• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Gibson Basses - Now Even More Disappointing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
PazzoBasso

PazzoBasso

Jan 21, 2011
894
202
YYZ
#1
Do my eyes deceive me, or is the finish on this Gibson horrible?

Link Removed

Hopefully the link takes you to a Pelham Blue LP Junior DC - not something I'm interested in at all, but what's with the grain showing through?

I recently saw a black Thunderbird (Used) on a guitar shop wall & the paintwork was similar - I assumed it was a refin-hack-job...

Can anyone let me know if that's what I'm to expect if Gibson ever makes a T-Bird in a colour other than Sunburst?
 
#2
No, it's terrible.

I hate current-era Gibson for a LOT of reasons:

1) They still don't understand bass players

2) Their idea of innovation is the Firebird X, which is one of the most overpriced, poorly thought out guitars in history. They think gimmicks are the same thing as innovative design

3) In general, they are overpriced. Quality control is down, prices remain sky high and they get away with it because they are a "lifestyle brand" and suckers need to have that name on the headstock so they can pat themselves on the back.

4) QC is so horrible that I can't even be bothered to round up all the horror stories about poorly applied finishes, poorly cut nuts and frets, bad intonation... go to a guitar message board and prepare to be regaled with tales of defects you'd expect to be on a $100 instrument except people are finding them on their $3000 Les Pauls. I can't even link to all the nightmare scenarios, there are tons of them.

5) Atrocious working conditions: Gibson is LITERALLY the worst place to work in America. If you work there and you care about quality, Invalid Link Removed.
 
#3
actually, I think that's the way the finish is supposed to be on this model. I saw one in a store and it was like that. I also asked an owner and he said his was like that, too. I thought it was a little strange, but maybe thats the vibe they're going for. who knows, maybe it will relic nicely.

nocontrols, you're entitled to your opinion of the company, ceo, etc. but it's irrelevent to this topic. imo, of course.
 
#5
aquateen said:
actually, I think that's the way the finish is supposed to be on this model. I saw one in a store and it was like that. I also asked an owner and he said his was like that, too. I thought it was a little strange, but maybe thats the vibe they're going for. who knows, maybe it will relic nicely.
Click to expand...

You're likely correct - such a glaring deficiency couldn't possibly have made it past any QC & onto the Gibson website... not a great look IMHO...

Do thunderbirds have the same finish? or did I see something "special" (it may have been a "studio")...
 
#6
nocontrols said:
No, it's terrible.

I hate current-era Gibson for a LOT of reasons:

1) They still don't understand bass players

2) Their idea of innovation is the Firebird X, which is one of the most overpriced, poorly thought out guitars in history. They think gimmicks are the same thing as innovative design

3) In general, they are overpriced. Quality control is down, prices remain sky high and they get away with it because they are a "lifestyle brand" and suckers need to have that name on the headstock so they can pat themselves on the back.

4) QC is so horrible that I can't even be bothered to round up all the horror stories about poorly applied finishes, poorly cut nuts and frets, bad intonation... go to a guitar message board and prepare to be regaled with tales of defects you'd expect to be on a $100 instrument except people are finding them on their $3000 Les Pauls. I can't even link to all the nightmare scenarios, there are tons of them.

5) Atrocious working conditions: Gibson is LITERALLY the worst place to work in America. If you work there and you care about quality, Invalid Link Removed.
Click to expand...

reasons 1-4... can't say. the only gibson we have is a 1969 EB-3 and I absolutely love it... even though i believe it has mudbucker pick ups. it is short scale and sounds and plays amazing.

I think the real reason there is a bee in your bonnet are reasons 5 & 6

when did being anti-union get to be a dirty word? i think it makes the guy a hero. (understand, that if quality control is as bad as you say, the market will sort it out). i tend to take that with a grain of salt because of your obvious political motivation for hating gibson.

if working conditions are atrocious, the workers are free to quit and find other jobs. the last i looked, Gibson was not actually enslaving people.

as far as the wood... well, that remains to be sorted out, i personally don't believe Gibson's wood is anymore illegal than those other companies... but i do believe what the company CEO has said about the motivations for harassing them. especially since he was told to have his necks made overseas... thereby taking jobs out of Tennessee.... hmmmmm.

if Gibson is making inferior instruments (and I don't have a dog in that in that hunt... not planning on buying a Gibson anytime soon), don't buy them!

davesignatureII.gif
 
#8
Lets put all the union vs business nonsense aside.

All you need to know about Gibson is that when they needed a bass to compete with Fenders lineup back in the day, they hired a CHEVY (automobile) designer and the result was the thunderbird, a cool looking, stylish, unergonomic behemoth.

And they still sell it.
 
#10
Legattabass said:
All you need to know about Gibson is that when they needed a bass to compete with Fenders lineup back in the day, they hired a CHEVY (automobile) designer and the result was the thunderbird, a cool looking, stylish, unergonomic behemoth.

And they still sell it.
Click to expand...

With the same lousy bridge. I think they sound great, but you'd think they'd have updated their hardware in the past 30 years.
 
#11
So many newer model Gibsons have that half-done faded finish maybe they don't spend the time they used to on the "real" gloss finishes? Maybe they are supposed to look that way so less final work/inspection needs to be done? Not sure, but I know I don't like the looks. They call it finish for a reason, ha.

I know that in general even old Gibsons in natural or semi-trans wood seem to have a finish that is "hand made" to put it nicely....part of the charm I guess, and I say that in a positive way. The finish on my Thunderbird is really nice but not without factory flaw. I suppose it's 10-15 years old though.
 
#13
back on topic, I liked the way the bass played. to me it was comfortable and easy to play. the sound was also pretty good, both pickups were strong and delivered good tone. regardless of how the pickups look, they're not like the Gibson pickups of old. there's a TB+ in the neck position and the mini bucker is much better than the older ones. the finish would not have been a deal breaker for me. with regards to the bridge, it's not nearly as bad as a lot of people think, especially if you know how to adjust it.
 
#14
Gibson makes iconic instruments. They feel and look good in the hands of musicians that want "rock and roll" but don't want a Fender.

Fender and plenty other companies have had bomb models too, I still prefer Fender because of the history and affordability. Plus I "get" Fenders designs.

There's something about Gibson's RD basses shape and electronics that appeals to me. But other than that I don't think that I'll be buying any stock Gibson's in the future.

BTW, regarding the OP's link, how many times can Gibson recycle the same EB pickup layout?
 
#16
Lonesomedave said:
(understand, that if quality control is as bad as you say, the market will sort it out)
Click to expand...

I don't think that's really true, as the general opinion seems to be that QC was awful for both Fender and Gibson for most of the 70s thru at least the early 80s and it didn't "self-correct" then, they still sold tons of instruments for many years.

"Lifestyle" brands can carry on with poor QC for as long as people still buy into the hype and image. *cough*cough*HarleyDavidson*cough*
 
#17
The finish on that bass is supposed to show grain, much like the aged cherry finish they offer.

Gibson Limited Run Les Paul Junior DC EB11 Electric Bass Guitar: Shop Bass & Other Musical Instruments | Musician's Friend

$1229.00 for a USA hand made, set neck instrument? I don't see a problem with that. I understand it's probably not your idea of a classic sounding bass, but I don't see anything wrong with it.



NOW THIS:

Fender Custom Shop '69 Precision Relic Electric Bass: Shop Bass & Other Musical Instruments | Musician's Friend

....I do see something wrong with. Regardless, if you want a gold+blue sparkle finish custom shop fender, you'll pay $6000 for it, and that's that.


Back to the subject of Gibson's wood raid.... have charges even been laid? "Gibson, for its part, seems to have gone out of its way to comply with the Lacey Act, making sure that its wood complies with Forest Stewardship Council standards, which include ensuring that wood is harvested legally. In addition, the company has kowtowed to environmentalist heavyweights such as the Rainforest Alliance and Greenpeace. "?
 
#18
I really want to like Gibson basses (at least the T-bird) - I'm pretty indifferent to their other models & confused as to why they have bought other brands & driven them to obscurity (Tobias, Steinberger, Kramer...)

Back to the T-bird - neck dive, poor bridge design & questionable versatility aside - I really do want one, just not Sunburst or Sixx - anything else, WHITE, RED, PELHAM BLUE even BLACK - AND A SMOOTH GLOSS FINISH...

If it's too much to ask from Gibson, then I may have to look elsewhere to cure my T-bird GAS (and likely end up with a better made, TB'ish bass from Lull or Spector)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back