New Gibson build quality ....

JDE · May 2019

@terada my point was more; how is it possible that among a relatively small group of people who have bought a relatively expensive and relatively simple item are able to find so many flaws. And how is the company that makes the expensive, simple item (and have been doing so for basically 60 years), still one of the two largest names in the entire industry?
If the manufacturing failings of the cited examples where proportional to the amount of shit Gibson’s.....
The issues with GIbson guitars are more akin to someone receiving a car with no steering wheel rather than a technical glitch. Things like screens popping off a phone should have been picked up by R&D, it’s not a fault of the manufacturing process. In fact the faults listed about the iPhone are more down to Apple cutting corners with material, rather than how the materials are assembled. That is not a manufacturing issue, that is poor product development.

They have been making Les Paul’s since the 50’s, how much more practice do they need?

SteveRobinson · May 2019

I'm sure that some bean counter at Gibson will have estimated the cost of improving the quality, how much more revenue it would generate and decided it's not worth it.

Bigsby · May 2019

adam1990 said:

Would it be fair to say that most of the bad feedback is from people that either can't afford one or don't want to afford one?

I still find it hard to believe that people are still moaning about the price even though Gibson has just slashed the price of them! After all how many other companies drop the price of a high end product?

No, it wouldn't be fair, as most of the reports of poor QC come from people who have actually bought one. That's how they come to know about the issues in the first place.

Companies can do something about poor QC - Fender did, and that's why you don't see the same level of criticism aimed at them any more (or PRS, Ibanez, Yamaha, etc.). Hopefully, things will begin to change at Gibson - but, once you've earned a bad reputation, you've got to work that much harder to gain a good one.

Meanwhile, inevitably, you get a lot of comments such as 'I've bought five Gibsons and they were all perfect' - which misses the point: If their QC was so bad that more than one in five guitars were flawed, they would've gone out of business by now! It's really dealers that get to see variations in QC between brands. Remember the ratio of Custom shop R8s that Peach said they had to return last year? IIRC, it was 9 out of 50 (please correct me if I'm wrong).

As for prices, a 2019 SG Special comes in at £1,200 - which is about what the SG Standard HP was in 2016 (I bought one for £950!), and that had a much higher spec. While the vibrola equipped SG Standard is about £1,650 - several hundred more than the SG Custom signature model of 2014 (which had a vibrola and three pickups), or the three P90 equipped SG Standard signature from last year. I don't see these prices as having been slashed at all.

Philly_Q · May 2019

adam1990 said:

Would it be fair to say that most of the bad feedback is from people that either can't afford one or don't want to afford one?

No. I've owned approximately 30 Gibson guitars over the years and I'd say probably only 4 or 5 of them, if that, have been what I'd call "flawless". All the others, Custom Shop included, have had some evidence of sloppy workmanship.

Nearly all of it was cosmetic stuff like orange peel in the finish, file marks on the fretboard, residue of polishing compounds in the nooks and crannies. Others had slightly more serious problems with badly cut nuts, poorly finished frets, extremely dry fretboards, bad setup. Nearly all of them have that "ridge" you can feel where the fretboard (or binding) joins the neck. The most serious fault - for me - is overly steep neck angles which need the bridge and tailpiece to be set very high, I just don't like that kind of setup.

Having said all that, I'm not really complaining (except about the last couple of things). I know what to expect and it doesn't really bother me. I like Gibsons. But it is notable that other manufacturers manage to be much more careful and consistent, even with cheaper guitars.

I keep saying, Gibson have new management and they seem to have good intentions. But they're not going to fix an established culture, which has existed for decades, overnight. And let's not kid ourselves, they're not there just because they love the brand, they want to make a profit.

antonyiv · May 2019

The example with the cars and phones is a bit off. They are combination of two components - software and hardware and moreover, they are new products. This means that the company has actual Research and Development unit that invests in innovation. Releasing new product every 2 or 3 years with complete redesign is much harder than maintaining quality of an existing product. And there are much more people involved much means more room for mistakes.

How many iPhones come without cameras or side buttons?

Philly_Q · May 2019

antonyiv said:
How many iPhones come without cameras or side buttons?

Or headphone sockets.

Wonky · May 2019

I think there's a really good parallel between Gibson and Apple. Both companies that sometimes make great products, but also both companies that do not address simple design/material issues with their products.
How often have you seen an I phone with an intact screen? Look at them the wrong way and they shatter. More than any other phone brand it's an issue. But have they ever done anything about it. Nope. Has it effected sales? Nope.
How many Gibson head stocks have you seen broken? Some for no reason, some from light taps and some from proper knocks. I've never had any other brand of guitar snap that way in that same place. So everyone knows it's an issue, but have they done anything about it? Nope. Has it effected sales? Nope
With that said, every time I look at pretty Les Paul, I stop myself and think 'never again'. I mean why would you? Well I wouldn't anyway, but you can make your own mind up.
I know this isn't the same quality issues that we're talking about here, indeed it's as much a design fault as anything, but my point is that they don't do anything about serious quality issues or design issues because it doesn't matter to them as people keep buying them. Knock yourselves out, but you're voting with your wallets on a luxury item that's possibly sub par. How pissed would you be if you bought a Porsche and the steering wheel snapped off or you noticed cracks in the doors?
The issues are real and if others can produce guitars without these sorts of issues even at a much lower price point then I think people should expect better and indeed for that sort of money should be guaranteed quality. After all, quality control is only really one man who knows his was around a guitar looking it over for probably ten to fifteen minutes before it gets sent out, so that part of it is not actually a big deal. I mean other people manage it, why not Gibson?

tony99 · May 2019

Wonky said:

I think there's a really good parallel between Gibson and Apple. Both companies that sometimes make great products, but also both companies that do not address simple design/material issues with their products.
How often have you seen an I phone with an intact screen? Look at them the wrong way and they shatter. More than any other phone brand it's an issue. But have they ever done anything about it. Nope. Has it effected sales? Nope.
How many Gibson head stocks have you seen broken? Some for no reason, some from light taps and some from proper knocks. I've never had any other brand of guitar snap that way in that same place. So everyone knows it's an issue, but have they done anything about it? Nope. Has it effected sales? Nope
With that said, every time I look at pretty Les Paul, I stop myself and think 'never again'. I mean why would you? Well I wouldn't anyway, but you can make your own mind up.
I know this isn't the same quality issues that we're talking about here, indeed it's as much a design fault as anything, but my point is that they don't do anything about serious quality issues or design issues because it doesn't matter to them as people keep buying them. Knock yourselves out, but you're voting with your wallets on a luxury item that's possibly sub par. How pissed would you be if you bought a Porsche and the steering wheel snapped off or you noticed cracks in the doors?
The issues are real and if others can produce guitars without these sorts of issues even at a much lower price point then I think people should expect better and indeed for that sort of money should be guaranteed quality. After all, quality control is only really one man who knows his was around a guitar looking it over for probably ten to fifteen minutes before it gets sent out, so that part of it is not actually a big deal. I mean other people manage it, why not Gibson?

it's those little quirks and idiosyncrasies that make them so oooooh I dunno lovable???

if all gibsons came with the sterile and conformist QC of PRS then they would lose their edge and be less dare I say it, rock n roll?

there's a reason why true rock n rollers wear biker jackets, ripped jeans and have stubble, it's because we're bad boys yeah? we're not perfect and we don't pretend to be, and the chicks dig that, which is quite frankly a bonus

if it's perfection you seek then I question your commitment to this 'thing' of ours, this thing that we all live for, and Jimi n Bonzo died for

or hey, maybe you're just a square daddyoh

crunchman · May 2019

I've owned 7 Gibsons. Had issues with 3 of them.

The worst one was actually a Custom Shop. That one had fundamental issues. The neck angle was too steep, so the bridge was far too high up the posts, and was tipping over because it wasn't all on the posts. The bridge posts weren't drilled in quite the right place either. A respected repairer told me that if it was his he'd fill the holes and drill new ones 3mm away. It's quite an expensive way to learn about what makes a good Les Paul!

The issues on the the other two were fixable, but you shouldn't have tooling marks on fretboard. The wires should be soldered to the volume pot - not just wrapped around the tags and left to come loose. Cutting a nut so badly that it makes a repairer burst out laughing is not good either. Also, some of the cosmetics on the two guitars that had those issues weren't great, but I'm not too bothered about that.

3 out of 7 is probably higher than average, but there is no denying that there have been significant issues.

The problem guitars I had were 2007, 2010, and 2015. It could be better now. I haven't tried any of the 2019 models.

Wonky · May 2019

tony99 said:

Wonky said:

I think there's a really good parallel between Gibson and Apple. Both companies that sometimes make great products, but also both companies that do not address simple design/material issues with their products.
How often have you seen an I phone with an intact screen? Look at them the wrong way and they shatter. More than any other phone brand it's an issue. But have they ever done anything about it. Nope. Has it effected sales? Nope.
How many Gibson head stocks have you seen broken? Some for no reason, some from light taps and some from proper knocks. I've never had any other brand of guitar snap that way in that same place. So everyone knows it's an issue, but have they done anything about it? Nope. Has it effected sales? Nope
With that said, every time I look at pretty Les Paul, I stop myself and think 'never again'. I mean why would you? Well I wouldn't anyway, but you can make your own mind up.
I know this isn't the same quality issues that we're talking about here, indeed it's as much a design fault as anything, but my point is that they don't do anything about serious quality issues or design issues because it doesn't matter to them as people keep buying them. Knock yourselves out, but you're voting with your wallets on a luxury item that's possibly sub par. How pissed would you be if you bought a Porsche and the steering wheel snapped off or you noticed cracks in the doors?
The issues are real and if others can produce guitars without these sorts of issues even at a much lower price point then I think people should expect better and indeed for that sort of money should be guaranteed quality. After all, quality control is only really one man who knows his was around a guitar looking it over for probably ten to fifteen minutes before it gets sent out, so that part of it is not actually a big deal. I mean other people manage it, why not Gibson?

it's those little quirks and idiosyncrasies that make them so oooooh I dunno lovable???

if all gibsons came with the sterile and conformist QC of PRS then they would lose their edge and be less dare I say it, rock n roll?

there's a reason why true rock n rollers wear biker jackets, ripped jeans and have stubble, it's because we're bad boys yeah? we're not perfect and we don't pretend to be, and the chicks dig that, which is quite frankly a bonus

if it's perfection you seek then I question your commitment to this 'thing' of ours, this thing that we all live for, and Jimi n Bonzo died for

or hey, maybe you're just a square daddyoh

Honestly I do get where you're coming from. But for me at least if I pay that sort of cash for something I really want it to be right and actually last for at least the rest of my life time (be nice if I could pass it on to the kids too).
I'm a strange variety of Jazzer/Fusion/Rock/Metal kind or guy (I love anything technical tbh). But Jazz before all the others. Jazz is about imperfection and resolution. I'm really not into easy listening and I don't mind imperfections if they add to something. Natures full of amazing adaptations to solve problems and difficulties and that's really what Jazz is.
Trouble is you can't play a snapped head stock guitar in the same way that for instance you might have to hone your technique to overcome an unbalanced guitar or slightly high action. I'm sure that years ago we all played guitars that were less than perfect. I know I did and it I personally feel it made me a better guitarist because of it too.
I didn't pay thousands for that lesson though, it came through cheap, poor quality guitars (not sure they make them that bad any more mind). I know Gibson make some great guitars and I'd love to feel that I could own one without worrying, but you have to take into account the market Gibson puts itself in due to pricing. There's people out there that'll make you an absolutely faultless Les Paul for that kind of money. The kind you'd wet your pants for. Holy grail shit. I also know you can find a Gibson like that, but it'll take a lot of hit an miss and trial and error before you do.
I just don't think it should is all. What I'd really like and I think so many others want too is a Gibson of consistency. I really hope that the new administration can sort it out.
Also, when they make something called a high performance, I'd really, really like it if they put the correct amount of fret on it, 24 and sort the head stock issue out and then, count me in.

merciful-evans · May 2019

chris78 said:

My experience is that they’re sloppy at best with QC. I’ve never played a PRS that wasn’t flawless so it is possible to mass produce and get it right. On the other hand, I find most PRS to be so perfect, they’re a bit sterile. Gibson need to look at the quality of PRS SE and S2 models and be embarrassed when they’re charging £2k+ for guitars with issues

PRS are not exempt.

1/ My new CE24 had a twisted neck. A new neck was made, shipped and fitted under warranty. Its solved the twist problem. Then I noticed that above the 12th fret, the frets had not been crowned or polished.

2/ GV had a Custom 24 I have lusted after for a year. Finally, during a visit, I had the opportunity to try it out. Once I did I immediately realised why it had remained unsold. It was the worst handling PRS I had ever encountered.

Gibson do have a poor QC rep. They have improved over the last 4 years IMO.

When I was looking for a ES-339 I went to Andertons to try a 2015 model. They had to go fetch this from their warehouse. I was told this would take 45 minutes and I was asked if I would like the try the 2014 models they had in store. I played all 3 of them. They all had unforgivable flaws. One had its neck misaligned with the bridge. I reasoned from those examples that I would be going home without a guitar that day. But when it arrived the 2015 one was excellent straight out of the box.

This seemed strange at the time, but I reasoned later that the store kept those previous years models there to get rid of them prior to bringing the 2015s in. They were the last of the 2014 models and must have been rejected by every player for the same reasons I had rejected them. This was natural selection 'almost' in reverse.

darthed1981 · May 2019

adam1990 said:
Would it be fair to say that most of the bad feedback is from people that either can't afford one or don't want to afford one?

That's the second time I've seen this accusation levelled recently on here, leaves something of a bad taste in the mouth for me. Almost like the wealthier members feel they have a right to look down on the less well-heeled ones, a pretty clear violation of rule one... (I'm sure you don't mean this personally mate, but it comes across that way).

There are members on here with a lot less disposable income than me who are much much better guitarists and whose opinion I'd value on any guitar, regardless of whether they could personally afford to buy it or not.

I think the most likely reason for the criticism is legitimately held opinions based on people playing Gibsons, and I think we should probably all concede that before discussing the topic.

tony99 · May 2019

Wonky said:

tony99 said:

Wonky said:

I think there's a really good parallel between Gibson and Apple. Both companies that sometimes make great products, but also both companies that do not address simple design/material issues with their products.
How often have you seen an I phone with an intact screen? Look at them the wrong way and they shatter. More than any other phone brand it's an issue. But have they ever done anything about it. Nope. Has it effected sales? Nope.
How many Gibson head stocks have you seen broken? Some for no reason, some from light taps and some from proper knocks. I've never had any other brand of guitar snap that way in that same place. So everyone knows it's an issue, but have they done anything about it? Nope. Has it effected sales? Nope
With that said, every time I look at pretty Les Paul, I stop myself and think 'never again'. I mean why would you? Well I wouldn't anyway, but you can make your own mind up.
I know this isn't the same quality issues that we're talking about here, indeed it's as much a design fault as anything, but my point is that they don't do anything about serious quality issues or design issues because it doesn't matter to them as people keep buying them. Knock yourselves out, but you're voting with your wallets on a luxury item that's possibly sub par. How pissed would you be if you bought a Porsche and the steering wheel snapped off or you noticed cracks in the doors?
The issues are real and if others can produce guitars without these sorts of issues even at a much lower price point then I think people should expect better and indeed for that sort of money should be guaranteed quality. After all, quality control is only really one man who knows his was around a guitar looking it over for probably ten to fifteen minutes before it gets sent out, so that part of it is not actually a big deal. I mean other people manage it, why not Gibson?

it's those little quirks and idiosyncrasies that make them so oooooh I dunno lovable???

if all gibsons came with the sterile and conformist QC of PRS then they would lose their edge and be less dare I say it, rock n roll?

there's a reason why true rock n rollers wear biker jackets, ripped jeans and have stubble, it's because we're bad boys yeah? we're not perfect and we don't pretend to be, and the chicks dig that, which is quite frankly a bonus

if it's perfection you seek then I question your commitment to this 'thing' of ours, this thing that we all live for, and Jimi n Bonzo died for

or hey, maybe you're just a square daddyoh

Honestly I do get where you're coming from. But for me at least if I pay that sort of cash for something I really want it to be right and actually last for at least the rest of my life time (be nice if I could pass it on to the kids too).
I'm a strange variety of Jazzer/Fusion/Rock/Metal kind or guy (I love anything technical tbh). But Jazz before all the others. Jazz is about imperfection and resolution. I'm really not into easy listening and I don't mind imperfections if they add to something. Natures full of amazing adaptations to solve problems and difficulties and that's really what Jazz is.
Trouble is you can't play a snapped head stock guitar in the same way that for instance you might have to hone your technique to overcome an unbalanced guitar or slightly high action. I'm sure that years ago we all played guitars that were less than perfect. I know I did and it I personally feel it made me a better guitarist because of it too.
I didn't pay thousands for that lesson though, it came through cheap, poor quality guitars (not sure they make them that bad any more mind). I know Gibson make some great guitars and I'd love to feel that I could own one without worrying, but you have to take into account the market Gibson puts itself in due to pricing. There's people out there that'll make you an absolutely faultless Les Paul for that kind of money. The kind you'd wet your pants for. Holy grail shit. I also know you can find a Gibson like that, but it'll take a lot of hit an miss and trial and error before you do.
I just don't think it should is all. What I'd really like and I think so many others want too is a Gibson of consistency. I really hope that the new administration can sort it out.
Also, when they make something called a high performance, I'd really, really like it if they put the correct amount of fret on it, 24 and sort the head stock issue out and then, count me in.

That's fair comment actually wonkers old chum, bounce ball.

You make a good point and you make it well, didn't realise you were a jazzhound, that's fair do's, nothing wrong with that, we are what we are, it's why opal fruits are all different flavours.

Saludos

adam1990 · May 2019

darthed1981 said:

adam1990 said:
Would it be fair to say that most of the bad feedback is from people that either can't afford one or don't want to afford one?

That's the second time I've seen this accusation levelled recently on here, leaves something of a bad taste in the mouth for me. Almost like the wealthier members feel they have a right to look down on the less well-heeled ones, a pretty clear violation of rule one... (I'm sure you don't mean this personally mate, but it comes across that way).

There are members on here with a lot less disposable income than me who are much much better guitarists and whose opinion I'd value on any guitar, regardless of whether they could personally afford to buy it or not.

I think the most likely reason for the criticism is legitimately held opinions based on people playing Gibsons, and I think we should probably all concede that before discussing the topic.

I started this topic as debate on the quality of the new line of guitars and guitars of recent years, which there is plenty of bad press online about them. But I have yet to see this or know of anyone personally with any of the issue's all over the internet, so it had crossed my mind that maybe it was possible that a fair few of the negative comments had come from people that are perhaps bitter at Gibson for being out of reach for them.

This topic was posted so other people could share their personal experience with Gibson if they owned one or not. Because it is very easy for someone to just spread negativity online without even trying one just because they are angry with a brand for pricing reasons.

There is no need for this to leave a bad taste in your month because I'm not looking down or judging anyone who can't afford to splash out on a Gibson. Believe me I'm not exactly in a position to just go and buy anything of that sort of value! yes I am very lucky to have some very nice guitars but it did take me a long time to save for them all and I brought most of them second hand to be able to afford them.

darthed1981 · May 2019

adam1990 said:

darthed1981 said:

adam1990 said:
Would it be fair to say that most of the bad feedback is from people that either can't afford one or don't want to afford one?

That's the second time I've seen this accusation levelled recently on here, leaves something of a bad taste in the mouth for me. Almost like the wealthier members feel they have a right to look down on the less well-heeled ones, a pretty clear violation of rule one... (I'm sure you don't mean this personally mate, but it comes across that way).

There are members on here with a lot less disposable income than me who are much much better guitarists and whose opinion I'd value on any guitar, regardless of whether they could personally afford to buy it or not.

I think the most likely reason for the criticism is legitimately held opinions based on people playing Gibsons, and I think we should probably all concede that before discussing the topic.

I started this topic as debate on the quality of the new line of guitars and guitars of recent years, which there is plenty of bad press online about them. But I have yet to see this or know of anyone personally with any of the issue's all over the internet, so it had crossed my mind that maybe it was possible that a fair few of the negative comments had come from people that are perhaps bitter at Gibson for being out of reach for them.

This topic was posted so other people could share their personal experience with Gibson if they owned one or not. Because it is very easy for someone to just spread negativity online without even trying one just because they are angry with a brand for pricing reasons.

There is no need for this to leave a bad taste in your month because I'm not looking down or judging anyone who can't afford to splash out on a Gibson. Believe me I'm not exactly in a position to just go and buy anything of that sort of value! yes I am very lucky to have some very nice guitars but it did take me a long time to save for them all and I brought most of them second hand to be able to afford them.

Not personal mate, as I said, second time I've seen it and had to post something this time.

ICBM · May 2019

For what it's worth I've owned over a dozen Gibsons, worked on well over a hundred, and both the best acoustic guitar I've ever played or owned - and still do own, which is not going to change - and the best electric guitar I've ever played are Gibsons. So I think you can assume that I can both afford them and want to afford them.

But that doesn't make me blind to the very real QC faults I see regularly when working on them or playing other ones. My Gibson acoustic has a minor flaw, which is that - as seems to be quite common - the top edge of the headstock hasn't been buffed... which doesn't affect the sound or playability in any way, but it's just a bit careless on a £2K+ guitar.

The worst of them are so bad that it's simply impossible to believe that not one of the several employees who must have handled it at different stages cared about the quality of the finished product - or possibly that they did care, but knew that reporting it wouldn't stop it going out, and might come back to bite them. This is common in companies with a poor QC policy.

Don't underestimate employee dissatisfaction as a factor either - a few years ago, Gibson was rated as the *worst company in the US* to work for on a well-known job review site. Not just the worst guitar company, the worst company.

The new chap appears to be making a big effort to turn this around, and it can be done simply by changing the culture. The way companies like PRS achieve good quality is by making defect reporting the right and no-fault responsibility of every employee - if someone spots something that isn't up to par it gets pulled. It's seen as a good thing to pull a faulty product because it improves quality, rather than a bad thing because it affects the shipping totals.

jeztone2 · May 2019

I think they’ve always been inconsistent. My first SG played great but had loads of sloppy cosmetic issues. Bleeding into binding, dry fingerboards etc. My brothers LP has a misaligned machine head. These were both from 2000/2001.

I think the recent ones have been a lot better actually. Bit yes if Yamaha, PRS & Ibanez all can make a consistent instrument. Why can’t Gibson?

TINMAN82 · May 2019

ICBM said:

For what it's worth I've owned over a dozen Gibsons, worked on well over a hundred, and both the best acoustic guitar I've ever played or owned - and still do own, which is not going to change - and the best electric guitar I've ever played are Gibsons. So I think you can assume that I can both afford them and want to afford them.

But that doesn't make me blind to the very real QC faults I see regularly when working on them or playing other ones. My Gibson acoustic has a minor flaw, which is that - as seems to be quite common - the top edge of the headstock hasn't been buffed... which doesn't affect the sound or playability in any way, but it's just a bit careless on a £2K+ guitar.

The worst of them are so bad that it's simply impossible to believe that not one of the several employees who must have handled it at different stages cared about the quality of the finished product - or possibly that they did care, but knew that reporting it wouldn't stop it going out, and might come back to bite them. This is common in companies with a poor QC policy.

Don't underestimate employee dissatisfaction as a factor either - a few years ago, Gibson was rated as the *worst company in the US* to work for on a well-known job review site. Not just the worst guitar company, the worst company.

The new chap appears to be making a big effort to turn this around, and it can be done simply by changing the culture. The way companies like PRS achieve good quality is by making defect reporting the right and no-fault responsibility of every employee - if someone spots something that isn't up to par it gets pulled. It's seen as a good thing to pull a faulty product because it improves quality, rather than a bad thing because it affects the shipping totals.

Out of interest, what models/years of acoustic and electric that you own were the special ones?

prowla · May 2019

Well, I suppose that the people who have an issue are more likely to say something about it.

Whereas if you say it's great nobody's particularly interested and you're just dismissed as a fanboi.

I follow another guitar/bass brand and it seems that a few issues have turned into a mantra for the disgruntled and wannabe disgruntleds.

I've only got 1 Gibson, an '06 SG Special and it's fine.

ICBM · May 2019

TINMAN82 said:

Out of interest, what models/years of acoustic and electric that you own were the special ones?

The acoustic is a 2008 Dove. The electric was a '56 Les Paul Custom - I didn't own that one

. Although I should have...

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

New Gibson build quality ....

Comments