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!  

today's gibson basses

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by gibsonbassist45, Sep 10, 2008.

  1. gibsonbassist45


    Jul 13, 2008
    now,i figured i would ask you guys of this.obviously by my name im a fan of gibson.and theres many of theyre basses i want that are from the vintage era,RD artist,ripper,eb-3..etc.
    it seemed like they had quite a selection of basses back then,in the 70's. now think presently.the only two basses they have listed on their website is the thunderbird and the sg bass.which are great basses.and i know they still have a few more like the les paul and a couple of different t-birds.but is it just me,or do they seem really dull in the bass department nowa days?? i know the basses are good.but they just dont seem to have a wide selection like they used to back then.and they seem extremely overpriced to me..maybe im wrong but it just seems that way.what do you think????
  2. therex


    Jun 24, 2007
    their basses are not popular due some desing flaws, such as poor fret acces and bad pup choises IMO
  3. TBird1958

    TBird1958 As a matter of fact....I am your Queen! Staff Member

    Mar 13, 2008
    Seattle Washington
    Endorsing Artist Mike Lull T Bass pickups
    There are at least 3 different Thunderbirds this year.........
    Standard, Nikki Sixx dark cherry stain and Shavo (System of a down) sig. Just gotta know where to look :) Not this forum!
    They change what they offer every couple years.
  4. gibsonbassist45


    Jul 13, 2008
    yeah they do. but you know what i think its time for T???
    some reissues...
  5. allotabass

    allotabass Guest

  6. gibsonbassist45


    Jul 13, 2008
    i can see what your saying. but it really seemed like they were doing alot better in the bass department in the 70's than now.they had alot better selection,now its just like downhill unless they do something like open up a bigger range of different basses, which is why i suggested reissuing a bunch of them, or they get alot better production on their hardwear, like their pickups, what ever people seem to be having a problem with.
  7. I personally think that in current production, the Les Paul Money bass is the only one worth the scratch, and most of the time, it's not a terribly intimidating price (there are three at my local shop for $800, and will easily be talked down).

    Yeah, the SG Reissue is alright, but I'm personally not a fan of the current Thunderbirds at all, nor have I enjoyed playing any Les Paul Standard bass.
  8. allotabass

    allotabass Guest

  9. I have always had a hankering for a Thunderbird. It probably isn't in the cards... if I scrape up a grand to buy a new bass it will be a Rickenbacker. That being said I have been looking at Epi T-Birds. Seems like it might be worth the investment- I am not a "name brand" guy (my main bass after close to twenty years of playing is a Squier) so having GIBSON on the headstock isn't that important to me. The T-Bird would be a 2nd or 3rd line bass anyway... but a very cool one. I picture it playing the role of "enforcer" on my little hockey line of basses. Sorry today is Obscure Hockey Analogy Day.

    So, here's the thing. I rarely see Epi (or Gibson) T-birds used in the shops or on CL. I wonder if it is because no one is buying them... or they are such good basses that no one wants to part with them? Allen Woody, Andy Hess, and John Entwistle all play(ed) Gibsons.
  10. GOX42


    Sep 28, 2000
    rising sun indiana
    I'm more pissed at what they have done to good bass companies like Tobias and steinberger. yeah they still make some decent high end stuff but they have mostly flooded these companies with cheap knockoffs.
  11. DeanT

    DeanT Send lawyers, guns and money...

    I've got an SG Supreme (made in 2008) and it rocks the house. It's just as good at a '70s SG in my opinion. I was never a big fan of Gibsons, but this SG has changed my mind.

  12. gibsonbassist45


    Jul 13, 2008
    yeah man i agree with you there.they should keep the basses at a minimal of 4-5 basses. and if anything they should just reissue like 2 basses, like the rd and ripper and its subsidaries. and thats it. idk if its the best idea really tho
  13. Steve Zapp

    Steve Zapp

    Sep 10, 2008
    I own a Gibson Grabber from 1975-76 and when I took it to the shop for a setup the guy said its a great bass and it was "Gibson's Best Attempt at a Fender" haha biased opinion I'm sure.
  14. gibsonbassist45


    Jul 13, 2008
    i never see the gibson thunder birds but i see the epiphone ones around all the time. i own one too. around where i live they get sold all the time.idk maybe people convert to more expensive basses once they start making more money,maybe thats why you dont see them used as much. but id say buy the epi bird cause its real nice. but idk about the gibson. ive only seen one of them. and i didnt get to try it yet
  15. gibsonbassist45


    Jul 13, 2008
  16. If they reissued The Ripper/Grabber (especially the Grabber) I would wet myself. :ninja:
  17. vicvarado


    May 10, 2008
    Sabinal, Texas
    [QOUTE]So, here's the thing. I rarely see Epi (or Gibson) T-birds used in the shops or on CL. I wonder if it is because no one is buying them... or they are such good basses that no one wants to part with them? [QOUTE]

    I don't really know, but in my experience, I payed just over $400 by the time I got my epi T-bird and its "large" case. I see them going on ebay for both at less than $300, and this is within the same year of having purchased them. So they are out there, I really like mine and wouldn't sell but compared to most guys on here I'm a bass noob so that's just my opinion. I don't see anything wrong with them cosmetically, very attractive and well finished IMO. I like the heavy growl I hear from it as well.
  18. gibsonbassist45


    Jul 13, 2008
    haha. true that dude. id probly wet over the ripper more than the grabber,but either way...right on!
  19. gibsonbassist45


    Jul 13, 2008
  20. I owned an EB-2 way back there (1969 to 1973). I loved how it played, and the sound worked with the stuff of the day (Cream, Mountain, Jethro Tull, Led Zeppelin, etc.). However, not so good at doing Entwistle, and that sound was where the future was heading. The Fender pickups were more versatile than the Gibsons and when that bright sound began to be the desired sound in Rock, Gibson wasn't there----they tried, but they were late out of the blocks. I went to a Rick in 1985, completely unaware of what Gibson was doing between the purchase of my LP Triumph in 1973 and when I bought the Rick.

    In the past 2 years, I have discovered what Gibson was doing during those years----namely, The RD Artist and the Victory Artist. These basses are great sounding basses and continue to sound "modern". The RD is particularly innovative. The problem is, Fender became firmly established because of Gibson's failure to keep up with changing tastes in bass tonal qualities. Between a tendency for brand loyalty on the consumer and being quite late out of the starting block, they lost market share to Fender and couldn't persuade people to take a second look. Kind of like the American car manufacturers in the 1970's losing market share to the Japanese and struggling for over two decades to recover, in spite of having cars that were every bit as good.

    My take, anyway---that and a buck gets the proverbial cup of coffee.

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.