Gibson Gripes:

[Norwegian Bass]

Wouldn't say that a one piece neck with a pitched headstock is a design "flaw" ; it's a design that comes with "obligations"; you can't throw it around like you can with a Fender; like Hendrix or Jaco. You have to baby it a bit more than a Fender. A Les Paul neck can be extremely stable if it's a good one; like a late 50s Custom Shop Reissue; I have three; two 58s and a 59; I haven't had adjust the truss rods in those guitars at all (only when new, I use heavier strings than normal, and the one I've got that carry 10s; never!) The one I've had the longest have been with me for 5 years now. Biggest problem with Gibson USA stuff is nuts first; then fit and finish. Even stuff from the Custom Shop had nut issues until they started using the 6/6 nylon nuts that are on them now (post 2009). Before then it could be like: You buy a $5000 guitar. You bend the G-string one full step. The guitar is out of tune. Repeat a thousand times.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Wouldn't say that a one piece neck with a pitched headstock is a design "flaw"

I don't think the pitched headstock per se is what is considered flawed.....rather its the lack of a volute that people note is the missing design element.

 

[Norwegian Bass]

Lack of volute? The volute was part of the old two piece design on (say) Martins. They took it away later; but got it back because customers found it decorative; which it is. The consensus is that a volute is decorative in the acoustic guitar world, at least. If the volute was important as a structure, then the neck on a D-28 would be a sound design, but a neck on a D-18 wouldn't be....

The Acoustic Guitar Forum - View Single Post - Purpose of Volute?

and the link:

Speaking Volutes - Volutes on Martin Guitars

 

[guy n. cognito]

Lack of volute? The volute was part of the old two piece design on (say) Martins. They took it away later; but got it back because customers found it decorative; which it is. The consensus is that a volute is decorative in the acoustic guitar world, at least. If the volute was important as a structure, then the neck on a D-28 would be a sound design, but a neck on a D-18 wouldn't be....

The Acoustic Guitar Forum - View Single Post - Purpose of Volute?

and the link:

Speaking Volutes - Volutes on Martin Guitars

Look at a Warwick or Spector to see how a volute is successfully incorporated into a bass headstock to improve the concerns in that area.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

The issue isn't the pitch of the headstock, it's that it's cut from one piece of wood which means that you have short grain running right out into the angle of the headstock. (See photo of bisected Firebird neck below) I'm an amateur luthier, but a fairly experienced furniture maker, and anybody familiar with wood construction can tell you that putting short grain under a lot of stress is a bad idea. The purpose of a volute on most guitars is not decorative, it's there to stiffen up that part of the neck. A scarfed neck joint is inherently much stronger unless you have a pretty hefty volute. I'd call any design feature that results in a well known tendency to break at a predictable location, and then continuing with that design for decades, a design flaw. Your semantics may vary. Ric strengthens their necks somewhat by using multi piece laminates, never seen that on a Gibson, but then I'm no expert on Gibsons. I have witnessed a Rick knocked off a guitar stand, and the headstock broke off right where you'd expect it to, below and around the truss rod adjustment pocket. Google "Gibson Broken Headstock" to see the problem illustrated quite clearly.
Link Removed
Fixing a broken Gibson headstock - Strange Guitarworks
How to repair a broken guitar neck (headstock)
Guitar Repair Las Vegas, Broken Gibson Guitars - Poorly Designed and Overpriced
Guitar Specialist - Guitar repair and restoration services - Guitar Repair - Headstock Repair
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Sense a trend developing? Nope, not a design flaw. Nope.

 

[Shortie]

Welcome to the world of old-school unimproved "legacy" luthiery.

I think I like new school improved automated Korean and Chinese luthiery better.

The other day I happened to notice that the Ibanez cover for the truss-rod slides aside and pops open - you don't need to a screwdriver to get to the truss-rod. Amazing - they made it to the 20th Century.

 

[Shortie]

They've never been a big seller for Gibson

Back in the 60's and into the 70's you saw Gibsons plenty (yeah, I'm that old...). But I think once people found out about Jamerson and then Jaco came along, Fender grabbed up market share from a lot of the other makers like Gibson and Guild. Now you don't see them much at all.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I had a buddy who owned one of the Victory basses, I thought that was actually a decent bass, balance OK, good access to higher frets. I don't remember if it had a volute or what, the headstock looks more like a Fender style, but it must have some pitch because there are no string retainers. It's too bad they stopped making these.

 

[Norwegian Bass]

The issue isn't the pitch of the headstock, it's that it's cut from one piece of wood which means that you have short grain running right out into the angle of the headstock. I'm an amateur luthier, but a fairly experienced furniture maker, and anybody familiar with wood construction can tell you that putting short grain under a lot of stress is a bad idea. The purpose of a volute on most guitars is not decorative, it's there to stiffen up that part of the neck. A scarfed neck joint is inherently much stronger unless you have a pretty hefty volute. I'd call any design feature that results in a well known tendency to break at a predictable location, and then continuing with that design for decades, a design flaw. Your semantics may vary. Ric strengthens their necks somewhat by using multi piece laminates, never seen that on a Gibson, but then I'm no expert on Gibsons. I have witnessed a Rick knocked off a guitar stand, and the headstock broke off right where you'd expect it to, below and around the truss rod adjustment pocket. Google "Gibson Broken Headstock" to see the problem illustrated quite clearly.
Link Removed
Fixing a broken Gibson headstock - Strange Guitarworks
How to repair a broken guitar neck (headstock)
Guitar Repair Las Vegas, Broken Gibson Guitars - Poorly Designed and Overpriced
Guitar Specialist - Guitar repair and restoration services - Guitar Repair - Headstock Repair
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Sense a trend developing? Nope, not a design flaw. Nope.

Oh, come on! OK, semantics; whatever. The pitch is the issue because it's a one piece neck and because of the grain we see in the picture. Whatever point of view you choose to look at it from. Still not a design flaw, in my book. It's guitars, not objects designed to fall of stands and/or absorb impacts. I stand by my position of design with "obligations". Like the guitar Kurt Russel smashed in "Hateful Eight"; what a piece of garbage! Couldn't even withstand a little blow like that! You haven't seen a Gibson with laminates? Well, have you heard of it then? They're out there and plentiful; not desirable. Players want one piece necks; for whatever reason you can think of; and a lot of time only for the fact that it's a one piece, even. I know about Gibson headstocks; I'm a member on The Les Paul forum and My Les Paul. You can call the headstock an Achilles heel' if you want; and as a physical object; that term is correct. But as a guitar; it's a very, very small issue. And an issue players gladly will deal with. Again; a volute is in practical terms (on say: a one piece (excludes wings) mahogany oval or mod v etc) decorative on a guitar. This is C.F. Martin's position, but you know better? Why don't you call them up and tell them they're making their guitars wrong, and that they should go back to scarfed neck joints?
Why are Martins so good? It's because they are built very lightly. And every successful acoustic steel string guitar maker basically makes their version of whatever Martin they're copying. And Gibson's best acoustic IMO; the Advanced Jumbo; was made to compete against the D-28. I have a Martin 000-28VS; and I know the thing is fragile. But the tone is the stuff of angels, so I'll deal with potential future problems. What I don't want; is a overbuilt, non scalloped, dead acoustic. If that were the case; I'd buy a Takamine and only play plugged in. You can't go "all science" with guitars; you have to have the art in balance with it. John Suhr said something that I like about the difference between making guitars and amps; He said that making an amp is very much a science. You have your design, specs, tolerances etc. and you make the amp and you repeat and get the same result; while making a guitar is very much an art. You feel stuff, the wood, textures, and all of that. There's also a huge emotional component with guitars for players. If you think what's posted here on tb is bordering on the insane sometimes; go to the Les Paul forum or an acoustic guitar forum; and watch people go Damn you all to Hell over the most insignificant things possible; like the shape of pick up covers and the patina of end pins... and they x-ray the guitars too!
But!! It's great! that these forums exists; because these "crazy guys" has pushed for positive change and that has resulted in better guitars; like the current Custom Shop Les Paul guitars. The Les Paul Forum has actually changed how Gibson Custom do certain things. And the guitars post 2013 have been spectacular; I can't deny that. The Custombuckers, the weight (light), thinner finish, and a long list of other stuff; has really made a difference and gotten the guitars very close in performance to real Bursts. They're responsive and alive.
The best of my 3 is a 2013, and if I can somehow get 2 more from these later years; the other two I've got now and which I love; will be GONE!
But seriously though; I'm fine with your opinion and I can see where you're coming from; because what we're really talking about is degrees of stuff and how much/little is acceptable. So your "flaw" is my "nothing" or perhaps even "desire".! I want one piece necks without volute on my Gibsons, but with volute; "ice cream cone"; on my Martins. So 2+2 equals 5,3 or 4 all depending...; you know?
I hope I never drop any Les Paul to the floor, and I sometimes hit cymbals with the headstocks of my Fender basses. And my "perfect instruments" is my Sadowskys.

 

[GretschWretch]

I hope I never drop any Les Paul to the floor, and I sometimes hit cymbals with the headstocks of my Fender basses. And my "perfect instruments" is my Sadowskys.

I hope never to drop any Les Paul on my foot.

 

[Norwegian Bass]

That would be painful indeed. Look: volute! on one piece neck!

 

[Gilmourisgod]

KennethB,
To each their own, as the saying goes. If Les Pauls "float your boat" warts and all, so be it. I love Ric basses even though they are riddled with what I, and many others, would call design flaws, so i get why you dont care if a Les Paul is not well designed structurally. Some bad design becomes so encoded in tradition that people not only accept it, but wear it as a badge of honor. It becomes a beloved "feature", whether through self delusion or creative marketing. There are, however, many fine guitars and basses out there that can easily survive the fall or hard knock that every guitar experiences at least once in its lifetime, and its basic woodworking knowledge, not some arcane esoterica known only to the finest luthiers. I don't think its too much to ask that these lovely playable works of art also incorporate some basic structural integrity that even the least skilled carpenter would recognize as sound design, appropriate to the materials used. I'll keep loving those gleaming trainwrecks by Rickenbacker, you got the Gibsons!

 

[GretschWretch]

There are design flaws, there are manufacturing flaws, there are functioning flaws -- which may be present on a particular instrument or on all representatives of a model. WYSIWYG. You may despise these things, or you may learn to love the instrument, or the model, in spite of or because of them. Players love Fenders in spite of the well-publicized dead spot. People may love Gibson for the finishes and are willing to accept the fragile necks. I've recently developed an appreciation of Magnatone Hurricanes -- which I'm beginning to regard as a sportster Precision Bass (the stock pickup with flats can sound very P-ish) -- somewhat for the weight but mainly for that wonderful neck. Yet the bridge/mute arrangement is so over-engineered that it's maddening. But I accept this design flaw because the instrument suits me so well in other areas.

At the end of the day, it's what you are willing to accept. No instrument is perfect.

 

[Antisyzygy]

I don't count the Rascal as the pickguard for it doesn't have the notch that Leo put there so you could turn the truss rod without taking the neck off. You're right about that one. It should have a notch for adjustment. Having that type of adjustment is a Leo invention, but at least there was a notch in the pickguards when he designed them. I did go back and read your post. My apologies for the Fender bashing comment. I have no issues adjusting the truss rod on my 68 Fender Precision that has that type of truss rod nut. I don't ever have to take the neck off either.

Every heel adjust truss rod I've ever had was able to be adjusted without taking the neck off. Sometimes I did have to remove the pickguard, but that takes a very short amount of time. If you're careful you can even do it on a P-bass. First world problems I say. I only have to adjust my truss rod maybe once a year and I still am measuring the relief at least once a month.

 

[GBassNorth]

Here's a little more info on the infamous Fender truss rod access issue that no one on this thread seems to have ever heard of.... Yes it exists and was largely but not completely engineered out.
removing neck to adjust truss rod

And as for the Gibson truss rod sectional view photo posted a few messages up the thread... Let's get a little more intellectually honest - that cross section showing the rod access cut out with scant little wood left below the rod and the back of the headstock only exists at the cutout hole, it is not the entire width of the headstock. If that sectional cut had been made either a quarter inch to the right or left of the truss you'd see full headstock wood thickness all the way to the fretboard/nut area with no obvious weak spot.

All that said, is the Gibson headstock design more robust than the Fender flat headstock design? Nope, it's much less robust. Is it adequate to get the job done and strong enough to eliminate the possibility of failure under normal use? Absolutely it is. Will the Gibson headstock fail under abuse (i.e. Dropping on the headstock, stepping on the neck...) before the Fender headstock? Quite likely. Gibson does not have a design flaw in its headstock, it's perfectly functional as is. Fender on the other hand does have a design flaw in its flat headstock design and had to resort to string retainers to keep the Strings from jumping out of the nut grooves while playing.

Conclusion, if you intend to abuse your bass you might want to consider a Fender, it's more forgiving. However, neither design is documented to suffer from spontaneous self destruction, either one requires an idiot or otherwise careless person to set the failure in action.

 

[Norwegian Bass]

whether through self delusion or creative marketing.

It's both! You know, I checked out the Rickresource forum. I think it was you that mentioned/recomended it; in the Dave's World of fun stuff thread, was it you? Lots of hilarious fights over there, and I'll check it out more in the future.
Yeah, especially Gibson's marketing lingo;... so verbose and grandstanding, every guitar is Excalibur!
You read it and go "Fnck! This is so much sh!t!", you know? To be fair though; they've toned it down in recent years; probably in part because of instrument forums.
They have clearly been shown that the players, buyers and public are not idiots you can tell and sell anything. Because in these communities, there are guys that will go through everything; take it apart, microscope, x-ray etc. document and publish it. And if you really screw up; you'll be taken down hard.! I love this video:



Still love Gibson <3 Have 4 instruments; only brand I have more of is Fender (7; 5 Strats 2 Ps)
What Rickenbackers do you have? What track and/or player is the gold standard Rick tone in your opinion?
I haven't had much experience with Ricks; but they've attracted my attention a little in later years because of some youtube stuff I've seen. Sound really cool and powerful with a pick.
And the look has grown on me; before I thought they looked cheap and weird; now I think they're kind of sexy (in a Alanis Morissette or Jaguar car kind of way) and beautiful. I'd like a red one.

 

[Gaolee]

I don't recall if the neck on the Ric I had was laminated or not. I think it may have been, but I just flat don't remember. Gibson Thunderbirds most definitely have laminated necks. They are mahogany, walnut, and perhaps something else, too. Point being that they aren't just a single piece of mahogany like the neck on a Les Paul. They aren't a maple boat paddle, so they aren't going to be as abuse resistant as a P-Bass, but then my Thunderbird hasn't tried to kill anybody or anything yet, and the P's headstock is like an unguided missile on a mission of mayhem if I don't pay close attention to it all the time.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Yeah the Rickresource Forum can be a scary place! When I was young and stupid (three years ago) I naively mentioned that little problem they have with bridges that bend under normal string tension, and why it took 30 years to fix it, and had a can of personal whup-ass opened on me by The Great and Powerful John Hall himself, which was pretty weird. Weirder still was the litany of scorn and gnashing of teeth by some of the Forumites wailing about how I had upset Mr. Hall, how rude I was, etc. There are some nice and extremely Rick knowledgable people over there, but open discussion of any flaws or QC issues are not well received, to put it mildly! Such things must be spoken of only in a hushed whisper, apparently. Oh well, I'd probably get a similar reception bringing up that unfortunate dead spot issue on the Fender Fanatics Forum, or whatever it's called.

 

[wolfkeller]

Well, I've always thought having the truss rod adjustment at the body was ******** period. The squires have them on the headstock and that is how it should be. Gibson, well, half assed on their part all the way around. I have fender, squire and had Gibson. I bought a Spector, near perfect and non of the crap mentioned here. Love t birds and P basses, hate the companies.

 

[GBassNorth]

As far as robust designs go, my favorite bolt on neck truss rod is the Stingray wheel type. My God those things are sturdy, impossible to strip out and don't even require a special tool - got an Allen wrench, use it, almost any size will do; got a screwdriver, use it, doesn't matter if it's Phillips or flathead! What could be better than that?