›

Gibson Quality

What's Hot
1234579

Comments

  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 27196
    Casabg said:
    How many times will we go around this loop?

    People who buy Gibsons need to accept that tops are hand sanded, binding is hand-scraped, finishes are hand-sprayed. 

    People who want absolute cosmetic perfection should buy a PRS. 

    Gibson has never been the company that puts out literal micron-level perfection and it never will be. 
    So are Collings guitars, hand sanding scraping and spraying, doesn’t mean botched. The results in this example are truly shoddy. 



    Remind me how much Collings cost?  The cheapest new Collings electric I can find in the UK is £4.5k... 

    I'm not outright defending Gibson but just trying to explain. People complain every time they dare put prices up and then the same people complain when the QC on the little details isn't as good as on something costing double. 

    I guess I've just seen the same thread 100 times now... 
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • Musicman20Musicman20 Frets: 2333
    stickyfiddle said:
    Casabg said:
    How many times will we go around this loop?

    People who buy Gibsons need to accept that tops are hand sanded, binding is hand-scraped, finishes are hand-sprayed. 

    People who want absolute cosmetic perfection should buy a PRS. 

    Gibson has never been the company that puts out literal micron-level perfection and it never will be. 
    So are Collings guitars, hand sanding scraping and spraying, doesn’t mean botched. The results in this example are truly shoddy. 



    Remind me how much Collings cost?  The cheapest new Collings electric I can find in the UK is £4.5k... 

    I'm not outright defending Gibson but just trying to explain. People complain every time they dare put prices up and then the same people complain when the QC on the little details isn't as good as on something costing double. 

    I guess I've just seen the same thread 100 times now... 
    If my Gretsch Baritone from China can get it right, why can't Gibson at 4-5 x the price (and more!)?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • BigsbyBigsby Frets: 2962
    Bigsby said:

    "That's what the guy in the video has told us, but we don't know it's true."

    You've been arguing that the guy says it's not new, therefore it can't be taken as an example of a new Gibson. Whereas the guy is actually saying Gibson sent a replacement 'new' guitar that doesn't seem to be new (plastic removed from scratch plate, etc.), as such it is representative of a new Gibson (from Gibson''s perspective).  But now you're saying he's a liar... 


    That's not quite right. I haven't said he's a liar, I've said I don't (yet) find the story convincing. Nor have I said the guitar was not sent as new, and if it was then of course blame is with Gibson. The "new/not new" thing is important, as I see it, because there is a difference between a guitar that leaves the factory in that condition and a guitar that has been mis-treated subsequently.

     So yes, 100% Gibson's fault if they sent him that guitar. But no, not necessarily indicative of Gibson's QC of what leaves the factory. I'm only honing in on this because it was explicitly stated in the video, by the way. I've not waded in to say "well hold on guys, maybe this guitar isn't new." The guy looked in the camera and told us he doesn't know what it was but it has clear signs of not being brand new.
    Bigsby said:


    "Can you tell us more about this? You contacted Gibson directly, and they gave you an approved luthier? That would seem to still be significantly different to this video..."

    Yes and yes. In my situation Gibson Europe didn't have any more of these guitars to ship (it was a limited run), so there was no option to have Gibson send me anything. The eventual choices were: Return & refund from dealer, Exchange from dealer (with the dealer not optimistic about that option working out well), Gibson pay an approved luthier to do what they should've done at the factory. I think it would've been feasible for Gibson to take responsibility and send a non-defective guitar if they'd been in stock, that would've been cheaper than delivery to luthier, pay luthier, and delivery to me. 

    Ok but compare what you've just said to what Linny said: Gibson offered you an exchange through the dealer. That's exactly what happened to me too. Linny is saying that he took his dealer-purchased guitar then bypassed the dealer to get multiple exchanges from Gibson directly. I'm not saying he's lying, I'm saying this is the opposite of what I've ever heard about Gibson's policy and until more details are given, I can't take it at face value.


     And what's happening with the headstock, it looks like someone has got white paint drops on it? https://imgur.com/a/9Uhrpwp


    The white paint drops on the headstock you refer to are dust particles and reflections of bright light. You get this with close up photography.
    I see this all the time on my own headstocks and it was my first thought. But I'm not sure - look at the left side of the truss rod cover as we see it, between the B and G strings, it looks like the white is smudged. Likewise the edge of the headstock past the high E string, those white marks look thick like paint drops. 

    It's possible it's just zoomed in more I guess, but it doesn't look quite like the dust particles that I've seen in my own photos.
    "...because there is a difference between a guitar that leaves the factory in that condition and a guitar that has been mis-treated subsequently."

    This is where you seem to be intentionally going off track in an apparent attempt to defend Gibson. No one, apart from you, has suggested that this guitar's condition is the result of mistreatment. The 'not new' suggestion is that this is a 'new' guitar returned to Gibson (due to defects), and which Gibson have then shipped out as a replacement 'new' guitar, rather than fixing it before returning it to stock.

    This is even worse than simply having poor QC, yet you're trying to use it to save Gibsons reputation... Well, you're fooling no one but yourself with this.

    "Gibson offered you an exchange through the dealer."

    That's just WRONG! I didn't say that, and Gibson didn't offer me an exchange through a dealer in any way at all... The DEALER did, prior to my contacting Gibson directly. And I was quite happy to repeat to Gibson customer service that the dealer didn't think they had a better SG in stock, hence I wasn't going to waste time with an exchange. Gibson didn't have a replacement in stock - as I already said - if they had, it would've been substantially cheaper for them to send one to me, rather than the cost of multiple repairs to the guitar I'd     received. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 27196
    Musicman20 said:
    stickyfiddle said:
    Casabg said:
    How many times will we go around this loop?

    People who buy Gibsons need to accept that tops are hand sanded, binding is hand-scraped, finishes are hand-sprayed. 

    People who want absolute cosmetic perfection should buy a PRS. 

    Gibson has never been the company that puts out literal micron-level perfection and it never will be. 
    So are Collings guitars, hand sanding scraping and spraying, doesn’t mean botched. The results in this example are truly shoddy. 



    Remind me how much Collings cost?  The cheapest new Collings electric I can find in the UK is £4.5k... 

    I'm not outright defending Gibson but just trying to explain. People complain every time they dare put prices up and then the same people complain when the QC on the little details isn't as good as on something costing double. 

    I guess I've just seen the same thread 100 times now... 
    If my Gretsch Baritone from China can get it right, why can't Gibson at 4-5 x the price (and more!)?
    Because they can make enough money without the extra effort? 

    Also they have an American cost base and all the marketing warm fuzzies that come with it, so they can. 
    The Assumptions - UAE party band for all your rock & soul desires
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SixStringSageSixStringSage Frets: 135
    edited April 4
    Bigsby said:

    "...because there is a difference between a guitar that leaves the factory in that condition and a guitar that has been mis-treated subsequently."

    This is where you seem to be intentionally going off track in an apparent attempt to defend Gibson. No one, apart from you, has suggested that this guitar's condition is the result of mistreatment. The 'not new' suggestion is that this is a 'new' guitar returned to Gibson (due to defects), and which Gibson have then shipped out as a replacement 'new' guitar, rather than fixing it before returning it to stock.

    This is even worse than simply having poor QC, yet you're trying to use it to save Gibsons reputation... Well, you're fooling no one but yourself with this.


    I've actually said more than once that I am not defending Gibson. There is a huge difference between defending Gibson and saying I have some doubts about the story as it has been presented.

    I have already said I completely agree that Gibson should not have sent that guitar to him, if they did. I have also said the condition of that guitar is unacceptable. So, again, not defending the company for the condition of that guitar.

    But when the guy filming the video says that someone else has had this guitar, then I think it's fair to mention it is not necessarily a good example of a guitar leaving the factory. That is the distinction I have been trying to make. The guitar didn't have a journey of Factory > Buyer. It has a journey of Factory > don't know. 


    Bigsby said:


    "Gibson offered you an exchange through the dealer."

    That's just WRONG! I didn't say that, and Gibson didn't offer me an exchange through a dealer in any way at all... The DEALER did, prior to my contacting Gibson directly. And I was quite happy to repeat to Gibson customer service that the dealer didn't think they had a better SG in stock, hence I wasn't going to waste time with an exchange. Gibson didn't have a replacement in stock - as I already said - if they had, it would've been substantially cheaper for them to send one to me, rather than the cost of multiple repairs to the guitar I'd received. 

    Hey, do we need the caps and exclamation points? If I misread your post, I apologise. This is what you said:

    "The eventual choices were: Return & refund from dealer, Exchange from dealer (with the dealer not optimistic about that option working out well), Gibson pay an approved luthier to do what they should've done at the factory"

    This doesn't say that you were offered an exchange directly from Gibson, and I think I'm right in thinking that when you contacted Gibson directly, they did not offer you an exchange.

    To bring this part of the conversation back to the topic at hand, Linny is saying that he was able to take his dealer-issued guitar and arrange direct exchanges with Gibson and exclude the dealer entirely. My understanding has been that Gibson does these things     through its network of authorised retailers. My personal experience has been the dealer speak with Gibson and receive the exchange, and your experience hasn't involved Gibson sending you a direct replacement.

    So unless I've missed something, this continues to be a part of Linny's story that has me scratching my head. And it ties directly in with the other comment about the guitar not being new. If Gibson sent it to him, it's shocking, but before we can draw that conclusion it's my opinion that we need some clarification on how he got that guitar because the sequence of events does not sound typical for Gibson (buying a guitar from the shop, but the shop not being involved in arranging the exchange, and Gibson happily keeping the dealer out of the equation).
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SlopeSoarerSlopeSoarer Frets: 849
    SixStringSage said:


     And what's happening with the headstock, it looks like someone has got white paint drops on it? https://imgur.com/a/9Uhrpwp


    The white paint drops on the headstock you refer to are dust particles and reflections of bright light. You get this with close up photography.
    I see this all the time on my own headstocks and it was my first thought. But I'm not sure - look at the left side of the truss rod cover as we see it, between the B and G strings, it looks like the white is smudged. Likewise the edge of the headstock past the high E string, those white marks look thick like paint drops. 

    It's possible it's just zoomed in more I guess, but it doesn't look quite like the dust particles that I've seen in my own photos.
    Yes I see what you say (not sure what it is but I don't think that is paint though), in general I'm less convinced by your thoughts than the guy in the video but we are all entitled to our views.

    I suppose our leaning depends how much we feel about the brand. Personally I love the Gibson designs but I think they are milking it and to a degree why not if people are willing to pay their prices.

    I don't think what is shown in the video is genrally representative of what Gibson produce but to my mind if you are charging top dollar for a product, 'I believe' what goes through the door should be of the highest quality and if not expect to get some flack.

    At the other end of the spectrum in the lower budget, mass produced arena 'personally' I wouldn't be as critical and probably be more tolerant. Even at this end of the spectrum that guitar would have warranted return.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • SixStringSageSixStringSage Frets: 135
    SlopeSoarer said:
    SixStringSage said:


     And what's happening with the headstock, it looks like someone has got white paint drops on it? https://imgur.com/a/9Uhrpwp


    The white paint drops on the headstock you refer to are dust particles and reflections of bright light. You get this with close up photography.
    I see this all the time on my own headstocks and it was my first thought. But I'm not sure - look at the left side of the truss rod cover as we see it, between the B and G strings, it looks like the white is smudged. Likewise the edge of the headstock past the high E string, those white marks look thick like paint drops. 

    It's possible it's just zoomed in more I guess, but it doesn't look quite like the dust particles that I've seen in my own photos.
    Yes I see what you say (not sure what it is but I don't think that is paint though), in general I'm less convinced by your thoughts than the guy in the video but we are all entitled to our views.

    I suppose our leaning depends how much we feel about the brand. Personally I love the Gibson designs but I think they are milking it and to a degree why not if people are willing to pay their prices.

    I don't think what is shown in the video is genrally representative of what Gibson produce but to my mind if you are charging top dollar for a product, 'I believe' what goes through the door should be of the highest quality and if not expect to get some flack.

    At the other end of the spectrum in the lower budget, mass produced arena 'personally' I wouldn't be as critical and probably be more tolerant. Even at this end of the spectrum that guitar would have warranted return.

    I agree with everything you've said here. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • BigsbyBigsby Frets: 2962
    Bigsby said:

    "...because there is a difference between a guitar that leaves the factory in that condition and a guitar that has been mis-treated subsequently."

    This is where you seem to be intentionally going off track in an apparent attempt to defend Gibson. No one, apart from you, has suggested that this guitar's condition is the result of mistreatment. The 'not new' suggestion is that this is a 'new' guitar returned to Gibson (due to defects), and which Gibson have then shipped out as a replacement 'new' guitar, rather than fixing it before returning it to stock.

    This is even worse than simply having poor QC, yet you're trying to use it to save Gibsons reputation... Well, you're fooling no one but yourself with this.


    I've actually said more than once that I am not defending Gibson. There is a huge difference between defending Gibson and saying I have some doubts about the story as it has been presented.

    I have already said I completely agree that Gibson should not have sent that guitar to him, if they did. I have also said the condition of that guitar is unacceptable. So, again, not defending the company for the condition of that guitar.

    But when the guy filming the video says that someone else has had this guitar, then I think it's fair to mention it is not necessarily a good example of a guitar leaving the factory. That is the distinction I have been trying to make. The guitar didn't have a journey of Factory > Buyer. It has a journey of Factory > don't know. 


    Bigsby said:


    "Gibson offered you an exchange through the dealer."

    That's just WRONG! I didn't say that, and Gibson didn't offer me an exchange through a dealer in any way at all... The DEALER did, prior to my contacting Gibson directly. And I was quite happy to repeat to Gibson customer service that the dealer didn't think they had a better SG in stock, hence I wasn't going to waste time with an exchange. Gibson didn't have a replacement in stock - as I already said - if they had, it would've been substantially cheaper for them to send one to me, rather than the cost of multiple repairs to the guitar I'd received. 

    Hey, do we need the caps and exclamation points? If I misread your post, I apologise. This is what you said:

    "The eventual choices were: Return & refund from dealer, Exchange from dealer (with the dealer not optimistic about that option working out well), Gibson pay an approved luthier to do what they should've done at the factory"

    This doesn't say that you were offered an exchange directly from Gibson, and I think I'm right in thinking that when you contacted Gibson directly, they did not offer you an exchange.

    To bring this part of the conversation back to the topic at hand, Linny is saying that he was able to take his dealer-issued guitar and arrange direct exchanges with Gibson and exclude the dealer entirely. My understanding has been that Gibson does these things through its network of authorised retailers. My personal experience has been the dealer speak with Gibson and receive the exchange, and your experience hasn't involved Gibson sending you a direct replacement.

    So unless I've missed something, this continues to be a part of Linny's story that has me scratching my head. And it ties directly in with the other comment about the guitar not being new. If Gibson sent it to him, it's shocking, but before we can draw that conclusion it's my opinion that we need some clarification on how he got that guitar because the sequence of events does not sound typical for Gibson (buying a guitar from the shop, but the shop not being involved in arranging the exchange, and Gibson happily keeping the dealer out of the equation).
    'This doesn't say that you were offered an exchange directly from Gibson' 

    As I've already made clear, Gibson Europe didn't have any of this model in stock to ship to me; it was a limited run and all had shipped at this point. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SixStringSageSixStringSage Frets: 135
    edited April 4
    Bigsby said:
    Bigsby said:

    "...because there is a difference between a guitar that leaves the factory in that condition and a guitar that has been mis-treated subsequently."

    This is where you seem to be intentionally going off track in an apparent attempt to defend Gibson. No one, apart from you, has suggested that this guitar's condition is the result of mistreatment. The 'not new' suggestion is that this is a 'new' guitar returned to Gibson (due to defects), and which Gibson have then shipped out as a replacement 'new' guitar, rather than fixing it before returning it to stock.

    This is even worse than simply having poor QC, yet you're trying to use it to save Gibsons reputation... Well, you're fooling no one but yourself with this.


    I've actually said more than once that I am not defending Gibson. There is a huge difference between defending Gibson and saying I have some doubts about the story as it has been presented.

    I have already said I completely agree that Gibson should not have sent that guitar to him, if they did. I have also said the condition of that guitar is unacceptable. So, again, not defending the company for the condition of that guitar.

    But when the guy filming the video says that someone else has had this guitar, then I think it's fair to mention it is not necessarily a good example of a guitar leaving the factory. That is the distinction I have been trying to make. The guitar didn't have a journey of Factory > Buyer. It has a journey of Factory > don't know. 


    Bigsby said:


    "Gibson offered you an exchange through the dealer."

    That's just WRONG! I didn't say that, and Gibson didn't offer me an exchange through a dealer in any way at all... The DEALER did, prior to my contacting Gibson directly. And I was quite happy to repeat to Gibson customer service that the dealer didn't think they had a better SG in stock, hence I wasn't going to waste time with an exchange. Gibson didn't have a replacement in stock - as I already said - if they had, it would've been substantially cheaper for them to send one to me, rather than the cost of multiple repairs to the guitar I'd received. 

    Hey, do we need the caps and exclamation points? If I misread your post, I apologise. This is what you said:

    "The eventual choices were: Return & refund from dealer, Exchange from dealer (with the dealer not optimistic about that option working out well), Gibson pay an approved luthier to do what they should've done at the factory"

    This doesn't say that you were offered an exchange directly from Gibson, and I think I'm right in thinking that when you contacted Gibson directly, they did not offer you an exchange.

    To bring this part of the conversation back to the topic at hand, Linny is saying that he was able to take his dealer-issued guitar and arrange direct exchanges with Gibson and exclude the dealer entirely. My understanding has been that Gibson does these things through its network of authorised retailers. My personal experience has been the dealer speak with Gibson and receive the exchange, and your experience hasn't involved Gibson sending you a direct replacement.

    So unless I've missed something, this continues to be a part of Linny's story that has me scratching my head. And it ties directly in with the other comment about the guitar not being new. If Gibson sent it to him, it's shocking, but before we can draw that conclusion it's my opinion that we need some clarification on how he got that guitar because the sequence of events does not sound typical for Gibson (buying a guitar from the shop, but the shop not being involved in arranging the exchange, and Gibson happily keeping the dealer out of the equation).
    'This doesn't say that you were offered an exchange directly from Gibson' 

    As I've already made clear, Gibson Europe didn't have any of this model in stock to ship to me; it was a limited run and all had shipped at this point. 

    Apologies, but it doesn't seem as clear to me reading it. If you go back a page and read your posts, what you've said is Thomann were helpful, Gibson wasn't, Gibson offered to have a luthier deal with it, and Gibson didn't have any more in stock. Did Gibson say they would have sent you a replacement, if they had one, or offer to send you a replacement guitar of a different line? And if so, did they say they would do it with you directly from then on, or via Thomann? I'm not trying to be obtuse, this has been the issue I've raised since page 3 based on my understanding of Gibson's policy and my past experience. 

    The reason I ask if they offered to send a different model is that's what happened with me. I had a 2014 Standard Plus model and when the retailer contacted them about the finish problem, Gibson said they had none left but offered to send me a replacement 2013 model, upgraded to Standard Premium in a Birdseye finish. The alternative was for me to let the retailer do a repair, but I took the replacement. Point is, Gibson still offered me a replacement/exchange even though stock of my actual model was gone, and it still happened through the retailer.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • richardhomerrichardhomer Frets: 24848
    edited April 4
    I've seen, for example, not to long ago, an early 64 ES335, from the golden era, with a dowel plug under the finish, near the bridge,, owing to an error in manufacturing - Kind of so what 

    The 335 Mark is referring to was mine. It also had badly scraped binding with a noticeable ridges between the cherry finish and the (over-scraped) binding on both the neck and body. It was recently resold (with a disclosed headstock repair) for £15,000.

    My opinion is that Gibson’s QC has always been questionable - but unless the problems are structural and ‘really’ affect playability, I can’t say I’m overly bothered. The only time any business would have the motivation to change this would be when the cost of dealing with returns becomes an issue. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • Philly_QPhilly_Q Frets: 23066
    Blimey, is this thread still rumbling on?  Cesar Gueikian and Mark Agnesi still in attendance?
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • SixStringSageSixStringSage Frets: 135
    Philly_Q said:
    Blimey, is this thread still rumbling on?  Cesar Gueikian and Mark Agnesi still in attendance?
    It would be helpful if they were, they could clarify Gibson's policy on exchanges with and without retailers 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 6103
    Philly_Q said:
    Blimey, is this thread still rumbling on?  Cesar Gueikian and Mark Agnesi still in attendance?
    Gibson on the headstock does seem to bring out the Rottweiler in people.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TanninTannin Frets: 5533
    Casabg said:
    How many times will we go around this loop?

    People who buy Gibsons need to accept that tops are hand sanded, binding is hand-scraped, finishes are hand-sprayed. 

    People who want absolute cosmetic perfection should buy a PRS. 

    Gibson has never been the company that puts out literal micron-level perfection and it never will be. 
    So are Collings guitars, hand sanding scraping and spraying, doesn’t mean botched. The results in this example are truly shoddy. 



    Remind me how much Collings cost?  The cheapest new Collings electric I can find in the UK is £4.5k... 

    I'm not outright defending Gibson but just trying to explain. People complain every time they dare put prices up and then the same people complain when the QC on the little details isn't as good as on something costing double. 

    I guess I've just seen the same thread 100 times now... 
    Collings isn't the point. The point is that Gibson's QC seems to be worse than that of instruments costing one tenth as much. I mean, FFS, anyone here, seeing awful quality like that shown on a $5000 guitar in the video on a £300 Harley Benton would be sending it back without even thinking about it. (Sorry, can't be arsed converting into £ or USD.)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • BillDLBillDL Frets: 7382
    Tannin said:

    The point is that Gibson's QC seems to be worse than that of instruments costing one tenth as much. I mean, FFS, anyone here, seeing awful quality like that shown on a $5000 guitar in the video on a £300 Harley Benton would be sending it back without even thinking about it. (Sorry, can't be arsed converting into £ or USD.)
    Aaaah, but there have been quite a few inferences in this thread that the video guy used an "abused" or B-Stock guitar, or hacked away at it himself, with the ulterior motive of generating traffic to his video and website.  I think it's about time that we called in @FatherDowling or @AgathaRaisin to get to the bottom of that issue.
    5reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TanninTannin Frets: 5533
    Hmmm ... so let's assume the worst - that the whole point of the video was to slander Gibson. 

    Most people here believe it. Accept it without question. 

    If somebody made a video slandering quality control at Collings, Lowden, Furch, Martin, Fender, Eastman, Tokai, Takamine, Taylor ...  no-one would believe it. 

    (Well, OK, maybe not Martin, at least not if we are talking binding. But the others. Where there is smoke, there is very likely fire.)

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • DanielsguitarsDanielsguitars Frets: 3300
    tFB Trader
    Having stripped the back of a Murphy my opinion is they couldn't give a shit, it is the worst LP I've refinished too.

    If it comes across as though I'm attacking Gibson then you'd be right, considering the costs they better be damn near perfect and at least come set up and stay in tune, play authentic LMAO.


    www.danielsguitars.co.uk
    (formerly customkits)
    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • SixStringSageSixStringSage Frets: 135
    edited April 4
    BillDL said:
    Tannin said:

    The point is that Gibson's QC seems to be worse than that of instruments costing one tenth as much. I mean, FFS, anyone here, seeing awful quality like that shown on a $5000 guitar in the video on a £300 Harley Benton would be sending it back without even thinking about it. (Sorry, can't be arsed converting into £ or USD.)
    Aaaah, but there have been quite a few inferences in this thread that the video guy used an "abused" or B-Stock guitar, or hacked away at it himself, with the ulterior motive of generating traffic to his video and website.  I think it's about time that we called in @FatherDowling or @AgathaRaisin to get to the bottom of that issue.
    No, there haven't. There have been some issues raised about the details of his story. All of those details relate to what has been said by Linny himself, including not knowing how the guitar was used before, and not being new from the factory — this still allows us all to criticise Gibson for sending him that particular guitar.

    There's no need for any underhanded comment about "ulterior motive of generating traffic" — his channel has 100 subscribers but the video has 11,000 views. Ragging on big names is a tried-and-tested method for getting lots of views and comments, so let's not pretend it's a mad conspiracy theory to point out the obvious. His very next video is exposing CTS pots as being made in Taiwan and not the USA.

    Tannin said:
    Hmmm ... so let's assume the worst - that the whole point of the video was to slander Gibson. 

    Most people here believe it. Accept it without question. 

    If somebody made a video slandering quality control at Collings, Lowden, Furch, Martin, Fender, Eastman, Tokai, Takamine, Taylor ...  no-one would believe it. 

    (Well, OK, maybe not Martin, at least not if we are talking binding. But the others. Where there is smoke, there is very likely fire.)

    You can remove Fender from that list, there's no shortage of forum threads, Reddit posts and YouTube videos talking about their QC problems, primarily since lockdown.

    but you're right, there's no smoke without fire and it's an area of Gibson that nobody in their right mind would say doesn't exist. I think it's often exaggerated, but no doubt it exists. On the other hand that makes them an easier target if you're releasing a video with an unsubstantiated claim that Gibson is so bad these days that not only can you not find a good one in a shop's entire stock, but Gibson itself can't send a decent one. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • SixStringSageSixStringSage Frets: 135
    Danielsguitars said:
    Having stripped the back of a Murphy my opinion is they couldn't give a shit, it is the worst LP I've refinished too.

    If it comes across as though I'm attacking Gibson then you'd be right, considering the costs they better be damn near perfect and at least come set up and stay in tune, play authentic LMAO.


    What was wrong with it? I didn't like any of the lighter finishing on the Murphy models I played, particularly as they even come with a little warning in the case that the finish is more brittle and prone to additional wear. Fortunately the VOS were all superb though (this thread had me going back to inspect mine and it's flawless)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • BigsbyBigsby Frets: 2962
    Bigsby said:
    Bigsby said:

    "...because there is a difference between a guitar that leaves the factory in that condition and a guitar that has been mis-treated subsequently."

    This is where you seem to be intentionally going off track in an apparent attempt to defend Gibson. No one, apart from you, has suggested that this guitar's condition is the result of mistreatment. The 'not new' suggestion is that this is a 'new' guitar returned to Gibson (due to defects), and which Gibson have then shipped out as a replacement 'new' guitar, rather than fixing it before returning it to stock.

    This is even worse than simply having poor QC, yet you're trying to use it to save Gibsons reputation... Well, you're fooling no one but yourself with this.


    I've actually said more than once that I am not defending Gibson. There is a huge difference between defending Gibson and saying I have some doubts about the story as it has been presented.

    I have already said I completely agree that Gibson should not have sent that guitar to him, if they did. I have also said the condition of that guitar is unacceptable. So, again, not defending the company for the condition of that guitar.

    But when the guy filming the video says that someone else has had this guitar, then I think it's fair to mention it is not necessarily a good example of a guitar leaving the factory. That is the distinction I have been trying to make. The guitar didn't have a journey of Factory > Buyer. It has a journey of Factory > don't know. 


    Bigsby said:


    "Gibson offered you an exchange through the dealer."

    That's just WRONG! I didn't say that, and Gibson didn't offer me an exchange through a dealer in any way at all... The DEALER did, prior to my contacting Gibson directly. And I was quite happy to repeat to Gibson customer service that the dealer didn't think they had a better SG in stock, hence I wasn't going to waste time with an exchange. Gibson didn't have a replacement in stock - as I already said - if they had, it would've been substantially cheaper for them to send one to me, rather than the cost of multiple repairs to the guitar I'd received. 

    Hey, do we need the caps and exclamation points? If I misread your post, I apologise. This is what you said:

    "The eventual choices were: Return & refund from dealer, Exchange from dealer (with the dealer not optimistic about that option working out well), Gibson pay an approved luthier to do what they should've done at the factory"

    This doesn't say that you were offered an exchange directly from Gibson, and I think I'm right in thinking that when you contacted Gibson directly, they did not offer you an exchange.

    To bring this part of the conversation back to the topic at hand, Linny is saying that he was able to take his dealer-issued guitar and arrange direct exchanges with Gibson and exclude the dealer entirely. My understanding has been that Gibson does these things through its network of authorised retailers. My personal experience has been the dealer speak with Gibson and receive the exchange, and your experience hasn't involved Gibson sending you a direct replacement.

    So unless I've missed something, this continues to be a part of Linny's story that has me scratching my head. And it ties directly in with the other comment about the guitar not being new. If Gibson sent it to him, it's shocking, but before we can draw that conclusion it's my opinion that we need some clarification on how he got that guitar because the sequence of events does not sound typical for Gibson (buying a guitar from the shop, but the shop not being involved in arranging the exchange, and Gibson happily keeping the dealer out of the equation).
    'This doesn't say that you were offered an exchange directly from Gibson' 

    As I've already made clear, Gibson Europe didn't have any of this model in stock to ship to me; it was a limited run and all had shipped at this point. 

    Apologies, but it doesn't seem as clear to me reading it. If you go back a page and read your posts, what you've said is Thomann were helpful, Gibson wasn't, Gibson offered to have a luthier deal with it, and Gibson didn't have any more in stock. Did Gibson say they would have sent you a replacement, if they had one, or offer to send you a replacement guitar of a different line? And if so, did they say they would do it with you directly from then on, or via Thomann? I'm not trying to be obtuse, this has been the issue I've raised since page 3 based on my understanding of Gibson's policy and my past experience. 

    The reason I ask if they offered to send a different model is that's what happened with me. I had a 2014 Standard Plus model and when the retailer contacted them about the finish problem, Gibson said they had none left but offered to send me a replacement 2013 model, upgraded to Standard Premium in a Birdseye finish. The alternative was for me to let the retailer do a repair, but I took the replacement. Point is, Gibson still offered me a replacement/exchange even though stock of my actual model was gone, and it still happened through the retailer.
    "...when the retailer contacted them about the finish problem, Gibson said they had none left but offered to send me a replacement 2013 model..." So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you were always dealing with this via the dealer, even when Gibson were involved in providing the replacement. And from that you're assuming that this is the only way it can work?

    Well, it isn't. Once I dealt with Gibson Customer Support, i.e. dealing with them directly; talking on the phone, sending photos, etc., the dealer was out of the equation, and at no point did Gibson say 'sorry, we don't deal with customers, you'll have to take one of the options the dealer has given you'. No, they dealt with me directly, and had no issue doing this once I'd demonstrated the range and severity of issues the guitar had. 

    Did Gibson say they would've offered me a replacement if they'd had one? Really, you're asking that? It would've been a pointless conversation to have... but it was about seven years ago, I don't recall such a comment, maybe they did... or maybe not.  But, as an alternative viewpoint, if they'd had a warehouse full of them, do you really think they'd have offered to pay for repairs by a luthier, rather than sending a replacement? 

    There was never any question of a different model being acceptable. It would've been ridiculous: The whole point was that I wanted that specific model. Again, I don't recall such an offer, but it would've been declined immediately and probably forgotten soon after. 

    Bottom line: Once I spoke to Gibson the dealer was no longer involved in any way. That actually happened, according to some bloke on the internet (me) that you probably don't want to believe. :) 

    Hope that's cleared things up.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
This discussion has been closed.