Did anyone notice about Gibsons supposed price and quality issues before the internet .

Skipped

guitars4you said:

like the story @Skipped - interesting that so many London dealers started the trend of pricing without a case (£218) - You would not expect to see such a pricing policy now - ie the R8 deal, so instead of £2499 it would be something like £2299 with no case - We would not accept it today would we ?

  It would be unthinkable now.

I think that so many people were skint. A hard case was essential so people bought the cheapest case they could find.

OilCityPickups

StuartMac290 said:

Yeah, but that was a very different era - we're talking Norlin guitars here! Today's Gibsons are in a different league entirely

There are a fair few similarities between today's Gibson situation and the Norlin one.
They made a lot of budget guitars that turned out to be deeply unpopular in the 70s ... They still do that. I didn't mind the Melodymaker Vs and explorers etc ... in fact I had one ... but they were fairly universally greeted with derision. They made unpopular high end models in the 70s ... like the RD (which I personally loved the shape of) but the buying public universally thumbed their noses at ... and today we have the Firebird X
The world turns ... and things stay about the same ...

jeztone2

Whitecat said:

guitars4you said:

Skipped said:

In the late sixties Gibson had the reputation of being a quality guitar maker. The reputation was real (not hype), was word of mouth, and had been an accepted truth for decades.Even the re-introduced Les Paul models were good guitars although some of them were a bit heavy.

The guitars were of high quality at every price point - rather like Fender today.

For some reason - there are people in cyberspace who are in denial about these periods of great manufacturing. Maybe they are angry about something.

Soon after1970, the first Norlin models started to arrive in the UK (as opposed to the production continuity that gave us the older models for a couple of bonus years). The shock was palpable - and again this was all word of mouth. A regional Gibson dealer would sell the SG Special that was in stock, and the replacement, when it arrived,  was the SG Professional. WTF was this in the shop window!!!???

The first problem was that the Who were huge at this point and this new SG looked nothing like the guitar that Townshend had used for the past few years. The horns were "wrong" and the controls were on a very ugly plastic plate.

The  Les Paul Deluxe models were (on average) even heavier than the late sixties models. Another problem is that the Les Paul Deluxe  production  numbers doubled in the early seventies to ten thousand in one year. Suddenly  (not a coincidence) they were available in bigger numbers in the UK - and in Sunburst. And discounted. Wow!  (£218 without a case).  But the QC could  not keep up. On a trip to London - clutching the cash from my 5 Paper Rounds - I must have tried every Les Paul Deluxe on Shaftsbury Avenue. Every one was shocking. Too heavy.......unresponsive ....dead.......like making love to a beautiful but deceased woman.

I say that the QC was poor because when I pick up these guitars today........they are nowhere near  as bad as I remember. They were leaving the factory with high action and other problems.

like the story @Skipped - interesting that so many London dealers started the trend of pricing without a case (£218) - You would not expect to see such a pricing policy now - ie the R8 deal, so instead of £2499 it would be something like £2299 with no case - We would not accept it today would we ?

You basically just described the PRS Silver Sky pricing too - first 500 "launch editions" were £2499 with a hard case, subsequent models £2299 with a gig bag. And yet if I had 5p for every post I've read that said "goddammit for £2299 I DEMAND a hard case!" then I could probably buy a Silver Sky. 

So PRS totally spells it out for people and yet it's still "more more more."

To be fair. The PRS case is shit. Why anyone would gig with that is beyond me. Hiscox make a stronger case that’s stronger, lighter, more ergonomic and cheaper than a Mono gigbag anyway. 

hotpickups

I haven't read all the comments above but apart from finish problems etc is there any problems with playability of notlins because I can't find any? Or are we taking negatively about value? Which is different kettle of fish imo. 

guitars4you

hotpickups said:

I haven't read all the comments above but apart from finish problems etc is there any problems with playability of notlins because I can't find any? Or are we taking negatively about value? Which is different kettle of fish imo. 

playability is  a matter of taste - I'm not a fan of frets on many Norlin models - wide and low - some call them rail track - Neck shape again is a matter of taste - I've seen many seriously improve with a better set of frets, something like 6100 or 6150's - This IMO will improve playability - i suppose how much you bend will have an impact on this and action height

richardhomer

Compared to (say) a Tele, most Gibsons are much more complex instruments to build. Therefore, even examples from ‘the golden era’ tend to be variable. Crooked truss rod covers (among other issues) feature throughout ‘The Beauty of the Burst’ book.

The issue for me, is not whether 50s instruments were built with CNC precision (which of course they weren’t) - but whether the ‘basics’ are right - correctly dried timbers, fretting, neck angles, nut height, etc. These are the issues which ‘any’ modern maker should get right - but on ‘production’ instruments at least - sometimes Gibson don’t.

thegummy

I really like my Gibson LP since the boy in the shop sorted all the problems with the nut and the finish on the neck and I've installed Oil City pickups.

One thing though - is it normal for Gibsons to have a funny smell?

None of my other guitars have a smell at all but my Gibson has a very distinct strong smell lol

OilCityPickups

thegummy said:

I really like my Gibson LP since the boy in the shop sorted all the problems with the nut and the finish on the neck and I've installed Oil City pickups.

One thing though - is it normal for Gibsons to have a funny smell?

None of my other guitars have a smell at all but my Gibson has a very distinct strong smell lol

That's the scent of liquid mojo :-)

WezV

hotpickups said:

I haven't read all the comments above but apart from finish problems etc is there any problems with playability of notlins because I can't find any? Or are we taking negatively about value? Which is different kettle of fish imo. 

You are not playing a new Norlin instrument.  you cannot say how it played when it left the factory.

ignoring the really budget models, most surviving Norlin era guitars can and have been made to play much better.  

impmann

ICBM said:

You don't need the internet for that, you just need to listen to one of their songs...

They are *songs*? I thought they were instruments of torture...

TheGuitarWeasel said:

A perfect illustration of how bad Gibson got in the Norlin period comes in the form of ...

The god awful SG100 and 200 
Everyone thought they were ugly and let down Gibson's reputation then ... makes the new Junior Tribute look the height of good taste! 

OK - heres the thing, I had one of these and *NO* its not a great SG (ie not a great Angus Young sound) and the bridge is shockingly bad (I swapped mine out for a Schaller). BUT - as an interesting instrument its right up there. Nothing else sounds like one and I found it to be a great guitar for fuzz-based stuff (I played it through a Fuzz Face set flat out - back it off to about 4/5 and back the tone off to about 6 and it sounded like an acoustic) or clean shimmery stuff with mods and delay.  I sold it to our other guitarist (money woes...) who kept it above all others when he went bankrupt and scuttled off to live 'off grid' somewhere in Wales.

So no, its not a great one for pumping out AC/DC but its a very interesting instrument in its own right - and I would not say no to another. :-)

Wazmeister

They have always had issues on some models, imho...

guitars4you

impmann said:

TheGuitarWeasel said:

A perfect illustration of how bad Gibson got in the Norlin period comes in the form of ...

 

OK - heres the thing, I had one of these and *NO* its not a great SG (ie not a great Angus Young sound) and the bridge is shockingly bad (I swapped mine out for a Schaller). BUT - as an interesting instrument its right up there. Nothing else sounds like one and I found it to be a great guitar for fuzz-based stuff (I played it through a Fuzz Face set flat out - back it off to about 4/5 and back the tone off to about 6 and it sounded like an acoustic) or clean shimmery stuff with mods and delay.  I sold it to our other guitarist (money woes...) who kept it above all others when he went bankrupt and scuttled off to live 'off grid' somewhere in Wales.

So no, its not a great one for pumping out AC/DC but its a very interesting instrument in its own right - and I would not say no to another. :-)

It is interesting how we now put 'what was described as crap' a number of years ago, into the 'cool/interesting/odd ball' category

I agree they are not the type of guitar you'd buy as your main/go to instrument, but with some work they can offer something different, as and when required

I suppose interest in such guitars has been driven by a good early/mid 60's SG's now having such a high price ticket - So such examples are now 'affordable vintage' with character

mbe

TheGuitarWeasel said:

A perfect illustration of how bad Gibson got in the Norlin period comes in the form of ...

The god awful SG100 and 200 
Everyone thought they were ugly and let down Gibson's reputation then ... makes the new Junior Tribute look the height of good taste! 

Looks like somebody just lit it on fire.

ICBM

mbe said:

Looks like somebody just lit it on fire.

Just what I was going to say - it looks like it's on a barbeque .

I recently fitted a Gibson-logo Bigsby to one of these - actually the two-pickup version - he paid £900 for it.

I agree with impmann - they're not actually terrible as guitars, as long as you think of them as a guitar which happens to be roughly the same shape as an SG, but is really quite different. I still wouldn't pay anything like that for one though, even with two pickups.

Bridgehouse

ICBM said:

mbe said:

Looks like somebody just lit it on fire.

Just what I was going to say - it looks like it's on a barbeque .

I recently fitted a Gibson-logo Bigsby to one of these - actually the two-pickup version - he paid £900 for it.

I agree with impmann - they're not actually terrible as guitars, as long as you think of them as a guitar which happens to be roughly the same shape as an SG, but is really quite different. I still wouldn't pay anything like that for one though, even with two pickups.

If it's on a barbeque then it's in celebration of them finishing the decorating.....

SNAKEBITE

telehack said:

I found this in a 1980 interview with Pete Townshend:

"For the last couple of years it’s been Les Paul Deluxes and I think they’re probably what I’ll stick with; the standard guitar, and again I usually have to go through about 20 before I find a good one. I have about six or seven of them. I’ve tried Hamer and Alembics and Ibanez and Yamaha and these people make guitars that are much, much better than Gibsons. But I’ve gotten into the weight and the shape of the Deluxes. The pickup suits the amp.
 .

.

.

The thing I’ve had the most trouble with on my Les Pauls is the quality of the wood in the neck. It’s kiln dried and a lot of the resin gets dried out with the moisture and under the rough treatment I give them they don’t seem to last very long. I remember once an old mate of mine who used to work for Sunn became a representative for Gibson and he came to see me and asked why I didn’t do a deal with Gibson. I said, ‘The day you can bring me a Gibson off the end of the production line like this kid is going to save up his money for and it’s good then I’ll put my name on it.’ And he said he’d make me anything I’d like and he’d get me special instruments and I said that’s not the point. If I’m putting my name on it I’m putting my name on something somebody is going to go out and buy. And if I pick up a guitar in a store and there are six there and every one of the six are good then maybe I’d consider putting my name on it."

Interestingly he must have changed his mind since there was at least a Townshend signature SG and some custom shop versions of his Deluxe LP.

Good old Pete Townsend, always looking out for kids.

hotpickups

WezV said:

hotpickups said:

I haven't read all the comments above but apart from finish problems etc is there any problems with playability of notlins because I can't find any? Or are we taking negatively about value? Which is different kettle of fish imo. 

You are not playing a new Norlin instrument.  you cannot say how it played when it left the factory.

ignoring the really budget models, most surviving Norlin era guitars can and have been made to play much better.  

Ah that must be like mine then. 1981/2 but I bought it 15 years ago or so. Played like a dream albeit it does need a refret now ideally 

ESBlonde

iirc the Norlin guitars were never set up by Gibson or thier importer. A few shops would bother but mainly the story went that Gibson didn't know how you wanted your guitar setup so left it with a high nut and action. Of course the early jazz or fretless wonder LPs always played great out of the box! Remember that Gibson thought of themselves as a superior guitar maker and rejected the idea of making electric solidbodies like that Fender bloke because they were unskilled manufactured product. They got in on the Les Paul model when they saw the market response, but designed it to look like a traditional jazz guitar, even to the point of hiding the maple cap under gold paint and having it carved with a fitted neck joint.

So Gibson always considerred themselves luthiers rather than manufacturers first. Ted McCarty kept that ethos but also led with new marketing product like the explorer/Flying V and SG.

ICBM

I may be in a minority but I generally prefer the Norlin guitars to the modern ones, once they're properly set up - I think the quality of fretting, fingerboard wood and finishing is higher, even though they're often heavy, and can be a bit ugly. But they usually sound more solid and I prefer the neck profiles mostly, as well as the frets... modern Gibson frets are horrible, far too square and usually rough.

cpcompany

I started guitar lessons around 1991 and I remember my guitar teacher then telling me not to buy a 1970s Gibson under any circumstances.