# Gibson's use of laminate bridges and fingerboards..



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

So I was on the Gibson forum yesterday and noticed a topic about a members new Gibson J45 True Vintage, not a cheap guitar by any means. Anyway as the thread went on and he began to inspect his guitar more closely he noticed that his J45 had a laminate bridge...










As you can see Gibson are using 2 pieces of rosewood laminated together in place of a solid rosewood bridge. Then he noticed the fretboard...










Which was yet again made out of multiple pieces.


I can't picture the introduction of laminates into such a high priced guitar being good for the Gibson name, heck it sounds like a Tradetang horror story instead of a quality Gibson guitar issue. I just wanted to put that out there so people who are looking to purchase Gibson's can be aware that the company are using laminates instead of buying such an expensive guitar and assuming all solid quality materials were used.


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

this information is already on their website... they are not hiding the fact.

http://www2.gibson.com/Support/FAQ-Tonewoods.aspx


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

I tried one of these True Vintage J45s and it was an absolute dream to play and sounded amazing.

You might expect more in terms of fit and finish for that price, but man, was it ever a great guitar. Enough so that I immediately wanted one, though hearing of this, I may keep my peepers peeped for a used one.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

blam said:


> this information is already on their website... they are not hiding the fact.
> 
> http://www2.gibson.com/Support/FAQ-Tonewoods.aspx


But it's no where to be found in their product specs, which I feel is misleading. I would assume that customers would like to know whether or not the bridge or fingerboard on that new Gibson acoustic they plan on ordering is indeed a one piece solid material and not of the laminated/plywood variety.


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

Morkolo said:


> But it's no where to be found in their product specs, which I feel is misleading. I would assume that customers would like to know whether or not the bridge or fingerboard on that new Gibson acoustic they plan on ordering is indeed a one piece solid material and not of the laminated/plywood variety.


 would you like them to spec out "laminated mahogany back" as well for the models that don't use a single slab? lots of their models use 2 piece, some even 3 or 4 on the lower end. same with fender. a lot of their bodies are multiple pieces. nowhere is this stated in the tech specs.

I'm not defending Gibson. I think it's s shame they've come down to doing this, but I'll take a laminated rosewood board over obeche or baked maple any day.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

blam said:


> would you like them to spec out "laminated mahogany back" as well for the models that don't use a single slab? lots of their models use 2 piece, some even 3 or 4 on the lower end. same with fender. a lot of their bodies are multiple pieces. nowhere is this stated in the tech specs.
> 
> I'm not defending Gibson. I think it's s shame they've come down to doing this, but I'll take a laminated rosewood board over obeche or baked maple any day.



I guess that's where we can't agree then because I can't pay $2875 +tax for a guitar with a laminate bridge and fretboard and I felt I should make others who may feel the same way aware. And I don't liken multiple piece backs to construction methods found on cheap starter guitars.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

Morkolo said:


> But it's no where to be found in their product specs, which I feel is misleading. I would assume that customers would like to know whether or not the bridge or fingerboard on that new Gibson acoustic they plan on ordering is indeed a one piece solid material and not of the laminated/plywood variety.


You do understand there's a difference between plywood and laminated solid, don't you???


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

Morkolo said:


> I guess that's where we can't agree then because I can't pay $2875 +tax for a guitar with a laminate bridge and fretboard and I felt I should make others who may feel the same way aware. And I don't liken multiple piece backs to construction methods found on cheap starter guitars.


 and if I blind tested you to a 4 piece back vs a single you'd be able to tell me which is which?

again, I'm not defending Gibson. I bought a '11 R8 because I wanted to avoid a 2 piece board on the '12, although some of the '12s still have 1 piece.

I'm not debating the quality of the process or what have you. I am simply stating the information is there in the open if one so desired to find it. it took me a whole 30 seconds to find that link on Gibson's website.

As with ANY product a person buys, it comes down to buyer beware. do your research. if you don't like what you see, go elsewhere. Gibson certainly isn't hiding anything in this case. if you don't want to pay $2875 for a guitar with laminated pieces, take your money elsewhere. there are still plenty of people who will buy these because as I said, the tone differences are more than likely negligible. 

and for a final time, I am not supporting Gibson's decision to do this.


----------



## degas (Dec 7, 2011)

Jimmy_D said:


> You do understand there's a difference between plywood and laminated solid, don't you???


 Could you be so kind and explain the difference.I am stumped on the phrase laminated solid.


----------



## MusicShopperCA (Feb 20, 2012)

degas said:


> Could you be so kind and explain the difference.I am stumped on the phrase laminated solid.


With a laminated body, back, sides or top, you're talking about wood that is made up of thin layers of wood, glued one on top of each other to make a thicker piece, like plywood. 

People often assume that laminated just means glued, and the two terms are sometimes used interchaneably. It doesn't though. An acoustic guitar with a two, three or four piece back is not laminated. It's joined, but not laminated. Laminate describes making something out of multiple layers. Layers is the key. Just like a solid body guitar with a two or three peice body is not said to be a laminate, whereas a playwood body is. (Now if you're talking about a 70's era Gibson pancake body, then youd have an argument for it being a laminate)

So the two piece back on a guitar is not really laminated per se, however, the bridges and fretboards in question, are. 

I agree with blam that the difference in tone and or quality affected by the new laminated boards and bridges is probably essentially zilch. However, I disagree that Gibson shouldn't try and make it clear to purchasers that they're not making things the way they used to. Adding it to an internal page on the website that most people will never think to look for, let alone stumble upon, just isn't good enough.

Mind you they're not legally bound to put it in front of you, but if I was Gibson I'd much rather have my customers find out from me than take the guitar home and notice there, feel like they've been misled, and then hit the net with a complaint!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

blam said:


> and if I blind tested you to a 4 piece back vs a single you'd be able to tell me which is which?
> 
> again, I'm not defending Gibson. I bought a '11 R8 because I wanted to avoid a 2 piece board on the '12, although some of the '12s still have 1 piece.
> 
> ...


What people generally take exception to is a company implementing cost cutting techniques, but not reducing the cost of the product. Or in Gibson's case, constantly raising it.


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

torndownunit said:


> What people generally take exception to is a company implementing cost cutting techniques, but not reducing the cost of the product. Or in Gibson's case, constantly raising it.


the tribute series is very good bang for your buck from Gibson. they used multiple slabs of mahogany glued together and a less extensive finishing process which results in a guitar that plays and sounds (IMHO) as good as a studio or traditional at a much more affordable price.

the classic line with the baked maple boards, likely to be cost efficient for gibson vs rosewood, but they are indeed less than trads and they're similar guitars except for the pups and boards.

I dont know about the rest of the line up, but the historics got a price increase. BUT they also got new cases.

im not saying the cases make up for the price increase, but at least they're doing what they can to make these more historically accurate, fingerboard not included.

in the end, if you dont like it, the only way to really voice your opnion is not to buy from them which will hopefully cause them to make changes for the better


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

blam said:


> and if I blind tested you to a 4 piece back vs a single you'd be able to tell me which is which?
> 
> again, I'm not defending Gibson. I bought a '11 R8 because I wanted to avoid a 2 piece board on the '12, although some of the '12s still have 1 piece.
> 
> ...


I wasn't arguing about a 4 piece back vs a single, I was saying I'm not a fan of this new laminated bridge and fingerboard. The specs for a J45TV are right here: http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Aco.../Gibson-Acoustic/J-45-True-Vintage/Specs.aspx

I don't see where it states that it has a laminate bridge and fingerboard, not even a direct link to the information about the new changes. Don't get me wrong I'm a lover of Gibson acoustics and have been torn between the J45 and an Advanced Jumbo but this new laminate process and the fact that I can't be sure what I have in my hands when it comes time to buy one has certainly put a damper on my Gibson acoustic plans. I'm with you about buyer beware but a buyer cannot be aware if the written specs for that model don't allow it.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

Other manufacturers use rosewood and ebony on new models-mayble Gibson has no more suppliers who want to deal with them


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

rollingdam said:


> Other manufacturers use rosewood and ebony on new models-mayble Gibson has no more suppliers who want to deal with them


I believe it's due to the thickness of the blanks. Gibson uses 10mm and shapes it down. Other manufacturers use 6.xxmm





Morkolo said:


> I wasn't arguing about a 4 piece back vs a single, I was saying I'm not a fan of this new laminated bridge and fingerboard. The specs for a J45TV are right here: http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Acoustic-Instruments/Round-Shoulder/Gibson-Acoustic/J-45-True-Vintage/Specs.aspx
> 
> I don't see where it states that it has a laminate bridge and fingerboard, not even a direct link to the information about the new changes. Don't get me wrong I'm a lover of Gibson acoustics and have been torn between the J45 and an Advanced Jumbo but this new laminate process and the fact that I can't be sure what I have in my hands when it comes time to buy one has certainly put a damper on my Gibson acoustic plans. I'm with you about buyer beware but a buyer cannot be aware if the written specs for that model don't allow it.


My point was there's no reason for them to break down all the processes. Should they also be spec'ing whether or not the bridge or tail pieces are cast or milled?

The fact is a lot of consumers don't care if it's laminated or not. If they felt it was important enough to list they would, but they seem to feel its just as good as a full piece.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

the fact is most people buying a guitar north of 2000 clams do indeed care if the bridge and fingerboard are laminated. solid wood is what the market has come to expect at this price point, and Henry J already has a rep as a bit of a sheister. and I am a Gibson guy. A significant change of spec that is not easily corrected should be listed in the spec sheet, or why bother having one?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

vanderkalin said:


> the fact is most people buying a guitar north of 2000 clams do indeed care if the bridge and fingerboard are laminated. solid wood is what the market has come to expect at this price point, and Henry J already has a rep as a bit of a sheister. and I am a Gibson guy. A significant change of spec that is not easily corrected should be listed in the spec sheet, or why bother having one?


I don't want to get to deep into the debate, but I agree 100%. This is just common sense to me. When buying a guitar in that price range you have certain expectations. And you expect the product to match the specs. You can say "a lot of customers don't care..." ... But a l lot do care. It's fine if someone doesn't care... but it's also completely understandable why someone would.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

If it works really well, I don't see the problem.


----------



## marcos (Jan 13, 2009)

If I where forking out major bucks for an instrument I would like it to be all solid wood, no laminates etc... just because thats why i'm paying the big bucks. I would do my homework and find out as much as I can so that I would not be dissapointed afterwards.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

vanderkalin said:


> the fact is most people buying a guitar north of 2000 clams do indeed care if the bridge and fingerboard are laminated. solid wood is what the market has come to expect at this price point, and Henry J already has a rep as a bit of a sheister. and I am a Gibson guy. A significant change of spec that is not easily corrected should be listed in the spec sheet, or why bother having one?





torndownunit said:


> I don't want to get to deep into the debate, but I agree 100%. This is just common sense to me. When buying a guitar in that price range you have certain expectations. And you expect the product to match the specs. You can say "a lot of customers don't care..." ... But a l lot do care. It's fine if someone doesn't care... but it's also completely understandable why someone would.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

Well get used to it. It's becoming much harder to acquire quality solid rosewood in the large amounts required by Gibson. The supply is plain running out. As for baked maple, I just received the three birdseye fretboards I recently ordered. I think it looks and feels great.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Does anyone know the name of Gibsons tree farm? Maybe there have been issues, blight or fire or drought?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

NGroeneveld said:


> Well get used to it. It's becoming much harder to acquire quality solid rosewood in the large amounts required by Gibson. The supply is plain running out. As for baked maple, I just received the three birdseye fretboards I recently ordered. I think it looks and feels great.


I do not have a problem with them using other materials personally. What my issue is that in a lot of cases these are measures that are either to cut productions costs, or result in reduced production costs as a side effect. But you will not see that savings passed on the consumer. And it's very likely you won't hear about it in the specs of the product either.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> I do not have a problem with them using other materials personally. What my issue is that in a lot of cases these are measures that are either to cut productions costs, or result in reduced production costs as a side effect. But you will not see that savings passed on the consumer. And it's very likely you won't hear about it in the specs of the product either.


 the way I read it in this particular case is: Our 3000 dollar Hand Made Chocolate Truffles are Handled with the Utmost Care and Love, finished in the finest chocolate liquor to be had and Flavoured with the Best 10% Real Fruit Juice From Concentrate around.


----------



## vanderkalin (Sep 4, 2009)

keeperofthegood said:


> the way I read it in this particular case is: Our 3000 dollar Hand Made Chocolate Truffles are Handled with the Utmost Care and Love, finished in the finest chocolate liquor to be had and Flavoured with the Best 10% Real Fruit Juice From Concentrate around.


 Exactly. At the price ig my larivee d o3 its ok if it works. At 3ooo you want the good stuff.


----------



## NGroeneveld (Jan 23, 2011)

torndownunit said:


> I do not have a problem with them using other materials personally. What my issue is that in a lot of cases these are measures that are either to cut productions costs, or result in reduced production costs as a side effect. But you will not see that savings passed on the consumer. And it's very likely you won't hear about it in the specs of the product either.


I think in the case of laminating the rosewood, production costs would actually increase. It would be much easier to cut fretboard blanks from solid wood than to laminate smaller pieces together.


----------



## MusicShopperCA (Feb 20, 2012)

NGroeneveld said:


> I think in the case of laminating the rosewood, production costs would actually increase. It would be much easier to cut fretboard blanks from solid wood than to laminate smaller pieces together.


Fingerboards perhaps. Unless those smaller pieces are already available. I.e. for the bridges scrap from a rosewood fingerboard blank isn't thick enough to make a bridge out of, but two pieces of said scrap laminated is. If that's what they're doing, it could be a significant cost saver. I have no idea if that's the case or not, but it certainly seems possible.

Another thing to consider is the quality of the first layer on the fingerboards. Whereas with a normal one piece fingerboard, you'd ideally like it to have some decent grain and a nice appearance. With the laminated ones, it doesn't really matter what the underneath layer looks like. You could potentially source ugly or otherwise less desirable wood for the first layer and then cap it with a layer of the nice stuff. Again, you could potentially save this way.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

There are a few issues here that should be dealt with individually.

1) Buyers of expensive guitars demand high quality materials be used for production. 

Solid is not always higher quality. A laminated bridge will be stronger than a solid one and less likely to deform or split along grain lines. Some of the most expensive (well into 5 figures) acoustic guitars in the world have laminated sides (for increased stiffness) and sandwiched tops (for a higher strength/stiffness to weight ratio).


2) Manufacturers should update spec sheets to indicate current materials used.

That would be the ethical thing to do, but spec sheets are edited by the marketing department. 


3) We need to come to grips with the fact that several traditionally used materials are becoming scarce/expensive or the quality of those materials is nosediving as the "good stuff" is harder to find.



> If players and builders were able to overcome phobias about unevenness of color, grain irregularity, minor knots, and four-piece tops, many more great-sounding guitars could be produced while the supply of potentially usable red spruce is still available. Old-growth woods are disappearing so fast that such an attitude change will need to be scheduled sometime in the near future, unless the majority of new guitars are to be made of synthetic materials.


The above quote is from Dana Bourgeois in an Acoustic Guitar magazine article printed in 1994. The irony is that Dana has access to some great locally grown red spruce today (thanks to some gents a couple of generations ago who had the good sense to replant some local stocks), but the world supply of exotic woods is quickly diminishing due to unsustainable use and abuse.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

vanderkalin said:


> Exactly. At the price ig my larivee d o3 its ok if it works. At 3ooo you want the good stuff.


That's exactly the same way I look at it, my Yamaha FG750 is nice for what it is but I would expect a lot more with that big of a price gap.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

ronmac said:


> There are a few issues here that should be dealt with individually.
> 
> 1) Buyers of expensive guitars demand high quality materials be used for production.
> 
> ...


Again though, I don't this is the only part of that issue. The bottom line is a lot of the techniques they adopt to find ways around the situation with the materials equates to cheaper production costs. But not only will you not see a reduction in the cost for the consumer with a company like Gibson, you will likely see costs increase. I personally feel that is why they don't keep specs current. If people are aware they are using lower costs materials, they will start to ask why the prices are the same (or higher).

Gibson obviously has some more budget friendly options out there now. They are nice guitars, but people are aware of why they cost what they do. It's the highest end products I am talking about.


----------

