I've read bits and pieces on here about Gibson's finishing standards and, having only bought one USA made new until recently (Midtown, which required a setup to my tastes, the nut cut and the frets given a level/polish), I'm a bit surprised at some the flaws on my new toy, a Les Paul Classic 'Rock'.
The little bit of untidy work on the fretboard/binding isn't massive but the unfinished lacquering on the neck joint and the tailpiece are really, really poor for a guitar that retailed at $2,399. I'm pleased to say the seller was very understanding and offered a full refund but, given the difficulty in getting another, I took a goodwill gesture in return. I just need to get it to a friend who is a luthier to try and get it tidied up.
Any similar experiences?
Comments
My band, Red For Dissent
My band, Red For Dissent
Did the seller buy it from a shop or mail order?
I'd be returning that if I received it that way. I wouldn't buy it off the peg if it looked like that, either.
So either the seller didn't exercise a great deal of dilligence, or that has been caused by himself. IMO of course.
All the Gibsons I've played lately have been real good. I think the poor QC thing is at this point, a bit of a fallacy that stuck from when they did go through a bit of a lapse a while back.
Could be wrong of course.
My band, Red For Dissent
Classics have both.
My band, Red For Dissent
That guitar still looks a bit "played" though.
And as shady as Gibson sometimes seem, I don't think that would get through QC like that if it was brand new.
If they kept being returned they would fix it.
It's all down to costs if the returns they get are low enough we as consumers are saying we accept it.
It's all down to us they have no incentive to finish to a higher standard.
My band, Red For Dissent
That's binding?
I thought it was some particularly horrible piece of wood.
Still, seems like you are keeping it anyway.
My band, Red For Dissent