Gibson Historic Reissues...Consistent Quality?

[Guitarist]

?

[That90'sGuy]

Yes. Historic reissues get Gibson's top of the line wood. Take this from somebody who has owned 2 RIs. More care and attention generally goes towards the custom shop Gibbys. That's not to say that the standard production line doesn't produce some real gems from time to time, but generally the quality on the Historic reissues is very good.

[Innocent_Bystander]

My experience while looking for an R7 was that the historic reissues were top notch guitars. I didn't play a ton, but about 3 '57's, a '58 and by chance a '59. They played well, sounded grear and none were heavy, I'd say they were all sub 9lb range.

It seems like Gibson really takes everything to the next level on these guitars.

[The Golden Boy]

If I were to purchase any LP sight unseen, I would be more willing to do it on a Historic than any other guitar Gibson has made in the past 35+ years.

[Robert S.]

I played many R8s and R9s before I bought my 2001 R9 and they were all nearly flawless. Minus one or two VERY minor finish issues that you get with laquer guitars they were all spot on.

The fretwork and nutwork on my R9 are impeccable. Been playing that guitar the last couple of days and it still impresses me with how tight that guitar really is.

[Luke Duke]

I'm with everyone else. The R8s, and R7 Jr. I've played have all been true top notchh guitars. They are the type of guitars that put the original Gibson on the map all those years ago.

You will find some lighter production LPs, but remember that it is because the insides are drilled out quite a bit, whereas the RIs have no chambers. But you'll consistently find the CS LPs won't destroy your spine.

Luke

[JeffB]

I've yet to see a bad one for build quality and I've yet to hear a bad R series Paula. Some have better wood than others but the "poorest" sounding Historics I've experienced are on par with the best sounding production models. QC-wise, they are excellent as well. Not perfect, but the only things I ever see are very minor aesthetic issues (which, high price or not, dont amount to a hill of beans plugged in and rocking out)

I did encounter some "sub-par" wood in a Historic SG I played a couple of weeks ago. That guitar's natural tone was clear as a bell, and loud too, but it had absolutely no bottom end. The SG standards I played next to it were much beefier in tone. Possibly due to the 59 type neck on the Standards vs. the thinner 61 type neck.

[Zhangliqun]

I've owned three and one was a dud tonewise (though the playability and workmanship were the best) and the other two were tone monsters. The dud was a 57 Black Beauty RI, the other two were a 54 Custom RI and a 59 RI.

I've played about 50 or 60 Historics over the years and my dud was the only one that wasn't wonderful.

[RiffRaff]

When I went on the R7 hunt I looked at about 40 guitars - 95% were all very well made with no defects, a few had some issues but those could easily have been due to dealer mishandling. Now, how they sounded was something completely different, about a third didn't have a good overall tone and most were okay (comparable to non custom shop guitars at half the price), of the rest only about 10 were great sounding guitars in all positions on the neck - as such I would NEVER buy any guitar (Gibson or not) without playing it first. Looking good is one thing, being a good overall guitar is another.

[Gearjoneser]

I can't say a bad thing about any Gibson Historic.....as a matter of fact I think they're the best humbucking guitars there are. However, neck profile is a BIG deal to me, and I like the Gibson 59 profile, McCarty profile, and the chunkiest C's that Fender makes. For that reason, some Historics have necks that are too boatish for my taste. I love Historics, but the closer they are to a 59 profile, the more I like them.

[Guitarist]

Thanks fellas. I'm still a little scared, but thanks.