Gibson...what is going on?

I ended up getting this:
qx97bdyxjbqgxs7cnx3f.jpg

fb4821a55878e400ce303c79cd0aff6a97bc6ac5e61181e7598338deff5bc8f5.jpg
 
Has Fender ever tried to sue any of the many companies that have copied Fender designs? There are countless strat and tele copies out there. Fender doesn’t seem to think it’s a big deal.
Nah, they just buy any company that tries to copy their guitars and are halfway successful.
 
Surprised no one mentioned Kiesel.

https://www.kieselguitars.com/guitargallery/cs6


cs6s-fds6-fph4-imp-s22j-s22b-130875_gallery.jpg


Price as shown: US$1859
Looks like a Les Paul with the single cut away but has a 25” scale length. Gibson LPs are 24.75”. The scale length is a defining characteristic of both the Strat and LP. The Kiesel would have higher String tension and would have a tighter feel, Gibson spec would have lower string tension and have a more loose feel.

FWIW, the stock spec for the McCarty Single Cut 594 has a 24.594” scale length. So it would have lower tension and a softer feel than a stock LP.
 
Last edited:
How so? It's basically a Strat body with a 25.5" scale length... Not an LP-style at all, IMO.
Two humbuckers and a third single-coil for more sound flexibility. Plus one of the best Floyd Rose implementation ever. And fun to play. Plus won't break your back.
 
Two humbuckers and a third single-coil for more sound flexibility. Plus one of the best Floyd Rose implementation ever. And fun to play. Plus won't break your back.
Uhhh - Steve Morse models are fixed bridge...

But again, how is this an LP-style guitar?

Edit:

Looks like there is an option for double locking bridge... So even less LP like. ;)
 
Last edited:
Many Gibson's will actually scale shorter than 24.75 and actually closer to 24.5 (594) Hence the name of the 245, as well as the 594. So, all other things being equal, the tension and feel will be quite similar if not the same, which was one of the design intentions of the 594. Have not had a lot of exposure to 594's but the few have played, reminded me of the best qualities of some of the best LP's I have played over the years. And of course, the build and consistency is exceptional.
 
Many Gibson's will actually scale shorter than 24.75 and actually closer to 24.5 (594) Hence the name of the 245, as well as the 594. So, all other things being equal, the tension and feel will be quite similar if not the same, which was one of the design intentions of the 594. Have not had a lot of exposure to 594's but the few have played, reminded me of the best qualities of some of the best LP's I have played over the years. And of course, the build and consistency is exceptional.
All of the Les Pauls currently on the Gibson products page use a 24.75” scale length. The only thing that I found in a web search related to what you have said comes from PRS in an interview. It seems to me that Gibson believes they are producing 24.75” scale Les Pauls.

That leaves me wondering: why would Gibson believe one thing but people observe something else? I think the answer may lie in the intonation of the guitar.

One thing I noted when searching about guitar scale length is that a lot of people; luthiers, manufacturers, and players determine scale length by measuring the distance between the inside of the nut and bridge. The conversation invariably turns to which string you should measure due to saddle relocation associated with intonation. In other words intonation affects the effective scale length and could explain why variance is reported in 24.75” scale length guitars (or any guitar for that matter).

There are some luthiers who measure from the nut to the middle of the 12th fret then multiply by 2. This would provide the nominal scale length (i.e. the scale length on the drawing board exclusive of saddle relocation related to intonation).

The nominal scale length is a design detail that is important to determine where to mount the bridge. On an assembled and intonated 6 string guitar, there could actually be up to 6 effective scale lengths. The effective scale length, while crucial to a well setup guitar; is meaningless on the design drawing board where you are trying to plot the bridge mounting point.

Additionally string gauge effects intonation.

As a result when manufacturers provide their specs on guitar scale length, I think the only number they could reliably quote is the nominal (design) scale length. To use effective scale length would require 6 different measurements and would be dependent upon the string gauge that the guitar was setup with... that would get confusing.

I think the 24.75” number is probably accurate from a design perspective. I would be very curious as to how PRS measured the scale length referred to in the article I found.
 
Last edited:
For an alternative to Gibsons, the new Eastman solid body looks pretty awesome: https://www.eastmanguitars.com/electric_solid_body

I haven't had a chance to play one yet but some local shops will be getting them soon. Yes, they are made in China, but Eastman is pretty serious about quality instruments. I've played some of their jazz boxes and in my opinion they are built as well as any American made guitars, and are pretty well regarded.

I really want to check out one of the antique varnish solid body guitars when they become available here...
 
All of the Les Pauls currently on the Gibson products page use a 24.75” scale length. The only thing that I found in a web search related to what you have said comes from PRS in an interview. It seems to me that Gibson believes they are producing 24.75” scale Les Pauls.

That leaves me wondering: why would Gibson believe one thing but people observe something else? I think the answer may lie in the intonation of the guitar.

One thing I noted when searching about guitar scale length is that a lot of people; luthiers, manufacturers, and players determine scale length by measuring the distance between the inside of the nut and bridge. The conversation invariably turns to which string you should measure due to saddle relocation associated with intonation. In other words intonation affects the effective scale length and could explain why variance is reported in 24.75” scale length guitars (or any guitar for that matter).

There are some luthiers who measure from the nut to the middle of the 12th fret then multiply by 2. This would provide the nominal scale length (i.e. the scale length on the drawing board exclusive of saddle relocation related to intonation).

The nominal scale length is a design detail that is important to determine where to mount the bridge. On an assembled and intonated 6 string guitar, there could actually be up to 6 effective scale lengths. The effective scale length, while crucial to a well setup guitar; is meaningless on the design drawing board where you are trying to plot the bridge mounting point.

Additionally string gauge effects intonation.

As a result when manufacturers provide their specs on guitar scale length, I think the only number they could reliably quote is the nominal (design) scale length. To use effective scale length would require 6 different measurements and would be dependent upon the string gauge that the guitar was setup with... that would get confusing.

I think the 24.75” number is probably accurate from a design perspective. I would be very curious as to how PRS measured the scale length referred to in the article I found.

Yes all LP's will be listed at 24.75, and have been for as long as I can remember ( at least pre Henry). However, the reality is they don't all measure that way. The reason people observe something different than the Gibson spec is because they actually measure the instruments, just as PRS did when he was designing the Models in question. The old Kalamazoo Gibsons that we covet were all made by hand and had a great deal of variation in nearly every area, whether it was the carve of the dish, the winding of the pickups etc, who cut the nut etc... so while the target may have been 24.75...it didn't always work out that way. PRS with it's precise CNC can set a target of .594 and be pretty confident that they can hit it within the travel of the bridge saddles as the variances are much less.

Im no luthier, but for years I've researched building my own LP as I couldn't find the perfect one for me. The first thing I noticed was that none of the routing templates included the bridge placement. I soon learned that this was because bridge placement was determined while the guitar was tuned to pitch, with the bridge sitting on a temporary fixture which allowed for movement fore and aft to accommodate proper intonation across all strings and still having saddle travel available for future adjustments. This is why the bridge is not always in the same location on the classic bursts. A good way to see this is to grab your copy of the fantastic reference by Yasuhiko Iwanade "The Beauty of the Burst", which details a number of 58-60 Bursts. The formatting of the book includes a full body shot on the left pages throughout, allowing you to treat it like a flip book. And you'll see that the bridge position, relative to unmoving bridge pickup route, is not constant at all, and in fact moves at least as much as the .25 tolerance difference we are discussing. I suspect PRS discovered in his research that the LP's he preferred from a sound and playing standpoint averaged much closer to the 594 spec than the .75 stated spec. I assume harmonic nodes relative to pickup location can have a large effect with even a 1/4 inch deviation.
 
Two humbuckers and a third single-coil for more sound flexibility. Plus one of the best Floyd Rose implementation ever. And fun to play. Plus won't break your back.

I'm reasonably sure I understand your intent, and the EBMM Morse is a great guitar no doubt. However, the 25.5 scale length makes it a nonstarter in any Les Paul comparison, just as a Les Paul will never sound like a Hot rod strat. Both great tools, but for different jobs.
 
I suspect Gibson went after a few claims that they think they can win first (i.e. the Flying V claim and a couple others at least have a chance)... and then use those victories as precedent to go after others. Notice they didn't go after anyone for an LP shape, including Dean. Why not? That's by far their most well-known guitar. They can't just be in this for the potential $14M - that's not a lot of money for them - so there must be a longer-term strategy in play here. Why'd they specifically go after Dean, and not include PRS, Ibanez, ESP, Yamaha, etc, and the boutiques at the same time? They could probably win against some of the boutiques just because they have more money to throw at the case. Can I get a gig as a para-legal for Dean? ;-)

Also, it seems pretty ludicrous that any jury or judge will go for the part of the suit that addresses the counterfeit charges - which absolutely should be aimed at the Chibsons of the world, except that they're overseas. Nobody who bought a Dean V, or an Ibanez AS, or a PRS 245 actually thinks it's a Gibson. Maybe their claim will be that the random viewing public thinks they're Gibsons, and that's how it infringes them? Otherwise, maybe the strategy is to include those charges just to muck up the suit and hopefully increase their chances of winning the "downgrade" to the basic infringement charges. I would've given them a much better chance of winning if they had filed these charges back in the 70's as soon as other companies started making similar guitars - I might've even agreed back then. But 40 years later?

So many guitarists know that most Gibsons have been pretty crappy for many years, but at the same time, most people including myself have hoped that they would get it together again and start producing high-quality guitars. It's truly sad how much their actions have eroded that goodwill.
 
I've been Jonesin' for a single-cut LP style guitar for a while and almost bought a Gibson a couple weeks ago. This whole fiasco got me researching alternatives. So far I've found:
Nik Huber Orca
Collings City Limits
PRS McCarty 594

Any other suggestions?
Consider The Heritage. They are made in the original Gibson factory in Kalamazoo. I own 2 of them. They are way better than anything coming from Gibson. Just my $0.02.
 
Back
Top Bottom