It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
A thought I had is this ....surely a repairer or tech will tend to see a lot more of the new guitars that are not brilliant and need some attention and TLC to make them be good players.
Many guitars have a re-sale value. Some you'll never want to sell.
Stockist of: Earvana & Graphtech nuts, Faber Tonepros & Gotoh hardware, Fatcat bridges. Highwood Saddles.
Pickups from BKP, Oil City & Monty's pickups.
Expert guitar repairs and upgrades - fretwork our speciality! www.felineguitars.com. Facebook too!
Owners of 60's Gibson's will tell you that everything since the late 60's has been pap, owners of 70's Gibson's will tell you everything from 80 onwards is shite, owners of 80's Gibson's will tell you that all 90's onward Gibson's are bad.
It's the sort of unfounded shite that sellers usually spout to try and sell the Gibson they're selling (that is from the best period of Gibson's made, they hasten to add, and they're mad to be selling it)
"Selling a Les Paul from 1987, last of the true LPs made before one armed John took over in the factory."
There are good and bad guitars from all periods, from all makers from all of time.
People do this sort of thing in all walks of life, it's like a confirmation bias, they're trying to further validate the particular thing that they've got or thing they were a part of.
There was also cracking around the bridge.
So you could see the nasty plywood on the edges of the f-holes (not that plywood is a bad material, it's vintage correct and... It's a 335! But plywood is ugly) and the drips, the cracks...
About 2.5k at the time.
However, I'd heard Gibson qc has since improved and certainly I've tried some budget models (like the les paul tribute and the faded T) that were excellent (although some better than others). Try before you buy, as it is with any manufacturer I guess.
However, I have bought three new Gibsons since 2015 which all required significant levels of setup, especially levelling frets, etc. - two of which were guitars costing over £1,000. My 2007 Les Paul Standard (pre-owned), when I took it for the mandatory setup, apparently required less work. But then what work was done since 'birth'?
I'm sure this thread could go on for quite some time but interested in hearing experiences of those who have worked on Les Paul's for over ten years since new.
My band, Red For Dissent
• Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/@Goldeneraguitars
It may have a Brazilian rosewood board - but constructionally it's not even close to an average PRS....
then the 90s the 70s ones are the ones to go for
and so on
I usually have to tweak my guitars a little when i bring them home but this one needed nothing. Action, intonation, even the nut, all spot on.
I've shown it to a couple of friends of mine that have been around the block a bit and they both agree that it's bang on.
I'm tempted to get another one, maybe the 50's Tribute.
Its impossible to gauge, as Gibson seem to have always employed Stevie Wonder in final QC.
I think the inconsistency is just in their brand DNA. Whereas I've never owned a Yamaha that didn't impress me.