Gibson guitars - Are the negative reviews fair?

duotone

Firstly I’ve never owned a Gibson guitar.

Just wanted to know your thoughts & does it make you look to Les Paul/SG etc. style alternatives from other brands instead?

https://youtu.be/iots6MDD0YU

chrisj1602

I’ve been really happy with the Gibson’s I’ve had. 2 USA, 5 Custom Shop, no issues.

octatonic

Gibsons are like Tinder fuck buddies.
Mostly look better in photos and don't really do what you want, but the odd one is amazing.

Teyeplayer

I’ve a les Paul special, an Sg and a firebird; all are fantastic guitars. Equally, I have an Eastman SB59 and it’s the second best les Paul I’ve played -the first was a true historic r7 worth 4-5 times the price. It’s like everything be prepared to shop about.

terada

Firstly, they all vary quite a bit. The internet wisdom of trying loads is definitely accurate. But this is also often misinterpreted as poor QC, when in reality it is usually just the tonal differences between different bits of wood. 2 people may have completely different opinions of the same instrument etc etc.

It is the inverse phenomenon to that which causes people to call PRS sterile etc - just because they sound more consistent unit to unit doesn't mean they are any worse.

That said, Gibson definitely have some QC issues that don't appear as prevalent with other brands. Annoyingly they often appear on guitars that sound superb. Hopefully with the new CEO this will improve.

Philly_Q

Gibson's bad reputation is certainly based on fact, but it does get a bit exaggerated, to the extent that some people will say they're all rubbish, probably without even trying them.

It doesn't really make me consider the alternatives - Huber, Knaggs, Eggle etc - because they are hugely expensive and they lose about 95% of their value the moment you walk out of the shop.

Also, although many manufacturers make LP-types there are surprisingly few SG alternatives.

Gerz6558

I'm on my third 2018 les paul classic (goldtop p90's). Major problems on the first one, the replacement Gibson sent me was cosmetically poor considering the circumstances. Third one is superb, what I had in my head when I pulled the trigger on one back in July.

It was still worth the hassle, and to be fair to them they didn't make it too difficult.

DB1

I'd also take the internet wisdom, in some aspects, with a pinch of salt. Not to say that there isn't some unsatisfactory QC, and I've had a couple where there's been a couple of niggles, but people tend to shout more about the negatives than the positives about most things. I'm probably the wrong person to be replying, as I do like Gibsons in general and they tend to give me everything that I want. I have 13 of them ranging from 1938 to 2016, and the only thing that they don't give is a Strat or Tele sound, so I have a Strat and Tele for that.

Talking of 'internet wisdom', I picked up a Custom Shop Pat Martino model the other day. I can't say that I find it a pretty guitar, but what a wonderful player it is. I nearly didn't bother trying it, because the forums were full of 'the sound's too dark', but it really isn't - at least mine isn't, so it's all down to personal experience,

I've had, over the past couple of years, Gibsons, Fenders, Gretsches, Eastmans, Peerless's, Epiphones, Arias, Godins and a PRS. There haven't been any bad ones, really, but I suppose that expectation levels differ as well - I wouldn't expect an Epiphone Dot to be as well constructed as an L5, obviously (it was fine though). The Eastmans have been excellent in terms of build, as have the Terada-built Gretsches and the PRS (a 408 Artist), but in terms of feel and tone, I've found that I gravitate towards Gibson. 

ICBM

terada said:

Firstly, they all vary quite a bit. The internet wisdom of trying loads is definitely accurate. But this is also often misinterpreted as poor QC, when in reality it is usually just the tonal differences between different bits of wood. 2 people may have completely different opinions of the same instrument etc etc.

QC and tone variation are completely different things in my opinion.

QC refers to manufacturing accuracy, woodworking and finishing flaws etc. Gibsons have plenty of these, including the notoriously variable neck angles, poor choice of grain direction at the headstock, chips of wood missing in places, poorly-buffed finish, bad masking, hardware misalignment etc. None of these make a bad-sounding guitar, but none of them are really good enough on a 21st-century premium production-line instrument.

Equally you can have all these things done perfectly and still have a bland-sounding guitar. You only have to try a few of the posh alternatives or the Japanese "better than a Gibson" copies to find those... although I'm sure that won't make me popular .

johnl

I think some of the fairly ridiculous decisions made by Gibson over the past few years (not to mention the fairly shocking annual price jumps) have made us all feel fairly negative about the company as a whole. However I've found that their guitars are always pretty good. Yes there are cosmetic issues that you wouldn't see on a PRS but those bother some more than others.

Very often the "Gibson QC is awful crowd" are the same people that are trying to convince themselves that they're just as happy with their Gibson knock-off (which is fine, I've got a fair few Grecos and Tokais knocking around the place too) but I rarely hear of anyone who actually owns a number of Gibson guitars complaining quite so vociferously.

carlos

johnl said:

Very often the "Gibson QC is awful crowd" are the same people that are trying to convince themselves that they're just as happy with their Gibson knock-off (which is fine, I've got a fair few Grecos and Tokais knocking around the place too) but I rarely hear of anyone who actually owns a number of Gibson guitars complaining quite so vociferously.

Not to be a pedant, but you've made the same argument twice, i.e. people will justify their purchases whether that justification is an objective fact or not. Not-Gibson owners will say that Gibsons are crap; Gibson owners will say they are fine. Well, of course, they would.

Hattigol

johnl said:

I think some of the fairly ridiculous decisions made by Gibson over the past few years (not to mention the fairly shocking annual price jumps) have made us all feel fairly negative about the company as a whole. However I've found that their guitars are always pretty good. Yes there are cosmetic issues that you wouldn't see on a PRS but those bother some more than others.

Very often the "Gibson QC is awful crowd" are the same people that are trying to convince themselves that they're just as happy with their Gibson knock-off (which is fine, I've got a fair few Grecos and Tokais knocking around the place too) but I rarely hear of anyone who actually owns a number of Gibson guitars complaining quite so vociferously.

Couldn't agree more.

digitalscream

johnl said:

Very often the "Gibson QC is awful crowd" are the same people that are trying to convince themselves that they're just as happy with their Gibson knock-off (which is fine, I've got a fair few Grecos and Tokais knocking around the place too) but I rarely hear of anyone who actually owns a number of Gibson guitars complaining quite so vociferously.

I'm part of that crowd, but I'm also part of the "Gibsons are bloody awful guitars" crowd

Playing a Gibson simply involves too many compromises for me to accept in even a £200 guitar, much less a £2k+ guitar. The Les Paul is the closest to a guitar which might get close to my requirements, but the awful heel and the poorly-designed headstock mean I'll never buy one...no matter how many I try. Then you get the fact that every single one I've tried (because everybody says Gibsons are great, I always figured that I was missing something) has had inconsistent fretwork, dodgy spots on the finish, a badly-cut nut, dead spots on the neck or even S-bends in the neck...just nope.

Nikc

I've never owned one but I have played quite a few over the years - never played a bad one personally. 

TimmyO

I suppose it matters more in these days of buying unseen being far more of a thing. 

I have 3 gibsons (a LP, an acoustic and a semi) and all are magnificent guitars - among the best I've ever owned, and that's what matters to me. 

So if as a brand they have more faults than others that's not an automatic 'avoid the brand' it's a 'don't buy a faulty one' 

terada

ICBM said:

terada said:

Firstly, they all vary quite a bit. The internet wisdom of trying loads is definitely accurate. But this is also often misinterpreted as poor QC, when in reality it is usually just the tonal differences between different bits of wood. 2 people may have completely different opinions of the same instrument etc etc.

QC and tone variation are completely different things in my opinion.

QC refers to manufacturing accuracy, woodworking and finishing flaws etc. Gibsons have plenty of these, including the notoriously variable neck angles, poor choice of grain direction at the headstock, chips of wood missing in places, poorly-buffed finish, bad masking, hardware misalignment etc. None of these make a bad-sounding guitar, but none of them are really good enough on a 21st-century premium production-line instrument.

Equally you can have all these things done perfectly and still have a bland-sounding guitar. You only have to try a few of the posh alternatives or the Japanese "better than a Gibson" copies to find those... although I'm sure that won't make me popular .

Completely agree, and its a distinction often missed by guitarists. Some might play an instrument that is darker than they'd like, followed by another of the same model that is too bright, then one that is 'just right'.

They take this 'experience' to the forums proclaiming that you have to try loads of them because the 'QC' is so poor. When in reality it is just greater tonal variation than expected.

It'd be great (and I'd guess more helpful to others reading comments) if we only spoke of QC as actual flaws not identified and addressed during manufacture - and blimey have I experienced some   But I doubt it will happen as its easier to perpetuate the accepted internet thinking.

LPManic

The only thing wrong with Gibsons generally is the price. They reverse-psychology use the extra $$$$ to support the fact its a premium guitar. And they are AMAZING - amazing to hold and feel and play. I find them more satisfying to play than Fenders but I'd never buy a Gibson LP new.

rossi

Got to remember  that many internet critcs  of guitars have never played one and for all we know dont have hands either......

terada

rossi said:

Got to remember  that many internet critcs  of guitars have never played one and for all we know dont have hands either......

+1000

p90fool

What were half of your favourite records made with? 

That's right, not a perfect, dipped-in-glossy-plastic cheapy, or a 'boutique' version for twice the price. 

It's funny how those players who formed the taste of generations managed with their crappy Gibsons. 

Philly_Q

ICBM said:
QC refers to manufacturing accuracy, woodworking and finishing flaws etc. Gibsons have plenty of these, including the notoriously variable neck angles, poor choice of grain direction at the headstock, chips of wood missing in places, poorly-buffed finish, bad masking, hardware misalignment etc. None of these make a bad-sounding guitar, but none of them are really good enough on a 21st-century premium production-line instrument.

Agreed, and I think it's these things which give Gibson the reputation for poor QC, not anything to do with tonal variations.

Personally, I've never been bothered by the stray bits of buffing compound, the "orange peel", that "ridge" along the edge of the binding... I'd even go so far as to say I like them!  They make the guitars feel like things made by humans.

Not so enthusiastic about the inconsistent neck angles and chipped timber, though.