Question about Heritage guitars

[Hard2Hear]

So I get the company beginnings, but I have a quesiton for those of you who may be more in the know. This is spun off the Gibson vs thread.

Everyone says that mid 70's and early 80's Gibsons suck, at least most of the people I ever talk to (I personally like them, but I like new ones too, so chalk me up as an idiot). And the pretty low resale price of 70's Les Pauls seems to affirm this notion. They did make some super heavy LesPauls and some funny colors and versions of their guitars.

It has been the overall feeling that Heritage guitars are better then Gibsons model for model. BUT aren't they being made on the same equipment and by the same people as the 70's Gibsons and early 80s were? I would have to assume that the quality and such of the guitars would equal what had been previously built by the same people with the same equipment.

Anyways, it's never quite made sense to me why the same people that say those Gibsons arent very good also say the heritage models are alot better. It just doesn't add up. I've never played a heritage because they're kind of hard to find. I have seen a few and they're really good looking guitars. So I have nothing against them at all, just curious.

H2H

 

[Adam P]

I would guess that its probably their philosophy as much as anything. Given that we, as your average consumers, are aware of the less-than-desirable quality of their guitars of the era, I'm sure that they are aware tenfold. They've probably taken the approach to not repeat past mistakes, and since they are a much much smaller than Gibson, I'm sure they can push more for quality and not simply meeting a vast demand.

Edit: I don't know where along I-75 you are exactly, but there is a Heritage dealer in Lima, OH.

 

[c7sus]

I've been on jobs with the same guys from my local union over and over.

Some of those jobs made money, and some didn't.

How come?

MANAGEMENT!

You can have the best guys in the world, with the best tools and the best material available, and still lose your ass if you don't know how to get the information needed to the guys doing the actual work. Or you don't know how to properly deploy the resources you have.

Stick around a while longer, the stuff from the 70's is gonna get expensive too.

If the workmanship is somehow lower on Gibsons made during that time, it's not necessarily the fault of the guys on the production line. They can only work with what they are given, and if management decides that guys are spending too much time on any one process, then it's a management decision to hurry up. Something has to give.

 

[DaveM]

I own a Heritage H-575 and am quite happy with the quality of the workmanship. I know in comparison, Heritage uses solid tops whereas the ES-175 is not a solid top. I think C7 hit it on the head in that it is management that dictates much of the workmanship.

 

[lpdeluxe]

If I remember, Gibson sold their plant in Kalamazoo to a consortium of workers. That would make a difference.

The Heritage guitars I have seen have impressed me, especially for the price. We used to have a dealer for them here but not at the same time that I had disposable income, unfortunately, or I would probably own a couple.

 

[Light]

Well, first of all, I don't know that all of the 70's and 80's Gibson do suck. They were making a lot of guitars back then, so their quality control was off (kind of like now) but when they got them right, they were great guitars. Then again, that has almost always been the case with Gibson. You have to find the right one.

But the thing to remember is that, while these where the people who built the seventies Gibson's, they were also the guys who built the 50's and 60's Gibsons. Of course, by now all of those guys are gone, but their experience has been passed on, and the attitude of a group of craftsman working for themselves is always much better than when working for someone else.

They are also making far fewer guitars, and that always helps.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[mindwave_21]

Adam's and C7's theory make a lot of sense. Also consider this. At the time Gibson moved out, they were already making it big, allowing the brandname to lift their product quality to par. Think about it. If you were given a choice of a new american fender, or a japanese/mexican knock-off from some other company that happened to be only a little better in quality, which one would you get? Some would say the fender, just because they knew of the great guitars from the past. However, Heritage hasn't yet established the name yet, so they have to top the Big 3 to keep themselves alive (it doesn't really help that Gibson is trying to put them under through copyright laws, which forced Heritage to go with Schaller rollers instead of a tune-o-matic for all their stock bridges). The fact that they produce smaller quantities than Gibson allows them to maintain better quality control through their products. Rather than pumping out CNC carbon copies of some template, you're getting a custom guitar that was looked at and hand finished by someone who knows what they're doing. I own an H-535, and I have to say that I picked this one from a group of about 4 because it fit me. Every Heritage is different, whether it be finish color or neck thickness, so be sure to go through a few before buying. Every H-535 I tried had a different neck size, and I picked this one to suit my style.

BTW, I noticed Gibson is making a Les Paul for Jimmy Page fans that's running about $23,000 with a sig, and $16,500 without. These are freakin' guitars guys, not cars! You can get a better one for less than 10% of the cost of these "collectors items". Then track down Jimmy to ask for a signature!
Plain ticket and private eye wouldn't cost as much!!!!!!

 

[donkeystyle]

jimmy doesn't sign autographs for just any random person anymore. people sell them and apparently that upsets him.

at least that's what i heard..........the thing i dont understand is if that is the case, why is he letting gibson charge so much more for the signed version of the guitar?

 

[Light]

the thing i dont understand is if that is the case, why is he letting gibson charge so much more for the signed version of the guatar?

Because he is probably getting 2/3 of that up charge. He doesn't mind people selling his autograph, he minds not getting a piece of the action.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[m00kie]

I own a les paul standard heritage hand made by gibson in 1980 , wouldn't trade it for any factory axe .

 

[lpdeluxe]

Well, I own an LP from '70-71 which is one of the Norlin monstrosities, or so everyone says. Too bad for them, it's a hell of a guitar. This points up the whole problem with tarring with a big brush: if you find a guitar that speaks to you, who cares who made it? A friend and I have nearly identical custom-made jumbos made by a luthier here from the same flitch of flamed maple and the same chunk of spruce. The only external difference is in the inlays: his has roses and mine has butterflies. [If you're wondering, my friend ordered his after seeing mine.] One is a cannon and the other is not. One gets constant use and the other sits in its case...because they are as different as any 2 acoustic guitars could be, in playability, tone, and loudness. These were not made in the same factory, but by the same guy! More proof that the guitar itself is the reason to buy or not buy it, not the perceived good or evil of the manufacturer.

 

[Treeline]

The thing with Heritage Guitars is that the factory was purchased by a bunch of workers - and reportedly not in a particularly happy manner. They fought to stay with their community and their craft. They put their money where their mouths are, in a sense.

So what you have here is a community that developed multiple generations of luthiers - for a hundred years! And then the Only Game In Town moved out, kind of like our local granite artisan community in central Vermont, once the greatest in the world, and now feeling a death rattle. The development of Heritage Guitars was A Second Chance. Sorry for the dramatics, but it really is that simple.

So the shop enjoys a concentration of highly skilled workers, each of whom is motivated - big time - to make the company succeed, and each of whom is given room to improve the product - in other words, putting their forty years of experience apiece to work in ways that matter.

There's no secret to why Heritage guitars are fantastic. With that group, it's hard to imagine that they'd ever be anything less.

 

[stringman]

I have a Heritage 576 which I purchased used several years ago. The workmanship and materials are excellent. It is a fine guitar. Very happy with it. I've also ordered a Custom Heritage 575 Jazz Deluxe which should be delivered in a few weeks. I think the quality of the Heritage products vs. the price make these instruments an exceptional value.

 

[a12stringer]

The thing is, with any make of guitar, even the best, there will be some dogs. My brother-in-law had a Heritage 535. The thing would not stay in tune. The blasted contraption spent more time in the shop having saddle adjustments made than he spent playing. He'd take it home--it'd stay in tune. Then he'd take it to a gig and inside of 15 minutes the saddles would be out of adjustment. He finally got rid of the thing by selling it to someone who was happy just to own a Heritage.
I would hope his experience was not typical--but at the same time it takes 10 happy customers to make up for every unhappy customer.

 

[Randy5235]

I'm just interested in heritage cause they seem to be one of the few egames in town that make hollow body ( real hollow body) guitars with a 25" scale length or longer