Gibson LPJ - Scratches through nitro finish

[rikko]

I picked up a satin ebony studio at GC awhile back and it has the thin nitro.
Already had scratches on it, so they knocked the price down quite a bit.
The paint is wearing thin where my arm rests, but I love it. And the grain shows through the finish quite nicely!
TALK 'EM DOWN!!!

 

[lpplayer]

I have a few of the budget Gibsons- a Junior, Junior Special, and a Vintage Mahogany Studio.

These finishes are quite thin! They still play and sound great. But dspelman is correct- the quick spray it on and forget it finish saves cost. But I didnt buy them because I wanted to have a Gibson logo....I bought them because my GAS was out of control....I already have a Standard and a Bonamassa Studio....and I wanted More....

 

[rjshare]

it saves gibson cost? yeah - and as a result they sell it cheaper... no-one is losing out.

the satin finish is not an underhand way of getting you to buy a sub-stadard instrument, it is an overt way of making gibson guitars more accessible by not performing the labour intensive, costly process of a fancy - and in terms of sound, completely unnecessary - finish.

also, a lot of people - myself included - prefer the feel of the satin/worn/used finish on the neck rather than the slightly sticky feel of the gloss finish - and yes, i DO have both.

sorry - dspelman - you are just coming over as a complete @rse now with your anti-gibson ranting. you are obsessed. sometimes you do have a valid point to make, but it rarely gets heard as it is usually buried so deep in bullshyt that it is impossible to get too. wtf has your photo got to do with a question about a paint scratch?

 

[closed_PaulSlack]

Hijack 2: This thread is now about tropical fish!!!

 

[dspelman]

So you have played an LPJ through an amplifier in reaching this conclusion, or are you basing your position entirely on specs?

Played two at a "new product" session. It's not that they played badly or sounded particularly "off." Both needed some setup and possibly some fret leveling/polishing.

They didn't sound any better than any of the other LP-alikes in their price range, though. And they didn't sound any better (or play any better) than guitars that were much cheaper, either.

I have a friend who bought one, but I haven't seen it yet. He's in college and a beginner player. He was up front about why. "It has a Gibson logo, and I'd be embarrassed to be seen with something my friends wouldn't recognize." Sometimes peer pressure trumps everything else. At some point in the next month or two we'll swap out some things and get it playing well. He's already got "mods" planned for it (different knobs, for the most part).

 

[dangerdog]

Your talking about the Epiphone Tribute Plus are'nt you For $599 it kinda blows the LPJ out of the water...

It's got great electronics, Gibson pickups, a hardshell case, a gorgeous looking finish with binding(that will last and won't wear off lol), and it plays and sounds awesome.

Ok Dspelman we better get outta here before we get lynched...

I imagine he is talking about the dozens, if not hundreds, of other brands that can smoke a Gibson at that price point.

 

[Ice Man]

I understand the prejudice to an extent. When these came out I thought, "How ugly, Gibson is stooping to a new low." Then I saw them in person and thought, OK not too bad. And then I played one. And now I have one.

I love the neck profile on these, and the rosewood board is nice. There is a nice heft to the weight and tone of this guitar. I don't like the 490/498 in a SG, but they are perfectly acceptable in a Paul. And a real Les Paul it is, as I can easily coax all the LP tones I was looking for unlike in some higher end Epiphones including my own.

Admittedly, that flat black headstock with the too fat Gibson script (and no Les Paul script) is kinda ugly. The finish is minimal and the bodies indeed multiple piece if that bothers you. It may not be for everybody, but if you play with your hands and listen with your ears and not your eyes it's a perfectly legit Gibson LP.

 

[dspelman]

Plus, there's no proof anywhere that multi slab guitars are poorer sounding than their one piece bretheren.

There is, however an abundance of ignorance and prejudice.

I absolutely agree with you. On both counts.

Gibson has set its own bar for "quality" in guitars, for better or worse, and it's pushed that particular quality agenda through relentless marketing. Therefore, any Gibson needs to be measured not only against the rest of the market in general, but against its own quality standards as well.

We're always hearing assertions (normally baseless and unproven) that Gibson uses "better wood," for example, and Gibson has traditionally charged more money for single-piece backs (and tops). As we've seen, however, Gibson will use whatever the cat drags in to build guitars when not building guitars would damage their bottom line. And that includes lots of glued together pieces of scrap to make a body. We've seen them turn to "laminated" rosewood, obeche, katalox, baked maple and even plastic for fretboards. None of this is intrinsically bad stuff, but all of it would definitely suffer at the hands of derisive Gibson marketing as inferior crap had it been used in competitor's guitars. As would multipiece backs, etc. We certainly hear the aficionados sniff at the pancake bodies on Norlin LPs as lowlife no class cheapout stuff <G>.

Gibson itself is confused about maple necks as opposed to one-piece solid mahogany. It has traditionally used multipiece maple necks on it's highest-end guitars (the L5 archtops and solid bodies, the '78 25/50 anniversary LP, etc.). But now it's using a maple neck on the LPJ.

It's also confused on whether using a maple cap on a guitar is important...or not. It puts them on the LPJ (though the grain pattern looks like the inside of a packing crate) and leaves them out on the $4K solid color LP Customs and on a lot of other guitars while the marketing copy alternates between "gotta have" and ignoring the question altogether, depending on which guitar it's trying to sell.

For Gibson, high end guitars have binding. The $4K Custom has triple layer binding on headstock and body, single layer binding on the fretboard (with nibs). The $6K RWhatevers have single layer binding on the body, none on the headstock. Wait, what?

For Gibson, high end guitars get ebony fretboards and real MOP or abalone inlays. The $4K Customs have traditionally had them, as have the high-end archtops and the Custom versions of nearly every Gibson guitar (the 355 yes, the 335 no, the LP Custom yes, the LP Standard, no, ditto the SG Custom vs. the SG Standard).

The LPJ has none of these features and yet is touted as somehow superior to guitars that are $200 cheaper and come with triple binding on body/headstock, single binding on the fretboard, ebony fretboards, MOP inlays, two and three-piece backs, solid mahogany necks, Alnico V pickups, graphtech teflon-impregnated nuts, graphtech NVS2 bridges with string saver saddles, yada yada.

As you say, there's no proof that any of this makes a difference to the sound, and yet Gibson will charge $4K for a guitar that comes close to those specs.

It can be confusing, no?

 

[voggin]

Played two at a "new product" session. It's not that they played badly or sounded particularly "off." Both needed some setup and possibly some fret leveling/polishing.

They didn't sound any better than any of the other LP-alikes in their price range, though. And they didn't sound any better (or play any better) than guitars that were much cheaper, either.

I have a friend who bought one, but I haven't seen it yet. He's in college and a beginner player. He was up front about why. "It has a Gibson logo, and I'd be embarrassed to be seen with something my friends wouldn't recognize." Sometimes peer pressure trumps everything else. At some point in the next month or two we'll swap out some things and get it playing well. He's already got "mods" planned for it (different knobs, for the most part).

So, in other words, Gibson has produced a guitar at a comparable price point to other "LP-alikes" that is, in sound and playability, equal to those guitars. And, unlike the other guitars at the price point, it has a nitro finish (if the buyer is into that), so it presents an alternative otherwise unavailable at that price point.

It also has the name of the company that invented, rather than copied, the body style, is manufactured by workers at first world wages in a country with full OHS laws (and, I'm sure to Gibson's chagrin, environmental protections). It will also likely hold its value better than the alternatives, whether due to brand strenght, fan-boyism, peer pressure or whatever.

Forgive me if I'm missing the downside.

 

[dspelman]

I understand the prejudice to an extent. When these came out I thought, "How ugly, Gibson is stooping to a new low."
Admittedly, that flat black headstock with the too fat Gibson script (and no Les Paul script) is kinda ugly. The finish is minimal and the bodies indeed multiple piece if that bothers you. It may not be for everybody, but if you play with your hands and listen with your ears and not your eyes it's a perfectly legit Gibson LP.

So here's the question. What about the LPJ makes it sound, to you, like a "legit... LP" that your Epiphone couldn't muster?

 

[dspelman]

So, in other words, Gibson has produced a guitar at a comparable price point to other "LP-alikes" that is, in sound and playability, equal to those guitars. And, unlike the other guitars at the price point, it has a nitro finish (if the buyer is into that), so it presents an alternative otherwise unavailable at that price point.

Yes it does, though let's hedge on "sound and playability" for a bit.
Gibson has produced a $600 guitar that can be played and that sounds roughly like any other LP-alike guitar, including the vast array of Asian guitars right down to the $109 lookalikes. And unlike any of those other guitars, it does indeed have a lacquer finish (if the buyer is into that).

It also has the name of the company that invented, rather than copied, the body style, is manufactured by workers at first world wages in a country with full OHS laws (and, I'm sure to Gibson's chagrin, environmental protections).
Forgive me if I'm missing the downside.

Actually, Paul Bigsby seems to have invented the body style in 1948. Gibson copied it. I appreciate the flag-waving, but I'm not sure Gibson workers care. What you're calling first-world wages are actually pretty close to minimum wage (for the people actually doing the guitar building) and the company they're working for is traditionally located in the bottom 10 of worst companies to work for. Those workers live in a great state but will, on average, accumulate a high debt load, will lose their job at some point, will have difficulty finding another, have a high likelihood of bankruptcy, divorce, depression and cancer going forward. At their level of economic wonderfulness, they become part of the "sandwich" generation who will have to change their parents' diapers and provide long term care while simultaneously providing living space for children who are more likely to need financial assistance even if they've gone to college, due to high student loan debt (currently moving past credit card debt into the #1 spot) and inability to find jobs. Current estimates show a very high percentage of them unemployed or underemployed. Gibson skirts environmental protections by using lax state regulations and grandfathered-in clauses to be able to use nitrocellulose lacquer (which is ordinarily banned anywhere else). It's been banned by those environmental protection laws because it's highly toxic to workers (causing brain and internal organ failures) upon immediate exposure, carcinogenic in the longer term and which releases volatile organic compounds into the environment, which causes any number of additional issues.

It's obvious that you haven't even considered downside.

We've already heard from the owners that aside from the fact that they can get real LP noises out of the guitars, there's little to recommend them. The "finish" wears off easily and allows the guitar to be trashed quickly ("but I sorta like that..."). The workmanship is nowhere near what you can expect on guitars approaching half the price.

It will also likely hold its value better than the alternatives, whether due to brand strenght, fan-boyism, peer pressure or whatever.

It may. Or it may not. We're seeing a whole new generation of guitar players who have little or no allegiance to the Gibson brand, who have no personal rock and roll history that includes it, and who are used to buying overseas-oriented products. Gibson has just begun to realize that the entire entry-level generation has little or no brand loyalty and that their big spender baby boomer generation is moving into retirement. That's why we've had the influx of these kinds of guitars.

But they've missed the lesson of Cadillac in the '80s. Cadillac began to see Japanese and German cars taking over the luxury car market that they'd owned for decades. "It's the Cadillac of [fill in the blank]" was a phrase that indicated "the best of breed." But a couple of gas crises and a generation who was finding that they appreciated the quality, economy and nimbleness of the little econobox Hondas and Toyotas, and that had a perception that the old gas-guzzler boats that their parents thought were impressive weren't to their taste produced falling Cadillac sales. Cadillac desperately tried to gain some kind of credibility by putting out an entry level shitbox called the Cimarron, based on the GM J body. It was smaller and lighter than other Cadillacs, but nearly twice the price of other J bodies and it was criticized as lacking power and refinement. It is *always* mentioned in lists of "bad cars." It was finally discontinued in about 1988. It sold about 6000 units that year and was part of the reason that Cadillac's market share was cut nearly in half; it went from 3.8% to 2.2% as 25% of Cadillac owners moved from Cadillac to Lexus and Acura (aka Toyota and Honda) and never returned. It wasn't until about 2000 that Cadillac began to come back; it was nearly gone.

If the same was to happen to Gibson, might that be a "downside?"

 

[dspelman]

They made to wear, fade and look used.

I predict they'll be highly successful at those attributes, whether that was the intention or not.
Sort of the pre-worn-out jeans fashion statement of the guitar world?

 

[rjshare]

dude, we are talking about paint finishes here and you are on about divorce, depression and cancer.

just stop - really, its for your own good. go and doing something constructive.

 

[voggin]

What you're calling first-world wages are actually pretty close to minimum wage (for the people actually doing the guitar building) and the company they're working for is traditionally located in the bottom 10 of worst companies to work for. Those workers live in a great state but will, on average, accumulate a high debt load, will lose their job at some point, will have difficulty finding another, have a high likelihood of bankruptcy, divorce, depression and cancer going forward. At their level of economic wonderfulness, they become part of the "sandwich" generation who will have to change their parents' diapers and provide long term care while simultaneously providing living space for children who are more likely to need financial assistance even if they've gone to college, due to high student loan debt (currently moving past credit card debt into the #1 spot) and inability to find jobs. Current estimates show a very high percentage of them unemployed or underemployed.


I really don't know why I'm responding to this. OCD, I guess...

Are you seriously suggesting that Gibson is somehow responsible for all the demographic and economic ills of society? Does Henry J. have affairs with all his employees wives, just to break up their families? Or, alternatively, are you suggesting that working conditions in Tennessee are inferior to those of Chinese factories?

I would be very interested to know how many Gibson employees have applied to emigrate to the People's Republic in the last few years. Obviously, those who have are seeking a better life for themselves.

I don't want to rag on your positions. In fact, I often agree with a lot of the good stuff you have to say (that Gibson often charges crazy premiums, that there are a lot of good alternative choices out there, that "brand loyalty" can lead to close-mindedness) but man, that last one sounds like you've been hanging around in caves full of bats inhaling the fumes.

 

[fullspectrum]

I have a few lower end Gibsons. I have to say the frets on mine and the ones I played aren't dressed as nice as on my Epiphone LP. I wouldn't go any lower than the Gibby Tributes IMO.

I've played some LPJ's...they are pretty cheaply made, and compared to a Gibby Studio or even Epi Tribute plus sounded thin.

 

[Ice Man]

So here's the question. What about the LPJ makes it sound, to you, like a "legit... LP" that your Epiphone couldn't muster?

Fair question, and before I answer let me preface it by saying I have nothing against Epis. I've owned one (Custom) for over 10 years. For me, a good Gibson just feels better to play (neck shapes; slightly wider at nut) and is easier to dial in tonally.

1. (and foremost) The finish. The thick poly on an Epi looks nice but muffles the tone. It's irreversible unless you spend a lot of time or money. Nothing new to say here; it is what it is.

2. The maple cap. My Epi doesn't have one. I understand many do, but usually not as thick as a Gibson, and not thick enough to compensate for number 1.

3. The pickups. Again, I understand many newer Epis have Gibson pups that are even considered superior to the 490/498. They certainly improve the tone over stock Epi pups. However, because of number "1" this improvement is limited imo. I spent a lot of time demoing several Epi 1960 v3 tributes. Very nice guitar, but I still felt most lower end Gibsons sounded better.

4. The big thick neck. Not to mention it's maple. People obsess over fingerboards, but I think the neck itself is an underrated tonal component of any guitar, acoustic or electric, Fender or Gibson, etc.

That's how I hear it, ymmv.

To be more specific about the tones I like and expect from an LP, three come to mind where my LPJ has both more oomph and clarity than any Epi I've played.

1. Jimmy Page middle position tone.
2. Alex Lifeson "All The World's A Stage" tone.
3. Billy Duffy (The Cult) "Electric" tone (just a magnificent basic rock tone).

 

[dspelman]

Are you seriously suggesting that Gibson is somehow responsible for all the demographic and economic ills of society? Does Henry J. have affairs with all his employees wives, just to break up their families? Or, alternatively, are you suggesting that working conditions in Tennessee are inferior to those of Chinese factories?

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't have issues with reading comprehension?

Here's both a local report and what Gibson has to say about it:

エピフォンチンタオ EQ 工場レポート

Gibson-Qingdao-Factory--All-Epiphone--All-The-Time-

 

[dspelman]

Fair question, and before I answer let me preface it by saying I have nothing against Epis. I've owned one (Custom) for over 10 years. For me, a good Gibson just feels better to play (neck shapes; slightly wider at nut) and is easier to dial in tonally.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

So would you agree that a thinner finish on an Epi might be as toneful as the same-thickness lacquer finish on any other guitar (since it's your #1 tone-sucking priority)? Do you think that a pancake body guitar has less tone or more tone than a poly finished guitar? What happens with the differences in "tone" between multi-piece, weight relieved (cheesed), chambered, Custom Lite (balsa core), thinner body (Axcess, Lifeson, Custom Lite, Studio Lite, maple neck, mahogany neck guitars?

Would you typify this as a thin finish or thick?:

Have you ever been able to measure the thickness of the maple cap on each brand of guitar? Can you tell which guitars have maple caps and which do not by sound? What happens when you have a guitar with no maple cap at all (a $4K LP Custom, for example)? Is it less an LP than those that have a maple cap?

When you say that most Gibson lower end guitars sound better than Epiphones (regarding pickups), would you say that lower end guitars sound better than a '59 burst (original, same PAF pickup in each position, no balancing) or the 25/50 Anniversary (no balancing)? Do you think you could pick out Epiphones from a batch of 20 guitars, some of which are old gibson LPs, some of which are new? Could you tell the difference between an all original Gibson with a large dense bridge (say, the Schaller "harmonica" bridge) and TP6 tailpiece and a standard production Gibson bridge/tailpiece?

Most Gibsons are listed as having 1 11/16ths" nut widths. Did you know that some are actually more like 1 5/8ths? Did you know that "nibs" on the binding can force the string spacing to be closer together on some Gibsons than Epiphones?

Could you separate (blindfolded and in listen-only mode) maple neck, thick neck and thinner-necked guitars from one another and could you tell which is the thick neck maple neck guitar?

Would ebony/rosewood give you a sound difference?

When you listen to recorded Les Pauls that you wish to emulate, what do you know about how the recording was processed, EQ'd, set up on CD? You're aware that some record companies significantly process not only individual tracks, but also whole albums to produce (in some cases) an album that seems louder due to extra distortion ladled in...

What are the Les Paul tones that you know are real Les Pauls that you don't care to ever hear recorded again?

And so on...

 

[voggin]

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't have issues with reading comprehension?

Here's both a local report and what Gibson has to say about it:

エピフォンチンタオ EQ å·¥å*´ãƒ¬ãƒãƒ¼ãƒˆ

Gibson-Qingdao-Factory--All-Epiphone--All-The-Time-

What the hell has all that got to do with cancer, divorce and student loan debt? And more importantly, what has that got to do with LPJ's?

The reason (I feel, at least) that LPJ's and SGJ's are great is that they provide guitar buyers with a $600 option for a nitro finished guitar with Gibson pickups. If they like nitro and Gibson pickups and don't care about bling then they have an affordable option. If they like poly and want a better looking guitar then they can spend their $600 on an Epiphone (or an Agile or a Schecter or whatever). Different players want different features. Does nitro or poly effect tone? I don't know, some people think they do. Do nitro and poly feel different? I would certainly argue they do. Which one you prefer is just that, a preference.

Does thickness of a maple cap, or the number of pieces in a back, or the source of the lumber matter? Probably all of those things are debatable, with good arguments on both sides. What matters is that some people perceive that they do. Maybe the perception is due to some quantifiable, scientific explanation. Perhaps it is all psychological. But I, for one, prefer the ability to go into a music shop and have a variety of choices where my preferences can be met.

My opinion (and that's all it is) is that the LPJ is a good solid product at a good price. I also believe many imports are good solid products at good prices. I'm willing to admit the latter because I don't have some axe to grind (pardon the pun) with Rondo or Epiphone or any other Asian company. Obviously, your animosity toward Gibson (and nitro and whatever else) won't let you admit the former.

 

[Sportrider24]

Guys, this is not the first nor will it be the last thread that spirals into these debates. The bottom line is that it is a genuine Gibson regardless of the price tag. It may not be for everyone but it definitely has a market regardless of personal opinion.

I personally own a 50's Tribute Dark Back. I'd considered many other guitars including the new Epiphone Tribute model, Ultra 3, Chris Shifflet Telecaster and a few more. In the end I went with a "low end" Gibson for one BIG reason. The Gibson neck. I don't care how many comparable imports you put next to a Gibson (even the lowest end Gibson like the melody maker), any of us can blindfold ourselves and tell the difference just by running our hands around the neck and across the fretboard.

For me the heavy nitro finish wasn't important nor was binding. As long as it had the Gibson neck, good hardware and solid electronics it fit the bill for me.

So there you have it. A little different perspective from someone who bought a low end Gibson that can afford a Standard or Traditional or almost any other sub $4000 guitar.