Heritage... Gibsons bastard son...

[cosmikdebriis]

Okay, so the title is a little provocative.... but bear with me. :angel:

 

The story behind this thread is one I'm sure we've all come across.

 

I was sitting in a cafe and on the table next to me a guy was telling another how he played in a Steeley Dan tribute band, blah blah... So I asked what guitar(s) he played. Back came the fairly obvious answer, "Gibson". So I said I played a Heritage and asked if he'd heard of them. "Yes" he said. "They're Gibson copies". So I patiently explained the story to him but he was adamant that only a Gibbon was the "real thing".

 

So... It got me thinking... 

 

Would it have been better if the guys at Heritage had started up their own, very different, brand and designs of guitar, perhaps even in a different factory and stayed away from the obvious Gibbon comparison? Would all those years of experience have been enough to establish them in their own right without the links to Gibbon?

 

Here's another way of looking at it. For arguments sake let's say they started up "Aardvark" guitars and only produced models very different from Gibbon. Would those guitars sell on their own merit? Is it more likely people would own... say... an Lp, a Strat, a PRS and an "Aardvark" than the same but with a Heritage?

 

(I just want to add here that I've started this thread as a means for discussion and this is not necessarily my point of view... So please don't smite me) :wink:

[Thundersteel]

People that think Heritages are merely Gibson copies are simply ignorant of the facts!

 

We all know the true story...let them gloat on their overpriced garbage!

[tulk1]

Don't know if I can offer a serious reply to the basis of your thread. But I can comment that I have run across the same sentiment about Heritage being "copies" all across this city. Back when I had the H157 I had taken it to GC to see about trading it towards a PRS Korina. (that don't smite thing applies here as well!!! >). "Oh yeah, Heritage. Are they still around? They make pretty good copies of Gibson". So I packed it up, took it home and sold it to some gob overseas. My good friend that works in the large MnP around here told me he'd never played a Heritage worth owning. Of course until I took him the 157 to see. Then the H535 and then the Millie. "Oh wow, this is the best H I've ever played. Kind of expensive for a G-copy, tho' ". Said that each time.

 

So, on to your question. I'd have to think back to Paul Reed Smith and how hard a time he's had making it mainstream. PRS makes a guitar that is every bit as worthy as F, G, H or name one. Yet in so many circles he is still thought of as an upstart. (Altho' he seems to be going so corporate lately you can tell he's trying to compete one on one with G as a "lifestyle".)

 

Whether or not Heritage "should" have redesigned, started a new line or produced only guitars different from G, I for one (and hopefully the 700 +/- members here) are happy they didn't. :police: Which, of course, is not the point of your question.  :angel:

[Kuz]

No smite and very interesting.

 

1. First I think our boys had no choice. If you make widgets your whole life, you don't change and then make gibbets.

It's what they know best and real only how to make. It was the least risky thing to do for a new staring company.

 

2. They did make some changes (rim thickness, F hole sizes, ect)

 

3. They have had some very interesting models lately (525, 127, 535 with p-90s, ect)

 

4. I don't hear anything about Hamer, G&L, Collings, PRS,ect (with single cut models that are obvious LP & 335 models) copying Gibson models

 

5. I think all of this "Gibson copys" could have been avoided with better marketing & advertising in the begining. I still don't most people know the story how Gibson left town and how our boys use the same machines & same factory as the Original Gibson.

 

6. If every interested party could make it to a free factory tour, NO ONE would ever say Heritage are Gibson copies.

 

7. Better utilization of endorsee and yes and actual real state of art website that gives a virtual tour and tells the real story.

 

Just my thoughts, great post.

 

John

[mars_hall]

They were pragmatic. 

 

They had just lost their main source of income and were willing to take the risk of sustaining themselves by pooling their life savings, buying what fixtures and remaining equipment they could, including jigs, and hitting the ground running with designs that had a proven track record.

 

This would lessen risk and provide the best chance for success, given the asset, time, and talent resource on hand at that moment.

 

My two cents.

[bolero]

I think it's coming around...with all the boutique instruments ( and amps ) that have exploded post-internet, the masses are realizing it's ok to own a gtr that's not made by G or F

 

 

in fact, it's even cooler because those gtrs are everywhere

 

 

I'd bet Heritage has been getting busier in the last 2 years ?

[brentrocks]

I never saw Heritage as a Gibson copy.  Even before i bought one.  I agree that with a better website and better use of endorced artist, Heritage could boost their status in the guitar world.  I think their status is just fine, maybe they dont want to do 15 guitars a day?  Or maybe they need to start doing 15 guitars a day to stay alive?  i dont know?

 

If they didnt make good guitars, they wouldnt have made it through the 90s.  i always revert back to what i have heard a lot of people say....Heritage is the real Gibson, just a different name on the headstock

[JeffB]

I never saw Heritage as a Gibson copy.  Even before i bought one.  I agree that with a better website and better use of endorced artist, Heritage could boost their status in the guitar world.  I think their status is just fine, maybe they dont want to do 15 guitars a day?  Or maybe they need to start doing 15 guitars a day to stay alive?  i dont know?

 

If they didnt make good guitars, they wouldnt have made it through the 90s.  i always revert back to what i have heard a lot of people say....Heritage is the real Gibson, just a different name on the headstock

+1

Always vaguely knew the history. Not sure how though.

Think I may have seen them as a continuance never as a copy.

[111518]

Interesting speculation, but, as others have noted, if they had followed Cosmik's strategy we wouldn't be talking about the same company.  The Heritage founders wanted to stay in Kalamazoo, wanted to continue making guitars in the manner that they had learned to make them, and, I'm guessing, didn't want to borrow a massive amount of money to retool or bring in MBA's to operate on a grand scale or to set up a new business plan.  (Duerloo supervised the set-up of the Nashville plant, had been plant manager for Guild, and certainly had the experience to take the point in manufacturing Aardvark guitars --if anyone could have raised capital to build American guitars in 1985.)  I can only presume that he and his partners preferred the strategy they followed.  Other ex-Gibson employees with different motivations have started different companies with different designs--Wechter, for example.

 

The Heritage guys started with a certain skill set and a certain mind set, and those factors allowed them, given the market for expensive American electric guitars and the power of the legacy of Gibson, to make a merit out of traditional designs and antiquated machinery and production techniques.  When they try to step out of those traditional designs, their limitations as designers plugged into the current guitar world are apparent.  As others have said, I think they could wed traditional designs and production with better marketing and quality control, but again, maybe they just didn't, and don't, want to do it.  (spend the money, surrender the control, work with the people who don't share their past...)  Will it work in the long term, or build Heritage into a co. that rivals Gibson and Fender.  I doubt it.

 

Some people will simply not accept that a Heritage is as good as a Gibson.  That's a tribute to Gibson's success (in building brand loyalty and recognition through a modern corporate marketing strategy, and instruments at least good enough not to alienate most buyers), not to Heritage's failure by the standards that the guys themselves followed in building their company.   

 

As I get older, and constantly pressured to learn new technology that too often offers only a chance for somebody to sell me something, and that forces me to do things, like teach with computers and powerpoint, in a way that is less human to me and that assumes my students can only absorb an idea if it is candy-coated, I think I understand the Heritage model.  If you are lucky, you get to do what you love and think you do best, in the way you think it should be done ...at least until you are swallowed up by a world driven by very different values, or grow too tired to fight. 

[slider313]

EVEN HOMER KNOWS..........."HERITAGE IS THE REAL GIBSON"

 

[JohnCovach]

Would it have been better if the guys at Heritage had started up their own, very different, brand and designs of guitar, perhaps even in a different factory and stayed away from the obvious Gibbon comparison? Would all those years of experience have been enough to establish them in their own right without the links to Gibbon?

 

I believe they might have done fine as a guitar company, and maybe even ended up making and selling as many guitars as they have as Heritage.  The Gibson legacy is not simply a key to Heritage's image, but it's the key to why they have done relatively well despite almost no real sense of how to promote a product.  Had they broken from the Gibson tradition and run the business the way they did as Heritage, however, I'm not entirely confident it would have survived.  Much of the Heritage reputation is word of mouth, and the fuel that runs that is the strength of Gibson's image.  But in order for all this to happen, Heritage had to be able to deliver a quality product, and this they have done in a superb way.

 

These guitars are not copies, any more than cousins are copies of each other because they share common grandparents.  The current Gibson company is not the old Gibson company.  In that sense, Gibsons are copies too!

[yoslate]

Some people will simply not accept that a Heritage is as good as a Gibson.  That's a tribute to Gibson's success (in building brand loyalty and recognition through a modern corporate marketing strategy, and instruments at least good enough not to alienate most buyers), not to Heritage's failure by the standards that the guys themselves followed in building their company.   

 

Bingo, 111!  Kuz's points are well taken, too, I think.  As I get older (56) and do my job longer (teach, 28 years) I find that my context has certainly changed much more than I have.  My context (public education) and I are driven by different motivations.  My context is a monolithic bureaucracy, and I am an individual within that huge machine.  The bureaucracy seems to require at least the appearance of change to perpetuate itself; It's in my nature to rely on those things that have always worked for me and to resist those changes that threaten me to compromise aspects of my teaching that have always worked.  I see parallels in the Gibson/Heritage relationship.  

 

Gibson was driven by a perception of market forces which presumed change and growth as good, and The Boys at Heritage were compelled to maintain traditions which had always worked for them.  Maybe to my detrement, I value tradition over change (I think change very similar to bureaucracy in that it seems, first and foremost, driven simply to perpetuate itself).  I think it's great the two manufacturers are both still at it, each in its own way.  Obviously, they can co-exist relatively independent of one another.  That many perceive Heritage as a "bastard offspring" or some unfortunately in-bred distant relative of Gibson is, I think, irrelevant.  I've said it here before, Kuz reiterated in #6 of his post on the subject:  To take the tour of 225 Parsons Street is to begin to get "it."  To watch the YouTube video of production in Nashville, which John Covach posted months ago, is to get that.  Not to say that one is necessarily inferior to the other.  Same tree...two very different limbs growing in very different directions.  I'm quite satisfied to know that Heritage is the real Heritage, and fortunate to have been led to them, and to own three of their wonderful instruments!  

[Gitfiddler]

There are still a lot of people that are simply Gibson snobs.  Period!

 

However, the notion that Heritage is some sort of 'Gibson copy' is not an unreasonable assumption.  The mainstay of all successful Heritage guitar designs were first developed by Gibson.  Add to that all of the Pacific Rim 'copies' that came about during the 60's and 70's, resulting in lawsuits and forced modifications of headstocks, etc..

 

OK, in comes Heritage with the same Kalamazoo Gibson factory, original jigs, routers, knowledge, and many years of experience building specific styles of guitars.  Why change from an already proven successful design?  Just look at all of the failed 'original' designs of Heritage vs. those that are still bringing in the cash at Heritage.  There is no doubt about the relationship or progeny between the two companies. 

 

Are Heritage guitars Gibson copies, or are they an evolution of a successful design that the owners of Heritage had a hand in?  I view them as the next level, an improvement of great guitar designs, as well as an upgrade in the level of customization and most importantly, customer service!  8) 

[Kuz]

There are still a lot of people that are simply Gibson snobs.  Period!

 

However, the notion that Heritage is some sort of 'Gibson copy' is not an unreasonable assumption.  The mainstay of all successful Heritage guitar designs were first developed by Gibson.  Add to that all of the Pacific Rim 'copies' that came about during the 60's and 70's, resulting in lawsuits and forced modifications of headstocks, etc..

 

OK, in comes Heritage with the same Kalamazoo Gibson factory, original jigs, routers, knowledge, and many years of experience building specific styles of guitars.  Why change from an already proven successful design?  Just look at all of the failed 'original' designs of Heritage vs. those that are still bringing in the cash at Heritage.  There is no doubt about the relationship or progeny between the two companies. 

 

Are Heritage guitars Gibson copies, or are they an evolution of a successful design that the owners of Heritage had a hand in?  I view them as the next level, an improvement of great guitar designs, as well as an upgrade in the level of customization and most importantly, customer service!  8) 

 

I agree yet disagree.

 

Nashville Gibson Guitars are copies of Heritage guitars!!!!!

 

Can you image if Martin relocated to Seattle but the most senior luthers stayed in Nazareth, Pennsylvania and continued to make their guitars under the name "Tradition". Meanwhile the Seattle company starts making even more mass produced "Martin" guitars inferior quality.

 

Acoustic guys get it.

 

I believe that with the means of communication available to us now, "Tradition" would thrive just continuing what they did at Martin.

 

Heritage Guitar company has its flaws, but their worst flaw is lack of adequate communication to the masses.

[pushover]

I think we've skirted around this issue several times. Last time, was during a discussion about keeping traditional designs. As I said before, I do think that Heritage is always going to be viewed a Gibbon copy, so long as they keep producing Guitars that look like the original Gibbons. No matter how good they are, so long as they stick to those designs, people are going to think copy. We saw the blue-whale thrown out as a more distinctive Heritage design, but it wasn't well received. But I do think that Heritage would be better off if it is able to introduce some of it's own original design models. As the unofficial Heritage focus group, we could help them to try and come up with something that might be popular.

 

Does this mean that Heritage should stop producing the Gibbon looking models? I don't think so! It's the way they make their living, and they don't want to suddenly divert from that. Irrespective of what "other" people think, most of the people here buy the Heritage guitars because of their quality AND value. I myself was looking for a "black beauty" and the Heritage was a better guitar than the Gibbon, and at a MUCH better price. Same thing with my 535. So I'm happy that I have that choice.

 

I think that the Heritage demographic (look at the threads on how young are you, and what you do) is an older more sophisticated (maybe I just mean more experienced) player. Heritage guitars are players guitars, and it takes that extra level of experience to be able to recognize the quality of the guitar by picking it up. A problem is that there are soo many Gibbon copies out there, of varied quality and price, so it's harder to recognize Heritage for what it is. Chances are "many" people will either "save up" for the Gibbon original, or just buy a cheaper copy without knowing that for a little more the Heritage will really step up quality. Somehow the fact that Heritage is the Gibbon original gets lost in the shuffle.

[brentrocks]

There are still a lot of people that are simply Gibson snobs.  Period!

 

i consider us all snobs (of a sort) ;D  for being so loyal to the underdog, lets face it we would tell a Gibson Executive to his face that Heritage is a better guitar, and that is a little snobbish ;D....the G people that bash Heritage people are flat out ignorant..."they just dont know facts" ;D

[Kuz]

Hey, they have tried new designs.

 

Not to get on my soap box again but the 110 is ready for someone to order. Call your dealer and get a quote from Vince. The new 170 is out, go get one.

 

For myself I sold a bunch of gear to get the new 535 with p-90s. This certainly doesn't make me a better HOC member. Times are tough but...

 

We all want innovation.

 

But we want innovation at used prices.

 

At least 50% of the guitars that are featured by way of "my new to me Heritage guitar" is a used Heritage.

 

They can't afford R&D if people are waiting to buy used 110s and used 170s.

 

Maybe innovation is just not selling.

[tulk1]

Hey, they have tried new designs.

 

Not to get on my soap box again but the 110 is ready for someone to order. Call your dealer and get a quote from Vince. The new 170 is out, go get one.

 

John,

 

I wanted to do the 110. But the dealers I talked to can't get enough information out of the 'zoo to talk intelligently about that guitar. All they know is it's a double cut, solid body. The only pic they can offer is the one Brent posted here months ago from NAMM.

[yoslate]

I don't mean this as a criticism, not that criticism is unwarranted, but business as usual in Kalamazoo

 

John,

 

I wanted to do the 110. But the dealers I talked to can't get enough information out of the 'zoo to talk intelligently about that guitar. All they know is it's a double cut, solid body. The only pic they can offer is the one Brent posted here months ago from NAMM.

....

[chico]

ah, the power of branding.  people are followers by nature.  anyone that thinks Heritage is a G***** copy has been fully indoctrinated.  As we have learned, Gibson in Nashville makes copies of the Gibson in Kalamazoo, which we know as The Heritage.  

 

I bet that guy wears a "hard rock cafe" tee shirt too.  or a Harley shirt.  gotta belong.

[gopeteygo]

In Heritage, I found the guitars I've been looking for.  And I really don't care what anybody thinks about it.  I'm a player, not a collector.  A guy here at work is a collector and thinks I'm crazy for selling my Gibsons, but I think they're overpriced and lacking in quality, while paying for alot of name.  Kinda the same reason I ride a Victory motorcycle, and not an HD.  (don't mean to get anything started there .  My Heritage guitars look better, play better, and sound better than any guitars I've ever owned......this is in 25 years of playing.

[Kuz]

ah, the power of branding.  people are followers by nature.  anyone that thinks Heritage is a G***** copy has been fully indoctrinated.  As we have learned, Gibson in Nashville makes copies of the Gibson in Kalamazoo, which we know as The Heritage.  

 

I bet that guy wears a "hard rock cafe" tee shirt too.  or a Harley shirt.  gotta belong.

 

Very nicely said +1

[Kuz]

In Heritage, I found the guitars I've been looking for.  And I really don't care what anybody thinks about it.  I'm a player, not a collector.  A guy here at work is a collector and thinks I'm crazy for selling my Gibsons, but I think they're overpriced and lacking in quality, while paying for alot of name.  Kinda the same reason I ride a Victory motorcycle, and not an HD.  (don't mean to get anything started there .  My Heritage guitars look better, play better, and sound better than any guitars I've ever owned......this is in 25 years of playing.

 

Also Very nicely said +1

[MacDoggie]

Why is it if you say you have a Suhr, Charvel or a number of others, people ooh and ahh rather than look down their nose and say its a Fender copy?  But Heritages are sometimes known as a cheap copy.  They really are every bit as much a copy as the other examples, but the Suhrs and Charvels cost the same as the Custom Shop Fenders, but Heritage manages to keep costs around or below those of Gibson's standard models and far below those of the Gibson Custom shops.

 

Maybe its marketing or the perception that price equals quality.  Or its simply a way to make the individual feel superior through materialistic means.   :'(  These days people seem to need something to make themselves feel special, and I guess if a name on a guitar does it for them, good.

 

I've had conversations with people that say a Viking from Hagstrom is the best, or a Dot from Epiphone.  I've gotten to the point of just saying I disagree and moving on...

[Kuz]

John,

 

I wanted to do the 110. But the dealers I talked to can't get enough information out of the 'zoo to talk intelligently about that guitar. All they know is it's a double cut, solid body. The only pic they can offer is the one Brent posted here months ago from NAMM.

 

I'm not saying this isn't true, but I don't always trust dealers and their true motivation to make that extra call.

 

I could be wrong, but last I heard straight from the horse's mouth was "we are waiting on a 110 order".