So, that whole thing about Gibson quality control...

ICBM

MagicPigDetective said:

So what happened with Gibson going bust? 

They have, effectively - they've declared 'Chapter 11' bankruptcy protection under US law. They're in negotiations to restructure the company and their debt.

meltedbuzzbox

Based on the number of comments about shoddy working conditions and poor standards I hope none of you aspire to owning a range Rover. 

Bigsby

Chalky said:

chrisj1602 said:

I've owned 7 Gibsons, never had any issues (except the doubling of prices)

I used to own a couple of dozen Gibsons, now down to a dozen or so. One has a dodgy tuner but thats the only issue.

But I don't think our stories fit the worldview of those who love to think Gibson QC is awful so we'll just be ignored

AFAIK, Gibson USA makes something in the region of 150,000 guitars per year. It should be entirely feasible to buy a dozen Gibsons in one year and all of them be fine, even with poor QC. If they were all bad, they'd go out of business in a matter of months. Clearly, most of them are going to be acceptable, in QC terms. Thus it's not a case of 'ignoring' people who own issue-free Gibsons, just that their observations aren't particularly relevant - it merely tells us that Gibson do indeed make some good quality guitars (and no doubt they're in the majority of their output).

The issue is with the percentage that have defects, but are passing through QC - something none of us can judge with any accuracy. However, you can get an impression of how the situation is by monitoring threads like this on non-brand specific guitar forums, like this one. How often are Gibson QC issues raised in comparison with brands with similar output figures, such as Fender, PRS or Ibanez? 

ICBM

Bigsby said:

The issue is with the percentage that have defects, but are passing through QC - something none of us can judge with any accuracy.

That, and also the seriousness of some of the defects. I have seen a couple of PRSs with very minor cosmetic issues, but I've never seen one with anything that affects the basic playability or functionality of the guitar like I have with Gibson. With Fender, a few but very rare.

The percentages are important, as you say - if 10% are sub-standard, that means a full 90% of one-Gibson owners won't see what the fuss is all about, and on average you'd have to play ten of them before you found a bad one... but 10% would be a *huge* fault rate for any modern manufactured product. (I have no idea what the fault rate is by the way.)

Chalky

Bigsby said:

Chalky said:

chrisj1602 said:

I've owned 7 Gibsons, never had any issues (except the doubling of prices)

I used to own a couple of dozen Gibsons, now down to a dozen or so. One has a dodgy tuner but thats the only issue.

But I don't think our stories fit the worldview of those who love to think Gibson QC is awful so we'll just be ignored

AFAIK, Gibson USA makes something in the region of 150,000 guitars per year. It should be entirely feasible to buy a dozen Gibsons in one year and all of them be fine, even with poor QC. If they were all bad, they'd go out of business in a matter of months. Clearly, most of them are going to be acceptable, in QC terms. Thus it's not a case of 'ignoring' people who own issue-free Gibsons, just that their observations aren't particularly relevant - it merely tells us that Gibson do indeed make some good quality guitars (and no doubt they're in the majority of their output).

The issue is with the percentage that have defects, but are passing through QC - something none of us can judge with any accuracy. However, you can get an impression of how the situation is by monitoring threads like this on non-brand specific guitar forums, like this one. How often are Gibson QC issues raised in comparison with brands with similar output figures, such as Fender, PRS or Ibanez? 

You believe what you read on the internet?!  You think threads like this only contain true factual statements reported by unbiased folks who somehow magically balance between themselves and their independent reports to give an accurate and complete summation report across all Gibson guitar output?!

WezV

that Is as ridiculously biased as someone claiming all Gibson’s are shit.

most of the comments, positive and negative, come from people who spent a fair chunk of money on Gibson’s they wanted to own.  I don’t see the bias

and yes, if you ignore extreme views  you can use online comments as a representative sample of experiences.  

thegummy

Chalky said:

Bigsby said:

Chalky said:

chrisj1602 said:

I've owned 7 Gibsons, never had any issues (except the doubling of prices)

I used to own a couple of dozen Gibsons, now down to a dozen or so. One has a dodgy tuner but thats the only issue.

But I don't think our stories fit the worldview of those who love to think Gibson QC is awful so we'll just be ignored

AFAIK, Gibson USA makes something in the region of 150,000 guitars per year. It should be entirely feasible to buy a dozen Gibsons in one year and all of them be fine, even with poor QC. If they were all bad, they'd go out of business in a matter of months. Clearly, most of them are going to be acceptable, in QC terms. Thus it's not a case of 'ignoring' people who own issue-free Gibsons, just that their observations aren't particularly relevant - it merely tells us that Gibson do indeed make some good quality guitars (and no doubt they're in the majority of their output).

The issue is with the percentage that have defects, but are passing through QC - something none of us can judge with any accuracy. However, you can get an impression of how the situation is by monitoring threads like this on non-brand specific guitar forums, like this one. How often are Gibson QC issues raised in comparison with brands with similar output figures, such as Fender, PRS or Ibanez? 

You believe what you read on the internet?!  You think threads like this only contain true factual statements reported by unbiased folks who somehow magically balance between themselves and their independent reports to give an accurate and complete summation report across all Gibson guitar output?!

I thought the use of the term "worldview" was a bit odd but wasn't going to comment on it. But then you suggest you think people are lying about having issues with guitars.

Do you think there's some kind of conspiracy theory against Gibson?

Bigsby

Chalky said:

You believe what you read on the internet?!  You think threads like this only contain true factual statements reported by unbiased folks who somehow magically balance between themselves and their independent reports to give an accurate and complete summation report across all Gibson guitar output?!

1] The internet is a big place, it might be helpful if you were more specific! Certainly there are things I read on the internet that I'm inclined to trust and believe, such as the research paper I was reading earlier, though it always helps to retain a critical mindset. If you mean, more specifically, this thread, then to a degree, yes: I think there have been some honest posts, where people are accurately reporting their direct experiences, whether it be about flaws with Gibson guitars, or owning flawless Gibsons.

2] No. They also contain post consisting of utter bollocks posted by complete twats who have little grasp of reality and can't balance the content of their minds with or without magic. This is a guitar forum, how could anyone expect a thread to 'only' contain balanced, accurate posts?  

Chalky

Person A stays in a hotel and isn't happy with the service.  A writes a negative review.

B reads the negative review and via a forum passes on to C, D and E that the hotel is not good. The pass it on to others.

Someone else reads this later and sees several negative comments about the hotel and concludes not to go there.  But the truth is that only one negative experience by one person led to many negative comments about the hotel.  And of course most people do not bother signing up to give a review because their experience was fine so why bother?

Thus the hotel gets a disproportionate reputation, mainly from those folks who regurgitate what they've read on the internet, often with no direct hands on experience.

A guitar has a twisted neck. Will it only be represented by one comment? No. It will be represented by comments by everyone who has had any connection with it, even when the only connection is that they saw a picture of it on the internet.  That is what the internet is like - one negative experience becomes multiplied and amplified. Good experience does not.

TA22GT

@Chalky ;  I totally get your analogy. I do know that is what can and does happen.

Getting back to guitars I would just say that in relation to other guitar manufacturers Gibson seems to have a higher proportion of noticeable defects.

Ask the dealers on here how many other high money guitars have more defects. Even foreign made lower end stuff probably has a much less percentage of defects.
 
The internet does have an influence on purchase but also so does personal experience. I would buy any priced Yamaha from a "box dealer" knowing it would be a well made guitar but I would never ever buy a Gibson online. That is based on personal experience.  I would have to have it in my hands, which, is the only way to buy a guitar anyway.

I only have one Gibson at the moment as I have moved on. It has a warped neck. Or it had a warped neck. 
I really, really do want Gibson to have that kudos again. They are a part of my growing up, my aspirations to own one and to create music on one. 

It hurts to read on Forums   " I want to buy a Les Paul ....is 2012 a good year?"  They should all be good years. 

SexualChocolate

Chalky said:

Person A stays in a hotel and isn't happy with the service.  A writes a negative review.

B reads the negative review and via a forum passes on to C, D and E that the hotel is not good. The pass it on to others.

Someone else reads this later and sees several negative comments about the hotel and concludes not to go there.  But the truth is that only one negative experience by one person led to many negative comments about the hotel.  And of course most people do not bother signing up to give a review because their experience was fine so why bother?

Thus the hotel gets a disproportionate reputation, mainly from those folks who regurgitate what they've read on the internet, often with no direct hands on experience.

A guitar has a twisted neck. Will it only be represented by one comment? No. It will be represented by comments by everyone who has had any connection with it, even when the only connection is that they saw a picture of it on the internet.  That is what the internet is like - one negative experience becomes multiplied and amplified. Good experience does not.

This is largely irrelevant in this instance, as there are a number of posts in this thread from people who directly have had issues with Gibson guitars. Or does that not fit with your 'worldview' that Gibson QC is perfect and has never passed a bad instrument?

FWIW, I was considering buying a LP Standard a couple of years ago. I tried 5 in GAK, and all of them had fit and finish issues that I considered unacceptable on £2K+ guitar.

Chalky

TA22GT said:

@Chalky ;  I totally get your analogy. I do know that is what can and does happen.

Getting back to guitars I would just say that in relation to other guitar manufacturers Gibson seems to have a higher proportion of noticeable defects.

Ask the dealers on here how many other high money guitars have more defects. Even foreign made lower end stuff probably has a much less percentage of defects.
 
The internet does have an influence on purchase but also so does personal experience. I would buy any priced Yamaha from a "box dealer" knowing it would be a well made guitar but I would never ever buy a Gibson online. That is based on personal experience.  I would have to have it in my hands, which, is the only way to buy a guitar anyway.

I only have one Gibson at the moment as I have moved on. It has a warped neck. Or it had a warped neck. 
I really, really do want Gibson to have that kudos again. They are a part of my growing up, my aspirations to own one and to create music on one. 

It hurts to read on Forums   " I want to buy a Les Paul ....is 2012 a good year?"  They should all be good years. 

Thanks. I utterly slagged off Gibson when they brought out the wide necks and GForce tuners in 2015.  I travelled a lot back then and popped into guitar shops almost weekly, and I soon spotted that the same guitars were on the wall and simply not selling, week after week, month after month.

Gibson undoubtedly let some dogs get out but its a tiny percentage rather than the huge percentage that the internet would have us believe.  Its still bad, absolutely, and much worse than its competitors, but not as bad as some would claim.

Bigsby

Chalky said:

Gibson undoubtedly let some dogs get out but its a tiny percentage rather than the huge percentage that the internet would have us believe.  Its still bad, absolutely, and much worse than its competitors, but not as bad as some would claim.

As far as I can see, no one in this thread is claiming it's a huge percentage, just that it's a disproportionate percentage (compared to competitors), and for anyone ending up with a badly made Gibson, an unacceptable percentage. I've never seen 'the internet' claim it's a huge percentage, where did you see that? Frankly, that would be a silly claim, as Gibson really couldn't survive if it was - and their current financial difficulties are not about selling guitars.

Still, at least we can agree, in this corner of the internet, that it's bad, and much worse than their competitors.

thegummy

Chalky said:

Person A stays in a hotel and isn't happy with the service.  A writes a negative review.

B reads the negative review and via a forum passes on to C, D and E that the hotel is not good. The pass it on to others.

Someone else reads this later and sees several negative comments about the hotel and concludes not to go there.  But the truth is that only one negative experience by one person led to many negative comments about the hotel.  And of course most people do not bother signing up to give a review because their experience was fine so why bother?

Thus the hotel gets a disproportionate reputation, mainly from those folks who regurgitate what they've read on the internet, often with no direct hands on experience.

A guitar has a twisted neck. Will it only be represented by one comment? No. It will be represented by comments by everyone who has had any connection with it, even when the only connection is that they saw a picture of it on the internet.  That is what the internet is like - one negative experience becomes multiplied and amplified. Good experience does not.

What you say is a good point and does happen a lot on forums. I find it tends to happen even more with good things; I.e. A certain guitar/synth/microphone etc. Gets recommend as the best by a few knowledgeable people then loads more people copy that advice without their own experience then it grows to become the de facto standard and people want to feel they're in the know so recommend it without having ever used it.

I think someone blankly saying "Gibsons have poor qc" could be them regurgitating what they've read. When is an actual personnel experience being shared, I would doubt many would actually lie like that.

I try to keep in mind all the biases etc. When reading forums and avoid buying into hype too much. All I can say is that my experience of buying a Gibson was that it did have the shocking quality control problems I'd read about as you can see from my photos.

Something to ask - why don't other brands end up suffering from the same thing online? Why don't fender have the same reputation? I'd suggest the fact that Gibson have such a larger number of horror stories is probably because they do have more bad guitars sent out.

terada

thegummy said:

Chalky said:

Person A stays in a hotel and isn't happy with the service.  A writes a negative review.

B reads the negative review and via a forum passes on to C, D and E that the hotel is not good. The pass it on to others.

Someone else reads this later and sees several negative comments about the hotel and concludes not to go there.  But the truth is that only one negative experience by one person led to many negative comments about the hotel.  And of course most people do not bother signing up to give a review because their experience was fine so why bother?

Thus the hotel gets a disproportionate reputation, mainly from those folks who regurgitate what they've read on the internet, often with no direct hands on experience.

A guitar has a twisted neck. Will it only be represented by one comment? No. It will be represented by comments by everyone who has had any connection with it, even when the only connection is that they saw a picture of it on the internet.  That is what the internet is like - one negative experience becomes multiplied and amplified. Good experience does not.

Something to ask - why don't other brands end up suffering from the same thing online? Why don't fender have the same reputation? I'd suggest the fact that Gibson have such a larger number of horror stories is probably because they do have more bad guitars sent out.

I was wondering this earlier myself.

Could it be that a large proportion of high end fenders are relatively heavily reliced and as such many imperfections that would be called out as poor QC on a Gibson could be easily cast off as part of that process?

Chalky

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

Slartibartfarst42

I don't claim to have masses of experience in this area so this is merely anecdotal. I bought a new 2013 Les Paul Studio and the first one I received looked great but the trussrod wouldn't adjust enough so had to be returned. The replacement was excellent and I've had no problems with it at all. It's a very good guitar but how does it compare to others I own? My other two electrics are a Mexican Fender Stratocaster and a Korean PRS SE Custom 24. I'd say the build quality of the Gibson is about the same as the Mexican Fender but neither guitar is anything like as good as the PRS, which is streets ahead in terms of build quality.

thegummy

Chalky said:

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

How many could build a custom 22 or mccarty 584?

richardhomer

thegummy said:

Chalky said:

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

How many could build a custom 22 or mccarty 584?

Or even a 594 - they’re ‘1’ harder....

Bridgehouse

richardhomer said:

thegummy said:

Chalky said:

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

How many could build a custom 22 or mccarty 584?

Or even a 594 - they’re ‘1’ harder....

Shurly 10 harder?