Gibson suck

M

malenko

Member
My mate has always wanted a Les Paul, so he finally saved the cash and bought a LP Studio a few months back. When he went to play it the other day, it had parallel vertical cracks along the body. Turns out it's the lacquer cracking. He keeps it in his music room and it hasn't left it since he bought it, so it hasn't been subject to any extreme or sudden temperature changes but Gibson have told him that basically it's tough luck, it happens.
This was there response -

These cracks are lacquer cracks; they can occur even with slight temperature/humidity changes and these are not covered under warranty unfortunately.
If you search our forums or google "Gibson lacquer cracks" then you will see that you are not the only one in the world with lacquer cracks on a Gibson guitar. These cracks are inherent to the nitrocellulose lacquer that we use, as that lacquer lets the guitar breathe and have better sustain. The disadvantage is the cracks that can occur. They do however not affect the playability of the guitar.

Now does this suck or what! I have never seen a guitar do that and if I had I would want my money back as to me that shows poor quality. And of all the company's, I would have thought not only would Gibson be of better quality but provide a better response.
So now it seems he is stuck with a dodgy looking guitar that if he wanted to sell it on, he would have trouble, because that it looks awful.

Just wondering does anybody know of this problem, or even suffered with it? And did you get anywhere with the manufacturer?
Also makes me think, best to buy guitars that have been on display in the shop so that they have had time to acclimatize. Where as he bought it fresh in it's box from the factory.
 
No worries friend, Gibson doesn't have good quality control for the production line. Picked up a truly beautiful Les Paul Premium or something like that with a $3500 price tag on it. Several of the fret edges needed filing because there was a rough overhang on them. I could def feel them while playing and if I had been sliding my hand hard I could see how it would nick the fingers. Also, a few of the frets could have used better leveling and crowning. Don't get me wrong, it was a beautiful guitar and I wanted it, but the poor factory fret job def made it not worth the price tag. I would have suspected a better factory set up on something with that kind of price tag.
 
Wow! Indeed for that money, I would expect it to be flawless. My mate didn't pay that much but still, you still would certainly expect better quality from Gibson.
Although watching their factory tour on Youtube, shows them churning them out at an incredible rate, it shows that their standards have slipped cause of it. It's all about the money ...
 
I bought a Les Paul Custom in 1989, as a sophomore in college. It was a big stretch for me. After a few months, the guitar became unplayable. I sent it in for warranty work, they said the wood was likely still green and they'd have to reset the neck. Nine months later the guitar returned, in the same box, UNOPENED. I sent it back again. Five months later it returned, refrettted, nubs gone, fretboard filed on a weird angle such that it was half as thick on treble side as the bass side. Neck was resprayed, color match was three shades off. Sold it at a 70% loss. How Henry keeps that company afloat is a mystery to me.
 
For your review..

Gibson Guitar Company Reviews in Nashville, TN | Glassdoor

Worst Companies To Work For: Glassdoor.com's List (PHOTOS, POLL)

Nitro Lacquer cracking/crazing -timeline? - Gibson Guitar Board

Lacquer Cracks - MyLesPaul.com

Now, to really scare all you kids...

https://www.google.fr/search?q=gibs...Hs0gWj3oG4BA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1277&bih=641

I think it's kind of funny that "Older" guitars that have all the cracking or checking are the one that look truly vintage and really bring in the bucks.
There are youtube vids on how to do this to new guitars to give it that "used" look.
Hell, Gibson should be charging you extra!
 
loopie said:
I think it's kind of funny that "Older" guitars that have all the cracking or checking are the one that look truly vintage and really bring in the bucks.
There are youtube vids on how to do this to new guitars to give it that "used" look.
Hell, Gibson should be charging you extra!
Click to expand...

I'm not into the vintage looking guitars. I like my guitars to look really nice and I baby them on top of that. The gibson I was talking about looked SUPER nice. Alas, the fret issues with the hefty price tag did not match up and even out. I mean it would have taken a couple hundred bucks for a nice refret or to have the fret issues fixed. :(
 
Go Epiphone. They are eating Gibson's lunch in terms of price and quality. They are putting their 'sister company' to shame!
malenko said:
Wow! Indeed for that money, I would expect it to be flawless. My mate didn't pay that much but still, you still would certainly expect better quality from Gibson.
Although watching their factory tour on Youtube, shows them churning them out at an incredible rate, it shows that their standards have slipped cause of it. It's all about the money ...
Click to expand...
 
steadystate said:
Gibson claims lacquer increases the sustain on a thick slab of wood? Have they empirically measured this? If so, where are the results?
Click to expand...

They spilled hide glue all over them. :p

To be fair, the best damn guitar I've ever owned/played was a custom shop LP. I've heard the horror stories too though. Best of luck to your bandmate OP.
 
I have several LP customs, as well as a few of the Heritage H-14x models (old Gibson folks), and for half the price, the Heritage models blow away the LP customs as far as playability and tone for me. Wish I never dumped that much cash on the Gibson LP's.
 
In before "PRS FTW".

Actually, PRS have ridiculous QC checks on their line. Each guitar goes through something like 25 QC checks and several final check before they leave the factory. When I went a few years back, Paul said that they have a 1mm tolerance, otherwise it goes under the band saw and off to Jim Bean to smoke their bourbon. Even if there's hardware installed.
 
I had a '71 LP Goldtop, I was the second owner. Sweet guitar for awhile, until one day I noticed the something was flexing when I hit a note. I don't pick particularly heavy and the tuning of the note would jump 6 cents on a tuner. This was odd because I specifically tested this before and it was only a 1 cent jump originally (much like all of my other guitars). I took it to my guitar guru and he determined that there was likely an internal fissure in the neck joint. I'll abridge the next part of the epic journey it was to get it repaired, but it ended with Gibson telling me there was nothing wrong and that a loose neck joint wouldn't cause that, even though the first guy I talked to before sending it in agreed with my guitar tech. They sent me a new bridge, new green plastic tuners when the originals where nickel, and several knobs were shattered in shipping because they didn't pack it properly. My local tech said it was likely dropped at some point, so insurance paid out on it, thankfully.

I will never play or own a Gibson guitar again.
 
Gibson QC has always been an issue.

I have an absolutely incredible '76 Les Paul which I love... I have played hundreds of Les Paul from the same period and its a really mixed bag.

Something worth thinking about is that ever since gibson started kiln drying their wood in the late 90s I've noticed laquer sinking into the wood and cracking more often. I suspect that this is as much the issue as using nitro laquer.

Also Gibson's factory finish and setup is appalling. For some reason they leave the frets unbelievably high, allowing you to pitch up almost a semitone on the bottom five frets just by pressing slightly harder. I consider the majority of modern Gibson's unplayable out of the box, requiring a proper fret level, recrown and the nut recut.

There are a few periods of Les Paul which are very good; pre 1997 studios with ebony boards can be REALLY nice amongst a few others. Nowadays, I think you can get a much better guitar for the money from someone else.

Henry has been running the company as a 'Lifestyle Brand' ever since he took over. They started sponsoring the Super Bowl and selling guitarist to doctors and dentists.
 
I have a 2002 Les Paul Standard that I aquired by trading a 2006 Ibanez Prestege RG2550, which I bought used for $800. Buddy even replaced the tuners with replica grover tuners, and the pickups with Seymore Duncan custom dual coil taps. It suffers "sticky neck" as the back finish is so thick you can barely read the serial number. It matters not, the guitar plays amazing and tone wise is the fullest, most sustaining, and best sounding guitar in my 17 guitar arsenal.

I find this so weird because I have been trying out \ demoing LP's for the better part of 2 decades and never found one that I liked. Then I get a perfect match for me on a one off trade??? now that's lucky :)
 
malenko said:
My mate has always wanted a Les Paul, so he finally saved the cash and bought a LP Studio a few months back. When he went to play it the other day, it had parallel vertical cracks along the body. Turns out it's the lacquer cracking. He keeps it in his music room and it hasn't left it since he bought it, so it hasn't been subject to any extreme or sudden temperature changes but Gibson have told him that basically it's tough luck, it happens.
This was there response -

These cracks are lacquer cracks; they can occur even with slight temperature/humidity changes and these are not covered under warranty unfortunately.
If you search our forums or google "Gibson lacquer cracks" then you will see that you are not the only one in the world with lacquer cracks on a Gibson guitar. These cracks are inherent to the nitrocellulose lacquer that we use, as that lacquer lets the guitar breathe and have better sustain. The disadvantage is the cracks that can occur. They do however not affect the playability of the guitar.

Now does this suck or what! I have never seen a guitar do that and if I had I would want my money back as to me that shows poor quality. And of all the company's, I would have thought not only would Gibson be of better quality but provide a better response.
So now it seems he is stuck with a dodgy looking guitar that if he wanted to sell it on, he would have trouble, because that it looks awful.

Just wondering does anybody know of this problem, or even suffered with it? And did you get anywhere with the manufacturer?
Also makes me think, best to buy guitars that have been on display in the shop so that they have had time to acclimatize. Where as he bought it fresh in it's box from the factory.
Click to expand...


Tell your mate to get a PRS Single cut and he will be forever in your debt.
 
AB'd a 2014 LPS and a 96 used Japanese Tokai Love Rock... left with the Tokai, and about 1800 more in my pocket. No contest really, in every department it was beat.
 
tommyco10 said:
There are a few periods of Les Paul which are very good; pre 1997 studios with ebony boards can be REALLY nice amongst a few others.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The only LP I actually cared for was a 1994 (i think) studio w/ebony fb. Should have never gotten rid of it. I haven't held any other LP since that came close as far as playability IMO.
 
funny_polymath said:
Go Epiphone. They are eating Gibson's lunch in terms of price and quality. They are putting their 'sister company' to shame!
Click to expand...

True, my Epiphone ES-175 blew away the 'new" Gibson ES-175 in terms of build quality, finishing, feel, and even pickup tonality.

Henry J. should truly be ashamed for what Gibson is producing at such inflated price points. The valuation at some point for Gibsons of this era will take a dive and probably push up the Norlin era Gibsons, which, for all the trashing, were good playable guitars that aged well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom