So these 2015 Gibsons with that logo....

rlw

I really don't get the issue.

jd0272

rlw;525792" said:

I really don't get the issue.

It looks shit.

Sassafras

Peeling off the hologram voids the warranty.

I think.

ICBM

Sassafras said:

Peeling off the hologram voids the warranty.

I think.

I'm sure refinishing the headstock face does anyway, so who cares...

underdog

jeztone2;525656" said:

I just wouldn't buy a Gibson again unless it was used. Henry Jusckievicz is a nasty idiot who thinks he's Steve Jobs running Apple. Robot tuners? I'll stick to my Dentist guitars thankyou.

Have you tried the "robot tuners" ? Most people who have really like them. I honestly think they are here to stay and in 10 years time they will be the norm.

ICBM

underdog said:

Have you tried the "robot tuners" ? Most people who have really like them. I honestly think they are here to stay and in 10 years time they will be the norm.

They will need to make them reliable, having replacement parts easily available, and less of a pain to use than conventional tuners when you break a string, for that to happen.

A good equivalent technology is the Floyd Rose - it solves one particular problem extremely well, allows some extra functionality that you can't get with a conventional trem, and for a while a lot of guitars had them on. They haven't gone away, but are they now the norm? Not remotely.

I would take a small bet that the last Floyd Rose will be made before the last Bigsby, and the same for the last robot tuning system before the last standard machinehead.

lustycourtier

Heres my take. We are in a minority here. The majority of buyers dont use forums or mod guitars. They buy them, and play them so I think Gibson will be fine. With regard to the modding thing, even after market Pick up changes scares of the majority of buyers.

richardhomer

I saw some of these in a shop today. Seeing them in the flesh is quite a shock - not what my fuddled old mind is used to seeing on a headstock I've seen hundreds of in my time....

The other thing which looked 'wrong' is the string spacing. The wider neck is still used with the originally spaced Tunomatic and at the top end of the fingerboard, the outside strings look to far from the edges.

I didn't play any of them, so I can't comment on how they feel - but this aspect looks very odd.

What looked pretty impressive though, was the overall standard of finish - unlike the random switches where pots ought to be on some models....

underdog

ICBM;525916" said:

underdog said:

Have you tried the "robot tuners" ? Most people who have really like them. I honestly think they are here to stay and in 10 years time they will be the norm.










They will need to make them reliable, having replacement parts easily available, and less of a pain to use than conventional tuners when you break a string, for that to happen.

A good equivalent technology is the Floyd Rose - it solves one particular problem extremely well, allows some extra functionality that you can't get with a conventional trem, and for a while a lot of guitars had them on. They haven't gone away, but are they now the norm? Not remotely.

I would take a small bet that the last Floyd Rose will be made before the last Bigsby, and the same for the last robot tuning system before the last standard machinehead.

It seems they can be reliable if fitted correctly and of course used correctly, lots of people with the older versions love them and have been using for years with no issue and have found support from tronical to be good. Even someone on here got individual replacement tuners from them the other week.

I'm not sure they add any extra hassle with a broken string, wind it on then leave it tune up surely, or am I missing something?

I can imagine the g force or similar being very popular with the next generation of acoustic players. Its just takes the the current generation to die off with their fear of the new first.

rlw

jd0272 said:

rlw;525792" said:

I really don't get the issue.

It looks shit.

Define shit.

rlw

 Its just takes the the current generation to die off with their fear of the new first.

This made me chuckle..............

Jesus.  I feel like a bloody revolutionary on here because I don't really mind something. :-)

ICBM

I don't have a "fear" of the new, I just don't like new for the sake of it when the new thing does not offer a genuine improvement and especially when it can cause trouble. Simplicity and reliability usually (not always, I admit) go together. I like new technology when it can be added onto old technology without compromising reliability that has developed over a long period, or when it's a simple upgrade using proven technology.

The classic guitar designs are classic for a reason, mostly - they work, and stay working. Although I'd still love to see a few of the classic "features" upgraded - Gibson headstocks would a be a start. And yet, despite all the evidence that they're a poor design, they change everything *but* that...

hobbio

ICBM said:

I just don't like new for the sake of it when the new thing does not offer a genuine improvement

But the g-force system does offer a genuine improvement, it allows automatic tuning of the guitar to various different tunings.

I would argue that just because you personally don't see it as an improvement it doesn't mean that it's not one.

I'm all for it myself, and yes I can tune a guitar manually

Fortheloveofguitar

underdog;525909" said:

[quote="jeztone2;525656"]I just wouldn't buy a Gibson again unless it was used. Henry Jusckievicz is a nasty idiot who thinks he's Steve Jobs running Apple. Robot tuners? I'll stick to my Dentist guitars thankyou.

Have you tried the "robot tuners" ? Most people who have really like them. I honestly think they are here to stay and in 10 years time they will be the norm.

[/quote]

I have a set here that I bought on here last week, arrived today.

Anyway I can't use them as they don't fit my Les Paul studio 70's model despite the fact that the instructions state 'Les Paul studio'

Gibson have throughly pissed me off today
:x

Sassafras

What about reliability?

Can't see those robotuners outlasting proper tuners.

I've usually found that the more complicated something is the more there is to go wrong and not just because I'm a Luddite.

RaymondLin

Changing strings with G-Force. Reminds me of the old days when you input a cheat code on the Playstation, Up, Up, Up, Down, Down, Down, B.

Or something

 

ICBM

hobbio said:

ICBM said:

I just don't like new for the sake of it when the new thing does not offer a genuine improvement

But the g-force system does offer a genuine improvement, it allows automatic tuning of the guitar to various different tunings.

I accept that is useful to some players, in the same way as the ability to use the trem to extremes and have it come back perfectly in tune is useful to Floyd Rose users.

Should all guitars have Floyd Roses? Of course not. They have other major disadvantages for players who don't need or want that ability.

I'm all for automatic tuning systems as an option for players who want it. But as a standard fitting for anyone who doesn't need it - no, because it adds cost, unreliability and potential built-in obsolescence.

rlw

ICBM said:

hobbio said:

ICBM said:

I just don't like new for the sake of it when the new thing does not offer a genuine improvement

But the g-force system does offer a genuine improvement, it allows automatic tuning of the guitar to various different tunings.

I accept that is useful to some players, in the same way as the ability to use the trem to extremes and have it come back perfectly in tune is useful to Floyd Rose users.

Should all guitars have Floyd Roses? Of course not. They have other major disadvantages for players who don't need or want that ability.

I'm all for automatic tuning systems as an option for players who want it. But as a standard fitting for anyone who doesn't need it - no, because it adds cost, unreliability and potential built-in obsolescence.

At least if the G-Force does fail and you can't get the bits you can go manual so the instrument will still work.

And despite my enthusiasm for it, it does seem to disagree with my Korg Pitchblack a little which is amusing if nothing else.

I do agree that the some of the new bits could be judged unnecessary - a bit like rain sensing wipers and lights that come on when it gets dark (both of which I poo-pooed but now use without a thought) - but a logo??????????  Its an anniversary and a big one so it kind of makes sense.

jd0272

rlw said:

jd0272 said:

rlw;525792" said:

I really don't get the issue.

It looks shit.

Define shit.

Aye ok.

It. Looks. Shit.

Like a talented 2 year old has gone all kamikaze with a gold coloured crayon. Even if we didn't have the silkscreen it has replaced, it would still look shit. I appreciate it is subjective, and if you're happy spending your cash on one, all good. I shall choose not to however.

Probably 'cause it looks shit.

rlw

Sassafras said:

What about reliability?

Can't see those robotuners outlasting proper tuners.

I've usually found that the more complicated something is the more there is to go wrong and not just because I'm a Luddite.

Ah - so you admit you are a Luddite.  That's a start :-)