older models. Was it just mojo 

I'm not bashing either. Just interested with specifically what is better in older ones?

Craftsmanship, materials, just all around better instruments. He's been in the game for a long time, and is a very busy luthier.

Freebird

Darryl_Morris said:

I have owned many Les Pauls, including four of varying models dated from between 1987 and 1999, as well as ones from 2006 to 2015. That luthier is more or less correct. There is a truly massive class gap between the older ones that I've owned and the more recent ones.

That's not to say that there are no good recent ones. Far from it. However, the average standard from the mid-'80s to 2000 was significantly better.

I may start collecting these, as they can still be found at very reasonable prices.

not_the_dj

Click the cog icon in your first post and move this to the guitars discussion section. You've posted it in the classifieds. 


Edit: thanks. 

Elwood

Which materials, better how?

What's lacking in the more modern craftsmanship? 

usedtobe

What did he say about SGs?

Freebird

Elwood said:

Which materials, better how?

What's lacking in the more modern craftsmanship? 

I can't answer this as I'm not in the guitar maintaince game, but I would assume an experienced guitar tech who takes these things apart on a daily basis, and gets them playing to the best of their ability would know what he is on about.

What's lacking in the more modern craftsmanship? Good question. Are machines better? How skilled are the current workforce? Lot's of variables at play here.

Regarding materials, it's the first place you would look if you need to cut costs?

riscado

generalizations on the other hand are still as good as they were back in the 80s or 90s...

melod

I think we need to add a bit of the right prospect here.

I do own a mid 90s les Paul standard and it is a nice guitar (and yes with broken and repaired headstock ). 

But on the other hand people need to take into account a few things that maybe are not so clear to people not old enough in the 80s 90s.

At the time, there were basically two lines, the studio and the standard. I was not born in the U.K. But the sight of any les Paul was an event and I remember I used to press my face against the window shop and not even dream of asking to try it. My dad had to get a bank loan to afford it. Buying a standard was pretty much the equivalent of 3-4K today when comparing to the basic salary.

fast forward in 2017, I have lost track of how many Les Paul lines are out there but they are as easily found as anything and they surely cost much less on average to start with. I am pretty sure 3-4K still gets you a nice les Paul.

of course, we all want to have he story of the old lady who discovered a 30 yo guitar in the attic and sold it to us for peanuts etc

just my 2 cents

Funkfingers

If the wood stocks are nothing special, all of the later manufacturing processes count for little.

Elwood

Freebird said:

Elwood said:

Which materials, better how?

What's lacking in the more modern craftsmanship? 

I can't answer this as I'm not in the guitar maintaince game, but I would assume an experienced guitar tech who takes these things apart on a daily basis, and gets them playing to the best of their ability would know what he is on about.

What's lacking in the more modern craftsmanship? Good question. Are machines better? How skilled are the current workforce? Lot's of variables at play here.

It's a shame he didn't go into detail and highlight what's good   

Other experienced people have said that the current crop of 16-17 guitars the QC, setup etc is the best it's been.

Sassafras

It's the robo-tuners. The modern one's are rubbish.

Teyeplayer

Not so long ago I was chatting to a gentleman who is responsible for a uk guitar brand (make your own assumptions, I'm not going to name drop). There was no mileage in Gibson bashing and I was in his home music room flitting between a 60s Gibson, several Hofners and so on that he owns and loves.

He's a friend of a friend and we weren't talking business or promotional stuff, so there was no agenda or sales bull. Anyway, said gentleman was extremely concerned by the quality of current Gibsons and the latest in a line of jobs sent to him by a particular store (insert leading generic chain guitar store) send him a Les Paul that had had its fretboard literally peel from the neck. It had two dabs of glue under it. He loves that brand, he was concerned by yet another job coming into his workshop on a new unsold Gibson that showed a level of work you wouldn't accept from any brand or country.

For myself: I own a 90s les Paul special (so an entry level from that era) and won't pretend to imagine that every 90s les Paul is great, because I've played plenty that are not (and I've owned other gibsons) -but it is a damn good guitar and I am yet to pick up a 2005-onwards Gibson that has felt like it warranted the cost on the label. 

I dont think there weren't dogs in the era you mention, I just get the feeling from what I've been told by people I respect and the guitars I've picked up, that there are a lot more dogs getting through now.

sev112

Id be interested in how many of any particular guitars a nominal guitar tech "sees" on a regular basis

i find it very hard to believe that the nominal tech sees sufficient to be able to make a valid judgment, as opposed to a perception

Sassafras

sev112 said:

Id be interested in how many of any particular guitars a nominal guitar tech "sees" on a regular basis

i find it very hard to believe that the nominal tech sees sufficient to be able to make a valid judgment, as opposed to a perception

If he's a guitar tech, I should imagine he sees quite a few.

underdog

Freebird said:

And he said the modern Les Paul's are overpriced rubbish, and the 80's & 90’s produced some of the best models he has worked on.

I was quite taken aback, as I thought the new plekked stuff was supposed to be good?

This is not meant to be a Gibson bashing thread, I'm just sharing what a very experienced luthier who is working at the coalface had to say.

I would like to call balls on that one. I'd say that Gibson's QC is as good as its been in the last 20 years, but still, like all years, you can find a great one and a not so great one but the terrible ones are a lot thinner on the ground than they were in the 90s

Freebird

fftc said:

Do you think he sees every new Gibson or just the shit ones that need fettled?

I may be an anomaly, but all the guitars I buy get a pro setup, especially the new ones. I wish I could do the work myself, but I can't complain as they all come back playing better.

Funkfingers

The obvious thing to do is try before you buy. It does not matter good a product "should" be. We have to work with how they actually are.