My Response to the Firebird X destruction video

vintageguitarz

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
193
Reaction score
164
No great loss, clearly they were Henry Edward Michael Juszkiewicz era crap Gibson's that nobody wanted to buy anyways. Though I have to say I would have liked to have pulled the PuPs and Pots out of them first to use for repairs at my luthier / warranty repairs shop.
 

sillennium

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
627
Reaction score
376
No great loss, clearly they were Henry Edward Michael Juszkiewicz era crap Gibson's that nobody wanted to buy anyways. Though I have to say I would have liked to have pulled the PuPs and Pots out of them first to use for repairs at my luthier / warranty repairs shop.
Exactly, maybe their new partnership with smaller guitar companies could have been a good opportunity to let them take something awful and make it new!
 

jkes01

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
2,839
Reaction score
1,920
I mean c’mon, they could have at least stripped the parts and wholesale’d them or put them on cheaper guitars. Donate them to schools, anything but destroy them with a backhoe. Hell, I bet StewMac would have bought the parts and sold them.

Just shows me that the workers and talent that went into building them means nothing to corporate.
 

DarrellV

just Livin' the Dream....
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2016
Messages
27,521
Reaction score
74,762
Would they not have worked as an ordinary wired guitar with passive normal Firebird pickups? :dunno:

Use the extra switches for coil splits or phasing and boost like my Studio Deluxe has.. :thumb:

I liked the tops and colors on these more than the tech....

But IMO, if you have a guitar that is otherwise able to be set up as an excellent player.... then just gut the thing and go passive.. :doh:

Like they said above, it would be a limited edition collectors piece like the Govt edition.

Never gonna be made again, and what's out there is all there will ever be...

My 2 cents.....
 

GT1

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Messages
145
Reaction score
131
Trogley has a video up already on this subject. Like usual, he's on the money.
Those flamed maple boards, among other things, should have been re-purposed for a limited series of USA guitars.
Whether or not you like the Firebird X, it's still disgusting that destroyed over 300 of these guitars like that.
 

Rick

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
927
Reaction score
1,017
I don't think the situation is as nefarious as people think - the video just has shock value. The most common argument I hear is that Gibson is "wasteful" and should have donated the guitars. That sounds great on the emotional level, but let's do some math..

There were at least 500 guitars destroyed. I'll be conservative and guess the cost to Gibson on their books was $3,000 per guitar (I bet it was actually more). That's $1,500,000 right off their bottom line - HOWEVER, a manufacturer like this accrues a reserve for scrap and excess inventory meaning that $1.5M likely doesn't affect their profit for this year.

If they donated the guitars, they couldn't charge the $1.5M against their scrap reserve. Assuming they donated them to a school or other non-profit, they could claim a tax deduction but only for the fair market value of the donation. What's the "fair market value" of a guitar they consider an absolute failure, were unable to sell, and even recalled from stores? I'm guessing about $100 per guitar the IRS might allow.

But wait! There's more! If Gibson gives those guitars away for free they have to pay TN sales tax on their cost as well. That's an additional $150,000.

So, it's my opinion that donating those guitars - while sounding good to the average Joe Shmoe - would actually have cost Gibson around $1.6 MILLION dollars. For a company just out of bankruptcy, would you still support this decision?
 

voggin

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
756
Reaction score
736
Not to mention, how much would stripping the guitars of electronics and parts have cost? Half an hour per guitar, with an employee making 20-25 bucks an hour.

It's funny. Gibson gets crap for destroying a failed line of guitars, yet the internet worships Paul Reed Smith for bandsawing guitars with minor blemishes, because, you know, quality control.
 

Ghostman

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
298
Reaction score
447
The entire guitar from top to bottom was build/designed for that one model. I think they probably took the custom-wound pickups and tried them in a different guitar and they were crap.

There was nothing on that guitar that was salvageable for other guitars. From what I was told, even the switches were not traditional 3/5 way switches.

These were more custom electronics than real guitars anyways. Built in effects, computer connections, etc. No loss.
 

ARandall

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
13,293
Reaction score
9,147
I don't think the situation is as nefarious as people think - the video just has shock value. The most common argument I hear is that Gibson is "wasteful" and should have donated the guitars. That sounds great on the emotional level, but let's do some math..

There were at least 500 guitars destroyed. I'll be conservative and guess the cost to Gibson on their books was $3,000 per guitar (I bet it was actually more). That's $1,500,000 right off their bottom line - HOWEVER, a manufacturer like this accrues a reserve for scrap and excess inventory meaning that $1.5M likely doesn't affect their profit for this year.

If they donated the guitars, they couldn't charge the $1.5M against their scrap reserve. Assuming they donated them to a school or other non-profit, they could claim a tax deduction but only for the fair market value of the donation. What's the "fair market value" of a guitar they consider an absolute failure, were unable to sell, and even recalled from stores? I'm guessing about $100 per guitar the IRS might allow.

But wait! There's more! If Gibson gives those guitars away for free they have to pay TN sales tax on their cost as well. That's an additional $150,000.

So, it's my opinion that donating those guitars - while sounding good to the average Joe Shmoe - would actually have cost Gibson around $1.6 MILLION dollars. For a company just out of bankruptcy, would you still support this decision?
Somehow you just seem to be misguided on so many levels.

The fundamental point of donation is about a good deed, helping someone else and not merely looking at your own selfish ends. Maybe this concept is beyond the capacity for you to ever grasp.

Even if we take your mindless capitalistic approach, the goodwill generated by such a donation if it were tastefully made public would probably do way better for a company desperate looking to turn around it's image.....especially after the Agnesi debacle.

Gibson guitars was never unprofitable. It was the lifestyle arm that brought the whole down.
 
Last edited:

PierM

Premium Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2016
Messages
4,999
Reaction score
9,371
After this video, and this grown man shirt, I now feel the need to sell all my customs, as soon as I can.
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Reactions: Who

Ghostman

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
298
Reaction score
447
I don't think the situation is as nefarious as people think - the video just has shock value. The most common argument I hear is that Gibson is "wasteful" and should have donated the guitars. That sounds great on the emotional level, but let's do some math..

There were at least 500 guitars destroyed. I'll be conservative and guess the cost to Gibson on their books was $3,000 per guitar (I bet it was actually more). That's $1,500,000 right off their bottom line - HOWEVER, a manufacturer like this accrues a reserve for scrap and excess inventory meaning that $1.5M likely doesn't affect their profit for this year.

If they donated the guitars, they couldn't charge the $1.5M against their scrap reserve. Assuming they donated them to a school or other non-profit, they could claim a tax deduction but only for the fair market value of the donation. What's the "fair market value" of a guitar they consider an absolute failure, were unable to sell, and even recalled from stores? I'm guessing about $100 per guitar the IRS might allow.

But wait! There's more! If Gibson gives those guitars away for free they have to pay TN sales tax on their cost as well. That's an additional $150,000.

So, it's my opinion that donating those guitars - while sounding good to the average Joe Shmoe - would actually have cost Gibson around $1.6 MILLION dollars. For a company just out of bankruptcy, would you still support this decision?
Someone who recognizes the tax differences between "loss" and "donation."
 

Ghostman

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2015
Messages
298
Reaction score
447
The fundamental point of donation is about a good deed, helping someone else and not merely looking at your own selfish ends. Maybe this concept is beyond the capacity for you to ever grasp.
Good deeds from a Corporation? Are you serious? Please tell me you forgot the purple sarcasm text color.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Who

ARandall

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
13,293
Reaction score
9,147
Well, yes the reality is that it should be in purple.
However given Gibson has suffered from a greedy abusive tyrant owner and is trying to about face it's image, the donation is precisely the best course of action they should have taken to show that indeed those days were behind them.
 

jkes01

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
2,839
Reaction score
1,920
Just watched Brad’s SPF. Interesting response from Gibson. “Unsafe components” :rolleyes:

Maybe they realized all the materials used in their guitars are known to cause cancer in the state of California. Maybe this is just the beginning? :dunno:


Man, the video destroying the Memphis guitars it truly heartbreaking. They should bring back factory seconds instead of filling the landfill with their products.

Gibson should hire some of the asset management folks from Peavy. Instead there will be a video next week of a huge bon fire. :cool:
 
Last edited:




Top