So, that whole thing about Gibson quality control...

terada

Bridgehouse said:

richardhomer said:

thegummy said:

Chalky said:

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

How many could build a custom 22 or mccarty 584?

Or even a 594 - they’re ‘1’ harder....

Shurly 10 harder?

But those go to 11?

and don’t call him Shurly 

richardhomer

Bridgehouse said:

Or even a 594 - they’re ‘1’ harder....

Shurly 10 harder?

‘Lol’ duly awarded in a - ‘I’m back from a very hot afternoon sitting outside my local and can’t think of a suitable retort’ - sort of way....

Jez6345789

It has to be said the internet does not help any manufacturers quality control record. 
These days that 10 in a hundred rapidly becomes a trend on global forums. 

I was told by one guitar repairer who used to get called into the distributors back in the day when they had a large shipment to sort out. It was day work to help out their in house guy . It was just as shit then our job was just to do a very basic setup after shipping and check them over it often went way further than that to sort issues.  Or as it was put to me it was always shit it was just better managed back then. 

Another friend that used to work in London in a music shop in the early 60's said when the first Stratocaster arrived said  we were forbidden from even looking at them as they chipped paint like crazy and people did not like that on a new guitar back then. LOL

Bigsby

Chalky said:

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

I don't see how it's coincidental to the topic of this thread - unless you're suggesting that the employees of Gibson and Fender are amateurs.

Does this top-of-the-range SG from 2016 look like the work of an amateur?

thegummy

Bigsby said:

Chalky said:

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

I don't see how it's coincidental to the topic of this thread - unless you're suggesting that the employees of Gibson and Fender are amateurs.

Does this top-of-the-range SG from 2016 look like the work of an amateur?

I may be wrong but I took his point to be that LP's are harder to get right than Strats which is why Gibson have more baduns than Fender.

If I'm right in thinking that's his point, that's why I mentioned about the PRS - those are just as hard to build as Gibsons but they have better QC.

Being harder to build explains the price difference but doesn't excuse QC. The only thing that could excuse it, IMO, is if there was a much cheaper range specifically with more lax QC standards. If that's what Gibson are doing with the Tributes then I feel 900 quid is still far too much to have lax standards.

Bigsby

thegummy said:

Bigsby said:

Chalky said:

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

I don't see how it's coincidental to the topic of this thread - unless you're suggesting that the employees of Gibson and Fender are amateurs.

Does this top-of-the-range SG from 2016 look like the work of an amateur?

I may be wrong but I took his point to be that LP's are harder to get right than Strats which is why Gibson have more baduns than Fender.

If I'm right in thinking that's his point, that's why I mentioned about the PRS - those are just as hard to build as Gibsons but they have better QC.

That may well be the point (it's hardly clear), but if it is, there's nothing coincidental in terms of this topic: A company that's been producing instruments for over 120 years should be able to produce them to a consistent standard, and if they can't, their QC should be picking up their failures. There's no correlation between build difficulty and QC: In the past, Fender have also had QC issues, despite the easier to manufacture designs, (and those issues were widely reported), but they seem to have sorted them out some time ago.

thegummy

Bigsby said:

thegummy said:

Bigsby said:

Chalky said:

For every amateur who can build a good Les Paul replica, there's hundreds of folks who can put together a partscaster.  Coincidence?

I don't see how it's coincidental to the topic of this thread - unless you're suggesting that the employees of Gibson and Fender are amateurs.

Does this top-of-the-range SG from 2016 look like the work of an amateur?

I may be wrong but I took his point to be that LP's are harder to get right than Strats which is why Gibson have more baduns than Fender.

If I'm right in thinking that's his point, that's why I mentioned about the PRS - those are just as hard to build as Gibsons but they have better QC.

That may well be the point (it's hardly clear), but if it is, there's nothing coincidental in terms of this topic: A company that's been producing instruments for over 120 years should be able to produce them to a consistent standard, and if they can't, their QC should be picking up their failures. There's no correlation between build difficulty and QC: In the past, Fender have also had QC issues, despite the easier to manufacture designs, (and those issues were widely reported), but they seem to have sorted them out some time ago.

Aye - if a model is difficult to build correctly it may well lead to more rejected units but it shouldn't lead to any more units that have been put through as acceptable.

Bridgehouse

richardhomer said:

Bridgehouse said:

Or even a 594 - they’re ‘1’ harder....

Shurly 10 harder?

‘Lol’ duly awarded in a - ‘I’m back from a very hot afternoon sitting outside my local and can’t think of a suitable retort’ - sort of way....

You’ve deserved a beer for a while anyway so I’ll let you off

I was distracted doing this:

Bridgehouse

(My quality control *might* have been affected by beer)

richardhomer

Bridgehouse said:

(My quality control *might* have been affected by beer)

The quality control looks pretty poor to me - they’ve left off the bridge, pick up, controls, strap button, machine heads, string tree, strings and finish. And some idiots added an f hole to a design that shouldn’t have one....

’Sloppy’ doesn’t quite cover it....

Wazmeister

It’s well documented how poor the QC has been on Gibson electrics, by dealers let alone us mere punters...

I wish I could name one well known dealer who showed me some Gibson stock he had... you could have literally cut your fingers on the frets, and there were very high end.

I also owned 4 2015 models which were superb; go figure.

Still, all anecdotal. 

Haych

thegummy said:

Aye - if a model is difficult to build correctly it may well lead to more rejected units but it shouldn't lead to any more units that have been put through as acceptable.

I don’t understand necessarily why a Gibson model should be more difficult to build that a Fender, as was previously suggested, I think. 

I’m no expert on what goes on inside the Gibson factory but I’d have guessed that most of the difficult stuff is done by CNC machine and at the very least jigs are used where CNC isn’t pragmatic. 

I do get that say, building a Les Paul is more involved, than building a Strat but given modern manufacturing techniques and technology they should be able to churn them out like they’re shelling peas. 

The “craftsmen” shouldn’t really have to do a lot other than assemble the parts and glue them together. If the necks and bodies are coming off a CNC mill within tolerance then I don’t see what’s so difficult about it?

Previous comments, though, make me wonder if Gibson do use CNC machinery to their full advantage.  How do you misalign a neck joint that badly if they don’t? If they don’t then perhaps they should have been investing in their factories rather than spurious electronics acquisitions. 

Bridgehouse

richardhomer said:

Bridgehouse said:

(My quality control *might* have been affected by beer)

The quality control looks pretty poor to me - they’ve left off the bridge, pick up, controls, strap button, machine heads, string tree, strings and finish. And some idiots added an f hole to a design that shouldn’t have one....

’Sloppy’ doesn’t quite cover it....

“In your opinion”

Bigsby

Haych said:

thegummy said:

Aye - if a model is difficult to build correctly it may well lead to more rejected units but it shouldn't lead to any more units that have been put through as acceptable.

I don’t understand necessarily why a Gibson model should be more difficult to build that a Fender, as was previously suggested, I think. 

I’m no expert on what goes on inside the Gibson factory but I’d have guessed that most of the difficult stuff is done by CNC machine and at the very least jigs are used where CNC isn’t pragmatic. 

I do get that say, building a Les Paul is more involved, than building a Strat but given modern manufacturing techniques and technology they should be able to churn them out like they’re shelling peas. 

The “craftsmen” shouldn’t really have to do a lot other than assemble the parts and glue them together. If the necks and bodies are coming off a CNC mill within tolerance then I don’t see what’s so difficult about it?

Previous comments, though, make me wonder if Gibson do use CNC machinery to their full advantage.  How do you misalign a neck joint that badly if they don’t? If they don’t then perhaps they should have been investing in their factories rather than spurious electronics acquisitions. 

As a company selling into a competitive market, but with a firm intention to maintain production in a high labour cost location, I'm pretty sure Gibson USA try to mechanise the process as much as possible. Their rapid adoption of PLEK machines suggests they do - they initially used them on high end models, and them bought more and used them on their entire output.

Clearly, Leo Fender designed his products to be manufactured quickly and efficiently, whilst Gibson maintained more traditional approaches to construction and finish - whilst this might impact final price, I fail to see how it would cause more flawed guitars to hit the stores (and manufacturers such as PRS, Yamaha and Ibanez don't seem to struggle with QC). Additionally, most flaws I've seen on my Gibsons have not been connected with any 'difficult' manufacturing process - such as the truss rod cover screwed on so crooked it's the first thing you notice when looking at the headstock. 

OilCityPickups

Chalky said:

Person A stays in a hotel and isn't happy with the service.  A writes a negative review.

B reads the negative review and via a forum passes on to C, D and E that the hotel is not good. The pass it on to others.

Someone else reads this later and sees several negative comments about the hotel and concludes not to go there.  But the truth is that only one negative experience by one person led to many negative comments about the hotel.  And of course most people do not bother signing up to give a review because their experience was fine so why bother?

Thus the hotel gets a disproportionate reputation, mainly from those folks who regurgitate what they've read on the internet, often with no direct hands on experience.

A guitar has a twisted neck. Will it only be represented by one comment? No. It will be represented by comments by everyone who has had any connection with it, even when the only connection is that they saw a picture of it on the internet.  That is what the internet is like - one negative experience becomes multiplied and amplified. Good experience does not.

Have a wisdom :-)
Bad news has always travelled faster than good, papers have always sold on tragedy rather than triumph. Why should the internet be any different?

Chalky

TheGuitarWeasel said:

Chalky said:

Person A stays in a hotel and isn't happy with the service.  A writes a negative review.

B reads the negative review and via a forum passes on to C, D and E that the hotel is not good. The pass it on to others.

Someone else reads this later and sees several negative comments about the hotel and concludes not to go there.  But the truth is that only one negative experience by one person led to many negative comments about the hotel.  And of course most people do not bother signing up to give a review because their experience was fine so why bother?

Thus the hotel gets a disproportionate reputation, mainly from those folks who regurgitate what they've read on the internet, often with no direct hands on experience.

A guitar has a twisted neck. Will it only be represented by one comment? No. It will be represented by comments by everyone who has had any connection with it, even when the only connection is that they saw a picture of it on the internet.  That is what the internet is like - one negative experience becomes multiplied and amplified. Good experience does not.

Have a wisdom :-)
Bad news has always travelled faster than good, papers have always sold on tragedy rather than triumph. Why should the internet be any different?

Wis returned.  You make an excellent point. We regularly blamed newspapers in the 70s for always as you say selling "tragedy rather than triumph". Yet Youtube, Facebook, etc, where ordinary folks create the content are just as bad. Wish I knew why...

TeeByrd

Owned 2 LP Standards - both had serious issues with necks. Both got returned. My SG, however, is pretty damn perfect - no QC concerns whatsoever. 

Henrytwang

I’ve bought around 10 new Gibson guitars over the last 30 years, the last couple  a 2016 Les Paul Standard and Traditional. They were both very well made and only required minor tweaking to suit my personal action preferences. I had a lot more problems,( mainly electrical), with new Gibson’s bought in the 1990s, everybody seems to be on a get Gibson campaign these days.

Flametop

TheGuitarWeasel said:

Chalky said:

Person A stays in a hotel and isn't happy with the service.  A writes a negative review.

B reads the negative review and via a forum passes on to C, D and E that the hotel is not good. The pass it on to others.

Someone else reads this later and sees several negative comments about the hotel and concludes not to go there.  But the truth is that only one negative experience by one person led to many negative comments about the hotel.  And of course most people do not bother signing up to give a review because their experience was fine so why bother?

Thus the hotel gets a disproportionate reputation, mainly from those folks who regurgitate what they've read on the internet, often with no direct hands on experience.

A guitar has a twisted neck. Will it only be represented by one comment? No. It will be represented by comments by everyone who has had any connection with it, even when the only connection is that they saw a picture of it on the internet.  That is what the internet is like - one negative experience becomes multiplied and amplified. Good experience does not.

Have a wisdom :-)
Bad news has always travelled faster than good, papers have always sold on tragedy rather than triumph. Why should the internet be any different?

This is all true, but in the context of this thread does it actually make any difference. You would expect every manufacturer’s bad news travel at the same rate assuming they ship similar numbers of guitars.
I couldn’t find any recent data  to confirm this is the case but I recall some sales figures from a few years back that suggested that Fender was slightly ahead in terms of guitars shipped. Not vouching for the reliability of my memory though. 

The way I see it there are a few possibilities:

1) Fender has a similar level of QC but their marketing department is far more effective at stomping on outbreaks of negativity. 

2) People don’t make a fuss about a bad experience if they drop a grand on a guitar but they do if they drop 2.5k. 

3) There is a massive internet conspiracy to smear Gibson. 

4) Fender aficionados are far more positive people than their Gibson equivalent. 

5) Gibson’s quality control is actually worse. 

 None of this actually makes any difference to whether I’d buy one. I would just make sure I played it first, which given the cost, I would do anyway. 

thegummy

Flametop said:

TheGuitarWeasel said:

Chalky said:

Person A stays in a hotel and isn't happy with the service.  A writes a negative review.

B reads the negative review and via a forum passes on to C, D and E that the hotel is not good. The pass it on to others.

Someone else reads this later and sees several negative comments about the hotel and concludes not to go there.  But the truth is that only one negative experience by one person led to many negative comments about the hotel.  And of course most people do not bother signing up to give a review because their experience was fine so why bother?

Thus the hotel gets a disproportionate reputation, mainly from those folks who regurgitate what they've read on the internet, often with no direct hands on experience.

A guitar has a twisted neck. Will it only be represented by one comment? No. It will be represented by comments by everyone who has had any connection with it, even when the only connection is that they saw a picture of it on the internet.  That is what the internet is like - one negative experience becomes multiplied and amplified. Good experience does not.

Have a wisdom :-)
Bad news has always travelled faster than good, papers have always sold on tragedy rather than triumph. Why should the internet be any different?

This is all true, but in the context of this thread does it actually make any difference. You would expect every manufacturer’s bad news travel at the same rate assuming they ship similar numbers of guitars.
I couldn’t find any recent data  to confirm this is the case but I recall some sales figures from a few years back that suggested that Fender was slightly ahead in terms of guitars shipped. Not vouching for the reliability of my memory though. 

The way I see it there are a few possibilities:

1) Fender has a similar level of QC but their marketing department is far more effective at stomping on outbreaks of negativity. 

2) People don’t make a fuss about a bad experience if they drop a grand on a guitar but they do if they drop 2.5k. 

3) There is a massive internet conspiracy to smear Gibson. 

4) Fender aficionados are far more positive people than their Gibson equivalent. 

5) Gibson’s quality control is actually worse. 

 None of this actually makes any difference to whether I’d buy one. I would just make sure I played it first, which given the cost, I would do anyway. 

I think the only feasible one is the last.

Point number 2 might come into it slightly if the problem is minute but someone finds that unacceptable on such an expensive guitar. But most of the problems I've seen reported aren't so minute.