Gibson Quality

DefaultM

Looks to have similar issues to a home built LP I bought from and returned to Cash Converters a few years ago. Those parts must be tricky to do no matter if you're charging hundreds or thousands.

Bennyboy-UK

SixStringSage said:

FFS it took him until 9+ minutes to tell us this guitar wasn't new and by his own admission he doesn't know if it was a return, refurb, or something else. So he has no idea if Gibson sent it out in perfect condition and problems arose subsequently. 

I believe he bought a new guitar from a store.

He returned it to Gibson noting its issues and shows photographs of the issues with that first guitar.

 Then Gibson sent him a guitar as a replacement which appears upon inspection to not be new (or it is new and just a manky wreck). This replacement sent by Gibson is the one on the bench which he's handling throughout.

SixStringSage

Bennyboy-UK said:

SixStringSage said:

FFS it took him until 9+ minutes to tell us this guitar wasn't new and by his own admission he doesn't know if it was a return, refurb, or something else. So he has no idea if Gibson sent it out in perfect condition and problems arose subsequently. 

I believe he bought a new guitar from a store.

He returned it to Gibson noting its issues and Gibson sent him a guitar as a replacement which appears not to be new.

That's fine, but it's a separate complaint. His story has some question marks, as others have already mentioned including that it's strange to buy a guitar from a store but then return it to Gibson instead of the store. But putting that aside, you can't complain that Gibson has poor QC when you also are acknowledging the guitar isn't new and you don't know where it's been.

Offset

SixStringSage said:

...you can't complain that Gibson has poor QC when you also are acknowledging the guitar isn't new and you don't know where it's been.

The whole point is he bought a new guitar from his local dealer and because of issues with it, returned it (for reasons not entiely clear) direct to Gibson.  In exchange, Gibson sent him a replacement which did not appear to be new.  And was also a piece of shit.

SixStringSage

Offset said:

SixStringSage said:

...you can't complain that Gibson has poor QC when you also are acknowledging the guitar isn't new and you don't know where it's been.

The whole point is he bought a new guitar from his local dealer and because of issues with it, returned it (for reasons not entiely clear) direct to Gibson.  In exchange, Gibson sent him a replacement which did not appear to be new.  And was also a piece of shit.

I get that. All I'm saying is it's not appropriate to blame Gibson's QC when it's not a new guitar and the guy is looking into the camera and admitting he doesn't know if it's a return, refurb, or where it's been since leaving the factory. I'm not saying the guitar is in acceptable condition, but he has no clue if it's Gibson's fault or the next person's.

I remember Glen from Spectre did a video showing how Gibson sent him a bad QC Dave Mustaine model to review, so I'm also not saying it's not possible that Gibson would do that.

But Glen got a bonafide factory model to review. This guy is telling us a story that raises additional questions, so I find it hard to take it all at face value. 

Offset

SixStringSage said:

This guy is telling us a story that raises additional questions, so I find it hard to take it all at face value. 

I agree there are some aspects of this episode which raise eyebrows.  But why would Gibson exchange a new guitar for one that looks like B-stock or a customer return???  It just doesn't stack up.

elstoof

He could’ve returned the first dud that he picked from half a dozen duds but didn’t realise was also shit until he got home, got a refund and had a new one delivered from Our Good Friends Over At Sweetwater.com the next day, rather than wait a month for a replacement 

Philly_Q

From the turn this thread's taken it's beginning to feel like this guy is being blamed for Gibson's shitty quality control...

SixStringSage

Offset said:

SixStringSage said:

This guy is telling us a story that raises additional questions, so I find it hard to take it all at face value. 

I agree there are some aspects of this episode which raise eyebrows.  But why would Gibson exchange a new guitar for one that looks like B-stock or a customer return???  It just doesn't stack up.

I want to be clear that I'm not giving Gibson a free pass for bad QC, in case it looks like I'm trying hard to defend them.

With that said, my overall point is I'm not convinced by this guy's story. "It just doesn't stack up" - indeed.

First of all, this is a leather channel that has suddenly resumed a long period of inactivity to talk about Gibson. A cynic would say he's using a popular brand to grow his channel after years of inactivity — and judging by the amount of comments on the video, it's worked.

Second, and more importantly, the story just doesn't make sense in its current form. I live in the UK so maybe it's different here, but Gibson doesn't do direct-to-consumer — or at least, it didn't until opening Gibson Garage in London. The shop is the authorised dealer, and the point of contact. Actually, on Monday I was at Anderton's buying a guitar and the guy told me that they handle any issues customers may have with the guitar that requires talking to Gibson. I wouldn't even have an avenue to contact them, as far as I'm aware. They would simply direct me back to the retailer.

Third, Gibson having questionable QC isn't controversial, even fans (like myself) can acknowledge that they're aware it happens. But I find it hard to believe that every guitar in the shop's stock was in awful condition. Statistically, it doesn't make sense unless Gibson deliberately sends this shop bad stock.

Fourth, after being unable to find a single good one, even Gibson itself can't find a good one - or a new one! 

How can his experience be true when all the rest of us can go into any guitar store that sells Gibsons and find good ones? Sure, we may find some with QC issues, but we would also find excellent ones. 

If this guy's story is 100% true, all I can say is his luck is so bad I wouldn't want to be close to him.

euan

SixStringSage said:

Offset said:

SixStringSage said:

...you can't complain that Gibson has poor QC when you also are acknowledging the guitar isn't new and you don't know where it's been.

The whole point is he bought a new guitar from his local dealer and because of issues with it, returned it (for reasons not entiely clear) direct to Gibson.  In exchange, Gibson sent him a replacement which did not appear to be new.  And was also a piece of shit.

I get that. All I'm saying is it's not appropriate to blame Gibson's QC when it's not a new guitar and the guy is looking into the camera and admitting he doesn't know if it's a return, refurb, or where it's been since leaving the factory. I'm not saying the guitar is in acceptable condition, but he has no clue if it's Gibson's fault or the next person's.

I remember Glen from Spectre did a video showing how Gibson sent him a bad QC Dave Mustaine model to review, so I'm also not saying it's not possible that Gibson would do that.

But Glen got a bonafide factory model to review. This guy is telling us a story that raises additional questions, so I find it hard to take it all at face value. 

File, sanding and lint marks under clear coat don’t happen after a guitar has left the factory 

SixStringSage

euan said:

SixStringSage said:

Offset said:

SixStringSage said:

...you can't complain that Gibson has poor QC when you also are acknowledging the guitar isn't new and you don't know where it's been.

The whole point is he bought a new guitar from his local dealer and because of issues with it, returned it (for reasons not entiely clear) direct to Gibson.  In exchange, Gibson sent him a replacement which did not appear to be new.  And was also a piece of shit.

I get that. All I'm saying is it's not appropriate to blame Gibson's QC when it's not a new guitar and the guy is looking into the camera and admitting he doesn't know if it's a return, refurb, or where it's been since leaving the factory. I'm not saying the guitar is in acceptable condition, but he has no clue if it's Gibson's fault or the next person's.

I remember Glen from Spectre did a video showing how Gibson sent him a bad QC Dave Mustaine model to review, so I'm also not saying it's not possible that Gibson would do that.

But Glen got a bonafide factory model to review. This guy is telling us a story that raises additional questions, so I find it hard to take it all at face value. 

File, sanding and lint marks under clear coat don’t happen after a guitar has left the factory 

It's under clear coat. It's not remotely difficult for someone to do that after it's left the factory. 

elstoof

I don’t think I’ve ever seen clear coat on the back of the nut before either

tomajoha

Maybe its all a perverse marketing exercise by Gibson to make people buy £1199 Chinese-built Epiphones which probably have better QC than the current US output?

Philly_Q

SixStringSage said:

euan said:

File, sanding and lint marks under clear coat don’t happen after a guitar has left the factory 

It's under clear coat. It's not remotely difficult for someone to do that after it's left the factory. 

Do you think he's also taken off the binding, then re-bound it just so he can make a proper hash of filing the fret nibs?

SixStringSage

Philly_Q said:

SixStringSage said:

euan said:

File, sanding and lint marks under clear coat don’t happen after a guitar has left the factory 

It's under clear coat. It's not remotely difficult for someone to do that after it's left the factory. 

Do you think he's also taken off the binding, then re-bound it just so he can make a proper hash of filing the fret nibs?

I'm not accusing him of anything. Nor do I need to — he himself openly said it's not new and he doesn't know the backstory of this guitar.

But I don't know him Does anyone here know him? We didn't see him take the guitar out of the cardboard box behind him. He hasn't shown us the serial number to verify the guitar's age. 

His story has some issues, and he hasn't (yet) clarified them. Why should I believe a stranger telling me a story that raises eyebrows? 

Philly_Q

SixStringSage said:

Philly_Q said:

SixStringSage said:

euan said:

File, sanding and lint marks under clear coat don’t happen after a guitar has left the factory 

It's under clear coat. It's not remotely difficult for someone to do that after it's left the factory. 

Do you think he's also taken off the binding, then re-bound it just so he can make a proper hash of filing the fret nibs?

I'm not accusing him of anything. Nor do I need to — he himself openly said it's not new and he doesn't know the backstory of this guitar.

But I don't know him Does anyone here know him? We didn't see him take the guitar out of the cardboard box behind him. He hasn't shown us the serial number to verify the guitar's age. 

His story has some issues, and he hasn't (yet) clarified them. Why should I believe a stranger telling me a story that raises eyebrows? 

No reason at all.  But equally why should you doubt everything he says?

euan

He said it doesn’t look new, not that it’s wasn’t new no?

notsopro

Philly_Q said:

SixStringSage said:

Philly_Q said:

SixStringSage said:

euan said:

File, sanding and lint marks under clear coat don’t happen after a guitar has left the factory 

It's under clear coat. It's not remotely difficult for someone to do that after it's left the factory. 

Do you think he's also taken off the binding, then re-bound it just so he can make a proper hash of filing the fret nibs?

I'm not accusing him of anything. Nor do I need to — he himself openly said it's not new and he doesn't know the backstory of this guitar.

But I don't know him Does anyone here know him? We didn't see him take the guitar out of the cardboard box behind him. He hasn't shown us the serial number to verify the guitar's age. 

His story has some issues, and he hasn't (yet) clarified them. Why should I believe a stranger telling me a story that raises eyebrows? 

No reason at all.  But equally why should you doubt everything he says?

probably because the whole thing does seem a little strange, anyone who's ever bought a guitar would say his story doens't quite make sense, and the fact it's the first video he's posted in a year,, his 3rd video ever, and it's posted on his company's youtube account where he would obviously have no motive at all to try and get a ton of hits early on...

As SixString has said, that guitar in the photos is a Dog, no two ways about it, anyone who sells a guitar in that condition as new (if that has happened) is in the wrong and I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but the story to it all does seem relevant, and it all seems a bit of a grey area when it comes to what has happened. Rightly people raise some questions I think.

SixStringSage

Philly_Q said:

SixStringSage said:

Philly_Q said:

SixStringSage said:

euan said:

File, sanding and lint marks under clear coat don’t happen after a guitar has left the factory 

It's under clear coat. It's not remotely difficult for someone to do that after it's left the factory. 

Do you think he's also taken off the binding, then re-bound it just so he can make a proper hash of filing the fret nibs?

I'm not accusing him of anything. Nor do I need to — he himself openly said it's not new and he doesn't know the backstory of this guitar.

But I don't know him Does anyone here know him? We didn't see him take the guitar out of the cardboard box behind him. He hasn't shown us the serial number to verify the guitar's age. 

His story has some issues, and he hasn't (yet) clarified them. Why should I believe a stranger telling me a story that raises eyebrows? 

No reason at all.  But equally why should you doubt everything he says?

I don't doubt everything he says, but he's given at least 2 significant claims that give me pause for thought:

1. EVERY guitar from Gibson was a dud in the shop
2. He was able to bypass the retailer and go straight to Gibson

Some of the QC issues I have no problem believing - the dip from the sanding belt, raised frets etc. But I can't say I've ever seen lint under the clear coat.  

I'm not accusing him of being a liar, he may well be telling the truth. All I'm trying to say is I think some parts of his story don't add up. When I square it with my own experiences with Gibson, it's like two different companies. I have to give extra weighting to my experiences (we all do, because we know them to be true). I bought my first Gibson in 2014 and my last one 2 days ago, and have yet to encounter anything like his experience.

euan said:

He said it doesn’t look new, not that it’s wasn’t new no?

Around the 9 minute mark he says that it's a couple of months old, isn't new, and he doesn't know anything about what happened to it in the 2 months between leaving the factory and arriving with him.

fnpt

The first guitar is so shockingly bad (wood missing on the fretboard, raised frets, bad finishing) and yet he missed all of it and took it home anyway.

I can understand a guitar having one or two flaws but all of these at the same time? I find it really hard to believe that QC would let this out of the door. Could it be a B-stock that left the Gibson factory through the back door?