-
This is good news. I look forward to seeing Gibson survive and thrive. While I have all the Gibson guitars that I will need to get me to the finish line of this lifetime (7 of my 14 guitars are Gibsons), I hope that future generations of guitarists get to own and play these iconic guitars.
Originally Posted by DMgolf66
-
10-01-2019 12:31 PM
-
I’m confident that Gibson will survive. Just don’t expect to get any great deals on a new custom Archtop purchase. In fact- boutique builders will likely be more competitive.
The Gibson blow out deals of a few years ago are long gone - and they turned out to be great deals for those fortunate enough to acquire a few.
-
The Super 400 looks pretty sweet.
What will the naysayers, doomsdayers, and Gibson bashers do now? :0
-
As I said, it was a made-up number for purposes of illustrating the principle. I don't know the real numbers. Originally Posted by Tal_175
John
-
Yeah I get that. I took it to mean a ball park estimation that implied an ES 175 could be several times more expensive to make than an ES 335. Of course that video may not give the full picture, but it certainly appears like the cost to make them shouldn't be that different. They are in fact priced somewhat similarly too. Originally Posted by John A.
Last edited by Tal_175; 10-01-2019 at 09:45 PM.
-
Gibson has a long way to go if they want to compeat in todays market, Where a novice player can get a 338 knock off for less than a price of a high end pedal. Let alone the demand for guitars isnt what it use to be. The times they are a change'n.
-
It's hard to know what's going on now at Gibson.
They're certainly gonna mull over some marketing strategies, like the Scarcity Effect (Scarcity Effect | Convertize | Neuromarketing Glossary ), Artificial Scarcity (Artificial scarcity - Wikipedia ), or Premium Pricing (Premium pricing - Wikipedia ), while we all would be wise to study some of the numerous human cognitive biases (List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia ), especially the confirmation bias (Confirmation bias - Wikipedia ).
The comparison of costly guitars to the world of some upscale watch brands is dead-on.
Be very careful with the large majority of such brands - except if you like to burn money!
For years now, they buy the mechanical clockworks in China, for four or five bucks each, dismantle them in Europe, add some own jewels in their show "workshops", reassemble the whole thing, then sell each clock for several thousand dollars (steel shells, that is - not talking about precious metals) to compliant customers, as "handcrafted in-house production".
To my knowledge, Rolex and Blancpain, plus one or two other manufacturers, are actually not affected by this, but the whole rest of the industry certainly is. Rolex and Blancpain try to control their market by means of above mentioned psychological marketing effects. Not quite sure, but I think the De Beers Group (diamonds) was one of the first companies to successfully control large parts of the world market by such acting.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
........the naysayers, doomsdayers and Gibson bashers will probably continue to do what they've always done......
.." Of course that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong "...
-
As to the (past - 2015?) Gibson Memphis Factory Tour
some comment:
1. "Once we get down to the end of the process [of completing the fretboard], you 're gonna be left with a smooth fingerboard. Let's get ready to have oil applied to it. We're gonna take boiled linseed oil and apply it to the rosewood, and that's gonna make it look rich and dark, and it's gonna keep the rosewood subtle […]"
Well, it's important to use boiled linseed oil, the violin makers' stuff. To put it on an ebony FB would make no sense.
2. One reason why archtop guitars, especially the ones meant to still have more of an acoustic tone proportion, can never sound their best (until that lacquer shell finally gets broken up by aging many years later) was - or is - the unsophisticated finishing and buffing procedure:
"We spray six coats of nitrocellulose lacquer, which is gonna leave an orange peel surface to it. It's not gonna be smooth. So we're gonna wait till that flash is off, we're gonna take it out, sand and smooth. We're gonna bring it back and put another six coats of lacquer on it. It has to have a certain amount of lacquer on it to survive the glossing buffing process. We're gonna do a quick little scuff sanding on it that gets enough down the orange peel on the surface of the guitar [...]"
From an acoustic POV it's not so important how many coats of lacquer the guitar gets (for a two-tone sunburst Gibson sprayed probably about 15 coats in total), but how much lacquer mass is left on the top in the end. And an orange peel surface points to certain issues during the spraying, should be avoided. This 1920/30's way of using and applying nitrocellulose lacquer may have been right for the automotive industry at the time, but was never state of the art for makers of finer guitars. At least, the prewar and early postwar Gibsons and Epiphones, independant of their general lacquer aging process, show a pretty more reserved lacquer application.
My crit is not unique on Gibson guitars because that nonreflective spraying/buffing style has sadly become the industry standard.
Imagine they would have to spray and buff a nice deep recurve around the edge of the guitar - impossible with that sort of spraying and buffing equipment! So, they had to make cuts on recurves, and some other annoying constructional issues ...
3. Jason Dawson in that clip:
"We do everything here the 100 year old way of making guitars. We get to make sure that all of our processes coincide with the way the guitars were originally made. If in 1959 they used this material and they did it this way, we recreate that exactly. We buy old guitars, we take 'em apart, and when we build reissues of those guitars we make them exactly the way they were originally made."
Heck, he says this in such a self-opinionated way, he must believe it himself - and we must believe it too!
If only my inner voice wouldn't be whispering: don't believe! They don't get the same woods that were available 60 or more years ago. They don't get or use the same glues. Many production processes are different today. The lacquer composition is different.
A 1990's or 2000's guitar was never made the same way as was guitar from the 1940's or 1950's. It can't be recreated, not even for a much higher price tag.
It seems that Gibson has become simply a copy-cat of their own valuable designs ("we buy old guitars, we take 'em apart ..."). Don't you believe that the Chinese, and others, do the same? They're just not allowed to use some of the Gibson design tags.
Everyone who's been trying to copy hollowbody guitar designs, which are at the same time both simple and complex, will know that you'll get the simple, obvious things done allright quite fast, but some of the complexer methods and procedures were lost in the past, probably forever. Most violin makers are still trying to copy Stradivari's designs - a few of them came and come really close, but never exactly in the way the originals were made.
I'd hate to see or hear no more Gibson guitars in the future - I wish the new company the very best, though it would require almost supernatural powers to eradicate ingrained mistakes of the past decades, to act in an economically sound manner, and at the same time to take the zeitgeist into account!
-
Well you never know about that. If you hang around long enough, you never know what you might see. Lived thru the Norlan "seconds" era, than the cme blowouts. Things tend to come full circle given enough time.
Originally Posted by QAman
-
Good point Originally Posted by skiboyny
-
Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
Thanks for the link! Ken Parker has a refreshing nature, and he isn't afraid of following new paths - though many points of his actual archtop construction were inspired by violin maker Joseph Curtin and a small group of other luthiers favoring ultra light-weight violin making for a while.
A funny statement of Ken, proving that Murphy's law is relentless:
"Well, I'm probably mostly not wrong, but … Anyway, so Orville Gibson is credited with - I don't think there is any real disagreement about this - Orville Gibson invented the archtop guitar."
Ouch, Mr. Parker! There is no longer denial that Orville Gibson was not the first one to invent the archtop guitar, like a former thread on this topic has revealed in 2018: https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guitar-amps-gizmos/65901-not-loar-not-gibson-merrill-back.html
-
Well one thing for sure is our fellow member Danny W is sitting on a treasure trove of Gibson Archtops !
-
Just my opinion (and worth exactly what you paid for it), but my guess is that they're going to put a lot of focus on the pushing Epiphone as hard as they can as an international brand (hence some of the new headstocks) and streamlining Gibson to narrow the focus onto what is actually making money. The people who took over the company are very smart money managers who have a substantial amount of cash at stake and no emotional attachment to the company's heritage. That may not be a blessing to those who are invested in the myth and history of the company and its products but it probably gives the new owners a decent chance of making some money out of the deal. Originally Posted by JaxJaxon
-
Sorry to be the party pooper but the future of acoustic archtop is going to be some sort of universal digital amplified guitar (or some other technology). All the intricate design goals, balance, dynamics etc that take so much afford, decades of experience, premium materials will be achieved a lot more easily with supreme realism. There is no reason not to surpass any discernible qualities of, say, 30.000 dollar Ken Parker guitar with modeling type technology. It's not there yet, but that's where we are headed. Digital pianos are almost there. You'll have one super ergonomic guitar and get better than the best nylon string guitar tones and response in one setting and Jimi Hendrix strat with Marshall stack experience in another. Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
I love the intimate feel and craftsmanship of an acoustic guitar. I also love mechanical watches for the same reason but how many of us still use hand built mechanical watches that are expensive, heavy, require maintenance and not nearly as accurate as a 5 dollar watch?
Also one major intrinsic flaw of acoustic guitars is that the player has a very different listening experience than person standing in front of them. A huge advantage of electric amplification is the player can position themselves in anyway they like with respect to the sound source.
-
The 'real thing' is playing music and progressing on jazz guitar. A couple of generations following boomers have discovered they can do that just fine without Gibson's they can't afford. If you love Gibson or find it facilitates buying/selling, that's great. But not everyone shares a passion for headstocks even when we can afford whatever we want. Originally Posted by Tatayoyo
-
Probably true. And I welcome it. But it won't match the experience of what it feels like holding a great acoustic instrument and feeling the vibrations. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Uh-huh.
In the 70's some people predicted that acoustic music and symphonies etc. would be replaced by synthesizers.
Not only were they wrong, but we now look back (or hear back) to the synth days of the 80s with derision. Yuck.
-
Yes the real thing is playing music, but it would be a fallacy to posit that carved top Gibsons were ever "the guitar for everybody", and especially the young. Originally Posted by Spook410
Simply stated, that was NEVER the case.
-
80's synthesizer sound vs real orchestra is not the same kind of relationship as digital piano with weighted keys and an acoustic piano.
-
Gibson is still the benchmark standard when it comes to factory built f hole guitars .....and based upon its deep rooted history - will remain so in my opinion.
It’s one of the only factory built guitars that still commands top dollar, and despite the price grumbling, many still desire owning one.
Yes, there are numerous imports with f holes - but none have the pedigree or sustained retention market value of a Gibson. Remember the slogan “ When good isn’t good enough” or something along those lines.
We all want Gibson to keep producing f hole guitars - and they will ...., just be patient. In the meantime enjoy what you have and seek out buying opportunities.
-
Actually it kind of was when I was young. I grew up with an ES125 that I bought for $100 at a pawn shop in 1963 (and that was in Canada!). Gibsons were being sold at the local department store too. Yes, you could get a Kent for less but they weren't playable and they were only about $35 less. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Last edited by Jim Soloway; 10-02-2019 at 07:13 PM.
-
Well, well, well..."We" is a strong generalizing word spoken out from one person. To be honest, Gibson L5 CES and Wes factory made archtops looking great. But today there are so many other famous luthiers worldwide making amazing archtops, like Campellone and others. Gibson got its good image from times in which there existed no much serious competitors...only D`Angelico for example. If I got the money I would buy a Gibson archtop, too. For sure, just for bringing the shine of the brand into my home. But before buying a L5 CES I rather would buy a Campellone or Sonntag archtop. Do I really care if Gibson will producing archtops futher on...honestly no. If they are the only company worldwide making archtops, I also would be very sad about the whole companies story. But times have changed. Thank God. Originally Posted by QAman
Last edited by Musgo Real; 10-02-2019 at 07:07 PM.
-
Musgo Real,
My comments pertain to factory built guitars and the perceived market value and opinion of many Gibson admirers. After all - - this post is about Gibson.
Your other noted choices are great boutique builders - and I’ve owned most of them.
I’ve said many times on this forum that I believe Mark Campellone builds the best Gibson Alternative - and his prices are excellent for the flawless quality he provides.
-
Hi QAman, the only thing what bothered me in your post was the word "we" in we all want Gibson to keep producing f hole guitars...I am no part ot that. That´s all. Originally Posted by QAman
Reply With Quote
Incoming 1968 Gibson Johnny Smith
Today, 09:42 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos