Modern Gibson Quality - Advice Needed

guitars4you

crunchman said:

meltedbuzzbox said:

ICBM said:

The only model year I would definitely avoid on principle is 2015, and that's not for build quality reasons - it's because the resale value if you don't like the unconventional neck dimensions is poor.

The Memphis and custom shop stuff wasn't afflicted with the same necks though was it?

I have a 2015 ES Les Paul from the Memphis "Custom Shop".  That's a conventional neck.

The MHS pickups are really good.  If I was getting an ES guitar I'd probably look at the more recent ones as the MHS are better than the 57 Classics that I think the older ones had (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on what pickups the older ones had).

I sold a 2015 ES-LP a few weeks ago with MHS p/ups - nice guitar and no negative issues for me on this one but I recently saw a 2015 339 Studio in gingerburst which was pretty mediocre

stickyfiddle

I recall everyone saying around 2002 that Gibsons from the 90’s were bad and thank god they’d turned a corner and brought out the 2002 LP Standard. Now you see anyone selling a 90’s model telling you it was a golden era and they’ve been rubbish ever since.

It’s all nonsense of course, and you need to judge every guitar on its own merits, assuming that particular model & year’s spec is to your taste. 

ESBlonde

As others have said the only sure test is to play it yourself. Gibsons do vary from poor to average to bloody brilliant, the year has little to do with the combination of wood/glue/metal/luner alignment. At present you are unlikely to loose lots of money on a Gibson through resale, but try it first to be sure it has tha magic for you (we all see something different in a guitar).

Skipped

austinrocket said:

 Any advice guys?

My advice would be.
Don't buy a used Les Paul for £1200 if you think there is some prospect of increasing your budget to £1600 sometime soon. (I realise that is easy for me to say)

I don't have any problem agreeing that Gibson QC is variable, even as a Gibson fan boy.
But the desirability is not really about finish blemishes or variances in neck angle. It is about playing. The Historic Guitars that GIbson have been making for 24 years are really nice instruments. They may not be worth £4k (new) but a used R7 bought in a private sale will be worth every penny.

chrisj1602

Comments like this, about QC and "good wood" in certain years, they just need to be ignored.  Make your own mind up checking it over and playing it.

alvynmcq

I read a lot about Gibson QC being awful etc. when I was looking for a les paul this year. Ended up getting a great deal on a 2016 Studio and it is now my favourite guitar. Ordered online, so didn't get a chance to try it before I bought it. 

rossi

menamestom said:

I have a 21015 Midtown which is great.  For the price I'd say it was better than most things I tried, including guitars costing more from the far east.    I think most of Gibson's issues are sortable QC things that if you are buying 2nd hand have been rectified by the original owner / shop.  Probably just worth checking the weight.

Same here ,a Pelham blue 2015 .No issues at all with mine ,superb quality and luvly low buzz free action .Bought for 600 on DV 247 blowout .

Fiftyshadesofjay

My friend has a 2015 LP Classic and it was much better quality than my old 2003 Standard

ellwood

The R7 in the classifieds (which I am doing my best to ignore) is an absolute steal of you can raise the funds (bit of a stretch I know) but a custom shop R7 for £1800 is hard to beat.

ICBM

Fiftyshadesofjay said:

My friend has a 2015 LP Classic and it was much better quality than my old 2003 Standard

I haven't seen a 2015 with quality problems either - apart from faulty robot tuners and sticking brass nuts - but the issue I have is simply that I find the necks uncomfortable to the point of unplayable.

If you like the wide neck and you can live with the other stuff or have it replaced, then you can get a bargain. Just don't expect to sell it easily.

proggy

I've never owned a Gibson, I can't recall ever playing one to be honest, but if they or so hit and miss on build quality why are they so sought after and expensive?

It's not often you see one going cheap. If ever.

Jonathanthomas83

proggy said:

I've never owned a Gibson, I can't recall ever playing one to be honest, but if they or so hit and miss on build quality why are they so sought after and expensive?

It's not often you see one going cheap. If ever.

Brand, they look incredible and are widely used by a lot of our favourite artists. It's a classic right up there with a Strat or Tele.

p90fool

proggy said:

I've never owned a Gibson, I can't recall ever playing one to be honest, but if they or so hit and miss on build quality why are they so sought after and expensive?

They're not, it's just their attention to tiny cosmetic details got a bit left behind when the likes of PRS came along to up the ante and everyone else started spraying their computer-built guitars with a flawless sheet of glass-like plastic. 

Add about a million internet know-it-alls to the equation and all of a sudden they're rubbish guitars at outrageous prices, even though half the world's favourite records are made using them.  

The truth is that Gibson have been making a tiny number of dodgy guitars and a huge number of fantastic guitars with occasional finish imperfections for well over a century, and your perception of whether that matters will largely depend on whether you're a musician or a collector. 

proggy

p90fool said:

proggy said:

I've never owned a Gibson, I can't recall ever playing one to be honest, but if they or so hit and miss on build quality why are they so sought after and expensive?

They're not, it's just their attention to tiny cosmetic details got a bit left behind when the likes of PRS came along to up the ante and everyone else started spraying their computer-built guitars with a flawless sheet of glass-like plastic. 

Add about a million internet know-it-alls to the equation and all of a sudden they're rubbish guitars at outrageous prices, even though half the world's favourite records are made using them.  

The truth is that Gibson have been making a tiny number of dodgy guitars and a huge number of fantastic guitars with occasional finish imperfections for well over a century, and your perception of whether that matters will largely depend on whether you're a musician or a collector. 

Understood. It's just that I've always been a Fender player but lately I keep looking at P90 loaded LP gold tops. It is only a matter of time.

Jonathanthomas83

p90fool said:

Add about a million internet know-it-alls to the equation and all of a sudden they're rubbish guitars at outrageous prices, even though half the world's favourite records are made using them.  

Surely you can only compare something to what else is on the market, competing with it?

I have a Les Paul and a Custom 24 and there's not a question in my mind which is the better-made guitar, which of course has the advantage of having more modern build. I put up with the lesser quality (which is still superb by most standards) of the Les Paul because it's the guitar I dreamt about when I was a kid and it looks incredible, and primarily it sounds like nothing else I own, amazing.

I get where you're coming from @p90fool. I guess the question is "can I get a better-made guitar for my money?", and the answer, in my mind, is "yes" - perhaps more PC would be to say, "yes, maybe but it's down to personal taste".

But if someone had not experienced the quality of better made, more modern guitars, then they'll probably never have an issue with any of the things that bug me about my Les Paul.

Sorry, hope that doesn't across too harshly.

p90fool

Jonathanthomas83 said:

p90fool said:

Add about a million internet know-it-alls to the equation and all of a sudden they're rubbish guitars at outrageous prices, even though half the world's favourite records are made using them.  

Surely you can only compare something to what else is on the market, competing with it?

I have a Les Paul and a Custom 24 and there's not a question in my mind which is the better-made guitar, which of course has the advantage of having more modern build. I put up with the lesser quality (which is still superb by most standards) of the Les Paul because it's the guitar I dreamt about when I was a kid and it looks incredible, and primarily it sounds like nothing else I own, amazing.

I get where you're coming from @p90fool. I guess the question is "can I get a better-made guitar for my money?", and the answer, in my mind, is "yes" - perhaps more PC would be to say, "yes, maybe but it's down to personal taste".

But if someone had not experienced the quality of better made, more modern guitars, then they'll probably never have an issue with any of the things that bug me about my Les Paul.

Sorry, hope that doesn't across too harshly.

Not at all, and Gibson have HAD to up their game in recent years, having been shown up by everyone else.

But you still say yours sounds like nothing else you own, and I guess everyone has their own personal tipping point about when non-critical blemishes overcome the positive playing experience. 

To be fair, I may sometimes come across as Gibson's biggest defender, but the truth is that I really just don't care very much about cosmetic perfection because I'm going to gig the hell out of it anyway, so my own tipping point is heavily biased towards sound over looks.

http://i66.tinypic.com/29eizro.jpg ;

Jonathanthomas83

@p90fool absolutely, and that's what they're made for! Lovely guitar by the way, love it!

I guess I'm less concerned about cosmetics, like you, but some of the fundamental build stuff bothers me...but as you say, not enough to warrant not having one. I put up with those minor things in order to have one of the guitars of my dreams :-)

Neill

impmann said:

Best advice - don’t ask that question of a Guitar forum.

Go and play one for yourself - if you like it, it doesn’t matter a damn what anyone you’ve never met thinks.

Absolutely.  You do better to ask someone who sells guitars for a living. 

I'm well out of the loop in this respect, I haven't set foot in a guitar shop for maybe 15 years but I get the impression that the ascendancy of Paul Reed Smith guitars, presumably at the expense of Gibson and Fender, is much to do with their attention to quality control, so if anything I would have thought that modern Gibsons/Fenders would be better as the bar is being raised.

I do recall reading guitar reviews 20-30 years ago and being quite shocked at the faults the reviewer would find, things that would be totally unacceptable today.  

richardhomer

Beyond a certain point, I’m not sure how much build quality matters.

Comparing a PRS CU24 to a typical Les Paul will reveal (by and large) that the PRS is ‘perfect’ and that the Gibson has various minor, cosmetic flaws.

The issue is surely that the two guitars are not interchangeable - they sound and feel very different from each other.

If you want a Les Paul, you probably need to buy a Les Paul....

Jonathanthomas83

richardhomer said:

The issue is surely that the two guitars are not interchangeable - they sound and feel very different from each other.

If you want a Les Paul, you probably need to buy a Les Paul....

Absolutely agree.

I'm gonna try a 594 today though and will report back on how close it gets, my assumption is, not close enough.