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
Mostly look better in photos and don't really do what you want, but the odd one is amazing.
Studio: https://www.voltperoctave.com
Music: https://www.euclideancircuits.com
Me: https://www.jamesrichmond.com
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.
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.
It was still worth the hassle, and to be fair to them they didn't make it too difficult.
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.
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 .
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.