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
and don’t call him Shurly
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
Does this top-of-the-range SG from 2016 look like the work of an amateur?
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.
I was distracted doing this:
’Sloppy’ doesn’t quite cover it....
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.
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.
There is no 'H' in Aych, you know that don't you? ~ Wife
Turns out there is an H in Haych! ~ Sporky
Bit of trading feedback here.
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.
Bad news has always travelled faster than good, papers have always sold on tragedy rather than triumph. Why should the internet be any different?
Formerly TheGuitarWeasel ... Oil City Pickups ... Oil City Blog 7 String.org profile and message
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.
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.