Gibson Guitar Quality

**Patrick2** · 03-31-2012, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Flyin' Brian

Nah. The best bang for the buck is still made in Kalamazoo. It's just not a Gibson.

**Spook410** · 03-31-2012, 11:25 PM

Yes.. the Norlin years. Inconsistent. I have a 1976 Les Paul that has always been a great guitar. The 1977 Byrdland I had was a disaster of poor woodwork and poor finish. Sold it cheap and never missed it. As for the Montana acoustics, I never played one that held up against their competition though I'm sure some good ones had to have been made. I remember being told 'they fired their QC manager and got a new one' as a selling point.

To those that aren't involved in manufacturing, yes, inspection and QC in general have a heckuva lot to do with quality. It's not just about catching errors. Manufacturing is a process. In most cases, the better the process, the better the product. Inspection provides the necessary feedback to iterate on process and is at the heart of quality products.

As for value, some of the most desirable guitars may be made in the US, but bang for the buck? That's is certainly debatable. Of course, I'm also a big Heritage Guitars fan and hope for a 3rd one someday.

**Flint** · 04-01-2012, 12:27 AM

Inspection provides the necessary feedback to iterate on process and is at the heart of quality products.

Spent 20 years in manufacturing, and this statement is at best misleading. Yes, inspection provides necessary feedback. No, it's not at the heart of quality products. What lies at the heart of quality products is two things: good metrics and means of measurement at every step of the process, and organizational reward for anyone anywhere in the process who notices that something isn't going right. If inspection at the end of the line is finding problems, then the quality control system has already failed at some point. In a well-managed manufacturing process, everyone is a QC person, of his task and all prior tasks. A good QC manager can make this happen, but ONLY with full support right from the top.

If the QC manager reports to the bean counters, he's useless. Bean counters are notoriously unable to place dollar values on sales lost to Heritage.

**Spook410** · 04-01-2012, 01:16 AM

Inspection is never just at the end. ISO 9001 and CMMI say that workers don't self-monitor and you rely on the process and metrics based iteration, not individual craftsmen. I don't think a bunch of jazzers want to delve into this stuff but as an engineering manager who does this sort of thing on a regular basis, I'll be happy to do so if some have a burning desire to know more about it.

**fumblefingers** · 04-01-2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Flint

The hard truth is that quality is a management decision. QC isn't the answer to quality - you BUILD quality into the product, you don't INSPECT quality into a product. QC only lets you quantify how important quality is to the company management.

Gibson seems to have some people who take their work seriously and do an excellent job, and some people who don't, and nobody managing either of these people who understands or cares. I strongly agree that Gibson brands should never be ordered blind. They are the essence of "try before you buy."

i had a Lee Ritenour made for me. 'twas the most beautiful guitar i have ever owned. however - the back of the neck was a bit dry or sticky or something. McQuire's (spelling?) polish made it ok to play. i've heard that Gibson sometimes ships their guitars before the nitro laquer cures properly. (i'm not a Gibson or nitro expert so cannot comment about the veracity of that statement.) further, the intonation kinda sucked, even with the compensated wood bridge. a tun-o-matic probably would have fixed that, but i sold it anyway.

oh. and regarding another post above, an L4 is NOT a high-end instrument. its mid-range. there is just no getting around the fact that a fine archtop guitar is not cheap.

further, the L4 is laminated so is expected to be heavy. a lot of people (not me) like laminated guitars - so you get what you pick.

**fumblefingers** · 04-01-2012, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Spook410

Inspection is never just at the end. ISO 9001 and CMMI say that workers don't self-monitor and you rely on the process and metrics based iteration, not individual craftsmen. I don't think a bunch of jazzers want to delve into this stuff but as an engineering manager who does this sort of thing on a regular basis, I'll be happy to do so if some have a burning desire to know more about it.

you covered it well enough. you have to build quality into each step of the process. there is a cost to quality however, so you have to be judicious in how you apply quality assurance. and skilled and experienced staff are very important.

given how long Gibson has been at this, there should be no excuses.

**bluefonia** · 04-01-2012, 12:11 PM

the L4 is laminatad so is expected to be heavy

This particually L4 I refered to in my opening post is custommade with solid spruce top.

an L4 is NOT a high-end instrument. its mid-range. there is just no getting around the fact that a fine archtop guitar is not cheap.

Even though a L4 is not a top range guitar one should expect high quality. Where I live this L4 is almost $5.000 and if you can´t expect quality for that price I don´t know when to expect it.
Strangely many other brands/builders can supply quality starting at much lower prices.
Again, - I don´t go after Gibson as such. I just wonder what is going on.

**Patrick2** · 04-01-2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Flint

The hard truth is that quality is a management decision. QC isn't the answer to quality - you BUILD quality into the product, you don't INSPECT quality into a product. QC only lets you quantify how important quality is to the company management.

Seems to me I've heard those very same words before. Not sure if it was Flint who said them. But, they were wrong then and their wrong now. Of course you INSPECT quality into a product. You do so by inspecting imperfections, shoddy workmanship, poor raw materials out of the product. When Gibson gets in a load of wood . . . it needs to be inspected and accepted. That's a function of QC. When the craftsperson picks up a piece of that wood to use in a build, it's further inspected .. just in case the intial inspection missed something due to the immensity of the wood being received by Gibson on that particular day. That's a further function of QC. Fast forward to when a guitar come out of the spray room. It's set up to dry and to cure before it's buffed. When the craftsperson doing the buffing takes the guitar in his/her hands for buffing, they are supposed to further inspect it to see if there are any imperfections in the spraying or application of the color/shading. That's a function of QC. There are MANY others in between the final inspection, which is a final stage of QA . . . Quality Assurance. But, at each of these multiple stages of inspection, there is (or should be) corrective actions put in place to prevent repeating the mistakes that lead to poor quality. THAT'S how you inspect quality into a product by inspecting flaws out of it.

I don't know of any situation where mangement declared "were going to make a quality product" and it just automatically happened without frequent QC inspection to confirm that their directive was being adhered to and taking corrective actions when it was not.

**fumblefingers** · 04-01-2012, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by bluefonia

This particually L4 I refered to in my opening post is custommade with solid spruce top.

Even though a L4 is not a top range guitar one should expect high quality. Where I live this L4 is almost $5.000 and if you can´t expect quality for that price I don´t know when to expect it.
Strangely many other brands/builders can supply quality starting at much lower prices.
Again, - I don´t go after Gibson as such. I just wonder what is going on.

do you mean it wasn't laminated? top or back?

which of these 3 types of top are you describing? i assumed #2.

http://www.jhalemusic.com/pages/lami...lidCarved.html

also, i agree about the 5 grand. it should be an excellent guitar. sad to say it though, maybe not a world class guitar. BTW is/was the $5K MSRP or final sales price? (which should be about 30% less)

**Hammertone** · 04-01-2012, 12:42 PM

I've had pretty good luck with my Gibson purchases, but my latest one is a real puzzler. I thought the L-5C I got was great until I noticed a bit of sawdust in the case.

When I looked at the guitar closely, I noticed that, inside the body, there was a family of teeny little elves. Woodcarving elves (hence the sawdust).

Further study through the f-holes revealed that they were making teeny little Heritage guitars inside my L-5, using bits of wood from the inside of the L-5 body. I couldn't believe it!

**bluefonia** · 04-01-2012, 12:59 PM

do you mean it wasn't laminated? top or back?

which of these 3 types of top are you describing? i assumed #2.

According to the salesperson in the shop this L4 is custommade with carved solid spruce top, - sides and back are laminates.
So yes, - no laminate top here.

To be fair we have a pretty high salestax here (Denmark) which in this case is aprox. $ 1.000, but that still leaves $ 4.000.

EDIT: MSRP versus final sales price is a bit different here, - but you might get a 10-15% discount if you are lucky.

**aniss1001** · 04-01-2012, 01:17 PM

I don't know about archtops but I too think that Gibsons are way overpriced compared to the quality you get.

Some time ago I AB'ed a Gibson 335 with a 4 times cheaper Hagstrom Viking which honestly felt and looked better in every sense. Just more attention to details IMO.

**Spook410** · 04-01-2012, 01:33 PM

Stickiness on the back of a neck has always puzzled me a bit. Seems to still be there after you clean it with soap and water.

Back on Topic: I would also say that building true craftsmen and retaining them are something you do with your business practices (per the point made by Flint and others about the importance of the people). The availability of these skills drives how you build your process and in guitars is probably a hard dependency. If Gibson is not a great place to work, maybe this is at the root of their issues since it's pretty hard to be reactive enough on a factory floor to make up for rapid turnover.

**Gillman Royce** · 04-01-2012, 02:02 PM

I am not here to defend Gibson. What I would appreciate in these threads is specificity. Comments like " I bought five Gibsons over the years and only one was a keeper " isn't informative. Five what, 175d's ? All made in the same year ? Gibson informed me some years ago that they no longer glue in the frets on a guitar with a list price of $3k and under. Obviously that will affect their reputation but one fact like that doesn't extend throughout the entire brand. You can not use ' Gibson ' in the generic and then compare it to a boutique build. You must compare model to model AND year to year. Sorry if I come across a bit ornery but I've seen so much misleading opinion passing as ' fact ' on The Gear Page that I've stopped reading it. I'm looking for informed opinion and hopefully will find it here.

**Dad3353** · 04-01-2012, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Hammertone

I've had pretty good luck with my Gibson purchases, but my latest one is a real puzzler. I thought the L-5C I got was great until I noticed a bit of sawdust in the case.

When I looked at the guitar closely, I noticed that, inside the body, there was a family of teeny little elves. Woodcarving elves (hence the sawdust).

Further study through the f-holes revealed that they were making teeny little Heritage guitars inside my L-5, using bits of wood from the inside of the L-5 body. I couldn't believe it!

**davelang** · 04-01-2012, 02:14 PM

Seriously, someone at Gibson needs to pay attention. How much would it cost Gibson, and how much would it save them, to have one or two full-time people being a presence on the internet, active on a few dozen forums, willing to listen to and handle complaints and suggestions?

This is so true. I don't understand companies that operate like this. I joined their online forum (the official one) on Friday to try and get some info about the original neck radius on my ES-125.

I get a message back saying that an administrator had to approve my online forum account. I half jokingly thought to myself - uh oh - this is gonna end up waiting until Monday when the administrator comes back to work....

But it wasn't a joke. Seems like the admin is either awol or works Mon to Fri 9-5.

Way to go Gibson.

The even crazier part is that people do care about the Gibson guitars so much that I'm sure they could find a half dozen responsible respected volunteer admins for the forum in one day.

PS - if you watch the Youtube video of the CEO explaining the company's recent problems with the US government re: hardwood you can see where the problem starts and what the first step towards fixing it is. Not defending the government, but in my opinion the head of a company the size of Gibson should have a bit more savoir faire.

**Flint** · 04-01-2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick2

Seems to me I've heard those very same words before. Not sure if it was Flint who said them. But, they were wrong then and their wrong now. Of course you INSPECT quality into a product....When the craftsperson doing the buffing takes the guitar in his/her hands for buffing, they are supposed to further inspect it to see if there are any imperfections in the spraying or application of the color/shading. That's a function of QC. There are MANY others in between the final inspection, which is a final stage of QA . . . Quality Assurance. But, at each of these multiple stages of inspection, there is (or should be) corrective actions put in place to prevent repeating the mistakes that lead to poor quality. THAT'S how you inspect quality into a product by inspecting flaws out of it.

We are saying much the the same thing. There's a LOT more to QA than final inspection. It's something that should be built into every step of the manufacturing process. I suppose you could say that everyone involved in the process should be inspecting their own work in detail at all times. But I have seen processes where individuals who complain that they're seeing items with serious flaws, are told by management to shut up and ship product. On the last day of the quarter, I have seen companies ship emty boxes!

I have seen Gibson guitars arriving from the factory that should have been flagged half a dozen processes before final QA - which means, should have been flagged half a dozen times. Certainly there's no way these should have ever been allowed to go out the door.

When Harley Davidson got bought out by employees, one of the first things they did was to put in strict final inspection. The result was, every single motorcycle was flagged. Trying to track the problem to the workstation showed that the problems ran far deeper than shoddy workmanship. Obsolete parts were still in the system, broken parts were being tossed back into the bins, etc. Many broken processes.

**fumblefingers** · 04-01-2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by bluefonia

According to the salesperson in the shop this L4 is custommade with carved solid spruce top, - sides and back are laminates.
So yes, - no laminate top here.

To be fair we have a pretty high salestax here (Denmark) which in this case is aprox. $ 1.000, but that still leaves $ 4.000.

EDIT: MSRP versus final sales price is a bit different here, - but you might get a 10-15% discount if you are lucky.

ok, no to nitpick but i'm just trying to understand. the Gibson Custom Shop web site says it has a "solid carved spruce top".

so, why is the guitar you played "custom" i wonder? what is unique about it? it sounds like it's their stock model from the Custom Shop, which is not the same as a custom model from the Custom Shop, which is something that they make as well...

Gibson.com: Gibson Custom L-4 CES Mahogany

**fumblefingers** · 04-01-2012, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by PTChristopher

>>> Stickiness on the back of a neck has always puzzled me a bit. Seems to still be there after you clean it with soap and water.

It is a property of the lacquer itself, so there is no cleaning it off.

I have done a few conceptually flawed, but in practice, successful over-sprays to deal with this.

I took quite a bit of the clear off the neck, then re-shot it with a more typical guitar lacquer. (Behlen SIL and McFadden if you are keeping score.)

In principle, you do not want a harder lacquer on top of a soft (and moving/flowing) lacquer. But I took the clear coat down quite a bit and talked over the risk and my plan with the owner. It worked quite well, so I have done it a few times since. I am confident that would hear if there was any checking problems with the harder overcoat. At least I hope they would feel free to complain.

Understandable that Gibson would use the formula that they use I guess. And there are surely many satisfied owners for any of a number of reasons, which means something.

Chris

well i don't understand it. (i have heard both of those rumors that you mention - directly). but it feels bad, and it seems to be a recent development (last decade?). other high priced traditional archtops don't feel that way do they?

i think that they should fix it. i may appear to be a "satisfied" owner too but the fact is i am "working around it". i use Mcguire's products to slick up the neck. then it feels like my Benedetto feels every day - without any fuss.

**bluefonia** · 04-01-2012, 05:20 PM

"solid carved spruce top"

carved solid spruce top

You tell me the difference, - except from the ordre of two words

so, why is the guitar you played "custom" i wonder?

I have no idea, - just know it´s a L4 with a solid spruce top which is carved

**Synchro** · 04-01-2012, 05:42 PM

..

**iim7V7IM7** · 04-01-2012, 06:12 PM

Patrick,

Procedures, training, metrology, preventative maintenance, quality agreements with third party suppliers, incoming inspection, in-process inspection, release testing all are important parts of a quality system as you were trying to illustrate; but they are no substitute for building quality into the manufacturing process itself. Quality Control and Quality Assurance play an important role, but they cannot ensure that a product with defects gets out the door.

A good quality product starts much earlier than these activities. It starts when it is designed and the manufacturing process is conceived, developed and validated. Many times things go array when the technical staff decide the definition of "good" (e.g. specifications) and quality decides upon the acceptable quality level or AQL (one of the most misundestood concepts in quality). This has been proven endlessly in many industries.

My $.02

Bob

Originally Posted by Patrick2

Seems to me I've heard those very same words before. Not sure if it was Flint who said them. But, they were wrong then and their wrong now. Of course you INSPECT quality into a product. You do so by inspecting imperfections, shoddy workmanship, poor raw materials out of the product. When Gibson gets in a load of wood . . . it needs to be inspected and accepted. That's a function of QC. When the craftsperson picks up a piece of that wood to use in a build, it's further inspected .. just in case the intial inspection missed something due to the immensity of the wood being received by Gibson on that particular day. That's a further function of QC. Fast forward to when a guitar come out of the spray room. It's set up to dry and to cure before it's buffed. When the craftsperson doing the buffing takes the guitar in his/her hands for buffing, they are supposed to further inspect it to see if there are any imperfections in the spraying or application of the color/shading. That's a function of QC. There are MANY others in between the final inspection, which is a final stage of QA . . . Quality Assurance. But, at each of these multiple stages of inspection, there is (or should be) corrective actions put in place to prevent repeating the mistakes that lead to poor quality. THAT'S how you inspect quality into a product by inspecting flaws out of it.

I don't know of any situation where mangement declared "were going to make a quality product" and it just automatically happened without frequent QC inspection to confirm that their directive was being adhered to and taking corrective actions when it was not.

**Patrick2** · 04-01-2012, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Synchro

We risk devolving into a battle of semantics here but as important as inspection is it cannot in itself guaranty quality. Receiving inspections of materials are essential to the process but if the workmanship is not up to par it won't matter. IMHO the first step towards quality is having skillful employees that have secure jobs and are treated humanely by their employer. An employee that is happy with their employment situation is going to do better work. So, as I see it, this comes down to the culture of the workplace and the ethics of management. (For the record, I am a department head at my workplace and strive to apply this with regard to my subordinates. This is only possible because the administrators I answer to are decent people that respect their subordinates at every level.)

I see Gibson's problems stemming entirely from the attitude of its upper management. Henry J has a persistent reputation for being demanding, even unreasonable with both his employees and his dealers. Fix that problem and Gibson would probably get back on track.

We can not devolve into a battle of semantics here. It was determined in another thread that we don't even know how to do that.

But, to get to the heart of your post . . .employee moral . . could you please site specifics as to when Henry J, whom you and countless others seem to lay the blame directly upon, has treated his employees less than humane? Could you please site specifics where there is a culture of unethical behavior in the Gibson work place? Could you please site specifics where it is at all attributable to poor work conditions and not union influence that has led to the bad reputation you speak of . . . or of Gibson being listed as one of the 10 worst companies to work for.

I, for one am pretty tired of hearing Henry J. being accused as responsible for everything up to and including the disappearance of Chandra Levy.

You say "I see Gibson's problems stemming entirely from the attitude of upper management". You actually said . . . entirely. Please replay that statement in your mind and think about it. "Henry J. has a persistent reputation for being demanding, even unreasonable with both his employees and his dealers". And you know this . . how???

You claim to be a department head at your work place . . and you refer to your people . . . your PEOPLE . . . as subordinates.

I apologize man. I'm being much too hard on you here. But, I've just heard way too much of Henry J. being to main problem and the reason Gibson sucks. Well, Gibson doesn't suck. And, that's coming from a competitor! Why does everyone continue to forget that Henry J. is the main reason Gibson is even still around? He's also one of the main reasons that Gibson is one of the largest most successful guitar companies in the world . . . and still growing.

Apologies for the rant.

**Patrick2** · 04-01-2012, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Patrick,

Procedures, training, metrology, preventative maintenance, quality agreements with third party suppliers, incoming inspection, in-process inspection, release testing all are important parts of a quality system as you were trying to illustrate; but they are no substitute for building quality into the manufacturing process itself. Quality Control and Quality Assurance play an important role, but they cannot ensure that a product with defects gets out the door.

A good quality product starts much earlier than these activities. It starts when it is designed and the manufacturing process is conceived, developed and validated. Many times things go array when the technical staff decide the definition of "good" (e.g. specifications) and quality decides upon the acceptable quality level or AQL (one of the most misundestood concepts in quality). This has been proven endlessly in many industries.

My $.02

Bob

So, where do we disagree?