Gibson LP guitar top

[pchorman]

How much emphasis do you place on the bookmatching of the guitar top? I see that some halves are nearly mirror images of eachother, some are nearly seamless, and some are grossly mismatched. In some cases the latter actually looks cool to me. Does Gibson make some attempt to match these halves, and are those with "better" matching more highly regarded?

Or, who the hell cares about this detail? The question occured to me as I eyeballed a Standard today that I really loved, and noticed a blatant seam along its top.

Thanks

 

[Tom Hicks]

You touch a nerve.
Gibson back in Kallamazoo Mi. had a better QC reputation.After the move to Nashville,they had to hire and train new men,as the Michigan folks stayed behind to form Heritage I believe.Ted McCarty was the boss then I think and lots of people really blame him for the loss of stature.
Bookmatching is a simple woodshop procedure.You are really talking about attention to detail.At the price point,there is really no excuse for sloppy cosmetics.


Tom

 

[Guest]

Uh, I believe Ted McCarty was responsible for the greatest years in Gibson's history. The best guitars Gibson ever made were during his time there.

 

[Tonewoods]

Another nerve touched here, too....

You can literally chart the relationship that Gibson has had with the tonewood business by looking at the instruments. For instance, during the 80's, The Gibson Co. was very hard to do business with for the tonewood cutter, so there was no reason to really send them the high quality wood (or any wood, for that matter). I've literally been lied to by Gibson ("the check's in the mail", "we never received the material", etc. etc.) to the point that it was no longer any fun doing business with them.

Apparently, most other wood cutters felt the same way, and companies like PRS, who valued the look and vibe of (at that time) a 40 dollar piece of wood that increased the value of the instrument by 1K or more (a real no-brainer there, Gibson!), increased their market share, and good wood had *something* to do with it...

Actually, I feel the best wood that has ever been in instruments is in the modern guitars, both acoustic and electric. When I first started cutting tonewood 21 years ago, there was maybe one other outfit cutting wood specifically for instruments, and now there are 20, some with as many as 15 employees--it's a big biz...

It's stunning how bad a lot of the wood is in old Martins and Gibsons, and it's also stunning as to how good an off-quartered, poorly sawn piece of spruce can sound in a pre-war Martin. With that in mind, it should be fun to hear some of the modern instruments in 50 years or so...

Bruce Harvie
http://www.rockisland.com/~tonewoods

 

[pchorman]

Given all that was just said about their quality control over the years, as a poll, how many of you would reject an instrument because of its mismatched top? Do you tend to overlook this aesthetic deficiency; is it important that its seam be either a mirror-image or near-invisible? I think either case looks better than any two halves glued together, which is how some appear to me, but there are exceptions depending on the grain.

Bottom line question: Is this what you look for when you examine the top, or does its playability and tone take precidence?

Thanks again.

 

[Guest]

Unless all you're going to do is look at it for the rest your life, then playability and tone should take precidence. Having said that, when I bought my PRS I was seriously entranced by the look of the guitar I bought. It's not perfectly bookmatched, but the flame on it is outrageous and the way the maple took the stain is incredible. So I have to admit I bought it more based on looks than how I thought it sounded. Having it about 6 months now I have come to realize that its tone and playibility is actually superior and the more I play it the more I hear the subtle nuances that make it so.

I would try hard to put more emphasis on playibility and sound than looks, and if you get lucky you'll find both in the instrument. You want something that calls for you to play it and not just admire its beauty.

 

[gibs]

Yeah, but at those ridiculous prices, who wouldn't want it all......looks AND tone/playability....sheesh....there is no reason why bookmatching shouldn't match...period........Gibson has dug a hole that's gonna be hard to get out of with customers.........gibs

 

[mastahnke]

Heritage Guitars

I would like to agree with most people on this thread. The wood now is better than ever, but sadly the guitars now are not worth as much. However, if you are looking for a Gibson, check out Heritage guitars. I have a Les Paul style by them and I got it for around 1K and it is way better than the 5K gibsons I can go play anyday.
MIKE

 

[Guest]

Yeah, but at those ridiculous prices, who wouldn't want it all......looks AND tone/playability....sheesh....there is no reason why bookmatching shouldn't match...period

One problem that occurs when you're talking about a guitar that has a carved top is that what appears to be perfectly matched grain and good figure before the carve, when carved and wood is removed it may not look the same and the match may be skewed slightly. But its still every bit the guitar it was before.

I agree Gibson has really overpriced their guitars and very likely going to be hurting in this economic downturn.

 

[Tom Hicks]

hi Chris
Let me disagree with your assessment of the period of Gibsons greatest guitars.Many would say the Lloyd Loar L5 was the finest Gibson ever produced,with late 50s Les Pauls also highly treasured.By the 70s and 80s,I can't think of a single outstanding line they made.Id be pleased to hear why you think those middle period axes are so superior.Not a flame,just curious what axes and what factors you like.


Tom

 

[gibs]

Chris N, the reason I said that is....I saw a beautiful LP (slightly used, but not old) in the place where I got my strat....the book match was purrrrfect.........what I wanna know is why can't all of them (at those huge prices) be as perfect as some of them.......I've even seen korean guitars with great matching.......at the prices Gibson ask, they could afford to have a little more control in the finished product...so what if they have to start over and use another piece of wood......

but yeah I'd love to have an LP, but rest assured it will have to be very used.....no way I could pay the new prices and feel good about the product.....however, the same shop had an SG that was outta this world.....it was new and sweet (and less than the used LP, lol)....I'll probably get an SG again one day, hopefully.....gibs

 

[Guest]

Tom,

Maybe i'm confused about something here, but Ted McCarty was at Gibson from 1948 to 1966. Considered to be some of the best years of Gibson. I agree the the 70's and 80's were a low point for Gibson. I'm not sure if were talking about the same person.

gibs,

Yeah, who knows how the pricey guitar companies decide what is going to be considered a perfect guitar and one that is slightly less. I would say that to scrap a guitar just because it's not perfect is not very practical in my mind. I would just not price it like a perfect guitar. I guess my point was that the bookmatching does nothing for how the guitar will sound. And there may be a guitar that is not perfectly bookmatched that may end up having much more resonance and tone than one that is. (due to the fact that the majority of the guitar is another wood altogether)

If this thread is about how Gibson's guitars are way too expensive, you'll get no argument from me. If it's about the fact that perfect appearance should be the most important item in why a guitar is priced high, then I may have a different opinion.

I know one thing I spent $2500 on guitar this year, by far the most I have ever spent. While I think, relatively speaking it was worth it, I'm in no position finacially to be doing it again anytime soon.

 

[Tom Hicks]

Hi Chris
Its my mistake.The original point I made was about the drop in QC when Gibson moved to Nashville and left the old craftsmen behind.Your dates clearly show McCarty long gone by then.He's with PRS now,is he not?
I humbly withdraw my dissing of Ted and heap it on the actual moron who engineered the move to Tn.I also second the earlier poster who recommended checking out Heritage.

Tom

 

[Guest]

Actually Ted McCarty just recently died. He did co-design a model for PRS that is a very popular model. I forget the actual years he was with PRS. The guitar I mentioned above is this model (the "McCarty" imagine that ) I guess I was a little defensive. Since I got the guitar (which was right before he died) I have read a lot of info on all the great things he did for the progress of the electric guitar. I imagine if he would of stayed, Gibson's crappy years would not have existed. Probably he got out because of the corporatization of the company.

It certainly is a shame when a good company becomes so big that they can not control quality anymore.