Gibson Quality Control Issues

MikeM

Hey guys ?

Branching off from the Tokai thread, I'd really appreciate those with first hand experience to share their findings on Gibsons and their quality control.

It's really nice to hear about these stories, especially if one plans to buy sight unseen (I have).

Lets please keep discussion in this thread down to an absolute minimum

I reiterate, please keep posts in this thread to first hand accounts of the quality Gibson guitars.

MikeM

To start us off, I was linked to one of Aubs' NGD threads. A Gibson 50th Anniversary 1960 ES335-TD which is a custom shop model, that had terrible fretwork, a bad fretboard and an incorrectly cut nut. The neck was also sticky, and the setup was bad.

MikeM

And here is a link to my NGD thread. My nut was not 100% as I was getting pinging on my G string while tuning, and my intonation was marginally out.

shaunf

I've got a 1995 Les Paul Studio USA model bought new when Melody Furnishers were the Distributer and a 2010 Custom shop historic 59 reissue. Both were perfect from a QC and setup perspective. And that's coming from a perfectionist.

shaunf

MikeM wrote: And here is a link to my NGD thread. My nut was not 100% as I was getting pinging on my G string while tuning, and my intonation was marginally out.

Was your guitar bought new from a dealer or secondhand?

MikeM

Second hand. Was never set up by the previous owner so it might have been an issue of slightly different guage strings.

vic

Mike, in my case I had no issues...not even with the LP Std (run-of-the mill) that I had but later sold. I had 3 Customs (black beauties) over the years, all of which were well used when I got them. Two of these I gigged for about 8 years with no issues at all.
I remember I took one to Foster once for a check-up (truss rod adjustment) but that was looong ago.
Must say I'm not the type of guy who takes a magnifying glass with me when I choose a guitar. If it sounds good unplugged and if it handles well, it's OK with me.
Same for my Historics...they sound good, look good (finish- and fret wise) and is very playable of course....all of them were well set-up when I got them....can't complain.

Reinhard

My experiences:
2003 LP standard - Sticky neck at first (brand new)
1997 ES 335 - No issues
1999 59 reissue - No issues
2006 62 reissue SG - Bit of dye bledding onto binding, which apparently goes away with time.
200x Hummingbird - No issues
1965 ES 335 reneck - replaced the vintage bridge for better intonation
1967 ES 330 - The only major issue I had. Back bow on the neck that Foster v/d Merwe remedied and now it is a rather special guitar.

MikeM

Just to add to the dye story..

nick

My limited experience, 2008 Gibson Les Paul Studio, I bought it second hand and the previous owner set it up weirdly. Apart from all the dings and wear I've put on it, no QC issues.

singemonkey

shaunf wrote: I've got a 1995 Les Paul Studio USA model bought new when Melody Furnishers were the Distributer and a 2010 Custom shop historic 59 reissue. Both were perfect from a QC and setup perspective. And that's coming from a perfectionist.

Gibson did not enjoy the reputation for QC issues that it does today back then. A buddy of mine also bought a Studio back then (with ebony board and all kinds of luxuries since discarded) and it was perfect. In fact, I'd recommend early nineties Gibsons on the quality score.

Second hand guitars of course give little indication of initial issues.

Since this thread is up, I'll urge people to take a look at the neck bindings of new Gibsons hanging at Marshall Cape Town. On the batch I looked at (a good few months ago), every single Gibson USA model bar none looked as though the binding was hacked out by some kid they'd hired for the summer holidays. If you can find one that doesn't have blade marks all over it, congrats. Tell me about it. I looked at at least 8-12 guitars and couldn't find one. I remember a lot of uneveness too - the binding's relation to the fretboard was not a straight line but a slight wave. I was astonished how obvious this was if, like Zark, you're really looking at the quality rather than being amazed to be in the presence of these iconic guitars.

There was also a '57 GT reissue hanging there which had better binding (and the back was just a beautiful piece of wood) but, to my astonishment, it had a streak of finish no shorter than an inch long along the binding - something that should definitely have been seen and quickly remedied on such a high end instrument.

When I've got some time, I'll go find the threads on this at mylespaul. I'm quite satisfied that the claims that Gibson USA's quality is no worse than other high-end manufacturers is denial of a clear issue that does not trouble Fender USA fans or Gretsch or PRS fans. Occasional issues you expect. But these stories are endless with Gibson - particularly Gibson USA.

Every time I say this I need to re-emphasise that because many guitars have these problems, it does not mean that the majority do (although it seems like crappy neck binding seems to have become universal).

aubs1

vic wrote: Must say I'm not the type of guy who takes a magnifying glass with me when I choose a guitar. If it sounds good unplugged and if it handles well, it's OK with me.

Vic, I believe we are on the same wavelength. I don't buy a guitar (with all due respect/apologies to guys who do), to hang it on my walls for all to admire it's pristine finish, etc etc.. I buy it because I like it, and the specific tone/sound I am after .... and of course (I admit) the name on the headstock!!

My Gibson LP Standard is as I bought it new .... no issues. Even though I think the action can be lowered slightly, other guys for whom I have lots of respect as guitarists, and have played it, it's fine. Among those (if they don't mind me mentioning names) are Stratisfear, Arjun Menon and Andrew Bryson.

My Gibson LP Custom 2010 is FLAWLESS out of the box ....(from new), action, tone .... the whole bang shoot!!!

My Gibson ES335TD 50th Anniversary did have a few things I did not like, the frets from fret 13 were a tad higher, and yes, the fretboard was sticky (a bit of polish, and that was sorted). Regarding the nut, which was not incorrectly cut, it was high .... most Gibson's come with a "higher" action (I think Marco Melfi mentioned the same on his ES355), and can be "tuned" (dropped down) to the owners' preference ......now that to me made sense. Had it been the other way round, you'd have to fit a new nut. Does this make sense. I remember reading an article where some ES-players, like B.B. King prefer higher actions. I am open for correction here. Anyway, my ES335 is now perfect. Did I look for any further "finish" flaws? No, I don't give a rats' behind, I have an ES335 that plays and sounds like a ES335. I love it!! ?

Bob-Dubery

singemonkey wrote:
shaunf wrote: I've got a 1995 Les Paul Studio USA model bought new when Melody Furnishers were the Distributer and a 2010 Custom shop historic 59 reissue. Both were perfect from a QC and setup perspective. And that's coming from a perfectionist.
Gibson did not enjoy the reputation for QC issues that it does today back then. A buddy of mine also bought a Studio back then (with ebony board and all kinds of luxuries since discarded) and it was perfect. In fact, I'd recommend early nineties Gibsons on the quality score.

Second hand guitars of course give little indication of initial issues.

I think we're chasing a chimera here. Many companies have had variable QC over the years. What is "Gibson QC" or, for that matter, "Fender QC", "Ovation QC", "Martin QC"? These things change over time.

With both Fender and Gibson it seems to be the case that they started off well, then took a massive dip in the 70s then embarked on various programs to revive their reputation for quality whilst also keeping costs under control. I suspect that the curve for Fender may have plumbed particularly low depths.

Anyhooo... back in the 80s I went on various electric guitar buying adventures. I had a yearning for those nice American guitars, but in the end I bought Ibanez. They were trying to make a name for themselves as a brand in their own right, with their own designs and identity. The difference in quality and especially in bang-per-buck for Ibanez V Gibson (or Fender) was just ridiculous. I first bought an Ibanez "Muscian", neck through body etc for about 1/2 the price of a decent Gibson. I didn't know as much about guitars then as I do now, but the finish etc looked better and the Ibanez played much better in the showroom (IE needed less setting up in the shop).

Then I decided I wanted a single-coil guitar and again it was no contest - unless the name on the headstock was something you were prepared to pay for. I'd lusted after a Strat, but I bought an Ibanez Blazer (and I wish I still had it).

The proposition may be different these days - though there's still a substantial price discrepancy.

Point is that for many a brand quality control has been variable over the years. Back when I went shopping Gibson (and some other brands) were feeling complacent and had been taken over by bean counters, whilst Ibanez were keen to make a new reputation for themselves and were putting a premium on QC and value for money. Obviously at some point Gibson (and other brands) had to respond to the challenge from the new upstarts and would have started upping their game again.

MikeM

Thanks for the input fellars, but could we please keep discussions in another thread.

Jack-Flash-Jr

MikeM wrote: Thanks for the input fellars, but could we please keep discussions in another thread.

I have no idea what you mean when you ask people to share findings on Gibsons and quality control and at the same time ask that Gibsons and quality control not be discussed. Don't you want people to post anything at all? ???

MikeM

Jack Flash Jr wrote:I have no idea what you mean when you ask people to share findings on Gibsons and quality control and at the same time ask that Gibsons and quality control not be discussed. Don't you want people to post anything at all? ???

I want people to post their experiences with Gibsons qc, not discuss their views and opinions on it.

I want this thread to be an archive that can benefit either, not another discussion on the topic. I'll ask a mod to remove your post and my reply

Jack-Flash-Jr

MikeM wrote:
Jack Flash Jr wrote:I have no idea what you mean when you ask people to share findings on Gibsons and quality control and at the same time ask that Gibsons and quality control not be discussed. Don't you want people to post anything at all? ???
I want people to post their experiences with Gibsons qc, not discuss their views and opinions on it.

I want this thread to be an archive that can benefit either, not another discussion on the topic. I'll ask a mod to remove your post and my reply

Surely their experiences are views and opinions? But I'll stop now ?

singemonkey

MikeM, if people don't bring discussion and outside evidence in here, you're looking at a sample that's too minute to be meaningful. It's not a classifieds thread. One of the advantages of fora is the ability to reflect on what's been posted.

SRXy

My personal experience is that Gibson's quality varies wildly from guitar to guitar. This is why I'd never import one until I've played it....

vic

SRXy wrote: My personal experience is that Gibson's quality varies wildly from guitar to guitar. This is why I'd never import one until I've played it....

From what you say...you go overseas (eg USA), play a few, and then import one or more that you like...?
So have you bought any yet ?