Quality control: Gibson vs the Rest

[grahambop]

Uh oh. The G word again. Hey, which way to the nearest bomb shelter?

Take care, the QC on some bomb shelters is not what it used to be.

[Woody Sound]

I don't excuse their bad choices or flawed practices or shoddy instruments. But I would rather work through the Gibson offerings to get to my personal guitar nirvana over any other type of guitar. That's the bottom line for me. If you see otherwise, I am not the least bit personally challenged by that and I don't understand people who care so much about others' opinions.

Well said.

[BeBob]

> I know for a fact that in mass manufacturing there are basically two methods for the QC folks to inspect,

Statistical Process Control.

[viccortes285]

Years ago each Gibson was handcrafted and inspected. CNC machines produce and inspect maybe 3 out of a hundred and feel the lot is good. Years ago maybe only 300 guitars were made a year and each one was inspected. Mass production won't stop it makes money, yet poor craftsmanship.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Stringswinger]

I don't know if it's safe for me to comment again but the last 2 I got from CME had huge quality control issues. One was horribly finished and the other had a roller-coaster neck. These should have never gotten past Gibson QC (or CME for that matter)

IMO, up until about 1973, the guitars were consistently good but the quality has gone steadily downhill since then. I've had several late '80s 175s with the mahogany back and sides and even then, the quality varied tremendously. I think the '50s was the most consistent era for them followed by '60-'63. Then the quality started to turn.

In mid '70s for example, they switched to the maple necks because they were having too many problems with neck breakage and from that point forward, it seemed they did a lot of things to combat warranty issues that weren't necessarily in the best interest of tone, weight, etc.

I think the big problem now is that they have become a luxury brand and the customer they are catering to anymore is different than the working musician they were selling to back in the '50s and '60s. Of course, that coincides with the music industry itself.

As far as being a hater or a troll (or worse), that's hardly a fair comment. Gibson is still my favorite archtop brand of all time. I actually prefer gibson to any of the hand-made boutique manufacturers and have said that on many occasions. However, I reserve the right to call things as I see them and frankly, the last 4-5 new gibson hollowbodies I've played were terrible. Tonally and quality-wise.

A fair observation.

My experience is a bit different as the 4 CME guitars I got are all stellar guitars in both construction and tone (OK, two of them had to lose the titanium saddles before I liked the tone, but that is a matter of taste)

Clearly there are some quality control problems at Gibson and CME allowed some less than perfect guitars to be shipped. And that can be discussed without saying/implying that they are all terrible, because many are superb.

I have played Gibsons from all eras and have owned many Gibsons from 1963 up to 2017. I think quality has varied in all eras. The Norlin changes (maple necks on 175's, volutes, 14 degree pegheads, chrome etc.) were done for business reasons and some of those changes were not good from a traditional tone point of view, but it does not mean that Norlin guitars were of substandard quality.

Under Henry J. the company was brought back from the almost dead. Is quality control good today? Clearly not. Are they priced fairly? Maybe, maybe not. Labor and material costs are much higher today in the USA than in times past, so a new Gibson may be priced correctly even if, using an inflation calculator, todays prices seem higher than yesterdays prices.

Guitars are often a matter of taste. Some of us may love Gibson guitars, some may not. Some may have a distaste for Gibson guitars due to their high cost. There can be a reasonable discussion, but there can also be outright bashing with absurd proclamations. The only thing I am certain about in all of this is that Gibson makes some amazing guitars and I feel lucky to own a bunch of them.

[GNAPPI]

> I know for a fact that in mass manufacturing there are basically two methods for the QC folks to inspect,

Statistical Process Control.

I said QC folks which are not generally the office / bean counter types.

Generally SPC operatives are fed data from in house QC or external sources like in the case of Gibson outside dealers and incoming inspection of returned defects.

IMO SPC is tediously slow to react real time. I'm not saying it's useless but more reactionary than preventive and more immediately curative.

On line QC as I outlined is much more preventive and immediately curative than a reactionary mode, and if deployed correctly SPC bean counters may not ever or minimally get involved.

[Skip Ellis]

I think you handled that reply nicely, Jack.


I don't excuse their bad choices or flawed practices or shoddy instruments. But I would rather work through the Gibson offerings to get to my personal guitar nirvana over any other type of guitar. That's the bottom line for me. If you see otherwise, I am not the least bit personally challenged by that and I don't understand people who care so much about others' opinions.

But why? Just because it says "Gibson" on the headstock? To me, that's not a good excuse to spend time and $$$ weeding through a bunch of substandard instruments to find something playable just to be able to show off to your friends and say "I've got a Gibson". I'm of the opinion that it's purely a status thing - there are a multitude of guitars out there that sound better and are made with more care than the current Gibson offerings but if you show up at a jam or gig with some lowly brand (which happens to be a dynamite instrument), you don't get the 'ooohs and aaahs' from the other players that you would with an L-5 or JS or whatever. Audiences (made up of both guitar savvy folks and those not so much) also connect guitar brand with the talent of the player. "This guy must be a great player 'cause he's got a Gibson". Remember the old ad: "Only A Gibson Is Good Enough". Back in the day, there was a lot of great jazz and music in general played on guitars that weren't Gibson - I just don't think they have a corner on the quality market (especially nowadays). Yes,they made some nice guitars, and yes, a lot of other companies copied them because they were the benchmark for anything other than flattops (Martin had, and still does have that sewed up) but I feel the copiers have outdone the original and with current management, Gibson will never catch up. No insult intended to your choice, but I'm a very practical minded guy and owning something just because of a label just goes against my grain.

[rio]

I don't know if it's safe for me to comment again but the last 2 I got from CME had huge quality control issues. One was horribly finished and the other had a roller-coaster neck. These should have never gotten past Gibson QC (or CME for that matter)

IMO, up until about 1973, the guitars were consistently good but the quality has gone steadily downhill since then. I've had several late '80s 175s with the mahogany back and sides and even then, the quality varied tremendously. I think the '50s was the most consistent era for them followed by '60-'63. Then the quality started to turn.

In mid '70s for example, they switched to the maple necks because they were having too many problems with neck breakage and from that point forward, it seemed they did a lot of things to combat warranty issues that weren't necessarily in the best interest of tone, weight, etc.

I think the big problem now is that they have become a luxury brand and the customer they are catering to anymore is different than the working musician they were selling to back in the '50s and '60s. Of course, that coincides with the music industry itself.

As far as being a hater or a troll (or worse), that's hardly a fair comment. Gibson is still my favorite archtop brand of all time. I actually prefer gibson to any of the hand-made boutique manufacturers and have said that on many occasions. However, I reserve the right to call things as I see them and frankly, the last 4-5 new gibson hollowbodies I've played were terrible. Tonally and quality-wise.

Well said. This thread seems like a “safe space” so far with lots of facts around the bomb shelter.

Does anyone know why the quality control started to go down in the mid 70s? The oldest Gibson I have played in person is my ‘70 L5 and a few other guitars made that year but I have tried a number of other 70s Gibsons throughout that decade and a handful from each decade after that, with the numbers going up as the decades get more recent. And I will not pretend this is scientific but the problem guitars I started seeing were in the 90s, which is coincidentally when I started seeing new Gibsons since I started playing guitar in ‘93, jazz in ‘96, so I wouldn’t have been able to see new Gibsons before that point.

And what I have wondered is this - is there a point where people start seeing the bad Gibsons being sold that coincides with their own experiences seeing new ones hanging in stores? If I were to only take my own experiences into account (and I don’t think this way because my own experiences are not accurate evidence for this) I would say that the quality control started dropping in the 90s because all of the earlier guitars didn’t have significant QC problems. Some were clunkier than others, some better players, more resonant, more “special”, but the ones with problems that shouldn’t have left the factory were from the late 90s on because that is what I saw with my own eyes.

And the more time that passes the less people will be playing or selling the Gibsons with problems, which is why the older guitars I have seen were never as bad as the newer ones. The problems would have either been fixed over time or the guitar would have not been played or bought or whatever, making it appear to me that the problems started later than they actually did.

That is all just kind of musing because I find it interesting. So as for the point, if Gibson did start shipping guitars that shouldn’t have been shipped in the 70s, what caused that change? Higher output with less scrutinization at various points of the production process?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[jzucker]

Guitars are often a matter of taste. Some of us may love Gibson guitars, some may not. Some may have a distaste for Gibson guitars due to their high cost. There can be a reasonable discussion, but there can also be outright bashing with absurd proclamations. The only thing I am certain about in all of this is that Gibson makes some amazing guitars and I feel lucky to own a bunch of them.

I agree with most of what you said. However, I think the mis-characterization of bashing/trolling/hating when one criticizes something is a deflection tool. (Not accusing *you* of doing this but I saw it in the other thread). Ironic that in that thread I was called a gibson hater and a year ago when I posted that only a Gibson can sound like a 175 I was called a gibson fanboy.

I like to think that most of us call 'em as we see 'em, taking into account different expectations out of the instruments.

[John A.]

Say what you will but Gibson does and did not know their way around a flat top, and what they did with them is just poor indesputable bad design. I don't know what Gibson was doing when they made their first flat tops, they are based on the designs of Martin (yes, they copied the design, big deal, get over it) and then they screwed it up (whaaaaa?).
I just got a Dove in for repair. I've seen a lot of these come in for imploded tops, torn up bridges, pulled tops, warped braces... a lot more than their Martin counterparts. Ask any seasoned luthier, they've seen them.
First of all their bracing I was working on was a single X and the top had pulled up and craze lines radiate clear down to the edges and end block. Then those bridges: Somebody thought it was OK to glue a bridge on backwards and call it "distinctive"? It puts an uneven fulcrum of pull on the leading edge and the back where you want vibrational compliancey, is thick, beefy and straight.
And the mustache bridge? Two winged edges with no functional purpose hanging out there waiting to peel off the top? Yeah I've seen that happen a lot too. And anybody played a recent J-200? As overbuilt as a tank and about as much joy to drive.

Overbuilt, poor bracing placement, resulting bulge that peels a wacky "cool" backwards bridge off the top of the soundboard.
Nah! Can't be a Gibson!

David

Attachment 50392Attachment 50393Attachment 50394Attachment 50395

I think you forgot to complain about adjustable saddles and plastic bridges ...

John

[John A.]

Gibson''s issue is inconsistency, not "poor quality control."

Gibson also needs to understand that if they're going to price their guitars like handmade instruments, people are going to judge them like handmade instruments.

Inconsistency IS poor quality control. The whole point of QC is to achieve consistent, low rates of manufacturing defects. If you have production runs with differing rates of defects for differing reasons, that's an indication that the quality management system has broken down.

Which brings me to my pet peeve about this whole thread. What we are witnessing with defective Gibsons is defective products being brought to the market. We don't know what that's telling us about Gibson's QC systems. It could be that their production control is so bad that they don't even know they're releasing bad products, or it could mean that they do know and do it anyway because they've made a business decision to sell defective products. We also have no idea what their defect rates are. We know (arguably) that there are more Gibsons being sold with defects than, say Ibanezes, but we don't know what this number is as percent of production. For all we know, Ibanez has higher defect rates, but they destroy guitars that Gibson would sell. I'm not saying that's happening, only that we don't know, and in the absence of real data there's no real sense in talking about Gibson's or any other manufacturer's QC. We are not observing QC. We are observing anecdotes of defects.

John

[TH]

I think you forgot to complain about adjustable saddles and plastic bridges ...

John

I didn't mention that on purpose. Don't want to be taken for a Gibson basher. I also didn't mention that "Who cares about the top when you've got a thick plastic pickguard glued over 75% of it?" point. So I'm NOT going to say anything about that either. And don't ask me to. The ashes are still falling from that other legendary thread of mysterious disappearance.
David

[jzucker]

There is a clue here that nobody has mentioned. I have nothing but circumstantial evidence to base this on but I think that the CME price dump sale contains a clue. Items were being sold "AS-IS" and HUGE discounts. Based on the amount of issues I've heard with those guitars, I am guessing that Gibson knew the instruments were not up to the standards they were comfortable with guaranteeing and figured they could get some money out of the project rather than saw them in half like PRS does when they make a guitar that is not up to snuff.

Inconsistency IS poor quality control. The whole point of QC is to achieve consistent, low rates of manufacturing defects. If you have production runs with differing rates of defects for differing reasons, that's an indication that the quality management system has broken down.

Which brings me to my pet peeve about this whole thread. What we are witnessing with defective Gibsons is defective products being brought to the market. We don't know what that's telling us about Gibson's QC systems. It could be that their production control is so bad that they don't even know they're releasing bad products, or it could mean that they do know and do it anyway because they've made a business decision to sell defective products. We also have no idea what their defect rates are. We know (arguably) that there are more Gibsons being sold with defects than, say Ibanezes, but we don't know what this number is as percent of production. For all we know, Ibanez has higher defect rates, but they destroy guitars that Gibson would sell. I'm not saying that's happening, only that we don't know, and in the absence of real data there's no real sense in talking about Gibson's or any other manufacturer's QC. We are not observing QC. We are observing anecdotes of defects.

John

[ptchristopher3]

If you look REALLY closely in many of the pics of these Memphis guitars you can see a reflection of Buzz Aldrin in the bridge PU, and the flag next to him is moving as if in a breeze.

[Jabberwocky]

If you look REALLY closely in many of the pics of these Memphis guitars you can see a reflection of Buzz Aldrin in the bridge PU, and the flag next to him is moving as if in a breeze.

Ha! I knew it! The moonscape photo was a set-up in Memphis. There is no wind on the moon but Buzz could have farted. What do I know?

I saw Capricorn One with OJ in it...

[rpguitar]

Just because it says "Gibson" on the headstock? To me, that's not a good excuse to spend time and $$$ weeding through a bunch of substandard instruments to find something playable just to be able to show off to your friends and say "I've got a Gibson". I'm of the opinion that it's purely a status thing...you don't get the 'ooohs and aaahs' from the other players that you would with an L-5 or JS or whatever.

Vain, show-offy nonsense is about literally the last thing I care about, as corroborated by the fact that I rarely post NGDs, photos, or play anywhere other than the lonely (but quite pleasant) sanctuary of my home studio. I don't order a filet mignon to impress the waiter, either. I don't have that kind of insecurity, at least not now, deep into middle age as I am.

It seems reasonable that people have preferences and personal tastes, 'tis all.

I like Gibsons for the same reasons that people are drawn to any brand; its rich history speaks for itself and I enjoy the superficial association with some of that history when I play my instruments. I promise you that it's entirely harmless, Skip. You have mentioned in the past that you see guitars as tools, so I would not expect you to understand my kind of romantic association with the Gibson (or any other) brand. And that's... okay with me.

[wengr]

There is a clue here that nobody has mentioned. I have nothing but circumstantial evidence to base this on but I think that the CME price dump sale contains a clue. Items were being sold "AS-IS" and HUGE discounts. Based on the amount of issues I've heard with those guitars, I am guessing that Gibson knew the instruments were not up to the standards they were comfortable with guaranteeing and figured they could get some money out of the project rather than saw them in half like PRS does when they make a guitar that is not up to snuff.

Glad someone finally said this.

[skiboyny]

I think the sound is different than other guitar. So that's my reason period.The sound to me is uniquely Gibson.They feel good but other brands feel good as well. I know that sound is subjective, I truly believe I hear a difference. My ears could be wrong but there is an equal chance that yours are as well. The status thing might apply to some but certainly not all. If your ears tell you that another brand guitar sounds better, (or more to your taste) than by all means that is the guitar for you to own. But this mindset is a ridiculous one to apply to Gibson owners.

But why? Just because it says "Gibson" on the headstock? To me, that's not a good excuse to spend time and $$$ weeding through a bunch of substandard instruments to find something playable just to be able to show off to your friends and say "I've got a Gibson". I'm of the opinion that it's purely a status thing - there are a multitude of guitars out there that sound better and are made with more care than the current Gibson offerings but if you show up at a jam or gig with some lowly brand (which happens to be a dynamite instrument), you don't get the 'ooohs and aaahs' from the other players that you would with an L-5 or JS or whatever. Audiences (made up of both guitar savvy folks and those not so much) also connect guitar brand with the talent of the player. "This guy must be a great player 'cause he's got a Gibson". Remember the old ad: "Only A Gibson Is Good Enough". Back in the day, there was a lot of great jazz and music in general played on guitars that weren't Gibson - I just don't think they have a corner on the quality market (especially nowadays). Yes,they made some nice guitars, and yes, a lot of other companies copied them because they were the benchmark for anything other than flattops (Martin had, and still does have that sewed up) but I feel the copiers have outdone the original and with current management, Gibson will never catch up. No insult intended to your choice, but I'm a very practical minded guy and owning something just because of a label just goes against my grain.

[skiboyny]

I agree with this! What concerns me as a Gibson owner and lover, that they have flooded the market with some real dogs. This doesn't bode well for the Gibson name or the dealer that let them out the door.

There is a clue here that nobody has mentioned. I have nothing but circumstantial evidence to base this on but I think that the CME price dump sale contains a clue. Items were being sold "AS-IS" and HUGE discounts. Based on the amount of issues I've heard with those guitars, I am guessing that Gibson knew the instruments were not up to the standards they were comfortable with guaranteeing and figured they could get some money out of the project rather than saw them in half like PRS does when they make a guitar that is not up to snuff.

[GNAPPI]

There is a clue here that nobody has mentioned. I have nothing but circumstantial evidence to base this on but I think that the CME price dump sale contains a clue. Items were being sold "AS-IS" and HUGE discounts. Based on the amount of issues I've heard with those guitars, I am guessing that Gibson knew the instruments were not up to the standards they were comfortable with guaranteeing and figured they could get some money out of the project rather than saw them in half like PRS does when they make a guitar that is not up to snuff.

Based on the number of wonderfully perfect (or VERY near so) gits I personally bought (three) and many others I read of here, I'm guessing that they just cleared out a warehouse of new gits to reduce inventory before year end expecting a move. They also likely threw a number of known lemons into the fray hoping (a VERY bad assumption if true) nobody would find the problems or fix them if possible due to the low cost and name on the head. My worry is that these seconds will be passed onto unsuspecting buyers later on by those who invested in them to flip for a profit.

Either way regarding PRS... they (for now) are following a prudent tack that I hope they can sustain without resorting to shipping seconds.

[jzucker]

My argument to this is that new gibsons don't sound like old gibsons. Gibson doesn't know how to and/or care to make them sound like the gibsons we know and love from recordings. The 275 is a perfect example. To me, it does not have the gibson sound and yet folks rave about it because it's a gibson. My take is that if it had heritage or guild on the headstock, many wouldn't even bother with it.

I think the sound is different than other guitar. So that's my reason period.The sound to me is uniquely Gibson.They feel good but other brands feel good as well. I know that sound is subjective, I truly believe I hear a difference. My ears could be wrong but there is an equal chance that yours are as well. The status thing might apply to some but certainly not all. If your ears tell you that another brand guitar sounds better, (or more to your taste) than by all means that is the guitar for you to own. But this mindset is a ridiculous one to apply to Gibson owners.

[jzucker]

I guess we'll never know which of us is right but one thing that's circumstantially evident is that they are counting on many people not noticing the flaws which does not bode well in the long run. This is what got GM in trouble years ago...

Based on the number of wonderfully perfect (or VERY near so) gits I personally bought (three) and many others I read of here, I'm guessing that they just cleared out a warehouse of new gits to reduce inventory before year end expecting a move. They also likely threw a number of known lemons into the fray hoping (a VERY bad assumption if true) nobody would find the problems or fix them if possible due to the low cost and name on the head. My worry is that these seconds will be passed onto unsuspecting buyers later on by those who invested in them to flip for a profit.

Either way regarding PRS... they (for now) are following a prudent tack that I hope they can sustain without resorting to shipping seconds.

[skiboyny]

I can't agree with you there. The 275 is a new model a new stab at something that Gibson believed would satisfy todays player. While all of my guitars are on the older side, I just played a couple of brand new 175VOS they certainly had the 175 sound that's so familiar. A voice you would recognize.

My argument to this is that new gibsons don't sound like old gibsons. Gibson doesn't know how to and/or care to make them sound like the gibsons we know and love from recordings. The 275 is a perfect example. To me, it does not have the gibson sound and yet folks rave about it because it's a gibson. My take is that if it had heritage or guild on the headstock, many wouldn't even bother with it.

[GNAPPI]

I guess we'll never know which of us is right but one thing that's circumstantially evident is that they are counting on many people not noticing the flaws which does not bode well in the long run. This is what got GM in trouble years ago...

Alas, you are probably right and I hope they get it all sorted out in the new location, this is a golden opportunity for Gibson to get it right. The problem may be with the move is they may have a backlog of orders to fill, and may be tempted to let certain things slide just to fill the pipeline.

[ptchristopher3]

. [...] 275 is a new model a new stab at something that Gibson believed would satisfy todays player. [...]

The story, as I understand it, is that the 275 was for the Japanese market. I tried two at home and thought they sounded great, and were a superb design. But both were built using a spoon and a weed wacker. Truly abysmal execution.

I would own one now if the problems could be fixed with a nut, fret job, and thorough general fix of minor problems.

To me there is a general new ones vs. old ones sound difference. The finish is much softer now, and many feel that wood “plays in” over time. Likewise PU’s should change a bit over time as the magnets are not quite permanent really.

But there was notable variation in sound from one guitar to the next back in the old days, much as there is now.

All in my opinion.