# If Gibson Were Gone..............



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

[h=2]If Gibson Were Gone..............[/h]Would the guitar world suffer if Gibson was out of business?

With so many manufacturers putting out excellent guitars I can't see it making any difference. What's your opinion?​


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Kinda like Kodak

Once upon a time ...

However, time does move on and sometimes a company loses that "relevant" position in the world.


While many people would agree (those who do not and those who do generally like Gibson guitars) that a Gibson from the 50s or 60s was and is a great make of guitar, many people will not even come close to saying so of anything in current production. Many reasons many times stated. While I "would" look at the zoot suit guitar (I did like the black and white one) I would not be caught dead with the coffin, and while many saw the dusk tiger as a kitty of rage well I looked at it the other way round and found it simply fishy.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I think Gibson has set a generally accepted standard from which to judge other instruments for the last 100 years or so, be it favourably or not.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

hell if you think the prices and the myths are ridiculous now....what do you think would happen if they folded? 
i can see it now. every single gibson guitar instantly triples or more in value. other companies start making guitars to "old gibson spec" and then charging too much for them too, perpetuating the tone wood myth.
henry becomes a victim of the fed, and is martyrized by the media and the people who own their guitars, 
just like everyone did with michael jackson. living child molester one day, dead king of awesomeness and everyone's favorite son the very next.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

I think it would be a real shame if they ever went under and like what's already been mentioned above, it would drive the up the price of their already ridiculously expensive guitars.


----------



## valriver40 (Oct 22, 2007)

some of my best guitars were and are gibsons!


----------



## snacker (Jun 26, 2008)

valriver40 said:


> some of my best guitars were and are gibsons!


but not recent ones...


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> If you think the prices and the myths are* ridiculous* now....what do you think would happen if they folded?
> i can see it now. every single gibson guitar instantly triples or more in value. other companies start making guitars to "old *gibson spec"* and then charging too much for them too, perpetuating the tone wood *myth.*


Then, only *ridiculous* people would be buying them, then, right? And that wouldn't be you and me, so we wouldn't worry about it.

As to companies making them to *Gibson specs,* companies are pretty much doing that and have been for years and charging much, much less than a Gibson guitar and often producing one as good or better.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm certain it would make a difference in the market, but not to me, I can't afford the ones I like now.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

I doubt Gibson would close..a lot of other company would close first..but if it DID..anyone owning a Gibson would see a good incread in their instrument value...


----------



## marcos (Jan 13, 2009)

I think that Gibson has been part of our musical heritage but with all the great instruments out there today, I think it would be just a question of time before everyone forgets about the company. I am not a Gibson guy but I do like the looks of a nice LP or ES-335 etc...


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Let's see if they make it through their wood importing problems.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Lloyd Loar era mandolins need a reason to increase in value. Right?

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

It's an iconic brand. I'm not a huge fan of Gibson, though they do make some nice instruments, at a premium.

I voted yes.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

valriver40 said:


> some of my best guitars were and are gibsons!


Yes.


snacker said:


> but not recent ones...


Oh yes they are...I mean, I suppose that it depends upon what a person's idea of recent is but I have a 1982, 1995, 2004, 2006 and 2007. I have had others older and more recent. What can I say? All great guitars. If you could ask any of my guitar playing friends they'd tell you that I am a fussy mofo too - but what guitar player isn't?


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Mooh said:


> Lloyd Loar era mandolins need a reason to increase in value. Right?
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


ha ha ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/201104A33.html


----------



## xbolt (Jan 1, 2008)

I kinda wish threads that question the company/originator of the design style would go out of business.

I believe the PRS BS and boutique snobs that try to justify their existance or lack of originality now outnumber the Gibson corksniffers out there...

If Gibson never happened or went out of business, there would be no benchmark for the "tools" of the trade to "debate" anymore. 

I say, any guitar is good enough, even a Gibson...


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Steadfastly said:


> Then, only *ridiculous* people would be buying them, then, right? And that wouldn't be you and me, so we wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> As to companies making them to *Gibson specs,* companies are pretty much doing that and have been for years and charging much, much less than a Gibson guitar and often producing one as good or better.


 sometimes i come off harsh but i don't really intend to hurt anyone's feelings. and no, falling for a myth (imo) doesn't make a person ridiculous. i've been fooled lots of times by lots of different things. as is probably apparent to those of you who have read my posts on this board, what i deem to be obvious is not always so, to others. i believe that wood is generally wood. any tonal nuances between exotic species and the more common ones found in so - called lesser guitars is so nominal that, in a dark room, the nuances would be lost on 99% of the world's population. _in my mind_, that makes the idea of paying $3000 for a guitar, that to the common ear sounds the same as a $600 one - financially unsound. of course that is equalizing the other factors, like components. but there you have it. my apologies to one and all for my lack of tact.


----------



## deadear (Nov 24, 2011)

If Gibson was gone there would be less players or want to be players. Kind of like a lot of Harley Davidson motorcycles people . They buy them and ride a little but if it was not for them owning a Harley they would not ride at all . (pretenders)


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

Gibson probably did more to popularize the the guitar then any manufacturer. Their place in the history of the instrument is hard to deny. Many of their early instruments have survived and are still being played. Nobodies belief in the value and difference between instruments makes any difference to that. Shorteyus posted a lovely example of a '47 L2 recently. I have wonderful Gibson's from the late 30's and early 40's. I've seen turn of the century instruments that are still in excellent, playable shape.

However, the significant years in the development of the guitar were the prewar years. While the 60's saw the proliferation of the instrument it was all based on developments of previous decades. There are some luthiers making significant developments in acoustic instruments but they are very high end guitars and certainly not to be found coming out of a Gibson factory; perhaps the factories of the future? 

I voted no. Gibson builds some excellent instruments but it is companies working in electronics that are creating change in the music world and were any guitar maker to disappear the loss is going to be sentimental. The individual luthiers that are the Orville Gibson's of the future aren't churning out factory fodder.


----------



## jimmy c g (Jan 1, 2008)

i said yes ,but the company imo seems to only care about selling very expensive remakes of the guiters the original company produced. J45s,lps and many other models should be available much much less expensively so Ill keep my older gibs and when buying new choose fender or others


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Hmm, it probably wouldn't affect me a whole lot--even if Gibsons shot up in value--mine was modded before I bought, and I modded it some more--so it probably wouldn't affect me that much if at all.

Would it affect the guitar world--sure--for reasons given here.

Whether that wound up being good or bad, or a mix of both--who really knows.

But somewhere along the line you know that somebody would buy the brand.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The Gibson name has too much value for it to die.

Somebody would find a way to legally use the name.

I think Gibson has made some of the finest guitars out there. 

I also think I could get a copy of a Gibson with similar quality but for much less money.

Nevertheless, I have owned Gibsons and probably will again.


----------



## Shark (Jun 10, 2010)

I owned a '73 SG that was one of my favourite guitars, ever. Great instrument. However, most of the Gibsons I've played in the past 15 years or so have been awful. I've seen Gibsons selling for thousands of dollars that had the tone and quality control of instruments selling for a few hundred bucks. The last Gibson I bought was about two years ago and I swore I'd never buy another one. I had to do so much work on it just to get it to play. What a crock.

They are not what they once were. Since they show no signs of actually caring about their quality control issues, instead of putting out ever-more ridiculously-appointed instruments for ever-increasingly ridiculous prices, I kinda hope that something either shakes them up to the point where they get their act together, or they fade away.


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

Anybody lamenting the loss of Pontiac? Oldsmobile? Mercury? I've often wondered why more folks in search of that classic Gibson feel and build haven't bought Heritage: same guys using same materials on the old tools that made those desirable Gibsons in the first place.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

hummingway said:


> Gibson probably did more to popularize the the guitar then any manufacturer. Their place in the history of the instrument is hard to deny. Many of their early instruments have survived and are still being played. Nobodies belief in the value and difference between instruments makes any difference to that. Shorteyus posted a lovely example of a '47 L2 recently. I have wonderful Gibson's from the late 30's and early 40's. I've seen turn of the century instruments that are still in excellent, playable shape.
> 
> However, the significant years in the development of the guitar were the prewar years. While the 60's saw the proliferation of the instrument it was all based on developments of previous decades. There are some luthiers making significant developments in acoustic instruments but they are very high end guitars and certainly not to be found coming out of a Gibson factory; perhaps the factories of the future?
> 
> I voted no. Gibson builds some excellent instruments but it is companies working in electronics that are creating change in the music world and were any guitar maker to disappear *the loss is going to be sentimental*. The individual luthiers that are the Orville Gibson's of the future aren't churning out factory fodder.


I agree that it would make a difference as you state, a sentimental one. Of course it would matter to those who would lose their income because of Gibson going out of business. Other than that, I can't see it making any difference to the industry besides helping some of the other mfrs.


----------



## hummingway (Aug 4, 2011)

washburned said:


> Anybody lamenting the loss of Pontiac? Oldsmobile? Mercury? I've often wondered why more folks in search of that classic Gibson feel and build haven't bought Heritage: same guys using same materials on the old tools that made those desirable Gibsons in the first place.


 "If I had money tell you what I'd do I'd go downtown and buy a Mercury or two I'm crazy 'bout a Mercury"


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

Perhaps we should start a thread with a poll based upon this:

Would it make any difference if the people who can't stop talking about how irrelevant Gibson is were gone?


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

washburned said:


> Anybody lamenting the loss of Pontiac? Oldsmobile? Mercury?


 Just Saturn...great cheap cars


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

if gibson were gone im sure someone else would pick up the slack and they'd be the new gibson. theyd probably even do a better job.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

blam said:


> if gibson were gone im sure someone else would pick up the slack and they'd be the new gibson. theyd probably even do a better job.


IMO, not a better job...anybody of that size and industry influence, is going to be obsessed with profitability. And thats when the troubles begin.But that said, do I look forward to an Industry full of small eccentric opinionated kooky perfectionists like Joe Lado? Not really. You need a good balance of business models. Not all Burger kings, not all Soup Nazis.


----------



## keefsdad (Feb 7, 2006)

I don't spend a lot of time checking out a lot of new guitars, but I have set up two '61 SG re-issues recently, and they were well made, good sounding guitars. Of course, I haven't tried the epiphone.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Les Paul ---> Marshall ---> Heaven


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

How about this: Gibson keeps making guitars. . . People that don't want to pay that much for their guitars keep complaining about the price . . . and guitar builders keep building and copying their design. . . I hate change.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Guitar101 said:


> How about this: Gibson keeps making guitars. . . People that don't want to pay that much for their guitars keep complaining about the price . . . and guitar builders keep building and copying their design. . . I hate change.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

A better comparison for Gibson vehicle wise would be Ford, GMC or Dodge.

If they tanked though, they'd be bought out and the name would carry on for sure.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Yup, it's all already been said. In my mind, 'No'.
-Gibsons patents and trademarks will be picked up by whatever entity picks up the name if the current Gibson fails. Probably the plants and tooling too.
-production would resume, quite possibly without interruption given how US bankruptcy law works (see - General Motors)
-if Henry were gone, we'd have some new corporate overlord to rail about....heck, someone like Fender could even be a player


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

That's an interesting concept. What if Fender did buy them out, what then?
So the prices rise or fall on the instruments?

Isn't Henry one of the problems at Gibson?


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

sulphur said:


> That's an interesting concept. What if Fender did buy them out, what then?
> So the prices rise or fall on the instruments?
> 
> Isn't Henry one of the problems at Gibson?


If fender buys Gibson....price of a LP would close to double in price for SURE. a Strat is one of the most expensive guitar considering what's involved in making them...compared to the labor in making say a LP.


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

al3d said:


> a Strat is one of the most expensive guitar considering what's involved in making them...compared to the labor in making say a LP.


I completely disagree. The bolt-on neck vs the set neck alone makes the LP more involved and then you get to the maple cap.

A Les Paul is a much more involved process than a Strat and almost everyone knows that.


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

I think that is what al3d was getting at, Strats do get pricey (custom shop) as compared to the LP which has a bit more labour into it.


----------



## JHarasym (Mar 27, 2007)

I think the Gibson story is an interesting case of successfully building a brand, and letting the corporate mentality ruin the product. It seems to me their current strategy is unsustainable in the long run. There are more and more people decrying the quality of the mass produced guitars, so people who buy are overpaying for the image. Sooner or later the value of the brand will be sufficiently undermined and the business will decline (it may be declining already, but being privately held they don't release financials).


----------



## parkhead (Aug 14, 2009)

this thread is silly it will not happen .... look at Fender in 1985 .... 
the company was on the ropes financially & a team of investors bought the key elements 

the name & the designs .... the rest got liquidated 
the current fender MACHINE is the outgrowth of that 

in other words WHILE management might run into trouble... whoever owns the rights to make the gibson les paul 
has the basis of a sucessful operation 

p


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

parkhead said:


> this thread is silly


What would someone be who replied to a silly thread? Okay, I'm just yanking your chain a bit. Of course, it won't happen or not likely because we should never say never. The thread is hypothetical but there is the possibility, though slight, that it could happen.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Steadfastly said:


> What would someone be who replied to a silly thread? Okay, I'm just yanking your chain a bit. Of course, it won't happen or not likely because we should never say never. The thread is hypothetical but there is the possibility, though slight, that it could happen.


In reading the current state of the lawsuits it could happen. Henry is lobbying for a change in the laws that would see the lawsuit dropped (tells me they Fish and Game have a good case). Unless things have changed in the past 5 days that is where they are at (or the news was old when I read it).

IF NOT THEN: The laws with with the company has been charged don't result in fines, they result in the officers of the company going to jail for a fair chunk of time. I don't know if the court would take possession of the company if it incarcerates the board of directors and officers of the company, or if it would seize it and all assets as proceeds of crime and auction them, or put the company in a "trust". That I have not read on. However, to say the least, Gibson as a company is operating in interesting times.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I like Gibsons. I may not like the company or the CEO that much, but I like the guitars. Les Paul-->Bluesbreaker=Heaven. I would miss Gibson.

Hypothetically speaking.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> I completely disagree. The bolt-on neck vs the set neck alone makes the LP more involved and then you get to the maple cap.
> 
> A Les Paul is a much more involved process than a Strat and almost everyone knows that.


that's exactly what i'm saying man..


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

smorgdonkey said:


> I completely disagree. The bolt-on neck vs the set neck alone makes the LP more involved and then you get to the maple cap.
> 
> A Les Paul is a much more involved process than a Strat and almost everyone knows that.


You may be surprised there, Smorgdonkey, but I definitely agree with you. That's why there are so many cheap beginner guitars made in the strat style. They are much easier to make.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Robert1950 said:


> Les Paul ---> Marshall ---> Heaven


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElaEytDfgek&feature=related


----------



## big frank (Mar 5, 2006)

[SUB]Wouldn't matter to me much if Gibson were gone.
I have a couple that I love; but today's guitars?
Not as long as they're building them like this:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgIuBVLQBOE[/SUB]


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

al3d said:


> If fender buys Gibson....price of a LP would close to double in price for SURE. a Strat is one of the most expensive guitar considering what's involved in making them...compared to the labor in making say a LP.


Pricing is more complex than what goes into things! This is a rather simplistic view. Gibson would charge twice now if they could!


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

I will take one more before they are gone!


----------



## jazzmaster61 (Oct 17, 2010)

I currently own a Song Writer DLX the best accoustic i,ve ever come across and a 2008 L.P. Std awesomeness!!! yes Gibby would be sorely missed!!! but it aint happening


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

jazzmaster61 said:


> I currently own a Song Writer DLX the best accoustic i,ve ever come across and a 2008 L.P. Std awesomeness!!! yes Gibby would be sorely missed!!! but it aint happening


I have to admit that they do make great acoustics. As to the Les Paul, there are just too many variables and too many other manufacturers making the same basic guitar in too many configurations, many of them better than Gibsons.


----------



## Jaybo (Jun 3, 2010)

I think Heritage would be happy!


----------



## BEACHBUM (Sep 21, 2010)

I'm missing them now. You still see their name on new head stocks but what once was Gibson is already gone.


----------



## The Lullaby (Dec 8, 2010)

it's good to let the dinosaurs dies sometimes.

I have had some nice Gibson products (and still do),
but there might be more opportunity for smaller makers to take up alot of the market post-Gibson.

Surely many of the Gibson makers (employees) would start up in the same tradition but listen more to the players needs. They'd likely take more care in building their products to.

Look at how many Gibson products have totally missed the mark the last few years.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

If Gibson were gone, we would have lost a legend, an icon, a pioneer.

Yes, I believe many Gibsons have values inflated beyond logic by collectors.

The fact remains that they were a key company in the invention and development of the guitar as we know it today.

Yes, many companies are making great guitars, but then again, it's easy to be tall when you stand on the shoulders of giants.

I think Gibson needs a major shake up and a refresher on what their mission is.

I think a company like Gibson has a greater responsibility (not by law) than a typical company. It's more than just wires and wood to many of us.


----------



## loudtubeamps (Feb 2, 2012)

Gibson will never be gone, not really.
The company may pack up, and they will have left behind a pretty big legacy.
It was the people with visions like Les Paul and the music icons who played the Gibson guitars that have kept the brand alive over the years.
The familiar shapes and designs will be made and re-made but will always be recognized as being done by Gibson first.
Isn't that what really matters?
The Wright Brothers will always be credited with flying the first airplane and Boeing will always be known for improving on their design a tad.
As in most vintage instruments, the quality that went into the build(and the bits and pieces) was just "part and parcel" of making the instrument, not an add-on or upgrade.
I firmly believe that outsourcing will be the downfall of many manufacturers that had their start in North America, and sooner than later.

OR..........like da' Milkman said!

I have to be the slowest -2 fingered-keyboard- hunt and peck contributor out there.Jeeze!
:zzz:


----------



## julienpier (Aug 7, 2009)

Not Gibson nor Fender, neither Gretsch nor Peavey... they're all brands! I love Fender... I, in fact, ADORE these guitar, but I do not think te guitar world would really suffer from any of these loss. It would open a big slot for many smaller builder to take place in.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Someone may have written this, I don't remember, but the question should be "Would it make a difference if Henry J was gone?"


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

smorgdonkey said:


> Perhaps we should start a thread with a poll based upon this:
> 
> Would it make any difference if the people who can't stop talking about how irrelevant Gibson is were gone?


Right with ya, man! I don't get it why people are so fired up about slamming Gibson-their opinions don't mean much to me. It just sounds like sour grapes. I have some $500 guitars of other brands which are great guitars, so the brand name doesn't matter much to me. To be honest, of the 'Big Guys' though, I would still rather have a Gibson than a Fender any day (when I wanted a Strat-type guitar 15 years ago, I didn't find ANY Fender Strats that came close to ANY of the G&L Legacies I tried so that's what I ended up with). I think what I am trying to say is, yeah, Gibsons are pricey, but what of it? That's their prerogative in a free enterprise world. On the other hand, I just recently bought what I consider to be a cheap Gibson-a 50's Tribute Les Paul (a little over $800), and it's a great guitar, so if they can keep that kind of thing in their lineup, it may quiet some of the nay-sayers. 
-Mikey


----------



## Lance Romance (Jun 4, 2009)

Thanks Robert you hit it right on the head! If the buck stops at Henry...well, he ain't worth a buck. Sure we slag him when bemoaning Gibson's current affairs, but if you're the big cheese you take the bad with the good. My friend Mike McGuire runs the Nashville Custom Shop and he has many interesting stories of the stuff Henry and the boys do, all of them finished with "at least they leave me alone". Sad really, as I started my pro career 44 years ago with a superb Gibson SG Standard. These days I play Tom Anderson, Musicman, and PRS. All guys who took the best ideas from existing instruments and made their own better mousetraps. Then there's guys like Johan Gustavvson who build guitars like Gibson USED to build them, but look at the pricing and wait times.
Gibson will survive in some form. Unfortunately to fix the current situation we need more bullets.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

Robert1950 said:


> Someone may have written this, I don't remember, but the question should be "Would it make a difference if Henry J was gone?"


I'm not sure if it would make as much of a difference if Henry J were gone as say when Ren left, the Gibson Acoustic fanboy's really felt the sky was falling for a while and the recent layered, multi ply non traditional whatever you want to call it bridges and fret boards didn't help to calm any of it. Gibson expects to expand production in their acoustic division again so who knows what's ahead.


----------

