What’s Going On Now at Gibson?

[Doctor Jeff]

Having been in business (3 restaurants and one night club) in the 1980's and having practiced law and represented many closely held businesses in the 1990's, I learned that high sales figures in no way indicates high profits, and can actually hide the fact that a company is operating at a loss. If it cost Gibson 125 million to do that 122 million in sales, the guitar business may not have been so wonderful.I would presume that the new owners/bankers either found the guitar division to be profitable, or think that it can be made profitable, otherwise we would have seen a Chapter 7 end to the Company. In today's global economy, manufacturing things in America is expensive. I suspect that the reluctant new owners of Gibson are wishing they had never funded Henry J.'s foolhardy expansion into industries that were beyond his competence.

Good points all. I will say in Henry's defense that A) he inherited a company with a lot of challenges and B) he made decisions to diversify and leverage the brand that fit in with the trends of the time. From the Wiki article on Gibson: "The company was within three months of going out of business before it was bought by Henry E. Juszkiewicz, David H. Berryman, and Gary A. Zebrowski in January 1986. Gibson's wholesale shipments in 1993 were an estimated $70 million, up from $50 million in 1992. When Juszkiewicz and Berryman took over in 1986, sales were below $10 million." Henry has an engineering degree and an MBA from Harvard. Those should be pretty decent credentials for someone running a multi-multi-million dollar manufacturing operation. Gibson is certainly not the only company to diversify and try to become a "lifestyle brand." Look at Harley, Ford, Porsche...heck Amazon makes most of their money from Cloud services these days, not selling books, and Apple makes more from entertainment products than computers. Some companies have been more successful adapting to changing economics than others (KMart, Sears). In hindsight one can see where wrong decisions were made, but that doesn't mean they weren't reasonable at the time.

[Herbie]

Oh, what a thread.

Two things came to my mind:

1) When something is doomed ’outdated’ it is a time to start counting when will it be ’fresh’ again.

In 1960 Les Paul guitar was so old fashioned and ’papa’s guitar’ that Gibson stopped doing it. Then came 1965 when young guy Eric Clapton bought one used and from 1968 the LP has been their main models (I suppose SG sells better?).

2) One pickup archtop looks so good, but some like the sound of the two PU versions better.

Could one attach a similar weighing object as the bridge pu inside the guitar so it still looks good but dampens the liveliness of the top enough to avoid that 1-pu-brightness?

Remember: it was my idea!

[Tal_175]

Oh, what a thread.

Two things came to my mind:

1) When something is doomed ’outdated’ it is a time to start counting when will it be ’fresh’ again.

In 1960 Les Paul guitar was so old fashioned and ’papa’s guitar’ that Gibson stopped doing it. Then came 1965 when young guy Eric Clapton bought one used and from 1968 the LP has been their main models (I suppose SG sells better?).

2) One pickup archtop looks so good, but some like the sound of the two PU versions better.

Could one attach a similar weighing object as the bridge pu inside the guitar so it still looks good but dampens the liveliness of the top enough to avoid that 1-pu-brightness?

Remember: it was my idea!

One question there is, if Gibson is constructing single pickup and double pickup versions internally differently.
Do the single pickup versions follow a different bracing formula to intentionally make them more acoustic with the assumption that the customer is expecting a more acoustic tone by not having the bridge pickup? Or is it just a matter of putting another hole where the bridge pickup is?

[Herbie]

One question there is, if Gibson is constructing single pickup and double pickup versions internally differently.
Are single pickup versions follow a different bracing formula to intentionally make them more acoustic with the assumption that the customer is expecting a more acoustic tone by not having the bridge pickup? Or is it just a matter of putting another hole where the bridge pickup is?

Of course, it might be the bracing too. I thought only the weight and attachment of the pu.

Anyway: beside the pu hole, everything could be made inside.

Of course there is still one question left: why!

[vinnyv1k]

At least with the current L5 the bracing is the same except for the limited 2014 L5P that was Asymmetrical braced instead of P.

[Stringswinger]

My understanding is that the WESMO has one less brace than the CES.

[Tal_175]

I removed the bridge pickup of my ES 175 a while ago. I didn't notice any meaningful change in the tone. At one point I might to do a more careful comparison by putting the bridge pickup back without wiring it (as a dead weight). But my 2013 ES 175 sounds as dark and smokey as ever without the bridge pickup. It's a very obvious tonal character when I compare it with my Byrdland.