1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

Gibson “you have been warned”

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by 48thStreetCustom, Jun 17, 2019.

  1. pcake

    pcake Supporting Member

    Sep 20, 2011
    Los Angeleez
    your numbers are off.

    the J45 standard is $2,749 at sweetwater - it was $1800 and change in around 2008 and went up just after that to $2400. it was hard to be sure as they kept renaming it. as i recall, and i could be wrong, the old deluxe became the standard at some point in there.

    you cannot get a U.S. made taylor at $800 or lower - you can get a laminate back and sides taylor made in mexico for that. you can get a martin road series, which are all solid, from between $760 and $999. the martin 15 series had a largish jump in price since i last looked at acoustic guitars, but is still pretty reasonable, but they increased the previously lowest priced solid 15 series and the road series is now the lowest priced u.s. made all solid model. you can't get an all solid taylor even at $1500.

    is the one that started out at a very reasonable price. it's gone up like $500 or $600, so they're doing what martin is doing - increasing the price of what was the lower priced guitars and coming up with cheaper models to put below them.
    Mike Whitfield and ajkula66 like this.
  2. pcake

    pcake Supporting Member

    Sep 20, 2011
    Los Angeleez
    Mike Whitfield and Wisebass like this.
  3. Mike Whitfield

    Mike Whitfield

    Apr 10, 2019
    Yeah, I meant to write J-15, not J-45. I did not know that Taylor had moved their 100 & 200 production to Mexico, but I can't say I'm surprised - the only reason they would be so squirrely about telling us which models are made in America is to have the freedom to move production to Mexico. Sad though. Their US plant is in California I think, which is insanely expensive for manufacturing. On the other hand, that makes the G-45 a bargain, since they're cheaper than Taylor and Martins are built from imported parts.
  4. Mike Whitfield

    Mike Whitfield

    Apr 10, 2019
    That's what I think. Once Juszkiewicz could no longer reliably service his debt and Gibson's bonds began their march toward junk status, KKR as their largest creditor would have been able to exert a lot more influence over Gibson's operations and strategery.
    40Hz likes this.
  5. Mike: That's exactly what happened. From Bloomberg:

    Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
    Mike Whitfield likes this.
  6. pcake

    pcake Supporting Member

    Sep 20, 2011
    Los Angeleez
    the taylor 100 and 200 series were MiM since at least 2008 when i first started shopping for a new acoustic guitar. and their california place is very close to the mexico place - when i went to a taylor petting zoo, they said bob drives over the the mexico place 3x a week.

    i think most people won't notice the imported parts on the martin road series. time may tell - or not.
  7. Mike Whitfield

    Mike Whitfield

    Apr 10, 2019
    Yeah, thought so. That's pretty standard, the big secured creditors have a huge amount of influence over the other creditors, and unless the other creditors can assemble a majority of stockholders, the biggest secured creditor usually gets the company in bankruptcy because otherwise, the other stockholders risk getting nothing at all. As a credit, KKR just wants their money back, which means they don't really give a damn what happens to Gibson long term.

    I just put in a few minutes of research and could not tell which models were made in America, which tells me that production is shifting to Mexico. I think the review I read was 2007 - although it might have been wrong about them being made in America at that time. As far as Martin, I don't think anybody did notice - it was California's new stricter law about stating Made in America that made Martin admit it imported parts like tuners. Although strictly speaking I'm not sure that any instrument with rosewood or mahogany would qualify; even if the wood products were machined in America, they weren't grown in America.
  8. davidprice


    Jan 1, 2005
    Posted this on one of the other Gibson threads - so here, too:

    Just got this via Michael Molenda (former editor in chief at Guitar Player Magazine)

    "Gibson Pivots From Confrontation To Collaboration

    In The Process Of Re-building Over The Past Eight Months, Gibson Has Made Significant Progress And Now Takes On The Challenge Of Balancing Brand Protection With Music Industry Collaboration
    (NASHVILLE, TN, Monday, July 1, 2019) Since emerging from bankruptcy less than a year ago, Gibson has made significant progress in the key areas that matter most to guitarists around the world. With a clear focus on quality , a new collection of Original and Modern guitars , and a more confident Dealer and Artist base , the new team at Gibson have proven they can listen to the market to create new solutions. But there is still more work to be done and the new team at Gibson remain on a mission.

    While new management is building on the legacy, quality and craftsmanship that guitarists have come to love and expect from Gibson , they will also continue to manage and attempt to resolve the conflicts of the past .

    Apart from inheriting an iconic brand, the team have also inherited a host of challenges that they realized would take time to achieve proper resolution. A clear challenge has been in the area of brand protection, where a legacy of legal issues exist with both legitimate companies in the industry infringing on iconic trademarks and with illegitimate entities attempting to counterfeit, ‘knock-off’ and pretend to be Gibson in the market.

    Over the past eight months, the team have successfully dealt with over 4,500 counterfeit and ‘knock-off’ guitars coming from overseas that were clearly designed to confuse the consumer into thinking they were buying a real Gibson . Since November (2018), there have been dozens of counterfeit website ‘take-downs,’ also designed to confuse the guitarist into thinking they were entering a legitimate, official website. On a weekly basis, Gibson receives multiple queries and concerns from guitarists mislead into purchasing what they thought was a genuine Gibson that turned out to be counterfeit. Unfortunately, this is a very real dynamic that brands, like Gibson and other iconic brands, need to deal with on a regular basis. The main area of brand protection on these types of issues is with trademark ownership, understanding, and assertion. Hence our recent attempts to communicate our position, which was predominantly focused on these rogue overseas players in the market. If left unchecked, these situations can lead to continued consumer confusion and can ultimately affect the integrity of an entire industry .

    Recently, there has been a wide spectrum of both support and criticism with the approach that has been taken by Gibson in the market regarding brand protection. While there are clear lessons to be learned around tone and legal explanations, the past few weeks have provided a ‘real time’ opportunity for Gibson to start making the pivot from less legal leverage to more industry collaboration , with appropriate levels of awareness.

    With regards to other guitar brands and companies in the marketplace, Gibson has filed specific lawsuits over the past several years with the intention of protecting its original trademark(s) rights and to avoid consumer confusion in the market . All of the recent attention on the few lawsuits in process stem from several years of legal action initiated well before the new leadership arrived in November of 2018 . With specific regards to the inherited and ongoing legal dynamic with Dean Guitars, the new Gibson team have made several attempts to communicate with them directly to avoid a prolonged legal battle . Gibson has genuine intentions of constructive resolution that could be beneficial to both sides.

    This recent situation has led the team to re-evaluate their approach going forward with the intention of finding more constructive solutions to managing brand protection in the industry . Over the past few weeks Gibson has made significant progress in reducing counterfeit ‘attacks’ and they have entered into creative collaboration agreements with key boutique guitar makers and other related industry parties . A clear indication of their intentions going forward.

    “I am proud of the progress we have made with our attention to quality, with the launch of the new collections, and with our renewed engagement to our Gibson authorized dealer base. At the same time, we acknowledge there are still legacy challenges to solve going forward, especially around brand protection and market solutions,” says James ‘JC’ Curleigh , the new President and CEO of Gibson . “It is time to make the modern-day shift from confrontation towards collaboration, whilst still protecting our brands, and we are committed to making this happen starting now”."
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  9. Koshchei


    Mar 17, 2019
    Peterborough, ON
    JC needs to lay off the alternative facts and marketing weasel words:

    If we choose to redefine "collaboration" to mean the same thing as "confrontation", then yes, Gibson's tactics could be described as "proactively and assertively collaborating with Dean Guitars and other strategic partners".

    If we choose to redefine "trying to sink a boat that sailed 60 years ago" as "legacy challenges" and "brand" as "whatever we say it is", then Gibson's strategy could be thought of as "brand protection and market solutions".

    But they aren't. Strip away the ********, and we're left with what we had yesterday: Gibson is playing scorched earth with the instrument manufacturing industry by suing everyone and everything using variations of designs that they failed to protect over the last 40 years. No amount of snake-charming is going to change that.
  10. Picton


    Aug 16, 2017
    Reading, MA
    Hey! JC! Dean didn’t want “constructive resolution that could be beneficial to both sides.” The status quo is working just fine for them.

    Maybe that’s why they chose not to pick up the phone. And more power to them, too.
  11. gln1955

    gln1955 Supporting Member

    Aug 25, 2014
    Ohio, USA
    Gibson still fails to explain how anyone buying a Dean is confused into thinking they are buying a Gibson. Do they think their customers are too stupid to read a label?

    I suppose a "constructive resolution" will be making Dean an offer they can't refuse.
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  12. Lesfunk

    Lesfunk Supporting Member

    They’re hoping to get Dean to settle then enter into a licensing agreement they can then use as a revenue stream from all the companies that make Gibson shaped guitars

    Ironically, It’s Gibson’s own fault (by producing many overpriced, inferior instruments ) for decades that allowed other companies to gain such a large place in the market in the first place
  13. Jeff Scott

    Jeff Scott Rickenbacker guru.......... Supporting Member

    Apr 11, 2006
    Is it too soon to start discussing the pre-"collaboration" era vs. the post-"collaboration" one?
  14. Regardless of interpretation....this release shows JC and his management team have been listening to somebody. The tone has softened.

    Let's hope they have also been listening to some of the suggestions here that make sense eg making good the problems some customers have had because of obvious shoddy construction during the previous regime. And the pricing of the new guitars.
  15. Lesfunk

    Lesfunk Supporting Member

    My interpretation of “collaboration” by Gibson
    Means “Pay Gibson”
    Marikk, Ronzo, Picton and 1 other person like this.
  16. Mike Whitfield

    Mike Whitfield

    Apr 10, 2019
    That is also Gibson's interpretation of “collaboration.” They'll be stopping by later to pick up a check for using their innovative meaning . . .
    Marikk likes this.
  17. The tone may have softened. But The Song Remains The Same.
    Marikk, Wisebass and Mike Whitfield like this.
  18. tubedude


    Jan 19, 2015
    As long as suckers give.them money there will be no meaningful change. It might take a former manager and a cabal of wealthy studio musicians to buy out the company to save it. The way Smith and Tedesco saved Fender. Of course that might happen after the company has been gutted by the current hostage takers. The sooner, the better.
    Mike Whitfield likes this.
  19. Tvrtko


    Dec 27, 2002
    South of the USA
    Well.... something was changed lately in China.
    Look at this:
    You cannot browse AliExpress anymore, before you register. Is it because of Gibson or Trump did something? Anyone better informed than me?

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.