Gibson has too many "Irons in the fire"/companys that don't earn enough money, That's why a new Gibson guitar cost's 1k to 6k.
Also seen a lot of quality control complaints from buyers on many forums. Some are minor and some not, but when paying so much money you would expect the guitar to be perfect. Paul Reed Smith(PRS) doesn't seem to have those issues.
A lot of people(including myself) think the biggest problem is Management related.
My first good electric was a Gibson.,but in my "old age" I have found that any guitar that costs more than $300 is overpriced.,,.I guess we all need to stock up on $5000 Gibsons before the bankruptcy.,.,oops except they are $4700 out of my price range.,.,I for one hope they pull it together .,Norlin owned Gibson when I got my first.,,.many folks were not in favor of their management style either.,.,
Saw a story about this that stated a management change would be a stipulation for any help/bailout/loans to Gibson.
So Henry's on the way out.
One of their biggest problems is Epiphone guitars. Epiphone's quality has gone up over the last couple years and their pickups are very good, some have Gibson pickups in them or spot on clones. Craftsmanship is just as good and quality control is great.
So why buy a Gibson for 1k to 6k when you can get a Epiphone Pro for 600 to 800? Gibson made in the USA is good if you like to support your country's companies, but for people that are living at a low income level and struggling musicians will always have to buy cheaper.
Gibson came out with the Zero line and the SL line for low cost options made in the USA, but they are cheesy looking in some ways and use very cheap materials when compared to the Epiphone. Not a good choice if you ask me.
Gibson should have dropped the companies that are bleeding them dry.
I agree!..they became competitors with themselves, they should have never offered a mass produced guitar with such good quality, even if it was under a different label...there is no need for the average joe to ever buy a Gibson.
I guess they figured they would get the Epiphone money since they own them, but why allow them to undercut your other business?
It'll be interesting to see what happens when new management takes over.
Better late than never to spark up in this chatroom is it....?? I actually owned a Gibson 335 several years ago. It was a superb guitar but.... I could never keep the 'G' string in tune, I had them under guarantee change the machine head, the bottom 'E' then went haywire each time you played the thing. I live in Gt. Britain and to trawl backwards and forwards to the place I purchased it from was a real drag. I had five gigs to do when I last took it back to them. They lent me a Epiphone Sheraton, Natural Finish. I have to say, I kept it, and they gave me back a stack of money eventually. Best days swapping I ever did. It sounds good enough for even the most discerning ear as far as I can tell. brilliant on 'Jazz' chording and so on, when I could do it that is..!!! I have an SJ200 as well, but I would never get rid of it, a superb bit of kit, but I have also tried the Epiphone version several times, as you do when cruising the guitar shops, and I have to say, they are not half bad, at least they tend to stay in tune........
I believe that Gibson's acquisition of other companies is bogging them down rather than bolstering their business. They sought to diversify into consumer electronics, but they didn't go for cutting edge names, they bought some tired old name such as Philips, once a household name but now very old hat, TEAC and Tascam, at one time leading brands for reel-too reel tape recorders and hi-fi. It hardly indicates a company who have got their eye on the ball.
I just recently started hearing about this. Sad, but what I read is that it is true. I have owned 2 Gibsons and wish I still had at least one.
I had a Norlin era LP Studio That I hated getting rid of.