They use Quality Materials but finish quality seems to be hit or miss as of late. I have a LP Standard bass that is flawless. I have seen Nicky Six basses that has paint runs in them. I have seen the same with Yamaha BS attitude basses as well. Just my personal experience. Funny how they hold there value so well though.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 finish quality???
- Thread starter Suatie
- Start date
Remember what I always say about corporations' core marketing belief:
"Quality in excess of consumer expectation is waste."
Gibson is not interested in building quality product because they don't have to. They're exhausting brand equity. That's where the money is, selling the Gibson name for as much as they can to ignorant fanboys.
For example, maybe 5% of bound Gibsons come from the factory with the detailing done properly -- without some big honking sharp wood lip sticking out under the binding somewhere, if not all the way around.
Fanboys will not only eat that slack build up, they'll tell you it's a feature. I mean, the buyers are possessed of just absolute, impenetrable stupidity.
When you have consumers that moronic, why bother to do a good job?
On the other hand, it's kind of nice that Gibson is selling their simpler designs with cheap matte finishes for near-nothing these days. With relatively little to screw up, these are decent bargains.
Ive never liked gibsons finishes and gotta agree their one of the worst companies for qc. Every time Ive examned several Ive found poor workmanship, poor finishes and so on with most of em.
Gibson is not in the business of making musical instruments. They are a "lifestyle" company, and they will tell you that to your face.
Sure, they make a few guitars, but the real money is in licensing, except I don't want to buy any 3-1/4" gibson action figures in Bespin fatigues.
Sure, they make a few guitars, but the real money is in licensing, except I don't want to buy any 3-1/4" gibson action figures in Bespin fatigues.
Gibson, like Fender, is a pretty large company which ships out guitars & basses like a coca cola factory ships out bottles & cans - a certain percent of the products will always be "duds" one way or another. That's just a fact, ask anyone who works in quality management in a larger business.
And another fact is that Gibson (being the size it is) is willing to accept a certain "dud" percent / cost ratio. That's just the way bigger businesses roll. Even though we, as consumers and musicians, would like QC to be 100%, it just doesn't work that way with bigger companies - it's a different thing with smaller shops and single luthiers.
IMHO, the thing is that musicians place a great deal of feeling for their instruments and a flaw of some sorts will always be a bigger issue than e.g a finish flaw in an ADSL-modem (not the best example, but I hope you get what I was aiming for).
The MIA Gibsons (guitars) I've come across with have been very nice (especially the necks have been the amongst the most stable I've played), and I'd like to try their basses also. Especially the oversized Les Paul, Midtown and the grabber reissue.
EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that I'm not saying that we should accept QC issues, we just should realize what the situation is and try not to take it too personally. I believe Gibson is trying to make the best product they can with the best price that they can offer. If you get a lemon, just return it and tell them clearly where they screwed up. That's how QC improvement works.
And another fact is that Gibson (being the size it is) is willing to accept a certain "dud" percent / cost ratio. That's just the way bigger businesses roll. Even though we, as consumers and musicians, would like QC to be 100%, it just doesn't work that way with bigger companies - it's a different thing with smaller shops and single luthiers.
IMHO, the thing is that musicians place a great deal of feeling for their instruments and a flaw of some sorts will always be a bigger issue than e.g a finish flaw in an ADSL-modem (not the best example, but I hope you get what I was aiming for).
The MIA Gibsons (guitars) I've come across with have been very nice (especially the necks have been the amongst the most stable I've played), and I'd like to try their basses also. Especially the oversized Les Paul, Midtown and the grabber reissue.
EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that I'm not saying that we should accept QC issues, we just should realize what the situation is and try not to take it too personally. I believe Gibson is trying to make the best product they can with the best price that they can offer. If you get a lemon, just return it and tell them clearly where they screwed up. That's how QC improvement works.
I think the issue isn't your punctuation but the lack of paragraphs. Just use the return key every few sentences will make your posts much more readable.
Two guitarists I play with both own Gibsons with surprising QC issuess, one is a 337 and the other is a 339. Both of them purchaced the guitars second hand in "near mint" condition. Both issues have now been corrected and the guitars were never sent back to Gibson for warranty repairs by the original owners.
The fact is most consumers will not endure the process of returning products that are defective or don't meet expectations. They will either live with the problem(s), correct them themselves or pass them along to the next owner.
The fact is most consumers will not endure the process of returning products that are defective or don't meet expectations. They will either live with the problem(s), correct them themselves or pass them along to the next owner.
I find it interesting that some will defend Gibson saying ":most of these problems come with the cheapest models (900 buck range) wtih the worn finishes." It being the cheapest Gibson is no excuse when you consider that even cheaper 300 dollar Squiers have a better record with QC than Gibson. My $280 VM P had almost flawless fit and finish, you'd think a $900 Gibson would be as good if not better
To me its not about the design, but the sound. Because each Gibson bass in their history was never really successful as a "industry standard like Fender" they for the most part refused to copy Fender, so they tried and tried to re-invent the bass, both sound and style wise.
What you get is a New Sound pallet with each series produced, which is in my opinion something wonderful for the player searching for something different.
That is another reason why one can never generalize about Gibson basses except for saying they were never successful as Fenders.
Funny how Leo Fender had the gift to create great Industry Standard basses, whatever company he was involved in after Fender.
Say what you like about Gibson basses but they hold their value better than 75% of the basses in the market, even appreciating in value over the years ( much like Rics).
Gibson basses if you search, were also used to record some of the most classic rock music made. So they have history in music as well.
They also have life time warranties, so they do stand behind their product.
However i can't argue about the poor craftsmanship that comes out on some of their basses. I also have heard that gibson trains people in production on the basses before they can finish / build guitars.
I have seen poor quality on Carvins Yamahas Laklands and Fenders, it happens to all companies.
I will also add that my RD Artist bass, that I ordered new in 1978, is as bullet proof a bass as they come. Anyone familiar with the bass should find it a great feat considering the electronic complexity of circuitry and switching system. It will undoubtedly last longer than I will.
I have been playing that bass for 30 + years and it still works as well as the day I took it home.
I have been playing that bass for 30 + years and it still works as well as the day I took it home.
We're not talking about expecting 100% to be first-rate builds.
We're talking about only 5%-10% not having obvious, negligent flaws that wouldn't be acceptable in a cheap import.
Gibson simply doesn't care because the fanboys don't care.
Then buy a $400 import and save yourself a grand or two and have a better-built instrument.
Perfectly reasonable.
From what I've read, and experienced 2nd hand through my guitar player who has a Satin finish LP Studio, that satin finish is a satin poly, not a nitro. It may be different on the more expensive guitars, but his isn't showing any of the tell tale nitro wear after a year of constant playing & poor storage around a 2 year old.
I don't think that's shallow at all. Then again, I flat out refuse to buy anything with nike's mark of the beast on it for the same reason.
DiabolusInMusic
Functionless Art is Merely Tolerated Vandalism
I don't think it is shallow for a second. I am in the same boat.
No nike, no apple (I REALLY miss my iPod), no Cort (that is a lot of brands, including Squeir) and not because of their employees but their management, Chick-fil-a.
The list goes on...
