Heritage vs. Gibson...Any Objective Comparisons?

[Gitfiddler]

So...let's discuss the 3,000 pound gorilla sitting in the room.

 

If ever there was an opportunity for a Guitar Maker Death Match Comparison Test, it would be Heritage vs. Gibson.

Has there ever been a comparison made by the print media?

 

How about a smack down between the ES330L and H-530; a battle royal between the Golden Eagle and L5; a fight to the end between an H-150 and Les Paul, ANY Les Paul.; or the ultimate street fight between ES335 and the H-535; etc.

 

Which magazine has the guts to take on the ultimate challenge?

 

This should be done in an auditorium or boxing ring. That way all of the Heritage fans (those guys are just nuts!) and the Gibson faithful could finally yell and scream for their favorite solid body champion, or their semi-hollow hero.

 

ARE YOU READY TO RUMMMMBLE?!!

[SlappyTappy]

I think a lot of people will object to this discussion, but I'm not one of them. I also think that this will be a biased source being that it's a Heritage forum, but oh well.

 

I have a cousin who briefly worked in Gibson's Custom Art & Historic division. He's owned NUMEROUS Historic Les Pauls and I've gotten to play most of them. They are wonderful instruments but carry a hefty price tag for their reputation.

 

My H150 is every bit as good as any Historic Les Paul I've played, and at a fraction of the cost. I seriously have a hard time justifying spending over $2000 for a guitar these days, and my Heritage was $1600 and is every bit as good as those $3000+ 1960 reissues Gibson puts out, at least to my hands/ears.

 

They're both fine instruments, it's just you pay more for the Gibson. Plus the Heritage backstory provides some real mojo, and certainly seems more "authentic" these days. Not to mention it's not "swiss-cheesed" (my cousin's biggest let down about Gibson) or chambered like all non custom shop LP's since 1983.

[Kuz]

Listen, you know you won't find a more passionate HERITAGE supporter than me.

 

It's just what you want in a guitar, in supporting a company, in a status symbol, in tradition.

 

My point is YOU CAN find a great sounding/playing NEW Gibby.... but you will have to go through plenty of them to find one. On other forms, great sounding/playing Les Pauls are referred to as "unicorns" because they are so hard to find. But they are out there.

 

I have played a COUPLE of Les Pauls that are as good as "Greeny" & "Sean", BUT NOT BETTER.

 

My point is:

- the Heritage product is superior/equal to any Gibby I have ever played.

- I have only played one "dog" Heritage (out of maybe 35-40)

- WHY would anyone want to go through all the fuss of weeding through Gibbys to find a good one, when Heritage is available.

- I don't care what Slash, Joe Bonomassa, the American Idol kids, are playing.

- Heritage guitars are BETTER looking.

 

AND finally....

- I am not trying to be like every other 16-23 year old that buys a Gibby and raves about it on Harmony Central!

 

Heritage guitars are the real deal, handmade by great people at a historic site, look better, and are superior/equal to anything Gibby makes....me I'd rather support Heritage Guitar Company.

 

END OF STORY!

[FredZepp]

Yeah, it always seems like there would be a magazine to do a serious, non-biased review of a Heritage... or a comparison with Gibson.

But I guess because Heritage isn't a big advertiser, it doesn't happen.

 

It seems like one honest review of the current Kalamazoo product would increase the interest in Heritage exponentially.

[JohnCovach]

This topic comes around every so often, which is great because it's a natural kind of question to ask. My take is that if cost were no consideration, most Gibson and Heritage guitars are generally comparable in terms of quality. It may not be fair to compare Gibson production guitars with Heritage guitars, since Gibson just makes SO many more--that is, for the money it's fair to compare, but if it's just about quality, it's probably not. I think the fair comparison is Gibson Custom Shop vs Heritage, and on that score I think it's pretty even. You pay a lot for the Gibson Custom Shop guitars, but they do hold their value and are relatively easy to sell. Heritage guitars are the best bang-for-the-buck on the used market, but are a little tougher to sell. And you just gotta love the Heritage story, while it's very easy to dismiss Gibson's often dopey marketing.

 

Magazines exist to sell advertising, so any comparison between Gibson and Heritage is not likely to happen. Gibson is just too much of a major force for any magazine to risk that account.

[the jayce]

I like both brands whole heartedly. Where heritage would lose the battle is gibson pioneered and engineered every model heritage makes. heritage makes fabulouse replicas of the original gibsons. Heritage wins with the affordability.

 

I love both brands in the end, but in all honesty if gibson made thier guitars like the old days at heritages prices I would probably be buyin the gibbys. Deep down I think most would. Doesnt mean I dont love heritages though.

[brentrocks]

The only thing i can think of the Gibson has over Heritage is their abundance of high quality flamed maple on their guitars...but im sure thats due to their large volume buying power. I look on other forums, and i see people posting pics of their R9, R8, etc, and they have some pretty fabulous tops.

 

I know Heritage gets wood of this quality, but its not quite as often.

[tulk1]

I'll jump in and say I've had some great Les Pauls. My much maligned '74 is a Faboo guitar. And my '02 Standard Plus was one heck of a guitar. I'd still have it if I hadn't needed a boat load of PA gear. (the '04 wasn't quite as dandy, tho') I have not gotten to play any of the Gib Custom Shop guitars. I can't imagine them being duds. Too much rests on that reputation. As for media print .... not going to happen, unless it's an independent just deciding to do an article. Heritage won't press the issue. Don't think it's of any concern to them. Gibs does what they do, the 'zoo do what they do.

 

Not sure I agree with Jayce's assessment of Heritage's guitar lineage. Sure, they have more than similar models. Kinda makes sense considering the history behind the two companies. And the behind the scenes work that the 'zoo boys did while doing their tenure at Parson Street. To me, replicas would mean copying. Where in fact, all of the similar models have what our boys consider to be improvements that the old guard wouldn't consider. I'm not disagreeing that a lot of the models are based on what they were building as Gibs employees. But these aren't replicas. And I do agree, that if Gibs was doing what we would like to see them doing, I'd certainly consider buying Les Pauls from them. But I can't handle their pricing structure for the good 'uns. Ooops, Sorry Jayce, didn't mean to do a whole essay ................

 

What really bugs me about Gibs is I feel somewhat ... betrayed ... by the current ownership. We've seen our beloved iconic guitar made into every permutation that their marketing madmen can come up with. RoboPauls, Tiger-whatevers, a new "signature" model for every fanboy that gets radio play, blah blah and yada yada. It's that kind of stuff the really turns me off to them. Plus, I always seem to end up cheering for the Underdog. Maybe because I loved his cartoons as a kid. .............

 

[Patrick]

I've always enjoyed jumping in on the discussions of this topic. I've usually . . . maybe even always, felt the need to come to the defense of Gibson . . . the Company first and foremost. The products secondly. Reason being, Gibson, the company is not Henry J. just like Heritage the company is not Jim Duerloo. It's the people and their passion for building good guitars and their desire to carry forth the history . . . as they see it . . . of an iconic company and product. If you . . . any of you think for one minute that there isn't the same level of pride and passion in the vast majority of the Gibson craftspeople, as there is in the crew at Parsons Street . . . then you are selling the psyche and honesty of the American worker short. For sure Gibson has had some stinkers. When you build tens of thousands of guitars you're bound to have some stinkers. For sure Gibson has some employees who couldn't care less about anything other than showing up, skating through the day and getting a pay check at the end of the week. When a company employs hundreds of people, you're going to get some of that too. At the end of the day, Gibson IS an American icon.

 

With regard to the comparison of quality .. .I think it's fair to say that neither company consistently delivers the best they have to offer. I think it's also fair to say that Heritage does deliver their best more often than Gibson. I was pleased to read John Covach's post, as I believe that he absolutely hits it out of the park with his comments. To John's point, when you compare Gibson's custom shop products to Heritage products, there is very little . . if anything that separates the 2 from a quality stand point. There were other good responses posted as well, such as Jaycee's.

 

With regard to price, as mentioned frequently in this and other similar posts . . . many of you, in my not so humble opinion, consistently get this wrong. When comparing price . . one needs to factor in many variables. If you were to look only at Kuz's post, he speaks of, what in my opinion should be the most important variable of the all. The joy of ownership of that particular brand. I can't and neither could Kuz put a dollar value on the sheer joy the he and others like him, including myself, derive from owning a Heritage . . . or many Heritages. That's priceless!! Other variables to be considered just might make Gibson the better dollar value. Let's enumerate; acquisition cost to resale value ratio. While I constantly see pre-owned Historic Collection L5s selling quickly for above $5,000, I also constantly see Golden Eagles struggling to fetch $2,500, and the Golden Eagles remain on the market much longer than the Gibson's. Yet, the Golden Eagle is every bit as good as a Historic Collection L5; pre-owned R9s are bringing in over $3,000 . . . some as high as $5,000 all the time. By contrast, there was an absolutely killer H150 VSB on ebay for $1,200 that didn't even get 1 bid. It has since been pulled off of the market. Comparisons of Super Eagles vs Super 400s are even more lop sided in acquisition cost vs resale value and resale-ability.

 

I'm not a good person to judge today's production Gibsons as opposed to the vintage (made at Parsons Street) and/or custom shop Historic Reissues. I've owned many vintage Gibsons and I currently own several Historic Collection Gibsons. I have no experience at all with what's being mass produced. I don't think I've ever even picked one up and held it. If one totally eliminates ALL variables other than pure dollars and cents from the equation . . . Gibson just might be the better dollar value. But, that's a big "IF". As I always say, "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle". For me, the only real indicator of value is the joy of ownership.

[212Mavguy]

There is a certain self confidence a Heritage guitar owner has when walking into a room with one, no matter if it is full of other guitar players with mass production or custom shop guitars. That feeling is further validated after plugging in and playing through a great sounding amp. There is no need to compare with others, because when someone spends too much time comparing with others they can become either vain or bitter, and neither is wise or looked well on. Better to be as good as one can, just like the men and the girl who make Heritage guitars in the first place. Let the comparisons fall to the side and play on without unnecessary burden.

 

Peace.

[yoslate]

The "face" of Gibson is Henry and Memphis. The faces at Heritage are Jim, J.P., Bill, and Marv at Parsons Street. Take your pick.... The provenance is, ironically, the same; the current business ethos, completely different. This is, I think, the issue. A great Gibson and a great Heritage are both great guitars, in some cases being functionally indistinguishable from the headstock down. The headstocks, what those represent, are what divide loyalties. Is loyalty ever objective?

[Spectrum13]

' At the end of the day, Gibson IS an American icon.

Yes it is. After Norlin destroyed the core essence of Gibson the value of the Name "Gibson" was purchased. They produce an "budget brand" made in the USA and a Custom equal in quality to Heritage and in the image of the Golden Era McCarty. Due to the "Value" of the brand G the company, can leverage it's core value and sell it's products for more than any equal or higher quality competator. That is why buying a name like "Famous Amos" works. This is what investors expect a company to do. Sell more at a higher price. All the money Gibson spends on endorsements and Robot guitars they recoop. It's marketing.

 

 

 

I was pleased to read John Covach's post, as I believe that he absolutely hits it out of the park with his comments. To John's point, when you compare Gibson's custom shop products to Heritage products, there is very little . . if anything that separates the 2 from a quality stand point.

 

Right on John. True, except for the price. Heritage has an easier custom order and work with the owners to design it option at a reasonable price.

 

Let's enumerate; acquisition cost to resale value ratio. While I constantly see pre-owned Historic Collection L5s selling quickly for above $5,000, I also constantly see Golden Eagles struggling to fetch $2,500, and the Golden Eagles remain on the market much longer than the Gibson's.

 

If the L5 had a purchase price of $9,000 it lost $4,000. If a Golden Eagle cost $4500 is lost $2,000.

 

Again the "Value" of the brand creates a higher demand. Not the same as the "value" we consider Heritage. Marketing works and people pay more for the real thing. It's just sometimes the real thing can be improved and you don't pay a premium for the name.

 

 

 

All this will be moot after October 25th when music is changed forever.

[111518]

My take on this is a little different. It seems to me that even if the quality and resale issues are left aside, comparing the guitars is still difficult because of basic differences in design and design aesthetics. I find Heritage semi's and archtops to be substantially different in size, feel, weight, and balance from their nearest Gibson counterparts, so any "shootout" is really dependent on what the player values, more than what is best. (Same flaw I find in "shootouts" between players.)

 

Maybe in some fields of artistic endeavor, juried competitions make sense, because judges and participants share a common set of rules, but in jazz/blues/rock guitar playing or building? For example: Historic Collection guitars are closer in spec to golden-era Gibsons than are current Heritage designs; Heritage are closer in building practice and come from the original factory. And the winner is?

 

When Gitfiddler mentioned the 330/530, that is a case that might make a more interesting comparison than most, since Gibson had to redesign the guitar to deal with the neck joint problem of the original, and it seems to be the case that Heritage went through some prototypes before landing on the production model of the 530. How ARE those guitars different in design. How did each co. go about producing a stable neck joint on a full-hollow, thinline, mahog. neck guitar? That would be comparing oranges to oranges, and interesting to know, at least for me, leaving aside the issue of which is better. And, such an article would spread awareness that Heritage is making quality guitars in the tradition of golden-era Gibson.

 

But, as for this or any objective journalism in commercial guitar media ... as Fredzepp and John and others have pointed out, this is not what guitar magazines are about. There is no more glaring example of how money rules information than the absolutely transparent fact that guitar magazines interview artists looking for publicity because of a tour or recording, and review the products of their advertisers. They certainly aren't going to critique the employment practices of their advertisers. I use to think that Vintage Guitar was a little better than the others, but for the last year or so I've noticed that almost inevitably you can find a larger-than-average ad from the producer of any product reviewed or maker featured in a given issue. And, they did a story about all the changes that Guild has been through under Fender without interviewing anyone who lost their job because of a move. I just treat all the "reviews" and "shootouts" in guitar mags as advertising kickbacks --might be some useful info about the product, but why expect objective assessment or even differentation when a negative review is going to cost the mag advertising dollars?

[Kuz]

OK, another thought....

 

When is the last time you read a completely objective review of a piece of musical equipment in a Guitar magazine? IT AIN"T GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT SAME MAGAZINE IS ACCEPTING ADVERTISING FROM THE COMPANY BEING REVIEWED!!!!!!!!

 

And two other points:

 

1. I don't believe that ANYONE working at Heritage is there just to punch a pay check. We have heard stories of people WAITING FOR THEIR CHANCE TO WORK AT HERITAGE!!! I believe every employee at Heritage DOES CARE about the final result. All the employees at Heritage can WATCH the product go from conception to completion and gaze upon it's beauty & uniqueness.

 

I DO NOT believe the same to be true at Gibson. An assembly line manufacturing process with very high numbers of product whizzing by the worker doesn't foster an environment of caring for an individual instrument!!! So yes I have lost faith in this "cookie cutter" assembly line American worker approach as being the best (or equal) to a lower volume handmade production method.

 

2. And I will preference by saying we are talking about two of my BIG PET PEEVES here....

 

I PREFER HERITAGE GUITARS REGARDLESS OF THEIR LOWER COST!!!! HERITAGE COULD MARKET THEMSELVES AS HANDMADE BOUTIQUE MANUFACTURERS AND CHARGE THREE TIMES AS MUCH BUT CHOOSE NOT TOO. COST SHOULD NOT BE IN THE DISCUSSION....QUALITY, CRAFTSMANSHIP, TONE, PLAYABILITY, LOOKS, BUT NOT "I CHOOSE HERITAGE BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS THAN GIBBY". THIS PISSES ME OFF, ACTUALLY AND IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO HERITAGE. IF YOU WANT A CHEAP ALTERNATIVE TO GIBBY....BUY AN EPIPHONE.

 

Also, HOW ANYONE CAN SAY THE HERITAGE BUILDS " heritage makes fabulouse replicas of the original gibsons" I don't understand. GIBBY is building COPIES OF HERITAGES!!!!

 

AND SORRY ABSOLUTELY NOT, SORRY, NO WAY that "but in all honesty if gibson made thier guitars like the old days at heritages prices I would probably be buyin the gibbys. Deep down I think most would." HERITAGE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE WISHING GIBBY WOULD DO, SO WHY WOULD I WANT TO CHANGE IF GIBBY STARTED TO COPY HERITAGE PRODUCTION METHODS.

 

SORRY ABOUT THE RANT. These are only my thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is just what I believe and I am sharing my thoughts and I welcome yours as well!

 

[Patrick]

OK, another thought....

 

When is the last time you read a completely objective review of a piece of musical equipment in a Guitar magazine? IT AIN"T GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT SAME MAGAZINE IS ACCEPTING ADVERTISING FROM THE COMPANY BEING REVIEWED!!!!!!!!

 

And two other points:

 

1. I don't believe that ANYONE working at Heritage is there just to punch a pay check. We have heard stories of people WAITING FOR THEIR CHANCE TO WORK AT HERITAGE!!! I believe every employee at Heritage DOES CARE about the final result. All the employees at Heritage can WATCH the product go from conception to completion and gaze upon it's beauty & uniqueness.

 

I DO NOT believe the same to be true at Gibson. An assembly line manufacturing process with very high numbers of product whizzing by the worker doesn't foster an environment of caring for an individual instrument!!! So yes I have lost faith in this "cookie cutter" assembly line American worker approach as being the best (or equal) to a lower volume handmade production method.

 

2. And I will preference by saying we are talking about two of my BIG PET PEEVES here....

 

I PREFER HERITAGE GUITARS REGARDLESS OF THEIR LOWER COST!!!! HERITAGE COULD MARKET THEMSELVES AS HANDMADE BOUTIQUE MANUFACTURERS AND CHARGE THREE TIMES AS MUCH BUT CHOOSE NOT TOO. COST SHOULD NOT BE IN THE DISCUSSION....QUALITY, CRAFTSMANSHIP, TONE, PLAYABILITY, LOOKS, BUT NOT "I CHOOSE HERITAGE BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS THAN GIBBY". THIS PISSES ME OFF, ACTUALLY AND IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO HERITAGE. IF YOU WANT A CHEAP ALTERNATIVE TO GIBBY....BUY AN EPIPHONE.

 

Also, HOW ANYONE CAN SAY THE HERITAGE BUILDS " heritage makes fabulouse replicas of the original gibsons" I don't understand. GIBBY is building COPIES OF HERITAGES!!!!

 

AND SORRY ABSOLUTELY NOT, SORRY, NO WAY that "but in all honesty if gibson made thier guitars like the old days at heritages prices I would probably be buyin the gibbys. Deep down I think most would." HERITAGE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE WISHING GIBBY WOULD DO, SO WHY WOULD I WANT TO CHANGE IF GIBBY STARTED TO COPY HERITAGE PRODUCTION METHODS.

 

SORRY ABOUT THE RANT. These are only my thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is just what I believe and I am sharing my thoughts and I welcome yours as well!

 

 

Kuz . . . it seems that you're still comparing Heritage guitars and quality to Gibson's production stuff. I think everyone else has pretty much moved on to basing the hypothetical comparisons to Gibson's Custom Shop stuff. Regarding your comments on Heritage marketing themselves as a hand made boutique manufacturer and charging 3 times as much . . . . . you may want to rethink that one. I agree with you that for all at Heritage their job is more than just a pay check. I also believe that for many at Gibson, especially those in the Custom Shop the same is true.

 

Also, you sell many of the employees short at Gibson if you think that just because they are performing a small part of an overall process that they don't take pride in what they do and how it will affect the final result. Equal arguments could be made for the pros and cons of both large assembly line processes and smaller boutique type processes. Just take a look at Katie in the Heritage plant. All she is responsible for doing is the final fine sanding and glue removal. She's just one piece of a fine tuned assembly line or assembly stage and process . . . albeit a much smaller and less complicated one than Gibson's♠. However, she knows that her involvement, performance and execution is crucial to the out come and the end result.

 

Regarding being pissed off about people buying Heritage guitars because they are cheaper than their Gibson counterparts, you shouldn't be pissed off at all about that . . . and it is definitely not a slap in the face to the folks at Heritage. In many cases, it's just the reality of the situation. Some people buy Epiphones because they are cheaper than Heritages too. Everyone's motivation for buying one guitar brand over another is going to be different. For some people, it's merely a tool of their trade. They'll buy a Japanese Strat if it'll get them through a gig. For others, it needs to be a very dependable, pretty, well made, great sounding and great playing instrument .. . and they can't afford a high profile brand name. Their decision is driven by quality and cost factors. That's Heritage's target customer. Still others need for their head stocks to say something that everyone recognizes (posers) but they can't afford the best that the big brands have to offer. They'll settle for something inferior to a Heritage . . .like possibly a production model of a Gibson Les Paul. Others have no limitations on what they can spend and also have no ego to satisfy or no need to impress someone with what is written on the head stock. They'll buy what ever the hell they want. For me, it's all about the joy of ownership. The new Golden Eagle I just bought . . . I wouldn't trade that instrument for any other guitar of it's type . . . regardless of what the head stock said. However, the same is true of my Gibson L5 Historic Collection.

[Guest HRB853370]

So...let's discuss the 3,000 pound gorilla sitting in the room.

 

If ever there was an opportunity for a Guitar Maker Death Match Comparison Test, it would be Heritage vs. Gibson.

Has there ever been a comparison made by the print media?

 

How about a smack down between the ES330L and H-530; a battle royal between the Golden Eagle and L5; a fight to the end between an H-150 and Les Paul, ANY Les Paul.; or the ultimate street fight between ES335 and the H-535; etc.

 

Which magazine has the guts to take on the ultimate challenge?

 

This should be done in an auditorium or boxing ring. That way all of the Heritage fans (those guys are just nuts!) and the Gibson faithful could finally yell and scream for their favorite solid body champion, or their semi-hollow hero.

 

ARE YOU READY TO RUMMMMBLE?!!

 

Oh boy, does this ever open up a can of worms!! I don't think we should discuss the 900 lb gorilla on this site, for better or worse!!

[Guest HRB853370]

I think a lot of people will object to this discussion, but I'm not one of them. I also think that this will be a biased source being that it's a Heritage forum, but oh well.

 

I have a cousin who briefly worked in Gibson's Custom Art & Historic division. He's owned NUMEROUS Historic Les Pauls and I've gotten to play most of them. They are wonderful instruments but carry a hefty price tag for their reputation.

 

My H150 is every bit as good as any Historic Les Paul I've played, and at a fraction of the cost. I seriously have a hard time justifying spending over $2000 for a guitar these days, and my Heritage was $1600 and is every bit as good as those $3000+ 1960 reissues Gibson puts out, at least to my hands/ears.

 

They're both fine instruments, it's just you pay more for the Gibson. Plus the Heritage backstory provides some real mojo, and certainly seems more "authentic" these days. Not to mention it's not "swiss-cheesed" (my cousin's biggest let down about Gibson) or chambered like all non custom shop LP's since 1983.

 

I believe the "swiss cheesing" started in the early 80's and the chambering began, I believe, in 2004 or 2005.

[Patrick]

My take on this is a little different. It seems to me that even if the quality and resale issues are left aside, comparing the guitars is still difficult because of basic differences in design and design aesthetics. I find Heritage semi's and archtops to be substantially different in size, feel, weight, and balance from their nearest Gibson counterparts, so any "shootout" is really dependent on what the player values, more than what is best. (Same flaw I find in "shootouts" between players.)

 

Maybe in some fields of artistic endeavor, juried competitions make sense, because judges and participants share a common set of rules, but in jazz/blues/rock guitar playing or building? For example: Historic Collection guitars are closer in spec to golden-era Gibsons than are current Heritage designs; Heritage are closer in building practice and come from the original factory. And the winner is?

 

When Gitfiddler mentioned the 330/530, that is a case that might make a more interesting comparison than most, since Gibson had to redesign the guitar to deal with the neck joint problem of the original, and it seems to be the case that Heritage went through some prototypes before landing on the production model of the 530. How ARE those guitars different in design. How did each co. go about producing a stable neck joint on a full-hollow, thinline, mahog. neck guitar? That would be comparing oranges to oranges, and interesting to know, at least for me, leaving aside the issue of which is better. And, such an article would spread awareness that Heritage is making quality guitars in the tradition of golden-era Gibson.

 

But, as for this or any objective journalism in commercial guitar media ... as Fredzepp and John and others have pointed out, this is not what guitar magazines are about. There is no more glaring example of how money rules information than the absolutely transparent fact that guitar magazines interview artists looking for publicity because of a tour or recording, and review the products of their advertisers. They certainly aren't going to critique the employment practices of their advertisers. I use to think that Vintage Guitar was a little better than the others, but for the last year or so I've noticed that almost inevitably you can find a larger-than-average ad from the producer of any product reviewed or maker featured in a given issue. And, they did a story about all the changes that Guild has been through under Fender without interviewing anyone who lost their job because of a move. I just treat all the "reviews" and "shootouts" in guitar mags as advertising kickbacks --might be some useful info about the product, but why expect objective assessment or even differentation when a negative review is going to cost the mag advertising dollars?

 

I'm in 100% agreement with this post in it's entirety. However, the 1st paragraph is particularly dead nuts on target.

[SouthpawGuy]

Article from Guitarist magazine September 2002 pages 1 to 6

[SouthpawGuy]

and pages 7 to 11

[Kuz]

Kuz . . . it seems that you're still comparing Heritage guitars and quality to Gibson's production stuff. I think everyone else has pretty much moved on to basing the hypothetical comparisons to Gibson's Custom Shop stuff. Regarding your comments on Heritage marketing themselves as a hand made boutique manufacturer and charging 3 times as much . . . . . you may want to rethink that one. I agree with you that for all at Heritage their job is more than just a pay check. I also believe that for many at Gibson, especially those in the Custom Shop the same is true.

 

Also, you sell many of the employees short at Gibson if you think that just because they are performing a small part of an overall process that they don't take pride in what they do and how it will affect the final result. Equal arguments could be made for the pros and cons of both large assembly line processes and smaller boutique type processes. Just take a look at Katie in the Heritage plant. All she is responsible for doing is the final fine sanding and glue removal. She's just one piece of a fine tuned assembly line or assembly stage and process . . . albeit a much smaller and less complicated one than Gibson's♠. However, she knows that her involvement, performance and execution is crucial to the out come and the end result.

 

Regarding being pissed off about people buying Heritage guitars because they are cheaper than their Gibson counterparts, you shouldn't be pissed off at all about that . . . and it is definitely not a slap in the face to the folks at Heritage. In many cases, it's just the reality of the situation. Some people buy Epiphones because they are cheaper than Heritages too. Everyone's motivation for buying one guitar brand over another is going to be different. For some people, it's merely a tool of their trade. They'll buy a Japanese Strat if it'll get them through a gig. For others, it needs to be a very dependable, pretty, well made, great sounding and great playing instrument .. . and they can't afford a high profile brand name. Their decision is driven by quality and cost factors. That's Heritage's target customer. Still others need for their head stocks to say something that everyone recognizes (posers) but they can't afford the best that the big brands have to offer. They'll settle for something inferior to a Heritage . . .like possibly a production model of a Gibson Les Paul. Others have no limitations on what they can spend and also have no ego to satisfy or no need to impress someone with what is written on the head stock. They'll buy what ever the hell they want. For me, it's all about the joy of ownership. The new Golden Eagle I just bought . . . I wouldn't trade that instrument for any other guitar of it's type . . . regardless of what the head stock said. However, the same is true of my Gibson L5 Historic Collection.

 

Patrick,

 

I think we are closer on this discussion than you think.

 

-I agree that the guys doing the Cust Shop Gibby stuff PROBABLY have more pride in their work.

 

-We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the work satisfaction of the production Gibby worker vs Heritage worker. YES, Katie knows she fills a very important niche, but she can go to who did the work if it is faulty and have it fixed or notify the person of their fault. This is MUCH harder to do on an assembly line (but then again we have already established that Heritage is superior to the mass built Gibbys and Heritages need to be compared to the Gibby Cust Shop)

 

- FINALLY, I think you misunderstood my point on "settling for a Heritage because it cost less". My point is that I would hope everyone that bought a Heritage did so because THEY REALLY WANTED A HERITAGE, AND NOT BECAUSE THEY COULD AFFORD THEIR FIRST CHOICE OF A GIBBY." That is my point. I hate hearing "Well, I really wanted a Gibby. I couldn't afford one, so I got a Heritage instead." Myself, I would choose to buy a Heritage EVEN IF IT COST MORE THAN A CUSTOM SHOP GIBBY!!!!

[FredZepp]

Great article post, SouthpawGuy.

From 2002 , I believe.

 

Winner for best sound... Heritage. cool.

[tbonesullivan]

nice article! Is that mag published over in Europe? It seems to make more sense that a magazine that is farther removed from the USA would be able to have a more objective article, as they probably are less dependent on cash from the big G and F.

 

I also wonder how Hamer and Carvin's takes on the LP would have fared against these guitars.

[pushover]

I usually try and stay out of conversations like this. There are so many aspects of each product that can be compared against each other, and different people are going to care more about some than others: Price, quality of materials, features, aesthetics, fit n finish, reliability, etc.

 

I think an important point that keeps coming up however is that people make the Heritage to Gibson comparison comparing a typical Heritage against a Custom Shop Gibson. This comparison alone is just so telling. Normally it's not a fair comparison to compare a Honda to a Mercedes, since the price points of the two products mean that they are hitting completely different market segments and different buyer demographics. Yet people are doing that here with the Gibson to Heritage comparison.

 

Across the board, aspect against aspect, Heritage is comparable to the Custom Shop Gibson and all at a cost that is less. That's probably the fairest comparison that can be made. Sure there's examples of better and worse guitars from each manufacturer, but honestly why would someone who just wanted quality and value, pay the extra $$ for the Custom Shop Gibson?

 

I think that when you look at it objectively (something we may find hard to do on this site), this also matches the Heritage demographic. Based on the people on the site, the people who buy Heritage guitars are people who play, who are knowledgeable about instruments and recognize/appreciate the quality they get. That in itself is another way to compare them

[JohnCovach]

nice article! Is that mag published over in Europe? It seems to make more sense that a magazine that is farther removed from the USA would be able to have a more objective article, as they probably are less dependent on cash from the big G and F.

 

I also wonder how Hamer and Carvin's takes on the LP would have fared against these guitars.

 

I think it does make a difference that this is a UK mag, since the business there--in this case at least--is importing, and there's a different business dynamics to that.