Bad News for the Big G

I'd read your post and had started to post a reference to what you had written but it became convoluted and I removed it. I have no doubt that their custom shop is exceptional but find it a pity that you have to pay $so_much to get the quality that was available by some guy on the floor putting together an SG Special fifty years ago.


Well you can pay 10k+ for an early 60’s SG made by some guy on the floor. Or you can pay 4 grand for a better instrument that was made last year.

In the case of the LP, 300k for an instrument made by some guy on the floor.

Edit: aside from that. I wouldn’t poopoo the quality and craftsmanship that went into Gibson guitars either in the 50-60’s or now in the custom shop. Everyone seems to really love the work from both eras, the prices are worth it to those who are buying.
 
Last edited:
If it’s any consolation, Gibson historic spec LPs (ie today’s Custom Shop) were never cheap. Back in 59 they sold for $300 plus which was a lot compared to incomes back then. Compound that by 4.5% inflation over 60 years and you’d arrive at current R9/R8 prices.

So, The Beast was about as expensive to Bernie Marsden as an R9 is to us today. Okay, plus and minuses involved but the ballpark is there.
 
Last edited:
There’s ‘fabrication quality’ and there’s ‘musical and performance quality’. I can still find dye bleeding into binding and occasional finish flaws in the Gibson CS reissues.

But it’s ‘musical and performance quality’ where they really shine. It’s the tone and resonance that’s off the charts. Whether there’s anything inherent (say for example wood that’s in short supply) that justifies those prices - well, who knows unless you have insider info.
 
The higher end Gibsons are truly nice guitars. Not my cuppa tea, but it’s hard to fault them if you like what they do.

They do bleed the dye into the bindings on purpose on some of the reissues to replicate the things that happened back in the day.

I’d like it better if they didn’t do that, but then too, I’m not big on reproductions, relics, etc. Though I did have a Custom Shop ‘59 335 reissue about ten years ago that I got as a partial trade for an amp. It played and sounded great, but the ergonomics were all wrong for me, and I sold it after a couple of weeks.
 
Well, what you’ve heard and what I’ve heard are two different things. No problem.

But companies don’t stop doing something that amounted to a good percentage of their business, and change the name of the company if everything’s hunky-dory.

Incidentally, I have no problem with the sarcasm. Roll any way you like.

Well, why don't you tell us what you "heard" instead of just saying you heard something? What transpired is the 2 brothers who owned Carvin had a falling out and split the business. One took the electronics, which remained Carvin, and the other took the Guitars which became Kiesel. Subsequently, without the guitar money, the electronics side couldn't support itself and closed doors. Meanwhile, the guitars continue to grow.
 
The point I was trying is to make was that, everyone is entitled to their opinion of a person.

I admire him for what he has achieved and what the future may hold.

I get your point, man. Yeah, that was my personal opinion, on top of that, I guess my point was that without Rob Chapman and his Youtube channel, these guitars would go absolutely unnoticed. There's nothing we haven't seen before a million times from LTD guitars or even Cort. They're just ordinary asian made that are being praised because of this "Youtube celebrity". People feel like he's a people's person and kind of "made it" by creating Chapman guitars and they love it. But the guitars themselves... just another "S-type / T-type" asian made guitar.

And I'm saying all of this because I think Gibson could use some better marketing strategy or put a face in the brand, like Chapman Guitars or PRS have one.
 
I’m sure it isn’t easy to run a guitar company or shop. Any success story in these times of austerity should be enjoyed. Ok you might not like who is achieving that success or what they’ve made, but heck if it helps to make people’s lives better through enjoying music and making jobs for people, that can’t be a bad thing.

Yeah absolutely, man, good for him, really. I was talking about his personality and the instruments he makes, but that is totally a matter of opinion and taste, I'm happy that he found a way to sell guitars and make people happy.

After all, my point about him started in saying he got it right where Gibson didn't.
 
Gibson's response:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...-refinancing-of-companys-bonds-300599834.html

Words like"streamline", "eliminating", and "monetizing" all stick out to me.

"Gibson expects this strategy will lead to the best financial results the company has seen in its history within the next year..."

A bold prediction.
"While the musical instrument and pro audio segments have been profitable and growing, they are still below the level of success we saw several years ago," Mr. Juszkiewicz said.

You mean like before you took over and %^&$ed it all up?
OK then...:rolleyes:
 
Well, why don't you tell us what you "heard" instead of just saying you heard something? What transpired is the 2 brothers who owned Carvin had a falling out and split the business. One took the electronics, which remained Carvin, and the other took the Guitars which became Kiesel. Subsequently, without the guitar money, the electronics side couldn't support itself and closed doors. Meanwhile, the guitars continue to grow.

I did tell you what I heard, that there were financial issues at Carvin that caused them to close the electronics side. Hey, I could certainly be wrong about how the split and closing came about.

Glad that they’re OK on the guitar side. Still, they don’t make very many guitars, which means they don’t sell very many guitars, so the question isn’t what I heard or what you heard, it’s whether it’s a good idea to do direct sales if you manufacture guitars, and to operate without a dealer network.
 
I did tell you what I heard, that there were financial issues at Carvin that caused them to close the electronics side. Hey, I could certainly be wrong about how the split and closing came about.

Glad that they’re OK on the guitar side. Still, they don’t make very many guitars, which means they don’t sell very many guitars, so the question isn’t what I heard or what you heard, it’s whether it’s a good idea to do direct sales if you manufacture guitars, and to operate without a dealer network.

Just to clarify, the split in companies came a couple of years before the electronics biz folded.
 
tumblr_inline_ng38xoA2er1ry5peb.gif
 
Back
Top