It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I'm not outright defending Gibson but just trying to explain. People complain every time they dare put prices up and then the same people complain when the QC on the little details isn't as good as on something costing double.
I guess I've just seen the same thread 100 times now...
This is where you seem to be intentionally going off track in an apparent attempt to defend Gibson. No one, apart from you, has suggested that this guitar's condition is the result of mistreatment. The 'not new' suggestion is that this is a 'new' guitar returned to Gibson (due to defects), and which Gibson have then shipped out as a replacement 'new' guitar, rather than fixing it before returning it to stock.
This is even worse than simply having poor QC, yet you're trying to use it to save Gibsons reputation... Well, you're fooling no one but yourself with this.
"Gibson offered you an exchange through the dealer."
That's just WRONG! I didn't say that, and Gibson didn't offer me an exchange through a dealer in any way at all... The DEALER did, prior to my contacting Gibson directly. And I was quite happy to repeat to Gibson customer service that the dealer didn't think they had a better SG in stock, hence I wasn't going to waste time with an exchange. Gibson didn't have a replacement in stock - as I already said - if they had, it would've been substantially cheaper for them to send one to me, rather than the cost of multiple repairs to the guitar I'd received.
Also they have an American cost base and all the marketing warm fuzzies that come with it, so they can.
I've actually said more than once that I am not defending Gibson. There is a huge difference between defending Gibson and saying I have some doubts about the story as it has been presented.
I have already said I completely agree that Gibson should not have sent that guitar to him, if they did. I have also said the condition of that guitar is unacceptable. So, again, not defending the company for the condition of that guitar.
But when the guy filming the video says that someone else has had this guitar, then I think it's fair to mention it is not necessarily a good example of a guitar leaving the factory. That is the distinction I have been trying to make. The guitar didn't have a journey of Factory > Buyer. It has a journey of Factory > don't know.
Hey, do we need the caps and exclamation points? If I misread your post, I apologise. This is what you said:
"The eventual choices were: Return & refund from dealer, Exchange from dealer (with the dealer not optimistic about that option working out well), Gibson pay an approved luthier to do what they should've done at the factory"
This doesn't say that you were offered an exchange directly from Gibson, and I think I'm right in thinking that when you contacted Gibson directly, they did not offer you an exchange.
To bring this part of the conversation back to the topic at hand, Linny is saying that he was able to take his dealer-issued guitar and arrange direct exchanges with Gibson and exclude the dealer entirely. My understanding has been that Gibson does these things through its network of authorised retailers. My personal experience has been the dealer speak with Gibson and receive the exchange, and your experience hasn't involved Gibson sending you a direct replacement.
So unless I've missed something, this continues to be a part of Linny's story that has me scratching my head. And it ties directly in with the other comment about the guitar not being new. If Gibson sent it to him, it's shocking, but before we can draw that conclusion it's my opinion that we need some clarification on how he got that guitar because the sequence of events does not sound typical for Gibson (buying a guitar from the shop, but the shop not being involved in arranging the exchange, and Gibson happily keeping the dealer out of the equation).
I suppose our leaning depends how much we feel about the brand. Personally I love the Gibson designs but I think they are milking it and to a degree why not if people are willing to pay their prices.
I don't think what is shown in the video is genrally representative of what Gibson produce but to my mind if you are charging top dollar for a product, 'I believe' what goes through the door should be of the highest quality and if not expect to get some flack.
At the other end of the spectrum in the lower budget, mass produced arena 'personally' I wouldn't be as critical and probably be more tolerant. Even at this end of the spectrum that guitar would have warranted return.
I agree with everything you've said here.
As I've already made clear, Gibson Europe didn't have any of this model in stock to ship to me; it was a limited run and all had shipped at this point.
Apologies, but it doesn't seem as clear to me reading it. If you go back a page and read your posts, what you've said is Thomann were helpful, Gibson wasn't, Gibson offered to have a luthier deal with it, and Gibson didn't have any more in stock. Did Gibson say they would have sent you a replacement, if they had one, or offer to send you a replacement guitar of a different line? And if so, did they say they would do it with you directly from then on, or via Thomann? I'm not trying to be obtuse, this has been the issue I've raised since page 3 based on my understanding of Gibson's policy and my past experience.
The reason I ask if they offered to send a different model is that's what happened with me. I had a 2014 Standard Plus model and when the retailer contacted them about the finish problem, Gibson said they had none left but offered to send me a replacement 2013 model, upgraded to Standard Premium in a Birdseye finish. The alternative was for me to let the retailer do a repair, but I took the replacement. Point is, Gibson still offered me a replacement/exchange even though stock of my actual model was gone, and it still happened through the retailer.
My opinion is that Gibson’s QC has always been questionable - but unless the problems are structural and ‘really’ affect playability, I can’t say I’m overly bothered. The only time any business would have the motivation to change this would be when the cost of dealing with returns becomes an issue.
Most people here believe it. Accept it without question.
If somebody made a video slandering quality control at Collings, Lowden, Furch, Martin, Fender, Eastman, Tokai, Takamine, Taylor ... no-one would believe it.
(Well, OK, maybe not Martin, at least not if we are talking binding. But the others. Where there is smoke, there is very likely fire.)
If it comes across as though I'm attacking Gibson then you'd be right, considering the costs they better be damn near perfect and at least come set up and stay in tune, play authentic LMAO.
(formerly customkits)
There's no need for any underhanded comment about "ulterior motive of generating traffic" — his channel has 100 subscribers but the video has 11,000 views. Ragging on big names is a tried-and-tested method for getting lots of views and comments, so let's not pretend it's a mad conspiracy theory to point out the obvious. His very next video is exposing CTS pots as being made in Taiwan and not the USA.
You can remove Fender from that list, there's no shortage of forum threads, Reddit posts and YouTube videos talking about their QC problems, primarily since lockdown.
but you're right, there's no smoke without fire and it's an area of Gibson that nobody in their right mind would say doesn't exist. I think it's often exaggerated, but no doubt it exists. On the other hand that makes them an easier target if you're releasing a video with an unsubstantiated claim that Gibson is so bad these days that not only can you not find a good one in a shop's entire stock, but Gibson itself can't send a decent one.
Well, it isn't. Once I dealt with Gibson Customer Support, i.e. dealing with them directly; talking on the phone, sending photos, etc., the dealer was out of the equation, and at no point did Gibson say 'sorry, we don't deal with customers, you'll have to take one of the options the dealer has given you'. No, they dealt with me directly, and had no issue doing this once I'd demonstrated the range and severity of issues the guitar had.
Did Gibson say they would've offered me a replacement if they'd had one? Really, you're asking that? It would've been a pointless conversation to have... but it was about seven years ago, I don't recall such a comment, maybe they did... or maybe not. But, as an alternative viewpoint, if they'd had a warehouse full of them, do you really think they'd have offered to pay for repairs by a luthier, rather than sending a replacement?
There was never any question of a different model being acceptable. It would've been ridiculous: The whole point was that I wanted that specific model. Again, I don't recall such an offer, but it would've been declined immediately and probably forgotten soon after.
Bottom line: Once I spoke to Gibson the dealer was no longer involved in any way. That actually happened, according to some bloke on the internet (me) that you probably don't want to believe.
Hope that's cleared things up.