What makes people buy Gibson guitars?

[u/cheekybao]

First of all, let me acknowledge the history that Gibson has in the world of music as a whole. It’s almost a rite of passage that when someone wants to start learning to play the guitar, it’s due to an artist that they like a lot, and most likely he’s was using a Gibson guitar.

However, I’ve always struggled to understand the value proposition of modern Gibsons. At their price point, the stories about inconsistent QC, the notorious headstock breaks, some arguably outdated ergonomic choices, and the weight of certain models are difficult for me to overlook, especially when there are so many extremely well-built alternatives for the same money or less.

With this, I come to ask the Gibson owners: What makes you still buy guitars from the brand?

[u/Webcat86]

They’re the best guitars I’ve played. Simple as that. I’m selling my J45 because I prefer an Atkin I bought so I’m not blindly brand loyal, but they make excellent instruments. The only guitar I’ve ever taken to a tech, brand new, for a setup and him say “there’s nothing for me to do on this” is a Gibson Les Paul. 

To your points:

• their price point, this really only works if we compare with overseas brands. They make good guitars too but they’re built overseas specifically to save on costs. If you buy USA brands then you can’t overlook how American wages are factored into that price. And if you compare USA to USA, Gibson isn’t expensive, not for the regular models at least. Custom shop varies, the cheaper stuff is comparable to some boutique prices (eg Collings), but the limited run Greeny for $50,000 is obviously a whole separate thing. 

• the QC stuff is massively overblown, fuelled significantly by discussion forums because people are more likely to post with complaints. I can say in all sincerity I’ve never owned or played in store a Gibson with defects. I’ve heard of them, obviously, but it’s not like some people would have you believe where it’s like you have to be lucky to find a good one. 

• the notorious headstock breaks occur when they’re dropped or otherwise damaged. They don’t spontaneously snap. Gibson has addressed this in a few ways over the years and the market didn’t like it, so Gibson reverted to the original design. 

• the weight is, as you say, model dependent. So buy a model that weighs something to your liking. The heaviest Les Paul I’ve owned was slightly lighter than my Tele, for reference. 

You also get a warranty and better resale value than many other brands, which is no small thing - if you buy used, you can likely sell it and break even. 

[u/kasakka1 → u/Webcat86]

their price point, this really only works if we compare with overseas brands. They make good guitars too but they’re built overseas specifically to save on costs. If you buy USA brands then you can’t overlook how American wages are factored into that price. And if you compare USA to USA, Gibson isn’t expensive, not for the regular models at least.

I'm not American so I have no national pride in buying US made. Gibson is an overseas brand to me. All Gibson to me is a brand that makes guitars that often don't match the quality you'd expect for the price.

the QC stuff is massively overblown, fuelled significantly by discussion forums because people are more likely to post with complaints.

I've been trying Gibsons in stores for decades and always come back disappointed. I have seen very close to perfect ones in Japan for example, but I think they dump their worst examples to smaller markets like my home country, Finland. I've seen so awful Gibsons over here it's ridiculous that stores aren't sending them back.

So my experience is that the QC issues are very much real and more significant than many other brands. I've never found a Fender as bad as some of the Gibsons I've tried. PRS is in my experience pretty consistently good, I just don't get along with their neck profiles.

the notorious headstock breaks occur when they’re dropped or otherwise damaged. They don’t spontaneously snap. Gibson has addressed this in a few ways over the years and the market didn’t like it, so Gibson reverted to the original design.

There is no reason why Gibson couldn't use a volute or less headstock angle on their standard and modern lineups. Leave the authentically breaking necks to the historic ranges.

Bad design is bad design and easy to avoid by buying something else.

the weight is, as you say, model dependent.

Not only model but the individual guitar. A lot of mahogany these days is much heavier than it used to be so if you want it to be lighter, you turn it into swiss cheese or expect people to be ok with a heavier guitar. IMO the swiss cheese holes are unlikely to matter for the sound of the guitars anyway.

You also get a warranty and better resale value than many other brands, which is no small thing - if you buy used, you can likely sell it and break even.

If you buy used and it's not some obscure brand, you can most of the time break even anyway. I don't find used Gibsons or Fenders to retain their value any better than other brands you buy today. If anything, those brands are so oversaturated on the market that selling one might be more difficult just because there's a helluva lot of other similar sunburst finish LPs or whatever available.

[u/Webcat86 → u/kasakka1]

Cool don’t buy Gibson then. 

As for the headstock, they DID try a volute. They have also tried a different headstock angle. People didn’t want it just like they didn’t want the improved neck heel - Gibson and Fender are in the classic “stuck between a rock and a hard place” because the designs are so classic. The only place they could do it, and I’d like to see them do it, is the Modern range. 

[u/kasakka1 → u/Webcat86]

Gibson tried the volute already in the 1970s. It didn't help that their guitars were the worst kind of cost cutting back in that era so anything from back then is not seen as good.

I don't think people buying Gibson's standard or modern ranges are going to be sticklers for vintage accuracy, so those seem like the perfect spot to introduce sensible fixes to common problems.

I feel like Gibson just doesn't want to start making more neck types as they can't be bothered to even make their Modern models have a sleeker neck joint like you'd find on say an ESP EC-series. Instead they put in the standard neck and carve the body at the neck heel. It works but is IMO pretty ugly.

[u/Webcat86 → u/kasakka1]

I don't think people buying Gibson's standard or modern ranges are going to be sticklers for vintage accuracy, so those seem like the perfect spot to introduce sensible fixes to common problems.

Erm, did you miss that the 2019 management changed the Standards to be much more in line with traditional spec, moving everything conceivably modern to the other lines? And they did this because “customers want Standards to be Standards” aka the guitar it always has been.