# Gibson Files for Bankruptcy



## Dredg (Aug 25, 2017)

https://www.thestreet.com/story/142...ault-if-company-can-t-refinance-its-debt.html

This gives me so many warm fuzzies inside.


----------



## marcwormjim (Aug 25, 2017)

If they go under, who's going to make Kiesel look good?


----------



## feraledge (Aug 25, 2017)

ESP EXP 2018. I'm so down.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Aug 25, 2017)

Let Epiphone rise from the ashes. Much better company releasing much cooler stuff. 

And what Feraledge said. If this means a return of the ESP EXP and lawsuit V, then fuck it. Sacrifices must be made.


----------



## feraledge (Aug 25, 2017)

Clearly this has been a long time coming, but the fact that this announcement comes less than a month after this happened is pretty damn hilarious to me:





Any residual Gibson GAS was immediately killed. But throw ESP on those headstocks and I'm 100% back in the game.


----------



## Dredg (Aug 26, 2017)

Hopefully they'll fix the headstock angle before rebranding them.


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Aug 26, 2017)

Why would this make anyone happy?


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Aug 26, 2017)

fuck gibson, they make shit guitars. I played a ton at guitar center over the years and the quality is so hit or miss. I think I'd find one really good one out of every 5 or 6 that I played. The CEO really tanked them with all of his stupid gimmicky ideas like robotic tuners/putting a distortion pedal in an explorer instead of focusing on building good guitars. 
meh between my 2 destroyers and my exploder 8 I'm pretty set on explorers. Firebirds are a completely different story. Esp needs to bring back their version of it since I can't afford a sully raven right now ;_;


----------



## Dredg (Aug 26, 2017)

crankyrayhanky said:


> Why would this make anyone happy?



Probably because Gibsons are massively overpriced, sub-par instruments with numerous design flaws and have been for quite a while. Their arrogance is only surpassed by the mind-boggling refusal to make any sort of forward movement that doesn't amount to a ludicrous marketing gimmick clearly thought up in a boardroom instead of the drafting board. Gibson has become nothing more than a cancer to the industry, caring to do nothing more strenuous than rest on their laurels and propagate the "magic" qualities of outdated and flawed designs. At this point, Epiphone genuinely makes better instruments than Gibson, and that's saying a lot.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 26, 2017)

Forget everything else in the article, i want to focus on the acronym "EBITDA". I thought this word only existed at the company i work for! I really lol'd when i saw that word in the article.

Jokes aside. I dont want to see Gibson go under completley, i want them to reapproach the way they care for their guitars, customers, get with the times and/or just stick to the classics. Stop half assing lackluster ideas.


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Aug 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I dont want to see Gibson go under completley, i want them to reapproach the way they care for their guitars, customers, get with the times and/or just stick to the classics.


This makes more sense


----------



## Rawkmann (Aug 26, 2017)

I love my Gibsons tho...


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 26, 2017)

Love mine! Then again, I think an LP had a one night stand with a PRS one night, and this came knocking on the door 18 years later, but we don't talk much 'bout that...


----------



## Zado (Aug 26, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> If they go under, who's going to make Kiesel look good?


Devries Guitars?



HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> And what Feraledge said. If this means a return of the ESP EXP and lawsuit V, then fuck it. Sacrifices must be made.



+ the Eclipse I shape 





And maybe a 100% simmetrical Schecter V-1?






Let's face it, there so much to celebrate if the thing happens


----------



## prlgmnr (Aug 26, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Forget everything else in the article, i want to focus on the acronym "EBITDA".



I was thinking it must be some sort of alternate tuning.


----------



## blacai (Aug 26, 2017)

Well, that's what happen when you don't know how to rule a business in a living field.


----------



## JohnIce (Aug 26, 2017)

crankyrayhanky said:


> Why would this make anyone happy?



Can't speak for everybody, but personally when I see a company as cartoonishly capitalistic as Gibson that puts profit that far above employees, customers and product quality, not to mention suing their competitors left and right for decades, I'm glad when it bites them in the ass. Not necessarily because they're a guitar brand, I just don't like companies like that in general and I think any warning examples of why running a company like that doesn't pay off is a good thing for the world at large.


----------



## Velokki (Aug 26, 2017)

I used to work for a UK Gibson retailer in 2013.
Once we had a shipment of 4 Gibson guitars come in, that all looked really nice on the surface. 2 of them sold very fast, 2 of them were left in the shop. Both of the sold guitars were returned for issues (one had the nut cracked in a really weird way which essentially killed the tone and screwed up the intonation; the other's electronics didn't work properly). Upon close inspection, the two unsold guitars were faulty, too. We ended up returning the whole shipment to Gibson, but here is where it gets interesting. Our manager found out that these guitars had been shipped before to a shop in Netherlands. They had received the guitars, but rejected them, claiming they're not in condition to be sold. Gibson saw it to be proper to try to scam another retailer, and send broken guitars to us. Very professional!

Also, I remember once a customer wanted to try the proper Gibson ES-335. I think it even was a special, really expensive model, costing way over 3000£. Might've been VOS. Anyway, I couldn't tune the instrument properly. Turns out one of the tuners was broken out of the box, and on top of that, tuning was almost impossible since the string slots in the nut were way too tight. You couldn't even properly fit a 9-42 in it. Our tech said that the nut would need to be filed/changed, and a tuner to be replaced. Needless to say, we had to return it and apologise the customer for waiting 20 minutes for nothing.

Also, my friend who used to play in a vintage rock band, thought it was a good idea to buy an authentic Gibson Les Paul. It most definitely looked great, but nothing but problems surfaced, the tuning was inconsistent all the time and frets were sticking out real bad. I tried the guitar and it was just plain bad.

I'm not trying to bash them completely for the sake of bashing, since I've tried some Gibson guitars that felt really good. But as a company, they're completely worthless in regards to customer support, corporate policy and quality control. It's astounding how they've managed to stay in the game this long with this kind of attitude. I'm gonna quote Mark Baum from "The Big Short": _"Hey... excuse me! Let me ask you this: What company treats its customers *that* shittily... and succeeds!?"_


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Aug 26, 2017)

We will never be rid of the curse that is Gibson, new investors will buy the brand and the designs.


----------



## Blytheryn (Aug 26, 2017)

Can they speed it up?


----------



## Demiurge (Aug 26, 2017)

I'd imagine that in any situation short of a business going utterly tits-up, the job stability, compensation, and benefits of the non-management & non-executive staff will absorb all of the damage.


----------



## Dredg (Aug 27, 2017)

Demiurge said:


> I'd imagine that in any situation short of a business going utterly tits-up, the job stability, compensation, and benefits of the non-management & non-executive staff will absorb all of the damage.



Well, considering they fire anyone who has an opinion...


----------



## Sermo Lupi (Aug 27, 2017)

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 55857
> 
> 
> Love mine! Then again, I think an LP had a one night stand with a PRS one night, and this came knocking on the door 18 years later, but we don't talk much 'bout that...



Nice! What model is that? Or is a Custom Shop?


----------



## Rawkmann (Aug 28, 2017)

Slash would probably just buy them out or something if things got that bad.


----------



## drmosh (Aug 28, 2017)

Gibson going under, if it even happens, does NOT automatically mean that anyone can release copies of guitars which were subject to lawsuits previously. There must be a load of investors lined up to buy the name AND all the rights. What they do with them, and I doubt it's nothing because Gibson is a HUGE brand, is of course pure speculation.
I also doubt they will even cease to exist, someone will step up and hopefully bring life and quality back to the brand.


----------



## Shoeless_jose (Aug 28, 2017)

Would love a four knob Eclipse. My 2015 Gibson kicks absolute ass, and I got it nearly 50% off because all the blues dads griped over headstock sig and soloist neck width. Robo tuners havent failed me yet but I was fully prepared to replace them when I bought the thing so if/when they go, oh well.

Sad to see them ruining a company. Based on their lack of proper explorer offerings they clearly have no sense of what people want.


----------



## Nlelith (Aug 28, 2017)

So, will Les Paul Standard be replaced with Les Paul Default series?


----------



## JD27 (Aug 28, 2017)

I don't know that I would want to see Gibson go away for good. I had pretty good luck with the models I had as far as QC, the 2016 SG being the best. Would be nice to see them get their shit together. But if they did go away and it opened up the possibility of the lawsuit guitars coming back, it wouldn't be all bad. I'm kind of meh on the Eclipse being 4 knob and the cutaway, I don't care either way. I like mine fine the way they are. Actually, they have two more knobs than I require already. But if an EXP returned, then we have something to discuss with my wallet.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 28, 2017)

I've worked at three different Gibson retailers in the past. We had massive problems with QC, especially on the highest tier of Gibson products. Personally, I developed a really bad taste in my mouth for the brand after having to return so many $5000+ guitars. In the years since I've moved on to other jobs, I've watched the company come up with so many ideas that either completely missed the mark, or seemed nifty - suspecting all the while that if any of the nifty ideas started catching on outside of Gibson, lawsuits would certainly stifle the forward movement.

Honestly, who wouldn't want an adjustable nut and a set of robot tuners on a guitar or two? But, personally, after playing so many clunky-feeling SGs and Les Pauls, I don't think I could bring myself to buy one, even if it had some cool exclusive gimmicks on it. My first Les Paul (entry level) had some bad plastic on it. The switchtip, pickguard, jackplate (which I was surprised was plastic to begin with), and swtch ring all literally disintegrated within a few months or about a year of buying it. And, believe me, I was very careful with that guitar, up to that point. After the switch ring crumbled apart without anything even touching it, I said "fuck it, I'm going to mod this thing into an ugly beast," and on went the various pieces of plastic mirror I cut into new pickguard, new tuners, a new graptech nut, new pickups, blah blah, and then, ultimately, I stopped playing the guitar, and then sold it for 1/16 of the price I payed for it. 

I'm all for keeping lots of options, but in a world where there are so many innovative designs getting knocked down by Gibson's lawyers, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the brand struggling.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Aug 28, 2017)

Sometimes I think I live in an alternate dimension.
One where Gibson has a number of reasonably priced guitars that play and sound great, rather than being overpriced and complete shit.
I suppose I'll just sit here and enjoy the Gibsons I have - complete aberrations that they are, what with their quality builds and less-than-Korean-Schecters prices - and try to avoid tripping over any childish bandwagons.


----------



## Casper777 (Aug 28, 2017)

Looked at the Gibson bond on my Bloomberg screen.

The paper is trading on a 20% discount to par, which is other clearer words means that if they were to borrow or renew their loan today, they would have to pay a 36% annual interest rate. yep...

Junk bond rating


----------



## Mathemagician (Aug 28, 2017)

Deleted.


----------



## feraledge (Aug 28, 2017)

drmosh said:


> Gibson going under, if it even happens, does NOT automatically mean that anyone can release copies of guitars which were subject to lawsuits previously. There must be a load of investors lined up to buy the name AND all the rights.


There needs to be a crowdfund going on for rights to the Explorer.


----------



## ArtDecade (Aug 28, 2017)

The people hoping that Gibson go under sound petty to me. Gibson guitars are the bone structure of everything from rock and blues to folk and bluegrass. It will be a sad day when they can't stay afloat.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 28, 2017)

I've played a lot of Gibsons lately in search of a Les Paul and a J45. The QC issues, which I've complained about in the past, were pretty minor finish issues, not the kind of things I've read about here. All minor things, but things that shouldn't exist at those price points.

I wouldn't want Gibson to cease to exist, but I wouldn't mind new investors coming in and turning things around.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 28, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> The people hoping that Gibson go under sound petty to me. Gibson guitars are the bone structure of everything from rock and blues to folk and bluegrass. It will be a sad day when they can't stay afloat.



My beef with them is their bully attitude toward other builders. They have thrown their weight around a lot and harassed other builders time and time again with frivolous lawsuits and threats of such in order to stifle those companies. I know they are going to protect their intellectual property and deserve the right to fight in court over that, but once they started losing cases over claims that really didn't pass a basic sniff test, they should have backed off, instead of doubling down and going after smaller guitar shops.

It's just an opinion, but, in my mind, such practices reflect poorly on a company's ethics.

Not to mention, if you are all about preserving a builder with historical significance, then how do you defend what Gibson did to Epiphone- a premium builder of hollow bodies, after buying them out and using that company's name to import entry-level guitars with QC that waned into questionable territory several times over the years?


----------



## Science_Penguin (Aug 28, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> The people hoping that Gibson go under sound petty to me. Gibson guitars are the bone structure of everything from rock and blues to folk and bluegrass. It will be a sad day when they can't stay afloat.



Gibson GUITARS are the bone structure.

Gibson, the company, is Lobstein Syndrome.


----------



## Dredg (Aug 28, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> The people hoping that Gibson go under sound petty to me. Gibson guitars are the bone structure of everything from rock and blues to folk and bluegrass. It will be a sad day when they can't stay afloat.


Back in the day when options were limited, yes they were.

Fast forward to the modern era where we've made leaps and bounds in technology, design, engineering, and production quality. Gibson is no longer the titan of immaculate quality it once was. There are more comfortable and ergonomic designs with less issues being built at an (equal if not better) standard with better options and none of the flaws that plague the company's product line. Even their sister company, Epiphone, has fixed many of the issues and sell the same models for a fraction of the cost with better QC.


----------



## wakjob (Aug 28, 2017)

F**k... I HOPE Fender buys them!!!!


----------



## Jake (Aug 28, 2017)

I've got 2 LP's- The Blackwater and a LP Less+, both are quality but I've played plenty of lemons. Majority of the lemons were studios though. Any time I've played a custom it's been fantastic. I still want an explorer though too....always will.


----------



## squids (Aug 28, 2017)

Jake said:


> I've got 2 LP's- The Blackwater and a LP Less+, both are quality but I've played plenty of lemons. Majority of the lemons were studios though. Any time I've played a custom it's been fantastic. I still want an explorer though too....always will.


i've always had a thing for gibson-made explorers too....feel like they'll make me play like Brendon Small.


----------



## canuck brian (Aug 29, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> The people hoping that Gibson go under sound petty to me. Gibson guitars are the bone structure of everything from rock and blues to folk and bluegrass. It will be a sad day when they can't stay afloat.



I'll be happy if they do. It'll be a glaring example that riding on your name alone isn't enough to keep a brand afloat. Hoping that it'll also be an example to not treat your employees like a total asshole and act like a tyrant. The stuff they've been putting out has been pretty lacklustre and the ideas that they've been coming up with have been hilariously stupid. Widening the fretboard but not increasing the string spacing was one of the dumbest things i'd heard of and playing one of those guitars was a joke.

Someone better buy the Steinberger and Hamer IP's if they tank and revitalize em!


----------



## ArtDecade (Aug 29, 2017)

Y'all sound like a bunch of jilted ex's.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Aug 29, 2017)

crankyrayhanky said:


> Why would this make anyone happy?


Because some people are idiots. Gibson makes some overprices stuff these days, but they have a legacy of making amazing guitars that amazing players play. A good Les Paul is as good as any guitar out there. But kids these days think its cool to hate on them and want them to default because they have little life experience and don't understand history. Do I think Gibson is the best brand today? No. But to "feel warm fuzzies" for their failure is such a teenage, watch the world burn mentality.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 29, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Y'all sound like a bunch of jilted ex's.


 I tried to explain my comments, as did some others, but that's all you have to say.


----------



## ArtDecade (Aug 29, 2017)

Fine. I'll bite.



bostjan said:


> My beef with them is their bully attitude toward other builders. They have thrown their weight around a lot and harassed other builders time and time again with frivolous lawsuits and threats of such in order to stifle those companies. I know they are going to protect their intellectual property and deserve the right to fight in court over that, but once they started losing cases over claims that really didn't pass a basic sniff test, they should have backed off, instead of doubling down and going after smaller guitar shops.
> 
> It's just an opinion, but, in my mind, such practices reflect poorly on a company's ethics.



Your main complaint is that they go after small builders that are making copies of their instruments? Obey the law or go to court. If you win in court, the law is on your side. I don't have a dog in that fight. Gibson is allowed to defend their brand within the context of the law. If your argument is that because they are wealthy and therefore have advantage, then you should be more upset with the legal process. That I can understand and I would agree with.



bostjan said:


> Not to mention, if you are all about preserving a builder with historical significance, then how do you defend what Gibson did to Epiphone- a premium builder of hollow bodies, after buying them out and using that company's name to import entry-level guitars with QC that waned into questionable territory several times over the years?



They bought Epiphone in 1957. It is well past time to get over it. I am willing to bet that I am the only person on this thread (if not forum) with Pre-War Gibson (37 L-5 & 35 L-12) and Epiphone (32 Deluxe & 44 Triumph) archtops. They are all great guitars, but the Gibsons are simply built better. Epiphone didn't do itself any favors by waiting so long to put truss rods in their necks and that is why they couldn't keep up. No one wants to steam a neck because it goes wonky - not now, not then. Gibson was simply better poised in the market. It also makes zero business sense to buy another company and use it to compete with yourself. Just make sure that the entry level instruments are still built well - and fifties and sixties Epiphones certainly are fine instruments. The Beatles used the crap out of them.

That all said, I don't want to defend Gibson for business practices, because I simply don't care. I just like to play music and I happen to love music that was made on Gibson instruments. It would be a sad day for music if the brand ceased to be. I don't care for how Disney chooses to operate, but I also don't dream that one day it will crash and burn so I can revel in it. Kids like Mickey Mouse and they dream about meeting him one day. Just like bigger kids dream of playing a Les Paul because Jimmy Page played one - or maybe because Les played one too!


----------



## bostjan (Aug 29, 2017)

Thanks for clarifying. Of course there are different perspectives on why people are loyal to a brand or turn their back on a brand, and those things are usually subjective, but once you start lookign at patterns, it can venture a little bit into objective territory.



ArtDecade said:


> Your main complaint is that they go after small builders that are making copies of their instruments?



Right, because a Parker SC, PRS, Tom Anderson, etc., are all Gibson copies? If so, then every electric guitar is a Rickenbacker copy. 



ArtDecade said:


> Obey the law or go to court. If you win in court, the law is on your side. I don't have a dog in that fight. Gibson is allowed to defend their brand within the context of the law. If your argument is that because they are wealthy and therefore have advantage, then you should be more upset with the legal process. That I can understand and I would agree with.



That's the thing, and that was one thing I made clear in my post, if you actually read it. Just because the legal system in the USA is fubar, doesn't mean that it gives a company free reign to use the weak points in the system to harass smaller businesses.



ArtDecade said:


> That all said, I don't want to defend Gibson for business practices, because I simply don't care. I just like to play music and I happen to love music that was made on Gibson instruments. It would be a sad day for music if the brand ceased to be. I don't care for how Disney chooses to operate, but I also don't dream that one day it will crash and burn so I can revel in it. Kids like Mickey Mouse and they dream about meeting him one day. Just like bigger kids dream of playing a Les Paul because Jimmy Page played one - or maybe because Les played one too!



Disney is a prime example. They are a huge business that has congress in their pockets. They continually have copyright laws rewritten so that the rules only apply to them. The huge difference, though, is that Disney doesn't go out of their way to crush the little guy every chance they feel that they get and they still make an interesting product, which is why Disney is not in the serious financial trouble that Gibson is in.

If Gibson wants to fire their upper management goons and restructure to get serious about making guitars for the 21st century, then that would be great. If not, then bankruptcy is one of the potential consequences.

I don't think people are sitting there going "burn, BURN!," it is more that some sit there with a smirk and say "well, I warned you this might happen and you didn't listen, oh well."

I was really excited for Gibson when I first learned about the adjustable nut idea. I really thought that was an innovation that could be used extensively to further their brand. The trouble might have been that their name was already synonymous with robot guitars, the "failbird x," and a half dozen other half-baked ideas.

Also, for a brand name that stakes its reputation on a combination of Made in the USA, strict QC, and classic styling, the QC issues they had in the late 90's and early 2000's, coupled with some of the innovations that didn't get the public excited in the late 2000's and early 2010's simply meant that they were losing sight of the core of their business. I do believe all of that is easily forgivable by the public as soon as those problems are reeled in and back under control.

The gambit then, over things like the adjustable nut, is: do you sell it on its own and risk people not buying your guitars, or do you hold it tightly exclusive and risk people not knowing about your innovation? I think we see how that has kind of worked out. Other changes, like the wider fretboard and unchanged string spacing (as Brian mentioned) seem to have frustrated a lot of potential customers who might have been temporarily interested in purchasing a Gibson. I know I wanted to try out a newer model Les Paul Standard to see what it was all about. Even though I was impressed by the increase in quality since last I worked at a Gibson retailer, I simply didn't click with the guitar. I think there were others in the same boat as me.


----------



## Nicki (Aug 29, 2017)

Gibson has treated everyone, not just their employees, like shit. This includes their customer base.


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 29, 2017)

Sermo Lupi said:


> Nice! What model is that? Or is a Custom Shop?



It's a figured custom shop custom... only one I've ever seen with a flamed neck like that.

I'm certainly not an apologist, but the company has had its ups and downs. Everything I've seen lately (2014+) seems to be good. They had a run of about 15 years (ouch) where the QC was questionable at best. But that doesn't take away from their heritage. The early 90's were one of their best periods and you don't usually find any with issues (other than the headstock angle issue which is a design flaw they've only now seemed willing to adjust). 

For about 10+ years, MIK guitars were straight garbage. Anyone who has ever played an early Schecter or MIK Peavey Wolfgang understands. Cheap/inferior parts, tons of QC issues, etc. Now, I would say MIK guitars are nearly on-par with MIJ guitars. For awhile MII was the new MIK lol, but they are getting better too. And Gibson has done the same. Sure they've ridden the LP and SG designs as far as they can, but their base is like the BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes crowd. They will always be overly cautious of misstepping, rather than being innovative. And when they try and be innovative, well their buyers have shown they just don't want that... they want more NOS, vintage reissue, etc. And personally I liked the Robot guitars... I have a Robot V. It is pretty damn cool that I can change tunings on the fly. I think the later versions even checked tuning periodically and adjusted to keep you in tune. And I also think the new Modern looks pretty good, and I want to try one, but hey that's me.

Anyways, this probably isn't the right crowd for Gibson love lol. And keep in mind I'm a Fender amp and Strat kind of guy... But rock was born of Marshall stacks and Gibsons. Most of the iconic bands/guitarists from the 50's on played them. The V was the first crazy shaped guitar most people saw. And the Explorer was the axe of quite a few legends... including that one guy with the mullet and the beers. So hate away, but I know I'll be sad seeing another iconic company shut down, even if they haven't always made products to the standard they should have, or even if they have been over-priced.


----------



## Dredg (Aug 30, 2017)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Because some people are idiots. Gibson makes some overprices stuff these days, but they have a legacy of making amazing guitars that amazing players play. A good Les Paul is as good as any guitar out there. But kids these days think its cool to hate on them and want them to default because they have little life experience and don't understand history. Do I think Gibson is the best brand today? No. But to "feel warm fuzzies" for their failure is such a teenage, watch the world burn mentality.



Legacy is a nonfactor if a company cannot maintain what built that legacy in the first place.

You know what I find cool? Watching Blues Lawyers cycle through a store's entire Gibson floor stock (sometimes back stock if they're friends with the store manager) of Les Pauls looking for a good one. Bonus points if they chat with the sales guy about the mythical greats, like Page's Number One or Miss Pearly Gates while they reject guitar after guitar due to glaring finish flaws, bad frets, bad binding, wonky necks, terrible nuts, and literal stress cracks. 

Kids these days have this crazy notion that a guitar can have excellent workmanship, tone, and playability with modern innovations and improvements out of the box and be relatively affordable. Gibson unveiled the Les Paul Axcess as their modern offering: the Standard features weight relief chambering, upper fret access, a Floyd Rose, a tummy cut, and a price tag over 4 grand. It isn't hard to see why people put money down for up-and-coming brands nowadays. 

Gibson will never truly die - it is too big to be buried. If it does default, someone will scrape the remains off the pavement and breathe new life into the brand, like so many other brands before it. Gibson needs to get on top of their QC, fix their legacy issues, overhaul their upper management, and affordably modernize. Until then, I don't see a reason to invest in a Gibson when there are so many other manufacturers that make better instruments. That and the fact that Gibson puts right-handed pots in their lefties. Whomever made that decision deserves to be publicly lynched.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Aug 30, 2017)

if gibson did a kick starter with a white 84 explorer and a black 79 flying v quality built re-issue for $2000-$2500 ea. they would be out of debt in no time...

...cause i know someone who would buy one of each.


----------



## marcwormjim (Aug 30, 2017)

They're the only company that makes me think of Mel Gibson. Let's see one of you snakes in the grass defend THAT.


----------



## vansinn (Aug 30, 2017)

Not going to enter a love/hate debate, just that I'd find Gibson going down being a real downer for music, given their legacy and that much of the music I grew up with came out of Gibby's (and Fenders, and.. ).

As someone else said it, they should reassert their role towards the musician and start producing real, useful, playable instruments again.

And acknowledge the fact that it's now on their own best long-term interest spending so much effort buying-up biz after biz in order to secure, abuse and limits further applications based on the patents that came with the buy-up. Ugh!


----------



## Floppystrings (Aug 30, 2017)

Blytheryn said:


> Can they speed it up?



If they do start making those again I hope they make the thicker body standard. 

And I hope PRS brings back Singlecuts (25" scale, 4 knob layout).


----------



## Floppystrings (Aug 30, 2017)

vansinn said:


> Not going to enter a love/hate debate, just that I'd find Gibson going down being a real downer for music, given their legacy and that much of the music I grew up with came out of Gibby's (and Fenders, and.. ).
> 
> As someone else said it, they should reassert their role towards the musician and start producing real, useful, playable instruments again.
> 
> And acknowledge the fact that it's now on their own best long-term interest spending so much effort buying-up biz after biz in order to secure, abuse and limits further applications based on the patents that came with the buy-up. Ugh!



I remember back when there were four basic Les Pauls, the Studio, 60's model, the Standard and the Custom. They need to put ebony and real pearl in the fretboards of the Customs like they did in the past. 

Gibson has been doing a lot of things wrong for a long time, I'm not surprised they are failing.


----------



## Edika (Aug 30, 2017)

I don't have too much experience with Gibson or Epiphone and I don't necessarily find Gibson defaulting a good thing or a bad thing. I haven't tried a ton of Gibsons. The ones I did sounded good but their necks werequite uncomfortable. I understand it's something you can used too but still any neck seems more comfortable than a Gibson. My other issue with them is that for the amount of money most of their models cost I can find something I like more and suits my hands better. That in addition that you can't buy used unless you try them first or new unless you try them first really limits the trust you might have in a brand.

On the business side this also leaves me emotionless. It is a business and regardless of it's legacy, their poor decisions and bad business practices is what brought them in this state. The economy doesn't run or pay in legacy and they don't give their products for free or for a reasonable price most of the times so it's a moot point to make. That doesn't mean if they can turn things around I will be glad or sad, it'll just exhibit that logical and intelligent people are now running the company. If Gibson guitars start to kick ass again I'll even consider buying a new one. An Explorer with an ebony fretboard, reasonably priced (£1000-1200) is what I'd like to own at some point. No fancier specs aside from that, maybe a somewhat more comfortable neck profile and having QC spot on. Is that so unreasonable?


----------



## scrub (Aug 30, 2017)

where have I been? I didn't realize just disdain for Gibson existed.


----------



## prlgmnr (Aug 30, 2017)

It's not exactly disdain, we love Gibson, we just wish they loved themselves as much.


----------



## canuck brian (Aug 30, 2017)

prlgmnr said:


> It's not exactly disdain, we love Gibson, we just wish they loved themselves as much.


 
I've got disdain for any company that puts out really terrible product, abuses their employees and actively screws over stores with product that are full of issues. 

I've mentioned it previously, but Gibson QC is atrocious at best. Maybe they've improved in the 18 months since i was down there but the conditions the guitars are made in are terrible and dirty. The amount of pics that I grabbed from the Memphis showroom alone made me never trust an instrument with Gibson's name on it. Upside down pickups, badly routed V string thru holes and retainer, off center nuts, brutal fretwork, slip fitted 2aa (at best) tops on 5k guitars, cracked ebony fretboards...the list went on. This is the *factory* showroom. They can't even blame shipping (which they do frequently) for damage or incompetency. Let this company fail and let someone take it over who actually cares about making guitars instead of making dollars above all.


----------



## prlgmnr (Aug 30, 2017)

See, they're like that old mate who just doesn't take care of himself anymore.


----------



## couverdure (Aug 30, 2017)

Imagine the potential they have with Kramer and Steinberger if they actually cared about after buying them. Fender/Jackson/Charvel would've had a competitor in the non-"traditional" market that isn't Ibanez or ESP.


----------



## marcwormjim (Aug 31, 2017)

prlgmnr said:


> See, they're like that old mate who just doesn't take care of himself anymore.



One reason I mate with women.


----------



## feraledge (Aug 31, 2017)

prlgmnr said:


> See, they're like that old mate who just doesn't take care of himself anymore.


Pocket dial you drunk at 3 AM, realizes it 10 minutes into the call: "You want an 84 Explorer? Well, fine, I made you a fancy Explorer with a new neck heel a goddamn robot for your tuners, but NOOOOOO... never good enough for you, am I dad?!? Well fine, it'll be on closeout in 4 months anyways, so just forget I ever existed.... You'll be sorry when I'm gone..."


----------



## feraledge (Aug 31, 2017)

The way I see it, Gibson should be thankful they're still around, as their debts and designs like this show, they've been on borrowed time for quite a while.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 31, 2017)

feraledge said:


> The way I see it, Gibson should be thankful they're still around, as their debts and designs like this show, they've been on borrowed time for quite a while.



Maybe its my buzz talking but id rock the shit out of that!


----------



## feraledge (Aug 31, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Maybe its my buzz talking but id rock the shit out of that!


I wonder what percentage of Gibson's sales are drunken curiosity. I'm going to have to assume it's your buzz talking.


----------



## marcwormjim (Aug 31, 2017)

You know their setup dept's motto: "Get Your Buzz On!"


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Aug 31, 2017)

I'm somewhere in the middle. I really like Gibson, and the handful of Gibson's I own are some of the nicest guitars I own.

At the same time, it's fairly well known that they treat their employees like garbage. For that reason alone I hope they're able to find an investor to turn them around. It'd also be nice to see them get a little more adventurous with standard specs. I'm not talking "robot guitars" type adventurous, but scale length and erg adventurous. 

Perhaps that's a pipe dream though since people seem to fear change from tradition with Gibsons. 

I know for a fact that I'd personally shell out decent money for a 25.5"+ 7 string passive explorer. As it stands, I already play my schecter knock off way more than the gibson 6 string. 

So I hope the best for them. Whether it's under current management or under whoever buys them, I want them (including all the workers) to do well.


----------



## Zalbu (Aug 31, 2017)

Gibson as a company can go drown in the river for all I care, with the way they’re treating employers and the terrible QC on the guitars, but if Gibson does go defunct then the employers will be getting the short end of the stick. Hopefully it won’t happen though, and Gibson gets taken over by people who aren’t incompetent.


----------



## will_shred (Aug 31, 2017)

Fender knows whats up. Instead of making gimmicks like reverse V's, robot guitars, ect, ect, they make continual incremental improvements on time tested designs.

One of my favorites Gibsons to come out in the last few years was the Les Paul Traditional Pro, that design really hit on a lot of sweet spots for me. Grover tuners, beautiful finish, satin neck, non weight relieved, coil split pickups. I also love the return of the standard series explorer and V. Ditch the gimmicks, stick to the classic designs and discerning QC. It seems like their chase for short term profits has destroyed their long term outlook. It also wouldn't hurt if they treated their employees better, that would probably help in the QC department as well. I think the bottom line is no longer competitive because of their high prices and shoddy QC, and instead of shifting to make their company more efficient (I wonder how much R&D money they wasted on those robot guitars?), they are buying up consumer electronics businesses hoping to make a quick buck on cheap Gibson branded audio equipment. Lets also not forget the illegal rosewood debacle, the legal costs and lost revenue from the confiscation of the illegal wood almost definitely cost more than had they just purchased the wood legally. These are just a couple examples of the kind of mismanagement that brought the company to where it is today. 

Lets not forget that WAPO article that came out just this year where Juszkiewicz SWORE that robot tuners were a revolutionary invention that he would be remembered for in decades to come, delusional much???

I wonder if there's a market for Credit Default Swaps on Gibson


----------



## will_shred (Aug 31, 2017)

There are lots of really good points in the reddit discussion thread on the topic



> This is what happens when you have a psychotic, abusive moron run things. I feel bad for the employees, who have put up with his crap for years and will likely see another round of layoffs soon.
> 
> When you have a product going out to the public, and this goes whether you are in retail, manufacturing, wrestling, whatever. Your employees are your face. They are your champions. The more you squeeze them and mistreat them, the worse your company will appear.
> 
> ...





> The economy isn't as good as it was. I don't care what the government number-crunchers say (they say BS all the time to keep everyone spending), young people these days aren't in the same economic position that people were when Henry took over Gibson in the '80s. But he's running it like they are and he seems to be out of touch.
> 
> Who's buying their expensive guitars that go for upwards of $5,000? Mostly Baby Boomers. And they're getting to the age when they need to _sell_ so they can afford better end-of-life quality. So the market is flooded with near-new Gibsons that are still in good shape and way cheaper than new.
> 
> ...



and my personal favorite 



> Gibson Brands (Their actual company name) fucking baffles me.
> 
> 
> Gibsons aren't selling. Hey, let's put robot tuners on them and jack up the price!
> ...



https://www.reddit.com/r/Guitar/comments/6wwcjw/news_gibson_guitar_may_default_if_company_cant/


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 31, 2017)

Fwiw i think the robot tuners wouldve been a more revolutionary invention with a more lasting effect, had they NOT been done by Gibson. They just do not belong together; wrong brand.


----------



## Nlelith (Aug 31, 2017)

Btw, those robot tuners are useless at live gigs. They pick up crowd cheering sound and get 'confused', making it impossible to tune the guitar (unless you get crowd to calm down in between songs). At least so I heard.


----------



## Wizard of Ozz (Aug 31, 2017)

Ripe for a Chinese buy-out. Can you say Chib-son? They need to streamline the products and make what buyers want. No more odd-ball, robotic, futuristic junk. Customers don't want it. Stop!


----------



## Science_Penguin (Aug 31, 2017)

will_shred said:


> Lets not forget that WAPO article that came out just this year where Juszkiewicz SWORE that robot tuners were a revolutionary invention that he would be remembered for in decades to come, delusional much???



Well, hey, the Flying V and Explorer didn't catch on when they were first released, but they saw success decades later! Give it time, people will see!

I can only assume that's the logic he's going on, cause there's no other way I can see anyone actually thinking that this invention that positively DID NOT SELL will be remembered as anything but an absolute flop.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 31, 2017)

Nlelith said:


> Btw, those robot tuners are useless at live gigs. They pick up crowd cheering sound and get 'confused', making it impossible to tune the guitar (unless you get crowd to calm down in between songs). At least so I heard.


The Gibson website's thread about robot tuners (http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/120803-g-force-tuners-reviews/) is rife with complaints. Some guy even points out that one of the system's proponents in the thread posted another thread about all of the problems he has had as well...



Science_Penguin said:


> Well, hey, the Flying V and Explorer didn't catch on when they were first released, but they saw success decades later! Give it time, people will see!
> 
> I can only assume that's the logic he's going on, cause there's no other way I can see anyone actually thinking that this invention that positively DID NOT SELL will be remembered as anything but an absolute flop.



I actually think that the idea of robot tuners is actually a pretty cool idea. But I think that the idea of robot tuners with QC problems is a horrible idea.

Also, I know there is a ton of love for the V and the explorer, and that's cool, but I have to think that some designer was sitting around looking at the alphabet one day and started designing Gibsons.... "We have the 'A' style mandolin, and the 'F' style mandolin, what about guitars shaped like letters? Which letters are cool, though? Let's go to the end of the alphabet - Y and Z." Then later, "Hey dude, that Y-shaped guitar would look better if the body was upside down." "You're right, we'll call it a 'V', though."


----------



## Science_Penguin (Aug 31, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I actually think that the idea of robot tuners is actually a pretty cool idea. But I think that the idea of robot tuners with QC problems is a horrible idea.



I'll say its an _interesting _idea, but I don't see it becoming the huge innovation that Lackawitz does. Even without the QC issues, there's just NOT that many people making real use of it, and I can't help but feel like most musicians are far more interested in a guitar that reliably stays in tune rather than one that's just quick to tune.



> Also, I know there is a ton of love for the V and the explorer, and that's cool, but I have to think that some designer was sitting around looking at the alphabet one day and started designing Gibsons.... "We have the 'A' style mandolin, and the 'F' style mandolin, what about guitars shaped like letters? Which letters are cool, though? Let's go to the end of the alphabet - Y and Z." Then later, "Hey dude, that Y-shaped guitar would look better if the body was upside down." "You're right, we'll call it a 'V', though."



Hey... it worked!


----------



## will_shred (Aug 31, 2017)

maybe Gibson wouldn't need robot tuners if their guitars just stayed in tune


----------



## JD27 (Aug 31, 2017)

I never had issues with any of the ones I owned staying in tune, but I also install locking tuners religiously on any guitar I own that didn't come with them. I just can't figure out who said, "Man, this guitar is hard to tune, I wish it could tune itself."


----------



## bostjan (Aug 31, 2017)

JD27 said:


> I never had issues with any of the ones I owned staying in tune, but I also install locking tuners religiously on any guitar I own that didn't come with them. I just can't figure out who said, "Man, this guitar is hard to tune, I wish it could tune itself."


I mean, you kind of undermine your own point if you are trying to counter the previous post.
If I buy a $2k Gibson, I need to replace the shit hardware that comes with it in order to have a high performance instrument. If I buy a $2k non-Gibson, then chances are that it will already come with locking tuners or at least decent enough hardware that it isn't an issue.


----------



## feraledge (Aug 31, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I mean, you kind of undermine your own point if you are trying to counter the previous post.
> If I buy a $2k Gibson, I need to replace the shit hardware that comes with it in order to have a high performance instrument. If I buy a $2k non-Gibson, then chances are that it will already come with locking tuners or at least decent enough hardware that it isn't an issue.


I think you misread @JD27's point. I'd think Gibsons would come stock with locking tuners, but it's noteworthy if the only tuning stability issue is the tuners. It's dumb, but whatever. I'm hardly backing Gibson, but I'm also not thinking that a guitar should have everything you like on it just because it's expensive. That's just not realistic. But making an error if the tuners and nuts are the main issue is just more credible issues to throw at Gibson. 
Either way, I'd rather Evertune than have autotuners. But Floyds are my preferred solution, not buying Gibsons is even easier.


----------



## Ebony (Aug 31, 2017)

I've owned two Gibson custom shop guitars, still have one. Great guitars, can't say I feel they have some kind of "imbalance" between the price-tier and the quality nor does my friend (a very good player) about the two LP standards he has owned (and play religiously).

I agree that Gibsons QC is not up to par because too many people have too many bad experiences to share about them.

But I can't jump on the " I hate evil corporate multi-super Coca-Cola Gibson and their shitty McFeast guitars" bandwagon as every one I've put my hands on has been somewhere between good and great.


----------



## JD27 (Aug 31, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I mean, you kind of undermine your own point if you are trying to counter the previous post.
> If I buy a $2k Gibson, I need to replace the shit hardware that comes with it in order to have a high performance instrument. If I buy a $2k non-Gibson, then chances are that it will already come with locking tuners or at least decent enough hardware that it isn't an issue.



No, not really. It's just my preference for tuners on any guitar, Gibson or not. Maybe they wouldn't have stayed in tune if I didn't, guess I'll never know, likely no Gibsons in my future. Maybe sewer rat tastes like pumpkin pie, I'd never know because I wouldn't eat the filthy mofo. Plus, I enjoy the ease of string changes with locking tuners. In recent years, Gibson has started adding Grover locking tuners to models, but so have others like Ibanez. It wasn't always a common feature on a $2k guitar.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 31, 2017)

So...maybe I misunderstand you, as people are saying, but if you replace the stock hardware on a guitar right away, it really nullifies the point that the instruments stay in tune just fine, at least in my mind.

I mean, I don't go around telling people that Chevy makes great cars, because mine ran just fine after I dropped a brand new 350 and 4-speed transmission in it.


----------



## oracles (Aug 31, 2017)

Gibson is one of those brands where it doesn't matter what they do, someone is going to bitch and moan, they're never going to please everybody and they're a popular brand to hate. If anyone else had have released a guitar with a built in OD circuit, not nearly this many people would complain about it, far more people would be willing to give it a chance, and such a large sector of the complaints come from people who would never even consider buying the instrument anyway because in their mind, they've already decided that any Gibson is a shitplank, and aren't willing to even give it a chance. 

People talk about Gibson QC being spotty at best, but hype up fly by night CS shops that spring up overnight and endorse a hype band or two and don't crucify the CS brand that turned out to be a POS (Invictus, Acacia, Claas, the list goes on) nearly as hard as they do a Gibson that shows up with relatively minor issues.

I will say Gibson is NOT without their faults, and they have definitely earned their fair share of criticism for QC issues, but the pitchforks have gotten out of control and the most common posts about QC issues are from people who haven't picked one up in years, or judge it entirely off a GC "setup" which we can all agree is NOT a good or fair way to objectively evaluate an instrument for what it really is.

Henry needs to go, he's done far more harm than good to the brand, he's massively out of touch, and his treatment of staff, clients and distributors is inexcusable. With a management overhaul and some pricing adjustments, Gibson could really begin to make reparations to their public image. I don't think bringing out the pitchforks is doing anyone any favours, and hoping for a legacy brand like themselves to dissolve strikes me as being petty for almost no reason.


----------



## will_shred (Aug 31, 2017)

^ Perhaps, but I still can't get over the damn robot tuners


----------



## oracles (Aug 31, 2017)

will_shred said:


> ^ Perhaps, but I still can't get over the damn robot tuners



They weren't a bad idea on paper, but Gibson was never going to win. They're either crucified because they "don't innovate" or they get flamed for "Oh look, another LP with no spec changes, just a new colour". No matter what they do, they're put in this unwinnable position by people who weren't ever really considering one in the first place. Had anyone else come out with the robot tuners, the backlash wouldn't have been as steep. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the robot tuners any more than the next guy, I think they should've stayed as on "on paper" idea.

Ibanez released a guitar with a Kaoss pad in it, which for most people is absolutely useless and serves only to get in the way, and came equipped with a lone single coil pickup. A considerably more niche instrument, but because it said Ibanez on the headstock, suddenly it was "cool/refreshing to see a manufacturer take risks/try something new". Which is it? Do we hate innovation, or do we only like it when certain brands do it?


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 31, 2017)

will_shred said:


> ^ Perhaps, but I still can't get over the damn robot tuners



I still don't get all the hate? 

I love my Robot V.


----------



## Dredg (Sep 1, 2017)

oracles said:


> They weren't a bad idea on paper, but Gibson was never going to win. They're either crucified because they "don't innovate" or they get flamed for "Oh look, another LP with no spec changes, just a new colour". No matter what they do, they're put in this unwinnable position by people who weren't ever really considering one in the first place. Had anyone else come out with the robot tuners, the backlash wouldn't have been as steep. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the robot tuners any more than the next guy, I think they should've stayed as on "on paper" idea.
> 
> Ibanez released a guitar with a Kaoss pad in it, which for most people is absolutely useless and serves only to get in the way, and came equipped with a lone single coil pickup. A considerably more niche instrument, but because it said Ibanez on the headstock, suddenly it was "cool/refreshing to see a manufacturer take risks/try something new". Which is it? Do we hate innovation, or do we only like it when certain brands do it?



Gibson won't win with their current methodology because there is little difference between their product tiers. Take a Studio LP ($1349) and compare it against a Standard ($2519). At a $1170 difference, you're paying for locking tuners ($70), Burstbucker Pros ($300/set), Bypass/Phase taps ($20 + service), a bookmatch burst, a rolled fretboard, and a slightly different neck taper. I can buy a LP studio and mod it myself with everything bought at street value and get a Standard spec'd LP for roughly $1740 and only sacrifice a paint job + neck profile - even less if I use parts I already have. Those less hands-on could get a tech to mod it and still pay less than $2000 total. Even if we assume no mods, I could buy a LP studio AND a Faded HP LP for the price of one Standard. Even Fender American Elites sit just under the $2k mark, with their Standard averaging at $600 and the American Professional line dancing at the $1400 mark

Why is this a problem for Gibson? Because every time they innovate, the price increases drastically for a proprietary advancement. I can't put Gibson's robot tuner on any of my guitars, which makes the entire innovation moronic, such as Apple's annual "innovations" that only revolutionizes its own products. Yet they drummed up ridiculous fanfare about their "world first" advancement when other systems like the Transperformance have been around for ages. Probably why Gibson only uses old photos of Jimmy Page - who uses and endorses Transperformance. Calling their built-in overdrive revolutionary shows their shamless catering towards old baby boomers who have their heads so far up Henry's colon that they either have forgotten or flat out ignore the fact that manufacturers have been releasing guitars with onboard effects since the 70's.

Ibanez's Kaoss pad guitar was already an underground (and niche) mod that we the musicians invented, in the same boat as pickup coil tapping and other experiments born on the kitchen table instead of the boardroom. It's cool and refreshing because Ibanez is looking at what players are doing instead of trying to push old concepts as new and revolutionary. Fanned Frets/Multiscale is a great example of a modern concept being introduced in the mass market, because now that Novax can't do jack shit about his dead patent, every company is able to experiment and improve on this idea. If Gibson were to do it, they'd try to make it proprietary, like the rest of their stupid innovations.

And that's the main problem: Gibson doesn't want to share unless they have to. Their new nut would be great if they'd license out the damn thing, but they'd rather see you sell your firstborn to a pack of gypsies rather than actually do something beneficial to the advancement of guitars in general.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 1, 2017)

To a certain extent that is true...but I think gibson's problem is more that they homogenized the perception of the products. classic case of brand cannabilization.

The r8 I had sounded and felt completely different then the numerous studios and faded I owned or either of the double cut traditionals. People that care pay for that vintage correctness.


----------



## Dredg (Sep 1, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> To a certain extent that is true...but I think gibson's problem is more that they homogenized the perception of the products. classic case of brand cannabilization.
> 
> The r8 I had sounded and felt completely different then the numerous studios and faded I owned or either of the double cut traditionals. People that care pay for that vintage correctness.



Every Gibson wiring configuration is in the public domain and easy to replicate. There are companies that will sell you pre-wired drop-in replacements for that vintage correctness.


----------



## blacai (Sep 1, 2017)

So the sh*** Gibsons from '06 to '18 will be even more expensive just because they were the "true gibsons" before the bankruptcy


----------



## drmosh (Sep 1, 2017)

blacai said:


> So the sh*** Gibsons from '06 to '18 will be even more expensive just because they were the "true gibsons" before the bankruptcy



I'm just happy I have one from 1992


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 1, 2017)

Dredg said:


> Every Gibson wiring configuration is in the public domain and easy to replicate. There are companies that will sell you pre-wired drop-in replacements for that vintage correctness.



It's not really about the wiring. It's about the neck tenon. The correct weights for the back and cap. An 8.5 nonchambered guitar and an 8.5 pound chambered guitar don't really sound the same. 

Gibson just makes bunch of guitars that all look like les Pauls. They aren't really all the same.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 1, 2017)

^Exactly. Lesser-known example, but case-in-point: One famous Les Paul was actually a jazz guy from the 1940s, whereas most of the ones we see are electrified solid-guitars.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 1, 2017)

I disagree that "Gibsons" are "overpriced". Yes, the higher end Les Pauls are ridiculously overpriced. But explorers, flying Vs and the LP Tribute series are really good. (I bought one of each new and had zero issues). Their problem is the pricing of LPs standards and above. I paid 1300ish € for my Golden Axe, the Halcyion was much more expensive, while being the same guitar with a different shape.
Here's the thing: you don't have to buy the overpriced models. At 2K and up, I want ESP quality, and Gibson doesn't provide that.
Note for the EXP: you can buy one, it's just expensive to order from Japan.


----------



## blacai (Sep 1, 2017)

Andromalia said:


> I disagree that "Gibsons" are "overpriced". Yes, the higher end Les Pauls are ridiculously overpriced. But explorers, flying Vs and the LP Tribute series are really good. (I bought one of each new and had zero issues). Their problem is the pricing of LPs standards and above. I paid 1300ish € for my Golden Axe, the Halcyion was much more expensive, while being the same guitar with a different shape.
> Here's the thing: you don't have to buy the overpriced models. At 2K and up, I want ESP quality, and Gibson doesn't provide that.
> Note for the EXP: you can buy one, it's just expensive to order from Japan.


I played during the Musikmesse one of the tribute models, which costs 800€ and I found it really good. So yes, Standards+ are overpriced, and CS is just nonsense


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 1, 2017)

I also disagree that Gibsons are overpriced. They are the same price range as most of their competitors: Fender, Knaggs, Anderson, Suhr, PRS, etc. Their custom shop customs are in the same range as other companies high end stuff, they have the Supreme models for around $2-3k, and their base models are ~$999-1500. That doesn't seem out of whack with what those other companies charge (IMO)? 

They have an alternate brand (Epiphone) for their low-mid end stuff, much like other companies (e.g. ESp vs LTD). They have tried to release affordable models like the melody makers, M2, and studio. They've tried to innovate. One of the complications is that a significant amount of their adherents do not approve of innovation. They just want their vintage reissues. Even something like the new headstock design (greatly improving the stability) is looked down upon. These are the same kinds of folks that disapprove of painted headstocks on Fender Strats because it kills the tone and sustain lol.

Not a Gibson apologist (go back through the SSO threads I have bashed them quite a bit through the years lol)... just hatin' on the hate lol.


----------



## Dredg (Sep 1, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> It's not really about the wiring. It's about the neck tenon. The correct weights for the back and cap. An 8.5 nonchambered guitar and an 8.5 pound chambered guitar don't really sound the same.
> 
> Gibson just makes bunch of guitars that all look like les Pauls. They aren't really all the same.



Construction is absolutely a factor, but charging out the ass for such variances doesn't help get your product into the hand of people looking for an affordable workhorse. As before, I can get extremely close to any target LP with a cheap Studio and the proper aftermarket parts, many of which are sold as a package deal.


----------



## Ebony (Sep 1, 2017)

Dredg said:


> Why is this a problem for Gibson? Because every time they innovate, the price increases drastically for a proprietary advancement.



Yeah, this is the plight of the big companies. Take Yamaha for example, they can't even upgrade 30-year old drum hardware because of "R&D costs" and when they finally do you can bet you're gonna notice the upcharge.


----------



## Dredg (Sep 1, 2017)

Ebony said:


> Yeah, this is the plight of the big companies. Take Yamaha for example, they can't even upgrade 30-year old drum hardware because of "R&D costs" and when they finally do you can bet you're gonna notice the upcharge.


There is a fine line between a fair price for an upgrade and an unfair upcharge for bringing a relic into the modern age.


----------



## Ebony (Sep 1, 2017)

Dredg said:


> There is a fine line between a fair price for an upgrade and an unfair upcharge for bringing a relic into the modern age.



Absolutely, and I feel most of the big sharks do the latter.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 1, 2017)

And that's why they say that a fine line is composed of lots of money.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 1, 2017)

USMarine75 said:


> I also disagree that Gibsons are overpriced. They are the same price range as most of their competitors: Fender, Knaggs, Anderson, Suhr, PRS, etc. Their custom shop customs are in the same range as other companies high end stuff, they have the Supreme models for around $2-3k, and their base models are ~$999-1500. That doesn't seem out of whack with what those other companies charge (IMO)?
> 
> They have an alternate brand (Epiphone) for their low-mid end stuff, much like other companies (e.g. ESp vs LTD). They have tried to release affordable models like the melody makers, M2, and studio. They've tried to innovate. One of the complications is that a significant amount of their adherents do not approve of innovation. They just want their vintage reissues. Even something like the new headstock design (greatly improving the stability) is looked down upon. These are the same kinds of folks that disapprove of painted headstocks on Fender Strats because it kills the tone and sustain lol.
> 
> Not a Gibson apologist (go back through the SSO threads I have bashed them quite a bit through the years lol)... just hatin' on the hate lol.



Well, kind of. A Gibson Les Paul Studio is $800-1200 and a Fender Standard Strat/Tele is $500. Frankly, people budgeted for a $500 guitar are not likely going to be able to stretch to $800, and people budgeted for a $1200 guitar are not likely going to be too serious about considering a $500 one, so I consider them differentiated price ranges, and I think it is just common sense that everyone else should as well.



oracles said:


> Gibson is one of those brands where it doesn't matter what they do, someone is going to bitch and moan, they're never going to please everybody and they're a popular brand to hate. If anyone else had have released a guitar with a built in OD circuit, not nearly this many people would complain about it, far more people would be willing to give it a chance, and such a large sector of the complaints come from people who would never even consider buying the instrument anyway because in their mind, they've already decided that any Gibson is a shitplank, and aren't willing to even give it a chance.
> 
> People talk about Gibson QC being spotty at best, but hype up fly by night CS shops that spring up overnight and endorse a hype band or two and don't crucify the CS brand that turned out to be a POS (Invictus, Acacia, Claas, the list goes on) nearly as hard as they do a Gibson that shows up with relatively minor issues.
> 
> ...



I think what you said is insulting and assumes a bunch of things you flat out don't know. 

I've worked on hundreds of Gibson guitars as a tech, including my own father's and several friends' guitars. Since they all returned or sold theirs, and now no one I personally know owns a modern-era (post 1997) one, I still try them out every time there is a thread like this. I've never owned an actual Gibson because I try my guitars out before I buy them, and every time I've been in the budget range of a Gibson, I've always found something I liked a lot better for a cheaper price.

As for their innovations, I have given them credit for a few of the recent innovations they've introduced, but let's look at what you brought up: an OD pedal inside of the guitar. Wow. Kmart and Sears actually sold cheap guitars with built in effects decades ago. Vox, Bilt, and Alesis also offered higher end guitars with all sorts of built in effects. All of these examples included overdrive, and these go back to the 1960's, so what is innovative about doing something someone else did 40-50 years ago?! Maybe that's a bad example, but I'm not the one who picked it.


----------



## Rawkmann (Sep 1, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Well, kind of. A Gibson Les Paul Studio is $800-1200 and a Fender Standard Strat/Tele is $500. Frankly, people budgeted for a $500 guitar are not likely going to be able to stretch to $800, and people budgeted for a $1200 guitar are not likely going to be too serious about considering a $500 one, so I consider them differentiated price ranges, and I think it is just common sense that everyone else should as well.



An LP Studio is a proper USA Gibson tho, while the $500 Standard Strats are MiM. I'd compare the Epis with Fenders offerings at that price range. I also dont really feel that Gibsons are overpriced people mainly jump to that conclusion when looking at the price of Custom Shop models, but I just bought my LP Traditional brand new for $1699, exactly the same price as a base model E-ii Eclipse. SG Standards have always been a great deal, and at around $800 the Faded Studio and Tribute series is amazing. It'd be like only looking at a J.Custom and saying man all these Ibanezs are way overpriced!

Here's a thought. Maybe we should stop trying to expect innovation from Gibson and let them stick to the classic designs they made famous? Focus on what they do best while tightening up any QC issues. Afaik not many people buy Gibson for innovation I know I certainly don't there's other brands for that. I own an SG Standard and a Les Paul Traditional and I love them BECAUSE they aren't innovative they are just classic designs that have endured the test of time.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 1, 2017)

Rawkmann said:


> An LP Studio is a proper USA Gibson tho, while the $500 Standard Strats are MiM. I'd compare the Epis with Fenders offerings at that price range. I also dont really feel that Gibsons are overpriced people mainly jump to that conclusion when looking at the price of Custom Shop models, but I just bought my LP Traditional brand new for $1699, exactly the same price as a base model E-ii Eclipse. SG Standards have always been a great deal, and at around $800 the Faded Studio and Tribute series is amazing. It'd be like only looking at a J.Custom and saying man all these Ibanezs are way overpriced!
> 
> Here's a thought. Maybe we should stop trying to expect innovation from Gibson and let them stick to the classic designs they made famous? Focus on what they do best while tightening up any QC issues. Afaik not many people buy Gibson for innovation I know I certainly don't there's other brands for that. I own an SG Standard and a Les Paul Traditional and I love them BECAUSE they aren't innovative they are just classic designs that have endured the test of time.



Not really, Epiphones are equivalent to Squiers.

The Made in the USA thing becomes bullshit as soon as their number of QC rejections at the retail level drop below those of Made in Mexico Fenders.  I wonder which rate is currently higher. I know what it was only where I worked and when I worked there, and then and there it was no comparison: a USA Gibson was 4x more likely to get sent back than a Squierm and 10x more likely to be sent back than a Standard Fender. Hell, if anything, we sent back more American Standards than we did Standards, usually because of the wrong colour or wrong fretboard.

Again, the $800 price and the $500 price are not equivalent.

Your second paragraph basically sums up this entire thread. A brand that builds its reputation on it's history of great quality control is going to fail once their quality control slips too low for too long, and this is _*exactly*_ what I've been warning about for almost a decade now. More practical companies continue to offer their classic designs and innovate new things as fast as their R&D can go without compromising quality. Gibson somehow lost that. They come up with these cool ideas, and some dud ideas, but then implement them poorly or haphazardly, and so their innovation becomes meaningless. They continue to preach to everyone about how they are the only guitar builder "good enough," yet simultaneously allow their quality assurance to slip a bunch of duds out to dealers. It takes years to build a good reputation and decades to build a legacy, but only minutes to form a bad reputation and only months to ruin your legacy.


----------



## Shoeless_jose (Sep 1, 2017)

Dredg said:


> Construction is absolutely a factor, but charging out the ass for such variances doesn't help get your product into the hand of people looking for an affordable workhorse. As before, I can get extremely close to any target LP with a cheap Studio and the proper aftermarket parts, many of which are sold as a package deal.



The people who are buying an R8 are not the same people that are buying a studio, and there are many tiers of quality between a studio and an R8 get a classic, or a traditional, or a standard. 

And studio's are great workhorses but putting burst buckers and new tuners on it doesn't make it close to a standard, they are different thickness to begin with. Add in that it's usually a opaque finish on a studio it will be multi piece back and probably 3 piece top, that helps keep cost down, then binding on neck and body is gone which is a lot of labour to pay for, at least to have it done so that it meets proper QC.

And if you don't want those things, studio is perfect, but the iconic Les Paul has that look so its fair to charge people more if that's what they are aspiring to own.

Sorry to ramble but this leads me to my actual point, the issue Gibson has is not how much an R8 costs, it's all the other little things,

1. Tuning issue - The headstock angle and not knowing how to cut a nut, that is the main cause of the bulk of peoples tuning issues with Gibson. I personally have zero tuning issues with my Les Paul it has the adjustable nut and the robot tuners, I use the robot stuff to go from standard to drop C in like 8 seconds, but the guitar stays in tune in any tuning without issues. People bitching about models not having locking tuners is silly, if the tuning key is turning/slipping then its literal garbage.

2. Innovation that matters - The adjustable nut is awesome, but besides that they have never tried to expand on their things, like try a 25.5 scale out on some of your guitars besides that $5K custom shop one, and even with that custom shop one, add some actual finish and hardware options instead of 5k for a heritage cherry only guitar. It seems now they are finally trying to reintroduce a volute type concept, because I guess volutes were just too simple so they had to create something new.

3. Focus on alternate brands - Fender is making loads of cash of people on this form buying Jackson and Charvel that would likely never buy any of the core Fender models, push the Kramer and Steinberger stuff.

4. Variety - It's nice that they have 38 different sunburst les pauls to choose from, but they have 2 crap colours for explorers, no white??? WTF?? use ebony on models that should have it, or at least rich lite, but if every other company seems to be able to get Ebony still just use the damn ebony. they started adding good colours recently, but still a long way to go, and yeah just need more choices in the other models.

Anyways Gibson needs new management if defaulting is only way that happens, that's an unfortunate but needed evil.


----------



## Rawkmann (Sep 1, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Not really, Epiphones are equivalent to Squiers.
> 
> The Made in the USA thing becomes bullshit as soon as their number of QC rejections at the retail level drop below those of Made in Mexico Fenders.  I wonder which rate is currently higher. I know what it was only where I worked and when I worked there, and then and there it was no comparison: a USA Gibson was 4x more likely to get sent back than a Squierm and 10x more likely to be sent back than a Standard Fender. Hell, if anything, we sent back more American Standards than we did Standards, usually because of the wrong colour or wrong fretboard.
> 
> Again, the $800 price and the $500 price are not equivalent.



I've only got experience from playing and owning these guitars, but I'd personally take a Base model Studio over a Standard Fender based upon that. Hell for one thing they are completely different guitars, and a LP is more in line with the specs I prefer. I own 3 Gibsons now all from 2016 and they are all great guitars, maybe I hit the jackpot or hell maybe my idea of a great guitar is different from Yours. From my experience most MiM Fenders I've picked up in shops have been pretty sub par. When I wanted a Strat I found a Japan made one that was leagues better than any MiM I've personally played.


----------



## gunch (Sep 1, 2017)

I think they totally missed the chance to make a lot of money with the headless craze/resurgance, and they had the most reputable brand to do it with (Steinberger)

People want stupid money even for musicyo import GMs


----------



## tedtan (Sep 1, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Well, kind of. A Gibson Les Paul Studio is $800-1200 and a Fender Standard Strat/Tele is $500.



A Les Paul Studio is built in the US, whereas a Fender standard strat/tele is built in Mexico. If you want to compare apples to apples, you'd need to compare to Fender's American Standard (now called the American Professional) at around $400 or use an Epiphone Les Paul compared to a Fender standard.


EDIT: Ninja'd by Rawkmann.

Having been ninja'd, I'll say that Epiphone spans the Squier and MIM price points, so the Epi/Frender Standard is still an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## will_shred (Sep 1, 2017)

oracles said:


> They're either crucified because they "don't innovate" or they get flamed for "Oh look, another LP with no spec changes, just a new colour"



I completely disagree, but I can only speak for myself. Gibson could make nothing but the Les Paul Standard, SG, Explorer, V, ect, with zero design changes and I think it would be cool. I just want to see well built guitars at reasonable prices, I don't really care about much else. No robot tuners, no adjustable brass nuts, no weight relief, no built in effects, none of it. Maybe a set of locking tuners would be nice, but besides that, stick to bare bones guitars made with quality workmanship at a reasonable price and that's the kind of gibson I would buy... if I could afford a Gibson. Example, if they had a "standard series" which included all the classic designs, priced at $1500 each, I think that would catch on. $2500 for a new Les Paul Standard, $1300 for the firebird, $1300 for the explorer, $1500 for the SG. The maple cap on a Les Paul doesn't add $1000 in value, and probably doesn't even add that much in production cost, so why are they charging $2500 for a Les Paul Standard when they charge $1300-$1500 for their other "standard" series guitars? If your answer is "Because people are willing to pay for the name" their sales numbers show otherwise! 

I mean, there are probably a lot of things Gibson could do to improve their guitar sales even if it only makes 1/4 of their revenue.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Sep 1, 2017)

Around $1500 for their most popular designs you say? It's almost as if that's already a thing! They already have plenty of guitars above AND below this price point too, so it wouldn't "catch on" quite as much as you'd think. None of these have the effects, nuts, robo tuners, etc in them either.

http://www.guitarcenter.com/Gibson/...500000137347.gc?pdpSearchTerm=gibson explorer

http://www.guitarcenter.com/Gibson/2017-Les-Paul-Studio-Gold-Series-Electric-Guitar.gc

http://www.guitarcenter.com/Gibson/2017-SG-Standard-Gold-Series-Electric-Guitar.gc

http://www.guitarcenter.com/Gibson/Flying-V-2018-Electric-Guitar.gc


----------



## lewis (Sep 2, 2017)

may have been answered so apologies, but would they be able to sell of their model designs to raise funds?

Like for example, Schecter buys the right to make and sell the specific Gibson LP shape incl headstock etc?
(just a hypothetical obviously)
Same with the Explorers and Flying Vs etc?


----------



## will_shred (Sep 2, 2017)

The 2018 lineup looks pretty sweet, still can't afford one 

http://thehub.musiciansfriend.com/bits/unveiled-the-2018-gibson-usa-electric-guitar-lineup


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 2, 2017)

If Gibson hasn't defaulted in six pages, it ain't happenin.


----------



## Dredg (Sep 4, 2017)

Dineley said:


> The people who are buying an R8 are not the same people that are buying a studio, and there are many tiers of quality between a studio and an R8 get a classic, or a traditional, or a standard.
> 
> And studio's are great workhorses but putting burst buckers and new tuners on it doesn't make it close to a standard, they are different thickness to begin with. Add in that it's usually a opaque finish on a studio it will be multi piece back and probably 3 piece top, that helps keep cost down, then binding on neck and body is gone which is a lot of labour to pay for, at least to have it done so that it meets proper QC.
> 
> And if you don't want those things, studio is perfect, but the iconic Les Paul has that look so its fair to charge people more if that's what they are aspiring to own.



You're right: people who buy R8's are not the same people who buy Studios, because they're either high-end collectors, or think that Gibson outsources such builds to Hogwarts.

Try this: Record a song using a LP Standard, then strip the Standard and put all hardware, electronics, and wiring into a LP Studio then re-record the same song as close to the original as you can. Just for giggles, repeat the process with as many different LP categories using the exact same hardware, electronics, and wiring you pulled from the Standard. Then submit it for a triple-blind test where your subjects must write down which model Gibson each song was recorded with. They won't be able to tell, and neither will you.

The simple fact is that nobody will know (or care) that you played a studio over a standard. The iconic look of a burst LP may wow your buddies and your audience but the shell doesn't grant any superiority over its studio counterpart.

Also what QC?


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 5, 2017)

Dredg said:


> You're right: people who buy R8's are not the same people who buy Studios, because they're either high-end collectors, or think that Gibson outsources such builds to Hogwarts.
> 
> Try this: Record a song using a LP Standard, then strip the Standard and put all hardware, electronics, and wiring into a LP Studio then re-record the same song as close to the original as you can. Just for giggles, repeat the process with as many different LP categories using the exact same hardware, electronics, and wiring you pulled from the Standard. Then submit it for a triple-blind test where your subjects must write down which model Gibson each song was recorded with. They won't be able to tell, and neither will you.
> 
> ...



Bro have you owned a historic?
I don't think you understand that they are fundamentally different guitars then a studio down to how thick the bodies are.


----------



## Rawkmann (Sep 5, 2017)

Dredg said:


> Try this: Record a song using a LP Standard, then strip the Standard and put all hardware, electronics, and wiring into a LP Studio then re-record the same song as close to the original as you can. Just for giggles, repeat the process with as many different LP categories using the exact same hardware, electronics, and wiring you pulled from the Standard. Then submit it for a triple-blind test where your subjects must write down which model Gibson each song was recorded with. They won't be able to tell, and neither will you.
> 
> The simple fact is that nobody will know (or care) that you played a studio over a standard.



I mean, You could do that with practically any guitar though. Take an LTD EC1000 and a USA ESP Eclipse and do the same thing and get the same result. Once You get to a certain price point for guitars the law of diminishing returns kicks in big time, but it's that little extra bit of quality that You pay for with them. If Andy James recorded a solo with his signature LTD then put the same pickups into a Mayones Regius and recorded the same solo for example anyone would have a hard time telling You which was which.


----------



## blacai (Sep 5, 2017)

Blind tests are non-sense and a really weak argument. I already know I could not hear the difference between my epiphone and my FGN even with almost a 2000€ gap between them on a record after all processing and using the same pickups, set up, amp...
But when I play the FGN and the epiphone, they feel completely different and the finish and details of the FGN are 120% better than the epiphone's :|


----------



## Dredg (Sep 5, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> Bro have you owned a historic?
> I don't think you understand that they are fundamentally different guitars then a studio down to how thick the bodies are.



No, and I never will own one. The vintage boatneck is uncomfortable and I find no use in a guitar that carries the price tag of several custom shop instruments with the same flaws as its descendants unless I am a devout collector, or would rather live in the past.


----------



## Nicki (Sep 5, 2017)

prlgmnr said:


> See, they're like that old mate who just doesn't take care of himself anymore.



No, I don't think it's that. I think they believed they can just take a ride on easy street with their name and the "we're too big to fail" mentality. Rather than increasing profits by selling more inventory, they would rather increase profits by cutting corners, which you know, always works...


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 5, 2017)

There are so many problems with Gibson's position in the marketplace that they just seem unwilling to address. 

*Variety is the biggest.* Gibson are horrible when it comes to designing guitars that stand out from each other. Yes the Explorer, V, LP, SG and even the Epiphone stuff like the Moderne, are radically different looking guitars - but every single one of them is a 24.75" Scale length 2 Humbucker guitar with a Les Paul style 3 Way toggle and a TOM bridge.

Is that bad? No, but Gibson have ZERO product differentiation on a substantial practical level.

Gibson: You can add all the cryogenically treated frets, adjustable nuts, funky pickup mounting systems and neck carves you want to, the simple fact is that you refuse to offer a 25.5" scale guitar, and the only interesting pickup config you've ever offered was on the Nighthawk - where you did a really bad job. (PSA: Nighthawks, especially the Epiphone ones, are actually great guitars, but the bridge pickup and weird bridge, turned people off.)

Offer something with a different scale length, offer an HSH guitar that isn't pig-ugly (M3, looking at you), offer blade switches, offer a 2 point modern tremolo like a Wilkinson. (I'm aware lots of Gibson purists slam you every time you try a floyd, but there IS a middleground).



The second big problem they have is an absolute lack of real engagement with artists that are relevant in the 21st century. Fender has Clapton, Yngwie, SRV, Gilmour, Hendrix, Cobain, Jonny Marr, Kotzen, Jim Root, and Dave Murray. None of those artists are spring chickens, but they're ALL super, super relevant players to this day. Those that are dead are pivotal, game-changing guitar players, those that are alive absolutely shred. 

Who do Gibson have? 

Bill Kelliher and Brendon Small? A lot of fans of those guys are going to sit there, say "That guitar is cool" - then go pick up an Ibanez or a Schecter anyway, because nobody is "Just" a Mastodon or Dethklok fan, and lets be honest, those guys make their favourite guitars work for their style of music - they don't play guitars that are inherently designed for the style of music they play.

Slash? I'm sorry, but Slash is not the object of guitar hero worship that he once was. He doesn't push sales hard enough.

Nancy Wilson? Same deal. I like her, but she's not pushing guitar sales super hard. 

Gary Moore? Popular with a particular cache of guitar players, the older of which are slowly dying, and the younger of which can't afford that guitar.

Grace Potter? I had to google who on earth she was, and then I didn't care once I found out. The closest similar thing I can think of to this signature model is the EBMM St. Vincent - Which is attached to a better, more interesting artist, and is a much more compelling instrument in terms of design.

Then you've got the guy from Godsmack, and the guy from Jimmy Fallon's house band. 

Those are the people Gibson decide to give signature models. It's a disaster of nobody-cares artists and people who became irrelevant years ago.


----------



## blacai (Sep 5, 2017)

well...


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 5, 2017)

I hear every girl is crazy for a sharp-dressed man with a long, gross beard.



Nicki said:


> No, I don't think it's that. I think they believed they can just take a ride on easy street with their name and the "we're too big to fail" mentality. Rather than increasing profits by selling more inventory, they would rather increase profits by cutting corners, which you know, always works...



I think you meant to post here:

http://sevenstring.org/threads/kiesel-never-again.320132/page-52


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 5, 2017)

Dredg said:


> No, and I never will own one. The vintage boatneck is uncomfortable and I find no use in a guitar that carries the price tag of several custom shop instruments with the same flaws as its descendants unless I am a devout collector, or would rather live in the past.



I mean how would you know that you could get a studio to be exactly the same if you haven't spent a lot of time with a historic. But, whatever, I'm not really here to convince you otherwise. 

From my experience they might as well be totally different guitars.

Anyhow, I think that your attitude is a symptom of the problem that Gibson is having right now. 

For too long they have pushed horizontal brand growth at the cost of vertical brand loyalty. 

They sold tons of epiphones, and gibson usa studios, faded, special editions on the image of them being just like the original les paul. Then no one wants to actually move up to the more expensive editions. 

This is a fine in other industries if you can guarantee product turnover...but guitars don't really work like that. 

There's almost no other lifestyle type industry right now where 800 bucks buys you something that will pretty much last forever. Phones get replaced, tv's get replaced, computers get replaced...guitars just sit around forever. Whoops. 

Then the cool stuff that should actually build brand loyalty is nonexistent or 3000 whoops.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 5, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> This is a fine in other industries if you can guarantee product turnover...but guitars don't really work like that.
> 
> There's almost no other lifestyle type industry right now where 800 bucks buys you something that will pretty much last forever. Phones get replaced, tv's get replaced, computers get replaced...guitars just sit around forever. Whoops.
> 
> Then the cool stuff that should actually build brand loyalty is nonexistent or 3000 whoops.



Cool observation, but none of that has anything specifically to do with Gibson. Fender fits exactly that description as well. I think to a lot of folks, though, an $800 Stratocaster is simply a better purchase than an $800 Les Paul Studio.

There are a lot of reasons why people are ragging on Gibson, and I think most of those reasons have been earned by the company. But perhaps a big part of this trouble they are having is simply because EVH and other late 70's and early 80's guitarists moved away from the brand back then, and no one has really moved in to fill that void. Most Gibson-seekers, to me, seem to be the guys who are really going for the classic rock vibe in some form. If you think about who the most influential names are associated with the brand, you have Slash and then you have a bunch of classic rock guys: Angus Young, Jimmy Page, early Eric Clapton, Joe Perry, etc. The time when Gibson dominated the high-end electric guitar market is fading with those names. The shred guitarists of the pre-grunge period preferred Charvels, Ibanezes, and other super-strats. Zakk Wylde might be a good counter-example, but, as of late, he's gone off the deepend and developed his own brand. Slash was known for the Mockingbird almost as much as the Les Paul. Ironically, Slash's most famous Les Paul was actually a copy. Kurt Cobain played a Fender. Actually, out of the big grunge-era bands, Soundgarden is the only one I can think of associated with Gibsons. Pearl Jam usually used Fenders, Sonic Youth- Fender, Alice In Chains - G&L or Fender, etc. I think someone else pointed out the lack of relevant endorsers, but I think that the endorsement policies of Gibson have pitted the company into a losing battle for the past 30 years or so.

As a kid, I mostly gravitated to classic rock, but by the time I was old enough to have a job and save up some money for a decent guitar, not only had I lost interest in the brand because of specs, I also had few influences using Gibson by then, so the brand's visibility is more from seeing them in stores than from seeing them being played. That's actually not a bad place to be, though, assuming the guitars you have saturated all over the storefront are of decent quality...hmm.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 5, 2017)

Having played 1k gibsons to 10k gibsons in the same sitting in one of their factory showrooms for few hours, the "higher" end models have the exact same glaring flaws and garbage work. 

Gibson's problem is the guy at the top.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 5, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Cool observation, but none of that has anything specifically to do with Gibson. Fender fits exactly that description as well. I think to a lot of folks, though, an $800 Stratocaster is simply a better purchase than an $800 Les Paul Studio.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons why people are ragging on Gibson, and I think most of those reasons have been earned by the company. But perhaps a big part of this trouble they are having is simply because EVH and other late 70's and early 80's guitarists moved away from the brand back then, and no one has really moved in to fill that void. Most Gibson-seekers, to me, seem to be the guys who are really going for the classic rock vibe in some form. If you think about who the most influential names are associated with the brand, you have Slash and then you have a bunch of classic rock guys: Angus Young, Jimmy Page, early Eric Clapton, Joe Perry, etc. The time when Gibson dominated the high-end electric guitar market is fading with those names. The shred guitarists of the pre-grunge period preferred Charvels, Ibanezes, and other super-strats. Zakk Wylde might be a good counter-example, but, as of late, he's gone off the deepend and developed his own brand. Slash was known for the Mockingbird almost as much as the Les Paul. Ironically, Slash's most famous Les Paul was actually a copy. Kurt Cobain played a Fender. Actually, out of the big grunge-era bands, Soundgarden is the only one I can think of associated with Gibsons. Pearl Jam usually used Fenders, Sonic Youth- Fender, Alice In Chains - G&L or Fender, etc. I think someone else pointed out the lack of relevant endorsers, but I think that the endorsement policies of Gibson have pitted the company into a losing battle for the past 30 years or so.
> 
> As a kid, I mostly gravitated to classic rock, but by the time I was old enough to have a job and save up some money for a decent guitar, not only had I lost interest in the brand because of specs, I also had few influences using Gibson by then, so the brand's visibility is more from seeing them in stores than from seeing them being played. That's actually not a bad place to be, though, assuming the guitars you have saturated all over the storefront are of decent quality...hmm.



absolutely applies to fender. They've done a better job of managing their brand profile. They've done a better job of managing their brand profile and their acquisitions. But they also have declining sales which is affecting the industry as a whole but it's hitting those two pretty hard. I mean companies don't usually get in trouble over one thing...unless you're juicero.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 5, 2017)

Let's not also forget that Gibson's subsidiaries are, according to wikipedia:
Baldwin Piano
Cakewalk
Cerwin-Vega
Dobro
Epiphone
Esoteric
Harmony Central
Integra
Kramer
KRK Systems
Maestro
Onkyo
Slingerland
Stanton
Steinberger
TASCAM
TEAC Corporation
Tobias

Of those, the following are wholly owned:
Baldwin (2001)
Cerwin-Vega (2011)
Dobro (Company defunct, Trademark acquired by Gibson 1994)
Epiphone (Both brands owned by CMI prior to Norlin Era, Norlin Purchased both and Absorbed Epiphone into Gibson)
Harmony Central (2015)
Kramer Guitars (Mid 90s, date unsure)
Stanton Magnetics (2011)
KRK Systems
Slingerland (Purchased 2003)
Steinberger (1987)
Tobias (1990)

And the following two are partially owned:
TEAC Corporation (54.42%)
Onkyo (16.5%, though the Ohtsuki family owns more, at 26.1%, making them the largest single shareholder)

Have Gibson done ANYTHING to promote those brands in the last... 20 years?

Are any of those brands market leaders or even real trading concerns these days? From that list I'd say that realistically, the only thing there that makes Gibson money, is KRK Systems. They've let everything else die horribly. Particularly Steinberger, which is a shame because Steinberger right now could be a real money maker for Gibson, if they'd only realise that a resurgence in headless has been happening for the last 5 years or more.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 5, 2017)

No, they haven't done anything to promote their non-namesake properties.

I always held a ton of respect for Steinberger. It will always be a shame that that brand went by the wayside. I'd put them on the short list of builders who actually innovated multiple really cool ideas on guitar. Gibson should rightly be on that list as well.

Speaking of Kramer, does anyone here recall the years (early 90's) when Kramers were so cheap and terrible - basically paper mache, that their guitars would fall apart on the showroom floor? I can say that they've gotten better since then, although I'm not sure whether new Kramers are worth considering in any case.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 5, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> *Slash*? I'm sorry, but Slash is not the object of guitar hero worship that he once was. He doesn't push sales hard enough.
> 
> *Nancy Wilson*? Same deal. I like her, but she's not pushing guitar sales super hard.
> 
> *Gary Moore*? Popular with a particular cache of guitar players, the older of which are slowly dying, and the younger of which can't afford that guitar.



Fans of those three artists are not typically teens or college students, but are more likely adults with 10-20 years into their chosen careers with loads more disposable income. That is exactly who Gibson is targeting.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 6, 2017)

Stop making sense when others are on a roll!


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Fans of those three artists are not typically teens or college students, but are more likely adults with 10-20 years into their chosen careers with loads more disposable income. That is exactly who Gibson is targeting.


The point I was making is that there aren't anywhere near enough of those people, and while fender has that cache sewn up too, Fender has the younger players market also well served - and not just with the world's millionth replica of a 58 les paul, but with models that have meaningful differences to stock guitars.

Also, lets be honest, yeah, Gibson are targeting certain people with their lines.

This thread is specifically about how that tactic isn't working for them and is likely to kill the business. What does it matter whether Gibson have a certain intent? If they were turning over enough money to clear or refinance their debts you could potentialy say Gibson's plan is a defense of the results...but they aren't and it isn't.


----------



## drmosh (Sep 6, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> And the following two are partially owned:
> TEAC Corporation (54.42%)
> Onkyo (16.5%, though the Ohtsuki family owns more, at 26.1%, making them the largest single shareholder)
> 
> Have Gibson done ANYTHING to promote those brands in the last... 20 years?



Why would gibson promote other brands? It's up to them and nobody makes the association between gibson and onkyo for example. I also believe onkyo is and has been doing pretty well


----------



## oc616 (Sep 6, 2017)

Gibson can't just keep targeting the 30-40 somethings with a vast range of choice in their £2000+ offerings. I'm not one of them, but I'm fairly certain they don't buy more than 2 of their guitars a year at most depending on their dedication/income/boredom. 

Like Bizarre said, Fender are doing more with their sub £1000 range to appeal to younger players in a market that's already proving tricky for the electric guitar to navigate. If Gibson don't invest in converting and retaining new players through brand commitment (basically creating more 30-40+ year old fanboys in the next 10 years) then their current base will dry up too fast.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

drmosh said:


> Why would gibson promote other brands? It's up to them and nobody makes the association between gibson and onkyo for example. I also believe onkyo is and has been doing pretty well


Because they're a business, and they want to make money?

I don't know why you're focusing on TEAC and Onkyo either - Gibson is involved in those brands so that they can diversify into bringing electronics products to market, like the Les Paul monitors they released recently. It's a last-ditch attempt by a desperate brand, to leverage it's name value in order to sell products that are essentially designed and manufactured by other companies, with whom Gibson have only recently become involved.

But the fact is, Gibson OWNS OUTRIGHT, every brand I listed there except Onkyo and TEAC, and yet *none* of those brands have done anything but decline under Gibson's ownership. 

Baldwin Piano no longer makes a production product - they undertake custom work only, and repairs on older products. 

Steinberger hasn't had an update to their model lines in over a decade (When they released the Demon transcale), and availability is awful - I own an ST-2FPA, and it's a great guitar, but I ended up only buying it when it was discounted by £200, because parts availability for Steinberger products is so piss-poor, I was worried about not being able to fix it if anything broke. Not only that, but I know that if you try to order a Steinberger in to a shop, the wait-times to get new-production Steinbergers are in excess of a year, because Gibson don't actually bother to MAKE new production Steinbergers anymore - they'll only do a production run of Guitars if they're all pre-sold to customers.

Cerwin Vega's reputation over the years has diminished dramatically - Just go to their facebook page and look at the interactions they're getting. Tons of comments stating the quality has gone down - most of which get responded to with the worst kind of non-helpful customer service babble.

When it comes to Dobro, not only is the market tiny, but Gibson are more interested in sueing anyone else that uses the word, than they are in creating a product that could sell. 

Epiphone probably make Gibson a big chunk of money, but it's wasted on propping up the larger Gibson brand that continues to release product after product that nobody wants or nobody can afford - And yes, we're all aware that there are cheaper "Gibson" Les Pauls than the standard series - but we're also aware that Gibson's reputation for quality control has been absolute dogshit since the early 2000s.

Harmony Central is a buyout that was clearly intended as a marketing expense, and it happened years too late to have any effect on Gibson's brand perception.

Kramer was mismanaged so badly that, as Bostjan alluded to, the MusicYo Kramers were essentially falling apart when they were new. They improved that to the point the Kramers became a "reasonable" quality product (certainly not high quality, just not shitty), and the only endorsee they had worth a damn for Kramer is Satchel, and he's jumped ship now to Charvel, which is a Fender brand.

Stanton Magnetics is the parent company of KRK, and probably makes Gibson a chunk of money, but KRK monitors don't dominate that market - the EDM scene, who are by far the larger purchasers of studio monitors, are all buying Yamaha HS80s instead.

Slingerland Drums are essentially a non-product at this stage - Gibson haven't even bothered to give them their own website, and look at all the drum sample packs - Superior Drummer doesn't have ANY slingerland products in it at all, even in the upcoming SD 3.0. 

Valley Arts are the same story - such a lack of effort that they don't have their own website, it just redirects to a portion of the Gibson website, where the product range is tiny and clearly hasn't been refreshed in years. Nobody stocks them, nobody asks for them.

Tobias basses is exactly the same story again.


Meanwhile, while they've been totally failing to promote their OWN BRANDS, they've spent an awful lot of time trying to trade on their legacy and history as Gibson proper, and what has it gotten them? Into a mountain of debt that they can't service, with an Endorsee roster that is, frankly, Anemic.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 6, 2017)

drmosh said:


> Why would gibson promote other brands? It's up to them and nobody makes the association between gibson and onkyo for example. I also believe onkyo is and has been doing pretty well



gee why would gibson the corporation work hard to ensure that the brands that it owns and paid money for are profitable.


----------



## drmosh (Sep 6, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> gee why would gibson the corporation work hard to ensure that the brands that it owns and paid money for are profitable.



They may be at fault for not providing resources for those brands themselves, but it was implied Gibson themselves should be pushing their other brands. They are de-facto separate companies and may have in themselves fucked up


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

oc616 said:


> Gibson can't just keep targeting the 30-40 somethings with a vast range of choice in their £2000+ offerings. I'm not one of them, but I'm fairly certain they don't buy more than 2 of their guitars a year at most depending on their dedication/income/boredom.
> 
> Like Bizarre said, Fender are doing more with their sub £1000 range to appeal to younger players in a market that's already proving tricky for the electric guitar to navigate. If Gibson don't invest in converting and retaining new players through brand commitment (basically creating more 30-40+ year old fanboys in the next 10 years) then their current base will dry up too fast.


The other thing Gibson could, and should, do, is see the writing on the wall of popular culture. 

The electric guitar will take a very long time to go away, and there will be HUGE opportunities to make money in that market for years to come. There's a lot of innovation coming our way, and Gibson have missed the boat on a lot of it but could change things up and find their feet on some new wave of innovation if they put their minds to it. 

But fundamentally, the Guitar is no longer the most listened to instrument on earth - the synthesiser is. Gibson need to recognise that.

Invest in software expertise, invest more in electronics, sell off the dead brands they've neglected and let someone else take a crack at reviving them. 

Move towards synths and music production. Put more effort into KRK and Cerwin Vega for live sound reinforcement and studio monitor use, two segments that aren't affected by a downturn in physical instrument sales. 

They also need to take control of their own image in a way that doesn't mean sueing the shit out of anyone who makes a singlecut - easiest way to do that? 

1 - Make the Historical recreations, custom shop and limited edition guitars into their own prestige brand. In fact, stop separating those three things into three things - create the "Gibson Elite" range, and have anything of this nature in that brand. Give it it's own website, and pay a good web designer to make sure it looks and feels premium. Charge out the ass for it like Gibson always have done - you remove the confusion of these dozens of models from the main Gibson range, while also taking the image upmarket.

2 - Now that the ridiculously priced stuff is split away from the main lines, focus on developing a minimal, competitively priced and spec'd range of core models with GOOD QC. You need the following:

* - A "Modern Standard" line of SG, V, Explorer, Les Paul - all spec'd the same as each other but with the different body shapes. Give the line modern changes like chambering, contoured neck heels (Not as extreme as Axcess, because people will claim it hurts the tone, but better than traditional), and Locking tuners. Use a traditional nut, stop doing the cryogenic fret bullshit (Nobody cares, and your own marketing says it's expensive to do), stop doing robot tuners (But do steal the pickup-ring-tuner idea from the Epiphone Ultra, that thing is awesome). Recess the TOM lower into the body on these and slightly reduce the neck angle to compensate. If it wouldn't increase production costs, also change the headstock break angle to 13 degrees instead of 17 to reduce "Ping" and make the necks less break-prone.

* - A "Traditional Standard" line of SG, V, Explorer, Les Paul - Solid bodies, no chambering, traditional neck heels etc. The guitar the purists want.

* - A line of non-traditional models that offer something for players outside of your core brand identity. In all seriousness I'd start by "Gibsonising" and modernising a strat. 2-Point Tremolo, H-H, 25.5", set neck and a Gibson style solid-colour finish or trans gloss. Gibson has a big case of "Not Invented Here" when it comes to guitar design, and they need to get over it without alienating their core consumer. This is how they do that.

3 - Give the "Cut down" lines like the faded and the studio to Epiphone as premium lines, rather than marketing them as "Gibsons, but the shitty ones". Having "American Made" Epiphone will strengthen that brand and simplify the core Gibson product line to the point where customers aren't travelling through 8 pages of les pauls just to find the Les Paul Standard on the Gibson website.



Section 3 could be optional, depending on how much reduced Gibson's core lineup actually becomes, but one thing is clear - their stack is confusing as all hell, and polluted beyond belief with a total lack of distinction between what they consider a "Highly premium" line like the collectors series, and what they consider a "Musician's" line like the Les Paul Standard (Which, as mentioned, is overpriced compared to Fender's equivalent American Made models.)

I do also think that a lot of Gibson's pricing problems are caused by the fact they don't want to trash their brand's reputation by releasing super cheap "Gibson" branded models - as a result, the Studio ends up forcing the price of the Standard up, because if there were only a $100 difference, nobody would buy a Studio.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

drmosh said:


> They may be at fault for not providing resources for those brands themselves, but it was implied Gibson themselves should be pushing their other brands. They are de-facto separate companies and may have in themselves fucked up


Please stop acting like I only discussed Onkyo and TEAC in that post. I discussed all of Gibson's sub brands.

Also, TEAC and Onkyo aside, everything else I talked about is *NOT* "De facto separate companies" - they are subdivisions of Gibson and are under Gibson management. Some are subdivisions of subdivisions - for example http://www.krksys.com/ has a "Gibson Pro Audio" logo at the bottom, which is a division of Gibson separate from it's instrument making businesses, but, just like Steinberger.com, it also clearly states "Part of the Gibson Family of Brands".

Gibson's management are directly responsible for what happens to brands they own outright.

That's every brand except TEAC and Onkyo, so let's look at them specifically -

In TEAC's case they own more than half of the company. That's a controlling share, and as a result, Gibson's management are the final word in every action TEAC undertake as a company. The board of directors at TEAC are a separate entity, but ultimately, if Gibson, as the controlling shareholder, say "jump", the management at TEAC either resigns or says "How high".

Does that mean Gibson are invulnerable masters of TEAC? No, not quite - Another shareholder in TEAC could, if they wanted to, attempt to purchase Gibson's shares from them in a hostile takeover, but until that happens, Henry Juszkiewicz is, in all practical senses, the boss at TEAC.

Also, since this news came out and Gibson's future is so uncertain, there's no reason for any other company to make a hostile takeover bid for Gibson's shares, because any company that would have done so is simply going to wait until Gibson defaults and then buy those same shares at a much cheaper price once Gibson has no choice but to sell it's assets.

In Onkyo's case Gibson do not have direct control, but do have a large say in the direction of the company, as they are the second largest shareholder (16.5%) and the largest shareholder only owns 26%, which means the smaller shareholders can group together to demand actions contary to that 26% shareholder's desires, and force their way through via alliances. That makes Onkyo the only company involved here, to which your argument applies.

Even then however, if Gibson were to push within Onkyo's board meetings, for a greater amount of cross-brand promotion, using Gibson's IP and Onkyo's manufacturing, it would be very possible for them to get the Onkyo company to do what they wanted - they would simply have to convince the other shareholders that such a cross-branded product would actually make money on the marketplace. If they convinced the largest shareholder of this, that would mean 16.5%+26%= 42.5%, and thus Gibson would only have to convince 7.5% of the remaining shareholders to agree to the proposal.

That's not at all unrealistic, and Gibson's brand strategy over the last few years has very much indicated that this is why they purchased Onkyo/TEAC shares in the first place.

Ultimately, if you work for any of the companies I listed above, Henry Juszkiewicz is your boss, and whoever he appoints to be your manager works directly for him also - unless you work for Onkyo, in which case you still listen to what he has to say, because he's a big man within that company.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 6, 2017)

I used to absolutely loved Valley Arts Guitars. I can't imagine how wonderful it would have been for that company to have survived long enough to have developed a seven string with the same features they offered in their heyday.

Every time Gibson buys a company, you can safely assume that the company's products are over forever.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

They're not over, exactly.

They're just going into cryogenic stasis, and will look exactly the same in 30 years or 50 years or 500 years - at which time they may exit their time capsule and have to rapidly adjust to a world that has dramatically passed them by.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 6, 2017)

I'll believe it when I see any brand revitalized by Gibson. Until then, I'll never believe it. These brands get their IP snagged up and boxed into a tiny treasure chest, sunk down to the bottom of a snow globe, guarded by piranhas and then hidden behind a plaque placed on a satellite armed with a nuclear warhead set to self-destruct in the event of tampering, and then launched into deep space. The fat lady did her aria and everything. It's over.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

You don't understand. I'm not saying they don't destroy brands. I'm saying they do it by freezing their development entirely.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Sep 6, 2017)

Steinberger is an example. They apparently still make guitars, but what you can get is super limited. They're not gone, but they're not really "here" either. 

Might as well be dead at this point.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 6, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> But the fact is, Gibson OWNS OUTRIGHT, every brand I listed there except Onkyo and TEAC, and yet *none* of those brands have done anything but decline under Gibson's ownership.



Gibson bought those companies when they were already in trouble and not holding their own in the market.



GuitarBizarre said:


> The point I was making is that there aren't anywhere near enough of those people



Fewer people are needed when you target those with deeper wallets.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Sep 6, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Gibson bought those companies when they were already in trouble and not holding their own in the market.



I mean... yeah, that's generally how it works. One company buys out another that's slowly dying and then tries to build it back up so they can start getting some profit from it. Only problem, as Bizzare pointed out, those companies under Gibson are declining...



> Fewer people are needed when you target those with deeper wallets.



Judging by the way things look for them now, I don't think that strategy is working.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Gibson bought those companies when they were already in trouble and not holding their own in the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Fewer people are needed when you target those with deeper wallets.


1 - Yes they did. Then those companies continued to fail, and Gibson in almost every case made them dramatically worse. 

2 - OK. But, again. Gibson have spent the last decade and a half doing exactly that, and as a result they're about to default on millions of dollars in loans. 


You're trying to imply that what Gibson does (aiming at people with deep pockets) is viable to sustain a business. The existence of this thread already proves that isn't true.

Now can you please provide a better analysis of the situation, than to rely on a business model that is literally already failing?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 6, 2017)

I think someone already pointed this out, but as those deeper wallet older players move into retirement, their wallets cinch up pretty tight and their guitars start to go back on the market. Targeting 66 year old dudes who play with their pals once a month or so in a Jimmy Buffet cover band is not a very flexible business model. Obviously, it's not all about metal, but look at how Fender has appealed more to punk musicians (making more affordable instruments), country musicians (all of the nice teles), blues musicians (roadhouse strat, SRV sig, etc.), as well as traditional rock players - not to mention that Fender also sells basses and amplifiers that are highly coveted. I haven't seen a new Gibson bass or amp in years. I think a company can survive by doing one thing very well, but it's not going to be able to remain a huge company unless it is able to play different kinds of ball.

And that's kind of the thing. If you want a nice jazz box, IMO, Ibanez is the market leader. Norman Brown, Pat Metheny, John Scofield, George Benson - all high caliber jazz players endorsed by Ibanez. I just looked at the Gibson artist roster, expecting to see Al Di Meola or somebody, but I didn't see a single jazz artist that I recognized, except Karsh Kale, who I know has solo stuff because one of his songs came as the default mp3 on one of my mp3 players, and prior to that, I only knew him as a guy who played tablas with Trilok Gurtu on a Bill Laswell album (I'm basically saying that their most prominent endorsee in jazz is A) on the fringes of jazz and B) not even known as a guitarist).

Blues is a style of music that is far from en vogue now. The key pillar of blues music was always the spontaneity and improvisation - both things are killed off by things like youtube and soundcloud, as well as declined due to the parallel decline of night clubs in the USA. Even disregarding that, John Mayer and Eric Clapton are most often seen wrestling a strat, and the Strat itself has proven itself time and time again as a premier blues guitar.

There are a few metal guys playing Les Pauls or SG's, particularly on this board, but you'll find a lot fewer than there used to be, and I think that topic has been extensively covered in this thread.

So, as much as I love the ES-175, ES-335, Nighthawk, and Thunderbird designs, none of those would be my first choice for any style of music. Priding yourself in being best at only one thing, and putting all of your eggs into that basket is very dangerous, especially if it turns out that you are only maybe second best at that thing, most optimistically.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

Al Di Meola has been a PRS guy for a looooong time now of course, but yeah, I was surprised Gibson don't make a replica of his original Les Paul, given how many other individual guitars they make reprpductions of.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

Señor Voorhees said:


> Steinberger is an example. They apparently still make guitars, but what you can get is super limited. They're not gone, but they're not really "here" either.
> 
> Might as well be dead at this point.


Yeah. As far as I understand it the situation with Steinberger is that Gibson absolutely will not do a production run until the list for back-orders from retailers means they can sell every guitar produced.

Since almost no retailers will stock "floor" Steinbergers, that basically means that the only way to get one is to put a deposit down on one and wait for a few thousand other people to do the same worldwide.

The last retailer I mentioned this to, told me that they had a guy do that and wait over a year before he eventually just asked for his deposit back and bought something else.

That's what a total lack of promotion will do for you unfortunately - its a damn shame because honestly, current synapse transcales are a wet-dream spec sheet for metal and they would do really well if Gibson could get them into the hands of just a few prominent purveyors of distortion.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 6, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Gibson bought those companies when they were already in trouble and not holding their own in the market.
> 
> 
> 
> Fewer people are needed when you target those with deeper wallets.



like a good corporate strategy is to buy companies when they aren't doing so hot...and make them do better? and not make them do worse? Fender has shuttered a few companies as well but they give it a good try. Jackson and Charvel are doing pretty good right now, marketing wise.

Targeting people with deeper wallets is good when it works. Even lambo and ferrari need corporate sugar daddies to offset a lot of their costs. One of the keys too is to be able to replenish that supply of people with fat wallets. It doesn't do you any good if you market only to one demographic and then all those people get old.







this is gonna save the company. the burst speaker.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

Exactly. Fender ruined Guild, but they've turned Jackson and Charvel into serious contenders in the marketplace - and when Fender bought Jackson it was failing hard and hadn't refreshed its model line significantly for quite some time. The custom shop wait times weren't very long then either, whereas now you're lucky to get a custom Jackson any quicker than a couple years due to popularity and solid endorsements like Bulb.

With Charvel too, they stepped into a marketplace where Gibson left a big, Kramer shaped hole, and dominated it with the SoCal after a marketing push while Gibson sat with their thumbs up their ass.

They also poached EVH and that endorsement/line of products is doing really well for them whereas beforehand the range was limited (basically just wolfgangs from EBMM, whereas now there are frankenstein replicas in multiple finishes alongside those).

Fender aren't perfect and have some hard times ahead for much the same reasons Gibson do, but they've consistently been the better managed company, both in terms of their own product stack and subsidiary ones.

A big part of that is the clear delineation between even related and similar sub-brands.


----------



## thedonal (Sep 6, 2017)

I doubt Gibson will be gone. But it would be nice to see a big change in the company, with more realistic pricing for their 'standard' guitars and a better quality control.

Plus a FAR less over-saturated range. Too many Les Pauls now. Too many signature models. Simplify it, keep the quality up and make it easy for the modders if they wanna mod (even provide the parts!!).

And it'd be nice to see those 'Glass Door' reviews start saying "this is now a great company to work for!".


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 6, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> Exactly. Fender ruined Guild, but they've turned Jackson and Charvel into serious contenders in the marketplace - and when Fender bought Jackson it was failing hard and hadn't refreshed its model line significantly for quite some time. The custom shop wait times weren't very long then either, whereas now you're lucky to get a custom Jackson any quicker than a couple years due to popularity and solid endorsements like Bulb.
> 
> With Charvel too, they stepped into a marketplace where Gibson left a big, Kramer shaped hole, and dominated it with the SoCal after a marketing push while Gibson sat with their thumbs up their ass.
> 
> ...



I really want to sit in on the meeting when some marketing guys decided that it was a good idea to price USA Gibsons at or below Epiphone prices. 

I mean Ibanez is kinda doing the same thing right now but from what I understand there's a maybe good believable reason why they are starting a really big push towards that right now.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 6, 2017)

They wont die entirely, but I expect a buyout and new management. Hopefully whoever ends up with the Gibson brand doesn't just buy it to pull a Ferrari and sell branded baseball caps.

Diagrammatiks - Ibanez's excuse is that japanese craftsmanship is why you buy a prestige with basic features for $1000, and bleeding edge features are why you buy an Indo made guitar for the same price. Its a little confusing to non-guitar-nerds but its not an invalid argument, really.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 6, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> They wont die entirely, but I expect a buyout and new management. Hopefully whoever ends up with the Gibson brand doesn't just buy it to pull a Ferrari and sell branded baseball caps.
> 
> Diagrammatiks - Ibanez's excuse is that japanese craftsmanship is why you buy a prestige with basic features for $1000, and bleeding edge features are why you buy an Indo made guitar for the same price. Its a little confusing to non-guitar-nerds but its not an invalid argument, really.



Ya that's the short term marketing message. But the long term plan is that they aren't sure how long they can depend on fgn. They don't have their own plant in Japan and they aren't going to build one.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 7, 2017)

I suspect many don't understand that the Indonesian production exists to take over once Japanese production ends.


----------



## couverdure (Sep 7, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> I suspect many don't understand that the Indonesian production exists to take over once Japanese production ends.


Ibanez releases an Indo guitar with nice specs: "I wish this was a Prestige instead."
Ibanez release a Japanese guitar with nice specs: "This is too expensive and should have a fixed bridge instead!"

Case in point: the Iron Label RGAs with BKPs and the new Prestige RGAs.

I have to disagree with your statement because things like Premiums exist for the same reason "vanilla" Prestiges do.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 7, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> I suspect many don't understand that the Indonesian production exists to take over once Japanese production ends.



I know this!! i heard it on the internet. from two different places.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 8, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> I know this!! i heard it on the internet. from two different places.



Both probably me in a trenchcoat.

Gentlemen, my hypothesis is straightforward: It is no stretch to infer that Indonesian price tiers have climbed to overlap with the Japanese because Ibanez needs the market metrics to know at what rate they can afford to continue increasing production at the cheaper factory while decreasing production in the expensive one. I take the "value-added" marketing push of Indo specs to mean that Ibanez wants to expedite this transition.

Now to see which I'll be accused of more: Stating the obvious, or posting wild speculation.


----------



## Sogradde (Sep 8, 2017)

I suspect Ibanez would lose a significant portion of their customer base, if they get rid of MIJ guitars (me included btw), considering their recent decline in quality. 
There is no way in hell I would ever buy an indo guitar for prestige prices, no matter the features.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 8, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> Both probably me in a trenchcoat.
> 
> Gentlemen, my hypothesis is straightforward: It is no stretch to infer that Indonesian price tiers have climbed to overlap with the Japanese because Ibanez needs the market metrics to know at what rate they can afford to continue increasing production at the cheaper factory while decreasing production in the expensive one. I take the "value-added" marketing push of Indo specs to mean that Ibanez wants to expedite this transition.
> 
> Now to see which I'll be accused of more: Stating the obvious, or posting wild speculation.





Sogradde said:


> I suspect Ibanez would lose a significant portion of their customer base, if they get rid of MIJ guitars (me included btw), considering their recent decline in quality.
> There is no way in hell I would ever buy an indo guitar for prestige prices, no matter the features.




They literally have no choice. It's a just a countdown until fgn says they aren't making anymore guitars at this point. 

What will most likely happen is that they will retain the guitar research and development shop as a high level Japanese custom shop.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 8, 2017)

^+1.

Americans will buy Indonesian Ibanez instead of Japanese for the same reason they buy Japanese instead of American (LACS): The choice will not be available to the consumer.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 8, 2017)

Sure is Gibson in this thread right now.


----------



## couverdure (Sep 8, 2017)

Sogradde said:


> I suspect Ibanez would lose a significant portion of their customer base, if they get rid of MIJ guitars (me included btw), considering their recent decline in quality.
> There is no way in hell I would ever buy an indo guitar for prestige prices, no matter the features.


Define "decline". I don't consider people on this site complaining about lemons to be a large portion of their customers. A lot of you are also forgetting that Ibanez is first and foremost a company based in Japan so it wouldn't make sense to cease operations on their Prestige guitars, that would be like ESP stopping focus on everything (including their music education services in Japan) just to make LTDs.

A high-end Prestige would still have less flaws than a Gibson that's twice its price.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 8, 2017)

couverdure said:


> Define "decline". I don't consider people on this site complaining about lemons to be a large portion of their customers. A lot of you are also forgetting that Ibanez is first and foremost a company based in Japan so it wouldn't make sense to cease operations on their Prestige guitars, that would be like ESP stopping focus on everything (including their music education services in Japan) just to make LTDs.
> 
> A high-end Prestige would still have less flaws than a Gibson that's twice its price.



Ibanez has never ever owned a factory in Japan. All of the prestige guitars are built under license at fgn. So yes it wouldn't make sense for ibanez to say one day. We aren't making Japanese guitars anymore. But it does make sense for fgn to say wow making guitars makes no money compared to everything else that we do here.

http://www.fujigen.co.jp/

Look at the fgn landing page. Which side do you think makes more money


----------



## Sogradde (Sep 8, 2017)

Sorry for hijacking the thread but I feel this issue is tangentially related as it's kind of a placeholder discussion for the whole guitar industry at the moment.


couverdure said:


> Define "decline". I don't consider people on this site complaining about lemons to be a large portion of their customers. A lot of you are also forgetting that Ibanez is first and foremost a company based in Japan so it wouldn't make sense to cease operations on their Prestige guitars, that would be like ESP stopping focus on everything (including their music education services in Japan) just to make LTDs.


Well according to Rich it's more than just a few lemons. Most of the recent maple fretboard guitars for example were sent back due to quality issues. Also it might be coincidence but I see more questionable Ibanez related NGDs than happy ones. Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive Ibanez fanboy but I feel the overall quality (or rather QC?) of Ibanez is moving downhill, while prices keep going up. And it's not exactly like in the car industry, where there are breakthroughs and new systems every year, it's been mostly the same design and build process for at least 30 years. There is literally no excuse for these quality issues.



couverdure said:


> A high-end Prestige would still have less flaws than a Gibson that's twice its price.


I guess I'd agree on this one. 


diagrammatiks said:


> Look at the fgn landing page. Which side do you think makes more money


I don't think FGN are losing out on anything when accounting for costs of raw materials and upkeep. The guitars are paid for by Ibanez, whether they sell in the end or not is irrelevant for the profit FGN makes.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 8, 2017)

Sogradde said:


> Sorry for hijacking the thread but I feel this issue is tangentially related as it's kind of a placeholder discussion for the whole guitar industry at the moment.
> 
> Well according to Rich it's more than just a few lemons. Most of the recent maple fretboard guitars for example were sent back due to quality issues. Also it might be coincidence but I see more questionable Ibanez related NGDs than happy ones. Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive Ibanez fanboy but I feel the overall quality (or rather QC?) of Ibanez is moving downhill, while prices keep going up. And it's not exactly like in the car industry, where there are breakthroughs and new systems every year, it's been mostly the same design and build process for at least 30 years. There is literally no excuse for these quality issues.
> 
> ...



it's really simple when you consider how production works. FGN has 3 factories. Some of these factories work on the electronics and audio stuff. The rest is all wood. FGN doesn't care if it's turning wood into a guitar or into a dashboard. It does care that the profit margins on the dashboards is much more then the guitar profits on a dashboard. 

What ibanez is worried about is that one day FGN is going to be be like our dashboard section is at capacity and we're using all the guitar space for dashboards now. If it's more profitable for them they are going to do it.


----------



## Sogradde (Sep 8, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> It does care that the profit margins on the dashboards is much more then the guitar profits on a dashboard.


Do you have a source for that though? Not saying you're wrong, just genuinely curious about those numbers.


----------



## Womb raider (Sep 8, 2017)

So Ibanez has no contract with FGN and at any time they can decide to flip the switch off?


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 8, 2017)

Fujigen are not making more money out of car parts etc - that section of their business didn't EXIST until very recently, and if you look at it, they're clearly promoting themselves as woodworkers looking to expand into industries where they have no presence - otherwise that section of their site wouldn't feature advertisement for everything from kitchen veneers, to car dashboards, to wooden speakers and music boxes.

You're reading an awful lot of stuff into a situation where there is zero credible evidence to back up what you're saying. You're taking actions made by FGN to be aggressive towards Ibanez, rather than the company looking to expand into new areas, and you're conflating all of this with being the result of some mysterious Ibanez "masterplan" that doesn't exist.


----------



## couverdure (Sep 8, 2017)

Sogradde said:


> Well according to Rich it's more than just a few lemons. Most of the recent maple fretboard guitars for example were sent back due to quality issues. Also it might be coincidence but I see more questionable Ibanez related NGDs than happy ones. Don't get me wrong, I'm a massive Ibanez fanboy but I feel the overall quality (or rather QC?) of Ibanez is moving downhill, while prices keep going up. And it's not exactly like in the car industry, where there are breakthroughs and new systems every year, it's been mostly the same design and build process for at least 30 years. There is literally no excuse for these quality issues.



I believe most of these issues have something to do with the materials used, they seem to be more apparent on models that have exotic woods and finishes. Other than that, I never heard complaints from models with regular finishes and fretboards or even the basses with lots of exotic finishes.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 8, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> Fujigen are not making more money out of car parts etc - that section of their business didn't EXIST until very recently, and if you look at it, they're clearly promoting themselves as woodworkers looking to expand into industries where they have no presence - otherwise that section of their site wouldn't feature advertisement for everything from kitchen veneers, to car dashboards, to wooden speakers and music boxes.
> 
> You're reading an awful lot of stuff into a situation where there is zero credible evidence to back up what you're saying. You're taking actions made by FGN to be aggressive towards Ibanez, rather than the company looking to expand into new areas, and you're conflating all of this with being the result of some mysterious Ibanez "masterplan" that doesn't exist.



Ya man their whole business is turning wood into things. That's what I said. Like why would you be aggressively expanding your business form turning wood into guitars into turning wood into everything else possible if your guitars were at capacity and doing great. 

Philip McKnight has talked about it some. I've read it in a few other places. 

But whatever. We can see how the status of prestige is in like 10 years.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 8, 2017)

Prediction: _Prestigious._


----------



## bostjan (Sep 8, 2017)

How ironic would it be, though, if one of the companies Gibson sued in the past ended up buying them out?


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 8, 2017)

Thing is, who has the money? Any buyout is gonna have to cover that $510,000,000


----------



## fps (Sep 9, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> *Variety is the biggest.* Gibson are horrible when it comes to designing guitars that stand out from each other. Yes the Explorer, V, LP, SG and even the Epiphone stuff like the Moderne, are radically different looking guitars - but every single one of them is a 24.75" Scale length 2 Humbucker guitar with a Les Paul style 3 Way toggle and a TOM bridge.
> 
> Is that bad? No, but Gibson have ZERO product differentiation on a substantial practical level.
> 
> ...



This is a great post, I just wanted to reply to a couple of bits of it. I don't think Gibson *needs* to offer 25.5 scale, nor blade switches, and a couple of other bits. It also has added P90s to a few of its guitars which is cool, and the kind of thing they should be doing. I agree they should be doing more with their pickup options (P90s, single coils etc) and they should offer different bridges which are in keeping with the kind of tradition they seem intent on keeping, perhaps adding a Bigsby, an Evertune (good way to keep the tuning on 24.75, could go in one of those chambers of theirs ?).

Bill Kelliher has gone to ESP hasn't he? There is an issue with sig guitars and their price, and Gibson itself has an issue with price. Firstly, sig guitars. Gibson do have some marketable players, such as, having a quick look, Brent Hinds (waaay more of a draw than Bill IMO), and James Bay (we'll see if he can keep up his success), but the sigs are Epiphone, not Gibson. It's the equivalent of a Squier sig - except it's very expensive but not the pinnacle. They have relevant big figures such as Matt Heafy, and again they don't have Gibson sigs. If they DID, those sigs would be completely unaffordable anyway.

Which brings us to the second problem, which is price. Gibson Les Pauls etc are very, VERY expensive for a top model. But there are so many of them around by now that there isn't a justification for such a price point for an item that isn't rare. PRS, for example, their CU24 is an incredibly expensive guitar... but they're constantly being tweaked, and they've only been made since the 80s. There isn't the same rarity value with a Les Paul, and as we know there also isn't the quality value there in terms of modern progression or versatility - it's in the design (by versatility I don't just mean tones, where there are lots in there, but things like trem, 24 frets).

As you say, there need to be some changes. More baritones and 7s would be a good idea IMO. It might be commercial suicide but I think price point is a big one, or at least creating signature models for guitarists who people love, with the Gibson logo on them at a price point which is accessible but doesn't sacrifice quality. What happened with Brent Hinds would be a prime example. A Slash signature Les Paul, at the end of the day, is just another Les Paul. And it'll be 2/3x more expensive than a Fender signature model, in general. They could use those artists to really shake up their models.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 9, 2017)

You're making the mistake of assuming that what gibson "seems intent" on doing, is actually business viable. 

Gibson are failing because people aren't buying their guitars. 

People aren't buying their guitars because they're not attractive to players. It's that simple. They need to change. There's a reason set neck 2 hum archtop guitars make up only a small portion of most other companies ranges, and it's because they don't sustain a business on their own.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Sep 9, 2017)

There is already an Ibanez Tier quality thread for this.

Anyways instead of bitching and complaining that will not buy anyway because youve never liked Gibson


GuitarBizarre said:


> You're making the mistake of assuming that what gibson "seems intent" on doing, is actually business viable.
> 
> Gibson are failing because people aren't buying their guitars.
> 
> People aren't buying their guitars because they're not attractive to players. It's that simple. They need to change. There's a reason set neck 2 hum archtop guitars make up only a small portion of most other companies ranges, and it's because they don't sustain a business on their own.



Your talking about a smaller niche of players who are not attracted to a les paul anymore in comparison with the rest of pop/rock/blues world which is much larger than its bitchy, nit-picky/genre-war-starting "dont watch it if you dont like it" metal stepchild. Basically Gibson is not catering to the shred guys, but thats it. Should they be trying in order to get more customers? Sure. Should they lower their prices all in all? Absolutley.

But to say their guitars are not attractive to "players"..........youve gone off the deep end with that one


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 9, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> There is already an Ibanez Tier quality thread for this.
> 
> Anyways instead of bitching and complaining that will not buy anyway because youve never liked Gibson
> 
> ...



Gibson has tried to do some stuff...

the earlier set of doublecuts were pretty good and way more affordable then the moderne they just put out. 
but no one bought them


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Sep 9, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> Gibson has tried to do some stuff...
> 
> the earlier set of doublecuts were pretty good and way more affordable then the moderne they just put out.
> but no one bought them



They tried......or id say dabbled with some different things. Not too much of it stuck though. But that doesnt mean they should stop trying. And theyre not stopping. But maybe they need some guitar shredders working on their team right beside the blues dads.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 9, 2017)

duplicate


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 9, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> But to say their guitars are not attractive to "players"..........youve gone off the deep end with that one


Then why is their company not selling enough guitars to finance their $500+ million in debt? Why are their sub-brands (Valley Arts, Steinberger, Kramer) failing so hard compared to sub brands from the competition (Jackson, Charvel)?

This is what I don't get. You're like the 5th person to talk to me specifically as if Gibson's business model makes sense and will work.

If it *WORKED*, they wouldn't be about to default on their DEBTS. They wouldn't *HAVE* debts! 

Gibson in 2017 has a reputation for poor quality control, a weak range in terms of variety, terrible management, bringing in features to their guitars that absolutely nobody cares about (Cryogenic frets, robot tuners), and the remarkable ability to have a CHEAPER sub-brand (Epiphone) that has both a better reputation for quality, and a more diverse model range.

Neither I, nor many, many other players want to buy into that - And I say that as someone who has mentioned several times in this thread, that I own a Gibson-era Steinberger that I *love* - but it took a 40% discount from MSRP to convince me to take the risk.

It has nothing to do with living in some sort of metalhead bubble - I am very, very far from being that kind of player, or music fan. It has everything to do with the fact Gibson have been battling these problems.

And lets be clear - they've been battling these problems for THE MAJORITY OF THIS CENTURY. 

At first, that didn't matter. They had brand equity to spare and the reputation seemed bulletproof, so the QC was annoying, but didn't hurt them.

But they *never* fixed the issue - nor any other issue in the list. And now their goodwill from the wider guitar player community is running out. People are more informed on quality than ever before. People also research more than ever before, and Gibson don't come up smelling of roses when people do that. Hell, why do you think they bought Harmony Central?


----------



## blacai (Sep 10, 2017)

You don't manage to get such a big debt if your business model works...
They can continue trying to sell unicorns to the old true rock guys, but that will not give them the glory back.


----------



## fps (Sep 10, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> But they *never* fixed the issue - nor any other issue in the list. And now their goodwill from the wider guitar player community is running out. People are more informed on quality than ever before. People also research more than ever before, and Gibson don't come up smelling of roses when people do that. Hell, why do you think they bought Harmony Central?



I'm not sure that so many people really research up like we do as guitar geeks. I agree it's important to us, but there are also other factors, such as the sheer variety of exciting young guitar companies, the amount of other music gear to buy now (I could buy a Les Paul, but I could get some great recording gear AND a world class guitar for the price of one), the decline in the number of young guitarists (very important IMO) as other forms of music rise to prominence, and the issues of finance that come with an economic downturn, both as a business and for their consumers. They are in an ever-decreasing circle, it seems. Which is a shame, because their good guitars are magical. I'm very confused by their range and tiers of guitars too.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 10, 2017)

fps said:


> I'm not sure that so many people really research up like we do as guitar geeks. I agree it's important to us, but there are also other factors, such as the sheer variety of exciting young guitar companies, the amount of other music gear to buy now (I could buy a Les Paul, but I could get some great recording gear AND a world class guitar for the price of one), the decline in the number of young guitarists (very important IMO) as other forms of music rise to prominence, and the issues of finance that come with an economic downturn, both as a business and for their consumers. They are in an ever-decreasing circle, it seems. Which is a shame, because their good guitars are magical. I'm very confused by their range and tiers of guitars too.


Those things are factors, but they're not killing other companies right now, and the reason is that Gibson are shrinking faster.

For every sale lost to a shrinking marketplace, Gibson are losing 2 and Fender are taking the other 1, giving it a nice cup of tea and saying "There there, come here, we'll treat you better than Gibson ever did".

Also, almost everyone these days does at least SOME googling before they drop several hundred on a guitar.

10 years ago if you did that for Gibson, you wouldn't find much negative press, but these days there are THOUSANDS of threads slamming their quality control that are easy to find and have piled up over that time.

Also, while someone may not personally be a gear nerd, guitar players talk to each other, and they try gear all the time at local shops - if your quality is trash, there's no way to keep the secret forever.

They're finally beginning to see that their "invincible" reputation as a quality product has gone down the pan with a lot of players, and those players don't let other players buy shitty gear and waste their money either. (Which is why every time someone on this forum expresses interest in buying a Gibson, 20 people show up to say "PLAY IT FIRST BECAUSE THE QC IS AWFUL")


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Sep 10, 2017)

It could just be that people have mass hysteria comparable to scared stock investors............one guy who has invested in a company hears about a hurricane coming and gets scared and pulls out, a hundred other guys follow suit and pull out.

Yes it falls on bad reputation but is the reputation justified or has the hate, snobbery and disdain just increased? Now i am not a Gibson fanboy, but i do feel that alot of the negative reviews are magnified. To the people that are specifically looking for bad reviews, then the bad reviews are what they will find while glossing over 10 other reviews of happy customers who had 0 problems. So then you might say, "well then why is Gibson losing money?" Id agree its because of their recent negative reputation but then id say that perhaps that reputation is just magnified.

Not for nothing but i do notice certain things about this forum. For example threads like.....

NGD! - Ibanez RG(pick your number)
Usually two to four pages of celebration, drooling and praise and similar situation-story telling of having this guitar before. (Which is fine)

Thread entitled - Lets talk about the Ibanez RG121.
28 pages long

Then we have.

NGD - Gibson Les Paul
Maybe 3 or 4 posts just saying "congrats"

NGD - Gibson "QC fail never again"!
4 or 5 pages of straight bashing

I see threads about a Gibson with poor QC and the response is, return it and get an Ibanez. I see a thread about an Ibanez with QC issues and the response is, return it and get another Ibanez. So its no surprise this forum is very Ibanez/MIJ biased. And i do understand you can get great guitars at a more affordable price. And i understand that. Out of my 7 guitars i own, only one of them is made in USA. (2000 Gibson LP special. My baby. I have many indonesian/korean guitars and theyre all great.)

"But its not just this forum recognizing Gibsons problems". No its not. I never said it was. However, is it just magnified because Gibson doesnt make the most shred freindly guitars and people are sour about that; so when theres a QC problem the haters attack like coyotes? Or is it really that bad? Because fwiw, having tried many newer Gibsons at stores recently, most of them were honestly great. Maybe i just got lucky idk.

Just remember, all it takes is one bad review to set a chain reaction and trigger a wave of "pulling out". (Remember that comparison involving the stock investors?)

Remember that one thread about Kiesel that was 50 pages long and still going all because one guy had a problem? (Yes i realize it was more of a customer service problem, but negativity in any way spreads like wildfire) sometimes its justified and rightfully so, sometimes its just straight hate/bias


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 10, 2017)

I don't think it's unjust. Maybe there are more of them, but then, Gibson sell more guitars than Kiesel or others do.

With Kiesel, people bring up specific examples of problems over and over again. It's the same with Schecter, and the same with Ibanez. A specific problem gets identified and brought up repeatedly.

With Gibson, what is the specific problem? It's not that the frets aren't being crowned (Schecter) or that the wrong type of hipshot bridge is being used (Kiesel) etc. It's just that they keep getting the building of their own designs wrong.

When they released those "replica but not replica" 1984 Explorers, I saw one guy on a different forum get 3 of them. The first had the side dots 2mm off the entire way up the neck. The second had lifting frets and the third had a disconnected bridge pickup - he kept the third and just fixed it himself, but that's unacceptable.

Recently someone here had a thread about the Lizzy Hale guitar and the various fuckups on that too.

I've seen dozens of threads over time and it's never one consistent, design or procedure fault. It is just that Gibson continue to build shitty guitars and continues to try and sell them to customers instead of doing the proper checks at the factory.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Sep 10, 2017)

Even in terms of "biased" comments, I think there's something to all this.

From my understanding, the people who simply show up bash Gibson (while, granted, a few might just be experiencing fanboyism for another brand) have heard enough horror stories from people with real experience that they've been talked out of buying from Gibson. Now they're simply spreading the word.

Its reached the point where people don't even need to own a Gibson to come into a thread and say "Yeah, Gibson's QC is notoriously bad, don't even bother," and be justified in saying that.

"Notorious" is the key term here. How did they get that notoriety if not by having numerous fuckups?

Is it magnified by the fact that this forum isn't exactly heavy on the Gibson fanboys willing to stick up for the brand? Perhaps. But that doesn't take away from the fact that its a provably consistent problem. One which I don't see, for example, with Fender, another brand which isn't exactly a primary choice around here.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 10, 2017)

For that matter, I have seen Fenders with truly dumb problems from factory, also.

Just nowhere NEAR as many.

And even when there aren't explicit "problems", most Gibsons play relatively poorly for their cost. Most Fenders don't.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Sep 11, 2017)

I must be lucky. Out of the 9 or so Gibsons we have in the house, only one is what I'd consider an (aesthetically) unacceptable guitar. 

My LP is my favorite 6 string, and my explorer plays great. The one guitar that is unacceptable is an SG with the worst inlays imaginable. Even then, though, the guitar feels and sounds great. They're all also bought sight unseen, so we didn't have to dig through tons to find a few that are great. 

I wholly believe that they hit a rough patch, lost people's faith, then tried charging outlandish prices for guitars people just had no interest in. I genuinely like Gibson guitars, but I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy. They've done plenty of questionable things. I just think they get a weird bad rap. Partially justified, but over done.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 11, 2017)

Oh well everyone can hate but I'm buying one of these...







... Maybe I'll wait until they have more solvency issues and the price drops!


----------



## blacai (Sep 11, 2017)

USMarine75 said:


> Oh well everyone can hate but I'm buying one of these...
> 
> 
> 
> ... Maybe I'll wait until they have more solvency issues and the price drops!



I am sorry to say... I think they will raise the prices even higher if they have more severe solvency issues. That's how Juszkiewicz's mind works and the reason they are how they are


----------



## caspian (Sep 11, 2017)

I feel like I got pretty lucky with the two les pauls I had. First one.. bought completely blind in 2005. Amazing guitar- I'm not sure if I got a particularly nice bit of wood but it was ridiculously heavy, far heavier than any other guitar I've played, and it was a complete force of nature. Barely controllable, but ridiculous bass response, I mean this in a good way. Anything but a bad dad rock guitar.

Anyway, that one got stolen but I bought another one in '08, not blind but basically bought the first one I came across. It's had a tiny bit of fret work done since then, that's it. The best sounding guitar I own, the easiest to play that I own, stays in tune well, good electronics, nice neck and ridiculously versatile, everything from thrash metal to shoegaze to bad dad rock cover band no problem. So to an extent I'm definitely willing to stand up for the guitars gibson make.

But I'm not willing to stand up for the way they treat their employees, for their horrible approach to IP/intimidation via lawsuits, and the way they've approached their business the last few years has been laughable, just completely tone deaf.

I think things will get better when the baby boomer generation dies out, just like everything else really!


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 11, 2017)

I guess it also depends on where you buy them. I bought my three new Gibsons at Thomann and had zero issues with them (a LP tribute, a Bill Kelliher and a 2016 limited flying V natural) so either I'm lucky, Thomann does a check on the guitars (Doubtful for at least the Tributes, they likely sell hundreds per year) or the issue isn't affecting that many individual guitars compared to the mass sold.


----------



## Mathemagician (Sep 11, 2017)

I just want to see a LP in the $1500-1800 range with an ebony board and a modern deeper cutaway for upper fret access with their newer neck heel.

Instead Epiphone offers the Matt Heafy model as the closest I'm getting unless I drop $3.2k for a burst I don't want with an ugly rosewood fretboard and their STUPID "robot tuners".

I may still get the heafy one day. But Gibson is missing the chance to get more out of me. And the time I've spent playing other guitars has me now leaning towards a PRE single cut. They are GORGEOUS and feel great to play. 

Just like them NEVER releasing a flat black/white explorer with direct mount pickups and EMG's during the late 90's-mid 2000's, when fucking everyone wanted a "Hetfield" explorer.

They have been riding thier reputation forever with the "I just buy stuff I've seen before" older crowd. And have refused to do more than the occasional token "goth" run from like 13 years ago now.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

Les Paul Gold Top smashed and thrown in the dumpster because of "an inventory issue."

How wasteful.

If Gibson folds, which it won't, but if it did, then the price of all of the nicer Gibsons out there are going to probably triple, or maybe even quadruple, for a little while, but then, people will just realize that the 1959 Gibsons might be worth their weight in gold, but the 2017 Gibsons are not fetching the prices people are demanding, and the whole thing is just going to fizzle out.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 11, 2017)

Depends, I'm pretty sure if I hold up to my Kelliher it could be worth a pretty penny later on. Or maybe even now, come to think of it.
But even if they do default, someone will buy the brand.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 11, 2017)

Andromalia - That's massively optimistic. 

The used market doesn't really care how good a guitar is in the long run. There are plenty of great old washburns out there, G2J, Zion guitars, etc and they're all well below what they cost new. Hell, for how many years now have RG550s been both sought after, and dirt-cheap compared to a modern Ibanez equivalent? Sure they're going up, but not as fast as the RRP on a bought-new equivalent guitar.

Are there some brands that fetch more? Yes. The high quality, ahead-of-their-time, experimental ones that failed on the marketplace and nobody bothered to step up and offer the same features again in another range.

But no matter how fancy the Les Paul, the fact is that a modern-era Gibson is going to do exactly what Bostjan said on the used market in the unlikely event of Gibson folding up without a buyout. There is no unique market cache that wouldn't be immediately eaten up by 5 other companies making their own Les Pauls with lower prices and better quality. Everyone knows ESP would immediately make the Eclipse a proper LP copy again if they could, and so many other companies would jump into the market to do the same thing if the legal barriers were removed.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 11, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> People aren't buying their guitars because they're not attractive to players. It's that simple. They need to change. There's a reason set neck 2 hum archtop guitars make up only a small portion of most other companies ranges, and it's because they don't sustain a business on their own.



Just about every single thing you have said is nothing more than opinion. "No one wants them anymore" "They build poopy guitars" "[Random shredder] is more viable as signature artists than Slash."

Full disclosure: I have bought numerous top end Gibson out of the Custom Shop over the last 10 years. The quality has been top notch on each one of them. And, I just picked up an outstanding Keb Mo signature model a few months ago, because he is the kinda guy I love to listen to - Mastadon and djent don't do anything for me. 

Gibson is failing because they aren't moving as many guitars anymore. There a zillion on the used market at every possible price point. That is what happens when you are an industry leader for 80 years. People have bought them, sold them, bought others, moved on, etc. It is hard to compete against yourself in a flooded market. It is simple. I don't know how they are going to fix it, but that's not my problem. If they make something I like, I will buy it.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 11, 2017)

Oh please, are you really pulling the Lebowski defense on my criticism of their weakened reputation, well documented QC issues, and irrelevant artist roster?

Here's a tip - Just because something is subjective, doesn't mean all arguments are equally valid, and it doesn't mean I can't support my positions more effectively or more completely than you can support yours, so why don't you try addressing what I'm saying instead of trying to pull this "That's just your opinion, man" bullshit on me?

I've repeated this it feels like 100 times, but apparently too many words in a post prevents anyone from actually reading what I'm saying, so let me give you the shortest possible bullet points as to why Gibson are failing:

1 - Aging artist roster with no well supported young blood
2 - Terrible subsidiary management leading to the almost total irrelevance of Steinberger, Slingerland, Valley Arts, Tobias, Dobro, Baldwin and Kramer
3 - Overreliance on a market of aging baby boomers who are either dying, or buying fewer guitars as they get older
4 - Unwillingness to diversify their product lines, even via subsidiary expansion to retain the "traditional" Gibson image.
5 - Lack of technical innovation called for by players, in favour of innovations widely dismissed or mocked by players
6 - Confusing product stack with no clear definitions between quality levels or specific ranges
7 - Bad website design (No guitar company has the best website, but PRS, Ibanez, Jackson and Fender all have much easier to navigate online presence)
8 - Wood seizures under the Lacey Act
9 - Poor response to those wood seizures (Richlite is a fine material, but when Taylor started using streaked Ebony they marketed it and now maccassar and pale moon ebony is very marketable. When CITES killed rosewood boards, every manufacturer moved to Maple or Ebony.)
10 - Extremely weak attempts at visual design (I loved the Zoot Suit SG, but for the same reason everyone else hated it - it looked tacky as hell
11 - Weak quality control.
12 - Stronger competition in the marketplace
13 - Shrinking marketplace
14 - Greater likelihood of players buying used.

I include the last 3 because they are, absolutely, factors in why Gibson aren't a billion dollar company, although that raises it's own questions regarding how they thought they were going to finance $520,000,000 in loans.

Ultimately, I will shed no tears when Gibson folds on this debt and gets purchased by someone else. They absolutely can't do a worse job, and even if that somehow happened, all it would mean to most players and people, is the continuation of a long process.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 11, 2017)

Pssst. We all know that you aren't going to shed a tear. You have been celebrating their demise it like you lost your virginity to every model at Victoria's Secret simultaneously. 

1-14 are all still your opinion.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 11, 2017)

You're right, they are, and I've supported those opinions far better than you have so far.

Are you going to sit there and repeat that meaningless statement over and over or are you actually going to provide some useful commentary on why you disagree with what I've said? I ask, because that's kind of necessary unless you really don't understand the fundamental problem with the "lebowski defense".


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 11, 2017)

Look, mate. I am probably old enough to be your dad. I have never seen the movie, but I have heard of it... pop culture references aren't really my area of expertise. And what is the point of systematically going through your list on 14 opinions with rebuttals? You are championing their demise like you have something to gain from an American institution going down the drain. I'd rather see them fix their mess and continue making excellent instruments. Gibson is a luxury brand in trouble. They are paying the price of a rapidly shrinking middle class with less money to spend on new gear - especially when there are 4500 used Les Pauls on Reverb right now. It is hard to compete with yourself when there are hundred of thousands of your instruments already in the market place.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 11, 2017)

people act like this is the first time Gibsons been in trouble.
They nearly went under 2 other times before this and were rescued with varying degrees of success. 
Selling off their mismanaged acquisitions and then having someone else buy the core brand might be the best thing that could happen to them.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 11, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> Then why is their company not selling enough guitars to finance their $500+ million in debt?



You're looking at this as is it is only a sales issue, but the economy has gone downhill since they issued these bonds, so it is probably more difficult and more expensive to raise money today than it was at that time. So they may well be selling less today, but their issues with refinancing their debt are more involved than merely sales.




GuitarBizarre said:


> Why are their sub-brands (Valley Arts, Steinberger, Kramer) failing so hard compared to sub brands from the competition (Jackson, Charvel)?



Simple: Gibson does not promote them; they may as well not exist. Not the best business decision IMO, but it has nothing to do with people not wanting them. They simply don't know about them.




GuitarBizarre said:


> This is what I don't get. You're like the 5th person to talk to me specifically as if Gibson's business model makes sense and will work.
> 
> If it *WORKED*, they wouldn't be about to default on their DEBTS.



I'm not sure their business model is what's failing, and I doubt they'll end up defaulting on their current debt. They definitely need to address the issues with how they treat their employees and employee morale. They need to continue innovating, but focus on "real world" innovation rather than boardroom innovation. They need to better market to the younger players. They need to reconsider the price points of some of their guitars. But I think most of that (aside from the employee issues) are more minor tweaks than going back to the drawing board.




GuitarBizarre said:


> They wouldn't *HAVE* debts



Debt isn't necessarily a bad thing in business. By combining the investors' money with additional borrowed money, the business is generally able to achieve a higher return on investment after servicing the debt than with the invested capital alone. This is called leverage because the debt acts as a lever to increase the results over the invested capital.

I haven't looked into Gibson's finances, but they may very well be over leveraged. Or the debt market may suck right now for privately held businesses. Or their sales may be down too much year over year. Or whatever. But Gibson won't be the first, nor the last, company to raise money via junk bonds and/or be purchased by another player in their market.




GuitarBizarre said:


> Gibson in 2017 has a reputation for poor quality control



They do online, but I'm not so sure they do IRL. At least I haven't heard much about it from players I know IRL.

But as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I've played a number of Gibsons over the past two years or so and I've only encountered minor finish issues. Things that shouldn't exist at the price points, but not particularly big deals in and of themselves.

Based on this, I'm not sure there really is such a QC problem at Gibson. Maybe it's there and I haven't come across it, but with as many as I've played lately, I should have run across several duds by now and I haven't.

I think the bigger issue (aside from the employee issues) was adding robot tuners to the 2016 line (or was it 2015?) and raising prices, only to have that poor decision fail and have to revert back to what was more or less their 2015 lineup.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 11, 2017)

They invested a lot of money into those robo tuners. an absurd amount of money.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

There are also 4500 used Strats, though, and 4500 used RG's. IDK, maybe Fender and Ibanez are in the same sort of trouble.

I think this thread has turned a couple of times into the "I told you so" versus "I disagree with you, but don't care to explain why" posterchild-thread. If Gibson was reading this thread, maybe something said here would matter, but I doubt it, so I doubt it.

If Gibson does go under, just expect whatever other brand to run into some unforseen financial issues, then the folks who are not gloating in here can pop up in that thread to gloat about brand x failing.

I think it's reasonable to say that their habit of dumping inexplicable amounts of capital into weird R&D that has ended up *not improving sales* is going to catch up with them sooner or later.


----------



## Sumsar (Sep 11, 2017)

To long didn't read the whole thread, just a couple of pages.

Some people talk about the possibility that if Gibson vanish then other companies can make 1:1 copies without getting sued.

Quick question on American copyright law: How long does copyright last over there? Surely the guys that came up with the Les Paul, SG and others are long gone, so how is it that the copyrights don't die with them or otherwise run out after say 50 years or something like that?

Totally different I know, but on medicine I think the copyright/patent last for 15 years, so after that period everyone can make cheap copies of the product, which ofc benefits the consumer / patient / countries with free healthcare and medicine. The 15 years is apparently enough to make companies invest money in developing medicine.

TLDR: how the hell can Gibson uphold copyright for a 50+ year old design?


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 11, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> To long didn't read the whole thread, just a couple of pages.
> 
> Some people talk about the possibility that if Gibson vanish then other companies can make 1:1 copies without getting sued.
> 
> ...



Things pass into public domain weirdly. Depending on what the thing is and if the copyright can be renewed. They could have as long as 120 years unless there is no one to defend the copyright.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> To long didn't read the whole thread, just a couple of pages.
> 
> Some people talk about the possibility that if Gibson vanish then other companies can make 1:1 copies without getting sued.
> 
> ...


Ha ha, well patents have a time limit, but, practically speaking, in order to renew a trademark, something just has to be not as old as Mickey Mouse, because, you might not believe this, but look it up, Disney is the main motivating factor in lobbying trademark law in the USA. Since Gibson's electric guitars are all newer than Mickey Mouse, there is little-to-no practical chance that they will ever go into public domain unless Gibson willfully gives them up.

Now, for someone to get sued over a trademark, someone does have to sue them. Theoretically, if Gibson simply vanished, then there would be no one to enforce that trademark, but, again, practically speaking, that is impossible, since it's a huge intellectual property, and someone will certainly take ownership of it.

I mean, it would be like if google allowed their domain ownership to expire, so just any Joe Schmo could purchase it...

https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2492974,00.asp

Wait, what? Holy crap! I guess anything is possible!


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 11, 2017)

You guys are discussing the wrong issues here.

Copyrights are temporary and last 75 years after the author's death.

But what Gibson has isn't a copyright, it's a Trademark (Or rather, multiple trademarks, covering Logo, certain uses of the term Les Paul, certain body shapes, headstock shapes etc), owned by Gibson as a business and immortal as long as the business does two things:

1 - Exists
2 - Continues to defend it's trademark legally.

If Gibson went completely under, the first circumstance wouldn't be satisfied and it's trademarks would lapse immediately.
If the trademarks were purchased by another company, that company would bear the legal responsibility to protect them in order to maintain their right to use them, which if they didn't see the benefit in doing so to the same extent Gibson does, may open the door to a great deal of copycattery and a "gold rush" on what parts of Gibson's IP were now enough of a Gray area to build products in. (Both in terms of guitars and other merchandise).

This sort of stuff is why Fender are powerless to stop anyone producing a stratocaster copy if they want to - Fender has trademarks on the Stratocaster name, but they didn't protect the body shape well enough during the early years of japanese and chinese import copies, so when they eventually sued some of those companies, they lost.




Also - ArtDecade - I'm sorry that you're so old, but more sorry that after all these years, you've never had someone explain to you that when someone explains their opinions in detail and backs them up, you showing up and just repeating "That's your opinion" doesn't constitute a counterargument, a rebuttal, or anything other than a petulant whine on your behalf.

All you've done is act as if something being subjective makes my subjective opinion worthless and your subjective opinion gospel. It doesn't work that way - make your arguments and/or counter mine, or this isn't a discussion - it's just you trying to assert authority you don't have.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 11, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> Also - ArtDecade - I'm sorry that you're so old, but more sorry that after all these years, you've never had someone explain to you that when someone explains their opinions in detail and backs them up, you showing up and just repeating "That's your opinion" doesn't constitute a counterargument, a rebuttal, or anything other than a petulant whine on your behalf.
> 
> All you've done is act as if something being subjective makes my subjective opinion worthless and your subjective opinion gospel. It doesn't work that way - make your arguments and/or counter mine, or this isn't a discussion - it's just you trying to assert authority you don't have.



Well, sonny, I am sorry that you think your opinions are facts. No one wants to get into discussion with you about what hip young guitar you rate that will sell 3 signature guitars before being replaced by the next one. Quite simply, Gibson needs to pay down their debts. Their revenues have gone from around 300 to 400 million bucks to well over a billion in a few years. Short term debt is now being called in. That said, Gibson tried to get around this via increasing their sales and getting in bed with Guitar Center, but the slowing economy screwed the plans up. The next option is to sell off the brands they aren't using properly and stop trying to diversify into markets that they don't understand. As long as they didn't overpay, they should be able to sort themselves out eventually - and they won't have to steal any of Schecter's players in the process.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

Trademark is supposed to be for logos, and copyright for everything else, but big companies in the USA always manage to blur the lines. Gibson has claimed that their guitar shapes are trademarks, even though those are guitar shapes and not company logos. Other companies have tried to make similar claims about the headstock of a guitar, but I do not believe anyone else has tried to trademark their guitar shape.

FWIW, this is one of many reasons why I have a certain level of disrespect toward Gibson's corporate policies. Why do these rules only apply to them? Also, why is the shape of a guitar with a single cutaway able to be claimed by them and no one else? Did they invent the single cutaway? If so, why is it not a copyright issue? Is the Gibson logo a guitar with a single cutaway? Also, do they have trademarked logos for each of their guitar shapes? It's an interpretation of the law that just reeks of bullshit and "we have more money than you, so we can hire attorneys to make you pay"-attitude.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 11, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Trademark is supposed to be for logos, and copyright for everything else, but big companies in the USA always manage to blur the lines. Gibson has claimed that their guitar shapes are trademarks, even though those are guitar shapes and not company logos.



It is the _dance of the lawyers_. And, Gibson has enough of them to outlast everyone else in the ballroom. It is not right - and shouldn't be legal - but that is where we are in the courts.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 11, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> It is the _dance of the lawyers_. And, Gibson has enough of them to outlast everyone else in the ballroom. It is not right - and shouldn't be legal - but that is where we are in the courts.


*And*, on the other hand, guitar builders should try to focus on their own designs rather than rip other's designs, but, you know that there are a number of builders in China who would not hesitate to build a Les Paul shaped guitar with a Gibson logo on it and sell it on eBay as if it were a real Gibson. Meanwhile Tom Anderson, a highly reputable builder, or Paul Reed Smith, or Ken Parker, etc. etc., builds a single cutaway style of their own designs, that, subjectively to me, looks nothing like a Les Paul and would never be confused for a Les Paul by anyone who knows the difference between any two electric solidbody guitars, and they all get sued by Gibson for Trademark infringement. So, Gibson starts going after bigger and bigger fish, until PRS out-lawyer-ed them and won a case, and the entire income stream came falling apart at the seams. Unable to sue the real culprits in China and unable to continue suing other US manufacturers and luthiers, Gibson lost a stream of income for sure.
So, Gibson had to do something to get people's attention with a new innovation. I think that's where the emperor's clothes finally were realized to be nonexistent. Firebird X, robot tuners, wider fretboards, Gibson was desperately batting at thin air.

What do customers want?

Well, I think everybody knows. The people with the money want another 59 Les Paul Reissue. The people without money want as close as they can get to a 59 Les Paul Reissue or a salt-of-0the-Earth-level Explorer that can function as a workhorse guitar, that won't cost them a kidney.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 11, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Well, sonny, I am sorry that you think your opinions are facts. No one wants to get into discussion with you about what hip young guitar you rate that will sell 3 signature guitars before being replaced by the next one. Quite simply, Gibson needs to pay down their debts. Their revenues have gone from around 300 to 400 million bucks to well over a billion in a few years. Short term debt is now being called in. That said, Gibson tried to get around this via increasing their sales and getting in bed with Guitar Center, but the slowing economy screwed the plans up. The next option is to sell off the brands they aren't using properly and stop trying to diversify into markets that they don't understand. As long as they didn't overpay, they should be able to sort themselves out eventually - and they won't have to steal any of Schecter's players in the process.


I'm truly impressed that you're this devoted to your hypocrisy, wild assumptions about me and my signature model preferences, and that you're also still too blind to notice you're doing all the things you think you're criticising me for.

FWIW, I have next to no interest in anyone getting a signature model. They're very rarely all that exciting. The M80M is great, the Charvel Govan is great also, and at a push I'd suggest that Mattias Eklundh's Caparisons were the victims of a company that had problems with obtaining wider distribution. Other than that, I couldn't give a stuff about Tosin's next hyped up set of pickups or sinfully ugly guitar, and I'd much rather things just played well.

Now with that said, if you're really so disinterested in discussing anything I've actually said, could you at least take your glib, pretentious attitude somewhere else, instead of demanding people take you seriously in this thread despite your evident lack of desire to contribute?

Especially when you appear to be talking COMPLETE shit about their revenue - http://www.hoovers.com/company-info...ncial.GIBSON_BRANDS_INC.b1826f5356393af3.html

According to this it's gone down by $80 million since 2013 alone and even in 2013 they didn't make even a quarter of your supposed "well over a billion".


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 11, 2017)

Revenues approximate $1.2 billion as of 17 Aug 2017.

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Gibsons-CFR-to-Caa3-outlook-negative--PR_371298

Gibson is big. Slash kinda big, you know?


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 11, 2017)

So we have two sources that disagree with each other. 

That said, holy shit dude - "People who cry about others being pretentious and glib just need to aspire more."

I think you should aspire to write sentences that actually mean things instead of just endlessly repeating platitudes to hide your absolute lack of a cogent argument.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 11, 2017)

Two different sources? This whole thread is about Moody downgrading the stock. I think we might have to assume that Moody's did the research into their revenue streams.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 11, 2017)

I googled Gibson revenue and found the link I posted. In what universe do you live where that isn't another source? 

At this point I'm starting to question whether you can even read. With every successive post your grasp on the language seems weaker and weaker.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 11, 2017)

Not all sources are equal. And, just because I don't think your personal opinions are somehow an important reflection on Gibson's finances doesn't qualify as a personal attack, but continue with the ad hominem nonsense if it makes you feel better, because I really don't care.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Sep 11, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Revenues approximate $1.2 billion as of 17 Aug 2017.
> 
> https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Gibsons-CFR-to-Caa3-outlook-negative--PR_371298
> 
> Gibson is big. Slash kinda big, you know?



1.2 in revenue for a company that size is pretty bad. Especially one that moves physical product.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 12, 2017)

GuitarBizarre said:


> Andromalia - That's massively optimistic.
> .



I don't think so. There aren't many explorer models to begin with, and this one is the only one with a unique color burst and binding they've issued for ages with possibly some Brendon Small stuff (didn't follow exactly what happened with this one)
It has nothing to do with the quality of the guitar which for all purposes and intent plays like a Gibson explorer.
Mind you, I could be wrong, because I'm just guessing. But I'd guess (again) that my guess is on the right track. I wouldn't be surprised to se those sell in the 5K+ range 20 years from now, exclusive of inflation.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 12, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Not all sources are equal. And, just because I don't think your personal opinions are somehow an important reflection on Gibson's finances doesn't qualify as a personal attack, but continue with the ad hominem nonsense if it makes you feel better, because I really don't care.


I'm sure you don't, thats why you've spent the last, page of this thread refusing to let someone else's view on the situation be equivalent to your own, and forcing that person to wheedle your justifications out of you bit by bit instead of you feeling obligated to back up what you're saying whatsoever.

It's also amusing that you're resorting to calling ad hominem now. Here's another tip for you - Ad hominem is where someone tries to make an arguing point out of an aspect of your character that isn't relevant to the conversation. 

For example, saying someone's opinion is worthless because of their poor financial management, in an argument about whether cats are better than dogs. That would be ad hominem.

But saying someone's opinion is worthless because of their poor financial management, in an argument about how to effectively manage household finances, would not be, as that aspect of their character casts clear and reasonable doubt on the validity of their advice. 

Nothing I've said about you so far has been anything other than a description of exactly what you're doing, thus, not ad hominem. Also, you've very much been engaging in ad hominem yourself, along with demonstrating that you aren't capable to delineating between what a source is and what a source you believe is not credible is, appealing to authority (via references to your age), etc. 

If we're going to go down the roads of who has committed x or y logical fallacy within their arguments, I'm more than confident I'd come out far, far ahead in the discussion thus far.

But of course, keep saying you "really don't care" - I rather suspect there'll be a swift reply from you to this post to show exactly how little you mean that.


----------



## Casper777 (Sep 12, 2017)

Wow this thread turned to a mess LOL

Well, just to update people, the Gibson bond collapsed further since August, making it highly impossible for the company to refinance next August. At current level, the cost if refinancing would be 40%! The bond is now Junk-labelled.
Highly doubt Gibson would be able to reimburse the USD 375 million debt either.

Likely outcome is either banckruptcy, a drastic restructuring program (read massive firing) or acquisition by another healthier company.

But it seems that from a Financial point of view, the company has been very poorly managed, to say the least.

EDIT: Oh and to add to that, the company also must pay the bond semi-annual coupon next January, or approx. USD 16.6 millions. If they are to the point of not even enough cash, the story could end even sooner.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 12, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> 1.2 in revenue for a company that size is pretty bad. Especially one that moves physical product.


I also suspect that the figure in question includes all of Onkyo and TEAC's revenue, not adjusted for the size of Gibson's shares in those companies.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 12, 2017)

I'm not sure how they approximated $1.2G in revenue for the portfolio, other sources have 2016 revenue for the flagship brand under $200M (z.B. http://www.hoovers.com/company-info...ncial.gibson_brands_inc.b1826f5356393af3.html)

Of course, that number is absolutely on par with Fender's reported revenues, and the reports of Gibson's YTD revenue is on track with previous years. It might be that the company is spending excessively. I don't believe there is any public information about their R&D budget, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was substantially higher than their competitors, given the large number of new technologies they've adapted.


----------



## Zalbu (Sep 12, 2017)

If Gibson just put out a flat black and flat white Epiphone and Gibson Explorer at varying price points then they'd make enough money to be able to buy both Fender and PRS two times over. That's what the kids who get into metal and listen to Metallica want, I know for sure that I wanted one but I got an RG instead and don't regret it a second. Just focus on the workhorse models, that's what the brand built their legacy on, not stupid gimmicks like robot tuners.


----------



## CrazyDean (Sep 12, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Of course, that number is absolutely on par with Fender's reported revenues, and the reports of Gibson's YTD revenue is on track with previous years. It might be that the company is spending excessively. I don't believe there is any public information about their R&D budget, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was substantially higher than their competitors, given the large number of new technologies they've adapted.



Ha! New technologies...

I'm sure their cashflow is high through the R&D department, but they're not exactly pushing the envelope.


----------



## ArtDecade (Sep 12, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> 1.2 in revenue for a company that size is pretty bad. Especially one that moves physical product.



Not exactly. They went from 300 million to 1.2 billion in about 4 years. That is a substantial jump.
More info would be needed in regards to capital flow and how much debt was taken on during this period, but it doesn't look good.


----------



## Fathand (Sep 12, 2017)

Jazz people on other forums are wishing for Heritage to buy the Gibson brand. I'd say that would be a bit far fetched (just for the size difference), but I could get behind that. 

Gotta start hoarding those older 90s Gibsons.. before they go up in price more..


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 12, 2017)

CrazyDean said:


> Ha! New technologies...
> 
> I'm sure their cashflow is high through the R&D department, but they're not exactly pushing the envelope.



No, they're pushing the envelope. Just not in a way that's meaningful to most players. Nobody really cares about adjustable brass nuts, built in guitar effects, or robot tuners. People are more interested in practical things like SS frets, longer (or shorter) scales. Multi-scales, stable necks, etc. Gibson wasn't really solving any problems with their wider necks, brass nuts, and robot tuners.

I'd be WAY more than happy to drop some good cash on a 25.5"+ explorer... Especially if it had seven strings. Whereas if I buy a currently offered gibson, it's not going to be because of any of the weird shit they put in. I like Gibson guitars, but there is very little variety in specs.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 12, 2017)

Casper777 said:


> But it seems that from a Financial point of view, the company has been very poorly managed, to say the least.



According to the Hoovers link, "Gibson Guitar is owned by executives Henry Juszkiewicz and David Berryman", so it's probably safe to assume that they are managing the company for the benefit of their personal finances rather than those of the company.




Casper777 said:


> EDIT: Oh and to add to that, the company also must pay the bond semi-annual coupon next January, or approx. USD 16.6 millions. If they are to the point of not even enough cash, the story could end even sooner.



According to the same Hoovers link, they currently have $18.8M cash on hand (as compared to $23.3M in 2016), so they are not in the best shape, but they're not dead in the water, either.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 12, 2017)

ArtDecade said:


> Not exactly. They went from 300 million to 1.2 billion in about 4 years. That is a substantial jump.
> More info would be needed in regards to capital flow and how much debt was taken on during this period, but it doesn't look good.



That kind of growth is probably from acquisitions, which is also a likely reason for the debt they've taken on.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 12, 2017)

Zalbu said:


> If Gibson just put out a flat black and flat white Epiphone and Gibson Explorer at varying price points then they'd make enough money to be able to buy both Fender and PRS two times over. That's what the kids who get into metal and listen to Metallica want, I know for sure that I wanted one but I got an RG instead and don't regret it a second. Just focus on the workhorse models, that's what the brand built their legacy on, not stupid gimmicks like robot tuners.



They DID release black and white Explorers under the Epi brand. The 1984 Explorers.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Sep 12, 2017)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> They DID release black and white Explorers under the Epi brand. The 1984 Explorers.


You said it yourself - under Epiphone (And with very little promotion).

There *were* some 1984 style Gibson explorers released by Gibson under the "Guitar of the Month" series way back when, but those were the ones I referred to earlier when I said that I saw a guy get 3 of them with different major faults. Awful reputation.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Sep 12, 2017)

Yes, I said Epiphone because he did say Epiphone. So I was just saying Epiphone did release it. 

And yes the Gibson ones were supposedly junk.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 14, 2017)

Well, the Epiphones are also supposedly junk, from the various reviews I could read.

Overall I think the best cash grab they could make would be to use the Gibson headstock on epiphones.


----------



## marcwormjim (Sep 15, 2017)

Everyone seems to conveniently be forgetting that Epiphone will simply sell enough $100 SLs to offset this trivial debt. Same with Gibson-branded strings and other household essentials.


----------



## feraledge (Sep 15, 2017)

Andromalia said:


> Overall I think the best cash grab they could make would be to use the Gibson headstock on epiphones.


This isn't untrue. They probably could up the prices on the custom shop and increase the quality there while offsetting the primary sales by boosting the Epiphone brand. Will see what the salvage company that buys them opts for I guess.


----------



## downburst82 (Sep 15, 2017)

Andromalia said:


> Overall I think the best cash grab they could make would be to use the Gibson headstock on epiphones.



I would buy one


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 15, 2017)

Played my Gibson USA V today.... ahh so good.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 15, 2017)

There are no Gibson non USA Vs. Just saying.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Sep 15, 2017)

All this Gibson talk gave me GAS and now I'm $1000 poorer with a white flying V in my lap. What the fuck just happened?


----------



## Overtone (Sep 15, 2017)

Bailout


----------



## stevexc (Sep 15, 2017)

Señor Voorhees said:


> All this Gibson talk gave me GAS and now I'm $1000 poorer with a white flying V in my lap. What the fuck just happened?


Better dispose of it, it's bound to be a bad guitar fraught with QC issues. Send it to me, I'll deal with it for you.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 14, 2018)

https://www.nashvillepost.com/busin...e/20992105/gibson-running-out-of-time-rapidly
The doom and gloom continues.


----------



## Zalbu (Feb 14, 2018)




----------



## Mathemagician (Feb 14, 2018)

I want an updated Annihilator V without the graphics, at the ~1200-1500 price point. Idc whether it’s gibson or epiphone as long as the quality is there. 24 frets, best access and a thin neck? Yes.


----------



## Avedas (Feb 14, 2018)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> https://www.nashvillepost.com/busin...e/20992105/gibson-running-out-of-time-rapidly
> The doom and gloom continues.


That last line is basically "this company is fine but management sucks"


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 14, 2018)

Andromalia said:


> There are no Gibson non USA Vs. Just saying.



I'm not familiar enough with the entire history of the company to know what they've made lol... I just wanted to flame the haters 

I didn't even know Peavey made some legit MIK guitars (outside of the MIK Wolfgang which was crap) and I consider myself a legit fanatic of Peavey products... so yeah... far less clue as to what Gibson is or has been doing!

Back OT... Gibson customer service told me they do not set up guitars prior to shipping, as that is the responsibility of the individual buyer based on their preferences. This includes properly slotting the nut for your specific string gauge (they don't even slot it for the strings it ships with!), basic action and truss rod, bridge and nut height, etc. FWIW I think just fixing this would make their guitars much more playable out of the box and fix the initial tuning issues, and cause far less disappointment out-of-the-box. Maybe it's just me, but I've come to expect a guitar to play reasonably well out of the box with an average setup. Makes me wonder how a guitar can pass QC if the action is 1/4"+ at 12th fret? I mean... sure... it doesn't have any fret buzz. 

Also, glad I have a 2018 SG HP on order from Samash... maybe it will be the last year made and worth some money down the road lol.


----------



## WestOfSeven (Feb 15, 2018)

I was at my local music store playing Les Pauls today and was surprised by just how abhorrent the fit and finish and setup where on the instruments the epiphones I played had better fit/finish and playability.

New ownership and management would probably do the company some good.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 15, 2018)

USMarine75 said:


> Back OT... Gibson customer service told me they do not set up guitars prior to shipping, as that is the responsibility of the individual buyer based on their preferences. This includes properly slotting the nut for your specific string gauge (they don't even slot it for the strings it ships with!), basic action and truss rod, bridge and nut height, etc. FWIW I think just fixing this would make their guitars much more playable out of the box and fix the initial tuning issues, and cause far less disappointment out-of-the-box. Maybe it's just me, but I've come to expect a guitar to play reasonably well out of the box with an average setup. Makes me wonder how a guitar can pass QC if the action is 1/4"+ at 12th fret? I mean... sure... it doesn't have any fret buzz.
> 
> Also, glad I have a 2018 SG HP on order from Samash... maybe it will be the last year made and worth some money down the road lol.



Wait, if they don't even slot the nut properly before shipping, how do they QC the function of the guitar?! For example, if a fret pops out of the slit during handling (which I had seen in a $5k Les Paul before), QC would most likely not catch it.


----------



## nyxzz (Feb 15, 2018)

USMarine75 said:


> I'm not familiar enough with the entire history of the company to know what they've made lol... I just wanted to flame the haters
> 
> I didn't even know Peavey made some legit MIK guitars (outside of the MIK Wolfgang which was crap) and I consider myself a legit fanatic of Peavey products... so yeah... far less clue as to what Gibson is or has been doing!
> 
> ...




It all makes sense...I bought an SG in 2016 and sure enough the action was a mile high, I took it to my local trusted tech and he said it looked like the nut hadn't even been cut. he took care of that and then it was fine. That's unreal to me that this is on purpose.


----------



## jwade (Feb 15, 2018)

I'm curious who would buy Gibson if they do hit bankruptcy and Henry is booted. Pretty interesting potential for the future at this point.


----------



## JSanta (Feb 15, 2018)

jwade said:


> I'm curious who would buy Gibson if they do hit bankruptcy and Henry is booted. Pretty interesting potential for the future at this point.



I think the bigger question is who is going to be ready to take on that kind of debt? It's evident that new leadership is needed, but is the debt too much for an organization/holding company to take on while trying to turn the company around?


----------



## bostjan (Feb 15, 2018)

If I win the powerball a couple few times in between now and then, I'd buy it.


----------



## WestOfSeven (Feb 15, 2018)

Gonna leave this here. All I see is overpriced junk. I do like the blackout edition but not for $5800.

I could see a Chinese company buying Gibson out for either the status or to whore the name out.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Feb 15, 2018)

JSanta said:


> I think the bigger question is who is going to be ready to take on that kind of debt? It's evident that new leadership is needed, but is the debt too much for an organization/holding company to take on while trying to turn the company around?



I'm not a CFO or anything but when its a pile of financial shite, don't they (the lenders) liquidate/auction off anything they can then write off the rest and let it cease to exist? 
Who would buy Gibson's name? Yamaha? Amazon? Nelson J. Rockefeller?


----------



## Shoeless_jose (Feb 15, 2018)

The906 said:


> I'm not a CFO or anything but when its a pile of financial shite, don't they (the lenders) liquidate/auction off anything they can then write off the rest and let it cease to exist?
> Who would buy Gibson's name? Yamaha? Amazon? Nelson J. Rockefeller?



I assume the biggest asset that Gibson has is the brand name/identity. Making and selling guitars with that name on them, with proper management, will be the only way to ever recoup the value of the debt, doubt they have enough assets to seize.


----------



## Avedas (Feb 15, 2018)

The906 said:


> I'm not a CFO or anything but when its a pile of financial shite, don't they (the lenders) liquidate/auction off anything they can then write off the rest and let it cease to exist?
> Who would buy Gibson's name? Yamaha? Amazon? Nelson J. Rockefeller?


They're not filing for bankruptcy yet. And also they've already been selling factories and other assets, but it doesn't seem like it'll be enough to cover their debt that matures in July, at which point at this rate they'll default.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 15, 2018)

WestOfSeven said:


> All I see is overpriced junk. I do like the blackout edition but not for $5800.




Your opinion. I love them.

My SG HP 2018 only cost me $1800 new. Hardly overpriced by any stretch. Same price range or less than a MIJ ESP Viper.

Gibson is comparatively priced with it's competitors... PRS, Knaggs, etc. The only (important) difference is Gibson must fix their considerable QC issue.

The Modern is priced at $3999, which would be a fair price for an established model. Their mistake is they should have launched it at $2999 to get them out there in the market. They would be a direct competitor to the EVH Wolfgang Deluxe. Their other fail IMO is that, being the "Modern", they should have attempted to lure in the next generation with easy "hotrodded" mods, like adding BKP (Gibson loves their own pickups too much to do this though), or even offering a 7-string or 25.5" models. Gibson has made killer 7 string V and SG models before, why not now.



bostjan said:


> Wait, if they don't even slot the nut properly before shipping, how do they QC the function of the guitar?! For example, if a fret pops out of the slit during handling (which I had seen in a $5k Les Paul before), QC would most likely not catch it.



Exactly this. I have no answer for you. Maybe that they PLEK the guitar is how they can claim that the guitar "will" (i.e. should?) be fine once you set it up properly? But yeah I was like what is this garbage and I sent a couple back to MF until I realized they all come this way! I couldn't understand why they wouldn't stay in tune, until it was pointed out to me. But I still don't like it...


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Feb 15, 2018)

Avedas said:


> They're not filing for bankruptcy yet. And also they've already been selling factories and other assets, but it doesn't seem like it'll be enough to cover their debt that matures in July, at which point at this rate they'll default.



and Default is the beginning of Chapter xx proceedings, lawyers, judges forfeiting assets, etc? Or the lenders could extend again or something I guess. Its their money. This speculation is a bit maddening, I should refrain.


----------



## BenjaminW (Feb 15, 2018)

I saw something like this on Ultimate Guitar yesterday and one of the guys commented on what if Fender bought Gibson? Anyone have thoughts on that statement?


----------



## Ebony (Feb 15, 2018)

BenjaminW said:


> I saw something like this on Ultimate Guitar yesterday and one of the guys commented on what if Fender bought Gibson? Anyone have thoughts on that statement?


----------



## jwade (Feb 15, 2018)

It would be rad if Ibanez bought Gibson so they could start doing SGs again


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 15, 2018)

jwade said:


> It would be rad if Ibanez bought Gibson so they could start doing SGs again



Or for that matter ESP...

Then they should force Gibson to rename all of their products to Lawsuit LP and Lawsuit SG lol.






#KARMA


----------



## BenjaminW (Feb 15, 2018)

Ebony said:


>


I'm afraid I'd have to agree with you on that. The best Gibson honestly can do to save themselves is to get a new owner, up the quality, or lower the prices. Even all three.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (Feb 16, 2018)

BenjaminW said:


> I saw something like this on Ultimate Guitar yesterday and one of the guys commented on what if Fender bought Gibson? Anyone have thoughts on that statement?



Gibson themselves want the rumor that their enemy considers them worth buying to grow legs.

The ideology pushed by every Youtuber over 40 is that “Gibsons retain their value - They are NOT going anywhere.” 

Both claims are true: The same guys keep selling their Gibsons to one another, and none of them want to acknowledge the notion that their pool is shrinking. And Gibson has indeed spent the last fifty years not going anywhere: Their 1968 marketing strategy was to tell people that their discontinued 1959 products were hip to own, because “this clapton guy.” And they’ve stuck with it since.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Feb 16, 2018)

Fender buys Gibson.
Introducing the Gibson FunPaul, available at Walgreens and Dollar General.


----------



## nyxzz (Feb 16, 2018)

The906 said:


> I'm not a CFO or anything but when its a pile of financial shite, don't they (the lenders) liquidate/auction off anything they can then write off the rest and let it cease to exist?
> Who would buy Gibson's name? Yamaha? Amazon? Nelson J. Rockefeller?



amazon buys gibson and introduces the amazon basic guitar line


----------



## JSanta (Feb 16, 2018)

I mentioned this previously, but unless Fender's financial situation has massively improved, they themselves were unable to launch their IPO because of debt. I would be really surprised if they were the ones to make the purchase.


----------



## Shoeless_jose (Feb 16, 2018)

JSanta said:


> I mentioned this previously, but unless Fender's financial situation has massively improved, they themselves were unable to launch their IPO because of debt. I would be really surprised if they were the ones to make the purchase.



They have a big windfall coming from everyone replacing their out of date Juggernauts with the refreshed model.


----------



## iamaom (Feb 16, 2018)

Maybe BC Rich and Gibson should have a merger and produce Gibrich guitars, you can't go wrong with a $5k Les King Single Cut Warlock in tobacco bloodburst.


----------



## cip 123 (Feb 16, 2018)

iamaom said:


> Maybe BC Rich and Gibson should have a merger and produce Gibrich guitars, you can't go wrong with a $5k Les King Single Cut Warlock in tobacco bloodburst.


Don't forget the abalone fretboard with rosewood tribal inlays


----------



## BenjaminW (Feb 16, 2018)

iamaom said:


> Maybe BC Rich and Gibson should have a merger and produce Gibrich guitars, you can't go wrong with a $5k Les King Single Cut Warlock in tobacco bloodburst.


I'll take that through a Line 6 stack with a Metal Zone please!


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Feb 20, 2018)

USMarine75 said:


> Your opinion. I love them.
> 
> My SG HP 2018 only cost me $1800 new. Hardly overpriced by any stretch. Same price range or less than a MIJ ESP Viper.
> 
> Gibson is comparatively priced with it's competitors... PRS, Knaggs, etc. The only (important) difference is Gibson must fix their considerable QC issue.



Dude, show me a competitor that's offering a guitar with an unfinished (slightly finished?) Les Paul body and a single P-90 pickup for $4900. I'll wait. 

They have some instruments that are reasonably priced (what I'd say is like, Fender Priced), I've owned a couple. But they have plenty of instruments that are absurdly priced.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Feb 20, 2018)

Gibson don't even slightly compete with Knaggs. Even their best instruments are firewood in comparison.


----------



## Xaios (Feb 20, 2018)

It would be pretty hilarious if FMIC bought Gibson. Couldn't wait to get my heads on a Hello Kitty Squirephone LP. 

Also, I never noticed the Gibson Modern Double Cut model before. I'd say I was surprised, but I'm not. Gibson basically copying PRS's signature shape after trying to sue PRS over the Singlecut seems pretty much in lockstep with their iffy operating standards these past few years.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Feb 20, 2018)

Gibson lost the simple principle of "supply & demand". Look at the requirements for dealerships to have a certain percentage of the guitar inventory Gibson centric over the years.
If you flood the market, the value goes down, and inventory sits if it is not consumer priced.
How many $3k+ guitars have hung on Guitar Center walls for over 5 years? There's too many of them at that price. If they did smaller production runs, and limited the amount of instruments on the retail wall, then that value would go up.
They have saturated the market to reduce their market value, and in doing so, have imploded.
On top of that, they have way too many $3k plus guitars on the wall that play like $99 Hello Kitty Squire Strats. If they did half of the job of setting up their guitars as PRS does, then perhaps someone might purchase one of their priced gouged hackjobs over a PRS, but until then PRS wins the setup award between the two.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Feb 20, 2018)

TonyFlyingSquirrel said:


> Gibson lost the simple principle of "supply & demand". Look at the requirements for dealerships to have a certain percentage of the guitar inventory Gibson centric over the years.
> If you flood the market, the value goes down, and inventory sits if it is not consumer priced.
> How many $3k+ guitars have hung on Guitar Center walls for over 5 years? There's too many of them at that price. If they did smaller production runs, and limited the amount of instruments on the retail wall, then that value would go up.
> They have saturated the market to reduce their market value, and in doing so, have imploded.
> On top of that, they have way too many $3k plus guitars on the wall that play like $99 Hello Kitty Squire Strats. If they did half of the job of setting up their guitars as PRS does, then perhaps someone might purchase one of their priced gouged hackjobs over a PRS, but until then PRS wins the setup award between the two.



Totally agree!

My local GC used to only carry 2.5k+ Gibson's. Something happened a couple of years ago and now they have like 2-5.

I personally know guys (4) that bought 5+ each from that store...That's only the people I know personally. In a town with a population around 40k, now bad...considering how many people in my area are not into music.


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Feb 20, 2018)

And I wonder how many of those played like $3k+ guitars. Call me old fashioned and I won't be offended as I am nearly 52, but a Guitar with a $3k+ price tag should indeed play like a $3k+ guitar. If I can make a $500 Ibanez play like a $5k Custom Shop, then Gibson has no excuse. PRS knocks it out of the park with everything made in their US shop. SE's are gonna be hit & miss as they are imported, but PRS nails it with their setups with only a handful that fall between the cracks.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Feb 20, 2018)

TonyFlyingSquirrel said:


> And I wonder how many of those played like $3k+ guitars. Call me old fashioned and I won't be offended as I am nearly 52, but a Guitar with a $3k+ price tag should indeed play like a $3k+ guitar. If I can make a $500 Ibanez play like a $5k Custom Shop, then Gibson has no excuse. PRS knocks it out of the park with everything made in their US shop. SE's are gonna be hit & miss as they are imported, but PRS nails it with their setups with only a handful that fall between the cracks.


Well to be fair, these guys are anal and they all played great. Whether did right off the shelf...I have no clue. But I played a couple and they were all top notch.


----------



## ESPImperium (Feb 20, 2018)

My opinion on the Gibson debacle over the years, as i got my first and only Gibson in 2009.

* Too much of a company on acquisition of 'Gibson Brand' brands, brands like TEAC and KRK for instance. They should have stuck to their core brands.
* Reliance on Epiphone to shift volume to beginners and intermediates, meanwhile diluting the product line to something that it is not. They should have good starter models, a line of good models that will be the modders friend, then have a line of more professional instruments with affordable artist models.
* Gibson USA have tried to build more models than they can, and should build. The loss of the Guitar of the Month and Guitar of the Week limited runs should have been kept for more obscure model functionality that more niche players need, not to mention running some models for just a couple of years, even a year. They needed to concentrate on the Studio-Classic-Standard-Classic Custom-Custom Shop tiers.
* Their attitude of only one store in each city can sell their instruments is flawed, shops should be able to compete on price. If they can't, the shops and Gibson need to be out of business.
* Within shops that sell Gibson, Gibson at one point, would only allow the shop to sell their instruments though "Gibson Accredited Sales Staff" after they had the correct training and passed a test.
* The age of making retailers buying £XXX,XXX of stock is gone, same for making them have £XXX,XXX of inventory at one time is also gone. This is a restriction of trade, and a way of discouraging retailers who only want to carry the lower end stuff.
* Gibsons quality control has been shoddy for years, my Les Paul was a lucky one, i was in the right time at the right place. Ive been in retailers when the Gibson shipment comes through the door, and tried guitars straight out the case, some good, others miles off the mark. I think the retailer sent 18 of the 125 guitars that came in one of those days back due to faults, and there was another 30 or so that needed remedial plastic parts repairs from broken knobs and pick guards.

Gibson as a brand has been failing for years, its one of the two reasons i have switched to mostly PRS, small but perfectly formed tiering of the model line that can be followed by the man on the street. Quality control of PRS has been off the hook, its the best Ive ever seen on a guitar manufacturer, my first MIK PRS SE in 2007 had great QC and is a great platform for modding, and all others have had similar. The S2 line is one hell of a value for what is, and this is what the Gibson Studio and Classic lines should have been, stripped down, limited colours with yearly changes here and there, with good hardware and pickups, they should have been the working musicians choice. Then the PRS core, with many different colours and many different hardware options for what ever you are playing.

Gibson have simply lost their way, they need to sell off many of the periphery brands, many of the brands they have bought over the years. Sell off the likes of Hamer, Kramer and Stienberger need to be given to others to own. Many of the technology companies need to be sold, maybe bundled together as someone with more investment and R&D money could make them all interact with one another as a package in the bedroom recording studio. Baldwin needs to be sold off too, the Gibson company just needs to concentrate on Guitars.

Gibson Guitars and Epiphone Guitars need to get back to basics, provide the eco-system from beginner to pro, with a proper tiering model system and a proper pricing and distribution model. Until then PRS and Fender will get my money, of witch, i need to go and buy that PRS SVN soon.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 20, 2018)

Apart from 1957-1961, Gibson have always been backward thinking. Les Paul tried to get them to build the first solid body electric and they laughed at him until Fender released the Broadcaster/Nocaster/Telecaster/Esquire in 1951. They actually had something in the late 50s with humbucker pickups, semi-hollow electrics, radical shapes. They have been living on the 1959 Les Paul Sunburst ultrahype ever since then. Everything they've done since 1968 has been reissues trying to capture that 57-61 magic again. Just like Kirk Hammett they are half heartedly half assing their way into the future coasting along on the success from the days of when they actually gave a shit.

I'm pretty sure the top brass responsible for the downfall will have quite generous compensation packages after they fire all the employees.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 20, 2018)

Let's be real for a moment here. Gibson brings in over $1.5 *B*illion with a "B" annually.

They just have zero cash, relatively speaking, on hand to handle thier debt which is coming to maturity. They can't pull close to a third of thier yearly revenue out of thin air.

This is not a problem created by lack of sales or an undesirable product in the marketplace, this is purely poor management at the very top.

When GC, Gibson's biggest customer, started showing how in the hole they were Gibson should have started to save money, but management didn't.

I have a feeling that upper management knew what they were doing and just want to take thier multi-million dollar golden parachutes and run.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (Feb 20, 2018)

We need to break the silence, banish stigma and discrimination, and ensure total inclusiveness in the struggle against AIDS.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Feb 21, 2018)

USMarine75 said:


> I'm not familiar enough with the entire history of the company to know what they've made lol... I just wanted to flame the haters
> 
> I didn't even know Peavey made some legit MIK guitars (outside of the MIK Wolfgang which was crap) and I consider myself a legit fanatic of Peavey products... so yeah... far less clue as to what Gibson is or has been doing!
> 
> ...


I had this problems with Ibanez too.
Ibanez that were showcased by Italian's official importer.
I'm a big Ibanez fanboy but no one is a Saint.


----------



## couverdure (Feb 21, 2018)

OmegaSlayer said:


> I had this problems with Ibanez too.
> Ibanez that were showcased by Italian's official importer.
> I'm a big Ibanez fanboy but no one is a Saint.


At least with Ibanez their prices are rather reasonable even if their lower-end models are either quite good or very imperfect. $1,200 is the peak price point for their Indonesian models. When they reach Gibson levels of absurd prices, they usually reserve it for higher-end Japanese models, especially high-profile signatures like the JEM, M8M, and those shiny Paul Stanley models.


----------



## MikeH (Feb 21, 2018)

Love my ‘92 LPC, but haven’t played a Gibson in years that could justify its price tag.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 21, 2018)

One of my favorite guys on Youtube just released this video. Didn't expect to see this from him.


----------



## rexbinary (Feb 21, 2018)

Xaios said:


> It would be pretty hilarious if FMIC bought Gibson.



Really this would be my preferred outcome. Fender has gotten serious with their other brands they bought such as Charvel, Jackson, and EVH. They are putting out great products. Also, a top of the line Fender strat, their flagship guitar, is still affordable for normal people. I could see Gibson falling right in line with those brands under Fender with higher quality and more affordable guitars.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Feb 21, 2018)

rexbinary said:


> Really this would be my preferred outcome. Fender has gotten serious with their other brands they bought such as Charvel, Jackson, and EVH. They are putting out great products. Also, a top of the line Fender strat, their flagship guitar, is still affordable for normal people. I could see Gibson falling right in line with those brands under Fender with higher quality and more affordable guitars.



But we need Custom Classic Black Beauty Golden Anniversary (in chrome) Tuesday Afternoon Les Paul When Animals Attack Season 3 Special Edition models to not buy. A company like Fender will not keep up this tradition.


----------



## stinkoman (Feb 21, 2018)

I'm going to sound daft for a second,but i'm seeing different write ups on what is actually going on so if somebody more knowledgeable could help me out on explaining it. Is it Gibson the whole company having financial issues, or "Gibsons USA" which is their electric guitar division that is having all the financial issues? Because I have read it being just the guitar division that is tanking, and then I read the company as a whole.I know that they have other divisions outside of guitars that are profitable. I also know companies will sell off divisions to holding companies to pay off debts. Their string division is much smaller than their guitar division but the Gibson F-5 mandolin, and mastertone Banjo is iconic to bluegrass/country/folk as the Les Paul is to Rock. They still sell a lot of $6-17k$ mandolins. The later 17k Master Models you usually have to get on a list to get one. They also own Baldwin pianos and could see these divisions being sold off to help keep them a float because the name is still valueable.


----------



## DiezelMonster (Feb 21, 2018)

stinkoman said:


> I'm going to sound daft for a second,but i'm seeing different write ups on what is actually going on so if somebody more knowledgeable could help me out on explaining it. Is it Gibson the whole company having financial issues, or "Gibsons USA" which is their electric guitar division that is having all the financial issues? Because I have read it being just the guitar division that is tanking, and then I read the company as a whole.I know that they have other divisions outside of guitars that are profitable. I also know companies will sell off divisions to holding companies to pay off debts. Their string division is much smaller than their guitar division but the Gibson F-5 mandolin, and mastertone Banjo is iconic to bluegrass/country/folk as the Les Paul is to Rock. They still sell a lot of $6-17k$ mandolins. The later 17k Master Models you usually have to get on a list to get one. They also own Baldwin pianos and could see these divisions being sold off to help keep them a float because the name is still valueable.




The guitar division is in fact the only one doing well, Gibson USA, Gibson Custom, and then the Memphis factory as well as the Bozeman Montana factory are all doing well and humming along. 

Where they are failing are with all the other divisions such as Phillips and the consumer electronics.


----------



## Zalbu (Feb 21, 2018)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> One of my favorite guys on Youtube just released this video. Didn't expect to see this from him.



Even Anthony Fantano is commenting on it, but he's not really contributing much from an instrumentalists perspective, or any relevant perspective really. He's just asking if the decline of rock music in the mainstream has contributed to it which doesn't really have anything to do with it since other companies aren't struggling nearly as much as Gibson.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 21, 2018)

Zalbu said:


> Even Anthony Fantano is commenting on it, but he's not really contributing much from an instrumentalists perspective, or any relevant perspective really. He's just asking if the decline of rock music in the mainstream has contributed to it which doesn't really have anything to do with it since other companies aren't struggling nearly as much as Gibson.



Exactly. A lot of these companies seem to be doing perfectly fine. Even PRS, another high-dollar premium brand, is thriving in this environment. FMIC is doing really well as well. I don't know why people are saying that rock music's decline is the problem, when the real problem seems to be a clueless CEO who stretched himself too thin while forgetting where his core market is.

EDIT: Also, bad WOM really can spread. I'm sure there's a lot of clueless peope in the market, but you search "Gibson" online, and I'm betting most of the time you'll find comments and reports on Gibson's shoddy QC.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 22, 2018)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Dude, show me a competitor that's offering a guitar with an unfinished (slightly finished?) Les Paul body and a single P-90 pickup for $4900. I'll wait.
> 
> They have some instruments that are reasonably priced (what I'd say is like, Fender Priced), I've owned a couple. But they have plenty of instruments that are absurdly priced.



Where is the LP single pickup guitar for $4900 purchase price? I didn't see it in the video nor on the Gibson site.

http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul.aspx?ModelYear=2018

Not that having one pickup, nor it being a P90, is any measure of the cost or quality of a guitar (my Collings is one of the very best, and most versatile, guitars I own and it only has one P90)... but here's a few with one or two pickups and limited finishes that come to mind and are competitively priced:

Gustavvson Junior - almost $4k no options
Gustavvson Futuremaster - $6k+
Fano TC6 Alt de Facto - $3500
Giffin T Deluxe - almost $4k
Huber - Orcas are $4500+ and Krautster II is $4k
B3 Gene Baker - $3500 - 6k
Rick Kelly / Carmine Street - $3500-5k
Briggs - $4k+
Thorn Artisan Limited - $4k+
Lentz - $4k+
Gil yaron - $4k+
Hartung (Yunico) - $4k+

I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot and people can add to the list. But this idea that Gibsons are overpriced is mostly* silly. My SG Standard HP 2018 was under $2k with the limited edition flame finish.

*$4900 Boogie van limiteds are just stupid and HJ should be fired for that decision alone. I think we can all agree on that.



GuitarBizarre said:


> Gibson don't even slightly compete with Knaggs. Even their best instruments are firewood in comparison.



No.


----------



## Dcm81 (Feb 22, 2018)

USMarine75 said:


> Where is the LP single pickup guitar for $4900 purchase price? I didn't see it in the video nor on the Gibson site.
> 
> http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul.aspx?ModelYear=2018
> 
> ...



Really? You're comparing a bunch of basically flawless hand built guitars from master luthiers to the shoddy, but equally priced factory line stuff from Gibson? If they had the same quality and attention to detail maybe, but as it stands, they should have no right costing the same as guitars in the same league as most of those builders you mentioned! Nik Huber and Ron Thorn FFS!


----------



## Veldar (Feb 22, 2018)

Other than old grabbers/ribbers, EBs & a couple of thunderbirds you never see Gibson played by a bassist, again like a lot of you said they never adapted.

It's funny a lot of people love the rippers/grabbers but the limited reissue had WAY! different pickups in it, a lot muddier than the vintage ones.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 22, 2018)

Dcm81 said:


> Really? You're comparing a bunch of basically flawless hand built guitars from master luthiers to the shoddy, but equally priced factory line stuff from Gibson? If they had the same quality and attention to detail maybe, but as it stands, they should have no right costing the same as guitars in the same league as most of those builders you mentioned! Nik Huber and Ron Thorn FFS!



Silliness. The Gibson hate is just obnoxious. They have massive QC issues right now. Yes. Heck I've sent back my SG a couple times now, but I actually blame the seller (big box store) equally for this. But to say their guitars are shit is just silly.

I sent back an SG because it had a tiny chip (2mm?) in the fretboard by the nut. Since I travel for work and I'll be in a desert I don't want the potential of the wood expanding/contracting and having this turn into a huge fretboard crack, so I returned it. But the tone and playability were 10/10. I had a hard time returning it.

Lastly, one thing that is a good sign of a bullshit opinion (and person) is when someone says "always" or "never" in their arguments. I've played some incredible MIK and even MIC guitars. But it's silly to say all of them are great. It's also equally as silly to say all are bad... well, apparently except for you. Fantastic. I'll keep you in mind when I make my next purchase.


----------



## Dcm81 (Feb 22, 2018)

USMarine75 said:


> Silliness. The Gibson hate is just obnoxious. They have massive QC issues right now. Yes. Heck I've sent back my SG a couple times now, but I actually blame the seller (big box store) equally for this. But to say their guitars are shit is just silly.



*Where did I call them shit? Shoddy refers to inferior quality or workmanship in comparison, which is basically a given when compared to your list of "competition". *

I sent back an SG because it had a tiny chip (2mm?) in the fretboard by the nut. Since I travel for work and I'll be in a desert I don't want the potential of the wood expanding/contracting and having this turn into a huge fretboard crack, so I returned it. But the tone and playability were 10/10. I had a hard time returning it.[/QUOTE]

*Of course you can find good instruments from them but at their prices, it shouldn't be such a crap shoot.*

Lastly, one thing that is a good sign of a bullshit opinion (and person) is when someone says "always" or "never" in their arguments. I've played some incredible MIK and even MIC guitars. But it's silly to say all of them are great. It's also equally as silly to say all are bad... well, apparently except for you. Fantastic. I'll keep you in mind when I make my next purchase.[/QUOTE]

*And again, where did I say either "always" or "never" anywhere in my post??? I get the feeling you had a hard time reading 2 sentences and you want to call me a bullshit person.........do you work in the Gibson QC department by chance cause it seems like you also overlooked quite a lot.*


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Feb 22, 2018)

USMarine75 said:


> Silliness. The Gibson hate is just obnoxious. They have massive QC issues right now. Yes. Heck I've sent back my SG a couple times now, but I actually blame the seller (big box store) equally for this. But to say their guitars are shit is just silly.



They've had these issues for over a decade. This isn't some passing fad of poor quality control. If it's not been resolved by now then there's a simple truth that one of either two things is happening:

1 - They know, but they're too incompetent to fix it
2 - They know, but they simply don't care.

Some of these issues are *completely* unacceptable too - I saw a guy on the Megadeth forums get THREE of these in 2008 when they came out (Ten years ago!): https://reverb.com/item/931778-gibson-explorer-84-reissue-guitar-of-the-week-47-2008-white

The first had misaligned side dots. The second had sharp fret ends. The third had one pickup disconnected on arrival - he kept that one because at least the issue was easy to fix. This has been the general thread of Gibson's quality control before and since. 

Also, as pointed out, all of the people you're saying are "comparable" to Gibson there, actually produce higher quality instruments, with few or no quality control issues. They also produce on much smaller scales and thus don't have the economy of scale on their side like Gibson does - yet they're putting out equal or better product in terms of consistency and quality, at the same price. 

Why would anyone buy a Gibson over any of those alternatives, save for the name on the headstock? Even you, in Gibson's defense, are pointing at companies that would be a much safer buy if you were interested in actually playing music. Gibson's only real, tangible advantages are they hold their value better and they have that logo rather than someone elses.


----------



## Fathand (Feb 22, 2018)

GuitarBizarre said:


> Why would anyone buy a Gibson over any of those alternatives, save for the name on the headstock? Even you, in Gibson's defense, are pointing at companies that would be a much safer buy if you were interested in actually playing music. Gibson's only real, tangible advantages are they hold their value better and they have that logo rather than someone elses.



It's the Mojo in the logo.

Think about it - when you're feeling it (the perfect riff) in your home office, via AxeFX and speakers, dressed in your finest jammies - that logo gives you a bit more credibility. For example "LTD" on the headstock would make it just embarrassing.

ps. I like Gibson. Actually to come to think of it, I need a Flying V.


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 22, 2018)

I think some of you guys are lumping in Gibson Custom with Gibson USA. The custom shop guitars have nowhere near as much QC issues as the USA Nashville factory guitars. It always seemed to me that the Nashville factory was full of minimum wage employees that hate their job. 


I do wonder if they actually sell very many of those $12k LP reissues...


----------



## blacai (Feb 22, 2018)

I expected to be able to buy some old gibson for a quite reasonable price... but it seems it doesn't matter how bad for the company is going and how bad their reputation is. People continue selling them for a good and "high" amount. They just rely on their name to ask over 2k for a 2015 model


----------



## Shoeless_jose (Feb 22, 2018)

blacai said:


> I expected to be able to buy some old gibson for a quite reasonable price... but it seems it doesn't matter how bad for the company is going and how bad their reputation is. People continue selling them for a good and "high" amount. They just rely on their name to ask over 2k for a 2015 model



that stings, I snagged my 2015 Les Paul for like $1500 CAD they were blowing them out since the 2015s were the anti blues dad guitars.


----------



## Triple-J (Feb 23, 2018)

Looks like they're starting to break up/sell off some of their assets. https://www.musicradar.com/news/bandlab-rescues-cakewalk-from-gibson


----------



## bostjan (Feb 23, 2018)

Triple-J said:


> Looks like they're starting to break up/sell off some of their assets. https://www.musicradar.com/news/bandlab-rescues-cakewalk-from-gibson


I don't think that's a real strong signal just yet, but either way, the long term outlook is poor.
Sonar was the DAW that I obtained just before I started with Studio One. I was really quite unimpressed with it, personally. I'm sure it works fine for some people, but I just couldn't get it working without frustrating the hell out of me. At the time, I thought it was just me, but after I installed S1, I was really enjoying recording. I had a similar experience with a very early version of Cakewalk before switching to Microsoft Session.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Feb 23, 2018)

So they've panic-relaunched the Steinberger Website (But half-assed it completely) and sold cakewalk.

Hopefully the next news is that Baldwin, Valley Arts, Tobias, Slingerland, and TEAC have been divorced from "The Gibson Family of Brands", so that someone who gives a shit can start working on bringing them back.


----------



## Zalbu (Feb 23, 2018)

This would be the perfect time to bring Steinberger back with the headless craze going on, but unfortunately Gibson doesn't give a crap. They could even make it a sub $1000 import model and people would buy it in droves because of the design.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Feb 23, 2018)

Zalbu said:


> This would be the perfect time to bring Steinberger back with the headless craze going on, but unfortunately Gibson doesn't give a crap. They could even make it a sub $1000 import model and people would buy it in droves because of the design.




They did exactly what you're suggesting, we even had a thread about it: http://www.sevenstring.org/threads/gibson-is-reviving-the-steinberger-spirit-series.327325/page-4

TL;DR - They only brought back the cheapest models, made a new website, and that website is extremely half-assed, with pletny of the pages just being new licks of paint on the old ones, particularly the page with the manuals, which now has downloadable manuals for a bunch of products that have been discontinued for years and aren't mentioned anywhere else on the current website.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 23, 2018)

GuitarBizarre said:


> So they've panic-relaunched the Steinberger Website (But half-assed it completely) and sold cakewalk.
> 
> Hopefully the next news is that Baldwin, Valley Arts, Tobias, Slingerland, and TEAC have been divorced from "The Gibson Family of Brands", so that someone who gives a shit can start working on bringing them back.


I miss those brands. With the economy for musical gear the way it stands now, I really doubt any of them would make a comeback to the level anywhere near their former glory, though. 
Back when I worked at a job selling guitars, Valley Arts were top notch instruments, and weren't even that expensive, but we had a very difficult time moving them due to the fact that >95% of our customers either wanted a cheap whatever-brand guitar, an Ibanez, or a Fender/Gibson, and the vast majority of the other 5% were wanting something very specific, like an EBMM or a USA BC Rich, or a Charvel, etc. For a time before that, we had a similar problem with Steinbergers, where they just weren't cool anymore, so they sat untouched for years.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (Feb 24, 2018)

blacai said:


> I expected to be able to buy some old gibson for a quite reasonable price... but it seems it doesn't matter how bad for the company is going and how bad their reputation is. People continue selling them for a good and "high" amount. They just rely on their name to ask over 2k for a 2015 model



I said this in another thread, but

Should Gibson go out of business, it won’t immediately affect competition in the used market, because it’s all the same guys buying and selling each other’s used Les Pauls in a circlejerk:

“Ah lahk yer Les Pawl, ah luv mah Les Pawl, it from a limit-ted run of twelve thousand they did last year in this Epiphone color. Ah’ll trade yuh mahn fer yers, these thangs shure hawld theys val-yew, mhm.”

The moment someone is gullible enough to pay more than five grand for a 25+ year-old Gibson because “vintage”, the bubble starts growing to include the “reproduction 1992” owners that caught wind of the exchange. They then price it a grand over what it last sold for and leave it on eBay for a year - Long enough for owners of a real ‘92 to raise their prices and advertise having “the real deal, right here, look no further.” Then they get tire-kickers asking “how do I know this isn’t a ‘94?”

It’ll require the intermingling of outsiders who are already used to suffering a 40% resale loss on three custom djent guitars each year before that market cracks.


----------



## feraledge (Feb 24, 2018)

Fathand said:


> Think about it - when you're feeling it (the perfect riff) in your home office, via AxeFX and speakers, dressed in your finest jammies - that logo gives you a bit more credibility. For example "LTD" on the headstock would make it just embarrassing.


Wut?? 
Only posers would play an LTD at home, right?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 24, 2018)

Folks still can't wrap thier heads around the fact that this has nothing to do with the product. 

It's pure mismanagement in a declining industry. 

Gibson is still incredibly profitable, they just got caught with thier pants down when thier loans matured. 

They need cash fast, hence selling off Cakewalk.


----------



## Possessed (Feb 24, 2018)

I didnt tune my guitars for quite a while. I just found my r9 hold the tune much better than my suhr modern with locking tuner.


----------



## exo (Feb 24, 2018)

The really silly thing in all this is that literally ALL Gibson had to do is fix their QC game, and they'd be golden.....

Instead, they pumped a lot of SHIT out the last couple of years, trying to sell volume to fix their finances, and it's bit them square in the ass outside of the "blues dad" segment....

Anyone really know offhand what Gibsonis actually worth? I LOVE my beat to hell '88 Explorer enough that it seems pertinent for me to figure this into my "I just won a quarter billion dollars on a powerball ticket" scenario.....


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 24, 2018)

exo said:


> The really silly thing in all this is that literally ALL Gibson had to do is fix their QC game, and they'd be golden.....
> 
> Instead, they pumped a lot of SHIT out the last couple of years, trying to sell volume to fix their finances, and it's bit them square in the ass outside of the "blues dad" segment....
> 
> Anyone really know offhand what Gibsonis actually worth? I LOVE my beat to hell '88 Explorer enough that it seems pertinent for me to figure this into my "I just won a quarter billion dollars on a powerball ticket" scenario.....



Outside of internet guitar circles, and really specific ones at that, there isn't this outcry of bad Gibson QC. In fact quite the opposite. You have to remember, even in the age of internet, most guitarists don't follow this stuff like we nerds do. 

Gibson still brings in the better part of $2 billion yearly. Even last year, which was a "bad" year.


----------



## Fathand (Feb 24, 2018)

feraledge said:


> Wut??
> Only posers would play an LTD at home, right?



I knew I forgot something from my original Post. Here it is:


----------



## Fathand (Feb 24, 2018)

feraledge said:


> Wut??
> Only posers would play an LTD at home, right?



I knew I forgot something from my original Post. Here it is:


----------



## ImNotAhab (Feb 25, 2018)

Behold, some out of context click bait to add to the fire but if it is a fair representation of Gibson's perspective they have some interesting points.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/gibson-boss-blames-guitar-stores/

<Wooosssshhhhhhh....>


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Feb 25, 2018)

Isn't Henry known for treating guitar shops like shit? Like, not letting them have the option to pick what guitars they want to sell, and how many guitars they want to stock?


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Feb 25, 2018)

ImNotAhab said:


> Behold, some out of context click bait to add to the fire but if it is a fair representation of Gibson's perspective they have some interesting points.
> 
> http://ultimateclassicrock.com/gibson-boss-blames-guitar-stores/
> 
> <Wooosssshhhhhhh....>



His answer: Put the high dollar guitars on the floor so everyone will buy one. And because 2008. 
I guess, who cares at this point? He doesn't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 25, 2018)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Isn't Henry known for treating guitar shops like shit? Like, not letting them have the option to pick what guitars they want to sell, and how many guitars they want to stock?



Both of those things are in no way exclusive to Gibson. 

Or even the musical instrument industry. 

In order to be granted the opportunity to buy at wholesale you need to hammer out a dealer agreement. Those usually include stipulations on the order size and spread.


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 25, 2018)

ImNotAhab said:


> Behold, some out of context click bait to add to the fire but if it is a fair representation of Gibson's perspective they have some interesting points.
> 
> http://ultimateclassicrock.com/gibson-boss-blames-guitar-stores/
> 
> <Wooosssshhhhhhh....>



Of course, who wouldn't like all instrument stores to be hang-out spots that are super chill about people putting their mitts on nicer instruments, but the fact that reality doesn't meet ideal really can't be your best excuse. I'm sure that reputedly-onerous dealer agreements that expect stores to be high volume dealers don't help, either.

Totally spitballing, but maybe stores are a factor in a way- more in that the success of online sales over brick & mortar stores kind of become a great equalizer. For somebody who is comfortable buying a guitar online, they have absolute pick of the litter: the shop down the street might carry a few brands, but the internet has all of 'em. Gibson can't depend on the Les Paul being the trophy guitar high on the wall of every GC to drive their desirability or sales because they have to compete with used LPs on Reverb, other brands' singlecuts on Sweetwater, or custom or semi-custom builders that are legion now.


----------



## Avedas (Feb 25, 2018)

Buying online is the way to go. You have all the options available to you, it gets delivered straight to your door, and you get an actual new guitar that hasn't been thrashed to shit by djent teenager or blues dad alike. If you buy from somewhere with a decent return policy there's basically no risk.


----------



## feraledge (Feb 26, 2018)

Holy shit, Henry is even more out of his mind than I had thought.
So he wants GC to be an Apple store? He understands that Apple has all of their products out to touch and demo while they're chained to the table with security wires. Also, each store probably sells hundreds of units daily, so they can swallow having a years worth of iWhatevers out on display. He wants GC to have couches and $4K guitars sitting out for people to sample? I mean, hell, I'd love that personally too at first, until I see a kid who might, at best, buy a $150 Epiphone smashing one around and it sits without strings on it.
Plus, if the QC is awful, most people will think the same thing I do when I grab a Gibson at GC: it looks far more appealing on the wall than in my hands.

It's sad really, bashing aside, while I will jump on Kiesel, it's easy because I hate nearly all of their designs and ideas. Their model is appealing in theory instead of practice. But Gibson is iconic guitars and shit execution. LPs, SGs, Explorers, Vs, and Firebirds? All absolutely killer designs. That's a lot of ground covered by one company, so it will always suck to see them wreck that and then go to such insane lengths to cover it.
Ultimately, Henry might be right, GC probably shouldn't have survived 2008, but it's been 10 years. If Gibson can't adapt to that, then I don't know what to say.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Feb 26, 2018)

Yeah. That's an amazingly delusional standpoint. As you said - its been ten years for Gibson to find a way of surviving. If they haven't by now there's only one side to blame, and its not guitar retail


----------



## Lukhas (Feb 26, 2018)

ImNotAhab said:


> Behold, some out of context click bait to add to the fire but if it is a fair representation of Gibson's perspective they have some interesting points.
> 
> http://ultimateclassicrock.com/gibson-boss-blames-guitar-stores/
> 
> <Wooosssshhhhhhh....>


Well the full interview indeed brings a more balanced/nuanced point of view.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/...ceo-henry-juszkiewicz-guitar-retail-interview

That said, Gibson has been struggling for quite some time so even if he could make a few points, Henry Juszkiewicz is going to have issues to hold water to say the least.


----------



## BlueTrident (Feb 26, 2018)

The main question is that if Gibson goes out of business, will ESP and PRS go back to making pre-lawsuit MXs and Singlecuts?


----------



## spudmunkey (Feb 26, 2018)

The "afraid of e-commerce" comments confuse me. I looked up all 3 of the local stores that are worth stopping at, and all three of them have decent websites where you can see and order just about everything they sell. I'm not sure what GC/MF, Sam Ash, or Sweetwater could do different that would be enough of a gang-changer to really turn things around.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 26, 2018)

BlueTrident said:


> The main question is that if Gibson goes out of business, will ESP and PRS go back to making pre-lawsuit MXs and Singlecuts?



Not likely.

A company with so much intellectual property as Gibson doesn't just go away. In fact it would probably be harder to build that stuff as the new owners of the IP are going to want to make thier money on it.

Say Gibson dissolves and assets are sold. Some company can buy the rights to the guitar shapes and sue the pants off of anyone who even thinks of copying them.

Look up "IP trolling" and "patent trolling."


----------



## GunpointMetal (Feb 26, 2018)

All of those places have online stores...I think this guy is living in 1997 or something. The last time I picked up a LP in a guitar shop it felt like a really heavy POS and didn't play any better than the $350 Epiphones. Make better guitars, with better QC, and people will buy them. Make ugly guitars with stupid features nobody is asking for and have awful QC, nobody will want your stuff. It's not complicated.


----------



## auxioluck (Feb 26, 2018)

I'm not sure how this opinion will be taken, but I honestly don't feel any sympathy whatsoever for the situation they are in.

From working at a music store and seeing the markups on the cost (and the lack of justification for the prices in the first place), the quality never justified the price tags on Gibsons. And this was over 10 years ago. In 2006, I went to NAMM, and when walking into the Gibson booth, the person at the front literally grabbed my sleeve and pulled me back, and asked if I had an appointment. Apparently both Fender and Gibson both required appointments to go and browse their booths. To me, at the time, yes I was much younger, but it really pissed me off. Not only because the person physically put their hands on me, but it also really felt like a way to generate artificial demand just to make people feel "exclusive" and "VIP" for really no reason. I haven't bought a Fender or a Gibson since then.

Gibson in general has just felt gradually more and more pretentious for the last 15 or so years with absolutely no good reason to be. I have never seen more guitars over $2,000 with sub-par QC than when I worked for that store (and from what I saw at my last trip to GC, it's only gotten worse). They can blame stores and online sales all they want, but to me it comes down to a simple fact - they aren't worth the money, and haven't been for quite some time. Brand loyalty can only go so far before it's just not reasonable anymore.


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 26, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not likely.
> 
> A company with so much intellectual property as Gibson doesn't just go away. In fact it would probably be harder to build that stuff as the new owners of the IP are going to want to make thier money on it.
> 
> ...



Yeah, it's not quite clear where the idea is coming from, that if Gibson defaults that its assets will go up in a puff of smoke, their dopey CEO will melt into a puddle like the Wicked Witch of the West, and a blight will have left the land.

I'd tend to think that people who believe that the current ownership is shamelessly milking the Gibson name and its IPs shouldn't feel any more optimistic about its potential new owners.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Feb 26, 2018)

Demiurge said:


> Yeah, it's not quite clear where the idea is coming from, that if Gibson defaults that its assets will go up in a puff of smoke, their dopey CEO will melt into a puddle like the Wicked Witch of the West, and a blight will have left the land.
> 
> I'd tend to think that people who believe that the current ownership is shamelessly milking the Gibson name and its IPs shouldn't feel any more optimistic about its potential new owners.


That said, we know for sure that this current management lets IP languish in "doing fucking nothings-ville"

So what have we got to lose with new ownership? More poorly QC'd guitars nobody buys because secondhand is a better buy?


----------



## possumkiller (Feb 27, 2018)

Apparently Henry is now also saying it's the vintage purist nut's fault they are going bankrupt. Kids today want modern stuff like robot tuners and built in effects... on 50s guitar designs...


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 27, 2018)

^Hoisted by their own petard, in a way. When a company depends on more of a traditionalist crowd, there's the risk of the new stuff not going over well... and losing sales to the used/vintage market.


----------



## Riffer (Feb 28, 2018)

BlueTrident said:


> The main question is that if Gibson goes out of business, will ESP and PRS go back to making pre-lawsuit MXs and Singlecuts?



The "pre lawsuit" PRS Singlecuts aren't different than the post lawsuit ones though.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Feb 28, 2018)

Lukhas said:


> Well the full interview indeed brings a more balanced/nuanced point of view.
> https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8215382/gibson-ceo-henry-juszkiewicz-guitar-retail-interview


Wow - that's a whole lotta weird theories and very little explanation on why he has no clue how to run a guitar company. I mean, seriously: e-commerce, the stock market crash, untrained staff, kids asking for “new technology“ and music stores in “pornography Districts“ are responsible for Gibson revenue going down? We all lie to ourselves to be happy, but he's doing that on whole different level. Reminds me of the Nokia guys: “We didn't do anything wrong, but somehow we lost...“


----------



## technomancer (Feb 28, 2018)

And the winning moves continue... let's lay off the senior people that actually do the work.

https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibson-lays-off-staff-at-nashville-custom-shop


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Feb 28, 2018)

technomancer said:


> And the winning moves continue... let's lay off the senior people that actually do the work.
> 
> https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibson-lays-off-staff-at-nashville-custom-shop



Senior likely means highest paid. With such a large CS staff, I'm sure they're thinking the rest can pick up the slack.

It's not like Jackson, who would be screwed if they let go a couple guys.


----------



## ArtDecade (Feb 28, 2018)

It would be awesome if Fujigen bought the Gibson name and made it their house brand.


----------



## Wizard of Ozz (Feb 28, 2018)

technomancer said:


> And the winning moves continue... let's lay off the senior people that actually do the work.
> 
> https://www.musicradar.com/news/gibson-lays-off-staff-at-nashville-custom-shop



I somehow see the price of my Custom Shop LPs appreciating in value rather suddenly. 

Sad for the workers though. After sacking Edwin Wilson & Rick Gembar (the two top guys at the Custom Shop late LY)... I figured more of the same would soon follow. And now it has. Sad.


----------



## Wizard of Ozz (Feb 28, 2018)

ArtDecade said:


> It would be awesome if Fujigen bought the Gibson name and made it their house brand.



... more like Fender.


----------



## Wizard of Ozz (Feb 28, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Senior likely means highest paid. With such a large CS staff, I'm sure they're thinking the rest can pick up the slack.
> 
> It's not like Jackson, who would be screwed if they let go a couple guys.




It's not as large a work force as you think. Gibson already fired Edwin Wilson (the guy running the Historic LP program for the last 15 years)... and his boss Rick Gembar who was the Custom Shop manager for the last 10 years... late last year in 2017... kinda like if Jackson USA fired Mike Shannon... it's a pretty big deal.


----------



## feraledge (Mar 1, 2018)

Speaking of shitting on legacies. Why take the John Waters stache' down with him too? This guy is just an epic dick.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 1, 2018)

Wizard of Ozz said:


> It's not as large a work force as you think. Gibson already fired Edwin Wilson (the guy running the Historic LP program for the last 15 years)... and his boss Rick Gembar who was the Custom Shop manager for the last 10 years... late last year in 2017... kinda like if Jackson USA fired Mike Shannon... it's a pretty big deal.



Perhaps you're more in the know than I am, but was roughly 2003 to 2017 a banner period for the Custom Shop?


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 1, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Perhaps you're more in the know than I am, but was roughly 2003 to 2017 a banner period for the Custom Shop?



that position...it always seems like you are training the system that's gonna replace you...because once the process in place what do you even do there.

Knaggs essentially built up the entire ps program at prs then left immediately.


----------



## Wizard of Ozz (Mar 1, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Perhaps you're more in the know than I am, but was roughly 2003 to 2017 a banner period for the Custom Shop?



More likely 2014-2017... as these last 3-4 years have seen a culmination of lots of small details which have really improved the Custom Shop Historic Reissues. I'm not speaking towards the production models (LP Standard, SG, Regular Custom, Studio et al).

They had seemed to be getting it all right in the last few years... which would be very ironic if it were to all end tomorrow.


----------



## Wizard of Ozz (Mar 1, 2018)

feraledge said:


> Speaking of shitting on legacies. Why take the John Waters stache' down with him too? This guy is just an epic dick.




You noticed that too...






Sassy.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 1, 2018)

Ahh no wonder they couldn't follow the specs on my custom order...


----------



## Dayn (Mar 1, 2018)

...Does anyone know why Gibson doesn't licence out all this new stuff?

I'm honestly surprised to hear about all the new shit they've developed. It does sound really interesting. But I have _never heard of it_ until I looked for it. Because it seems they keep it all in-house.

Why don't they capitalise on that? I don't understand.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 9, 2018)

So apparently the bond holders have 2/3 of Gibson and they want Henry fired.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 9, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> So apparently the bond holders have 2/3 of Gibson and they want Henry fired.



Anyone other than Henry J is an improvement.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Mar 9, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> So apparently the bond holders have 2/3 of Gibson and they want Henry fired.


Yeah I just read that tonight.

That would the best thing for the company hands down.


----------



## NateFalcon (Mar 9, 2018)

Henry J reminds me of that scene in ‘Other People’s Money’ when Danny Devito says “The house is falling down around you...and you’re going around tidying up!!...” he really is a hard-headed asshole who blames the rainforest protection laws and people being “ignorant” to his ideas as reasons the company is petering out. Truth is you can buy far better guitars at far better prices. The “dad tone” crowd is getting older and phasing out and the FIRST THING they complain about is the weight of a les paul...and when quality started tanking the classic guys were the first to point it out as bullshit for a high priced, USA-made guitar company, and the “visionary” robot tuners must’ve been an investors contract thing because he REFUSED to accept that people hated them. Guitars were already going headless anyway so it was actually a brain-fart innovation. The Firebird zero was a epic fail...Gibson has no choice but to downsize despite what wildly outrageous politician talk their PR channels are feeding people. Unless LOTS of the newer guys start all swapping to LP’s (which will never happen because of design and price), then Gibson will go under completely or have to do something radical...


----------



## cwhitey2 (Mar 9, 2018)

Jeff and Henry have a lot in common


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Mar 10, 2018)

NateFalcon said:


> Henry J reminds me of that scene in ‘Other People’s Money’ when Danny Devito says “The house is falling down around you...and you’re going around tidying up!!...” he really is a hard-headed asshole who blames the rainforest protection laws and people being “ignorant” to his ideas as reasons the company is petering out. Truth is you can buy far better guitars at far better prices. The “dad tone” crowd is getting older and phasing out and the FIRST THING they complain about is the weight of a les paul...and when quality started tanking the classic guys were the first to point it out as bullshit for a high priced, USA-made guitar company, and the “visionary” robot tuners must’ve been an investors contract thing because he REFUSED to accept that people hated them. Guitars were already going headless anyway so it was actually a brain-fart innovation. The Firebird zero was a epic fail...Gibson has no choice but to downsize despite what wildly outrageous politician talk their PR channels are feeding people. Unless LOTS of the newer guys start all swapping to LP’s (which will never happen because of design and price), then Gibson will go under completely or have to do something radical...


Downsizing is exactly what they can't do if they expect to service a debt. They need profit and revenue, not necessarily cost efficiency.


----------



## Mathemagician (Mar 10, 2018)

Depends on the terms of the bankruptcy filings. Establishing a plan, establishing what type of haircut bond holders are taking on the dollar, selling off unprofitable business units/patents/brands, streamlining production and increasing automation, establishing sources of funds and what ownership retake they’re entitled to along with new covenants for debtors lending on the new business, etc. cost cutting will play a large part in the new plan.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Mar 10, 2018)

Les Paul the pain away. Like breakfast beers, more LP models are only a good option .


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 10, 2018)

GuitarBizarre said:


> Downsizing is exactly what they can't do if they expect to service a debt. They need profit and revenue, not necessarily cost efficiency.



They have revenue, it's profit over operation costs and debt that's the problem.

Their guitar business is actually helping to prop up some of thier failed ventures.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 10, 2018)

Better qc would help a lot.


----------



## jwade (Mar 10, 2018)

They should just sell off al the non-guitar related companies, fire Henry, and drastically lower the other higher ups salaries.


----------



## NateFalcon (Mar 10, 2018)

The problem is they’ve borrowed and restructured so many times that firing HJ alone (or downsizing) isn’t gonna relieve the debt mountain...even with new models that are a hit and shitloads of new endorsements from big names -they’re still in trouble...and the number of people buying LP’s is shrinking...not growing, so read between the lines. They’re a Company that’s clinging on to classic guitars solely, and by today’s building standards LP’s are clunky and primitive. The Gibson “tone” argument is losing traction more and more...especially with anyone under the age of 30 or so. It would take a absolute fucking miracle for Gibson to pull their heads out of their asses and come out on top...


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Mar 10, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> They have revenue, it's profit over operation costs and debt that's the problem.
> 
> Their guitar business is actually helping to prop up some of thier failed ventures.


I never said they didn't, I said that's what they NEED, because you can't downsize (reduce revenue) and at the same time expect to bring in the mountain of money they required.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 10, 2018)

GuitarBizarre said:


> I never said they didn't, I said that's what they NEED, because you can't downsize (reduce revenue) and at the same time expect to bring in the mountain of money they required.



Downsizing traditionally refers to reducing operating costs by cutting jobs and halting failing parts of the enterprise. 

By cutting cost centers you can turn more existing revenue into profit.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 10, 2018)

GuitarBizarre said:


> I never said they didn't, I said that's what they NEED, because you can't downsize (reduce revenue) and at the same time expect to bring in the mountain of money they required.



that's not what downsizing means.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Mar 11, 2018)

diagrammatiks said:


> that's not what downsizing means.


True, downsizing is the idea/attempt to do the same thing you are doing but with less/reduced overhead, ie: cost centers as mentioned. Just talking about downsizing here, not the holistic Gibson turn-around solution.
Does it always work? Sometimes.... when you have obvious levels of excess to trim (Henry's personal breakfast chef, or something), its not a huge disruption or challenge.
Sometimes there's real cuts to actual productive resources (people/assets) and doing same with less doesn't work out w/o some real management and planning by adults. That planning and mgmt part (or lack of adult oversight) can get skipped and the subsequent shitshow ensues. Then you have more unintended attrition and its all a big bowel movement until something else changes (new NEW mgmt, etc).
And everyone that fucked it all up will get promoted or a better job somewhere else .
Circle of life and all that.
Thanks for reading my unsolicited opinion.
EDIT: more with less, should be same with less.


----------



## Wizard of Ozz (Mar 11, 2018)

Gibson needs to get back to making guitars. 

Leave the lifestyle gear to Apple. Henry is not Steve Jobs.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 11, 2018)

Wizard of Ozz said:


> Gibson needs to get back to making guitars.
> 
> Leave the lifestyle gear to Apple. Henry is not Steve Jobs.



It was the initial investment that killed them.

They should have bought up these brands slower, making each viable and profitable before moving on to the next facet.


----------



## Wizard of Ozz (Mar 11, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It was the initial investment that killed them.
> 
> They should have bought up these brands slower, making each viable and profitable before moving on to the next facet.



Even still they would've been eaten up by the competition... like Cake. 

Cakewalk: Logic, ProTools, Reaper, et al
KRK: Yamaha, JBL, and others
Baldwin Pianos: made in China... horrible.
etc, etc, etc.

Gibson never intended to dedicate that much time, money, R/D, and marketing $$$ to do so. Bad investment is bad.

They need to get back to making guitars. Not much else. Not software, not monitors, not stereo hifi gear... just guitars. Do one thing and do it well. Sadly Im not sure they can even do this now... the time left on the clock may have run out, and it looks like they might be in damage control, make our company look good on the books time for a prospective buyer. Sad.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 12, 2018)

Wizard of Ozz said:


> Even still they would've been eaten up by the competition... like Cake.
> 
> Cakewalk: Logic, ProTools, Reaper, et al
> KRK: Yamaha, JBL, and others
> ...



For a long time, it seemed like everything Gibson has touched has turned to shit, but a lot of brands turned to shit before Gibson acquired them, which takes us back to terrible business management practices.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Mar 12, 2018)

I like Gibsons. I don't want to, and I really want to be like 'Gibsons suck and they're overpriced (which is true) and have questionable quality control (also true) and the owners are idiots (very true) and theyre not remotely practical or ergonomic (true) and their tone is super one dimensional and can't handle high gain without that annoying scratchy sound (true) and they make shitty guitars!'

But I can't, because I find few things more immediately comfortable than a Gibson or Epiphone stop tail piece bridge and a perfectly sized Gibson neck with the perfect sized frets. I know that on a Les Paul anything above the 12th fret is going to be a struggle, and that's why all the Gibsons I own get sold eventually, but just like a well made Fender, a well made Gibson is really something special.

It's like that chick in high school that all the guys liked and you were too cool to admit you thought was hot too because you knew there was no way you'd ever get her, so you're like 'nah man Ashley's crazy and fake as fuck, it's just the make up and tight clothes and she'll break your heart' and even though you weren't entirely wrong, at the end of the day, overrated though it may be, there's something appealing there and given the right circumstances, you'll absolutely play that Les Paul.

But it won't end well, because of all the issues that were perfectly valid, and you have standards, so inevitably you're going to sell it off or put it in the closet for something that's more practical and versatile, and less expensive to boot, that fulfils all of your needs seamlessly, and then you sell the Les Paul, and you're like fuck Les Paul's, they're stupid and gimmicky and I don't like them, I'm with Kiesel now and I'm happy.

But then you see one on a video, or in an ad, and you're like fuck. There's something about that Les Paul...

I hope Gibson figures it out and I hope at the end of this their highest priced guitar is like, $1200, which is far more fair for what you're getting.


----------



## lucasreis (Mar 21, 2018)

Slap a Gibson headstock on Epiphones and sell them as an entry level Gibson. Just keep the Epiphone name for their classic models that don't have a Gibson equivalent.


----------



## jwade (Mar 21, 2018)

Lord Voldemort said:


> I like Gibsons. I don't want to, and I really want to be like 'Gibsons suck and they're overpriced (which is true) and have questionable quality control (also true) and the owners are idiots (very true) and theyre not remotely practical or ergonomic (true) and their tone is super one dimensional and can't handle high gain without that annoying scratchy sound (true) and they make shitty guitars!'
> 
> But I can't, because I find few things more immediately comfortable than a Gibson or Epiphone stop tail piece bridge and a perfectly sized Gibson neck with the perfect sized frets. I know that on a Les Paul anything above the 12th fret is going to be a struggle, and that's why all the Gibsons I own get sold eventually, but just like a well made Fender, a well made Gibson is really something special.
> 
> ...



Read this in drunk Rick's voice, and it was one of the most hilarious things I've ever read on this message board.


----------



## crazyprofessor (Mar 22, 2018)

The likely outcome of a bankruptcy proceeding is that the company will be broken up and sold off in pieces. In all likelihood, if creditors were to take over as in in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, I would think it is likely that the Gibson guitar division would be sold off as a separate entity. Presumably there would be a range of possible buyers, perhaps competitors or other media companies. In all likelihood, they'll have to downsize that core business too, and some folks would be fired, including the very incompetent management they have now.


----------



## lucasreis (Mar 22, 2018)

It would be really funny if Fender bought 'em.

I don't know... maybe PRS could buy them? It would be a great fit I guess. I don't really know the market value of any of these. Or if a more modern brand bought them, like Ibby, and started to release all kinds of crazy Gibsons with larger scales, more strings, etc, this would be really interesting (and would piss off the traditionalists a lot).


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 22, 2018)

I hope it is Yamaha.


----------



## thedonal (Mar 22, 2018)

While I would like to see someone like Paul Reed Smith owning Gibson, as he has such respect and love for the Gibson heritage and the guitar builders that made it that way, it would be a huge investment in both money and time to keep as involved in PRS as he is while bringing the Gibson ship back into order and maintaining that. I can't see that being an attractive proposition for someone who is so deeply invested in his own brand and creation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 22, 2018)

I don't think there are any existing guitar companies that have a combination of the capital needed and experience to take over Gibson Guitar.


----------



## Avedas (Mar 22, 2018)

I hope Facebook buys it. Have a nice blue and white F headstock.


----------



## jwade (Mar 22, 2018)

It would be cool if Marshall took over the company.


----------



## feraledge (Mar 22, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think there are any existing guitar companies that have a combination of the capital needed and experience to take over Gibson Guitar.


Jeff has the demeanor to take over for Henry at least. 

Genuinely speaking, I hope they nix the turd and just get their shit together. That's just about the least likely scenario though... 
Stopped in a GC today and all the new SGs and LPs, even in the $1500 and lower range had locks on the swingers for anything in reach. I'm half inclined it's to keep people from touching them before getting a solid GAS boner for one from a distance.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Mar 23, 2018)

Oy, just for fun as we watch Gibson's 2018 unfold:

“My dream was to be the Nike of music lifestyle,” Juszkiewicz said in an interview. “At this point, I have to cut back on that ambition, frankly.”

“You have to eat so much garbage in order to be a Gibson dealer that it’s not worth it,” said George Gruhn, who owns Gruhn Guitars in Nashville.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-guitar-maker-faces-crushing-560-million-debt


----------



## feraledge (Mar 23, 2018)

The906 said:


> “My dream was to be the Nike of music lifestyle,” Juszkiewicz said in an interview. “At this point, I have to cut back on that ambition, frankly.”


How is this dude still employed?


----------



## Seabeast2000 (Mar 23, 2018)

feraledge said:


> How is this dude still employed?


Good question.I assume he has a controlling stake in the private Corp but I have no idea.
Maybe he'll announce price increases next


----------



## feraledge (Mar 23, 2018)

The906 said:


> Good question.I assume he has a controlling stake in the private Corp but I have no idea.
> Maybe he'll announce price increases next


BRB, gotta run to the mailbox and grab my ripping new tapestry for my badass man cave. Really exhibits my rock and roll lifestyle...






Swoosh.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

feraledge said:


> How is this dude still employed?



Gibson is privately held, with Henry J. and David Berryman being majority shareholders. 

That's part of the problem, as there was no oversight. No one to report to but themselves.


----------



## feraledge (Mar 23, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Gibson is privately held, with Henry J. and David Berryman being majority shareholders.
> 
> That's part of the problem, as there was no oversight. No one to report to but themselves.


Gotcha. I bet a lot of former Custom Shop employees just really had to take it when he made the Nike statement. Gibson Guitars: Insult to Injury.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

feraledge said:


> Gotcha. I bet a lot of former Custom Shop employees just really had to take it when he made the Nike statement. Gibson Guitars: Insult to Injury.



Everyone is shitting themselves over that quote, but I don't think that's really that crazy. 

Sure, the use of Nike is somewhat dated depending on what circles you're in, but becoming a lifestyle brand has worked out very, very well for a multitude of companies. 

Let's also not be naive in thinking they weren't somewhat close to that. None of the brands they owned were particularly unpopular and if they had more time and less debt we probably would have seen more progress.


----------



## feraledge (Mar 23, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Everyone is shitting themselves over that quote, but I don't think that's really that crazy.
> 
> Sure, the use of Nike is somewhat dated depending on what circles you're in, but becoming a lifestyle brand has worked out very, very well for a multitude of companies.
> 
> Let's also not be naive in thinking they weren't somewhat close to that. None of the brands they owned were particularly unpopular and if they had more time and less debt we probably would have seen more progress.


I don't necessarily think it's a crazy idea, but as much as people hate ESP's move to keep the name on custom shop/original series guitars and keep the LTD line pushed hard, I think that's what Gibson should have probably done. The lifestyle aspect of the brand would probably be worth more if the company was branding itself better. A dude who buys a $5k LP would probably put a Gibson Lamp Paul coffee table next to his Marshall man cave beer fridge. And the kid who buys a $200 Epiphone would probably buy a bunch of Affliction-esque Gibson gear. That stuff can work, but how hard did they push the lifestyle stuff, really? 
Should have just stopped buying companies they weren't going to do much with and gone for Marshall after Jim died. Then they could have really corned the man cave lifestyle legacy brands. 
It's not that it's shocking that Henry said or thinks that, it's just the air of hubris about it. And he's not alone, Eddie is the branding king, but I'm sure EVH makes nearly all of its money from amps and guitars. Not board shorts and bar stools.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 23, 2018)

They had a wood problem they didn't take care in the right way in the 2010s.
making 600-800 dollar usa gibsons makes no damn sense from a marketing perspective and destroyed their brand equity. 

terribly marketing strategies is also what caused a lot of the bigger lifestyle fashion brands to almost collapse before they got consolidated.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

feraledge said:


> I don't necessarily think it's a crazy idea, but as much as people hate ESP's move to keep the name on custom shop/original series guitars and keep the LTD line pushed hard, I think that's what Gibson should have probably done. The lifestyle aspect of the brand would probably be worth more if the company was branding itself better. A dude who buys a $5k LP would probably put a Gibson Lamp Paul coffee table next to his Marshall man cave beer fridge. And the kid who buys a $200 Epiphone would probably buy a bunch of Affliction-esque Gibson gear. That stuff can work, but how hard did they push the lifestyle stuff, really?
> Should have just stopped buying companies they weren't going to do much with and gone for Marshall after Jim died. Then they could have really corned the man cave lifestyle legacy brands.
> It's not that it's shocking that Henry said or thinks that, it's just the air of hubris about it. And he's not alone, Eddie is the branding king, but I'm sure EVH makes nearly all of its money from amps and guitars. Not board shorts and bar stools.



They had been pushing the lifestyle stuff for at least the last decade or two. Enough so that thier license was worth millions. In fact they've been pushing it before it started becoming cliche to become a "lifestyle brand."

They weren't alone either, Fender had been doing it before Gibson started. 

Like I said, the idea was good and the strategy they had laid out was sound, it was the execution that killed them. They got into too much debt and didn't move quick enough to integrate the acquisitions into the overarching plan. 

You kinda need a large helping of hubris to run a company of that size and even think of accomplishing the goals set forth. But you also need to execute, and that's where Gibson management faltered. 

As posted in another thread related to Gibson Corp. they were actually in the upswing. Revenue was flat, but profit year over year was on the rise for five years running. They just ran out of time.


----------



## feraledge (Mar 23, 2018)

Fair enough.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

diagrammatiks said:


> They had a wood problem they didn't take care in the right way in the 2010s.
> making 600-800 dollar usa gibsons makes no damn sense from a marketing perspective and destroyed their brand equity.
> 
> terribly marketing strategies is also what caused a lot of the bigger lifestyle fashion brands to almost collapse before they got consolidated.



Making "entry level" Gibsons actually saved them. The only people put off by that were some online cork sniffers. 

The Faded and Tribute series models were some of thier best selling for years. The margins on them weren't as good, but they could pump them out quickly and they typically sold fast. 

They were cheap enough that smaller dealers who usually kept to Epiphones could order them, and more importantly, actually sell them. The larger dealers could put them on the floor more readily, unlike the $2k+ Standards that were usually "behind the counter" or "up really high" guitars.


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 23, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think there are any existing guitar companies that have a combination of the capital needed and experience to take over Gibson Guitar.



Yamaha.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

ArtDecade said:


> Yamaha.



I mean, they bought Bosendorfer, so perhaps they'd be after Steinway to grab what meager competition there is on "installation grade" pianos. 

But I don't see them grabbing the guitar arm of the business.

They certainly, as an overall conglomerate, have the means.


----------



## GuitarBizarre (Mar 23, 2018)

Yamaha would be a solid owner, if they decided they were interested. It's not out of the realms of possibility, but I think Yamaha has enough on it's plate without jumping on Gibson.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

I don't know about how Yamaha would run it. Until very, very recently they pretty much let thier guitar and bass business languish from its prominence in the 90's.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 23, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Making "entry level" Gibsons actually saved them. The only people put off by that were some online cork sniffers.
> 
> The Faded and Tribute series models were some of thier best selling for years. The margins on them weren't as good, but they could pump them out quickly and they typically sold fast.
> 
> They were cheap enough that smaller dealers who usually kept to Epiphones could order them, and more importantly, actually sell them. The larger dealers could put them on the floor more readily, unlike the $2k+ Standards that were usually "behind the counter" or "up really high" guitars.



at the cost of long term brand identity. 
They should have kept that price range as Epiphones and raised the brand recognition of epiphone as their entry level and gateway brand.

you've got customers 
a. confused about which guitar to get around the 600 dollar price point.
b. arguing that their 800 dollar Gibson is as good as the companies 4k guitars.
c. not feeling any desire to upgrade.

From a marketing perspective it doesn't really matter if the guitars are as good. Doing things that way means you lose your funnel and your halo effect. Really hard to become a lifestyle brand if people don't have a clear idea of your brand.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

diagrammatiks said:


> at the cost of long term brand identity.
> They should have kept that price range as Epiphones and raised the brand recognition of epiphone as their entry level and gateway brand.
> 
> you've got customers
> ...



I think that's a very narrow way to look at it. 

Price tiers exist in pretty much every aspect of our lives. It's not at all a new or controversial thing. 

Fender and PRS, Gibson's largest contemporary rival and thier closest spiritual/boutique rival both have cheaper offerings of thier flagship products. Of note, Fender had been trying the lifestyle angle for years as well. 

A) I don't think anyone outside of an absolute guitar novice, someone likely not spending that much anyway, would be confused about which to go with. A fancy looking, Chinese Epiphone vs. a more stripped down USA Gibson. Not that one or the other is the "wrong" choice, but some people gravitate one way or the other.
B) I have never once seen someone try and say a $800 Gibson is the same as a $4k one. 
C) I can see that happening in the $1400 to $2200 range of various LPs with very similar specs, not so much with the really cheap barebones Gibsons, unless that's your thing.


----------



## Andromalia (Mar 23, 2018)

My tribute is barebones, but it is not cheap. All it lacks are aesthetic "improvements' and a very thin finish that wears out pretty fast (you want a relic Gibson, get one and just play it, after 5 years you're served), which might actually be a selling point for some.
Otherwise, same woods, the maple cap is there, the hardware is the same and they even have block inlays, and they have Gibson pickups you find everywhere in the line up to customs. I haven't played a modern expensive LP for some time, but a colleague has a 1974 custom I could try, and the difference is not that obvious other than the pretty headstock, binding,not being a thin satin finish and ebony board.
But then, I'm one of those who think the 500T is the best Gibson pickup so maybe I have peculiar tastes.
I also suspect that given the weight they pull, Thomann can actually send back lemons after inspection. Never got a faulty guitar from them, even when I bought a Dean of all things. #notathomannemployee


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 23, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think that's a very narrow way to look at it.
> 
> Price tiers exist in pretty much every aspect of our lives. It's not at all a new or controversial thing.
> 
> ...



I see people arguing about it all the time.

Fender and PRS strategies up until this point haven't been the same as Gibson's at all. 

PRS's marketing strategy over the last decade or so has been almost perfect. I personally think that first run of SE's should have never been released. Other then that they've been doing a textbook job. 

It's not about pricing or tiering. It's about pricing and tiering that makes sense and maintains good meaningful striations and clear marketing categories. 

Prs has SE, S2, Core, and PS. None of these things overlap. The pricings are very narrow and the buyer has a clear purchase path given their budget. They can save more or spend less but there's never any confusion about what to buy at a given price point.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

diagrammatiks said:


> has SE, S2, Core, and PS. None of these things overlap. The pricings are very narrow and the buyer has a clear purchase path given their budget. They can save more or spend less but there's never any confusion about what to buy at a given price point.



There is only one Epiphone model that's priced at Gibson level, and it's a signature model, and the price difference is less than $100.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 23, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> There is only one Epiphone model that's priced at Gibson level, and it's a signature model, and the price difference is less than $100.



ya at this moment.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

diagrammatiks said:


> ya at this moment.



So we're going to pretend that there was never overlap between all the different series of PRS? 

Gibson has only had one or two overlapping models since at least 2015. 

I'd understand if they still had the Elitist stuff in full production, but it's been many years and even then the availability was awful.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Mar 23, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> So we're going to pretend that there was never overlap between all the different series of PRS?
> 
> Gibson has only had one or two overlapping models since at least 2015.
> 
> I'd understand if they still had the Elitist stuff in full production, but it's been many years and even then the availability was awful.



yeah if I recall since they started brand engineering there's been very little overlap. 

weirdness in Gibson's marketing goes back at least a decade. Last few years there's been some heavy course corrections that have been mostly correction theory.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

diagrammatiks said:


> yeah if I recall since they started brand engineering there's been very little overlap.
> 
> weirdness in Gibson's marketing goes back at least a decade. Last few years there's been some heavy course corrections that have been mostly correction theory.



Can you be more specific? Besides the Elitist models I mentioned, which haven't been around for at least a decade. The odd ball Melody Makers that were limited edition were back in 2011/2012.


----------



## JSanta (May 1, 2018)

Not that we didn't all see this coming:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/guitar-maker-gibson-brands-files-for-bankruptcy-1525177170


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 1, 2018)

Oh well. Maybe the next owner will make guitars people want and stop "diversifying"


----------



## bostjan (May 1, 2018)

I just saw that 2 minutes ago. No more Henry and no more electronics brands owned by Gibson, it seems.


----------



## feraledge (May 1, 2018)

Anyone with WSJ access want to post the article text?


----------



## diagrammatiks (May 1, 2018)

whelp.

however it's chapter 11 reorg. Gibson and a few brand stay on..everything else is gonna get sold off.

That's in line with what has been said here previously...despite all the hooplah about guitar sales...the guitar division is basically the only thing over there making money

"Henry Juszkiewicz, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gibson Brands, and David Berryman, Gibson's President, will each continue with the Company upon emergence from Chapter 11 to facilitate a smooth transition during this change of control transaction and to support the Company in realizing future value from its core business."


looks like Henry will still run things for a while tho


----------



## narad (May 1, 2018)

Jeez, first I put off buying a Thorn guitar for like 4 years just for him to give it up when I'm finally starting to get serious, now my plan to get a Gibson refrigerator is also doomed. Tough times.


----------



## bostjan (May 1, 2018)

Hmm. I read a different article. I should have kept up with which it was. If Henry stays in charge after the restructure, then the company is just going to continue struggling, I think. I would love to see Gibson be led by a younger and more in-touch executive.


----------



## bloc (May 1, 2018)

Hopefully this drives up the price of my Epiphone Elitist Les Paul lol


----------



## ImNotAhab (May 1, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Hmm. I read a different article. I should have kept up with which it was. If Henry stays in charge after the restructure, then the company is just going to continue struggling, I think. I would love to see Gibson be led by a younger and more in-touch executive.



Yeah, I wonder is there a saving face deal in there somewhere, get through some of the hurdles and negativity that goes with bankruptcy, then he will resign with a "I feel its time to move on/next generation/prewritten PR BS..." so the next in line has at least a neutral starting point. 

I cant imagine him staying long term but who knows? The whole affair is a bit of a wreck.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (May 1, 2018)

For Sale:
Gibson
$535,000,000 OBO


----------



## JSanta (May 1, 2018)

I completely forgot that not everyone has WSJ access - sorry about that.

Storied guitar maker Gibson Brands Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday as the company has struggled with its debt load after a series of acquisitions.

The company, which filed for chapter 11 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware, said it will continue to operate during the proceedings as it focuses on reorganizing around its core businesses. Gibson plans to wind down its Gibson’s Innovations business, which is largely outside of the U.S.

“The decision to re-focus on our core business, musical instruments, combined with the significant support from our noteholders, we believe will assure the company’s long-term stability and financial health,” Chief Executive Henry Juszkiewicz said in prepared remarks. “Importantly, this process will be virtually invisible to customers.”


The Nashville-based maker of Gibson Les Paul guitars has been struggling with debt it took on to finance acquisitions of home-entertainment and audio-equipment makers years ago. Among businesses the company has added are some of Royal Phillips’s home-entertainment systems, TEAC and Onkyo stereos.

Gibson also makes instruments under a number of brand names including Dobro, Epiphone, Kramer and Tobias. The company also owns a number of historic brands, including Slingerland drums and Wurlitzer pianos.

Gibson said it has reached an agreement with holders of more than 69% of its senior secured notes due in 2018 and shareholders that lets it continue to operate. The company also said existing noteholders have committed to provide $135 million in debtor-in-possession financing.

The company said in the bankruptcy filing that it has debts of between $100 million and $500 million, including owing at least $100,000 to 26 other companies, including many suppliers.


----------



## bostjan (May 1, 2018)

> Juszkiewicz, who has found himself at odds with creditors in recent months, will continue with the company upon emergence from bankruptcy “to facilitate a smooth transition,” according to the agreement. Court papers call for a one-year consulting deal and compensation package for Juszkiewicz. A representative for the company didn’t immediately respond to questions about whether Juszkiewicz will remain as CEO or in a separate role.


From the article I read initially: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...bankruptcy-with-deal-to-renew-guitar-business


----------



## ixlramp (May 1, 2018)

Good, a satisfying result for corporate greed. They should focus on instruments. A pity they own Steinberger and seem to have made a mess of it.


----------



## JSanta (May 1, 2018)

bostjan said:


> From the article I read initially: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...bankruptcy-with-deal-to-renew-guitar-business



The legal language is not 100% clear, but I would think that because of who controls the equity, we're going to see a significant change in the management structure of the brand, and probably more divestiture of subsidiary organizations in the very near future.


----------



## Ralyks (May 1, 2018)

Soooo does this mean I can buy a Fender Les Paul or....


----------



## dr_game0ver (May 1, 2018)

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43967923


----------



## bostjan (May 1, 2018)

Ralyks said:


> Soooo does this mean I can buy a Fender Les Paul or....


No.
But if this restructuring doesn't work out, you might be able to buy a Gibson... factory.


----------



## lewstherin006 (May 1, 2018)

and they arent even firing the CEO who is the reason they are in the place they are in.


----------



## bostjan (May 1, 2018)

lewstherin006 said:


> and they arent even firing the CEO who is the reason they are in the place they are in.


If the article was correct that court documents called for a severance package for Henry, then he's out. You don't run a company bankrupt then get a cash bonus and get to stick around... unless it's the federal government or something.


----------



## Mathemagician (May 1, 2018)

bostjan said:


> If the article was correct that court documents called for a severance package for Henry, then he's out. You don't run a company bankrupt then get a cash bonus and get to stick around... unless it's the federal government or something.




Ooh ooh ooh. Like congressmen and senators. Do nothing. Blame the “other side” and still go to work like nothing happened. Vote yourself a raise. Complain about the “other guys” some more. All in a days....whatever they’ve done since the 90’s.


----------



## lewstherin006 (May 1, 2018)

bostjan said:


> If the article was correct that court documents called for a severance package for Henry, then he's out. You don't run a company bankrupt then get a cash bonus and get to stick around... unless it's the federal government or something.



I think I saw that he has a "one year consulting" contract, which I think means GTFO


----------



## bostjan (May 1, 2018)

lewstherin006 said:


> I think I saw that he has a "one year consulting" contract, which I think means GTFO


Standard practice for upper management. That way, he's still under contract for a year so he can't go to a competitor (like Fender) and spill a bunch of time-sensitive secrets, but he doesn't collect a CEO salary. The consulting salary is probably a fraction of his previous salary, but still probably a lot more than what most of us make. Anyway, since he'd still be an employee, he'd be banned from working in the guitar industry, but since he'd be a consultant, he probably wouldn't actually be involved in anything.


----------



## spudmunkey (May 1, 2018)

I keep seeing people post "Good bye, you'll be missed" type posts on FB. Marvel and GM have both filed for the same Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They aren't going anywhere...at least not soon.


----------



## JSanta (May 1, 2018)

Pete Thorn posted something on Instagram via the Financial Times that Joe Bonamassa is looking into financing a purchase of the company. I don't have access to FT, but I don't think having a guy like Joe at the helm from a vision perspective is a bad idea.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2018)

JSanta said:


> Pete Thorn posted something on Instagram via the Financial Times that Joe Bonamassa is looking into financing a purchase of the company. I don't have access to FT, but I don't think having a guy like Joe at the helm from a vision perspective is a bad idea.



Ehhhh.... http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2015/Custom/Joe-Bonamassa-Bonabyrd.aspx

Joe seems like an okay guy and definitely is a solid player, can't question that. 

But I think he supports and represents a lot of what folks don't like about Gibson right now. Specifically the goofy models like the Bonabyrd, the super expensive and limited slight variations on 59RIs and silly little things like making a big deal over using two types of knobs on a guitar. 

I think pretty much any chance in management will be good at this point though.


----------



## JSanta (May 1, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Ehhhh.... http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2015/Custom/Joe-Bonamassa-Bonabyrd.aspx
> 
> Joe seems like an okay guy and definitely is a solid player, can't question that.
> 
> ...



You've made several excellent points - obviously JB has no business running the company, but I think that he gets guitars enough to provide vision, something I think Gibson needs. Regardless of what that vision is, having some firm view of the future is necessary for Gibson (IMO).


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2018)

JSanta said:


> You've made several excellent points - obviously JB has no business running the company, but I think that he gets guitars enough to provide vision, something I think Gibson needs. Regardless of what that vision is, having some firm view of the future is necessary for Gibson (IMO).



As many have said, the guitar business is actually very successful. It's all the other ventures under the Gibson Corporation (not to be confused with Gibson Guitars) that brought down the business.

Given what has been let on about the restructuring, the guitar business will be somewhat on it's own, so no dead weight.


----------



## narad (May 1, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Ehhhh.... http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2015/Custom/Joe-Bonamassa-Bonabyrd.aspx
> 
> Specifically the goofy models like the Bonabyrd,



::Ahem::, "_Undeniable_ Style"


----------



## JSanta (May 1, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> As many have said, the guitar business is actually very successful. It's all the other ventures under the Gibson Corporation (not to be confused with Gibson Guitars) that brought down the business.
> 
> Given what has been let on about the restructuring, the guitar business will be somewhat on it's own, so no dead weight.



I think I'm having a difficult time conveying what I'm trying to say. Vision can mean a lot of things - I'm hoping that whomever takes over the company (guitars specifically) has a similar vision as to what happened with Fender post-CBS. Recognize that many of the quality controls have gone to hell and figure out a path forward. That's the type of vision I meant to convey.


----------



## ESPImperium (May 1, 2018)

Wonder if i can buy a Epi Zakk for $368???

Am i glad i got my Les Paul Standard Faded when i did as its now gained in value with this news, and also this is why i have switched to PRS and Fender over the past decade or so.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2018)

JSanta said:


> I think I'm having a difficult time conveying what I'm trying to say. Vision can mean a lot of things - I'm hoping that whomever takes over the company (guitars specifically) has a similar vision as to what happened with Fender post-CBS. Recognize that many of the quality controls have gone to hell and figure out a path forward. That's the type of vision I meant to convey.



I understand what you're saying. 

I think they need to get someone who isn't already part of the guitar industry. An industry notoriously bad at the managing of large manufacturing businesses. 

They need someone to whip thier ISC into gear. Someone who has worked in manufacturing and knows how to manage both people, equipment and quality.


----------



## narad (May 1, 2018)

Let's get a version of Gibson that's a full Musk-esque assembly line of robots. At least that way their glassdoor reviews would be less dreadful.


----------



## coupe89 (May 1, 2018)

Wonder what this means for the life long warranty on the Les Paul i just bought.


----------



## Darkscience (May 1, 2018)

If the future Gibson starts to make high quality guitars, (unlike the current Gibson), than it is possible that the older guitars lose value, with the exception of certain models. Future guitar buyers in the used market will likely stay away from the pre-bankruptcy era as it has a pretty bad reputation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2018)

Darkscience said:


> If the future Gibson starts to make high quality guitars, (unlike the current Gibson), than it is possible that the older guitars lose value, with the exception of certain models. Future guitar buyers in the used market will likely stay away from the pre-bankruptcy era as it has a pretty bad reputation.



Possibly, in the VERY short term. 

Look at 70's Gibsons and early CBS Fenders. Those were objectively terrible times for both companies as far as the quality and consistency of the product. 

Prices on both have been steadily rising for years and are closing in on "golden are" models.


----------



## Darkscience (May 1, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Possibly, in the VERY short term.
> 
> Look at 70's Gibsons and early CBS Fenders. Those were objectively terrible times for both companies as far as the quality and consistency of the product.
> 
> Prices on both have been steadily rising for years and are closing in on "golden are" models.



Very good points, my gut tells me I am probably right like you said short term. Long term anything can happen and history has shown the value of those guitars to go up.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2018)

Darkscience said:


> Very good points, my gut tells me I am probably right like you said short term. Long term anything can happen and history has shown the value of those guitars to go up.



Production guitars are a shitty investment. The days of contemporary instruments gaining significant value are over. 

Though, the folks who do pay a premium for "vintage" gear or stuff from particular times in a company's history aren't really concerned with actual instrument quality.

Additionally, I think folks are not quite grasping how this bankruptcy and restructuring process works. Its not like the facilities are going to shutdown immediately, if at all. The whole point is to keep things running as it's hard to make money back with a dead facility. There likely isn't going to be any changes felt on the guitars.


----------



## Dekay82 (May 1, 2018)

If they’d only make more Slash signatures and raised their prices.


----------



## groverj3 (May 1, 2018)

narad said:


> Let's get a version of Gibson that's a full Musk-esque assembly line of robots. At least that way their glassdoor reviews would be less dreadful.



I wouldn't venerate him too much. I hear nothing but bad things about what it's like to work for Tesla


----------



## narad (May 1, 2018)

groverj3 said:


> I wouldn't venerate him too much. I hear nothing but bad things about what it's like to work for Tesla



Well then you have to give them credit for letting the robots have negative opinions of the workplace.


----------



## BenjaminW (May 1, 2018)

I was reading over at MyLesPaul that Bonnamassa was exploring the idea of financially taking over Gibson. Thoughts on this?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 1, 2018)

JSanta said:


> Pete Thorn posted something on Instagram via the Financial Times that Joe Bonamassa is looking into financing a purchase of the company. I don't have access to FT, but I don't think having a guy like Joe at the helm from a vision perspective is a bad idea.





MaxOfMetal said:


> Ehhhh.... http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2015/Custom/Joe-Bonamassa-Bonabyrd.aspx
> 
> Joe seems like an okay guy and definitely is a solid player, can't question that.
> 
> ...





BenjaminW said:


> I was reading over at MyLesPaul that Bonnamassa was exploring the idea of financially taking over Gibson. Thoughts on this?



See above. 

I don't feel he has the experience running a large scale manufacturing plant. Knowing about the product doesn't mean knowing about how to make that product happen.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (May 1, 2018)

According to Dave Weiner, who also believed it at first, it's just a rumor that ended up being fake.


----------



## Seabeast2000 (May 1, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> See above.
> 
> I don't feel he has the experience running a large scale manufacturing plant. Knowing about the product doesn't mean knowing about how to make that product happen.



Yeah, I was going to say...in a scenario where he's like 1 of xxx share holders investing into a buyout...maybe...but with a discrete, purposeful mgmt team running it.

I also heard on the internet that Joe Satriani is buying out Ernie Ball then shutting it down so he can spend more time with his family.


----------



## BenjaminW (May 1, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> See above.
> 
> I don't feel he has the experience running a large scale manufacturing plant. Knowing about the product doesn't mean knowing about how to make that product happen.


True. Only time will tell in this case.


----------



## JoeyBTL (May 1, 2018)

Anyone excited to see the "pre-bankruptcy Gibson" tagline used in f/s ads now?


----------



## Seabeast2000 (May 1, 2018)

JoeyBTL said:


> Anyone excited to see the "pre-bankruptcy Gibson" tagline used in f/s ads now?


"Henry J era"?


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (May 1, 2018)

groverj3 said:


> I hear nothing but bad things about what it's like to work for Tesla



I heard it from Edison!


----------



## 777timesgod (May 2, 2018)

I do not understand why anyone would buy a Gibson, except for the nostalgia effect. Seriously, its 2018 not 1958, there is an unbelievable amount of companies that provide great guitars, that will not fall apart and are versatile for many music styles, at amazingly lower prices than them. Support the new/improved and not the old/stale, the same goes for the music industry in general in my opinion. Rockers and metalheads -allegedly progressive people but in reality deeply conservative in their own way- being stuck in the yesteryears due to laziness and fear of change. Not shedding any tears, especially as their brand name will unfortunately remain and be acquired by a new firm.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (May 2, 2018)

I'd be bothered, but by in large I've not played that many gibsons I've liked. One of the ones I did belongs to a friend, on of the others is a 90s jimmy page les paul i bought, and the other i can remember was a white explorer that played like satans greased arsecrack in a shop in denmark street (when tey still existed) way back in the late 90s...


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (May 2, 2018)

777timesgod said:


> I do not understand why anyone would buy a Gibson, except for the nostalgia effect. Seriously, its 2018 not 1958



“Gibson” should be read as “guitar.”



777timesgod said:


> Rockers and metalheads -allegedly progressive people but in reality deeply conservative in their own way- being stuck in the yesteryears due to laziness and fear of change.



This killed me. The quality of person this describes is the only audience this post will ever have, and they’ll read it assuming you’re talking about someone else: “_hehe I know guys like that. Now, to make a thread about which tone butter to buy_.”


----------



## Ataraxia2320 (May 2, 2018)

Serious question: 

To the people who believe the Joe Bonemasa stories, how do you imagine he would ever be able to afford a company like Gibson? 

He's a non major name in a niche sub genre of a declining main genre (rock). 

I know everyone in guitar circles knows who he is, but I know only a handful of people who own his music and who would go to his shows. Is there something I'm missing here or did he get money somewhere else?


----------



## JSanta (May 2, 2018)

Ataraxia2320 said:


> Serious question:
> 
> To the people who believe the Joe Bonemasa stories, how do you imagine he would ever be able to afford a company like Gibson?
> 
> ...



Same way Derek Jeter bought the Marlins - with other investors.

edit: It's also somewhat clear that there was not truth to the story about Joe looking at purchase options. If someone wants to do something and has enough connections, finding investors for joint ventures isn't that hard to do.


----------



## Andromalia (May 2, 2018)

Yeah he'll find investors, I doubt he can go at it alone. That said, as he genuinely loves the brand it might be a positive change for the company.
And he's more popular than you think, of course in metal circles people might not be big into his music. His french shows were sold out. He's BIG in blues circles.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 2, 2018)

Ataraxia2320 said:


> Serious question:
> 
> To the people who believe the Joe Bonemasa stories, how do you imagine he would ever be able to afford a company like Gibson?
> 
> ...



He's made millions playing guitar. He's sold millions of albums in an age where people don't really buy albums anymore.

I'm not a huge fan of his music either, but I can acknowledge that he's been very successful. 

I don't think anyone here thought he was going to show up with a dump truck full of money and buy Gibson outright. That's not really how these things work. But it wouldn't be out of line to think he could either work with additional investors and/or secure a loan to purchase a majority/controlling stake of some sort.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (May 3, 2018)

So it happened 

It's sad, just sad.


----------



## Spinedriver (May 3, 2018)

777timesgod said:


> I do not understand why anyone would buy a Gibson, except for the nostalgia effect. Seriously, its 2018 not 1958, there is an unbelievable amount of companies that provide great guitars, that will not fall apart and are versatile for many music styles, at amazingly lower prices than them. Support the new/improved and not the old/stale, the same goes for the music industry in general in my opinion. Rockers and metalheads -allegedly progressive people but in reality deeply conservative in their own way- being stuck in the yesteryears due to laziness and fear of change. Not shedding any tears, especially as their brand name will unfortunately remain and be acquired by a new firm.



People buy Gibsons for the same reason (to a lesser degree these days) people buy Marshall amps. Many who decide to start playing is rarely because they find that the guitar is an 'intriguing instrument'. It's mainly because they see guitarists on stage in front of thousands of people and then decide that they 'wanna do THAT'. 
As such, they see quite often (at least back in the 80's & 90's) that said band on stage would use a Gibson SG or Les Paul and a dozen or so Marshall cabs. It's exactly like you said,I know several people who almost refuse to play anything BUT Gibson guitars because that's what the "great" players from the 60's & 70's used. I'm fairly certain that if they had access to PRS, ESP, Ibanez, etc.. back in the day, Les Pauls wouldn't be even close to as popular as they are.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 3, 2018)

If only we could harness the heat energy from all these hot takes.


----------



## Ataraxia2320 (May 3, 2018)

JSanta said:


> Same way Derek Jeter bought the Marlins - with other investors.
> 
> edit: It's also somewhat clear that there was not truth to the story about Joe looking at purchase options. If someone wants to do something and has enough connections, finding investors for joint ventures isn't that hard to do.




As a European, this comparison means absolutely nothing to me.

Also, I have no idea what salaries are for pro baseball players but I imagine it's gotta be better than any musician in the modern era right?


----------



## ESPImperium (May 3, 2018)

Seemingly there is a way that Gibson can survive, and its quite drastic. They have to sell on all their consumer brands, and most possibly Epiphone as well. Gibson could get a good wedge from selling on the likes of KRK, Baldwin and Teac could all fetch a decent starting cover for the debt. If they sold on some of its guitar brands they would also make it a sizeable dent.

I recon that market value minus 30% would be the selling price for them selling at a position of weakness, so maybe $200m would be where they would expect to get for those consumer electronics and lifestyle brands.

As for Gibson, if they get to keep Epiphone (but i doubt they will keep them as they have been producing decent guitars recently, good QC!!!) they will have to undergo a massive and seismic shift in their model range and business plan.

1] They will have to start making guitars with Gibson on the headstock outside of the USA. Mexico may be a plan if they are to follow the Fender plan, or Korea if its the PRS plan. Probably the Studios & Tributes will be made outside the USA.

2] The model range will have to change to be more tiered, look at the PRS plan:
699-999 budget - Studio/Tribute in Korea/Indonesia (Think SE range)
999-1799 budget - Classic/Traditional in USA/Mexico with Korean & USA/Mexico bodies (Think S2 Range)
1799 - 2999 budget - Standards/HPs in the Nashville factory (Think Core range)
3299+ Budget - Custom Shop would do things as they have been doing it. (Think Artist Pack and Private Stock here)

3] The amount of options on colour and hardware will have to shift, keep the options to a Black/Honey/Tobacco/Colour 1/Colour 2 per model

4] They need to concentrate on Quality Control, get guitars that are worth the name out there.

5] Overhaul their dealer network, bring back two dealers per city, be less aggressive on their buy ins for per price range. Also have a proper artist roster, with artists that actually belong on the list and will be able to be a good brand ambassador for them.

6] Spend less on lawyers. If another brand comes up with a copy, send them a letter asking for a 15% licensing royalty on the profit on each unit or cease and desist. Gibson can work with other manufacturers, but licence the model shape. The lawyers made a 8 figure sum on Gibsons side when they faced off against PRS and lost, and Gibson spent a low 8 figure sum each year on brand protection from other manufacturers to the info i was given.

I think they can get out of the mire, but they will have to go back to becoming a 'Guitar Brand' and not a 'Lifestyle brand' again.


----------



## Ataraxia2320 (May 3, 2018)

ESPImperium said:


> Seemingly there is a way that Gibson can survive, and its quite drastic. They have to sell on all their consumer brands, and most possibly Epiphone as well. Gibson could get a good wedge from selling on the likes of KRK, Baldwin and Teac could all fetch a decent starting cover for the debt. If they sold on some of its guitar brands they would also make it a sizeable dent.
> 
> I recon that market value minus 30% would be the selling price for them selling at a position of weakness, so maybe $200m would be where they would expect to get for those consumer electronics and lifestyle brands.
> 
> ...



Are epiphone not one of the few things making Gibson money? 

Why would they sell? It seems counter intuitive to me.


----------



## spudmunkey (May 3, 2018)

If they sell Epiphone, would Epiphone still be able to make Les Paul, SG, ES etc models (aka Gibson-owned designs)? If not...that would likely kill most of the value of Epiphone, at least in my head.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 3, 2018)

ESPImperium said:


> Seemingly there is a way that Gibson can survive, and its quite drastic. They have to sell on all their consumer brands, and most possibly Epiphone as well. Gibson could get a good wedge from selling on the likes of KRK, Baldwin and Teac could all fetch a decent starting cover for the debt. If they sold on some of its guitar brands they would also make it a sizeable dent.
> 
> I recon that market value minus 30% would be the selling price for them selling at a position of weakness, so maybe $200m would be where they would expect to get for those consumer electronics and lifestyle brands.
> 
> ...



I doubt Epiphone is going to be sold off separate. As of now all they make are import Gibsons, they don't own any of the trademarks for design. None. Even legacy Epiphone stuff like Wilshire or Casino has been owned wholly by Gibson for decades. So they would have to cease production of just about everything. It would be too much of a liability for Gibson Guitar to cede the trademarks and would threaten to devalue the more expensive business. Even Epiphones Chinese facility, it's only real asset, is owned by Gibson. 

Epiphone has operated as a separate business unit for awhile, but it's still feeding directly off Gibson in a significant way. I just don't see how either party would benefit from the split. It's not like Epiphone has a super loyal following, it's pretty much exclusively "I want a Gibson but can't currently afford one."

More money is to be made in short term keeping them together. That's a major focus with proceedings such as this. They need to generate cash now, not potentially down the road with a complete reinvention of the brand and its products. 

Gibson already offers guitars accross the price spectrum. They have almost half a dozen under $750, over two dozen between $750 and $1500, am additional dozen still under or about $2000, and of course plenty beyond, especially in the Custom range. 

The inconvenient truth is that Gibson Guitar, as in the guitar arm of Gibson Corp, is and has been bringing in tons of revenue, and even profit in the millions. It's even been trending up the last 6 years. What brought them down was a string of consumer electronics purchases they simply could not afford.


----------



## Flappydoodle (May 4, 2018)

777timesgod said:


> I do not understand why anyone would buy a Gibson, except for the nostalgia effect. Seriously, its 2018 not 1958, there is an unbelievable amount of companies that provide great guitars, that will not fall apart and are versatile for many music styles, at amazingly lower prices than them. Support the new/improved and not the old/stale, the same goes for the music industry in general in my opinion. Rockers and metalheads -allegedly progressive people but in reality deeply conservative in their own way- being stuck in the yesteryears due to laziness and fear of change. Not shedding any tears, especially as their brand name will unfortunately remain and be acquired by a new firm.



I have a bunch of high end guitars but I still LOVE my 2014 Gibson Les Paul. It's the cheapest guitar I own, but it has a great sound that none of my other guitars can replicate, and it feels super satisfying to play. It's not cosmetically perfect, of course, but it has a sound and a vibe that is unmistakable. Even my LP feels and sounds awesome.

Some of the best music in the previous century was written, recorded and played live on Gibson guitars. That's pretty significant and I don't think you can just laugh it off as "nostalgia effect". The music written on them has, and will continue to, stand the test of time - unlike some technical stuff written on a headless fan fret 8 string stuff which will be forgotten in 6 months, let alone remembered 40-60 years later.

The people here taking joy in their struggles are being incredibly childish.

Gibson is stuck in a difficult place. If they try to be modern, people will say they sold out and laugh at them for trying. But if they just stick to the classic formula, people will call them stale and lazy. It's hard for them to get that balance right, of needing to put out new models every year while being stuck with classic designs and demands.

People here are mostly wrong about the causes of their problems. Everyone is "HERP DERP SHITTY QC, ROBOTUNERS LOL etc". But, their main problem has been their business practice, not the guitars themselves, or the sales of guitars. They made strategic errors in trying to become a "lifestyle" brand, and buying up other electronics brands and then not actually using them, thus accumulating too much debt.

Gibson marketing is also terrible. They haven't adapted for an online age. They haven't protected their reputation well, when all the "QC" stuff started going around online, they didn't respond at all. And their treatment of dealers is also a way of doing business in the past, not suitable for 2018. They apparently don't look after artists well either, failing to recognise the importance of artists to do your PR for you through social media.


----------



## Flappydoodle (May 4, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> He's made millions playing guitar. He's sold millions of albums in an age where people don't really buy albums anymore.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of his music either, but I can acknowledge that he's been very successful.
> 
> I don't think anyone here thought he was going to show up with a dump truck full of money and buy Gibson outright. That's not really how these things work. But it wouldn't be out of line to think he could either work with additional investors and/or secure a loan to purchase a majority/controlling stake of some sort.



But does Joe actually know anything about running a large corporation? That's the real question.

Gibson really doesn't have a problem with their guitars or sales. As you said, they fucked up by acquiring other companies and failing capitalise on it. They tried to become a "lifestyle" company. They messed up their reputation. They mistreated dealers and artists. I can't see what Joe brings to the table for any of those really.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 4, 2018)

Flappydoodle said:


> But does Joe actually know anything about running a large corporation? That's the real question.
> 
> Gibson really doesn't have a problem with their guitars or sales. As you said, they fucked up by acquiring other companies and failing capitalise on it. They tried to become a "lifestyle" company. They messed up their reputation. They mistreated dealers and artists. I can't see what Joe brings to the table for any of those really.



Read what I said previously, we're in complete agreement from the looks of it.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Ehhhh.... http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2015/Custom/Joe-Bonamassa-Bonabyrd.aspx
> 
> Joe seems like an okay guy and definitely is a solid player, can't question that.
> 
> ...





MaxOfMetal said:


> I understand what you're saying.
> 
> I think they need to get someone who isn't already part of the guitar industry. An industry notoriously bad at the managing of large manufacturing businesses.
> 
> They need someone to whip thier ISC into gear. Someone who has worked in manufacturing and knows how to manage both people, equipment and quality.





MaxOfMetal said:


> See above.
> 
> I don't feel he has the experience running a large scale manufacturing plant. Knowing about the product doesn't mean knowing about how to make that product happen.


----------



## Malkav (May 4, 2018)

Doesn't Bonamassa's dad own a successful guitar store? I thought he had become quite a big operation with all the gear and stuff he moves through his personal store as well? I mean he may be okay at it, he may not be, but I think a lot of his income comes from that side of things as well.


----------



## narad (May 4, 2018)

Didn't Bonamassa get some bonds from his uncle for every birthday when he was a kid? Wouldn't they have matured by now?


----------

