Fretboard Quality issues continue

[zakkrhoads]

Hi - file marks run at right sngles to the fretboard usually, just where the binding is filed back. No idea what the scratch is but I have asked Gibson to confirm if this is part if the aging process - thanks

Thanks for answering! I have seen fretboards with some marks, almost "stains" that look like some material that was left on the rosewood.
Is it possible to remove? Have you guys ever seen this?

 

[Warmy]

My number one R9 has thin -.5mm, triangle shaped chips taken out on the first and sixth fret. The size of the chips is about three quarters of the fret long and .25 wide.

Plays and sounds so good the chances of me ever finding one of this caliber would be slim. Even when you find greatness with Gibson, quality issues surface.

 

[TM1]

I'm guessing that nobody remembers the crappy fret work and fingerboards in the Sixties, especially after the switch from Brazilian to EIRW in 1968. I worked on many guitars that were nearly un-playable right out of the box.
BTW; latestarter, your action at the nut looks really high! Looks to me like if you tuned the guitar open strings that when you go to fret it in any first position chords that it will not play in-tune. Maybe it's just the photo, but boy that looks high to me.

 

[Grandturk]

I'd send/bring it back if you can't overlook those cosmetic issues. Otherwise it will bother you for as long as you have the guitar. Inspect the next one closer.

Of course if it jams like a MF'r and it doesn't bother you, then keep it and who cares?

 

[J.D.]

I'm guessing that nobody remembers the crappy fret work and fingerboards in the Sixties, especially after the switch from Brazilian to EIRW in 1968. I worked on many guitars that were nearly un-playable right out of the box.
BTW; latestarter, your action at the nut looks really high! Looks to me like if you tuned the guitar open strings that when you go to fret it in any first position chords that it will not play in-tune. Maybe it's just the photo, but boy that looks high to me.

Yup, and some of the early stuff coming out of Memphis was just horrible as well.

 

[renderit]

Scratches on the fretboard don't bother me a lot. It will get more then it will dish if it's a playa! If it sounds great and that binding thing bothered me too much I'd be gnawin' on it like a big old rodent. At least touch that up a hair with a file to remove the corner. Looks like it bows up on that just a hair between the two frets. I'd level it or even bow it the other way a touch to make it so you wouldn't even know it's there.

 

[DanD]

... At least touch that up a hair with a file to remove the corner. Looks like it bows up on that just a hair between the two frets. I'd level it or even bow it the other way a touch to make it so you wouldn't even know it's there.

+1

Here's a video showing this operation. The fret binding/filing starts at 2:30. If you use a fine file and go easy it shouldn't be too hazardous to the guitar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B31lHFx8DE0

eace2

 

[Uncle Gary]

Neither of those would bother me. The scratch in the first picture I'd ignore. The tiny "step" in the binding where the scraper "jumped" I could fix in two minutes.

If you want to see poor binding, you should see the treble side binding on my '62 SG reissue. To say that a blind man must have scraped it, would be an insult to the blind. I bought the guitar anyway because it sounded so lively and resonant and played like a dream.

I guess I'm not as anal as I though I was.

In a way, we've become spoiled by the perfection of machine made items. We say we want guitars that are "hand made, like in the '50's", but we also want them "perfect", just like a machine did it. Sorry to break it to you, but human hands and eyes aren't perfect.

 

[D'Mule]

Neither of those would bother me. The scratch in the first picture I'd ignore. The tiny "step" in the binding where the scraper "jumped" I could fix in two minutes.

If you want to see poor binding, you should see the treble side binding on my '62 SG reissue. To say that a blind man must have scraped it, would be an insult to the blind. I bought the guitar anyway because it sounded so lively and resonant and played like a dream.

I guess I'm not as anal as I though I was.

In a way, we've become spoiled by the perfection of machine made items. We say we want guitars that are "hand made, like in the '50's", but we also want them "perfect", just like a machine did it. Sorry to break it to you, but human hands and eyes aren't perfect.

Yeah I too was thinking how nicely magnified that board is. In reality my eyes don't work that well.

I've 'seen' those kind of minor flaws before. I bet that fingerboard got mishandled during the aging. I would oil that board up and foregetaboutit.

I would be irritated by that poor binding scrape and would take it back to the dealer to have their luthier file it, if that's a possibility. If no luthier available (and I don't mean guitar tech), then I would just buy a fine file and do it myself.

 

[sitedrifter]

Yeah, that may be the problem then. I saw a Hamer factory video where they were filing the binding down from the sides.

Maybe Gibson needs to change their binding methods. :hmm

Gibson uses files.

 

[ChevChelios]

Look at this nasty fretboard on my Gibson ...

Gibson really need to get their shitz together :ganz

 

[Billielvis]

Neither of those would bother me. The scratch in the first picture I'd ignore. The tiny "step" in the binding where the scraper "jumped" I could fix in two minutes.

If you want to see poor binding, you should see the treble side binding on my '62 SG reissue. To say that a blind man must have scraped it, would be an insult to the blind. I bought the guitar anyway because it sounded so lively and resonant and played like a dream.

I guess I'm not as anal as I though I was.

In a way, we've become spoiled by the perfection of machine made items. We say we want guitars that are "hand made, like in the '50's", but we also want them "perfect", just like a machine did it. Sorry to break it to you, but human hands and eyes aren't perfect.

Thanks for your thoughts - hand made can mean perfection, just look at instruments from Collings or Suhr or Tom Anderson -- consistently flawless. It's avoidable mistakes that bug me and also that no one noticed - perhaps only the A grade stuff gets sent to Japan, I've heard that's possible

 

[Billielvis]

Look at this nasty fretboard on my Gibson ...

Gibson really need to get their shitz together :ganz

Beautifully worn by proper use...... :jim

 

[ourmaninthenorth]

Thanks for your thoughts - hand made can mean perfection, just look at instruments from Collings or Suhr or Tom Anderson -- consistently flawless. It's avoidable mistakes that bug me and also that no one noticed - perhaps only the A grade stuff gets sent to Japan, I've heard that's possible

I tend to agree. The "handmade" argument as a swerve on finished quality doesn't hold any water for me.

The defects on your guitar clearly bother you, and that's all that's important. It's irrelevant that they could be sorted in 2 minutes, other than saying that they weren't, and more importantly perhaps, why they weren't.

I'm sure Gibson will sort this out for you, and hope your obvious disappointment doesn't detract too much from enjoying your guitar.

:salude

 

[Fiftywattmafia]

To the op.... It's unfortunate that we pay the kind of money it takes to get a Gibson Custom Shop guitar and it comes with flaws like that. It's unacceptable in my opinion. Would be interested to see comments from the Custom Shop representative that frequents this forum. Only a Gibson is good enough?? You sure?

 

[emg32]

Guess I have been lucky. Every Gibson I have owned has been flawless. If not I would send it back to be fixed or replaced. That is what the warranty is there for. You should be happy with such expensive guitars, if not send them back.

 

[Uncle Gary]

Guess I have been lucky. Every Gibson I have owned has been flawless. If not I would send it back to be fixed or replaced. That is what the warranty is there for. You should be happy with such expensive guitars, if not send them back.

You must be. Every Gibson I've ever purchased has had flaws of one sort or another. I've always assumed I was just unusually fussy about such things. Certainly, my friends and family consider me a "perfectionist".

It does seem like I spend a great deal of time correcting "flaws" on every Gibson I buy. Unfortunately, I don't live where I can choose among 20-30 of a given model to cherry pick the best one. Even the "five star" dealer I usually buy from has no more than 2 or 3 Historic Les Pauls in stock at any given time, so....

I HAVE gotten really good and filing nut slots, replacing and notching bridge saddles, touching up finishes and fixing other flaws over the years. Not to mention replacing linear taper pots (including rewiring FOUR ES-335s).

 

[Uncle Gary]

..............

 

[Billielvis]

I'd send/bring it back if you can't overlook those cosmetic issues. Otherwise it will bother you for as long as you have the guitar. Inspect the next one closer.

Of course if it jams like a MF'r and it doesn't bother you, then keep it and who cares?

I played it, liked the sound and feel and noticed the marks before handing over my money, however all historics in the store had fingerboard and/or binding marks.......this one better than most

 

[Billielvis]

I tend to agree. The "handmade" argument as a swerve on finished quality doesn't hold any water for me.

The defects on your guitar clearly bother you, and that's all that's important. It's irrelevant that they could be sorted in 2 minutes, other than saying that they weren't, and more importantly perhaps, why they weren't.

I'm sure Gibson will sort this out for you, and hope your obvious disappointment doesn't detract too much from enjoying your guitar.

:salude

Thanks for the kind words. I've exchanged mails with Gibson, some of this may be intentional aging - it does sound fabulous and plays very well - it feels like a keeper, was a quick emotional attachment.