Gibson facing bankruptcy

[EliasMooseblaster]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

Remember that when they were first produced the Flying V and the Explorer were desperately unpopular. It took almost 20 years before you started seeing lots of musicians in well-know bands playing them.

See also the SG. Initially introduced as a sort of "Les Paul-lite," but it caused such a stir that even Les Paul himself demanded his name be taken off the headstock - hence the change of name to "SG." Apparently, the design was nearly axed (no pun intended) until a few prominent players took a shine to them, and they started to prove more popular with the public.

[AndyTravis]

37 minutes ago, EliasMooseblaster said:

See also the SG. Initially introduced as a sort of "Les Paul-lite," but it caused such a stir that even Les Paul himself demanded his name be taken off the headstock - hence the change of name to "SG." Apparently, the design was nearly axed (no pun intended) until a few prominent players took a shine to them, and they started to prove more popular with the public.

I’d heard his name was taken off so he didn’t have to pass any royalties from sales to his wife Mary Ford who he was divorcing around 60/61.

[Monkey Steve]

25 minutes ago, EliasMooseblaster said:

See also the SG. Initially introduced as a sort of "Les Paul-lite," but it caused such a stir that even Les Paul himself demanded his name be taken off the headstock - hence the change of name to "SG." Apparently, the design was nearly axed (no pun intended) until a few prominent players took a shine to them, and they started to prove more popular with the public.

yeah, this sums up a lot of my issues with them these days  - no patience, or faith in their instruments (and I'll declare an interest - I have a few Gibson guitars, and I really like them).

They do make good, sometimes great instruments (my 2004 Les Paul Standard is a fantastic guitar) but they only seem to want to make limited runs rather than putting out a consistent product.  They make a Les Paul Standard, but the 2017 spec is a little different to the 2016 model, which is tweaked from the 2015 version, which isn't the same as the 2014 LP, repeat to fade.  They seem to think that people collect them like Pokemon, and that we all want to have a room full of LP Standards in each colour and for every different year's spec.

So when they do something that is genuinely a great idea, it gets made in fairly limited numbers and forgotten about before the market get used to it.  The long scale LP got brilliant reviews, but was only released as a short run of Custom Shop guitars.

And where is the five string Thunderbird?  (yes, I know the answer, it's being made by Epiphone, which will never have the same appeal as a Gibson)

[BigRedX]

31 minutes ago, Monkey Steve said:

And where is the five string Thunderbird?  (yes, I know the answer, it's being made by Epiphone, which will never have the same appeal as a Gibson)

The Epiphone version (Thunderbird PRO-V) barely counts. It's a Thunderbird in name and approximate body shape only. Everything else about is completely different to the original Gibson version. Also these days it's existence is barely acknowledged. There's no photo of it on the Epiphone web site and it's just mentioned in passing when looking at the spec for the Thunderbird PRO-IV.

There was a Gibson Thunderbird 5-string - the Studio 5, but again that had little in common with the original Thunderbird.

Of course if these are good enough for you, then you might as well buy any of the Thunderbird-shaped instruments that are available from other manufacturers.

[stingrayPete1977]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Be prepared to be amazed then.

Remember that when they were first produced the Flying V and the Explorer were desperately unpopular. It took almost 20 years before you started seeing lots of musicians in well-know bands playing them.

They are already selling half the price they were when originally released. At some point they will become affordable while still being unpopular and then someone will come along at make it his or her "own" guitar of choice.

I'm prepared....... I think the main difference here compared to the explorer is that its fecking horrible! Lol

[Doctor J]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

I have to say I have a bit of a soft spot for the Firebird X.

Also I guarantee you that some time in the next 20 years there will be a big-name guitarist who uses one of these as their instrument of choice, causing the price of the few remaining examples to go through the roof, and whoever owns the Gibson brand at that point to hurriedly bring out a re-issue that incorporates none of the important features, and only just about gets the shape right.

The problem with the Firebird X... ok, one of the problems... was that they built hardware obsolesence into it. As the world heads towards using phones & whatever replaces them for signal processing, utilising endlessly customisable and upgradeable software, Gibson filled that guitar with hardware and connectivity with guaranteed future uselessness built in. It's still baffling it made it past the first couple of design meetings.

[Monkey Steve]

15 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

The Epiphone version (Thunderbird PRO-V) barely counts. It's a Thunderbird in name and approximate body shape only. Everything else about is completely different to the original Gibson version. Also these days it's existence is barely acknowledged. There's no photo of it on the Epiphone web site and it's just mentioned in passing when looking at the spec for the Thunderbird PRO-IV.

There was a Gibson Thunderbird 5-string - the Studio 5, but again that had little in common with the original Thunderbird.

Of course if these are good enough for you, then you might as well buy any of the Thunderbird-shaped instruments that are available from other manufacturers.

This is exactly the issue.  If people want a Thunderbird fiver then it would be nice to have the option of a Gibson one, and i have little doubt that they would sell fairly solidly, if not spectacularly.  But better than their EB 5's.  Why not make one that looks like a Gibson rather than a G&L knock off?

[EliasMooseblaster]

1 hour ago, AndyTravis said:

I’d heard his name was taken off so he didn’t have to pass any royalties from sales to his wife Mary Ford who he was divorcing around 60/61.

I hadn't heard that version of events, but I can believe it. I know he was quite vocal about his dislike of the design...of course, I realise now that it could have been to keep up appearances in the divorce court!

[AndyTravis]

33 minutes ago, EliasMooseblaster said:

I hadn't heard that version of events, but I can believe it. I know he was quite vocal about his dislike of the design...of course, I realise now that it could have been to keep up appearances in the divorce court!

I was also told that all of Les’s Own personal guitars had flat tops rather than carved.

 

[stingrayPete1977]

2 hours ago, AndyTravis said:

I was also told that all of Les’s Own personal guitars had flat tops rather than carved.

 

I don't think that is true at all, I watched a programme where they went through all his guitars that are all stored in a big rack, they were all fairly normal looking.

[spongebob]

The Gibson bass 'limited edition' runs were announced last year, and started to be stocked in the US in November.

I was wanting a new Cherry SG bass, and paid a deposit at the time to secure one, and was told they'd be in the UK in around 4-6 weeks.

Nearly 4 months on, there's still no sign of any of them. Still stocked in the US, nothing over here . I've now cancelled my pre-order (partially because of my musical circumstanced, mainly because of a still never-ending wait).

How hard can it be to ship over here? How many others will cancel in frustration? According to the place I ordered from, I was one of the first to order, but the bass hasn't even been made yet! 4 months in  - these aren't bespoke luthier creations, are they?

Still, I do still GAS at at a Thunderbird - one day maybe. But not new - the 2018's are nearly 2k - and the chances of them making some for over here......!

[AndyTravis]

14 minutes ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

I don't think that is true at all, I watched a programme where they went through all his guitars that are all stored in a big rack, they were all fairly normal looking.

I disagreed with the Gibson fella around a table in Frankfurt and got shot down.

[BigRedX]

4 hours ago, AndyTravis said:

I was also told that all of Les’s Own personal guitars had flat tops rather than carved.

 

 

1 hour ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

I don't think that is true at all, I watched a programme where they went through all his guitars that are all stored in a big rack, they were all fairly normal looking.

 

1 hour ago, AndyTravis said:

I disagreed with the Gibson fella around a table in Frankfurt and got shot down.

In all the early publicity shots, he's shown playing guitars that looked very much like the production models of the time. However once you get into the period where he was using the more customised guitars with the low-impedance pickups and various gizmos that allowed him to control the overdubbing mechanism that used live, the guitars do look as though they have flat tops rather than the carved top.

Also the Les Paul Recording model which is the closest to the guitars that he was using in the 70s and onwards all have flat tops (or at least significantly less carved than the standard Les Paul models).

Having said that when I saw him live in 2008, he was playing what looked like a stock Gibson carved top model.

[AndyTravis]

“The arrangement persisted until 1961, when declining sales prompted Gibson to change the design without Paul's knowledge, creating a much thinner, lighter and more aggressive-looking instrument with two cutaway "horns" instead of one. Paul said he first saw the "new" Gibson Les Paul in a music-store window, and disliked it. Problems with the strength of the body and neck made Paul dissatisfied with the new guitar. This, and a pending divorce from Mary Ford, led to Paul ending his endorsement and use of his name on Gibson guitars until 1966, by which time his divorce was completed.^[32] At Paul's request, Gibson renamed the guitar "Gibson SG," which stands for "Solid Guitar," and it also became one of the company's best sellers”

 

bit of both stories there...

[skankdelvar]

25 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

In all the early publicity shots, he's shown playing guitars that looked very much like the production models of the time. However once you get into the period where he was using the more customised guitars with the low-impedance pickups and various gizmos that allowed him to control the overdubbing mechanism that used live, the guitars do look as though they have flat tops rather than the carved top.

Also the Les Paul Recording model which is the closest to the guitars that he was using in the 70s and onwards all have flat tops (or at least significantly less carved than the standard Les Paul models).

Having said that when I saw him live in 2008, he was playing what looked like a stock Gibson carved top model.

According to knowledgeable fanbois,  Norlin (Gibson's owners prior to Juskiwiecz) instituted a cost-saving programme in 1970 which ceased to offer the attractive but time consuming concave dishing on the body top. Les Pauls carved in such a way are known as dome tops; the centre of the body slopes down towards the edge in a shallow convex curve.

This period 1970-1983  aligns with the Les Paul Recording's lifespan 1970-1979. After 1983 the concave dishing was re-introduced, so that's one thing we for which we might thank Henry J.

At one time I owned a 1980 Standard - the top was definitely 'domed' compared to historic and more modern Les Pauls.

[AndyTravis]

As an aside, I know there’s a bit of badmouthing of their guitars, and they recently shut down their Memphis factory.

I spent a portion of today tracking some parts with this (the pic is from the day he bought it) - I can only begin to express what a special guitar it is. Another close friend has a 1966 ES-330, and this feels as alive in the hand.

I’ve played some corking CS Les Paul’s too - but some dogs too.

They can make great guitars. Let’s hope there’s someone waiting to take over the guitar making and let Henry drown himself in Electronics companies he doesn’t know enough about to get right.

[bassbiscuits]

13 hours ago, AndyTravis said:

As an aside, I know there’s a bit of badmouthing of their guitars, and they recently shut down their Memphis factory.

I spent a portion of today tracking some parts with this (the pic is from the day he bought it) - I can only begin to express what a special guitar it is. Another close friend has a 1966 ES-330, and this feels as alive in the hand.

I’ve played some corking CS Les Paul’s too - but some dogs too.

They can make great guitars. Let’s hope there’s someone waiting to take over the guitar making and let Henry drown himself in Electronics companies he doesn’t know enough about to get right.

Absolutely! Good Gibsons can be awesome guitars. The only Gibson I currently own, a 2006 SG Junior 1968 re-issue, is a beautiful guitar. 

But I've played many that are at best nondescript or at worst just not very good at all in terms of build quality, finish etc.

I really hope Gibson manage to get back on track, because when they do it right they do it very well indeed. 

[scrumpymike]

On 2/21/2018 at 17:30, spongebob said:

How hard can it be to ship over here? How many others will cancel in frustration? According to the place I ordered from, I was one of the first to order, but the bass hasn't even been made yet! 4 months in  - these aren't bespoke luthier creations, are they?

Gibson have apparently been having difficulties with the CITES permits needed for trading rosewood-containing products.  That would certainly screw up their export business.

[BigRedX]

On 2/21/2018 at 12:11, EliasMooseblaster said:

See also the SG. Initially introduced as a sort of "Les Paul-lite," but it caused such a stir that even Les Paul himself demanded his name be taken off the headstock - hence the change of name to "SG." Apparently, the design was nearly axed (no pun intended) until a few prominent players took a shine to them, and they started to prove more popular with the public.

Gibson even took the actual Les Paul model out of production from 1961 to 1967, at it was only with the rise in popularity of "rock" music and the fact that many of it's prominent guitarists were sporting Les Paul Guitars that persuaded Gibson to start making them again.

[skankdelvar]

2 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Gibson even took the actual Les Paul model out of production from 1961 to 1967, at it was only with the rise in popularity of "rock" music and the fact that many of it's prominent guitarists were sporting Les Paul Guitars that persuaded Gibson to start making them again.

Interesting site here detailing the late 60's Les Pauls:

http://latesixtieslespauls.com/default.asp

[NancyJohnson]

32 minutes ago, skankdelvar said:

Interesting site here detailing the late 60's Les Pauls:

http://latesixtieslespauls.com/default.asp

I hadn't realised that they stopped making them, but now I think about it, I never really questioned why I'd never seen a 1965 Les Paul advertised.  Give Gibson enough time and they'll probably find some blueprints somewhere detailing the spec for the never made mystery '63 Les Paul and charge £10K for it.

[AndyTravis]

31 minutes ago, NancyJohnson said:

I hadn't realised that they stopped making them, but now I think about it, I never really questioned why I'd never seen a 1965 Les Paul advertised.  Give Gibson enough time and they'll probably find some blueprints somewhere detailing the spec for the never made mystery '63 Les Paul and charge £10K for it.

I’ve got a 63’ in my uncles loft 😂

[3below]

1 minute ago, AndyTravis said:

I’ve got a 63’ in my uncles loft 😂

 A 63' what?

[AndyTravis]

2 minutes ago, 3below said:

 A 63' what?

Less Paul 😉🤫

[3below]

3 minutes ago, AndyTravis said:

Less Paul 😉🤫

I did not realise they came that large  A More Paul?

Edited February 23, 2018 by 3below