Gibson Quality

[Spook410]

I love Martins. But every new Martin I've tried or owned has needed lowering of the saddle and nut. A setup is basically required after spending your multiple thousands of dollars. Luckily I can do these things, but many owners can't.

I think this is just accepted as de rigeur in the Martin community; perhaps it's even considered a rite of passage for the new Martin owner. It's excused as "they don't set up the guitar for you because everyone's setup requirements are unique."

Taylor, of which I'm much less of a fan, does not have this issue generally.

I find myself categorizing setup differently from materials and workmanship. Not sure why because you're absolutely right. Some say it's the music stores job but Taylor seems to put everyone in the shade in this regard. Also, the place where I get my guitar lessons has a lot of boutique flat tops . My vague impression (and I'm editing this post) was that the action on these was just OK. Playing several yesterday I found this impression was incorrect. Huss&Dalton's and Bourgeois guitars were very good. Both string height and nut depth. So, it can certainly be done though with boutique guitars you do pay for it.

I like Martins quite a bit too. Have a couple but still need to stop procrastinating and get one of the cheap/ugly 50's D18's that come up around here from time to time. There is a good Martin tech close by for the hard stuff and these won't be available at reasonable prices forever.

[jazz.fred]

Ummm okaaay...I've played a bunch of peerless guitars. They are good for the money but not even remotely comparable to a good 175, L5, Farlow, Kessel, etc. Not even close.

And well they should. You pay top dollar for those models. I would expect a $5000-9000 instrument to outperform a $1000-3000 guitar. Having acknowledged that point, it's noteworthy that the mid-priced stuff comes pretty damn close. Yes. A Peerless Imperial is not an L5. It's also not $9,000.00!

I would prefer to own a Heritage H575 than an ES175. IMMACULATE build quality for hundreds less.

[Woody Sound]

Hmm? Didn't all of the '59-'63 ES-330TD guitars have a spacer ring under the bridge pickup? The ones I have seen did. ES-335 guitars used humbuckers with mounting rings. The mounting rings under the bridge pickup is always thicker--to position the pickup higher off of the body--than the neck pickup mounting ring. P90s don't use mounting rings, so a spacer was used to achieve the same effect.

I'm not suggesting that your 330 wasn't a nightmare for you, but simply that the spacer was vintage-appropriate.

He said the neck pickup had spacer rings. (Unless it was a typo.)

[vintagelove]

Tone. It's worth it to me to put money into a refret on my 50 year old gibson because nothing new (including new gibsons) sounds like it. Certainly not eastman or peerless but yes, if you like shiny new guitars, there is nothing wrong with peerless, eastman, ibanez, etc. I would put ibanez at the top of that list though.

I can't think of any peerless or eastman guitar tone I've ever heard as being one of the classic jazz guitar tones. Then again, I'm biased. I listen to the tone, I don't care about how the instrument looks.

No offense, but if I had to choose your ears or my ears to judge "tone" by, I would take mine in a heartbeat. I've been doing critical listening through the highest end recording gear for a long long time, you think a kemper sounds great....

The first demo you posted since you started using it that I thought sounded good.... Turned out to be a tube amp.


Now we can agree to disagree on what we think sounds good, but the idea of you being able to hear "tone" better than I is laughable at best. Especially since I have both guitars sitting next to each other.

[rictroll]

I believe Jack acknowledged the subjective nature of such assessments earlier.

The experience of taking our perfect jazz tone from the practice room to the gig space is a profound reminder of the temporal and conditional nature of tone. Perhaps the variables presented by performance spaces/conditions are greater than those of similar instruments from different manufacturers in real practice.

[Groyniad]

i just spent over a decade avoiding gibson. i've tried a number of very well made boutique archtops.

i left because my perfectly set up '53 es 175 lost out to a perfectly set up sadowsky jh. it wasn't obvious to me - at the time - that i was leaving classic jazz tones behind. i thought of the sadowsky as a copy of jim hall's second great guitar (which was itself a copy of his first - an early fifties 175). maybe that is right - in the case of this guitar. (but JH didn't sound so great on it - it seems to me).

i think jzucker's take is basically on the money. many of the boutique guitars (buscarino, comins, andersen, moll, campellone etc.) are probably even better made than any gibson of any period - but i wonder if any of them sound as appealing. certainly you hear almost no major musicians playing them - even now. why is no-one playing e.g. a campellone? you get the very strong feeling that benedetto offered certain players irresistible deals to play his instruments. to my ear none of them sound very good - that swedish guy who plays super-fast bebop (b**tard) - i never like his sound. etc. etc.

and - i think - jz suggests at least, that the point is not really that the tone is worse - its that its not 'classic'. and then there's a further point - that its almost impossible not to find the 'classic' tone the best tone because all the great guitarists that we love play gibsons almost all the time.

this - just about - leaves open the possibility that there could be archtops that sound as good or even better than a classic gibson. they could be richer or clearer or less boomy or woodier or warmer etc. its just that most of us would not prefer their tones to the classic gibson tones because we've fallen in love with the gibson tones on the records.

perhaps i chose that jh over the gibson because it sounded better - sweeter, cleaner, warmer, more even across the range. but it is still not obvious to me that i was right to choose it.

and a number of the amazing boutique archtops i've played sounded incredible - i'm sure better in all sorts of ways to most gibsons - but i've certainly given up on the project of trying to find one i wanted to settle down with.

i think - if you've grown up on wes and kenny burrell and barney kessel and jim hall and charlie christian - you want to hear that sort of sound when you play a guitar. if you don't hear it, its hard to recognize the sound you're making as a jazz sound.

[JazzNote]

I recently tried out a 2015 Lee Ritenour L5, didn't buy it because the quality was not what i'd expect from a 10'000$ guitar (sloppy fretwork and insufficient sound in the high register above the 17th fret). In 2003 i bought a James Huchtins signed L5CES which plays great, but there were some lacquer issues and the bridge was faulty (some of the saddle screws were of such poor quality that they wouldn't turn properly, making adjustments impossible - i got a free replacement saddle without trouble.) I think that Gibson is lucky to have such a great reputation which makes us still buy their instruments although their inspection system seems not to be sufficient enough as (IMHO) a 10'000$ guitar needs to be flawless to justify the price.

[QAman]

I think J Zucker and Groynaird brought out the reason why Gibson instruments are so widely admired and played throughout the world.

It's a TONE that has been heard and recorded for decades by our idols ...... and we recognize that sound. Additionally , ownership of a Gibson represents a bit of status and pride .....and sure.... we want the new guitars to be perfect ......for that reason.

The point about Boutique guitars having perhaps different or better sound attributes is so correct ( I own many ) yet somehow we seem to gravitate back to the sound of a Gibson.

While the imports are very nice guitars and provide a tremendous quality / value proposition (I own a few) they will just never be a Gibson , and I doubt that perception will change anytime soon.

Furthermore , we have all seen and realized the resale value of a Gibson compared to imported counterparts (no disrespect implied) is far superior .... due in part to status. Yet the imports are remarkably good and cheap ..... - but thats where it ends.

Remember the slogan- " Only a Gibson is good enough" ...

[skykomishone]

1944 L7 that is a road warrior, a miracle guitar in my estimation. Gibson, and I think, it was girls at the time, did some of Gibson's finest, in my opinion.

[mojobebop]

understand your point about playing several guitars, however for example in nyc very difficult to find more than one in my experience, unless you are talking about cheaply made instruments they buy in bulk. can't find a 330, even when i once purchased a elitist casino in rudy's they had only one. i wish there were a store that had several samples of a given model i wanted.

[mojobebop]

had a hd 28 in 1976 which was fine. purchased another, 'd-28' and had to have the saddle sanded down. after 2 months or so the pain to my fingertips was too much. also the fit and finish was not up to spec from what i recall. as well even the fret ends after the 12th fret were not sanded and finish not really applied. did not sound as good as the earlier model as well. i actually traded it with someone for a 1965 signature lennon epiphone, and do not regret it. but do regret having to sell the earlier martin in 1982 for rent money at 'we buy' nyc.