Gibson Quality

[jzucker]

Was looking at 339s today on reverb.com and came across this.

I guess the custom shop can't be expected to get the model # correct on the label. It's listed as an ES 3399


Then there's this although ultimate-guitar.com ain't exactly a pinnacle of investigative journalism and this article reeks of vendettas...

Gibson in Trouble: 'Their Employees Hate Them, and Their Customers Think They're Crap' | Music News @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com

[rpguitar]

Is it listed as "extremely rare" with a $10K price tag?

Mistakes can be very valuable to collectors, you know.

[mr quick]

Mr. 3399 somehow doesn't have the same ring to it as mr. 335 does....

Inspired by this thread, I busted open the "control cavity" on my ES-139 for the first time. It must've been made in a hell of a hurry, because absolutely nothing is sanded inside.



^ As you can see, very frayed edges.



^ Close up and an attempt to show the shocking(ly great) discovery that it seemed completely hollow from the bridge up to the neck.



^ Extra, just love the figuring on the maple back.

These are of course non-issues as they do nothing to affect playability or tone. The exterior isn't perfect either;



^ Example of orange peeling. Headstock is all orange peel, worst of all is the very top. It feels very rough, almost like rock.

Additionally, there's still some left of the mysterious orange flakes on the binding which have been there since it was new. Fortunately it is not visible to the camera because I play this guitar for hours a day and it is the only guitar I play. ​god damn i love this guitar

I also had to file down one of the saddles slightly, because a fault made it so that it kept breaking my strings(Thanks mr. beaumount for the suggestion).

Still, these things don't matter. It's a $1500 dollar American-made Gibson ES. I'm pretty damn happy with it regardless

-

I frequent the local music store, and all the Gibson semi/full hollows (I haven't even tried any of the solid-bodies) have various aesthetic faults such as a frayed pick guard(ES-335 & BB. King "Lucille"), inexplicable orange flakes(ES-139(x2), ES-195, ES-335 and many more), abhorrent setups and other faults. I'd expect a bit more from Gibson, likely the biggest name in guitars.

[jazz.fred]

I have been aware of the poor Quality Control/Quality Assurance on new Gibsons for several years. I have no interest in acquiring a new Gibson.

[rpguitar]

Probably time to stop reading this thread right... about... NOW.

Bitching about Gibson is about as tired a subject as there is.

[vinlander]

ES-339, How to tell which neck I have... - Gibson Guitar Board

[mr quick]

That doesn't affect its validity, though.

[jads57]

Unlike Gibson of old, Gibson like all major manufacterers are making way to much product at the expense of quality control. You probably won't find this on their higher end division instruments. That said I own a lowly ES-339 Studio that has become my main guitar these days.

[Marty Grass]

I had a collection of Heritage labels that were misspelled. Examples included Utra for Ultra, Seth Lowers, and Bunt Amber.

[Bebop Tom]

Does anyone have experience with recent Custom Shop guitars from Gibson? Has their quality dropped off as well?

[Bluedawg]

Does anyone have experience with recent Custom Shop guitars from Gibson? Has their quality dropped off as well?

The Custom Shop guitars I've looked at have been spectacular ..... that doesn't mean they're all perfect ..or worth Gibson's minimum advertised price ... but I liked them

Fortunately, if you're looking at the more expensive archtops, the dealers have room to play with discounting below MAP and still make a thousand or 2 in profit

I would expect that most of their quality issues can be found in the Gibson USA line .....

I'm sure there are some serious QC issues considering the number of guitars Gibson produces ..

But most of the complaints I've seen on line have to do with set ups ... and usually in big box type stores ...

Gibson does very little set up at the factory ... but that can be an easy fix, except that the big box stores seldom do set ups and then they sit on hooks for months and season changes which can undo the most perfect of set ups


If you're not happy with Gibson ... there's plenty of other great guitars out there and some are much less expensive

[Stringswinger]

My most recent Gibson is a 2005 ES-335 (Memphis). There is no quality control issues at all. The woods are amazing. Fit and finish is superb and sound and playability is outstanding. My only complaint is that it is heavy (9 pounds). A common issue with modern guitars as the lighter weight wood from old growth trees is largely gone. That is one area wher vintage guitars will always shine. They are made from materials that are no longer available.

Gibson is a big company and puts out a lot of product. There will always be lemons in that kind of environment. I think the Gibson bashing is based on jealousy (those who cannot afford one will sometimes find a reason to hate that which is unobtainable) or bad luck (Getting a lemon will cause anger).

Of my 20 guitars 6 are Gibsons. Of the 4 guitars still on my bucket list 2 are Gibsons.

Long live Gibson Guitars!

[John A.]

I think there's a strong element of confirmation bias in these discussions (we over extrapolate to the whole population from anecdotes about defects without knowing what the defect rates actually are), in combination with expectations that an expensive product should be defect-free. I've had three Gibsons over the years, and played a great many more. None has had anything I'd identify as a manufacturing defect (I might question some of the design decisions, though). But I wouldn't generalize on this experience.

I also question whether there's a trend in this. I've been hearing complaints about Gibson quality (and design mistakes) since I started playing in the mid-70s (and in reference to instruments going back about a decade earlier). My subjective impression is that the Henry J-era-Gibsons are for the most part prettier and closer to the Golden-age ones than Norlin-era ones. But there have always been defects and puzzling decisions, there have always been really good guitars, and there have always been models that no one else is quite able to replicate, so if you want one of those you've always had to do some due diligence.

John

[Max405]

Mistakes. A by-product of being human. What sets a good manufacturer apart from a bad one is how well they handle the complaint. Gibson must be good at fixing mistakes because every Used Gibson I've ever bought was perfect. So, buy Used Gibsons. Then, enjoy the guitar. And when you are done with it, Sell it. You will be able to, because its a Gibson.

[Woody Sound]

Then there's this although ultimate-guitar.com ain't exactly a pinnacle of investigative journalism and this article reeks of vendettas...

Gibson in Trouble: 'Their Employees Hate Them, and Their Customers Think They're Crap' | Music News @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com

The corp mentality at Gib has been criticized for some time now.

[jzucker]

Probably time to stop reading this thread right... about... NOW.

Bitching about Gibson is about as tired a subject as there is.

right because the next logical step is to claim how much superior peerless and eastman are, lol

[jzucker]

you're lucky then because I've played and bought plenty with manufacturing defects. Maybe your sample size is to blame. I've experienced such delicacies as inlays that were cut too small and filled in with rosewood sawdust, pickup routes in the wrong place, neck angles wrong, braces that sagged and/or broke, fingerboards that twisted in multiple directions, nuts that were cut so far over that the strings were off the fingerboard, etc.

Still , by and large I'll take a used gibson over any other guitar in terms of tone. I've owned zillions of archtops including expensive, boutique/luthier made instruments and IMO none come close to a gibson.

But, I'd never buy a new instrument and can't speak to the quality of the new ones. I know they have done some sleazy things like plywood fingerboards and that 139 pictured above appears to use a very cheap plywood for the back instead of the thinner ply that gibson used traditionally on their 175s and 335s.

I think there's a strong element of confirmation bias in these discussions (we over extrapolate to the whole population from anecdotes about defects without knowing what the defect rates actually are), in combination with expectations that an expensive product should be defect-free. I've had three Gibsons over the years, and played a great many more. None has had anything I'd identify as a manufacturing defect (I might question some of the design decisions, though). But I wouldn't generalize on this experience.

I also question whether there's a trend in this. I've been hearing complaints about Gibson quality (and design mistakes) since I started playing in the mid-70s (and in reference to instruments going back about a decade earlier). My subjective impression is that the Henry J-era-Gibsons are for the most part prettier and closer to the Golden-age ones than Norlin-era ones. But there have always been defects and puzzling decisions, there have always been really good guitars, and there have always been models that no one else is quite able to replicate, so if you want one of those you've always had to do some due diligence.

John

[John A.]

you're lucky then because I've played and bought plenty with manufacturing defects. Maybe your sample size is to blame. I've experienced such delicacies as inlays that were cut too small and filled in with rosewood sawdust, pickup routes in the wrong place, neck angles wrong, braces that sagged and/or broke, fingerboards that twisted in multiple directions, nuts that were cut so far over that the strings were off the fingerboard, etc.

Still , by and large I'll take a used gibson over any other guitar in terms of tone. I've owned zillions of archtops including expensive, boutique/luthier made instruments and IMO none come close to a gibson.

But, I'd never buy a new instrument and can't speak to the quality of the new ones. I know they have done some sleazy things like plywood fingerboards and that 139 pictured above appears to use a very cheap plywood for the back instead of the thinner ply that gibson used traditionally on their 175s and 335s.

But you've actually bought more Gibsons then they've manufactured, so there may be some issues with your sample size as well


John

[Max405]

That was funny.

[GNAPPI]

I agree on all counts on Gibson, some good some bad, overall I play and own Gibson before most anything else.

Now Motorcycles? nah, the Japanese have it all over America. I'll admit it gave me a chuckle reading someone call them "the best" :-) S&S Engine anyone?

I'll buy an American bike when I can find one of their motors on a boat, generator, lawnmower, in a car... sheesh gimme a break.

[vintagelove]

right because the next logical step is to claim how much superior peerless and eastman are, lol

I hate to be that guy, but my peerless is every bit as good, if not arguably better than any Gibson I've owned/played. Maybe I got an amazing one (just like someone got a clunker Gibson).

[wildschwein]

Mr. 3399 somehow doesn't have the same ring to it as mr. 335 does....

Inspired by this thread, I busted open the "control cavity" on my ES-139 for the first time. It must've been made in a hell of a hurry, because absolutely nothing is sanded inside.



^ As you can see, very frayed edges.



^ Close up and an attempt to show the shocking(ly great) discovery that it seemed completely hollow from the bridge up to the neck.



^ Extra, just love the figuring on the maple back.

These are of course non-issues as they do nothing to affect playability or tone. The exterior isn't perfect either;



^ Example of orange peeling. Headstock is all orange peel, worst of all is the very top. It feels very rough, almost like rock.

Additionally, there's still some left of the mysterious orange flakes on the binding which have been there since it was new. Fortunately it is not visible to the camera because I play this guitar for hours a day and it is the only guitar I play. ​god damn i love this guitar

I also had to file down one of the saddles slightly, because a fault made it so that it kept breaking my strings(Thanks mr. beaumount for the suggestion).

Still, these things don't matter. It's a $1500 dollar American-made Gibson ES. I'm pretty damn happy with it regardless

-

I frequent the local music store, and all the Gibson semi/full hollows (I haven't even tried any of the solid-bodies) have various aesthetic faults such as a frayed pick guard(ES-335 & BB. King "Lucille"), inexplicable orange flakes(ES-139(x2), ES-195, ES-335 and many more), abhorrent setups and other faults. I'd expect a bit more from Gibson, likely the biggest name in guitars.

I feel vindicated buying midrange Asian guitars and spending a bit of my time improving them. Even these are often more finished than what you're showing me here. For what Gibson charges I would expect all the little things to be done. I did once own a '93-ish Gibson Les Paul and the quality of that was second to none -- obviously in today's market where cheap Asian guitars are so good Gibson are really cutting corners.

[jzucker]

I hate to be that guy, but my peerless is every bit as good, if not arguably better than any Gibson I've owned/played. Maybe I got an amazing one (just like someone got a clunker Gibson).

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.

[RonD]

Hi gang,

I've been away from the forum for a while, mostly because of posts like this.

There are people who love Gibson and obviously, some that don't.
I try to base my opinion on guitars that I've played, not on the label.
I recently found a very good deal on a Gibson CS-336 and figured that the worst that would happen is that I'd hang on to it for a few years, then sell it for a sell profit. Best case scenario... I'd love it and want to keep it.
Well, it's a nice guitar. Certainly not worth, to me, what is being charged for a new one, but not bad, at all.

I agree with what Jack said about another brand. Not the brand, I know nothing about them.

"They are good for the money but not even remotely comparable to a good 175, L5, Farlow, Kessel, etc. Not even close."

Problem for me is twofold.
Finding a "good 175, L5, Farlow, Kessel, etc." is getting harder.
Finding a lefty is damn near impossible!

I'm currently awaiting delivery of a Chris Walsh semi, small body. Fingers crossed!

Cheers, Ron

[jzucker]

I'm currently awaiting delivery of a Chris Walsh semi, small body. Fingers crossed!

Cheers, Ron

Ahhh, good for you. I'd love to try one.