Hi everyone,
Just a quick observation that I have made over the past few weeks. I'd thought it the case for a while now, but actually had the chance to test the logic.
Over the past few weeks I have tried around 25 Gibson acoustics (J45's/J15's/J200's etc etc) in various stores around the south of the UK. I also played many Martin and Taylor guitars during this time (why not!).
There was not a single dud, not a single blemish or issue at all with any of them.
Yes they all sounded slightly different, and some may have lent themselves to particular players more that others. But there wasn't a bad one at all, and the differences between guitars was no greater than what I found for both Martin and Taylor.
Good time to be a guitarist - so many lovely instruments out there. Only struggle was trying to pick between them.
Comments
Out of the four Les Paul’s I've owned, the 2017 is flawless in comparison to my old 2013 Trad Pro II which aside from a pretty top sounded terrible. My 2003 Classic (weighed a ton and the neck started to move) and my Brothers 2001 Standard (beautiful guitar but machine heads not aligned and orange peel on the finish).
I did experience some rather scruffy ES339’s so the Jury is still out for me. But they have improved. Mind you my old SG was a lovely guitar to play but had stain all over the binding and filler in the inlays. It did sound great though.
there Is more than enough evidence around for The main plants.
one of Gibson’s problem is a in the old days a lot of the QC would of been caught by shops but in the days where guitars are sold online by big box shifters I imagine this is less the case that every box is checked. If I am wrong I will happily stand corrected
There are dogs out there but the Gibson hate was just as strong in the pre internet days, the same myths flowed around the gearheads and shops back then too. I've tried guitars from a load of manufacturers and seen poor QC on odd ones from them all, a PRS S2 I played once had poor fretwork for example. I remember going to Intasound to try out an Orange Dual Terror, and the guy gave me an Indie Les Paul to play as they were the latest, better than Gibson for less money hype floating around. The ostentatious look aside it was nowhere near the quality of my LP, it was heavy as sin and the finish wasn't great either. Alright the price was less than a studio but still, they weren't in the same league.
As for the acoustics, I spent an afternoon in Nottingham trying loads. Taylors, Martin's, my lovely Freshman, and the best one I heard and played all day was a Gibson J45. Beautifully made and sounded amazing, the Freshman was the only one that came close. Unfortunately before I could make my mind up some guy bought it on the spot after playing it for 2 minutes. Never mind I love my Freshman and it was less than half the price!
My head said brake, but my heart cried never.
Bad QC suggests they vary more than is acceptable.
the acoustics are a seperate division
Instagram
I’m talking about things like a Historic 335 where the binding hadn’t been masked at all on the bass side of the neck so it was completely red, and a Custom Shop J-185 where the neck was so misaligned that the top E ran off the side of the neck at the 12th fret. And those are just the first two that come to mind...
It’s true that these are probably rarities. It’s also true that other companies aren’t perfect, but it’s definitely not entirely a myth that Gibson has some QC issues.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Ive got a fair few Gibson’s and only had one that was factory imperfect
(it was an ES and nothing unfixabke, just a little rough)
In the same period I've bought 3 Fenders, 2 Reverends, and 5 guitars by a number of other manufacturers - but I haven't encountered the same poor QC across those guitars. Based on my very limited experience, I'd say Gibson's reputation for poor QC is justified.
I've played a fair few bad standards and custom shop though
I've tried a an LP in store and the neck alignment was off so the bridge was very high & have seen the gaps at the neck/neck pickup ring vary from nothing to big enough to loose your pick in.
Headstock crack
Chipped body
I never said that all Gibson guitars were numero uno did I? Nor claimed everything they produce is firewood. There are some well documented incidents after all. This is what I said:
"I think a LOT of Gibsons claimed QC issues are simply internet mythology....." not ALL, or EVERY ONE, or any other absolute term.
"There are dogs out there........" ah yes there are some ropey Gibsons out there (especially SG's for some reason, I've seen quite a few with issues on the net), I've seen the pictures and winced at what has made it into a customers hands, even past shop inspections. Maybe this is the problems of the Henry era coming home to roost? Poorly paid and motivated staff etc.
I also said all manufacturers have issues, the scale of Gibsons manufacture probably means the amount is greater but the percentage may be similar in total, who knows maybe someone like ICBM is probably best placed as he sees more than most in his job. Yes as WezV says the variability of them is undoubtedly an issue, but the hate is also strong and it can paint a false picture, it also doesn't help as it masks the genuine issues. Like I said, I got shit about Gibsons back in the 90's and it was the same regurgitated stuff you hear now on the net, perhaps it's persisted since the 70's and the Norlin era who knows, or maybe before that. There are loads of Gibsons pass through the classifieds here, none of them seem to have issues?
End of the day, if you're splashing £2k+ on a guitar from any manufacturer, best to be picky and maybe always ensure you see the actual guitar or have a good returns policy etc..
My head said brake, but my heart cried never.
There does seem to be some evidence that things have improved in the last couple of years or so though.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
My point is that a lot of what people attribute to poor QC are guitars that don’t resonate with a particular player, or are too dark sounding, or too light sounding, or have variances in burst/woods that make them more or less desirable to different players.
From my (recent) experience, these were simply down to unit to unit variance on hand made items. None better or worse, but all slightly different.
I noticed no greater deviation between models than with other brands that people often describe as having very tight tolerances unit to unit.
Please note that this is from first hand experience of travelling across the country to actually play them, and I’d say a sample of 25 is pretty sizeable for a 100% success rate.
You hear all the time that to buy a Gibson you need to play a bunch first. I think this makes sense, but not because a high proportion are faulty and still on shop floors, but just because each instrument is unique.
It was was the same when buying my partners cello for example.
My head said brake, but my heart cried never.
Some people do make mountains out of molehills with some very minor finish blips but also I have seen some horrors but with any brand too.
That's definitely not personnel preference, that's a case where if that is still seen as acceptable at the qc check, I dread to think what would be rejected.
It could be that Gibson just put out anything for their budget models and are pickier when the price goes up to thousands. But their "budget" model is 900 quid. A guitar at that price from a brand known for tight qc would never have that kind of flaw.
I'm annoyed at myself for buying it because I did notice the problem at the second fret but at the time I was determined that "only a Gibson would do" and it was the only one I could afford so took it. By the time I noticed the score mark I had already changed the pickups so couldn't return it (I had been bought the new pickups as a present before the guitar so was always going to change them immediately.
Even with myself to blame, it's completely unacceptable to let that pass qc on a 900 quid guitar, regardless of the price of that company's other models.
I'm taking it in to get it looked at this week but I'm expecting that it would cost more to fix than it would be worth. Can only take it as a learning experience and at least I won't have that "if only I got a real Gibson" nagging in my head.
Did you try a number of others that were the same?
I currently have 7 Gibson and 6 Fender guitars, of those the most I've needed to have done to my Gibsons is a good set up from feline. My fenders have been mostly great, with the exception of a Mexican strat where the neck cracked the whole length of the skunk stripe, and an old acoustic that has moved a lot over time (but hey acoustics do that so not such a big deal). I have also had a fender amp blow up.
I suppose I could from my experience claim that fender have let me down QC wise, but I don't think it fair to extrapolate those issues to the whole brand.
Maybe I'm just super lucky when it comes to Gibsons. If only I could be so lucky finding guitars that don't aggravate my ulnar nerve so much!