If Les Pauls are so great, then why...

MilanPan!c

il gatto wrote: »

It IS true unless your definition of a good guitar is how it looks rather than how it plays and sounds. I'm well aware of Gibsons history and the variance in QC but the facts are is that spending €2,000 on a guitar people want perfection in the finishing. The finish has no affect the sound. I've played Gibsons from 70s,80s,90s and 00s. Some were set up more to my taste than others but none were bad and the 80s one no worse than the others. Sure there may be an occassional hound as there is with any mass produced item, but poor binding and blemished laquer do not mean there is definitely an underlying problem with the insruments construction.
A company like Gibson attracts attention to how it operates in a way PRS, Yamaha or Ibanez do not. There are people who still won't buy a post Kalamazoo instrument. Not based on fact, but protest to the fact that they moved.
"]There was still good wood out there during the Norlin years. A lot of the guitars were heavy but it was still good resonant wood. Even pancakes have their place." This would indicate what I'm saying IMO. The fundamentals were still good.
You don't think they're worth it? Fine. Alot of people love them. Talking down to people won't convince anyone otherwise. And picking one guys opinion from a forum to back up your opinion is weak. The rest of that thread seems to come to the consensus that there were lots of excellent guitars made at the time. I didn't see any thrashing.

I didn't talk down to you, but I did post information to correct something you said, which was/is inaccurate.

It's not just an odd guitar. It was years of guitar that were substandard in every way. From fit and finish to the way the frets were installed to the quality of the wood.

What I just said isn't controversial. It's not one guy. If you'd like I can go and find hundreds of examples of people complaining about the build quality if LPs and how there's much better alternatives for the money. But that would seem obnoxious, you know, dozens of examples.

So.

If you are happy great. If you don't believe me fine. You can do the research and discover I'm telling the truth. You can also simply go back through the thread and see that I've owned LPs in the past and played many many many more. You'll also see that I like the good ones.

Anyway.

Believe what you want.

But a little looking around will show you that either I'm part of some big conspiracy where a LOT of LP players complain about the inconsistency of the product, or just maybe, we all have legit concerns that a simple setup won't address.

il gatto

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I didn't talk down to you, but I did post information to correct something you said, which was/is inaccurate.

It's not just an odd guitar. It was years of guitar that were substandard in every way. From fit and finish to the way the frets were installed to the quality of the wood.

What I just said isn't controversial. It's not one guy. If you'd like I can go and find hundreds of examples of people complaining about the build quality if LPs and how there's much better alternatives for the money. But that would seem obnoxious, you know, dozens of examples.

So.

If you are happy great. If you don't believe me fine. You can do the research and discover I'm telling the truth. You can also simply go back through the thread and see that I've owned LPs in the past and played many many many more. You'll also see that I like the good ones.

Anyway.

Believe what you want.

But a little looking around will show you that either I'm part of some big conspiracy where a LOT of LP players complain about the inconsistency of the product, or just maybe, we all have legit concerns that a simple setup won't address.

I've done my own research over many years on Gibson, Fender, Gretsch, Epiphone, Ibanez etc. and more importanttly played the guitars and I've made up my own mind. I found a poorer finish on guitars of certain eras but none that weren't correctable with a set up. Like I said, i'm sure there some that weren't but having played a fair few and not seen one, it's my opinion that fundemental problems with the guitar's construction was rarer than is commonly proclaimed.
I just made a post proferring an opinion. You disagree? Fine. That's your perogative. But to think you presume to "correct" me on my opinion? I haven't claimed that Gibson didn't have periods of poor QC, only that in my experience, a set up will fix the issues.
So I will believe what I want. I've played guitar for many years and have read extensively on the history of most brands. I don't need to be corrected or do a little looking around. I read your previous posts on this thread and even though I disagreed with the vehemence of your opinions on Gibson, I chose just to offer my own opinion, based on many years of playing, researching and enjoying guitars or every type. Find a kid noodling in Music Maker if you want somebody to "correct" or talk about conspiracy theories to.

BostonB

MilanPan!c wrote: »

.... I've owned LPs in the past and played many many many more. You'll also see that I like the good ones....

Why?

Shedder

The 3 bolt " CBS" era is considered to be the poorest in fenders history for build quality. Clapton actually built his "Blackie" Strat from 3 pre-CBS strats as they were out of favour at the time (everyone wanted Humbuckers).