I was chatting to a guitar tech today about Gibson guitars

Sporky

Funkfingers said:

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

Well made from average woods will be a better sounding and playing instrument than one sloppily made from the finest timbers available to man.

Moloch

melod said:

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.

That's incorrect. There were several Gibson lines besides those, even in the early '90s (and probably before, but that's when I started playing). The main three Les Paul lines were Studio, Standard and Custom. In addition there was the less frequently seen Classic and the Custom Plus. There were also the '67 reissue Flying Vs and the '76 reissue Explorers (both available pretty much everywhere) and the Firebird.

Also, in this country seeing these in a store was categorically not an event. In my local store the staff referred to them (and Fenders) as 'Wallpaper guitars', in that there was little or no profit in them, but it was essentially obligatory to be carrying at least a few if you wanted to be taken seriously as a guitar store.

For myself, I'd owned 2000s era Gibsons and I wouldn't call any of them bad guitars. They just aren't quite as good as my '90s ones, of which I still own three of the four (and would have the fourth too, but sold it because someone played it, fell in love and offered substantially more than I paid for it).

mellowsun

@melod is spot on. I started playing in the 80s and you just didn't see many Les Paul's in guitar shops. They were a lot more expensive than US Strats and it was something you dreamed of.

Now shops have walls of them. They must churn out far more so quality will vary

Sporky

mellowsun said:

They must churn out far more so quality will vary

Most evidence suggests that making more of a thing results in greater consistency. That's pretty much the point of mass production.

Gibson may, however, be an exception to yet another rule...

Whitecat

If you scour forums, early 90s Gibbos being killer is a common refrain. 

Suspect it makes sense - Henry J had only (comparatively) recently rescued the company and they were probably just hitting pride and profitability in those years. It would be a few more before some bean counters waded in with questions about where corners could be cut. 

Jack_

Darryl_Morris said:

melod said:

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.

That's incorrect. There were several Gibson lines besides those, even in the early '90s (and probably before, but that's when I started playing). The main three Les Paul lines were Studio, Standard and Custom. In addition there was the less frequently seen Classic and the Custom Plus. There were also the '67 reissue Flying Vs and the '76 reissue Explorers (both available pretty much everywhere) and the Firebird.

Also, in this country seeing these in a store was categorically not an event. In my local store the staff referred to them (and Fenders) as 'Wallpaper guitars', in that there was little or no profit in them, but it was essentially obligatory to be carrying at least a few if you wanted to be taken seriously as a guitar store.

For myself, I'd owned 2000s era Gibsons and I wouldn't call any of them bad guitars. They just aren't quite as good as my '90s ones, of which I still own three of the four (and would have the fourth too, but sold it because someone played it, fell in love and offered substantially more than I paid for it).

But you are currently trying to sell them?

Moloch

Nope. Well, I wouldn't be averse to selling the '80s Studio, but the '94 Studio that I've owned since new and the '99 Custom that I got recently are certain stayers.

DulcetJones

I bought a new 2016 tribute LP about 6 months ago, not overpriced and better quality than the mid 70's gold top I used to have in my opinion.  Time will tell but that's my experience.  The gold top was a good guitar but had issues the new one doesn't have.

professorben

Could it be that he's comparing 80's guitars with modern guitars, the 80's ones being set up several times in that time, fettled etc etc. 

Stands to to reason they would be nicer.

Moe_Zambeek

I tried a CS Firebird yesterday that was a total heap of shite, with the shitty maestro Gibson use these days that has completely the wrong angle for the spring. That was 4K+. I did like the aged knobs though. 

Mate is looking for a CS 58 335 and he can't find one that isn't a crock.

Conversely, some of the best SGs I've tried recently were 2014 and 2016 respectively, though double conversely I bought one of the SG Les Paul tributes when they came out (2015?) that could not be made viable and was returned, and a Captain Kirk SG that was just completely dead and wouldn't stay in tune, also returned.

I've completely given up on Gibson.

dindude

There's a lot of Gibson defenders on here. Personally Gibson driven me nuts. I love that you get a real finish on a Gibson, rather than a dipped in glass shiny poly thing, I love the fact that most of their pickups don't need swooping out immidiealty, and they do have a certain vibe/sound.

But, my goodness there's some crap out there, the fret ends on a few of the lower end ones I've looked at recently would see the likes of Epiphone or Squier being ripped to shreds, yet it's ok on a Gibson. 

The Yamaha SA2200 I picked up (despite the dipped in glass finish) was hugely better built than the 335 I also picked up, which cost 2 x the price and sounded dead.

The recent Gibson's I've owned (ive owned maybe 5 built between 2011 and 2016) I've all let go as they just didn't seem robust, couldn't hold their tuning etc.

I'm sure there's some corkers out there, but I don't even consider Gibson these days, even when looking for "that" type of guitar.

No idea how they were in the 80's, just my opinion now.

underdog

I've owned quite a few Gibson guitars over the years, most of them bought blind, the 3 own now we're bought blind. Two of them are 2013 models and one the dreaded 2015, and they're all good, no finish faults, no sharp frets nothing, they all are cosmetically perfect as well as structurally.

I must be really good at buying blind?

impmann

Subjective rubbish.

All the mid 90s Studios I've played were good but too fucking heavy. And the pickups are dreadful - ceramic magnets with too many winds making them over middly and unusable for anything other than RAWK or metal. If that's your bag then great but it's not that brilliant for covering a variety of musical styles, which a LP can normally.

Its very 'cool' to bash Gibson at the moment. FWIW, my LP dates from 2010 and it's the best I've owned - for me. I've had a few mid 90s LPs and none stuck around, including a three pickup Custom.  All three of my Gibsons are post 2000 - and they sound fine to me and play great.

Sassafras

underdog said:

I've owned quite a few Gibson guitars over the years, most of them bought blind, the 3 own now we're bought blind. Two of them are 2013 models and one the dreaded 2015, and they're all good, no finish faults, no sharp frets nothing, they all are cosmetically perfect as well as structurally.

I must be really good at buying blind?

It compensates for your deafness.
  

Jock68

I have owned a few Gibsons and they seemed good to me, I then took a chance and bought a Japanese Bacchus Classic and it was far better and cheaper than the Gibson's I had.    So I sold the one of the Gibson Customs I had and bought a Japanese Momose MLS1 and it is just amazing. Specification is streets ahead of Gibson, Honduras mahogany one piece back and neck and Madagascar rosewood neck and a beautiful flamed top.   Finish was perfect, would not go back to Gibson, I believe that the Japanese luthiers know how to make good copies of real Gibson Les Paul 59s and they cost less than half the price. 

Sporky

professorben said:

Could it be that he's comparing 80's guitars with modern guitars, the 80's ones being set up several times in that time, fettled etc etc. 

Stands to to reason they would be nicer.

Aye - I was going to suggest survivor bias. The crap ones get weeded out by time and natural wastage.

usedtobe

underdog said:

I've owned quite a few Gibson guitars over the years, most of them bought blind, the 3 own now we're bought blind. Two of them are 2013 models and one the dreaded 2015, and they're all good, no finish faults, no sharp frets nothing, they all are cosmetically perfect as well as structurally.

I must be really good at buying blind?

3 out of 4, I've bought blind. All 4 were/are fine. I should do the lotto!

Moloch

impmann said:

Subjective rubbish.

All the mid 90s Studios I've played were good but too fucking heavy. And the pickups are dreadful - ceramic magnets

Unless you were playing Studio Lites (and from the weight complaint, you clearly weren't), the pickups were 498T and 490R with alnico magnets.

sunshinewelly

I bought a new dg 335 and had to send it back to Gibson  as the fretboard was scratched to buggery. To be fair when it came back to me they had done a brilliant job 

Winny_Pooh

Gibson's focus is a unit shifter, not guitar builder. Just look at their treatment of dealers. 
There are many of them with outstanding tone but the attention to build quality from a supposed "custom shop" is occasionally jarring so buying sight unseen is a lottery.

If I were to buy a 335 I'd get a high end Tokai. 
I've played one that was every bit as good as a friend's 65'

Yamaha's just feel heavy and dead to me.