What do you think of Gibson and potentially illegal woods?

[tonyknight]

I know this information has been around a while now. Would the possibility that Gibson is using illegal woods, or is being heavy-handed and wasteful in its approach to securing precious woods, influence your decision to buy a new, high-end Gibson guitar?

I just bought a new archtop, and I personally chose NOT to buy a new Gibson because of these accusations. I also ruled out their excellent vintage instruments, but because of price, not woods.

Here's a thoughtful piece about the Gibson controversy:

Anthropology News

[robertm2000]

Never even though about it for several reasons - newer Gibson's quality control is way off (worked in a music store where we had to do major work on every new Gibson we had), as are both the new and vintage prices, plus I've been able to get every sound I wanted out of a solid body guitar (USA Custom Guitars parts and Pete Biltoft's Vintage Vibes pickups. I haven't really liked Gibsons for years.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by tonyknight

I know this information has been around a while now. Would the possibility that Gibson is using illegal woods, or is being heavy-handed and wasteful in its approach to securing precious woods, influence your decision to buy a new, high-end Gibson guitar?

I just bought a new archtop, and I personally chose NOT to buy a new Gibson because of these accusations. I also ruled out their excellent vintage instruments, but because of price, not woods.

Here's a thoughtful piece about the Gibson controversy:

Anthropology News

A Professor of environmental anthropology from a college in Boston railing against what he perceives to be big business. Now, there's something I never expected to see

I'm a huge Gibson fan and supporter. This is a very old and tired topic. Certainly not worth revisiting until the courts have made a ruling. Move on.

[tonyknight]

Hi robert - I agree regarding the quality of current Gibsons and many from the last few decades, but that's a separate question altogether :-)

Patrick, I'm also an environmental anthropologist and we tend to rail against big business often - and usually it's justified. The Gibson issue is very serious and not particularly 'tired'. In general, big business thinks it can get away with anything, and it usually does. I hope that Gibson is not found to be culpable, although the evidence is certainly damning at this point.

[zigzag]

robert and Patrick summed it up pretty well for me. I don't agree with the way the raids were conducted, but I suspect that where there is smoke, there is fire.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by tonyknight

Hi robert - I agree regarding the quality of current Gibsons and many from the last few decades, but that's a separate question altogether :-)

Patrick, I'm also an environmental anthropologist and we tend to rail against big business often - and usually it's justified. The Gibson issue is very serious and not particularly 'tired'. In general, big business thinks it can get away with anything, and it usually does. I hope that Gibson is not found to be culpable, although the evidence is certainly damning at this point.

tobyknight . .. I respectfully disagree that the Gibson/wood issue is "not particularly tired". It's been discussed ad nauseam here and on several other guitar related forums. I believe that on one forum it even went 33 pages long and was locked by the mods because it was becoming very political, as this one will if it is continued. If tree hugging environmentalists, and I use that term difinitively not pejoratively, wish/need to revisit this matter, it might be better for the forum if you all would just review the history of the topic on this and other forums rather than troll it and restart it. I, for one, will exclude myself from further comment on the matter until the courts' rulings have been made and made public.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by tonyknight

The Gibson issue is very serious and not particularly 'tired'. In general, big business thinks it can get away with anything, and it usually does. I hope that Gibson is not found to be culpable, although the evidence is certainly damning at this point.

Has any evidence been presented?

It's not all that difficult to charge someone. People get charged of all kinds of things because a prosecutor thinks that they have a case only to find out that they really didn't have a case at all when the defendant is found not guilty.

Unless I'm mistaken they haven't even gone to trial to defend themselves against the first raid. Am I missing some news here?

I'm no fan of recent Gibson's. However I am a fan a due process.

[Flyin' Brian]

As an aside, did anyone notice the article where Gibson was voted the worst company to work for?

Here's the link


Southwest Air tops best places to work: survey | Reuters

[ohlcv]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

... tree hugging environmentalists, and I use that term difinitively not pejoratively, ...

[Rmcali2]

I found it quite hilarious that armed Federal agents would show up to a guitar facility and confiscate woods. The 'Gibson raid' is largely seen as an over reach by the DOJ and I agree.

tonyknight - I am sorry to here that affected your purchasing decision.

Here is the controversy in a nutshell:
“The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.) This action was taken without the support and consent of the government in India.”

[cosmic gumbo]

There's probably more illegal wood being used in the pencils that you buy than guitars.

[zigzag]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

tobyknight ... it was becoming very political, as this one will if it is continued. If tree hugging environmentalists... wish/need to revisit this matter... I, for one, will exclude myself from further comment ...

Funny...

[stevedenver]

like a burned out tail light and a ticket-sometime you need not know (intent) of your violation
nor need the cop give you a break

people love to gibson bash
rarely hear this stuff directed at fender, rickenbacker, gretsch, etc-all of which have there own "quirks"

the simple fact is
laws are highly technical-
i make my living naivigating them for clients
and
most companies have knowledgable experts for legal compliance, as im certan gibson does
wood supplies and compliance , i think, were not assigned to some underling to deal with imports, shipping, tarrifs, and environmental issues-dont you think?

the meida rarely gets facts right in legal matters-in those i have had with media attention this has been the case-

as for how the DOJ arrived-guys this is normal-i have dealt with 2 raids on clients-they do this with banks, military contractors, anyone
DOJ and federal marshalls -they are cops-they carry guns-the idea is to encourage any wiseacres not to try to destroy or delete or otherwise monkey with records and stuff in the company during the raid-it is designed to freeze everything-
they want the internal records, unsullied, thats how they support the suspected violation with more evidence

they dont ask-should we use AR 15's or a handgun-do we need our flak vests-they suit up the same for Chase Manhatten as a drug cartel (well kinda)


just like the guy that has a pistol on his hip because you rolled through a stop sign and now wants to talk to you about it-no one says this is extreme-like there are no wierdos in companies............this is simply police 'crowd control'....

we dont know about the allegations -they are only that
like violating your tax return due to some law you or your accountant missed or mis-interpreted-or correctly interpreted and the IRS auditor got it wrong
and
im certain its not a simple issue

as for prosecutors ... typically they dont have the resources to bark up a tree unless theres evidence (possibly other pressures, but somehow gibson guitar and Lacey Anthony dont seem to be on the same national interest level-so im not thinking its politics-but it could be-perhaps Henry rankled some democrats some how some where-dont know)

but the charges alone dont mean theres a violation
never hear the bashers recalling the eco series of guitars, the plywood versions, or other items gibson alone has offered regarding exotic wood substitutes in the name of eco,

funny how i dont hear this stuff about furniture or other big wood users
dont know if that is media, my ignorance or politics or all other companies are spotless

have to say that the article isnt bad at all-it acknowledges not only henry's side but the ambiguities in the statute
but i cannot think that gibson alone is reponsible for the dangers to exotic wood-nor in its interpretation of the law

so this is the case to get the courts to clarify the new law-


did i think the author should substitue his perception about wood selection for those that have to build with it-NO
theres always waste-not good but a fact of manufacturing
having built a few lutes and guitars-aint as simple as choosing a 'clear' peice of wood

sounds like Henry is angry and made it political-

but henry has had other things that might indeed make him very angry about life in the recent past-they would me

otoh -doesnt seem to be an issue (yet) with makers in CA or mexico facilities does it?

i dont think there should be poll question with this phrasing "suspected" =thats BS imho --it implies that gibson has violated the law or is unethical-i dont see it, with the OPs comments, as simply being intersted in how many of us are closet hypocrites

while big business does often get away with stuff-thats not the issue--the issue is specifics about gibson-

[cjm]

I too believe this issue is one that is probably best not discussed in detail until the actual court case is decided because it is guaranteed to become politicized, nasty, and counterproductive to the aim of maintaining a site dedicated to jazz guitar.

However, I'll violate my own advice here to point out the following in the hope that an understanding of the law will help defuse the rancor:

* The issue is bigger than Gibson's alleged violations or even the importation of rosewood (which isn't even available as an American forest product).

* Although the Lacey Act seeks to protect the environment, the Lacey Act is not simply, or even primarily, an environmental regulation (or one that should stir up either side to start name calling).

* The Lacey Act is also very much about protecting American forest industry worker's jobs from unfair foreign competition...not to eliminate foreign competition, but to reduce or eliminate the competitive advantage of entities that operate without any environmental or labor protections.

* The Lacey Act is designed to reduce exploitation of workers in third world and emerging economies that lack adequate protections.

* This case isn't an example of the Department of Homeland Security overstepping its bounds, because the agencies responsible for monitoring and regulating imports were folded into this newly created federal department after 9/11. There's a certain logic to this, because international trade/shipment provides a potential (and very real) weapons delivery system for attack on the United States. (This begs the question of whether we're better off with a Department of Homeland Security or not, but that's far beyond the scope of any regulatory enforcement action taken against Gibson.)

There are just so many ways of looking at this that it's ridiculous to start drawing a line in the sand and start hurling insults back and forth.

Gibson may be entirely clean. We'll have to wait and see.

Gibson may have committed a crime under the Lacey Act...but maybe it was entirely inadvertent. We'll have to wait and see.

You have to have some minimal measure of confidence in the judiciary or else there are much larger problems that render this controversy irrelevant and not even worthy of discussion.

Even though India didn't raise the issue, you have to admit that Indian workers would have benefited more by performing additional value added services with this rosewood than they did by simply exporting a scarce raw material at the lowest possible cost with the least possible local labor.

There's nothing engraved in stone that says that guitars must be fitted with tropical hardwood fretboards. There are domestic woods, produced by American workers, that serve well too, and that help in some small way to preserve American jobs.

Besides, it's more fun to talk about how Miles Davis destroyed jazz and helped create Kenny G.

[stevedenver]

well said!

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

As far as non-tropical woods go, I'm definitely interested in the baked ("torrefied") maple fretboards Gibson is using on some Les Pauls. They are supposed to feel and play like rosewood:

[Buster Loaf]

I saw some hanging in a GC. Visually, it was off putting. It was unbound had an almost cracked appearance to it.

I can see myself owning some, if it helps save the trees.

[derek]

Gentlemen,

This is your first and only warning. Anymore negative name calling (environmental tree huggers, etc.) will result in the thread being locked.

Play nice please.

[Retroman1969]

Originally Posted by cjm

Besides, it's more fun to talk about how Miles Davis destroyed jazz and helped create Kenny G.

My absolute favorite quote right there!

[TruthHertz]

http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guita...ts-raided.html

http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/every...bson-raid.html

http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/every...n-factory.html


Let's read these threads which have so passionately run into circles at a point in the past and then we can say the same things over again here!
Let's talk about the Republican primaries, and what's up with abortion these days?
Seriously, I think the many sides are presented in these links, though there will always be volumes of insulting catharsis. Go to it boys!
David

RE: Poll
Is that original poll question equating "legal" woods with "ethically acquired" woods? What if a law is wrong? What if the law is unethical but the possession of woods, though illegal is ethical? If a law were passed for political or financial gain, are those effected by that law necessarily unethical?

[kenbennett]

Those of you who want your facts straight could read this:

https://motherjones.com/files/gibsonaffidavit.pdf

It explains everything in specific detail.

[raylinds]

I believe in the separation of guitars and state.

[mattymel]

in a perfect world Gibson's CEO Henry Juszkiewicz would have ALREADY been jailed for "lack of taste" and running a company even deeper into the ground with its proverbial head up its rear so far that now its coming back out its mouth in china (right where I'm sure Henry wants to move the factories). that he is also guilty of squeezing as many bucks out of inferior products as humanly possible and using environmentally questionable wood would not be in the least surprising. best scenario is that he gets AXED himself, pun intended.

as to "hot" rosewood, who cares? 99% can't really hear a difference anyway. its mainly a status thing. and besides, I've got it already in all my vintage guitars. hehe.

that being said, i have heard from many reputable luthiers that the environmental rules are pretty ridiculous. like you can't even send a guitar that was built in the 50s (with brazilian RW) through the mail from other countries to here without danger of it being confiscated by ditto heads. glad i got mine already...

that being said, i still love my gibson custom shop guitars even though they were too $$$.

[Help!I'maRock!]

i voted "absolutely not". but i should clarify that this whole illegal wood thing is just another symptom of a greater problem, which is how the company is run from the top down. unless there is a wholesale change in management, i will not buy a Gibson.

[Likeke]

I wonder if this witch hunt will extend to hobby luthiers that bought Indian Rosewood from LMI, not knowing of the legality of the wood they bought?

[RonD]

If you had stopped at "Would you buy a new Gibson guitar", I could have answered.
Instead, you included "suspected of using unethically acquired woods".
Two different questions.

[max chill]

I'd rather buy a guitar made in China by 9 year old kids using legal wood.

[tonyknight]

Thanks for all the comments so far, guys, especially the amusing ones which bring a smile :-)

I apologise if I've come across as inciting a political discussion: that wasn't my intent. All I was hoping for was a simple count of roughly how many guitarists care about, or are even conscious of possible unethical practices to the point that it would cause them to (re)consider buying a specific guitar, or from a specific manufacturer/luthier.

For the record, I chose certain words in the poll question to try to avoid controversy. For example, to me 'suspected' is just that, an as yet unproven suspicion. I was well aware that some charges are actually 'alleged' too. I chose the word 'unethical' to go a bit further than 'illegal'. As written above, 'illegal' can be ethically just, or not. 'Ethical' is a personal interpretation based on our individual values. Thus, if gibson acquires incredibly rare wood for incredibly low prices, which potentially causes injustice in the exporting community, I might find that unethical whereas many others wouldn't. If the article is correct about that bunch of neck wood being rejected, I find that a shame at the very least: Gibson has sub-brands and other relationships which could allow the wood to be sold elsewhere and used in guitars reflecting a lesser level of finesse than high-end gibsons. Perhaps they did allow this...

So in my own case, I elected NOT to buy a new Gibson (I already own a few) because I personally felt there was enough reason to question Gibson's ethics by my OWN standards, not the alleged legal issues. I also tried out a few ES-175s from Gibson's custom shop and was incredibly disappointed with their quality, playability, and tone. As mentioned or implied by other posters, that is enough reason to look elsewhere :-) In my case, I wanted to use the Gibsons as the benchmark for the other guitars which I considered.

So let's, please, not let this become a heated political debate - it wasn't the intention, and would correctly justify the thread being stopped. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and this translates to personal choices in our individual buying decisions. I'm interested in seeing numerically whether or not a specific question of ethics regarding wood is enough to sway buyers' decisions.

Peace,
tony

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by max chill

I'd rather buy a guitar made in China by 9 year old kids using legal wood.

On the other hand, if there are doubts about Gibson, how much faith will you put in Chinese manufacturers?

[zigzag]

The question to be answered is: did Henry J./Gibson knowingly break any laws? That is a legal AND ethical question, and we will know if and when Gibson is put on trial. Until then, the question is moot.