What else could Gibson improve on?

[60thR0]

So many conflicting or impossible requests here, I do sympathise with Gibson to a certain degree.

My current obsession is bridges where it seems a massive tone difference can be had; why couldn’t they do what four uncles did for example? They haven’t even tried even just a little with the saddles.

The other thing is generally with finishes where they keep tweaking things and going in different directions but it’s not getting more accurate. Why the dark cherry back which is completely inaccurate (yes I know you can get a lighter one but it severely reduces the choices available)? Quite a few of the burst color shades to me don’t look like any real bursts, either now or in the past.

The recent discussion on lacquer checking seems to show it’s impossible to please everyone- some want it perfect and remain that way, others want it to age slowly, others quicker and others want it to be preaged but magically stop aging or something.

Not sure why everyone is asking for lighter backs, they are not necessarily more accurate or sound better at all. Even in BOTB the range is from 8.1 to 9.5 I think and anything in that range is fine. Furthermore looking at the offerings I am not seeing it creeping up as some claim.

What was Gibson quality really like in 59? You are looking at surviving instrument that in 60-70 years would definitely have had pro setups and work at some point.

One thing I will agree with is the tops are getting much less flame. Just go back to some threads in 2013 and look at the jaw dropping tops that 59s and even ‘plain top” 58s got. Insane. I’m all for accuracy but still can’t resist a killer flame

 

[Jimmi]

Are all the newer reissues weight relieved ? I know you can order them that way but aren’t they by default solid?

 

[Jimmi]

^ Historics don't use weight relief......unless it’s a special run like the CR series.

Answered my question. Thx

 

[AJK1]

A question came to mind today about these Historics:
What else could they improve on to make them more like the real deal?
I'm just curious to hear about what you guys think could be better.

Gibson could make the guitars sound better by offering free online lessons with every purchase…

 

[Daniel.S]

Interesting, so it sounds like they've got the lineup as close as they can get it.
I expected to hear comments about the logos not being in the correct spots or the wrong lacquer being applied.
The comment about the bridge: Sounds like they could use metals made closer to the originals.
I'm guessing the tuners, screws, tailpiece and thumb bleeders are correct as well?

 

[60thR0]

.

 

[TaterNuts]

Offer the R series guitars for the price they got for the originals new...

 

[LPaddicted]

Changing the name of the Les Paul for Les Sloppy when they will have improve QC

 

[AJK1]

Changing the name of the Les Paul for Les Sloppy when they will have improve QC

Zinger !

 

[Duane_the_tub]

Nitro that can be applied thinner and dries harder.

 

[LPaddicted]

Zinger !

 

[1allspub]

It appears some folks are talking about Gibson in general in this thread and some are focused specifically on Historics, which, since this is the Historics subforum I think is the context the OP intended, but obviously we are free to take the discussion in any direction we like.

That said, I think the CS is well into the high-90s percentile (of historical accuracy) when in comes to RIs (at least to what is legal and/or feasible). So much so that they are down to just tweaking things year by year. Is the nitrocellulose lacquer exactly the same as in the 1950s? No. But it seems there are laws and regulations in place causing this. So be it. Old growth wood can’t be made to magically reappear. So be it. Brazilian rosewood is expensive and has CITES restrictions on it making it unfeasible to use for anything but extra-pricey special runs. So be it. Indian rosewood as a rule is fine, but it does seem Gibson has some struggles sourcing good (looking) IR at times... we’ve all seen that otherwise nice looking R8/R9, etc that just has an ugly light fretboard on it. BUT... be honest, there are also a lot of really nice dark IR fretboards on RIs out there too. You just have to shop for them. Gibson makes RIs many times over the number of actual 1958-60 Bursts every year... so I imagine it’s tough to make them all look exactly like how they looked (in terms of wood selection) back in the 50s. I think Gibson actually does a pretty decent job. And it’s our job as buyers/customers to hunt around and find the one (s) that speaks to us... both tonally and aesthetically. And if you go look at burstserial.com you’ll see there is actually a lot of variance in how these guitars looked (flame, rosewood, burst spray jobs, etc) back in the 58-60 timeframe. Thing is, people have in their mind what a quintessential “Burst” is to them... but there’s a lot of subjectivity to that... and, as I said, a lot more variance in the vintage ones that people tend to realize. So Gibson is always shooting at a moving target, so to speak.

I have no problem with ML (I don’t want one, but I get that folks dig them and why the program exists... and I imagine it’s a pretty good profit center for Gibson so don’t expect it to go anywhere soon) as long as they continue making VOS and Gloss models too (which they do).

Areas they could focus on are actually pretty attainable. Get the headstock shape and logo/logo-location perfect. That doesn’t seem like a big lift. It’s really close now, but as I understand still not quite vintage correct (though, I have to be honest, I can’t tell how it’s “not right”... I just hear people continually stating that it’s not correct, so I take them at their word, but looking at my 2021 R9’s headstock I don’t see what’s “wrong”... so it’s gotta be pretty dang close, even if still not quite right). Improve the bridge to historical tonal specs... drop tests with vintage bridges and modern ones show they are tonally different. This seems like something that is easily remedied if they will just make it a priority (which, clearly they have not). I think the wiring harnesses have come a long way in the last few years. Sourcing higher rated caps in the 600-700 range seems like something they could do (if that’s truly where vintage LPs have drifted to), but that wasn’t the original spec. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but 500k was the original spec back in the day, right? So it’s just that drift over the last 60+ years that has caused vintage guitars to have significantly wider ranging. So should Gibson build them to original spec or to what the spec has drifted too? Seems a reasonable question. And I don’t know if there’s truly a “right” answer. Pickups... well... I have a love/hate relationship with Custombuckers (and Gibson pickups in general). When they are good, they are fantastic. When they aren’t, they are pretty dang meh! However, it does seem that in the last couple years their pickups have improved somewhat (at least the ones I’ve run across). Going unpotted a few years ago (not just CBs, but also Burstbuckers in the USA guitars are unpotted now as well) has improved their dynamics. Perhaps bringing Jared Brandon onboard is starting to pay dividends. Consistency is Gibson’s biggest problem when it comes to pickups... it seems no two sets sound the same. I realize that real PAFs also varied widely, but this seems one area where they should avoid historical accuracy and focus on consistency!

I could continue on ranting and raving about lots of little minutia... but frankly that’s what it’s down to... minutia. As I said at the beginning of this post, IMO they are well into the high 90s-percentile with these guitars. Oh, and for the love of Pete, please DO NOT let anyone from PRS anywhere near Gibson... eww!

 

[AJK1]

Zinger:
Australian slang for a striking or amusing remark which is a bit corny or cringey !

 

[Jimmi]

It appears some folks are talking about Gibson in general in this thread and some are focused specifically on Historics, which, since this is the Historics subforum I think is the context the OP intended, but obviously we are free to take the discussion in any direction we like.

That said, I think the CS is well into the high-90s percentile (of historical accuracy) when in comes to RIs (at least to what is legal and/or feasible). So much so that they are down to just tweaking things year by year. Is the nitrocellulose lacquer exactly the same as in the 1950s? No. But it seems there are laws and regulations in place causing this. So be it. Old growth wood can’t be made to magically reappear. So be it. Brazilian rosewood is expensive and has CITES restrictions on it making it unfeasible to use for anything but extra-pricey special runs. So be it. Indian rosewood as a rule is fine, but it does seem Gibson has some struggles sourcing good (looking) IR at times... we’ve all seen that otherwise nice looking R8/R9, etc that just has an ugly light fretboard on it. BUT... be honest, there are also a lot of really nice dark IR fretboards on RIs out there too. You just have to shop for them. Gibson makes RIs many times over the number of actual 1958-60 Bursts every year... so I imagine it’s tough to make them all look exactly like how they looked (in terms of wood selection) back in the 50s. I think Gibson actually does a pretty decent job. And it’s our job as buyers/customers to hunt around and find the one (s) that speaks to us... both tonally and aesthetically. And if you go look at burstserial.com you’ll see there is actually a lot of variance in how these guitars looked (flame, rosewood, burst spray jobs, etc) back in the 58-60 timeframe. Thing is, people have in their mind what a quintessential “Burst” is to them... but there’s a lot of subjectivity to that... and, as I said, a lot more variance in the vintage ones that people tend to realize. So Gibson is always shooting at a moving target, so to speak.

I have no problem with ML (I don’t want one, but I get that folks dig them and why the program exists... and I imagine it’s a pretty good profit center for Gibson so don’t expect it to go anywhere soon) as long as they continue making VOS and Gloss models too (which they do).

Areas they could focus on are actually pretty attainable. Get the headstock shape and logo/logo-location perfect. That doesn’t seem like a big lift. It’s really close now, but as I understand still not quite vintage correct (though, I have to be honest, I can’t tell how it’s “not right”... I just hear people continually stating that it’s not correct, so I take them at their word, but looking at my 2021 R9’s headstock I don’t see what’s “wrong”... so it’s gotta be pretty dang close, even if still not quite right). Improve the bridge to historical tonal specs... drop tests with vintage bridges and modern ones show they are tonally different. This seems like something that is easily remedied if they will just make it a priority (which, clearly they have not). I think the wiring harnesses have come a long way in the last few years. Sourcing higher rated caps in the 600-700 range seems like something they could do (if that’s truly where vintage LPs have drifted to), but that wasn’t the original spec. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but 500k was the original spec back in the day, right? So it’s just that drift over the last 60+ years that has caused vintage guitars to have significantly wider ranging. So should Gibson build them to original spec or to what the spec has drifted too? Seems a reasonable question. And I don’t know if there’s truly a “right” answer. Pickups... well... I have a love/hate relationship with Custombuckers (and Gibson pickups in general). When they are good, they are fantastic. When they aren’t, they are pretty dang meh! However, it does seem that in the last couple years their pickups have improved somewhat (at least the ones I’ve run across). Going unpotted a few years ago (not just CBs, but also Burstbuckers in the USA guitars are unpotted now as well) has improved their dynamics. Perhaps bringing Jared Brandon onboard is starting to pay dividends. Consistency is Gibson’s biggest problem when it comes to pickups... it seems no two sets sound the same. I realize that real PAFs also varied widely, but this seems one area where they should avoid historical accuracy and focus on consistency!

I could continue on ranting and raving about lots of little minutia... but frankly that’s what it’s down to... minutia. As I said at the beginning of this post, IMO they are well into the high 90s-percentile with these guitars. Oh, and for the love of Pete, please DO NOT let anyone from PRS anywhere near Gibson... eww!

I am not sure if we can know what the true tolerances were for pots in the 50s. The sweep is longer and when tested they read higher now and that is what we compare the new ones to. I agree with you mostly though.

The pickups ? Never seen a AIII magnet in a PAF except for supposedly a few early 57s (never seen it but have been told). So burst era should have long magnet AII AIV or AV. The winding of the coils and the materials used is still not right. Not sure if it can be done on a mass produced guitar but seems like it should considering it is trying to match 50s production on a mass produced guitar.

Those two plus the bridge seem to be the current biggest issues affecting the sound of the guitar which I think is the most important things to address. The look, construction etc is miles closer than just 6-7 yrs ago. …and they can (and you can) add oxidizing agents to fretboards to darken them.

 

[K Dub]

Nitro that can be applied thinner and dries harder.

^^^This. Without plasticizers, so you get authentic finish checking.

 

[1allspub]

I am not sure if we can know what the true tolerances were for pots in the 50s. The sweep is longer and when tested they read higher now and that is what we compare the new ones to. I agree with you mostly though.

The pickups ? Never seen a AIII magnet in a PAF except for supposedly a few early 57s (never seen it but have been told). So burst era should have long magnet AII AIV or AV. The winding of the coils and the materials used is still not right. Not sure if it can be done on a mass produced guitar but seems like it should considering it is trying to match 50s production on a mass produced guitar.

Those two plus the bridge seem to be the current biggest issues affecting the sound of the guitar which I think is the most important things to address. The look, construction etc is miles closer than just 6-7 yrs ago. …and they can (and you can) add oxidizing agents to fretboards to darken them.

Yep, totally agree. Especially about the magnets. Not really sure at all why they chose the A3 for CBs (or why they continue to do so). A2/4/5 is more historically accurate for sure… and I personally prefer A4s and A5s way over an A3. A3 is just too weak for me. I have a spare set of CBs sitting around (that came out of my R9) and I am tempted to try a mag swap to a rough cast A4 just to see what happens (but I doubt I will, ha!).

 

[mjross]

 

[Andrew1225]

I don’t know about you guys,
But they can start by making actual
vintage correct Nylon saddle ABRs for
the 335/SG and 68 Les Paul reissues.

 

[AJK1]

Yep, totally agree. Especially about the magnets. Not really sure at all why they chose the A3 for CBs (or why they continue to do so). A2/4/5 is more historically accurate for sure… and I personally prefer A4s and A5s way over an A3. A3 is just too weak for me. I have a spare set of CBs sitting around (that came out of my R9) and I am tempted to try a mag swap to a rough cast A4 just to see what happens (but I doubt I will, ha!).

Do it, we need to know the results !!

 

[Cinegoat]

If you're young enough buy one now and wait 50 years and voila

I think about this often. I own a 22' Murpy Lab that I got at a great price and love and don't plan to sell in my lifetime. I don't think that any of the Custom Shop or USA models will ever gain value like the original 50's era Les Pauls will. Not even remotely. I don't think they will gain value in a way that any of us will see a major profit in our lifetimes. I don't have any data to back it up, but I think it's safe to assume that more Les Pauls are made yearly than between 58-60 (What's the number, around 1500?). That, and the use of very specific old growth woods that contributed to their sound and quality. Plus the cult of personality that surrounded them with players like Keef, Eric, Page, etc. I don't think in 50 years we're going to be talking about the "Early 2000's Standard so and so used for this album or whatnot". People will still buy Gibson granted that it's still around in 50 years. But other than the value I attach to it, I don't expect my 22' Murphy Lab to be worth hand over fist in 50 years.