What is Murphy Lab?

[Memphis Soul]

Is it part of Gibson or another company. I have heard it mentioned and believe it has something to do with aging guitars. Just Les Pauls or any Gibson? I feel very ignorant asking this question but it’s the only way to learn I guess. i am new to Gibsons so that’s why I don’t know. I have played Fenders most of my life and have only ever owned two Gibsons before my current one.

 

[Torren61]

You could get the best explanation by Googling and YouTube.

 

[01GT Eibach]

Murphy Lab is a group within Gibson that provides the "artificial aging" of guitars, and not just Les Pauls, but only Custom Shop ones get ML. It is led by a guy named Tom Murphy. He started aging guitars in Gibson in early 2000s then they opened Murphy Lab with a full dedicated department around 2013.

 

[VictorB]

Murphy Lab | Gibson

www.gibson.com

 

[Memphis Soul]

Murphy Lab | Gibson

www.gibson.com

Thank you for the link.

 

[Memphis Soul]

Murphy Lab is a group within Gibson that provides the "artifificial aging" of guitars, and not just Les Pauls, but only Custom Shop ones get ML. It is led by a guy named Tom Murphy. He started aging guitars in Gibson in early 2000s then they opened Murphy Lab with a full dedicated department around 2013.

Thank you for the explanation. That was exactly what I was wanting to know.

 

[qiqqi999]

Murphy Lab is actually Gibson’s in-house aging and relic process. They take new guitars and give them a worn, vintage look and feel, kind of like a guitar that’s been played for decades. It’s not just for Les Pauls, but mostly on their higher-end models

 

[Memphis Soul]

Murphy Lab is actually Gibson’s in-house aging and relic process. They take new guitars and give them a worn, vintage look and feel, kind of like a guitar that’s been played for decades. It’s not just for Les Pauls, but mostly on their higher-end models

So basically it’s the same as Fender’s Custom Shop relic procedure. I understand now but will never get it.

 

[Leee]

I understand now but will never get it.

My brother!!!

 

[Note Milker]

I was gonna chew my arm off....

A lot of players love the lab. I love a smooth neck, I'm running to the hills. Murphy scares me. The main thing that bothers me is they give him the nicer ones. Then they do the thing. Oh man.... Here it goes again. I was gonna chew my arm off.

 

[Leee]

… it’s the same as Fender’s Custom Shop relic procedure.

Well …
The whole Murphy Lab thing escapes me.
I just don’t get it.

I mean, I kinda get it.
I see what they’re trying to replicate.
And I see what ML buyers are after.

In contrast, so many of the heavily-aged Fenders look downright stupid.
There’s nothing realistic about the finish distressing on some of them.

I’d be embarrassed to own one - even if it was free. But to pay Gibson Custom Shop money for a Strat or a Tele?
No fucking way.

 

[Dolebludger]

With ML, the buyer can specify the degree of relic they wish. From rather mild to rather severe. Of course, I have never used ML, because I want not only my new guitars to look new, but also want my 64 year old Gibson I bought new to look new. There is some fade on the nickel plated parts, and you can see some checking (if you use a magnifying glass) but that’s it. And it was my only guitar for decades, so it has been to many gigs. But other players want the relic look, and that's where ML comes in. As I said, I have never used their services. But there have been complaints (several) on this forum that the buyer specified a mild relic, and the guitar arrived that way. But after a couple of weeks, the guitar continued to relic — beyond what the buyer wanted. I don’t personally know about any of this, but do know that chemical processes (which I think ML uses) are sometimes difficult to stop. Just sayin’.

 

[Memphis Soul]

Well …
The whole Murphy Lab thing escapes me.
I just don’t get it.

I mean, I kinda get it.
I see what they’re trying to replicate.
And I see what ML buyers are after.

In contrast, so many of the heavily-aged Fenders look downright stupid.
There’s nothing realistic about the finish distressing on some of them.

I want my guitars to look new as long as possible. I also get what the buyers are wanting too. I just don’t get the need to want a guitar that looks old but isn’t.

 

[Leee]

Yep.
I will install my own playing wear.

I have guitars over 30 years old that could pass for new if you hung them in a guitar shop. You’d have to take ‘em down and look ‘em over to know for sure.

And I’m pretty proud of this.
Ain’t no accident.
Takes a lot of work to keep ‘em clean.

 

[Dolebludger]

I note the reference to some Fender relics, and, to me, they are just crap — with a higher price tag than a perfectly good one of the same make and model. On those the finish is gone totally from much of the body. I’ve seen some ML Gibsons, and the finish is intact, though relic. I don’t want one, but they make more sense than those 30% bare wood Fenders. Which war zone is doing the Fender relics?

 

[01GT Eibach]

I am one of those that also "doesn't quite get" the whole point of artificial aging. That being said, there are others -- as in LOTS of others -- that very much think otherwise and very much desire that "built-in mojo" and comfortability of a brand-new yet well worn-in instrument. I do appreciate the "exact duplications" of famous guitars down to the n-th detail (even though these are often made in very limited quantities and well above my paygrade in affordability). I also appreciate ML's overall as cool guitars and -- even more importantly -- appreciate how very profitable they are to Gibson's financial bottom line.

 

[flat3rd]

I have a heavy aged goldtop and absolutely love it. The worn neck feels great in my hands.
Definitely has a mojo element. My guitars are all players, I just didn't need to break this one in