Change of CEO at Gibson a positive step for return to archtop building?

[bluenote61]

No wonder that CEO changes. Would You like to lead a company which made its biggest selling invention in 1959?

Hmm... What was that invention in '59?
I thought the biggest invention was the LP in '52, despite of the production break between 1961 and 1968.
But I may be corrected.

[Herbie]

Hmm... What was that invention in '59?
I thought the biggest invention was the LP in '52, despite of the production break between 1961 and 1968.
But I may be corrected.

Les Paul ’59.

I know the history of Les Paul and that in 1959 there was nothing much left to innovate to that product. But Gibson has sold tons of every kind of LPs because the fame of the LP ’59.

But anyway, kinda special job to lead a company and NOT make anything new to the product.

This was only a light side note, nothing serious in it. O

[jazzkritter]

If Gueikian is strictly a KKR guy (not an operations guy like JC was) methinks Gibson will be on the selling block before too long.

If only Henry kept dancin’ with the one he brought. Or bought.

[TAA]

For #32 above…

Oh but there is a comparison. This is not for a $450 semi-automatic 9mm pistol, of which there are millions. This is for a high quality rifle. Just like guitars, buy an inexpensive one or a high quality one.

Here are some of decisions the rifle buyer has to make:
Model
Weight, some competitions are weight limited
Barrel length
Rifling twist rate in the barrel
Front and rear sights, brand and type
Chambering, what cartridge will the chamber be made to accept
Wood finish, the appearance of the grain of the wood portions, standard, A, AA, AAA or exhibition grade

Our guitar buyer’s decisions…
Body type, solid, semi hollow, archtop, etc.
# of pickups
Type of pickup
Vibrato, yes or no
Finish, color
Case type

Once you get the rifle home, more decisions, assuming you load your own ammunition….
Gun powder, smokeless or traditional black, there are over (130) commercial smokeless powders to consider, each with a specific burn rate
Primer, make and type
Cartridge case, brand, lots of choices
Bullet, weight and type, many variations here
Bullet alloy, pure lead or some alloy of lead and various additives (many shooters cast their own bullets)

When you get the guitar home…
Strings, how many brands and sizes
Pedals, how long is that list?
Amp, lots of choices there
Cord
Stand

Some details may have been overlooked but hopefully this helps see the parallel.

Tom

[Stringswinger]

Les Paul ’59.

I know the history of Les Paul and that in 1959 there was nothing much left to innovate to that product. But Gibson has sold tons of every kind of LPs because the fame of the LP ’59.

But anyway, kinda special job to lead a company and NOT make anything new to the product.

This was only a light side note, nothing serious in it. O

The Les Paul Standard flame top started in 1958. But the 335 showed up in 59 and the SG showed up in 61. I think Gibson sells a shitload of all three models every year. There is huge value in the brand with the rights to those three models. The value added with the ES-175, L-5 and Super 400 is negligible by comparison.

The 59 models are the most desirable due to long magnet PAF pickups combined with a medium thick C profile neck. And that is why Gibson charges so much for the reissues of a 59. A real 59 Lester or 335 (particularly the Lester) is worth a small fortune today.

[Stringswinger]

For #32 above…

Oh but there is a comparison. This is not for a $450 semi-automatic 9mm pistol, of which there are millions. This is for a high quality rifle. Just like guitars, buy an inexpensive one or a high quality one.

Here are some of decisions the rifle buyer has to make:
Model
Weight, some competitions are weight limited
Barrel length
Rifling twist rate in the barrel
Front and rear sights, brand and type
Chambering, what cartridge will the chamber be made to accept
Wood finish, the appearance of the grain of the wood portions, standard, A, AA, AAA or exhibition grade

Our guitar buyer’s decisions…
Body type, solid, semi hollow, archtop, etc.
# of pickups
Type of pickup
Vibrato, yes or no
Finish, color
Case type

Once you get the rifle home, more decisions, assuming you load your own ammunition….
Gun powder, smokeless or traditional black, there are over (130) commercial smokeless powders to consider, each with a specific burn rate
Primer, make and type
Cartridge case, brand, lots of choices
Bullet, weight and type, many variations here
Bullet alloy, pure lead or some alloy of lead and various additives (many shooters cast their own bullets)

When you get the guitar home…
Strings, how many brands and sizes
Pedals, how long is that list?
Amp, lots of choices there
Cord
Stand

Some details may have been overlooked but hopefully this helps see the parallel.

Tom

Interestingly, of all the big boy toys that I have bought in this life, it is only the guitars and guns (and then only particular brands and models of each) that have appreciated, rather than depreciated. For me, guns are simply a tool, while guitars are beautiful works of art, but others may feel differently.

[TAA]

I agree. However, when you see some of wood (stocks and fore ends) that have crazy looking grain patterns and the bluing, especially the “color case hardened” metal finishes common before 1900 and offered as an option today, you start to see them as works of art also.

If you are at a match and your rifle is resting on the bench, and others walk up and see it for the first time, their first comment is usually…”wow, that is great looking wood”.

Tom

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

No wonder that CEO changes. Would You like to lead a company which made its biggest selling invention in 1959?

What is it, a high-tech start up? A cell phone company? When was the last time Steinway invented a "game changer"?

Do people have a history of valuing fine things crafted from wood, that make beautiful music? (that would be a "yes")

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

I am convinced that the main reason Gibson no longer makes hollobody guitars is the amount of man-hours required to build such an instrument.
The profit margin for a solid-body guitar can be excellent but in the case of an Arched-top, it starts with a very high labor cost (many hours of work)....before the guitar is even put on sale.
The second reason is the difficulty of finding suitable woods.
A solid-body guitar can play well without using particularly expensive and beautiful woods.
Third reason: the chances that a hollowbody guitar, once painted and finished, will sound bad are quite high....wood is alive and can often play tricks on you. A solid-body guitar, if built well, is VERY likely to play well.
That's why the big companies now don't build high-end hollowbody guitars.

Ettore Quenda.it - Jazz Guitar - Chitarra Jazz

They haven't been hand carving them for some time now. CNC machines.

[Jazzjourney4Eva]

The average time, from absolute start to absolute finish, of a factory made Fender plank or slab was 3.5 hours.

3.5 hours! Think about that number! Which luthier or company making archtops is gonna compete against that?

A $10K fine archtop competing against a $1K canoe paddle? That's a market of your imagination.

Fender's have always been cheaper, and uglier. (yup). That's why people still go for the Les Paul, SG, and ES-335.

To quote a song "same as it ever was".

[orri]

It wouldn't surprise me if Gibson would do like Marhall and move more into "lifestyle" products. Marshall now sells headphones, bluetooth speakers, fridges etc.

The question I guess Gibson capitalists are asking themselves is how do they make most money from owning the brand.

If Gibsons consider entering the "lifestyle market" and start producing and selling Gibson lifestyle headphones, as an example. They are pretty much in the same situation as many other known (non-headphone) brands: Audi, Casio, Dunkin Donuts.

But if Gibson would decide to instead re-enter the archtop guitar market they are in a completely unique position that no other brand is in. It should be much easier for Gibson to produce and sell 2024 Gibson ES175 and L5 compared than for any other company to do anything similar.

However, also compared to other companies, Gibson is in the unique position that if they would produce their 2024 Gibson ES175 in any place other than the USA, it would upset their loyal fanbase far more than if they would produce the worst archtop guitars in history. (they might get away with doing like fender which offers "Fender" branded guitar, both made in and not made in USA).


If we imagine Gibson would buy some up and running archtop company like Heritage (just as a hypothetical scenario).
If we assume the Heritage-like company is currently turning profit. Gibson should be able to use their acquired company's production, QA and a lot of other assets, but also add value with the Gibson brand name, and probably also by using some of Gibson's distribution/sourcing/sales assets.
Then it should just be a matter of letting this unit do their thing and not mess it up with some corporate BS (which does indeed tend to happen very often when corporations attempt things like this)
I doubt there are many other companies and brands that could add the same kind of value to a Heritage-like company as Gibson could.

And instead of acquiring a company, they could create a new business unit or achieve the same situation in some other way. If they are already making 335s, the step to 175 can't be that very far from it?

[tbeltrans]

For #32 above…

Oh but there is a comparison. This is not for a $450 semi-automatic 9mm pistol, of which there are millions. This is for a high quality rifle. Just like guitars, buy an inexpensive one or a high quality one.

Here are some of decisions the rifle buyer has to make:
Model
Weight, some competitions are weight limited
Barrel length
Rifling twist rate in the barrel
Front and rear sights, brand and type
Chambering, what cartridge will the chamber be made to accept
Wood finish, the appearance of the grain of the wood portions, standard, A, AA, AAA or exhibition grade

Our guitar buyer’s decisions…
Body type, solid, semi hollow, archtop, etc.
# of pickups
Type of pickup
Vibrato, yes or no
Finish, color
Case type

Once you get the rifle home, more decisions, assuming you load your own ammunition….
Gun powder, smokeless or traditional black, there are over (130) commercial smokeless powders to consider, each with a specific burn rate
Primer, make and type
Cartridge case, brand, lots of choices
Bullet, weight and type, many variations here
Bullet alloy, pure lead or some alloy of lead and various additives (many shooters cast their own bullets)

When you get the guitar home…
Strings, how many brands and sizes
Pedals, how long is that list?
Amp, lots of choices there
Cord
Stand

Some details may have been overlooked but hopefully this helps see the parallel.

Tom

Interesting lists. When I bought my Citation, the decision was (consider this a humorous aside):

What are the chances of ever seeing one of these again, especially locally?
What are the chances of my ever having cash in hand again?

For all my other guitar purchases, the decisions were certainly variants of your list. I don't have any weapons, having vowed to never do so when I got back from Vietnam for personal reasons, but I am sure that list of yours is also equally valid.

Tony

[rlrhett]

I honestly can’t understand why you all care so much whether Gibson makes archtops or not. The craftsmen who made your 60’s L5 (or even 90’s) are not going to be making them. If Guibson did start making them again It will be a group of newly trained luthiers who may, or may not, have a passion for them. They will make a limited run based on plans and techniques that are widely known, and will cost small fortunes.

We already have several independent luthiers who ARE passionate about the old archtops. They are working from the same set of plans using the same techniques. They make limited runs of guitars that cost small fortunes. The only thing they don’t have is “Gibson” on the headstock.

What music making opportunity are you missing that can’t be filled by Megan Wells, Campelleone, Trenier, Slaman, etc.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tbeltrans]

I honestly can’t understand why you all care so much whether Gibson makes archtops or not. The craftsmen who made your 60’s L5 (or even 90’s) are not going to be making them. If Guibson did start making them again It will be a group of newly trained luthiers who may, or may not, have a passion for them. They will make a limited run based on plans and techniques that are widely known, and will cost small fortunes.

We already have several independent luthiers who ARE passionate about the old archtops. They are working from the same set of plans using the same techniques. They make limited runs of guitars that cost small fortunes. The only thing they don’t have is “Gibson” on the headstock.

What music making opportunity are you missing that can’t be filled by Megan Wells, Campelleone, Trenier, Slaman, etc.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Logic has no place in a conversation such as this. Think "only a Gibson is good enough".

I know I always wanted a fine Gibson archtop rather than another brand for my main archtop. This is probably because over the years when an archtop was involved, it was always a Gibson. I do also have an Eastman and a Jimmy Foster 7 string, but I always wanted a decent Gibson in my house. I can admit that logic wasn't at play for this feeling.

I can't speak for others in the conversation, but that is my story. At the same time, I certainly see the logic in what you are saying. It just seems to me that at times, logic isn't the only aspect at play.

Tony

[John A.]

As I’ve mentioned before, my teacher was instrumental in helping the person who became his best friend, a man named Bill Schulz, buy Fender from CBS. Mr. Schultz ran Fender until his death from cancer in the 2000s. When he bought Fender, he was instrumental in rationalizing the production scheme, off shoring to places like Japan and Mexico. Leo ran Fender to the ground, at least CBS was able to pump some money into it. But, in the end, Fender was largely irrelevant to a big media company like CBS.

Under Mr. Schultz’s reign, he standardized the production process, so it didn’t really make a difference between a MIM or MIJ or USA brand Fender. The average time, from absolute start to absolute finish, of a factory made Fender plank or slab was 3.5 hours.

3.5 hours! Think about that number! Which luthier or company making archtops is gonna compete against that?

You can’t rationalize production much more than that. That’s just nuts.

There are similar levels of automation and rationalization in building low to middle range laminated archtops. They probably can't be made quite as quickly because glue joints take time to set and heating and bending/pressing the curved/arched components probably takes longer than just routing out a slab of wood. But I'll bet the number of labor hours required from start to finish is not that different. I mean Ibanez can produce an archtop that retails for $349 new, which is cheaper than a Squier CV tele.

OTOH, there are multiple custom-shop Fenders retailing for north of $5k (some well in to 5 figures) that I'm sure take a lot more than 3.5 hours from start to finish. I mean anything finished with nitro takes weeks or months to complete (even if it only consumes a small number of human working hours and is assembled in a highly automated factory) due to finish curing time.

[Stringswinger]

I honestly can’t understand why you all care so much whether Gibson makes archtops or not. The craftsmen who made your 60’s L5 (or even 90’s) are not going to be making them. If Guibson did start making them again It will be a group of newly trained luthiers who may, or may not, have a passion for them. They will make a limited run based on plans and techniques that are widely known, and will cost small fortunes.

We already have several independent luthiers who ARE passionate about the old archtops. They are working from the same set of plans using the same techniques. They make limited runs of guitars that cost small fortunes. The only thing they don’t have is “Gibson” on the headstock.

What music making opportunity are you missing that can’t be filled by Megan Wells, Campelleone, Trenier, Slaman, etc.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Some people have a problem with used instruments and want a new Gibson archtop. They may have a longer wait than those on Mark Campellone's waiting list.

[supersoul]

It wouldn't surprise me if Gibson would do like Marhall and move more into "lifestyle" products. Marshall now sells headphones, bluetooth speakers, fridges etc.

The question I guess Gibson capitalists are asking themselves is how do they make most money from owning the brand.

If Gibsons consider entering the "lifestyle market" and start producing and selling Gibson lifestyle headphones, as an example. They are pretty much in the same situation as many other known (non-headphone) brands: Audi, Casio, Dunkin Donuts.

Do you remember those sunburst flametop Gibson Studio Monitors from a few years ago? They were the strangest looking things! They basically tried to mash the visual aesthetic of a Les Paul onto a speaker. The soundports had white binding.

It was two different worlds colliding, because the woods used in guitars are called tonewoods and are supposed to have pleasant sonic characteristics, whereas studio monitors are supposed to be flat and neutral. Just seemed like a bad idea from upper managment.

I would love to see Gibson embrace its identity as a musical instrument company. Just make good, solid instruments for musicians to use. But that's not where they're headed.

[John A.]

I honestly can’t understand why you all care so much whether Gibson makes archtops or not. The craftsmen who made your 60’s L5 (or even 90’s) are not going to be making them. If Guibson did start making them again It will be a group of newly trained luthiers who may, or may not, have a passion for them. They will make a limited run based on plans and techniques that are widely known, and will cost small fortunes.

We already have several independent luthiers who ARE passionate about the old archtops. They are working from the same set of plans using the same techniques. They make limited runs of guitars that cost small fortunes. The only thing they don’t have is “Gibson” on the headstock.

What music making opportunity are you missing that can’t be filled by Megan Wells, Campelleone, Trenier, Slaman, etc.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There are people who want a new guitar (of whatever style) with a Gibson label, because that's what they like for whatever emotional reasons apply or merits they see. Ditto for other people and other brands. I mean it makes little practical sense to buy ANY new guitar (there's nearly always a used one in as-new condition to be found for less than new), but the market for new guitars persists.

[Alter]

While i don't disagree with the above, all these brands and builders tend to have a different sound, at least the few I have heard and played. I've played Benedetto's, Campelone, Elferink, etc. They all sound different, and different to Gibsons. Great guitars all, but when a company builds archtops for so many decades as Gibson has, they learn stuff, and develop a unique musical identity they can still sell today.

[wintermoon]

The Les Paul Standard flame top started in 1958. But the 335 showed up in 59 and the SG showed up in 61. I think Gibson sells a shitload of all three models every year. There is huge value in the brand with the rights to those three models. The value added with the ES-175, L-5 and Super 400 is negligible by comparison.

The 59 models are the most desirable due to long magnet PAF pickups combined with a medium thick C profile neck. And that is why Gibson charges so much for the reissues of a 59. A real 59 Lester or 335 (particularly the Lester) is worth a small fortune today.

Minor correction, 335 intro'd in '58 complete w Louisville Slugger neck profile and PAFs, first examples no neck binding.

[Jim Soloway]

Just a thought (and I'm not really 100% certain that this is true) but it seems to me that the longer Gibson stays out of the archtop business, the harder it will be to get back in. Archtops take s a lot of very specific skills and if they're not building any archtops, then those skills will probably disappear from the company, either by attrition or labor relocation. So if they decide in a few years that they want to get back into the archtop business, they may well have to build up a crew from scratch. That's not likely to be an easy proposition.

[burchyk]

Just a thought (and I'm not really 100% certain that this is true) but it seems to me that the longer Gibson stays out of the archtop business, the harder it will be to get back in. Archtops take s a lot of very specific skills and if they're not building any archtops, then those skills will probably disappear from the company, either by attrition or labor relocation. So if they decide in a few years that they want to get back into the archtop business, they may well have to build up a crew from scratch. That's not likely to be an easy proposition.

For laminates like ES-175 might not be such a huge deal considering they still make the ES-330? Sad nevertheless...

[Jim Soloway]

For laminates like ES-175 might not be such a huge deal considering they still make the ES-330? Sad nevertheless...

I didn't realize that they were still offing the 330 so I went and looked on the Gibson site. You really have to go looking for it! It looks so much like an orphan that my first thought was whether they had a bunch of 330's left over that they wanted to sell before they shut it down.

[frabarmus]

Well, afterall, if Gibson stops making archtops, there's still Heritage of Kalamazoo, right? Those might be the closest thing...
I've never owned a Gibson but I did have a Heritage H535 (tobacco sunburst) back in the 90's. Wish I still had it. The neck was a bit too chunky for me... these days I would go for the Gibson 335 60's slim neck, they're too expensive though... Actually, my favourite Gibson would be the Byrdland (23.5 scale length, best for my small hands). Many years ago I ordered an Epiphone Elitist Byrdland at my local guitar shop but, after a couple of months wait, the shop phoned me saying: "we're sorry but they're not making them any more".

[John A.]

I didn't realize that they were still offing the 330 so I went and looked on the Gibson site. You really have to go looking for it! It looks so much like an orphan that my first thought was whether they had a bunch of 330's left over that they wanted to sell before they shut it down.

I would think the skill set to build 335's overlaps considerably with 175's. Obviously the molds and some of the hardware are different (and it's harder to fish the wiring in and out). But otherwise it's a skinny double cutaway 175 with a chunk of wood glued inside, no?