It seems a lot of people are confusing the politics with the product. I like my Gibsons. Granted, they are all vintage, but still. Also, I repair and setup a lot of recent Gibsons and think the Bozeman stuff is great, the VOS stuff is great, and if you have the money the Historic series R8's, R9's, etc. -- all good stuff, IMHO. Same with custom shop if you want to spend the money. In fact, money seems to be the only real complaint.......cost vs what the same money might get you somewhere else.
Henry took a lot of hits and rightly so, IMHO, but overall the "henry era" overlaps the Bozeman era, the Derrington era, and the Harvey era, FWIW...........so.....IMHO, pretty impressive stuff, really!
OK, new corporate ownership, throwing some weight around..........about what I'd expect. I'm not a corporate guy. In fact, I don't give a rat's hind end what some corporate approved spokeperson says about much of anything. Go to a big guitar show and you'll meet a hundred Mark A's there........doesn't bother me. I can think for myself. I can pick up an instrument and decide if it has "THE STUFF" or not! Very simple.......
As far as the new investors trying to recoup by whatever means necessary -- sure seems desperate to me. I think the Gibson name is their biggest selling point. OTOH, and I hate to say it, did most of the boutique makers copy Gibson's F5? Yep, right down to the measurements and probably even tracing it. Do I care? Nope.... Do I think that Gilchrist selling 17 instruments a year hurts Gibson's bottom line? Nope, Gibson makes more in string sales and straps than Gilchrist makes, shouldn't even be a blip on their radar, IMHO. (that is, assuming the business is being run right......)
Thanks for the chuckles about the leather jacket and the fact it was mentioned more than once! Good stuff!
Bookmarks