# Gibson, the plot thickens...



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

looks like the next move is imminent. Creditors want Henry out.

Gibson creditors want new CEO before offering a rescue deal - Bloomberg - gearnews.com


----------



## Thornton Davis (Jul 25, 2008)

I thought this was going to be a given. Now it appears to be reality.

TD


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

What is worse - Henry's business decisions or his guitar playing?


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2018)

colchar said:


> What is worse - Henry's business decisions or his guitar playing?


He plays badly.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Player99 said:


> He plays badly.


So both then


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I don't know why Gibson doesn't just have a line called classic and another called contemporary. The classic line would have all the traditional offerings (LPs, SG 335 etc) and the contemporary line could have new designs. Simple, logical, clean.

Get the prices in line with reality, improve QC, and stop offering 45 versions of the same model (why Gibson why?). 

TG


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Because henry j.


----------



## Destropiate (Jan 17, 2007)

traynor_garnet said:


> I don't know why Gibson doesn't just have a line called classic and another called contemporary. The classic line would have all the traditional offerings (LPs, SG 335 etc) and the contemporary line could have new designs. Simple, logical, clean.
> 
> Get the prices in line with reality, improve QC, and stop offering 45 versions of the same model (why Gibson why?).
> 
> TG


I miss the days when they just had the Studio/classic/standard/custom lines for the Gibson USA flagship models like the LP and SG. It was easy to keep up with what features each had and if you wanted something different they had the custom shop. Now when I see a Les Paul I have no idea what neck profile or pickups or weight relief or push pull pots it might have without getting the spec sheet or playing it. My personal preference leans towards the bare bones so I don't really get excited when I see all the new features. I think the closest thing to my old 86 LP standard now would be a traditional but most of them seem to have the 50's neck and I feel more comfortable on the 60's/slim taper profile that the 86 had.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Years ago, Henry should have read the script on the top of his most famous product. Les really is more!

I don't care. With all the bitching I hear about Gibsons now, I know that the Norlin era was far from the worst. Too many famous people making famous music with them to go with the internet myth that they were all clunkers. By some people's estimation, everything Gibson's made since about July of 1960 has been clunkers. The things people say/type to be part of the herd. Would it even be a herd? What do you call a gathering of sheople? I mean, besides 'Facebook'.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> Years ago, Henry should have read the script on the top of his most famous product. Les really is more!
> 
> I don't care. With all the bitching I hear about Gibsons now, I know that the Norlin era was far from the worst. Too many famous people making famous music with them to go with the internet myth that they were all clunkers. By some people's estimation, everything Gibson's made since about July of 1960 has been clunkers. The things people say/type to be part of the herd. Would it even be a herd? *What do you call a gathering of sheople? I mean, besides 'Facebook'.*



Guitar forums?


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

Could be the best thing to happen to Gibson. Hopefully they would sell off the still profitable instrument making part of the company to someone that knows guitars and business. If it goes to a predatory VC then all bets are off. From everything I've read the guitar part of the business is still profitable. The problems were mostly caused by expanding to other businesses too fast and greed, trying to keep stock holders happy while taking out huge piles of money by the board.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

This is a rehash of some news a few weeks ago. Henry himself has already dismissed this in a subsequent interview.



traynor_garnet said:


> I don't know why Gibson doesn't just have a line called classic and another called contemporary. The classic line would have all the traditional offerings (LPs, SG 335 etc) and the contemporary line could have new designs. Simple, logical, clean.
> 
> Get the prices in line with reality, improve QC, and stop offering 45 versions of the same model (why Gibson why?).
> 
> TG


You mean something like T vs. HP? And as for 45, they offer 18 different LPs, I think, in 2018.



Destropiate said:


> I miss the days when they just had the Studio/classic/standard/custom lines for the Gibson USA flagship models like the LP and SG. It was easy to keep up with what features each had and if you wanted something different they had the custom shop. Now when I see a Les Paul I have no idea what neck profile or pickups or weight relief or push pull pots it might have without getting the spec sheet or playing it. My personal preference leans towards the bare bones so I don't really get excited when I see all the new features. I think the closest thing to my old 86 LP standard now would be a traditional but most of them seem to have the 50's neck and I feel more comfortable on the 60's/slim taper profile that the 86 had.


They make a lot of different models and specs because people buy them. Sure, it might confuse a few people, but a run through the website will give you a pretty good idea. Guitar players like different specs or we would all tweak and fiddle with our guitars as much as we do. So Gibson tries to give options. Whether they do a good job of it or not is another issue, but if they only had four models of LP, there would be complaints about a lack of variety.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Makes sense to change CEO’s.
After all, if he had the vision to turn it around, he would have already.
Don’t be surprised if you all don’t love the replacement either. 

I honestly don’t know what can be done to turn things around. Guitar is dead as a business IMO. I’d love to know which company is thriving these days?


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Funny how he says guitar players are stuck in a time warp, yet no one says that about violin players who want instruments from the 1600's and 1700's.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Diablo said:


> Makes sense to change CEO’s.
> After all, if he had the vision to turn it around, he would have already.
> Don’t be surprised if you all don’t love the replacement either.
> 
> I honestly don’t know what can be done to turn things around. Guitar is dead as a business IMO. I’d love to know which company is thriving these days?



When the big boys are in trouble, the small shops and luthiers tend to do very well.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

jdto said:


> You mean something like T vs. HP? And as for 45, they offer 18 different LPs, I think, in 2018.


Vs S, vs ME, vs. Standard Historic, Vs True Historic, vs New Releases, vs Collectors Choice, vs Custom, vs Artist Models, vs Classic, vs Faded. Each one of these lines has its own options. Just nuts. Not to mention that these lines/model names also change in any give year. Each one more real and Les Paulier than the last.

Then the guy complains that music stores have too many guitars in their shops! The same guy whose company forced stores to place huge orders or lose the the line.

I've owned some nice Gibsons in the past. They are good guitars, not magical. At the end of the day, all guitars are pieces of wood with old technology stuck in them to make sound; that is both awesome and banal. No corporate name stuck on the end changes that, especially a name that is increasingly taking on a negative aura.


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

traynor_garnet said:


> Vs S, vs ME, vs. Standard Historic, Vs True Historic, vs New Releases, vs Collectors Choice, vs Custom, vs Artist Models, vs Classic, vs Faded. Each one of these lines has its own options. Just nuts. Not to mention that these lines/model names also change in any give year. Each one more real and Les Paulier than the last.
> 
> Then the guy complains that music stores have too many guitars in their shops! The same guy whose company forced stores to place huge orders or lose the the line.
> 
> I've owned some nice Gibsons in the past. They are good guitars, not magical. At the end of the day, all guitars are pieces of wood with old technology stuck in them to make sound; that is both awesome and banal. No corporate name stuck on the end changes that, especially a name that is increasingly taking on a negative aura.


Great post!


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

butterknucket said:


> When the big boys are in trouble, the small shops and luthiers tend to do very well.


like who? 
“Small shops”? you mean retailers? They’re all being absorbed by the big chains.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Diablo said:


> like who?
> “Small shops”? you mean retailers? They’re all being absorbed by the big chains.


Small shops as in builders, like Suhr, Collings, etc.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

butterknucket said:


> Small shops as in builders, like Suhr, Collings, etc.


And you have access to their finances in order to determine that they are “doing very well”?


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Diablo said:


> And you have access to their finances in order to determine that they are “doing very well”?


Well, a lot of high profile players are playing them, and the companies appear to be expanding their lines, which would be difficult to do if they were hurting financially.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

traynor_garnet said:


> Vs S, vs ME, vs. Standard Historic, Vs True Historic, vs New Releases, vs Collectors Choice, vs Custom, vs Artist Models, vs Classic, vs Faded. Each one of these lines has its own options. Just nuts. Not to mention that these lines/model names also change in any give year. Each one more real and Les Paulier than the last.


But those you listed are in different macro groups (Gibson USA vs. Gibson Custom). I’m not arguing that there aren’t too many models, but it is organized in a recognizable structure that makes sense to me. 



> Then the guy complains that music stores have too many guitars in their shops! The same guy whose company forced stores to place huge orders or lose the the line.


I don’t think that was their best policy. 



> I've owned some nice Gibsons in the past. They are good guitars, not magical. At the end of the day, all guitars are pieces of wood with old technology stuck in them to make sound; that is both awesome and banal. No corporate name stuck on the end changes that, especially a name that is increasingly taking on a negative aura.


Like it or not, there is a mystique to the brand that is long-established. Perhaps they don’t deserve it and I know that many players prefer other brands (I personally like my PRS McCarty 594 in the “Les Paul” category), but the name still carries weight. Just look at this thread. I have three Gibsons at the moment and all three are nice guitars.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Reminder: Gibson is screwed because they wanted to become a lifestyle brand - their guitar sector still makes them money.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Budda said:


> Reminder: Gibson is screwed because they wanted to become a lifestyle brand - their guitar sector still makes them money.


From what I've read, it is still profitable, but it isn't growing, which is what prompted this move to a "lifestyle brand" in the first place.


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

jdto said:


> From what I've read, it is still profitable, but it isn't growing, which is what prompted this move to a "lifestyle brand" in the first place.


This is a problem with our financial system. Stockholders value growth over profits. There is nothing wrong with running a profitable business that is not growing as long as the profits are not declining. Growth does not always equal profits but it does usually increase stock values. Too many companies are run based on what creates short term value for stockholders rather than what creates a stable long term business. The best thing that could happen to Gibson is to sell the guitar manufacturing business to a private investor. Don't think that will happen given our financial system though.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Kerry Brown said:


> This is a problem with our financial system. Stockholders value growth over profits. There is nothing wrong with running a profitable business that is not growing as long as the profits are not declining. Growth does not always equal profits but it does usually increase stock values. Too many companies are run based on what creates short term value for stockholders rather than what creates a stable long term business. The best thing that could happen to Gibson is to sell the guitar manufacturing business to a private investor. Don't think that will happen given our financial system though.


How much would we all have to chip in to take it over? I'm game lol


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2018)

and pay dividends in guitars, not cash.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

traynor_garnet said:


> Vs S, vs ME, vs. Standard Historic, Vs True Historic, vs New Releases, vs Collectors Choice, vs Custom, vs Artist Models, vs Classic, vs Faded. Each one of these lines has its own options. _* Just nuts*_. Not to mention that these lines/model names also change in any give year. Each one more real and Les Paulier than the last.
> 
> Then the guy complains that music stores have too many guitars in their shops! The same guy whose company forced stores to place huge orders or lose the the line.
> 
> I've owned some nice Gibsons in the past. *They are good guitars, not magical. At the end of the day, all guitars are pieces of wood with old technology stuck in them to make sound; * that is both awesome and banal. No corporate name stuck on the end changes that, especially a name that is increasingly taking on a negative aura.


Excellent post. When you want to attract new customers, you don't make your offerings so difficult, it's hard for them to understand. Gibson management has forgotten the KISS method IMHO. That is one of the reasons that caused GM to go bankrupt.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Excellent post. When you want to attract new customers, you don't make your offerings so difficult, it's hard for them to understand. Gibson management has forgotten the KISS method IMHO. That is one of the reasons that caused GM to go bankrupt.


I disagree, Gibson offers KISS guitars and figurines. Observe Ace pointing....


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Kerry Brown said:


> This is a problem with our financial system. Stockholders value growth over profits. There is nothing wrong with running a profitable business that is not growing as long as the profits are not declining. Growth does not always equal profits but it does usually increase stock values. Too many companies are run based on what creates short term value for stockholders rather than what creates a stable long term business. The best thing that could happen to Gibson is to sell the guitar manufacturing business to a private investor. Don't think that will happen given our financial system though.


This is so true.

I have worked for a few companies that put the quarterly dividend to share holders above the long term health of the company. Some of those companies are no longer running.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Great post, @Kerry Brown .

I think the reality is: if you build guitars as a business and expect market performance that will attract investors, you're in trouble. The guitar market in general is on the decline - and it's only gonna get worse (IMHO). The chances of making more money next year than this year is remote.

If you build guitars because you are passionate (i.e. Fury, Suhr, Collings, et al), you can make a nice living building great instruments, especially if you have some high-profile endorsee's. The problem is when those builders want to expand and make more money. Some small craftsman-type businesses don't scale up very well. You need money, because you need more automation or craftsmen, more space, more marketing, etc.

And if you get big enough to attract investors, you are now in that first category, where the people holding the purse strings care more about making money than making instruments. If the small craftsmen-type builders are happy in their economic bracket, their business is probably sustainable - until they die. Do you want a Fury or Suhr or Collings once the passionate owner is gone or has sold it to someone else? Maybe, maybe not. IMO, the brand is the person with that passion. You can't sell _that._


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Maybe this is what Chapman brings to the masses.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

1SweetRide said:


> Maybe this is what Chapman brings to the masses.


Heavens to Betsy, I would hope not.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Steadfastly said:


> Heavens to Betsy, I would hope not.


You can’t deny that the guy is passionate and his business partners just love the industry and its musicians. I think it’s reflected in all their business decisions. They aren’t (yet) a corporate board of anonymous directors trying to figure out how to wring out the most profit.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

1SweetRide said:


> You can’t deny that the guy is passionate and his business partners just love the industry and its musicians. I think it’s reflected in all their business decisions. They aren’t (yet) a corporate board of anonymous directors trying to figure out how to wring out the most profit.


Well, there is something in that. I don't think they are offering anything you can't find elsewhere.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

for $3300 USD...I think Gibson has a problem

Gibson Acoustic Instruments


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

ezcomes said:


> for $3300 USD...I think Gibson has a problem
> 
> Gibson Acoustic Instruments


It is a J-45, a top of the line acoustic and one most of us would like to own but not in the colour. What a stupid decision in making such a respected model look cheap.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Is this from the new "Purists" line? Or Purist USA, True Purist, or Pure as the driven snow?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

traynor_garnet said:


> Is this from the new "Purists" line? Or Purist USA, True Purist, or Pure as the driven snow?


It's winter, so it must be Pure as the driven snow.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

ezcomes said:


> for $3300 USD...I think Gibson has a problem
> 
> Gibson Acoustic Instruments


There is a certain resemblance between that guitar and its accompanying price-tag, and the fee an escort service would charge for some ungodly sex-act request that the provider could never become amnesic about, enough to stop the nightmares.

Mind you, the J-45 is widely regarded as a "songwriter's guitar". Is this particular model intended for super-wealthy, over-committed, environmentalist songwriters?


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Sweet Nova acoustic.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Kerry Brown said:


> This is a problem with our financial system. Stockholders value growth over profits. There is nothing wrong with running a profitable business that is not growing as long as the profits are not declining. Growth does not always equal profits but it does usually increase stock values. Too many companies are run based on what creates short term value for stockholders rather than what creates a stable long term business. The best thing that could happen to Gibson is to sell the guitar manufacturing business to a private investor. Don't think that will happen given our financial system though.


just a reminder that Gibson is privately held, not publicly traded.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Its amusing reading posts by guitar forumites most of whom have never owned or run a business profitably, thinking they could do better.


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

Diablo said:


> Its amusing reading posts by guitar forumites most of whom have never owned or run a business profitably, thinking they could do better.


You are correct of course. I had forgotten that. Still think my point applies though. Only change is it is limited to the private shareholders of which there are only two. And yes, I have owned several profitable businesses. I ran them to build something and make a reasonable living for myself and my employees. I didn't run them with an eye to lining my pockets and eventually selling the business. The norm now seems to be to have an exit strategy before you even start the business.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Kerry Brown said:


> You are correct of course. I had forgotten that. Still think my point applies though. Only change is it is limited to the private shareholders of which there are only two. And yes, I have owned several profitable businesses. I ran them to build something and make a reasonable living for myself and my employees. I didn't run them with an eye to lining my pockets and eventually selling the business. The norm now seems to be to have an exit strategy before you even start the business.


you may have meant to quote my earlier post. the one you quoted wasn't directed at you specifically. You seem more savvy than most here.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Diablo said:


> you may have meant to quote my earlier post. the one you quoted wasn't directed at you specifically. You seem more savvy than most here.


Hey, how do I get to be part of the Savvy Club?


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

1SweetRide said:


> Hey, how do I get to be part of the Savvy Club?


Be patient Grasshopper


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

1SweetRide said:


> Hey, how do I get to be part of the Savvy Club?


you fill out an application, include a $199. administration fee (cash), send it to me and i'll get you enrolled.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Diablo said:


> you fill out an application, include a $199. administration fee (cash), send it to me and i'll get you enrolled.


I think I’m already too savvy for this club lol


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

1SweetRide said:


> I think I’m already too savvy for this club lol


I don't spend enough to be allowed in.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

I would be the first to admit that i couldnt run the company properly...but, if that 80's themed acoustic is any indication...i dont think i could be worse

Interestingly enough...did anyone else see the article where the stake holders are looking to oust Henry? The article i read, they named him as the reason they were having issues finding money


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

ezcomes said:


> I would be the first to admit that i couldnt run the company properly...but, if that 80's themed acoustic is any indication...i dont think i could be worse
> 
> Interestingly enough...did anyone else see the article where the stake holders are looking to oust Henry? The article i read, they named him as the reason they were having issues finding money


The article has been posted here on the forum on one of the threads about Gibson.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

An article from Music Radar. Warning, more than 500 words... 

Gibson: how did we get here? | MusicRadar


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

ezcomes said:


> I would be the first to admit that i couldnt run the company properly...but, if that 80's themed acoustic is any indication...i dont think i could be worse
> 
> Interestingly enough...did anyone else see the article where the stake holders are looking to oust Henry? The article i read, they named him as the reason they were having issues finding money





Steadfastly said:


> The article has been posted here on the forum on one of the threads about Gibson.


Check the OP. That's the article that started this thread.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Hamstrung said:


> Check the OP. That's the article that started this thread.


I was too lazy to look.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

Hamstrung said:


> Check the OP. That's the article that started this thread.


Ive posted a couple times in this thread and read multiple articles...i couldnt keep it straight


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

A couple of articles from today:

Gibson, beloved guitar maker, faces crushing $560 million debt | Toronto Star


Gibson CEO Henry Juszkiewicz: “My dream was to be the Nike of music lifestyle… I have to cut back on that ambition, frankly” | MusicRadar


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

I saw the Nike relation article Friday...what a guy


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Another company trying to get in while there is anything left of Gibson

Tronical, German Firm Behind Auto-Tuning Tech, to Sue Gibson for $50 million


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

LOL...good luck getting $50 million out of Gibson


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Henry and his questionable business decisions.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

guitarman2 said:


> Another company trying to get in while there is anything left of Gibson
> 
> Tronical, German Firm Behind Auto-Tuning Tech, to Sue Gibson for $50 million


That's a lot of J45's, Hummingbirds and Doves.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

It’s not just about bad business decsions, a CEO only has so much time to spread around. Every M&A takes a bit of time away from the main business. You get distracted, frustrated and only able to provide finite amounts of time on each issue. With a control freak like Henry in charge, this would have had major implication on the businesses he owned as decsions would now take months and years instead of days and weeks. Hard to stay innovative, in-touch and involved in these cases. Yes, some companies can do this but they have skilled, intelligent, empowered people in charge of the day-to-day and short to mid-term strategies. Not saying Henry’s group of companies didn’t have smart and capable people but I sure don’t believe they were empowered.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

it will be interesting to see how this all plays out now...while it looked not that bad at first...the mole hill is turning into quite a mountian


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

I say burn it all down and wait for the insurance money to come in


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Yes, time is wasting away. The loans come due in July, so he's only got a little over two months. Will it come down to the wire?


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Maybe Norlin will help them out.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Seen this on youtube the other day


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2018)

Gibson Brands Inc filed for bankruptcy with a turnaround plan that gives some 
of the company’s lenders equity ownership of the iconic American business


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

If Gibson recovers from this, they need to follow one simple rule: Keep it simple.

Build guitars.

Build them good.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

*Gibson files for bankruptcy in order to focus on guitars*
The restructuring will also allow the instrument business to “unburden” itself of a consumer-electronics unit that Gibson blamed for its financial woes.









Gibson guitars are associated with such music legends as B.B. King. (DARON DEAN / AP FILE PHOTO)
By Tiffany Kary Bloomberg
Tues., May 1, 2018

Gibson Brands Inc. filed for bankruptcy with a turnaround plan that will give some of the company’s lenders equity ownership of the iconic American business that’s supplied guitars to B.B. King, Elvis Presley and Pete Townshend.

A restructuring support agreement with senior secured noteholders will help it repay bank loans while going through a “change of control” transaction, according to papers filed Tuesday with its Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware. The petition estimated up to $500 million (U.S.) in debt, and the lenders have agreed to an operating, or “debtor in possession,” loan of up to $135 million to fund operations.

The change in control will give noteholders equity in a new company, replacing current stockholders such as chief executive officer Henry Juszkiewicz. According to court filings, current noteholders include Silver Point Capital, Melody Capital Partners LP, and funds affiliated with KKR Credit Advisors.

The restructuring will also allow the instrument business to “unburden” itself of a consumer-electronics unit that Gibson blamed for its financial woes.

Gibson, founded in 1894, sells over 170,000 guitars annually in 80 countries. Its guitars are U.S.-made, with factories in Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee, and Bozeman, Montana. It also sells studio monitors, headphones, turntables and other musical instruments.

Its Gibson Innovations business, acquired in June 2014 from Koninklijke Philips NV, was the source of its financial woes, according to a court statement from Brian J. Fox, a managing director at Alvarez & Marsal who will serve as the company’s chief restructuring officer. Acquired through a leveraged transaction, the business faced significant sales declines due in part to a loss of credit insurance overseas.

With the noteholder agreement, the iconic company has “an exit path from Chapter 11 as a deleveraged business, poised for continued growth,” Fox said in the filing.

Fox described the electronics business as having become “trapped in a vicious cycle in which it lacked the liquidity to buy inventory and drive sales.” Cross-defaults had threatened the musical instruments business, and the company has been working with advisers since the fall of 2017 to try and solve the problem.

Before the filing, Gibson reached an arrangement with major constituents to its musical instruments business, but not the consumer electronics business, Fox said.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Good. They are focusing on instruments and ditching all the peripheral crap. Regardless of all the shit swirling around Gibson the past few years, I've had some pretty fantastic Gibson guitars in my hands, so I hope they keep building them to high standards with a renewed commitment to quality.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

jdto said:


> Good. They are focusing on instruments and ditching all the peripheral crap. Regardless of all the shit swirling around Gibson the past few years, I've had some pretty fantastic Gibson guitars in my hands, so I hope they keep building them to high standards with a renewed commitment to quality.


Yup. This change could be the beginning of another Henry period, which for a couple of decades was good, or it could be the beginning of another Norlin period, which for some years was pretty bad.

Creditors and financiers are taking control of the company and installing their own management, which on the surface says that we should bet "Norlin". Henry and his son have in the last several years already been "Norlinizing" their lines (cheapening product and raising prices) to pay for their grotesque error in diversifying into failing businesses they didn't understand. While the new equity leaders are already planning to reverse that mistake, if they continue with guitar quality and pricing strategies seen lately it won't be happy times for the company, especially since overall sales of guitars are falling.

However decades ago Henry and his partners were essentially also finance types, but they had a real interest in guitars and an appreciation for old-fashioned business ideas like "produce good products" and "make customers happy". They restored traditional construction and quality and pulled Gibson out of its Norlin period, arguably peaking in 2013 with fine guitars and sales to match. They also got lucky with some new guitar players topping the charts and creating another big wave of interest in guitar music. The early-2000s sales and acclaim probably made them think they could do no wrong, but they were sure wrong about that. Maybe the new equity partners will have some of the same care, interest, and focus that Henry and partners did in the late 80s and 90s.

I'm a Gibson junkie, but I haven't bought a new one in about four years. I hope they're gonna seduce me back.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Maybe there will be enough money left in the coffers to buy Rondo.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Maybe there will be enough money left in the coffers to buy Rondo.


Joe Bonamassa isn't interested in Rondo


__
http://instagr.am/p/BiPoZfRlORZ/


----------

