Gibson Deleted YouTube Videos. Mark Agnesi Fired?

[cmjohnson]

No, Gibson, and in fact NOBODY, posted videos of "perfectly good" guitars being driven over with an excavator. Those were Firebird X'es. Fireturds. Those guitar-shaped relics of the utter stupidity of the Henry J. era absolutely deserved crushing. They were TRASH.

As for the notion of taking parts off them, by law the moment a part is attached to a new made product and the removed from it, it's now a USED part and it's ILLEGAL to make NEW products using USED parts. Those parts CAN NOT BE REUSED to make new guitars. They could be used to make REFURBISHED guitars using used parts, but Gibson does not make refurbished guitars or even have a product category for used or refurbished guitars.

Get that straight. The parts could not be salvaged for reuse due to LEGAL reasons. They COULD have worked a deal with any given person to allow them to salvage those parts and sell them as used parts in some sort of legal arrangement, but they chose not to for reasons relating to liability and brand reputation.

Gibson doesn't even have a used parts outlet. Nor would it be in their best interests to have one.

Just injecting some facts into the discussion. Don't mind me.

 

[MikeyTheCat]

But they played nice.

 

[vintageguitarz]

This story about Gibson deleting all the YouTube videos was out in other circles a month ago, and when I saw it then I went to the Gibson YouTube page and there were easy a hundred videos. Someone is getting too excited too fast, maybe there was a glitch at YouTube with nothing to do with Gibson. All the videos are still up as of today.

As for Gibson being F'd up, any company that still uses "Has-Been" Saul Hudson, aka "Slash" IS all F'd Up. This clown has contributed nothing since GnR flamed out 30 years ago and the dork still dresses like "Hair Bands" are still alive. The reality is, he's a mediocre player and just another copy-cat of everyone else in the Hair Band era. Get a Life Saul Hudson, and Gibson, get some Good Tastes in Musicians to front for you.

 

[Kamen_Kaiju]

Cool story, except Slash doesn't dress at all like a hair band and doesn't play anything like a hair band, and he uses a Les Paul which is the opposite of what a hair band guitarist uses.

But other than all that,.. yah... you're right on point.

 

[trapland]

No, Gibson, and in fact NOBODY, posted videos of "perfectly good" guitars being driven over with an excavator. Those were Firebird X'es. Fireturds. Those guitar-shaped relics of the utter stupidity of the Henry J. era absolutely deserved crushing. They were TRASH.

As for the notion of taking parts off them, by law the moment a part is attached to a new made product and the removed from it, it's now a USED part and it's ILLEGAL to make NEW products using USED parts. Those parts CAN NOT BE REUSED to make new guitars. They could be used to make REFURBISHED guitars using used parts, but Gibson does not make refurbished guitars or even have a product category for used or refurbished guitars.

Get that straight. The parts could not be salvaged for reuse due to LEGAL reasons. They COULD have worked a deal with any given person to allow them to salvage those parts and sell them as used parts in some sort of legal arrangement, but they chose not to for reasons relating to liability and brand reputation.

Gibson doesn't even have a used parts outlet. Nor would it be in their best interests to have one.

Just injecting some facts into the discussion. Don't mind me.

For sure you are a great lawyer, and possibly a legislator too. Show me any federal or Tennessee state law that makes it illegal to disassemble parts from unsold inventory (or even returned for that matter) to manufacture new product. It does not exist, but many dudes speculate crap like this over drinks and bongs.

 

[Leotis]

Next you will be asking who Mike Lemmo is.

Or Jack Lemmo...

 

[Leotis]

I’ve heard whispers that HJ is back behind the scenes.
I also hear voices telling me that I’m the most handsome, talented and smartest man in the world.

I thought that voice was your mom....?

 

[Leotis]

As for Gibson being F'd up, any company that still uses "Has-Been" Saul Hudson, aka "Slash" IS all F'd Up. This clown has contributed nothing since GnR flamed out 30 years ago and the dork still dresses like "Hair Bands" are still alive. The reality is, he's a mediocre player and just another copy-cat of everyone else in the Hair Band era. Get a Life Saul Hudson, and Gibson, get some Good Tastes in Musicians to front for you.

I don't even know where to begin unpacking all the horseshit packed into that one paragraph...

 

[James R]

What ever happened to that dude that was on MLP who worked at Gibson and was updating us on things when JC first took over? Can't remember his name on here.....Matte or Mat or something? He seemed to be pretty communicative on this site and then dropped off of the face of the earth.

they discovered he was a double-agent!

 

[LeftyF2003]

TBH, I never thought Mark was the best choice to demo guitars. My biggest peeve was seeing him demo something like a '59 Flying V while wearing a leather jacket with zippers dragging across the back of the guitar. If I were Norm I'd have thrown that jacket away at the first opportunity...

 

[mdubya]

Or Jack Lemmo...

He was great in the Odd Couple.

 

[Leotis]

He was great in the Odd Couple.

He really was...just sublime...

 

[60'svibe]

Gibson has always been a special guitar for me. As far back as 1966 when I got the (green cover) '66 catalog I knew there was a special quality to Gibson. MY FIRST ELECTRIC WAS A 1967 ES 125 TDC that I got used for $75.00. I have had more than a few Fenders in my time (back in my day the choice was simple: either Gibson or Fender!! What else?). Be that as it may Gibson always had the mark of quality and stature. Sure I know their prices today have gotten somewhat excessive. I know that their anger over the CHIBSON SYNDROME has pissed them off (rightly so I might add) but that does little to deter my appreciation for Gibson guitars. My only two electrics today are my 2017 Gibson SG Faded and my 2019 Les Paul Tribute. LONG LIVE GIBSON.

 

[Udonitron]

Uh oh, Gibson seems to now be run by the Trunt administration lol

 

[Subterfuge]

TBH, I never thought Mark was the best choice to demo guitars. My biggest peeve was seeing him demo something like a '59 Flying V while wearing a leather jacket with zippers dragging across the back of the guitar. If I were Norm I'd have thrown that jacket away at the first opportunity...

the jacket is a bit tiresome ... I don't think I've ever seen him in anything but .. maybe it's like his security blanket .. I do hope he's not still wearing it 20 years from now ..

 

[scrumm21]

.... I do hope he's not still wearing it 20 years from now ..

I'd take that bet.....

 

[cmjohnson]

For sure you are a great lawyer, and possibly a legislator too. Show me any federal or Tennessee state law that makes it illegal to disassemble parts from unsold inventory (or even returned for that matter) to manufacture new product. It does not exist, but many dudes speculate crap like this over drinks and bongs.

I was told this by a lawyer who represents a few good sized manufacturers. He says it's covered in the Code of Federal Regulations. The general description is as follows:

16 CFR § 20.1 - Deception generally.

• CFR

prev | next
§ 20.1 Deception generally.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is new or unused when such is not the fact, or to misrepresent the current condition, or extent of previous use, reconstruction, or repair of any industry product.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to offer for sale or sell any industry product without disclosing, clearly and conspicuously, in advertising, in promotional literature, on invoices, and on the product's packaging that the item is an industry product. Additionally, it is unfair or deceptive to offer for sale or to sell any industry product that appears new or unused without disclosing on the product itself that it is an industry product, using appropriate descriptive terms with sufficient permanency to remain visible for a reasonable time after installation. Examples of appropriate descriptive terms include, but are not limited to “Used,” “Secondhand,” “Repaired,” “Relined,” “Reconditioned,” “Rebuilt,” or “Remanufactured.” If the term “recycled” is used, it should be used in a manner consistent with the requirements for that term set forth in the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR 260.7(e). On invoices to the trade only, the disclosure may be by use of any number, mark, or other symbol that is clearly understood by industry members as meaning that the part so marked on the invoices is not new.
(c) It is unfair or deceptive to place any means or instrumentality in the hands of others so that they may mislead consumers as to the previous use of industry products.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since I am reasonably sure that Gibson would choose to avoid any situation that could result in litigation, such as incorporating used parts into a new guitar, and additionally there is a cost to recover and rework parts to be reused in any event, it makes no sense for Gibson to salvage parts off of guitars heading for the scrap pile. All these parts are FAR less expensive at Gibson's costs than you might think anyway. To reuse those parts would probably result in a net loss due to labor costs.

 

[Billy Porter]

I work in manufacturing in the UK and its the labour cost of re-using parts that's the main issue. It often takes longer to disassemble than to assemble and this makes the finished goods cost not viable. Sometimes the labour cost is more than the parts cost. Scrappage is also accounted for elsewhere.

Food manufacturing however is another ballgame

 

[trapland]

I was told this by a lawyer who represents a few good sized manufacturers. He says it's covered in the Code of Federal Regulations. The general description is as follows:

16 CFR § 20.1 - Deception generally.

• CFR

prev | next
§ 20.1 Deception generally.
(a) It is unfair or deceptive to represent, directly or by implication, that any industry product is new or unused when such is not the fact, or to misrepresent the current condition, or extent of previous use, reconstruction, or repair of any industry product.
(b) It is unfair or deceptive to offer for sale or sell any industry product without disclosing, clearly and conspicuously, in advertising, in promotional literature, on invoices, and on the product's packaging that the item is an industry product. Additionally, it is unfair or deceptive to offer for sale or to sell any industry product that appears new or unused without disclosing on the product itself that it is an industry product, using appropriate descriptive terms with sufficient permanency to remain visible for a reasonable time after installation. Examples of appropriate descriptive terms include, but are not limited to “Used,” “Secondhand,” “Repaired,” “Relined,” “Reconditioned,” “Rebuilt,” or “Remanufactured.” If the term “recycled” is used, it should be used in a manner consistent with the requirements for that term set forth in the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR 260.7(e). On invoices to the trade only, the disclosure may be by use of any number, mark, or other symbol that is clearly understood by industry members as meaning that the part so marked on the invoices is not new.
(c) It is unfair or deceptive to place any means or instrumentality in the hands of others so that they may mislead consumers as to the previous use of industry products.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since I am reasonably sure that Gibson would choose to avoid any situation that could result in litigation, such as incorporating used parts into a new guitar, and additionally there is a cost to recover and rework parts to be reused in any event, it makes no sense for Gibson to salvage parts off of guitars heading for the scrap pile. All these parts are FAR less expensive at Gibson's costs than you might think anyway. To reuse those parts would probably result in a net loss due to labor costs.

Agreed selling obviously used product as new might be considers fraud or deceptive. But the dude claimed that Gibson was breaking the law by using new parts off of new unsold guitars to make other new guitars. It just ain’t so.

Its akin to saying if you bolt a tuner onto a guitar your making, then decide it would look better in gold, you were a criminal for changing that tuner and using it on another guitar. We are talking apples and beer.

 

[marksoundguitars]

All the outrage just makes me LOL.