I was chatting to a guitar tech today about Gibson guitars

FelineGuitars

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

Believe me we get to see quite a lot of Gibsons but only a small number compared to what is sold.

A thought I had is this ....surely a repairer or tech will tend to see a lot more of the new guitars that are not brilliant and need some attention and TLC to make them be good players. 

If you buy a new guitar and it's perfect you won't need to take it to a tech, unless you are swapping pickups or other modifications.

By contrast older guitars will come in for servicing if frets are worn out or parts have worn such as tuners etc, or if the guitar has had an accident. Older guitars will maybe have settled down or maybe already be seen by another tech in the past.

Jack_

People just call out the period that comes after the period of the Gibson they own.

Owners of 60's Gibson's will tell you that everything since the late 60's has been pap, owners of 70's Gibson's will tell you everything from 80 onwards is shite, owners of 80's Gibson's will tell you that all 90's onward Gibson's are bad.

It's the sort of unfounded shite that sellers usually spout to try and sell the Gibson they're selling (that is from the best period of Gibson's made, they hasten to add, and they're mad to be selling it)

"Selling a Les Paul from 1987, last of the true LPs made before one armed John took over in the factory."

There are good and bad guitars from all periods, from all makers from all of time.

People do this sort of thing in all walks of life, it's like a confirmation bias, they're trying to further validate the particular thing that they've got or thing they were a part of.

ThePrettyDamned

Anecdotal, but I remember a few years back seeing a custom shop 335 which wasn't finished on the f holes... Just drips of cherry lacquer, some of which had dripped into the body itself. 

There was also cracking around the bridge. 

So you could see the nasty plywood on the edges of the f-holes (not that plywood is a bad material, it's vintage correct and... It's a 335! But plywood is ugly) and the drips, the cracks... 

About 2.5k at the time. 

However, I'd heard Gibson qc has since improved and certainly I've tried some budget models (like the les paul tribute and the faded T) that were excellent (although some better than others). Try before you buy, as it is with any manufacturer I guess. 

imalrightjack

Clearly, you can't compare factory setup today with 20 years ago. So there must be an element of subjectivity here.

However, I have bought three new Gibsons since 2015 which all required significant levels of setup, especially levelling frets, etc. - two of which were guitars costing over £1,000. My 2007 Les Paul Standard (pre-owned), when I took it for the mandatory setup, apparently required less work. But then what work was done since 'birth'?

I'm sure this thread could go on for quite some time but interested in hearing experiences of those who have worked on Les Paul's for over ten years since new.

Freebird

FelineGuitars said:

Believe me we get to see quite a lot of Gibsons but only a small number compared to what is sold.

A thought I had is this ....surely a repairer or tech will tend to see a lot more of the new guitars that are not brilliant and need some attention and TLC to make them be good players. 

If you buy a new guitar and it's perfect you won't need to take it to a tech, unless you are swapping pickups or other modifications.

By contrast older guitars will come in for servicing if frets are worn out or parts have worn such as tuners etc, or if the guitar has had an accident. Older guitars will maybe have settled down or maybe already be seen by another tech in the past.

I agree with you, and I defer to the experts. It would be good to hear from any luthiers who post on here. I don't have any opinions on the new v old Gibson's at all. All I know is that you can pick up the older Gibson's at decent prices, and after what this particular luthier said it may encourage me to do just that.

cruxiform

I speak as I find and don't pay much notice to other people's opinions. My 2016 Gibson 50's LP Tribute, despite the low price tag, is the best guitar I've ever played and I can't put it down. The finish is great and it sounds amazing. I can't compare with other Gibsons but for me it is an awesome guitar. 

GoldenEraGuitars

Jack_ said:

People just call out the period that comes after the period of the Gibson they own.

Owners of 60's Gibson's will tell you that everything since the late 60's has been pap, owners of 70's Gibson's will tell you everything from 80 onwards is shite, owners of 80's Gibson's will tell you that all 90's onward Gibson's are bad.

It's the sort of unfounded shite that sellers usually spout to try and sell the Gibson they're selling (that is from the best period of Gibson's made, they hasten to add, and they're mad to be selling it)

"Selling a Les Paul from 1987, last of the true LPs made before one armed John took over in the factory."

There are good and bad guitars from all periods, from all makers from all of time.

People do this sort of thing in all walks of life, it's like a confirmation bias, they're trying to further validate the particular thing that they've got or thing they were a part of.

Absolutely spot on!

Freebird

lonestar said:

Jack_ said:

People just call out the period that comes after the period of the Gibson they own.

Owners of 60's Gibson's will tell you that everything since the late 60's has been pap, owners of 70's Gibson's will tell you everything from 80 onwards is shite, owners of 80's Gibson's will tell you that all 90's onward Gibson's are bad.

It's the sort of unfounded shite that sellers usually spout to try and sell the Gibson they're selling (that is from the best period of Gibson's made, they hasten to add, and they're mad to be selling it)

"Selling a Les Paul from 1987, last of the true LPs made before one armed John took over in the factory."

There are good and bad guitars from all periods, from all makers from all of time.

People do this sort of thing in all walks of life, it's like a confirmation bias, they're trying to further validate the particular thing that they've got or thing they were a part of.

Absolutely spot on!

But a luthier doesn't own the guitar, so he doesn't have a horse in the race, he's just the repair guy giving his professional opinion.

richardhomer

There's plenty of excess (presumably hide) glue evident around the kerfing on my '64 335. And the bridge post holes were drilled in the wrong place - the dowel filling them is clearly visible through the original finish.

It may have a Brazilian rosewood board - but constructionally it's not even close to an average PRS....

Funkfingers

How does it sound?

Jack_

Freebird said:

lonestar said:

Jack_ said:

People just call out the period that comes after the period of the Gibson they own.

Owners of 60's Gibson's will tell you that everything since the late 60's has been pap, owners of 70's Gibson's will tell you everything from 80 onwards is shite, owners of 80's Gibson's will tell you that all 90's onward Gibson's are bad.

It's the sort of unfounded shite that sellers usually spout to try and sell the Gibson they're selling (that is from the best period of Gibson's made, they hasten to add, and they're mad to be selling it)

"Selling a Les Paul from 1987, last of the true LPs made before one armed John took over in the factory."

There are good and bad guitars from all periods, from all makers from all of time.

People do this sort of thing in all walks of life, it's like a confirmation bias, they're trying to further validate the particular thing that they've got or thing they were a part of.

Absolutely spot on!

But a luthier doesn't own the guitar, so he doesn't have a horse in the race, he's just the repair guy giving his professional opinion.

Bet he'll have owned guitars from the period he rates, during his history.

Freebird

Jack_ said:

Freebird said:

lonestar said:

Jack_ said:

People just call out the period that comes after the period of the Gibson they own.

Owners of 60's Gibson's will tell you that everything since the late 60's has been pap, owners of 70's Gibson's will tell you everything from 80 onwards is shite, owners of 80's Gibson's will tell you that all 90's onward Gibson's are bad.

It's the sort of unfounded shite that sellers usually spout to try and sell the Gibson they're selling (that is from the best period of Gibson's made, they hasten to add, and they're mad to be selling it)

"Selling a Les Paul from 1987, last of the true LPs made before one armed John took over in the factory."

There are good and bad guitars from all periods, from all makers from all of time.

People do this sort of thing in all walks of life, it's like a confirmation bias, they're trying to further validate the particular thing that they've got or thing they were a part of.

Absolutely spot on!

But a luthier doesn't own the guitar, so he doesn't have a horse in the race, he's just the repair guy giving his professional opinion.

Bet he'll have owned guitars from the period he rates, during his history.

He will have also played every guitar that has been through his workshop, at it's optimal setting (not that I am defending the luthiers judgement) 

usedtobe

cruxiform said:

I speak as I find and don't pay much notice to other people's opinions. My 2016 Gibson 50's LP Tribute, despite the low price tag, is the best guitar I've ever played and I can't put it down. The finish is great and it sounds amazing. I can't compare with other Gibsons but for me it is an awesome guitar. 

I feel the same about my 2016 60s tribute T. I took it to show my mate who's been playing, Fettling and occasionally building guitars for over 40 years. He's got a load of really good guitars, including a 25/50 les paul, 335, another Gibson semi, Clapton strat, various Martin acoustics a Taylor, and a j200. He thought it was a lovely guitar, and a total steal, for the money. 

richardhomer

Funkfingers said:

How does it sound?

Fantastic....

sw67

My 94 studio is a great guitar. I might be wrong but the 94 model was highly regarded. My 2015 Gibson is fine now but was sent for repair within a week due to cutting out - cant understand why it got through QC but its ok now and plays well.

Cabicular

I remember the late 80s where they were no good and it was only the 60s that were any cop
then the 90s the 70s ones are the ones to go for
and so on

gordiji

melod said:

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.

So true. More so 70's 80's

cruxiform

usedtobe said:

cruxiform said:

I speak as I find and don't pay much notice to other people's opinions. My 2016 Gibson 50's LP Tribute, despite the low price tag, is the best guitar I've ever played and I can't put it down. The finish is great and it sounds amazing. I can't compare with other Gibsons but for me it is an awesome guitar. 

I feel the same about my 2016 60s tribute T. I took it to show my mate who's been playing, Fettling and occasionally building guitars for over 40 years. He's got a load of really good guitars, including a 25/50 les paul, 335, another Gibson semi, Clapton strat, various Martin acoustics a Taylor, and a j200. He thought it was a lovely guitar, and a total steal, for the money. 

Great to hear that mate. 

nick79

I've got a 2016 Studio Faded, so pretty much the cheapest Les Paul. It's fantastic. 
I usually have to tweak my guitars a little when i bring them home but this one needed nothing. Action, intonation, even the nut, all spot on. 
 I've shown it to a couple of friends of mine that have been around the block a bit and they both agree that it's bang on.

I'm tempted to get another one, maybe the 50's Tribute.

jeztone2

As much as I really enjoyed my 2001 SG standard. My current 2017 Les Paul Classic runs rings around it for build quality, fit & finish etc.

Its impossible to gauge, as Gibson seem to have always employed Stevie Wonder in final QC.

I think the inconsistency is just in their brand DNA. Whereas I've never owned a Yamaha that didn't impress me.