Thoughts on Gibson’s new management/direction?

[GavQuinn]

Hi peoples,

I wanted to kick off a discussion on the latest that we’ve heard.

Some new top level mgmt. at Gibson now, Levi’s former boss, and 2 others, one from a luxury goods background, another from supply chain, etc.

We’re probably all aware that there’s a flurry or anger and disappointment any time a new guitar is released by Gibson; it seems there’s always someone who ends up severely disappointed with them – too much features, not enough change, too similar, hairbrained ideas (wide neck, robotics), poor designs (Firebird Zero).

I appreciate that not everyone thinks this way, in fact, I find the PRS people are a positive bunch who like new things.

I would like to start the chat here; what would you guys like to see, what new guitars should they make, if any?

What changes should they make? (produce in Asia, cheaper finish on lower priced models, etc to decrease price)

I’ll start off; I think the following could be considerations;

• Poly finish on cheaper models
• Less of a headstock break angle to strengthen headstock AND sort tuning
• Simplify the product line up.
• Stop making crap products (Fort Knox LP, Firebird Zero)
• Stop trying to peddle to internet moaners who WON’T buy ANYTHING anyway.
• Stop the constant referring to what they made 60 years ago as being blatantly better than today.
• Make a cheaper ES model.

 

[11top]

I can tell you that people in the custom shop are excited.

 

[11top]

• Stop the constant referring to what they made 60 years ago as being blatantly better than today.

I have Reissues from the 90s and most of the years starting with and following 2000. The BEST R9s I have played begin 2013 and move forward; they are exceptionally good guitars.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Step one: Make Les Paul’s.

Step two: Sell Les Paul’s.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

• Less of a headstock break angle to strengthen headstock AND sort tuning

• Simplify the product line up.

The increased break angle helps maintain string tension on the shorter scale guitars.

 

[Big Mike]

Meh. They make nothing I want at this point.

 

[11top]

The increased break angle helps maintain string tension on the shorter scale guitars.

Agreed. I really like the angle.

 

[Tosca]

If they focus on the quality and consistency of their instruments at every price point (agree w Steve, the recent custom shop offerings have been exceptional), they will be successful. If they focus more on being a “lifestyle brand” than a guitar builder, they will continue to struggle. The background/experience/expertise of the new management team has me a little concerned...I hope I’m wrong.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

Agreed. I really like the angle.

I'm no guitar designer, although I play one on local TV, but I think it's pretty much required with the short scale. I always knew it made a difference, but hearing Taylor describe how and why they changed the head stock angle on their new 12 fret models, and then even went to slotted headstocks to get even more string break angle, and they say they still play easier than a standard one because of less string tension. They went into a lot of detail, and it really made the gibby angle make sense.

 

[bodia]

I once, ok more than once, heard a great man say, "all other guitars are stupid." Sometimes "stupid" is supplanted with "trash"

 

[toothace]

Step one: Make Les Paul’s.

Step two: Sell Les Paul’s.

Step three: step up QC on said Les Pauls

 

[GavQuinn]

Agreed. I really like the angle.

Yeah, both correct, but it’s a bigger angle than on say the PRS, the angle Gibson use causes headstock breakage and some tuning issues.

Less, not none.

 

[GavQuinn]

I have Reissues from the 90s and most of the years starting with and following 2000. The BEST R9s I have played begin 2013 and move forward; they are exceptionally good guitars.

Glad to hear it!

 

[GavQuinn]

I have Reissues from the 90s and most of the years starting with and following 2000. The BEST R9s I have played begin 2013 and move forward; they are exceptionally good guitars.

My point is, PRS don’t make an ‘85 reissue’ and make it better than all the rest. Nor do they tell you that it’s their best period.

Surely we know more about everything today than they did in the late 50s?

I’ve played some collectors choice guitars, they were incredible, but the price..

 

[Big Mike]

My point is, PRS don’t make an ‘85 reissue’ and make it better than all the rest. Nor do they tell you that it’s their best period.

Surely we know more about everything today than they did in the late 50s?

I’ve played some collectors choice guitars, they were incredible, but the price..

Watch Paul’s video about the 594
Impressive

 

[11top]

Yeah, both correct, but it’s a bigger angle than on say the PRS, the angle Gibson use causes headstock breakage and some tuning issues.

Less, not none.

I’ve had neither issue on their custom shop guitars.

 

[11top]

Step three: step up QC on said Les Pauls

If you’re referring to their “standard production” models, I concur. However, their custom shop models are excellent in my experience (and I have quite a few).

 

[dmatthews]

I don't care what they make, as long as ALL of the models are shipped in such a way that they are ALL excellent.
I NEVER want to have to worry about craftsmanship again, which is why I play PRS.
If they can ship all of their guitars with the same QC as PRS I MIGHT try one.
Maybe.

 

[11top]

I don't care what they make, as long as ALL of the models are shipped in such a way that they are ALL excellent.
I NEVER want to have to worry about craftsmanship again, which is why I play PRS.
If they can ship all of their guitars with the same QC as PRS I MIGHT try one.
Maybe.

Which is why with Gibson, I stick to Custom Shop.

 

[dmatthews]

Which is why with Gibson, I stick to Custom Shop.

And I get that.
But... look at a core PRS and a core Gibson. Similar price? I guess it's close.
Gibson needs to charge custom shop prices for core PRS quality.