TalismanRich
Well-known member
As I recall the guitars had electronics issues, something with batteries overheating or something.
Looking back here was Gibson's official statement:
Addressing the concerns of those who asked why the guitars were not donated, or their parts repurposed, Gibson said in an official statement that the video footage was of “an isolated batch of Firebird X models built in 2009-2011 which were unsalvageable and damaged with unsafe components. This isolated group of Firebird X models were unable to be donated for any purpose and were destroyed accordingly.”
I'm not a Gibson fanboy, only have 1 and it's a 1946 lap steel. It might have been better if Gibson had just taken them to the wood chipper and not filmed it. It's not the first time a company had done stupid publicity stunts. This one always tickled me.
Looking back here was Gibson's official statement:
Addressing the concerns of those who asked why the guitars were not donated, or their parts repurposed, Gibson said in an official statement that the video footage was of “an isolated batch of Firebird X models built in 2009-2011 which were unsalvageable and damaged with unsafe components. This isolated group of Firebird X models were unable to be donated for any purpose and were destroyed accordingly.”
I'm not a Gibson fanboy, only have 1 and it's a 1946 lap steel. It might have been better if Gibson had just taken them to the wood chipper and not filmed it. It's not the first time a company had done stupid publicity stunts. This one always tickled me.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
I don’t believe a single word of their BS excuse. Tax write off. 100%
R
RFR
Well-known member
The FirebirdX was a piece of shit and no wanted them. A complete marketing and public relations failure. It marked the beginning of the end for Henry.
spantini
COO of me, inc.
Here's another take with some ratchtjawing :
Dave Matthews
Dave's not here
Well... that's ONE way to relic a guitar!
Nola
Well-known member
Do they still make good guitars? I feel like they haven't for like 30 years, but I'm not sure. I'm more of a full scale Fender guy.
TalismanRich
Well-known member
Who would want the parts. The electronics were junk, the bodies were swiss cheese from all the holes to hold the electronics. Set neck so you couldn't separate it from the body, and nobody wanted the robo tuners. It would have cost more to rework them than they were worth, and nobody would have wanted them anyway.
What surprises me is that they built to darn many of them! "Lets build a 20,000 guitars that nobody wants". What a smart move. It was the "new Coke" of guitars.
What surprises me is that they built to darn many of them! "Lets build a 20,000 guitars that nobody wants". What a smart move. It was the "new Coke" of guitars.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
They had humbuckers and tuneamatic bridges, knobs, pots, jacks, etc that all could easily have been removed. Sure, the robot gears sucked.
jimistone
long standing member
There's an old saying "if it's not broken, don't try to fix it"
Leo fender got the stratocaster right and had tweaked it into perfection by 1957.
THATS the guitar fender should be making.
Gibson tweaked the les paul into perfection by 1959.
THATS the guitar Gibson should be making.
Ditto on the other fender models like the tele and jaguar.
Ditto on the other Gibson models like the firebird and SG.
The only upgrade that Gibson did that may be considered an improvement IMO is chambering the les paul bodies. It dosent really seem to negatively effect tone and makes the les paul more comfortable for sissy players who can't deal with a heavy guitar.
Myself I much prefer the heavy solid non weight relieved les pauls. They feel so solid and substantial when playing them. I feel like im holding a high quality instrument with one of those heavy sumbitches. The lighter ones, though great guitars in their own right, just don't do it for me in the same way.
But, different strokes for different folks!
I admit that I'm old school and this is but one mans opinion.
Leo fender got the stratocaster right and had tweaked it into perfection by 1957.
THATS the guitar fender should be making.
Gibson tweaked the les paul into perfection by 1959.
THATS the guitar Gibson should be making.
Ditto on the other fender models like the tele and jaguar.
Ditto on the other Gibson models like the firebird and SG.
The only upgrade that Gibson did that may be considered an improvement IMO is chambering the les paul bodies. It dosent really seem to negatively effect tone and makes the les paul more comfortable for sissy players who can't deal with a heavy guitar.
Myself I much prefer the heavy solid non weight relieved les pauls. They feel so solid and substantial when playing them. I feel like im holding a high quality instrument with one of those heavy sumbitches. The lighter ones, though great guitars in their own right, just don't do it for me in the same way.
But, different strokes for different folks!
I admit that I'm old school and this is but one mans opinion.
Last edited:
TalismanRich
Well-known member
Hey, who you calling a sissy?!?
Get much closer and I'll whack you with my cane!
Really, besides having back issues, when I hold my 9.7 lb Heritage H157, sometimes it presses on the nerve in my shoulder and my fingers start to go numb. I've got a 3 inch strap for it. When I hold my semihollow, that doesn't happen. A couple of weeks ago, I managed about 40 minutes before I had to take a break.
Get much closer and I'll whack you with my cane!
Really, besides having back issues, when I hold my 9.7 lb Heritage H157, sometimes it presses on the nerve in my shoulder and my fingers start to go numb. I've got a 3 inch strap for it. When I hold my semihollow, that doesn't happen. A couple of weeks ago, I managed about 40 minutes before I had to take a break.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
This is their problem in a nutshell. They could never hold on to this truth.
jimistone
long standing member
Lol.
I was just joking around with "sissy" , not a serious statement. Thats what a lot of die hard les paul players were saying when the weight relieved ones first came out. (Old dogs-new tricks) I have a weight relieved les paul and a solid one too. I like them both. Just something about the heavy ones. They have a different vibe that I love.
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
Getting old sucks….I'm in that band too.
60's guy
Well-known member
You’re still playing yer guitar though! That's a good thing! ?
TalismanRich
Well-known member
Scott Baxendale
Well-known member
30 years ago was when they were making their worst guitars ever…lol.
Their QC started going south in 1958 and hit full stride crap by the mid-late 60’s. Different eras have different sets of QC problems but their QC has been terrible since the beginning of the guitar boom. They were great in the 1920’s-1950’s
jimistone
long standing member
Yep.
I'm 64 now. My biggest problem is Iove my vintage 1968 fender pro reverb amp, and I gig with it. It is one heavy mofo. But, the tone is so good its worth carrying.
