Heritage guitars.

  • Thread starter Thread starter capnkid
  • Start date Start date
capnkid

capnkid

Optimus Prime
Why aren't more people playing them?
I see PRS everywhere, and Gibsons everywhere.
The Heritage is as good if not better than both of those companies, and they cost less.
 
One reason is that in all the dealers I have been to across the country, about one of those had any Heritage guitars at all. Another is that they have had some build issues in the past that have remained with their reputation whether or not they have fixed them.

I do know that they are priced well below similar Gibsons. Its hard to say they're "better" than anything, though. Especially when you put PRS in the statement. Different, cheaper, but not really 'better'. I've never in my life seen a PRS with quality issues. I'm sure there are some, there has to be, but of the hundreds I have seen or played none were messed up.

H2H
 
The guys making them are the same guys that built the old gibsons everyone is after now. I read somewhere that they only employ 15 people. I though the quality control would be supreme.
 
I have heard about qc issues from loyal Heritage owners. They have had some neck and fret issues. They now have a Plek system, so the fretwork should be awesome.

Actually, its kind of a misnomer to say they were the guys building the Gibsons everyone is after now. They are actually the guys who built the 70's and early 80's Gibsons that everyone hated.

H2H
 
Hard2Hear said:
Actually, its kind of a misnomer to say they were the guys building the Gibsons everyone is after now. They are actually the guys who built the 70's and early 80's Gibsons that everyone hated.

H2H
Click to expand...


Which could explain why Gibson said to hell with this factory and moved out of town and left them to rot... only to give birth to Herritage. :D :eek:


Just kidding. I never played one yet. Never even seen one in person.
 
Hard2Hear said:
I have heard about qc issues from loyal Heritage owners. They have had some neck and fret issues. They now have a Plek system, so the fretwork should be awesome.

Actually, its kind of a misnomer to say they were the guys building the Gibsons everyone is after now. They are actually the guys who built the 70's and early 80's Gibsons that everyone hated.

H2H
Click to expand...

I thought that Gibson bought property in Tenn. and in the 70's and 80's were building them both in Michigan and in Tenn. and it was the Tenn. Gibsons that were less than par due to all the new unexperienced empoyees they hired down yonder. The dudes that built Heritage, some of them have started with gibson in the 50's.
I actually live in Michigan, and the local Music Store here Mcdonald's has been here since the 40's, he tells me things.
 
capnkid said:
The dudes that built Heritage, some of them have started with gibson in the 50's.
Click to expand...


So the 50's was ruffly 50 years ago. Add on that most were probably 25 years old...atleast....

How many 75 year olds do you think are building guitars for Heritage?

My guess is not many.


Now the 70's were only 25-30 years ago. Add on 30 years for a nice average age, and you have 55-60. That isn't too bad of an age. And if the were there in the early - mid 80's, remove 5-10 years and you have 45-50 year olds.

45-60 seems more realistic than 75+ IMO. ;)
 
Outlaws said:
So the 50's was ruffly 50 years ago. Add on that most were probably 25 years old...atleast....

How many 75 year olds do you think are building guitars for Heritage?

My guess is not many.


Now the 70's were only 25-30 years ago. Add on 30 years for a nice average age, and you have 55-60. That isn't too bad of an age. And if the were there in the early - mid 80's, remove 5-10 years and you have 45-50 year olds.

45-60 seems more realistic than 75+ IMO. ;)
Click to expand...

Well I just went to the heritage website they all started in the 50's. 56' 57', and 58' to be exact. and all were hands on, with the exception of one guy who started in the 70's. Now take that experience and teach 11 other people to do it, and I bet you get a nice product.

and where are you coming from, the new retirement age is 70.
 
If they truly are such a quality guitar as you say (I'm not too familiar w/ them), in time they will earn their reputation. Other companies produced great guitars and did this more recently than fender and gibson (taylor, prs, etc.)....so I think if they are as good and cheaper, eventually they will become more prominent. Only time will tell, and only time can prove a guitar
 
Outlaws said:
Now the 70's were only 25-30 years ago. Add on 30 years for a nice average age, and you have 55-60. That isn't too bad of an age. And if the were there in the early - mid 80's, remove 5-10 years and you have 45-50 year olds.

45-60 seems more realistic than 75+ IMO. ;)
Click to expand...


lets not get overboard with all that gibson reference ... when did gibson shot down the kalamazoo plant ...around 1990 or so???

ok, then take a "regular" pesonnel turnover rate of 10% p.a. -> so basically nobody who worked in the gibson factory should be building heritages by today :D

the gibson reference is all marketing - i am pretty sure the average worker's age at heritage is NOT 65 years, rather 30somethign with all those non-gibson folks coming in :)

cheers
alfred
 
I never said that the 4 guys who worked for gibson since the 50's were building the guitars, but they are selecting the wood and teaching, (well they have been around 20 years now) taught thier guitar building wisdom to the people who work for them.
Check it out at thier website is all I can say, and read the reviews at harmony-central.
 
I have nothing against Heritage guitars. I think they're a great value. They're not being built by the guys who had any part in designing or building the famed 58-59 Les Pauls though. Maybe a sander or two...maybe.

Interestingly enough to think about. They're mainly making Les Pauls...and Gibson stopped making Les Pauls in 1960. Then there was the SG only until '68 around when Norlin took over and started making them again....so if they were around that long they probably know more about original SG building than Les Pauls. But Heritage doesn't make an SG copy. Ive always found that interesting.

And I'm sure the owners are too busy running a business to do a whole lot of hands on work or teaching. Good guitars, but don't make them into something they're not.

H2H
 
Hard2Hear said:
I have nothing against Heritage guitars. I think they're a great value. They're not being built by the guys who had any part in designing or building the famed 58-59 Les Pauls though. Maybe a sander or two...maybe.

Interestingly enough to think about. They're mainly making Les Pauls...and Gibson stopped making Les Pauls in 1960. Then there was the SG only until '68 around when Norlin took over and started making them again....so if they were around that long they probably know more about original SG building than Les Pauls. But Heritage doesn't make an SG copy. Ive always found that interesting.

And I'm sure the owners are too busy running a business to do a whole lot of hands on work or teaching. Good guitars, but don't make them into something they're not.

H2H
Click to expand...
Wha? I can't Hear Ya! :D
 
i think the reason that you don't see them much is that while they are supposedly well made (until now i have never heard about q.c. issues), gibson made them make certain changes in order to keep making the les pauls. the headstocks look gross, the pickguards are also gross, the cutaway is gross and they're not allowed to use tune-o-matic bridges anymore.......

so they're a les paul, but they're kind of not and for most les paul fans that's just not acceptable.

edit: i just looked at their website..........they pickguards they're using aren't nearly as ugly as they used to be, they're actually not ugly at all, they're just not what's expected of a les paul.
 
Heritage bought the Gibson factory in Mich some years back (in 1985 I believe). Some of the Gibson workers stayed there and continued to work for Heritage. Whether any of them are still there is an open question.

Gibson later sued Heritage saying they could not use the previous Gibson molds that were part of the factory. Gibson lost.

The Heritage guitars I have seen look and sound great. They seem popular with jazz players.

Ed
 
Carvin don't get much respect, either. I'd like to play a Heritage.
 
I own a Heritage H575 which is their version of the ES-175 and this is a high quality built instrument. I have never had a problem with the craftsmanship. I never knew of any QC issues with the company, especially with my instrument. I would definitely buy a Heritage guitar again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top