Gibson Johnny Smith Guitars From The Norlin Years

[QAman]

I have a question for all the Gibson and Heritage guitar historians. If the Norlin transition from Kalamazoo to Nashville occurred between 1974 - 1984 (as noted under Gibson History), with some custom shop and other work still being performed at Kalamazoo for many years...., at what point ( the actual year) was the Johnny Smith model moved out of the hands of the artisans that would later become the founders of the Heritage Guitar Company.

[Danny W.]

I can't answer definitively, but I had a 1987 Smith that was made in Nashville:



Gibson built very few archtops after about 1984 until the early '90's.

Here's another Smith from that time, but I think it was made after the sunburst one:



Danny W.

[QAman]

Thanks Danny - beautiful guitars. I'm trying to determine the last year Johnny Smiths were produced at Kalamazoo under Norlin.

[wintermoon]

I believe it was around summer of '84

[QAman]

So if summer of 84' is correct , and the esteemed Heritage artisians were working on these then... why are Norlin built guitars precieved as less desirable if they were built in Kalamazoo by the same folks who worked under CMI ownership.....just curious.

We need Jabberwocky !!

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

[Sam Sherry]

Paraphrasing Steve's setup, "So if at that time Johnny Smith guitars were built in Kalamazoo by the same crew that became Heritage . . .

... why are Norlin built guitars perceived as less desirable .....just curious.

Any or all of these:

a) Because people form preferences based on incomplete knowledge
b) Because the builders instantly gained skill and knowledge as soon as Norlin pulled out
c) Because the builders had more time to do better work as soon as Norlin pulled out
d) Because these kinds of preferences ignore the fact that there are winner and loser instruments from every period

For a long time the fun of chasing gear was about knowing the tidbits which let me find stuff that was 'better than it was supposed to be.' Now y'all know something about these guitars which lets you seek out an instrument that 'ought to turn out to be better than it's reputed to be.'

But it's that 'ought to be' thing that really plays out. There are jaw-dropping '83 JS and there are nondescript '83 JS. You're not buying a pic, a spec, a model or a year. You're buying an unique instrument. It was unique when it was built. Since then 30+ years have passed, and the things it's been through have at least as much effect on whether it is a winner or a dog as does the way it was built.

I'm not chasing guitars much at this moment -- the fun is about enjoying the particular instruments in my hands.

[lawson-stone]

I think it's also the case that splendid artisans work in the context of what their employer and supervisors expect of them. If they are told to work with inferior woods, then no matter how skillful they are, the wood is what it is. Or if to save money the company mandates that some parts will be universal so that a specific part that contributed in some way to the unique voice of, say, an L5ces, was no longer used, well again, that's not about the artisan's skill, but about the context in which the artisan has to work.

Give the greatest luthiers inferior wood, make them use off-the-rack parts, push up the schedule faster, and no matter how good they are, they won't be able to make the kind of instrument they could make for a company that said "Give this your best effort, here are our best resources, make something that will last a century or more and still be beautiful."

[Marty Grass]

I strongly agree. I have heard criticisms about guitars that were carved by a certain person who was hung over that day. I've played one where the pickup routing was slanted due to a hangover. CMI and Norlin probably had nothing to do with that variable.

The Gibson employees, as I recall, never said they had a bad period when Norlin was there.

I have heard from several workers how Elvis and the Beatles screwed quality up. In Elvis's heyday, Gibson had a huge demand for guitars. And right after the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan, the same thing happened. The guys on the line and one of the Gibson supervisors have told me than anything that looked like a guitar would sell. Quality was not a high priority. But that was never true with the higher end archtops.

Paraphrasing Steve's setup, "So if at that time Johnny Smith guitars were built in Kalamazoo by the same crew that became Heritage . . .



Any or all of these:

a) Because people form preferences based on incomplete knowledge
b) Because the builders instantly gained skill and knowledge as soon as Norlin pulled out
c) Because the builders had more time to do better work as soon as Norlin pulled out
d) Because these kinds of preferences ignore the fact that there are winner and loser instruments from every period

For a long time the fun of chasing gear was about knowing the tidbits which let me find stuff that was 'better than it was supposed to be.' Now y'all know something about these guitars which lets you seek out an instrument that 'ought to turn out to be better than it's reputed to be.'

But it's that 'ought to be' thing that really plays out. There are jaw-dropping '83 JS and there are nondescript '83 JS. You're not buying a pic, a spec, a model or a year. You're buying an unique instrument. It was unique when it was built. Since then 30+ years have passed, and the things it's been through have at least as much effect on whether it is a winner or a dog as does the way it was built.

I'm not chasing guitars much at this moment -- the fun is about enjoying the particular instruments in my hands.

[QAman]

Sam and Lawson ,
Good viewpoints. It would be interesting to interview staff from that time period to see if they were being compromised in building the best guitars they were capable of ( i.e. Man , materials , methods , equipment etc).

[QAman]

Marty,
Good points as well. If the quality of high end Archtop's were never compromised then what is it about Norlin period Archtops that result in a different market perception/ pricing.

[QAman]

Does anyone know who the notables were over-seeing Archtop production during Norlin tenure, as well notables during 60's desirability period of Johnny Smiths. There seems to be a market ( quality ) perception associated to the notables- i.e. Triggs period, Hutchins period etc.

[Bluedawg]

So far I've enjoyed the 70s Gibson archtops better than the 60s archtops I have played

The 60s guitars had thin necks and disappointing electric and acoustic tones

But the 60s guitars tended to be listed on the internet at twice the price of 70s guitars so somebody seems to disagree with me


I find the post 1990 archtops I've played to be all quite good ... some better than others, but I haven't played one yet that I wouldn't want to take home


If I ever do get a Super 400 it may well be a 70s model

[QAman]

All very good comments. I spent many years building a World Class Aerospace business - and the key ingredient is the culture. One in which everyone can enjoy coming to work, taking pride in what they do, and getting rewarded for their efforts. I wonder what Norlin management was like. Marty stated that Gibson employees didn't have a bad period under Norlin.

Additionally , Bluedawg stated he has enjoyed 70 's period better than 60's Archtops - and I've heard this from others as well.

Yet, to many people the post 74 Norlin Archtop period is less desirable than other periods , and I'm wondering based on what facts, or is it all compounded speculation.

[wintermoon]

if you look @ the Gibson production totals they really skyrocketed from '69 through the 1970's.
for example, the were 90 Super 400's made in 1968 and 240 made in 1969.

this would bear out the argument of less time to build, which equals less attention to detail.
so you'll generally see sloppier work in the 70's

[Cunamara]

Because we look at "vintage" through rose colored glasses. Norlin was change and it got a bad rap whether it deserved it or not. Henry J was changed and gets a fairly bad rap, again whether or not deserved. The same things apply to Fender, Gretsch, Epiphone, Martin, Polytone, Marshall, Mesa Boogie, etc. People have a tendency to think the past was better and we should try to get back there. Heck, there are entire philosophies based in that kind of thinking (and usually wanting to go back to a fantasy past that never really existed).

But there are people who got/are getting great music out of Norlin era instruments. Jonathon Kreisberg, as the example I've been listening to today, has a Norlin era ES-175. So did Joe Diorio. Just to name two.

The comments above that there were mediocre instruments and great instruments in all periods of Gibson, Fender, etc., are spot on. It's the individual instrument you are buying, not the whole era.

[Sam Sherry]

if you look @ the Gibson production totals they really skyrocketed from '69 through the 1970's. for example, the were 90 Super 400's made in 1968 and 240 made in 1969.

this would bear out the argument of less time to build, which equals less attention to detail.
so you'll generally see sloppier work in the 70's

Ruh-roh. Cart or horse?

The same figures also say this: Only 90 Super 400s were ordered in 1968 but 240 were ordered in 1969.

So yeah, it's possible that people were spending less time per guitar in 1969 then in 1968. But anyone who has ever worked in a factory knows how unlikely it is that in 1968 there was a dedicated S400 crew which sat on their cans getting paid for not working. More likely, the line was capable of building a lot more than 90 first-rate S400s in 1968 and instead those workers were spending their time whackin' out SG Jrs and LG0s.

Which in turn might support the conclusion that those folks were darn glad to spend the 70s doing their best work on S400s instead of banging out plank guitars and plywood semis. (Not that there's anything wrong with planks and plys.)

I'm also not jumping at the conclusion that the Gibson product was sloppier in the 70s than in the 60s. Frankly, Gibson had tons of slop in every single decade that I have owned (20s through 80s or so). Among the guitars I have owned -- admittedly a modest sample -- the sloppiest work is from the 30s. We romanticize the Factory Worker Of Old but my experience is that through all those years the Gibson modality always was, "Ship it, Louie." And yet we all, me included, love those guitars.

Consider that in the mid-50s Gibson was pumping out an average of twenty Les Paul Jrs every shift. Today, every single one of those guitars is owned by someone who thinks that it, individually, is the best thing ever to leave Kalamazoo.

Not to be disputatious. Just, "This data supports alternative conclusions."

[Danny W.]

Based on my own personal experience, which includes owning quantities of carved-top Gibsons from the '50's, '60's, '70's, '80's, '90's up to 2005, the quality of the guitars I own that were built since '94 is substantially higher than anything I owned from most of the '70's and all of the '80's. It shows in the quality of the wood, the attention to detail in the binding and fitting, the consistency of the necks and overall playability, and quite a bit in how they sound. You can argue all you want about the cause of this, but I'm just interested in the results. I had no qualms replacing all my older Gibsons with '90's models as they became available, and I'd never own another one from before that time.

Danny W.

[QAman]

Danny,
Based on my experiences with Gibson ownership beginning with a 1948 L5 - I could not agree more. The quality of the 90's Gibson Archtops are really fantastic. That was sort of a revival period for Archtops.

[Sam Sherry]

Based on my own personal experience, which includes owning quantities of carved-top Gibsons from the '50's, '60's, '70's, '80's, '90's up to 2005 . . .

Rule No. 1: Danny knows.
Rule No. 2: See Rule No. 1

[QAman]

Based on the responses and experiences of ownership noted in this post - it appears that there is really no objective evidence as to why a Johnny Smith from Norlin Period should be less desirable than those manufactured in the 60's, or the 80's but market value ( consensus) seems to suggest something different - why ? Is it all pure conjecture - and is Norlin period just getting a bad rap ?

Even in the first edition Gruhn Carter book ( I believe ) he mentioned something about the Norlin period being somewhat less desirable ( collectible ).

[Cunamara]

If the quality of high end Archtop's were never compromised then what is it about Norlin period Archtops that result in a different market perception/ pricing.

Well, for about 45 years Gibson's reputation rested solely on the Les Paul. Every other guitar they made since about 1970 was a minor sideshow to the Les Paul. Sorry to say it but archtop guitars are probably 0.001% of Gibson's sales. Norlin focused on economies of scale for a long time and nibbled at the quality of the instruments in ways that ticked off the customers for Les Pauls and, to an extent, ES-175s. I have never been able to compare, say, L5CESes from diffeernt eras so I don't know if this reached into that level of production.

[wintermoon]

"The same figures also say this: Only 90 Super 400s were ordered in 1968 but 240 were ordered in 1969.
So yeah, it's possible that people were spending less time per guitar in 1969 then in 1968. But anyone who has ever worked in a factory knows how unlikely it is that in 1968 there was a dedicated S400 crew which sat on their cans getting paid for not working. More likely, the line was capable of building a lot more than 90 first-rate S400s in 1968 and instead those workers were spending their time whackin' out SG Jrs and LG0s."


respectfully, whether they were ordered, is kind of irrelevant I think.
it equaled more work which is less time for each individual instrument.
many of the workers that made the high end guitars w/carved tops and backs etc were not the same workers making LGO's or SG jrs.

It wasn't just Supers, but also L-5's, Johnny Smith's, etc.
there was enough work building carved tops that no one was sitting around waiting for something to do.

sure, you can have someone that just does headstock overlays on any model guitar, etc, but not so much in the specialized areas of higher end instruments.
the same applies to today's Gibson workforce.

[Marty Grass]

The demands for flattops skyrocketed in the mid to late 50s and in the early to mid 60s. Following the suggestion that increased production meant decreased quality, how do you explain that archtop quality seemed pretty good then? And how about the famous F5 mandolin quality?

The guys building the guitars have said that the quality of the cheaper guitars suffered during high production times. These instruments generally went to people who were beginners and would buy anything.

Aaron Cowles did piece work for Gibson at his home. He was not paid by the hour but by the piece. Aaron's son recently told me that he has plenty of memories of his dad working in his shop at home finishing high end instruments for Gibson. I would guess that Gibson did the same with its other master luthiers at the time.

It is true that there was a lot of apprehension when Norlin took over. That settled down pretty quickly though.

I've never heard anyone say they were pressured to put crappy high end Gibsons out. What I have heard is that in busy times, Gibson hired inexperienced workers and trained them for the lower skilled tasks. Many of the them didn't work out so well.

In the high end archtop and flattop area, the culture was a mix of mutual respect and competition with Hutch, Cowles, Moats, Lamb and Deurloo, among a few others. Each would carve the bracings and tops a little different, and each thought their approach was more right.

In the end, all of the guitars were a group project. No one person did the whole guitar. So there could always be a weak link.

[Frank67]

So far I've enjoyed the 70s Gibson archtops better than the 60s archtops I have played

The 60s guitars had thin necks and disappointing electric and acoustic tones

But the 60s guitars tended to be listed on the internet at twice the price of 70s guitars so somebody seems to disagree with me


I find the post 1990 archtops I've played to be all quite good ... some better than others, but I haven't played one yet that I wouldn't want to take home


If I ever do get a Super 400 it may well be a 70s model

Two tumbs up to that statement. My 70s S400 is well made, sounds great and plays super well. I could not stand 60s necks and narrow nuts either.

recently played a 70s ES345 that was absolutely spectacular (fine, not a big archtop but still a guitar to fall in love with ... In case you wonder - no I did not buy it).

[lawson-stone]

I can't speak to the L5ces, but I do have an Aria Pro II PE180, pretty much a clone of the L5ces. Moreover, it's a clone of the 1970's version of that guitar, and I have to say it's outstanding. Now maybe Aria just made a 1970's L5ces they way they were supposed to be made, I don't know; I just know if the L5s are as good as this copy, I want one.

I even like the sunburst though I've heard criticisms of this light ice-tea color or honeyed color burst.