Heritage vs. Gibson...Any Objective Comparisons?

[Gitfiddler]

and pages 7 to 11

 

 

 

Well, there WAS a comparison done. Thanks, SouthPaw. Leave it to the folks in the UK to write what appears to be a fairly objective and well researched article (even if they did call Heritage pickups 'HWR'). From reading the tiny print, it appears that an H-150CM Ultra earned top honors...and that is even with the clunky old style bridge that they referred to as 'fussy'. If it had a Tone Pros like new Heritages, it would have scored even higher.

 

I would expect total garbage from a sell out magazine such as Guitar Player. They have zero credibility in my opinion. However I believe Vintage Guitar would do an honorable job if willing to take on the task.

 

As provoacative a topic as this is, I still believe that comparisions between Gibson and Heritage are a healthy discussion here at the HOC. After all, we all know the provenance of Heritage, it's oldest employees, it owners (excluding Vince, of course) and the equipment and building...and the heritage that is passed down to the new guard (Curly, et al).

 

In my mind there is no comparison. Heritage stands alone, carving out a niche market in a hugely competitive market, hand making luxury items that bring us many years of pleasure. They are keeping their heads above water in a down economy in a State that has been severely ravaged with unemployment. Keep up the good work on Parsons Street. Maybe another magazine will have the guts to write an objective review.

[SlappyTappy]

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

 

1982 was the last year production line Les Pauls were solid. They've been swiss cheesing them ever since. And you're right, within the last few years they've begun having "Premium" models that are logically chambered. I'll still take mine like the old days where they were SOLID. Not that chambered guitars aren't great (I've played a few EBMM BFR that are amazing) but It feels weird altering a classic.

[FredZepp]

1982 was the last year production line Les Pauls were solid. They've been swiss cheesing them ever since. And you're right, within the last few years they've begun having "Premium" models that are logically chambered. I'll still take mine like the old days where they were SOLID. Not that chambered guitars aren't great (I've played a few EBMM BFR that are amazing) but It feels weird altering a classic.

The swiss cheesing has a lot to do with the fact that Honduran Mahogany is plantation grown in so many different countries and different environments, IMO.

[SlappyTappy]

Please elaborate, I'm not sure why that means they have to swiss cheese it?

[SouthpawGuy]

Please elaborate, I'm not sure why that means they have to swiss cheese it?

[the jayce]

Whoa Whoa Whoa! I feel some folks are taking this topic a little to serious. Gibson, heritage, fender, ibanez ect ect are just guitars in the end. I think the players are the most important equation. 2000 dollar 535 or 4500 dollar les paul custom, whats the difference if the player aint makin it happen.

 

I see this all the time on all brands where the guitar gets obsessed about and the musician is forgotten about. The way I see it hendrix, malmsteen,mayer,srv or beck would make any heritage or gibby look bad when they picked up thier 800.00 american stratocasters, just like zack wylde,page,slash, will make a fender look bad when they pick thiers up ( IT'S THE PLAYER THAT MAKES THEM GUITARS AWSOME!!!!!!) . All I'm sayin is it's all in the player not the grain of the top or the amount of pearl it has or how long the tenon is, or what brand glue is used ect ect ect ect---, who cares!! if someone isnt making good music with what ever guitar they play whats the point.

 

In summary- I'm more intrested in learning new techniques and playing better by the day, not how much my 157 is compared to a gibby les paul custom, because in the end a good guitar player will make anyting sound good and whats in his hands doesnt matter at that point,,,, and you all know I'm right :0)

[schundog]

Good stuff in here. I, too, drank the Gibson Kool-Aid for a long time, and have a great 1994 Gibson Les Paul Classic, an ES-335, and a faded Flying V. I agree that there are very good Gibsons out there, I am very happy with mine. Unlike Patrick, who obviously has more common sense than I have, I am a frequent visitor of Guitar Denter, and have played many non-custom shop LPs. It really makes me appreciate my 94 LP, as a lot of the stuff just isn't up to snuff. You can argue all day that GC gets the leftovers from Gibson, but I have a hard time believing that, as the are Gibson's largest dealer. The Vintage Mahogany LP, in particular, is a sad example of Gibson quality. I've NEVER picked one up that didn't feel like a cheese grater because of needing the frets filed. This shouldn't be the case on an American instrument that is supposed to be the cream of the crop. I know, I know, the VMLP's are filling a need at the lower price point, but come on!!

 

Marketing and image probably pushed me towards Gibson initially. Patrick is right that many Gibson employees take the same amount of pride in their workmanship as our guys at Heritage, but employee satisfaction is horrible there. That is according to a survey I saw, and from comments from other forums. Henry J. may not BE Gibson, and he may have saved them from bankruptcy 20 years ago, but, for me anyway, his management style is part of what turns me off about Gibson as a company TODAY. The other thing is the ridiculous marketing of products we have all snickered about, the Hendrix Strat, BFG, Robot, etc.

[Patrick]

Whoa Whoa Whoa! I feel some folks are taking this topic a little to serious. Gibson, heritage, fender, ibanez ect ect are just guitars in the end. I think the players are the most important equation. 2000 dollar 535 or 4500 dollar les paul custom, whats the difference if the player aint makin it happen.

 

I see this all the time on all brands where the guitar gets obsessed about and the musician is forgotten about. The way I see it hendrix, malmsteen,mayer,srv or beck would make any heritage or gibby look bad when they picked up thier 800.00 american stratocasters, just like zack wylde,page,slash, will make a fender look bad when they pick thiers up ( IT'S THE PLAYER THAT MAKES THEM GUITARS AWSOME!!!!!!) . All I'm sayin is it's all in the player not the grain of the top or the amount of pearl it has or how long the tenon is, or what brand glue is used ect ect ect ect---, who cares!! if someone isnt making good music with what ever guitar they play whats the point.

 

In summary- I'm more intrested in learning new techniques and playing better by the day, not how much my 157 is compared to a gibby les paul custom, because in the end a good guitar player will make anyting sound good and whats in his hands doesnt matter at that point,,,, and you all know I'm right :0)

 

Jayce: I agree with you 100% . . . kinda, sorta, almost and with the following few exceptions. (I just didn't want to say I disagree) Here's the deal . . what you're saying is probably true . . . but if we limit our discussions to just those few things that we're not going to debate . . . it's going to get real boring around here. Then some idiot is going to start another "Boring" thread and all hell is going to break loose again.

 

When you say that Gibsons, Fenders, Ibanez etc. are just guitars . . . well, while true, that's like saying red wine is just red wine, cigars are just cigars, coffee is just coffee. That totally eliminates the fun and self aggrandizing discussions of the self proclaimed aficionados, experts, snobs . . . you know . . . guys like, well . . . me. The wine aficionados, (cork sniffers as Mr. 111518 refers to them) will taste swirl, spit and then claim to smell and taste all sorts of weird stuff. That's what makes for conversation. Cigar smokers will claim to taste pepper, spiciness, smoothness, creamy texture. That's what makes for conversation. Don't even get me started on what coffee aficionados claim to smell and taste . . . but, again . . .conversation.

 

Take for example this thread . . . there are those who swear that they can tell the difference in tone between a rosewood fret board and an ebony one . . . a walnut neck and a mahogany one . . . a long tenon and a short one. Bob Benedetto claims there is a tonal difference between wood binding/purfling and plastic. Let's not take all of the disagreement out of these discussions. That would tremendously diminish my pleasure.

[rjsanders]

and pages 7 to 11

 

that's what i was looking for. good article. curious, given the text, that Heritage wasn't rated #1 (which, btw, was how i remember it )

[unikh550]

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.

I would do any job they'd assign me to if I could have a chance to work at Heritage. - Charles Bevell[/quot e]

[Guest HRB853370]

Please elaborate, I'm not sure why that means they have to swiss cheese it?

 

Gibby officially calls it "weight relieving" the body, although many folks think that the recent "chambering" of the Les Pauls are weight relieving them. The swiss cheesing probably reduced the weight by maybe a half to three quarters of a pound, without affecting the sound quality.

[Guest HRB853370]

Jayce: I agree with you 100% . . . kinda, sorta, almost and with the following few exceptions. (I just didn't want to say I disagree) Here's the deal . . what you're saying is probably true . . . but if we limit our discussions to just those few things that we're not going to debate . . . it's going to get real boring around here. Then some idiot is going to start another "Boring" thread and all hell is going to break loose again.

 

When you say that Gibsons, Fenders, Ibanez etc. are just guitars . . . well, while true, that's like saying red wine is just red wine, cigars are just cigars, coffee is just coffee. That totally eliminates the fun and self aggrandizing discussions of the self proclaimed aficionados, experts, snobs . . . you know . . . guys like, well . . . me. The wine aficionados, (cork sniffers as Mr. 111518 refers to them) will taste swirl, spit and then claim to smell and taste all sorts of weird stuff. That's what makes for conversation. Cigar smokers will claim to taste pepper, spiciness, smoothness, creamy texture. That's what makes for conversation. Don't even get me started on what coffee aficionados claim to smell and taste . . . but, again . . .conversation.

 

Take for example this thread . . . there are those who swear that they can tell the difference in tone between a rosewood fret board and an ebony one . . . a walnut neck and a mahogany one . . . a long tenon and a short one. Bob Benedetto claims there is a tonal difference between wood binding/purfling and plastic. Let's not take all of the disagreement out of these discussions. That would tremendously diminish my pleasure.

 

Hey Patrick, you left out movies, I am sure you can discriminate a good movie from a bad one.....

[FredZepp]

Please elaborate, I'm not sure why that means they have to swiss cheese it?

Yes, as mentioned above, it is about reducing the weight of the guitar. Where the original versions had a weight of 8-9 lbs. , the Honduran Mahogany tends to be denser now and if made to the same spec is much heavier. So this (weight relieving or swiss cheesing) was a solution to use the more readily available plantation grown wood and keep it from being too heavy.

 

Honduran Mahogany is a species, not a country of origin, so it can be grown in many different countries with different results.

 

that's what i was looking for. good article. curious, given the text, that Heritage wasn't rated #1 (which, btw, was how i remember it )

I think that Heritage was #1 for sound and #1 for value, if I am remembering correctly.

That's a good start.....

[rooster]

All construction details aside, as a repair guy, I've gotta say that after all the Gibbys I've worked on, there were only a couple that sounded like "real" guitars compared to my H150s. Most of them sound flat and dead. Good for high-gain, but no depth to the sound.

 

But, that's my opinion.

 

rooster.

[Hfan]

 

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

 

Agreed, and unfortunately prices would probably increase as well.

[pegleg32]

I think most folks here own a Gibby or 2 as well as a Heritage, and my sense is that Heritage and Gibson are very similar guitars. It seems to me that the difference is that Gibson's are fairly priced in todays market, while Heritage is giving their guitars away at fire sale prices. If I can buy Heritage quality at these prices, why in the heck would I ever even consider a Gibson. I've said it before and I'll say it again, some day the true value of these instruments is going to become apparent to the masses and we will all wish we had added more to our collections. It's good for us, but sad for Heritage as a company, that they are so ineffective at marketing their top of the line craftmanship and quality.

[Kuz]

I think most folks here own a Gibby or 2 as well as a Heritage, and my sense is that Heritage and Gibson are very similar guitars. It seems to me that the difference is that Gibson's are fairly priced in todays market, while Heritage is giving their guitars away at fire sale prices. If I can buy Heritage quality at these prices, why in the heck would I ever even consider a Gibson. I've said it before and I'll say it again, some day the true value of these instruments is going to become apparent to the masses and we will all wish we had added more to our collections. It's good for us, but sad for Heritage as a company, that they are so ineffective at marketing their top of the line craftmanship and quality.

 

Nope, only Heritages for me. I have 8 Heritages and owned as many as 11. I USED to own 4 Gibbies, but when I got my first Heritage I was enlightened and sold the firewood to buy more Heritages!!!!

[Guest HRB853370]

Agreed, and unfortunately prices would probably increase as well.

 

Not sure that prices would increase based on a GP cover page review. My feeling is that Heritage is pricing their products very competetively, not worrying that Gibson is pricing (or should I say overpricing) some of their CS guitars in the $5k+ range. I think the real price driver for Heritage, if they were to move their prices upward, would be the cost of production. If choice wood became more scarce, or labor cost increased due to scarcity of quality workers, or transportation costs increased (in alignment with fuel cost increases)and/or other raw material costs increased, they would be forced to move their prices upward to maintain their margin. But simply publishing great reviews, alone, would not be a reason for them to say, "gee, we could charge more for our guitars, why don't we do that". They are undoubtedly aware of the current economic climate, but that said, Heritage buyers are a class of their own, and willing to buy them, even in a down economy. Their biggest challenge I think, is tapping the very large guitar playing market that is not aware of how good these guitars really are, and thus, increasing their sales!

[iim7v7im7]

In my view, they are products based on similar aesthetic designs representing different manufacturing paradigms.

 

Gibson is a higher production volume product that is made using manufacturing methods (CNC milling, injection molding, painting and finishing etc.)

 

Heritage is a low production volume product that is made using manufactruing methods (hand operations, fixture assisted hand operations, f;exibility. lacquer based finishing)

 

The later is more representative of the higher production techniques utilized in the 1950s and 1960s but at a smaller scale. Gibson's methods today rely on systems and Heritage's rely on skill and commitment of individuals for consistency in output. The Gibson custom shop is likely more akin to Heritage, but I bet they utilize more modern techniques and rely on individuals for material selection, assembly and finishing.

 

Myself, I obviously choose my two Heritage's over the Gibson alternatives (Sweet 16 vs. ES-175 or L-5 and H-535 vs. ES-335). I felt that Heritage produced a superior product in materials and construction. There are just too many details on my instruments that are not available in a stock Gibson. They were just closer to what an old Gibson was in my view.

 

My $.02

[Patrick]

In my view, they are products based on similar aesthetic designs representing different manufacturing paradigms.

 

Gibson is a higher production volume product that is made using manufacturing methods (CNC milling, injection molding, painting and finishing etc.)

 

Heritage is a low production volume product that is made using manufactruing methods (hand operations, fixture assisted hand operations, f;exibility. lacquer based finishing)

 

The later is more representative of the higher production techniques utilized in the 1950s and 1960s but at a smaller scale. Gibson's methods today rely on systems and Heritage's rely on skill and commitment of individuals for consistency in output. The Gibson custom shop is likely more akin to Heritage, but I bet they utilize more modern techniques and rely on individuals for material selection, assembly and finishing.

 

Myself, I obviously choose my two Heritage's over the Gibson alternatives (Sweet 16 vs. ES-175 or L-5 and H-535 vs. ES-335). I felt that Heritage produced a superior product in materials and construction. There are just too many details on my instruments that are not available in a stock Gibson. They were just closer to what an old Gibson was in my view.

 

My $.02

 

 

And a fine $ .02 it is!!!!

[pro-fusion]

This is probably one of those topics where it's tough to separate out our emotions about the two brands.

 

Heritage vs. Gibson Custom Shop is definitely the most applicable comparison. I've never owned a CS Gibson but have played a number of them. I can't say I've ever played a dog from the CS, but neither have I played one that would have convinced me to fork out $3,500+ for what is still essentially a production guitar (not one of a kind or designed to my specs etc.).

 

Heritage's quality control might be a little more variable than the Custom Shop, based on what I've seen here, but I've personally never played a bad Heritage. Unlike custom Gibsons, Heritages are just a ridiculous value for the money, and I personally think that is a badge of honor for Heritage. Since when did delivering great value acquire a stigma? Gibson is the one who should be ashamed for charging obscene prices for solidbody guitars with standardized specs and no new R&D performed in the last 50 years.

 

When it comes to emotions, marketing and all the other non-player stuff, I absolutely loathe what Gibson has become. Gibson used to be THE American guitar company. Now they specialize in making overpriced replicas for lawyers and bankers to hang on the wall. If anything, Gibson's production division garners more respect from me for trying hard to retain American manufacturing at more affordable levels of the guitar market. I can't say they've succeeded very much in recent years, but I applaud them for the attempt.

 

Even if the Heritage story wasn't so compelling, I'd still love the guitars. But it is a satisfying feeling to own guitars made by this particular group of people. I'll leave it at that.

[bolero]

I have played some really nice Gibson's ( I had a wine red studio that was killer, also a '57 RI historic black beauty )

 

but there are an awful lot of mediocre ones that just didn't do it for me; they didn't feel solid to me when I played them...they felt rushed in assembly, so the attention to detail wasn't there: like someone tried to make a fine painting using an old washboard brush. I see a lot of these whenever I go into the local music stores. the finishes look crappy, the clearcoat has lots of orange peel & hills/valleys, the neck joints are cosmetically sloppy, the overspray on the neck binding looks cheap yada yada. this the historics, the big hollowbodies, and the more inexpensive models.

 

there are some great Gibsons out there too, you just need to find them

 

however every Heritage I've picked up has been solid and played/felt like a real instrument should IMO. hard to explain

 

even the factory 2nd H150 I got off Brent is a monster, I love that thing & it was a gamble when I bought it untested.

 

I also have a walnut colour SG that kicks major wads of arse, and won't be going anywhere, any time soon

 

 

bottom line, I could make music with anything...but I'm certainly more inspired when I play a heritage

[bolero]

ditto to what pro-fusion said

 

the Gibsom custom shop is just an upscale marketing pricepoint. and way overpriced at that IMO

 

Heritage makes all their gtrs the way they should be made, and it shows

[JeffB]

Heritage vs Gibson?

Heritage wouldnt get caught up in a marketing sham like the recent Gibson Deplora X.

[buelahbones]

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.

 

 

 

WOW I am the one who feels like they were cut short here. I should not respond to these posts because I know that you gentlemen only see a small part of a work day for any of us. Yes, a lot of the time I only have guitars to sand and leave early for the day. A great benefit I must add. I am capable of many other tasks. When we still had a lot of work (pre-recession days) I would finish my job and continue over to rim-lining. I may also glue veneers together for double cut aways or help Marv with cutting necks. Jim has allowed me to do everything that the body builder Chris is responsible for. I may have about 30 pick guards to bind and clean. Who knows I may even be up front answering the phones and harnessing controls on slow days. I may even help Bill pack up some instruments to ship out. I'm in no way trying to pat myself on the back here only trying to express at Heritage we as employees have a strong repore with one another and help in all areas. Yes, we all have job titles but, there is not a day that goes by that one of us is not in someone else station doing their work or asking for opinions. None of us see this as a problem we like being a team it shows in our final product from my stand point. Of course we will always have problems with certain things here and there in our product 'hence' the hand build status, all we can do is continue to strive for perfection and fix the problems as they arise. My intentions here were not to offend anyone in this forum. I truly appreciate all of you Heritage players, like I always state without you folks we wouldn't exist. I just felt very belittled.

 

The Girl