software

So you go into your local Guitar place.

You are looking at 2 identical instruments.

Guitar A: is beautiful. Nice top. Quality control, frets, etc. Very nicely built guitar. Problem is it just doesn't sound that great. Not bad. Just nothing exceptional. It's not the pups, it's just the natural tone is lackluster.

Guitar B: is rough. The top is OK, but on closer inspection you see tooling marks, a small gouge here or there on the fretboard. Binding is goofy, etc etc. Nothing that affects playability, but it def did not have much attention to detail. However it SOUNDS incredible. Very resonant.

Guitars are same price. What do you choose?

I'm a no frills kind of guy. I don't typically go for super fancy tops, a bunch of binding, etc, etc. On the other hand, I do expect a certain level of qualiy in craftsmanship. I'd sooner go with a player than a show piece though.

I always go for tone first, then playability, but I try to take looks into consideration when I can. I'd definitely pick B, though.

I know. I agree.It's a 50s neck Les Paul Standard faded. This is the first Gibson I've seen with the QC issues some speak of here. Def sloppy. It's got a nice top actually, but the binding job is def sub-par, has a few gouges on the fretboard (actual fretjob is OK), and the binding, nut, and even the pickup selector knob have this black quot;magic markerquot; like stuff all over them...I reckon its dust that sat on it from a sander or something..won't come off with spit

It's rough....def rough...though you wouldn't notice this stuff from 5 feet away...but good god she has got the tone, and she plays great....

I'm gonna see if I can clean her up a bit (the binding) tonite I think. I've got plenty of time to decide whether to keep it or not.

cant it have both, beauty and function?

Well that would be the best, obviously...I'm just curious if you had the above scenario, what would you do?

I don't care generally for gorgeous aesthetics these days (quilts and flames and such), but I do like the guitar to be built to a certain quality level. However the tone KILLS on this guitar...I already gave up one guitar this year I wish I had not..it had some minor QC issues but had SPECTACULAR tone...and I've been kicking myself ever since....so I'm a bit nervous to give up another tone monster that's not so pretty to the discriminating eye.

neither- i would wait around for the right one to come along. Don't encourage builders to build sub-par guitars.

I would leave both of them, plenty of choice around, especially at Gibson prices, so i wouldn't settle for anything less than a beauty that sings too.

if it were a used guitar, and then still depending on the piece...i say those problems are moot...but a new guitar and a Les Paul no less...i'd wait.

i agree...it doesn't have to have quilt or flame out the ying-yang...but just good fit and finish...but...when it comes right down to it...if it's really SINGING to ya...that's tough!?

I like my guitars to be well maintained and tight...no missing screws, everything complete, pickguard clean and screwed down tight, etc. But finish wise and cosmetically they can look beat as the ****ens as long as they sound great.

I don't really care if it looks beat up, so long as it is playable. It's a lot easier to make a beat-up tone monster look pretty than it is to make an uninspiring beauty sound good.

Same goes for women too

I have a 73' Strat and a 73' Les Paul Deluxe.

The Deluxe is in gorgeous shape. Someone really maintained it well and it looks gorgeous. As a result I'm always way careful about it and am very reluctant to gig it out to some places for fear of damage.

My 73' Strat came to me with the body stripped and stained. It looks like hell. It's closer to someones amateur finishing project than anything else.

As a result I gig that one out constantly. I don't worry about it because it's ugly. Plain and simple. It sounds amazing! But I don't worry about it ANYWHERE near as much as I do the Les Paul.

I would probably wait on those, it they're both new. I just finished working on a 'workhorse' guitar last night for myself. It's not horribly ugly, but it's nothing I'd give to a customer either. I made just so I can experiment with the sounds I have been wanting. If you're going for a vintage axe, cosmetics are just that, but a new one, it should do it all.

Not that I think I will get much response, but I did shoot off a professional amp; corteous Email to Gibson about it. Just to let them know how poor the QC is on this particular one. I'm not angry, cos she can go back. Just amounts to whether the tone/playability is worth the ugliness. Not what other people think, but I'm the one who's gonna be looking at it day in and day out.

So, I'm gonna play the crap outta the thing for the next few days, and then see how I feel.

Funny thing is, every other faded I've seen in a store had a horrible ugly @$$ top but were supa-tight build quality, and this one actually has a very nice (if subtle) top to it and is beat

Well.

Just received a very nice email from the Gibson Customer Service Manager Asking me to send in some pics (which I offered to send), and also asking for my phone number so the General Manager of Gibson can give me a ring on Monday to discuss the issues with this guitar.

Pretty good CS if ya ask me. I don't know how or what will come of it, but I'd sure rather be able to go through Gibson and get a replacement, though I don't expect them to offer to do so. Certainly I will voice the concerns I see here on the forums to him.

Just out of curiosity, what's the CS techs name? Just first name for the sake of the guy's privacy.

There's a few guys there that have really gone the extra mile for me.


Originally Posted by The Golden BoyJust out of curiosity, what's the CS techs name? Just first name for the sake of the guy's privacy.

There's a few guys there that have really gone the extra mile for me.

Jason

If forced into this limited choice, I'm taking the tone monster.

Luckily, in my experience, if you wait long enough, you don't have to make that choice. There are more guitars out there that hit the trifecta of great Tone, Playability and Beauty than most probably think, and not always at outrageous prices, occasionally even a steal.

i like my cake and i like to eat it too. i wont but a bum of a good looking guitar and i wont buy a player if it has bad factory defects. some small stuff or aged play wear perhaps but if it has messed up binding and a finish flaws from the factory i'll pass most times unless its real small stuff then i may consider it. but for the most part i want good looks and good playing!

-Mike

Looks are just icing on the cake, it's got to sound and feel good first to get me to like it.