Would you still buy a Gibson?

Creed_Clicks

What year is it considered the bad QC issues kicked in ? I spied a 2006 SG special. Seems to be no frills but has a gloss or nitro finish as opposed to the open faded finish. If the older ones are considered better quality Id plump for a used one. Though the new walnut tribute looks really nice.

TTBZ

Creed_Clicks said:

What year is it considered the bad QC issues kicked in ? I spied a 2006 SG special. Seems to be no frills but has a gloss or nitro finish as opposed to the open faded finish. If the older ones are considered better quality Id plump for a used one. Though the new walnut tribute looks really nice.

All I can say is my 2008 standard is a great feeling guitar. I recently played one of the new faded tributes and wasn't really into the open pore finish, it feels a bit cheap and like the guitar was sent out of the factory early. So actually maybe I wouldn't like the tribute satin Les Paul either! Also didn't hold its tune too well and the 490T bridge pickup is underpowered for an SG imo. I'd be looking at a used SG Standard over a new tribute.

jeztone2

I’ve owned six Gibson’s. 

My take on them is that they’re QC has always been iffy and always will be until they invest in CNC and adopt Japanese QC procedures like Fender did. So buying sight unseen is a risk. 

My current Les Paul is actually nicely built and well finished. But I have to admit it’s the one guitar I play the least in my modest collection. 

stickyfiddle

Creed_Clicks said:

What year is it considered the bad QC issues kicked in ? I spied a 2006 SG special. Seems to be no frills but has a gloss or nitro finish as opposed to the open faded finish. If the older ones are considered better quality Id plump for a used one. Though the new walnut tribute looks really nice.

About 1946

There are good and bad guitars from every year.