In Defence of Vintage and the Bargain Basement

[FinkFloyd]

I'd rather Guitarist stop mentioning Gibsons continual construction & finish flaws in the text and yet still give 4.5 star reviews. Its sickening.

You'll take a small builder to task like Woodworm which I've seen you do but Gibson somehow get away with it. We all know David Blunkett runs quality control in Nashville. Lets just admit it.

This is a good point, and one I tend to agree with. We know you're Gibson fanboys (particularly Nev), but it's a bit silly IMO to say things like 'the finish hasn't been applied perfectly on this sample', 'the fretboard was a little dry', 'the fret ends haven't been treated properly' or whatever and then still give them good overall marks.

Gibsons are very expensive guitars, and the sorts of flaws that you see on so many of them are simply unacceptable at that price. It doesn't make sense to me that Gibsons are somehow exempt from being marked down on QC - we know that they've never been 'perfect', in the same way as, say, a PRS is, but for that money you should get a flawlessly set up guitar every time. Fender have cleaned up their act and are doing great stuff now - Gibson need to be castigated for this until they realise that it's costing them sales.

[Juggy]

In the years that i have been away it's nice to see that the same old arguments still rage on.