Pass the sunglasses, Gibson have been in the paint box again...

[WezV]

The problem with Rosewoods is you can call anything "rosewood" and not breach a trades descritptions act. (

indeed - which is why some clarity is needed

But these are not cocobolo - in a "all cocobolo can be called granadillo, but not all granadillo is cocobolo way"


to put things in comparison I would expect to pay about 4 times the price for cocobolo (similarly priced to good ebony) compared to granadillo (similarly priced to maple)

gibsons granadillo - which is pretty much exactly like the cheap (but reasonably good) granadillo i have


cocobolo fretboard - not a gibson.



not the most exciting coco either - but it does show the distinctive grain differences even though the colour of these two pieces and overall look is pretty similar


...


its the difference between a high class, rare and desirable custom option - or a good sustainable 'alternative' wood.

both make good fretboards, - but i bet gibson would add a lot more for actual coco

[TheGuitarWeasel]

They look like they're edible ... mmmmm liquorice fingerboards ...

[Hertz32]

mmm... fingers....

[BucketheadRules]

Agreed, and this is exactly the sort of guitar they should be using new materials and technology on - something that isn't meant to look or necessarily even sound like it was made in the 1950s. I'd really like to see them with graphite-reinforced headstocks too .

Much as we'd like them to, I bet they'll never do anything to change their crappy neck/headstock design... doing it this late (when it's technically been a problem ever since they were "designed" in the 50s) would probably just look like an admission of guilt, and besides - they probably make shitloads of money from people buying new Gibsons to replace their broken old ones.

I hate to channel Ed Roman, because he was a fucking arsehole, but the paranoid conspiracy theorist in me does wonder if it's planned obsolescence of some sort.

Maybe they know it's a bad design and that it'll break, but they assume lots of people will always buy another because the general consensus is that "nothing else matches a Gibson" and they'll keep flying off the shelves. So they figure they can get away with not making them to last.

Anything to keep the building costs down and the profit margins high. A Les Paul can't cost more than about £600 to make. Total fucking rip-off.

[monquixote]

I think they are called Nitrous because that's what the guy who designed them had been huffing.

I actually quite like them though I generally don't like LPs without binding.

[Sporky_McGuffin]

A Les Paul can't cost more than about £600 to make. Total fucking rip-off.

How did you arrive at that figure?

[evilmags]

How did you arrive at that figure?

I suspect it costs Gibson a lot less than that. Mass production and bulk buying make big inroads into costs.

[evilmags]

How did you arrive at that figure?

I suspect it costs Gibson a lot less than that. Mass production and bulk buying make big inroads into costs.

[Foster]

I like the green one!

[meltedbuzzbox]

I suspect it costs Gibson a lot less than that. Mass production and bulk buying make big inroads into costs.

unless of course you have huge legal costs for unethical business procurement of raw materials..