#1
Hi,
I've read lots of bad things about the new brass nut. Just wondered are they really that bad? Would it stop you from buying one?
Thanks
🍗🎹🎶🎼🎧🎤🎮👾🎸🎨🎷⚽️🎱🏁🎺🎻🍮🍰🍪📱👻🐔🐣🐥🐤🐽🐷💀👽💩💸🚽👻
#2
Quote by Guitar137335
Hi,
I've read lots of bad things about the new brass nut. Just wondered are they really that bad? Would it stop you from buying one?
Thanks

It's not that they are 100% terrible, but they are using it because it makes their new tuning system more accurate. But the big downside is the tuning/intonation is soposedly horrible if you take the tuners off to put regular machine-heads on.

Although I have not personally played one, the thought of having the minE tune on everything makes me say no I wouldn't buy a new Gibson these days, besides the stupid price increase. The brass nut is just the icing on the cake.
2002 PRS CE22
2013 G&L ASAT Deluxe
2009 Epiphone G-400 (SH-4)
Marshall JCM2000 DSL100
Krank 1980 Jr 20watt
Krank Rev 4x12 (eminence V12)
GFS Greenie/Digitech Bad Monkey
Morley Bad Horsie 2
MXR Smart Gate
#3
It's supposed to act somewhat like a zero fret and make open strings sound similar to fretted notes, keep everything sounding the same. It's also adjustable on the height for adjusting neck relief without moving the truss rod too much.

I think a lot of the brouhaha about it is from the Gibson traditionalist crowd wanting their traditional bone nuts or whatever back. I didn't find too much issue with it when I tried one out. The min-e robotic tuning, the stupid Les Paul logo and the outrageous price tage are what would keep me from buying one.
Gibson RD Silverburst w/ Lace Dissonant Aggressors (SOLD)
Electra Omega Prime Ceruse
Fender Franken-Jag Bass

Amps and the like:
Laney VH100R
Seismic Luke 2x12
Dunlop 105Q Wah
Gojira FX 808
Line 6 M9
#4
Yeah am not too keen on the robotic tunner, sure I could tune to Eb quicker. Thinking about buying the 2015 classic as I've got a good deal on one and like the wider neck but scared if the brass nut will screw up
If it does break is it easy to replace it?
🍗🎹🎶🎼🎧🎤🎮👾🎸🎨🎷⚽️🎱🏁🎺🎻🍮🍰🍪📱👻🐔🐣🐥🐤🐽🐷💀👽💩💸🚽👻
#5
since it has already come up a few times in this thread i wanted to ask the general community... did Gibson make Les Pauls out of the average persons reach? I spend a fair amount on guitars and i pay good money for nice guitars (strat deluxe and Deusenberg Starplay TV are my high end purchases). Now, i bought them used at about 1/2 of their regular street price.

I would love to own a Les Paul, i think they are great playing and beautiful guitars BUT their prices are super high and even used market is reflecting that. I cannot justify paying $700 or $800 for a LP studio (their entry level actual gibson) when that much gets into the high end of many others. I am not asking this to bash gibson, as stated above i think they are very nice guitars... but in the current market i just cannot afford one. Technically i could afford one but see them as a very bad purchase when i weigh how much guitar i get for my dollar.
Quote by BlackVoid
Every guitar and bass forum I've visited has some people chasing some magical tone that will shoot jizzing unicorns riding on a rainbow out of their amp.
#6
Quote by zenbone
since it has already come up a few times in this thread i wanted to ask the general community... did Gibson make Les Pauls out of the average persons reach? I spend a fair amount on guitars and i pay good money for nice guitars (strat deluxe and Deusenberg Starplay TV are my high end purchases). Now, i bought them used at about 1/2 of their regular street price.

I would love to own a Les Paul, i think they are great playing and beautiful guitars BUT their prices are super high and even used market is reflecting that. I cannot justify paying $700 or $800 for a LP studio (their entry level actual gibson) when that much gets into the high end of many others. I am not asking this to bash gibson, as stated above i think they are very nice guitars... but in the current market i just cannot afford one. Technically i could afford one but see them as a very bad purchase when i weigh how much guitar i get for my dollar.


Yes and no. First of all, there is no such thing as a sub-$1000 Gibson anything any more.

Gibson has always tried to make themselves an elite brand, so they charge elite pricing. And there is the corksniffing crowd out there that will pay that much for one. To their credit Gibson does make nice guitars. $3-4k nice? No, probably not. I'd rather get a custom for that money.

Throughout the late 2000s and early 2010s Gibson did have their "average Joe price" line like the J series (SGJ and LPJs), when that happened a lot of people bought them, more than Gibson could put out with a decent QC, and their quality notoriously tanked in recent years (though not to the extent everyone likes to preach, imo). And this was across the board too, even on the $2k and $3k guitars. Those glassdoor reports came out too saying that the workers at the Gibson shop were way overworked and admitted to having to produce guitars faster than they could holding the QC standards and let a lot of things slide. So this past year they regrouped, cut the bottom end off their line and went back to making the $1k+ guitars. They want to establish themselves as an elite brand again.
Gibson RD Silverburst w/ Lace Dissonant Aggressors (SOLD)
Electra Omega Prime Ceruse
Fender Franken-Jag Bass

Amps and the like:
Laney VH100R
Seismic Luke 2x12
Dunlop 105Q Wah
Gojira FX 808
Line 6 M9
#7
Quote by TheStig1214
Yes and no. First of all, there is no such thing as a sub-$1000 Gibson anything any more.

Gibson has always tried to make themselves an elite brand, so they charge elite pricing. And there is the corksniffing crowd out there that will pay that much for one. To their credit Gibson does make nice guitars. $3-4k nice? No, probably not. I'd rather get a custom for that money.

Throughout the late 2000s and early 2010s Gibson did have their "average Joe price" line like the J series (SGJ and LPJs), when that happened a lot of people bought them, more than Gibson could put out with a decent QC, and their quality notoriously tanked in recent years (though not to the extent everyone likes to preach, imo). And this was across the board too, even on the $2k and $3k guitars. Those glassdoor reports came out too saying that the workers at the Gibson shop were way overworked and admitted to having to produce guitars faster than they could holding the QC standards and let a lot of things slide. So this past year they regrouped, cut the bottom end off their line and went back to making the $1k+ guitars. They want to establish themselves as an elite brand again.



Considering the last few new Gibsons I´ve checked out this certainly ain´t true for Germany!
#8
Quote by kentuckyklira
Considering the last few new Gibsons I´ve checked out this certainly ain´t true for Germany!


Naturally with Gibson being an American brand the effects of what I was talking about won't be as prevalent immediately and will take a while to get across the pond. The price increases only came around this year.
Gibson RD Silverburst w/ Lace Dissonant Aggressors (SOLD)
Electra Omega Prime Ceruse
Fender Franken-Jag Bass

Amps and the like:
Laney VH100R
Seismic Luke 2x12
Dunlop 105Q Wah
Gojira FX 808
Line 6 M9
#9
The brass nut isn't a bad idea, especially since it's height adjustable with a simple allen key. The other features though on the 2015s do not appeal to me at all but it's only my opinion.
Expensive is a relative term. If you're young and not yet working fulltime or just starting your career then 2-3K seems like the moon. If you're a little bit older and are more established that's not so daunting. Heck there are a ton of companies that sell guitars starting around there and going up from that (they generally just aren't from Asian countries where the hourly wage is a fraction of what you have to pay here in NA.)
If you want use a US inflation calculator enter 1953 the year the LP came out and use $240 US+ $49 US for the case ($289 total) and you'll see in today's dollars it's the equivalent of over $2500 US so a 2k+ guitar is not any more expensive to todays folks then it was back then.
As for Glassdoor, well anyone can post and post repeatedly, even using different names so the general thought was it was a few very vocal ex-employees spouting off. I'd take it with a grain of sand, especially since after the flood I believe they modernized some machinery to increase consistency to a degree and improve productivity.
And I've bought 4 Gibsons since 2010 ()Trad+, and 3 Custom Shops (R0 V2, R7 and R8 see reviews on this site by me). You either appreciate a good Gibson or you don't but I can tell you they have something unique, it shouldn't surprise anyone really, they've been around a long time unlike many companies that have come and gone and been resurrected years later (Dean, VOX, Hagstrom Epiphone etc) and many pros use them happily.
Moving on.....
Last edited by KenG at Mar 10, 2015,
#10
Quote by Robbgnarly
It's not that they are 100% terrible, but they are using it because it makes their new tuning system more accurate. But the big downside is the tuning/intonation is soposedly horrible if you take the tuners off to put regular machine-heads on.


None of that is actually true.
The brass nut serves two purposes. One, it allows the complaints I've always had that Gibson sets up their nuts too high to be moot. You can drop the nut if you like. Second, it eliminates the issues they've always had with improperly cut nuts relative to the first fret. The zero fret takes care of that. You might still want to polish the entry and exit points of the slots of that brass nut so that your strings move freely.


Quote by Robbgnarly
Although I have not personally played one, the thought of having the minE tune on everything makes me say no I wouldn't buy a new Gibson these days, besides the stupid price increase. The brass nut is just the icing on the cake.


I don't MIND the minEtune -- if it's there, it's there (though it's just a PIA as far as I'm concerned). I wouldn't actually use anything about it other than tuning up the guitar occasionally when I feel prenaturally lazy. I just don't want one of those sitting above my Floyd. And I definitely don't want to pay extra for it. And unfortunately, you do pay extra for it.
#11
Quote by KenG

Expensive is a relative term. If you're young and not yet working fulltime or just starting your career then 2-3K seems like the moon. If you're a little bit older and are more established that's not so daunting. Heck there are a ton of companies that sell guitars starting around there and going up from that (they generally just aren't from Asian countries where the hourly wage is a fraction of what you have to pay here in NA.)
If you want use a US inflation calculator enter 1953 the year the LP came out and use $240 US+ $49 US for the case ($289 total) and you'll see in today's dollars it's the equivalent of over $2500 US so a 2k+ guitar is not any more expensive to todays folks then it was back then.


There are a lot of areas where an inflatulation calculator is useless. One of those is in regard to anything that uses technology for production (or is, itself, technology). Another is in regard to anything that exhibits economies of scale.

Both of these apply to guitars; bodies and necks can be cranked out by the hundreds and can be far more precisely done and made a whole lot cheaper by CNC machines. Gibson still uses nitrocellulose, which still takes a long time to dry. Taylor (and other manufacturers) can use a robotic fixture and spray arm to produce a thinner, more even coat of a UV-catalyzed paint and guitars are in and out of paint and ready for assembly within 24 hours.

Further, Gibson is no longer producing a few guitars (relatively speaking) a year. Simply maintaining inventory at 200+ Guitar Splinters requires a lot more production than that.

Quote by KenG

As for Glassdoor, well anyone can post and post repeatedly, even using different names so the general thought was it was a few very vocal ex-employees spouting off.


Others have vetted the Glassdoor results pretty thoroughly, and I know more than a few current and ex-Gibson people. What you see on Glassdoor is pretty much on the nose. The thing is, you simply don't hear a lot of employees talking about what a wonderful place it is to work. You'd expect a balance, and you'd expect to see some of those posting (and posting repeatedly as well). You don't. I honestly don't care, as long as the guitar I buy is well done.

Quote by KenG
And I've bought 4 Gibsons since 2010 ()Trad+, and 3 Custom Shops (R0 V2, R7 and R8 see reviews on this site by me). You either appreciate a good Gibson or you don't but I can tell you they have something unique,


That's a serious meh. I've purchased a lot of Gibsons, and have them dating to 1949 (with stops in the 50's and 60's). Except for one Axcess Custom that's about six years old now, all of my Gibsons date prior to 1980. I'd suggest that most folks have nothing to compare their current Gibsons to. I do appreciate a *good* Gibson, but I don't think there's much "unique" about them these days, other than the logo. I think the Axcess (thank you Neal Schon, wherever you are) was a brilliant move that's never been capitalized upon. Gibson's customer, since the mid '80's, is the baby boomer who has a nostalgic attachment to the sound track of his youth and young adulthood. They haven't changed or advanced guitars since 1957.
#12
I'm kind of in the opposite camp as everyone else, I think. Just from a personal preference standpoint I don't like the idea of the brass nut specifically because it is supposed to emulate a zero fret as someone said. I do think that having the ability to adjust it for height is a neat idea although it could have been done with other materials and without the zero fret design as well. Closest thing I have for reference sonically is the aluminum nuts on my dano's. They're nice and have a cool sound but I don't know if I'd like them or something on a bucker equipped Gibson. I have a number of Gibsons. None of them are really old. I don't really care for the vintage market with it's hyped price tags.

Speaking of price, yeah, a les paul is NOT within the reach of a typical teenager. But it was never meant to be. I think economically it probably wasn't too far from hitting your wallet the same way a few years ago as it did in the 50's but there are a lot of other things competing for our income these days. People used a lot less credit 60 years ago, and really weren't buying things like iPhones and a TV for every room in the house so the ability to shoehorn it into a given lifestyle or not is maybe a little deceptive. When strats were designed from the outset for the express purpose of putting something half the cost of a les paul or less into the hands of a prospective purchaser of a fender amplifier (leo was an electronics guy, not a luthier, he wanted people to have a reason to buy his amps) that particular pricing comparison is not a good one to me. But I will agree, their price increases are I think excesive and I question whether the market will continue to bear them. Sure the brand name has a draw and there are things I like about them particularly, but when you can get a perfectly functional guitar a lot cheaper form someone else, is it worth it? I may have hit that point with the latest price hike. Some guys hit that point before they buy their first guitar and never change their mind.

I like the min etune/gforce (again, I'm probably in the wrong camp). The earlier versions have some annoying calibration issues where you can't change the default tuning and it's often slightly off. But there's a [stupid] workaround for that. I just think it's convenient to have the guitar be able to hit alternate tunings very quickly like that and the minetune has a long lasting battery and is non invasive. So if you don't like it, you can replace it easily with stock tuners. If you change your mind you can put the minetune back on. Takes about 15-20 min. Granted, it's a bti gimmicky but it could have a valid use and I think making it that much more convenient may encourage players to experiment with alternate tunings earlier in their learning cycle. (I don't use them a lot, I tend to stick to standard when I play for my own enjoyment, but I've made use of it a decent amount for some projects I worked on)

I like Gibsons (although I haven't had cause to look at anything from 14 or 15). Better? No, not necessarily for everyone, and it's not a night and day difference to everyone either. But I do agree there's something about them, even if it's just psychological. I suspect some of it is just familiarity for me at this point. I have a few les pauls and also a beautiful carvin CS6. I usually don't reach for the carvin. Nothing wrong with that guitar at all, it's beautifully built, but it's not my go-to.

Go back about 10 years ago and I thought they were actually well priced for what you were getting. Around that time my buddy bought a MIC razorback. It cost about the same as my flying v. It had more bells and whistles, but the build quality was a bit off, it had some issues and I didn't care for the feel or sound. I tried to do a setup for him and found immediately that the truss rod was non functional. It happens. But for the price I wasn't impressed with it's range of sound.

I AM very disappointed they got rid of their lower tier lines like the fadeds and such. I thought those were a great value even if I didn't care for the aesthetic. They made more sense to me from a practicality standpoint. My last rant on pricing, and I think I've mentioned it before is that the last couple/few years, I've seen all the stores (online and local) basically blowing out Gibsons at a 30% or more discount from the price they carry during the year once November rolls around. I think this basically proves they are over common market tolerance with their pricing at this point. I think that's foolish to have that much swing in price. It means they're already 30% overpriced during most of the year. If it's not a birthday gift or an emergency replacement, why would anyone buy one during the year? To me that would be an artificial drag on sales for more than 3/4 of the year.
#13
i have seven gibsons, and i like them however they were handpicked by me, yes there are 'meh' ones, and yes there are 'bad' gibsons.

i really don't like the mini-tune concept though. just another thing to get in the way and cause problems.

brass nuts are nice sounding, and i have a pre WWII italian classical with a zero fret and i like it on the classical. i have about five 50's classicals without, and the italian one sounds better open.
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#14
Beating a dead horse here, but I'm one of the vast majority who thinks that putting features on their guitars that nobody asked for is exceptionally dumb and alienates the traditionalists who buy them. And expecting people to spend 30% more for them is insulting.

Min-E-Tune's usefulness over typical tuners is situational at best. From the standpoint of somebody who already owns guitars in multiple tunings, from my point of view it solves a problem that doesn't exist. And I refuse to pay money for features I don't need or want.

In my opinion, while eradicating the faded and J series guitars alienates younger players, I'm actually okay with that. They were just not competitive guitars compared to other brands in the same price range, which was seriously threatening the legitimacy of the brand. Makes sense to discontinue them.

I understand why they hiked the prices; to make their guitars more exclusive. But my question is, for whom? With features seemingly to deliberately alienate the primarily traditionalist clientèle that has kept Gibson afloat for decades, how can Gibson believe that this strategy is viable? I appreciate that in business, companies need to re-invent themselves every once in a while, and Gibson made its name in doing that very thing back in the 50's.

But guitars that automatically tune themselves have shown to be complete flops in the past, as demonstrated by Gibson themselves. Writing 'Les Paul 100' on the headstock in a way that looks like a 4 year old did it is not innovative. Adjustable brass nuts are not innovative. Having widened the neck so the guitar feels even more like a baseball bat than it already did is not innovative. Having a holograph on the back of the headstock which resembles that of what you see on an old VHS tape is not innovative. And to think Gibson does that for the sake of authenticity. That would imply that the Chinese would want to fake those guitars, which is hilarious to think about and I cannot wait to see how they manage to counterfeit the Mine-E-Tune system.

Really the only Gibsons worth getting now are used ones, and one could argue that that's always been the case. The brand still has a lot of prestige. And the classic designs that put Gibson on the map will always be cool to me. Owning a guitar with such a design undoubtedly feels great, and Gibson is one of only a couple of brands able to give consumers that satisfaction of owning a musical icon. I completely understand why people would want that, because I do as well. It feels very gratifying. That to me is the main draw of owning one. And I think I speak for most Gibson owners in saying that.

With that said, I don't find it conflicting to hate on what they've done to themselves.
Quote by TheSennaj
And well yes, I'll enjoy the carpal tunnel and tendonitis, because trying to get one is clearly smarter than any word you have spoken thus far.
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Mar 11, 2015,
#15
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Beating a dead horse here, but I'm one of the vast majority who thinks that putting features on their guitars that nobody asked for is exceptionally dumb and alienates the traditionalists who buy them. And expecting people to spend 30% more for them is insulting.

Min-E-Tune's usefulness over typical tuners is situational at best. From the standpoint of somebody who already owns guitars in multiple tunings, from my point of view it solves a problem that doesn't exist. And I refuse to pay money for features I don't need or want.

In my opinion, while eradicating the faded and J series guitars alienates younger players, I'm actually okay with that. They were just not competitive guitars compared to other brands in the same price range, which was seriously threatening the legitimacy of the brand. Makes sense to discontinue them.

I understand why they hiked the prices; to make their guitars more exclusive. But my question is, for whom? With features seemingly to deliberately alienate the primarily traditionalist clientèle that has kept Gibson afloat for decades, how can Gibson believe that this strategy is viable? I appreciate that in business, companies need to re-invent themselves every once in a while, and Gibson made its name in doing that very thing back in the 50's.

But guitars that automatically tune themselves have shown to be complete flops in the past, as demonstrated by Gibson themselves. Writing 'Les Paul 100' on the headstock in a way that looks like a 4 year old did it is not innovative. Adjustable brass nuts are not innovative. Having widened the neck so the guitar feels even more like a baseball bat than it already did is not innovative. Having a holograph on the back of the headstock which resembles that of what you see on an old VHS tape is not innovative. And to think Gibson does that for the sake of authenticity. That would imply that the Chinese would want to fake those guitars, which is hilarious to think about and I cannot wait to see how they manage to counterfeit the Mine-E-Tune system.

Really the only Gibsons worth getting now are used ones, and one could argue that that's always been the case. The brand still has a lot of prestige. And the classic designs that put Gibson on the map will always be cool to me. Owning a guitar with such a design undoubtedly feels great, and Gibson is one of only a couple of brands able to give consumers that satisfaction of owning a musical icon. I completely understand why people would want that, because I do as well. It feels very gratifying. That to me is the main draw of owning one. And I think I speak for most Gibson owners in saying that.

With that said, I don't find it conflicting to hate on what they've done to themselves.


Agreed on all points. I still dream to own an 80s or 90s Silverburst LP Custom.
Gibson RD Silverburst w/ Lace Dissonant Aggressors (SOLD)
Electra Omega Prime Ceruse
Fender Franken-Jag Bass

Amps and the like:
Laney VH100R
Seismic Luke 2x12
Dunlop 105Q Wah
Gojira FX 808
Line 6 M9
#16
hello people that don't have $2000.


go away.


I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#17
Quote by gregs1020
hello people that don't have $2000.


go away.





Hi Henry, it's your pal Les.


Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#18
Gibson has traditionally NOT been a brand aimed at the Everyman guitarist.

Established musicians bought them to show off the fact that they WERE established musicians and could afford them. Same with Epiphone, back in the day. The Super 400 was introduced with a $400 pricetag (hence the name), during the Depression (1934), when the average yearly wage was about $1600. It originally came with a hand-engraved tailpiece.

Gibson recognized that it made a mistake putting out the under-$1000 guitars of the last few years. Those guitars severely tarnished Gibson's image, generated little or no profit, stressed the production facilities and cannibalized sales of their more expensive guitars. In an era when its primary customer, the baby boomer, is reaching retirement age at a rate of 11,000 per day, someone with sense managed to convince management that since it was likely they'd be selling fewer guitars, doing so with a higher profit level for each one made a whole lot more sense.

Gibson's in search of something that will bring them some kind of credibility as leaders in the field; thus the aborted experiments with the Dork Star and Dust Tiger and Firebird X. This also leads to their "invention" of "fret ends over binding" instead of nibs and all the current tack-ons.
Unfortunately, they've sort of painted themselves into a corner with their traditionalist customers and they've marketed themselves into dead ends by promoting "USA made" and nitrocellulose lacquer so hard. Both will have to be "adjusted" within the next ten years, and that's going to be tricky.

At the moment, they're in the same position as Xerox "toner-head" management was when it gave away all the PARC bits and pieces (which Steve Jobs gratefully accepted) or in the same position as Kodak management was during the transition to the digital camera age. Not only did Kodak accurately predict the date of the changeover, they bought up over 160 technology companies to help them stay ahead of the transition. But old chemistry-and-paper management fumbled things at every opportunity and Kodak became a shell of its former self, still trying to find its way. Gibson still wants to bleed the boomers, but it wants to develop some kind of brand loyalty among new guitarists, who often see Gibson as less relevant.
Last edited by dspellman at Mar 11, 2015,
#19
Went a bit of subject
🍗🎹🎶🎼🎧🎤🎮👾🎸🎨🎷⚽️🎱🏁🎺🎻🍮🍰🍪📱👻🐔🐣🐥🐤🐽🐷💀👽💩💸🚽👻
#20
Quote by Guitar137335
Went a bit of subject


Sorry.

Brass nut's fine.
No issues.
Brass nuts have been on guitars since the late '60's.
#21
Quote by Robbgnarly
It's not that they are 100% terrible, but they are using it because it makes their new tuning system more accurate. But the big downside is the tuning/intonation is soposedly horrible if you take the tuners off to put regular machine-heads on.

Although I have not personally played one, the thought of having the minE tune on everything makes me say no I wouldn't buy a new Gibson these days, besides the stupid price increase. The brass nut is just the icing on the cake.


I wonder how people think it kills intonation to swap the tuners? Intonation is the relationship between the frets and the position of the saddle?
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#22
Quote by Guitar137335
Went a bit of subject


yeah... sorry i sent it in a different direction. i have toured the gibson factory in Memphis a few times and always left wishing i owned a few
Quote by BlackVoid
Every guitar and bass forum I've visited has some people chasing some magical tone that will shoot jizzing unicorns riding on a rainbow out of their amp.
#23
Quote by JustRooster
I wonder how people think it kills intonation to swap the tuners? Intonation is the relationship between the frets and the position of the saddle?

you're mixing up intonation and intunenation.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#24
Quote by dspellman
There are a lot of areas where an inflatulation calculator is useless. One of those is in regard to anything that uses technology for production (or is, itself, technology). Another is in regard to anything that exhibits economies of scale.

The point of the inflation calculator is about equivalent buying power between a then & now perspective, it is not tmeant to judge the advances of technology or manufacturing.

Both of these apply to guitars; bodies and necks can be cranked out by the hundreds and can be far more precisely done and made a whole lot cheaper by CNC machines. Gibson still uses nitrocellulose, which still takes a long time to dry. Taylor (and other manufacturers) can use a robotic fixture and spray arm to produce a thinner, more even coat of a UV-catalyzed paint and guitars are in and out of paint and ready for assembly within 24 hours.

Your views on Nitro are well known and stated too many times to count. As in all things if you don't like it don't buy it. Obviously there are others who feel differently. The finish on my inexpensive Taylor is nice, poly in general to me is not.
Further, Gibson is no longer producing a few guitars (relatively speaking) a year. Simply maintaining inventory at 200+ Guitar Splinters requires a lot more production than that.


Others have vetted the Glassdoor results pretty thoroughly, and I know more than a few current and ex-Gibson people. What you see on Glassdoor is pretty much on the nose. The thing is, you simply don't hear a lot of employees talking about what a wonderful place it is to work. You'd expect a balance, and you'd expect to see some of those posting (and posting repeatedly as well). You don't. I honestly don't care, as long as the guitar I buy is well done.

There will always be ex-employees with a grudge or bone to pick. How many were ex-employees voluntarily or are bitter because they were "unfairly" terminated. As always the most vocal are those with an axe to grind. Doesn't make them right.


That's a serious meh. I've purchased a lot of Gibsons, and have them dating to 1949 (with stops in the 50's and 60's). Except for one Axcess Custom that's about six years old now, all of my Gibsons date prior to 1980. I'd suggest that most folks have nothing to compare their current Gibsons to. I do appreciate a *good* Gibson, but I don't think there's much "unique" about them these days, other than the logo. I think the Axcess (thank you Neal Schon, wherever you are) was a brilliant move that's never been capitalized upon. Gibson's customer, since the mid '80's, is the baby boomer who has a nostalgic attachment to the sound track of his youth and young adulthood. They haven't changed or advanced guitars since 1957.



Considering again your preference for Norlin era Gibsons it's not surpising you don't like the post Norlin era ones nor the ones based on the originals from today's Custom Shop. You know what? It's your opinion no right or wrong answer, I swing the other way and don't care for the Gibsons produced in the era I grew up in.


People can argue till we(they) are blue in the face.
The fact is Gibson built/designed a guitar in the 50's that is sought for more than the simple fact it's rare. While it may not appeal to toady's metal muscians compared to many other brands and styles, it's still quite viable as there are more types of popular music than just metal (don't kill the messenger guys! It's true there's other music alive today than metal).
To some it's old to other iconic and I think it depends not simply on your age but in what you like in a guitar.
Moving on.....
#25
Quote by KenG
Considering again your preference for Norlin era Gibsons it's not surpising you don't like the post Norlin era ones nor the ones based on the originals from today's Custom Shop. You know what? It's your opinion no right or wrong answer, I swing the other way and don't care for the Gibsons produced in the era I grew up in.


That's your assessment and unrelated to anything I've stated. I have Gibsons from '49, I have Gibsons from the mid '50's, I have Gibsons from the 70's and I have Gibsons from six years ago. There's been no conscious plan in this; it's just how it happened. They didn't make an L6S at any time in history except '72-80, and the same is true of the L5S, for example. They didn't make the Axcess Custom prior to, I dunno, 2005? I buy guitars, not eras. I have originals, so I don't need reissues. The only Custom Shop guitar I have is one that was really produced in the Custom Shop on a Custom basis, not some random production guitars that carry a CS serial number. I have no beef with those, and I think some of them are very well done.
#26
Quote by KenG
The point of the inflation calculator is about equivalent buying power between a then & now perspective, it is not tmeant to judge the advances of technology or manufacturing.


Yes, we all know. And you can tell us all what the equivalent buying power is, but it's technology and manufacturing that has a direct bearing on why something costs what it does. You use an inflation calculator to justify high prices in an era when it's not a relevant factor.


Quote by KenG
Your views on Nitro are well known and stated too many times to count. As in all things if you don't like it don't buy it. Obviously there are others who feel differently. The finish on my inexpensive Taylor is nice, poly in general to me is not.


Neither your nor my preferences matter. You've missed the point yet again. My comments referred to the fact that Gibson's production is hindered by the use of a product that takes a long time to dry compared to other guitar manufacturers that use products that produce a better finish (in terms of even application, protection of the instrument, self-leveling) that's dry-to-dry in under 24 hours.


Others have vetted the Glassdoor results pretty thoroughly

Quote by KenG
There will always be ex-employees with a grudge or bone to pick. How many were ex-employees voluntarily or are bitter because they were "unfairly" terminated. As always the most vocal are those with an axe to grind. Doesn't make them right.


AGAIN you miss the point. Read the above statement one more time. "Others have vetted the Glassdoor results pretty thoroughly." You're just sort of hopeful that they're not accurate. Fact is, there are companies at the other end of the spectrum that are considered great places to work by their employees. They, too, have the occasional bitter, grudgy, "unfairly terminated" employee. And yet they are TOP ten employers while Gibson often ranks in the bottom ten.

And it's not JUST Glassdoor. Forbes, Fortune, CNN, Money and others each have their own rankings and, as you'd expect, the top ten aren't necessarily the same, nor are the bottom ten. But you'll find fairly reasonable consistency among the names in each grouping. Google is consistently in the top ranks. And Gibson is consistently in the bottom ranks. Again, I frankly don't care because I don't work for either. But you're straining pretty hard to say it ain't so. Why?
#27
Quote by gregs1020
you're mixing up intonation and intunenation.


OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER