Played a Gibson 2016 Flying V today.  HORRIBLE

Necks are still too wide. Satin finish back.  Electronics controls are poorly placed.  

Who ever said 2016 was going to be a good year for Gibson is wrong.

I won't argue the other points but it is a V after all.  There aren't many options for control locations with the limited real estate.

I haven't played one before and was going to ask if they used to be in a different location?

Can't judge Gibson by the V..they aren't my cup of tea but some lust over them.

I just got my 2015 LP Traditional today and I love it . Of course I'm a rookie and all I have to compare it to are two previously owned Epi LP's and my 2015 Fender Stratocaster American Standard.

I am used the controls in in the triangular pattern...as in the 67, 71, 74, 75, etc series.  In the 80's Gibson started fucking around with the placement....not for the better.  

The biggest issue I have is the necks are HORRIBLE.  Today I played a Les Paul Traditional...it was like 3/4 of a Louisville slugger.   Tree trunk size neck

I fail to understand current management at Gibson.....

I take that you've only played Les Pauls with a 1960 neck profile?

 
That's what it sounds like. My first LP I bought back in the 80's had the 60's neck and I never really liked it. My 2013 traditional has the 59 neck and I much prefer it.

actually not....

I owned a real 59' Standard in the 70's & 80's.  It had a thinner neck   Also have owned numerous 70's and 80's Les Pauls, 67', 71, 74, 75, etc Flying V's, Firebirds, etc.  None of them are anywhere near the neck sizes that Gibson puts out today.

Ok. I wonder if the Traditional has the '58 and earlier neck profile, because it is thicker than the '59, and the Traditional is supposed to be laid out like old Les Pauls. Not quite a reissue, but the dimensions are supposed to be the same, hence the sub model name.

My 59' Standard was actually good.  I have pics of her laying around...will have to scan them and post.  

Neck was not as thin as the 60's or 70's Gibson's.  Felt great.  The neck I loved the most was the 70's V's.....thin width wise and depth wise.  Problem with those necks was how fragile they were.  (reason for the volute in later years).  

I have been disappointed with Gibson for years.  the necks have been the worst.  Even the fret jobs which I know are SUPPOSED to be better...are not.  For a current production guitar I have to go with PRS for the neck profile as being the best.  When I spoke with Gibson the other day, they told me they had horrible feedback / sales on the 15's....they were floored when we talked about the 16's with some of the same issues.  16's are a bit better...but not much

Gibson 2016 prices are stupid high, especially when you don't get a case for anything under $2000.



I wouldn't mind the HP line, lose the tuner and wide neck...and $200.

I'd pay an extra $200 to have all the heels removed at the joint..

Yeah, no doubt Gibosn is gonna have to figure something out soon if the quality issues are persisting.

As far as PRS goes, they make impeccable instruments, but the ones I've tried just weren't my thing.

problem I see with Gibson is they keep thinking they know what players want

robot tuners....pass

zero fret brass nuts - pass

push pull pots with special connectors for pickups.... pass

satin finish on everything it seems - pass

baked maple fingerboards - pass

and so on and so on.

I will predict 16 will be a make or break year for Gibson with it being sold if it does not produce the sales the way they need to survive

I agree. PRS quality is second to none but I just can't warm up to any of them.

 

I purchased a new Fender Jim Root Stratocaster this year and I cannot believe the quality of that instrument.  I have played lots of guitars over the years and a lot of them have been high-end Gibsons.  Don't know if I will ever purchase a Gibson again..... ever.

My cousin loves his V, I think he actually prefers it to his SG Standard (Neither are 2016's). I've always held the opposite opinion - V's are low on my Gibson hierarchy - LP > SG > Explorer > Firebird > V.

I'm actually not fond of Gibson Vs either, all of mine are Jacksons.

I find that most Gibsons that I have had my hands on lately are ok at best. I don't care for the neck profiles, the tone (amplified or not), and the feel in general. I was a Gibson guy years ago but the new stuff is just...well....underwelling. There are better guitars available for the money right now.

On the PRS note, I really like the 3 that I have and have found very few guitars that are on the same level.

The Jackson Flying V is my fav looking guitar.  Never liked the rounded off corners of the Gibson.  As for how they play, I haven't a clue, that's someone else's problem ;)

They're smooth buttery shredding machines.

They must be...I've played with soooo many guitarists who use em.

I'll agree with this and add I have the sentiment with the Kelly over the Explorer....Live the King and Rhodes V's, the Kelly just looks so much more aggressive.



 

I have a Gibson Explorer. Overall I like it, and it plays well. The problems are that the stock bridge doesn't have enough intonation range for lower tunings. But I had already planned on getting a Tone Pros for it anyway, so meh. And the stock Grovers are geared too high, because the tiniest of a little tweak can make it shoot past whatever note you're trying to hit.

You should get a baritone for lower tunings, it's much nicer.  Jackson even makes I guess made a soloist baritone that looks pretty nice though I've never touched it.  Holy shit I just looked and it seems no one but LTD is making them any more.  Last year when I got my Schecter Hellraiser Baritone I was torn between the Jackson, the Gibson SG which were both way more or my hellraiser which was miss priced or on sale on amazon for $300 less than everywhere else.

I get along fine with my other guitars tuning lower than I've had the Explorer. I've only had it down a whole step with an 11 set. I go heavier the lower I tune to keep the string tension up, and it works. It negates the need for a baritone. I've had other guitars down to dropped A with this method. I just need a bridge with a hair more intonation range for the Explorer.

That said, I would like to try a either a Schecter Loomis or Merrow sig 7 string, both of which do have a slightly longer 26.5" scale.

How many of those are being used on the T series 2016 models?  Yeah, the push pull pots and 'quick change' pickup plugs... I'm not a fan, but that isn't a deal breaker to me.
Not the tuners, nut, baked maple board and such... I've looked at a couple of V's from the 2016 lineup, one looked fairly satin on the back (It looked liked under-buffed gloss, not satin like the old Faded line), the rest appeared properly buffed gloss.  The front is certainly gloss and so is the neck.  The necks on the 2016 V's I've picked up have been normal width (side to side) and pretty dang thin for a Gibson depth wise.  The 2016 SG's have a thick neck and the Les Pauls I've picked up do as well.
Guess what... it seems that the thick 50's profile is the most popular one for the majority of players (shredders aside).  The V is pretty dang slinky compared to the rest of the line.

You don't like the recent Gibson guitars compared to your older ones... fine.  That's a personal opinion that I can respect it.  Don't buy em.
Saying "Gibson sucks!" is blind hate and I disagree.
I've got several Gibsons spanning forty years of  manufacture and to date, I've run across one serious dog that shouldn't have ever left the factory.  Several didn't speak to me, or lacked some magic, perhaps a setup would have cured them... who knows.  I only buy the ones that really click with me.  Personally, I didn't like the 2015 changes and won't buy a 2015 model with all the changes.  I also won't buy a HP series 2016, but I do kinda like the different neck heel they offer.

So, overall, I will have to say... you hate Gibson, that's your opinion.  But they are far from the trash you make em out to be.
The 2016 V is not a '58 reissue and it never claimed to be... it is more of an update of the 80's era V's.  If you don't like it, move on and buy something else, trashing the brand because you don't like the particular model is just juvenile.

OiRogers

I have been playing Gibsons since the early 70's.  40 years of Gibsons.  I do not hate Gibson...I just am simply disappointed in them.  They have had several years of disappointment recently.  

I speak to Gibson often.  They have built custom guitars for me, they in the past always came through.  There were dark spots in Gibson's history (Norlin years) and recently under the current leader.  Numerous people have told me that 2015 was one of the worst years for Gibson.  The models did not move for exactly the reasons you mention.  Changes in fingerboards, pickup connections, neck size, automated tuners, push pull pots, changes in finish quality, etc.  Numerous shops I go to on a regular basis have complained MUCH louder than I have about Gibson quality and the 2015 production year.  I see the same 15' Gibsons sitting every time I walk in...with lower and lower asking prices on each visit.  

I own Gibsons from 1967 production year to 2013 production year.  My Grace Potter Flying V is awesome.  I had great hopes for Gibson when they announced they were going back to the basics...dumping the tuners, pickup connections, etc.  Necks were going to be slimmer.  

My point is that Gibson needs to listen to the players.  None I know wanted the changes such as the pickup connectors, baked maple boards, robot tuners, etc.

Thanks for the clarification, I can certainly understand where you're coming from now... I have from 1962 to 2016 represented in my Gibson collection.

I have a 2016 SG Standard that absolutely sings, it is one of the best SG's I've laid hands on.  The neck is chunky but no issues with neck dive... I don't particularly care for the pickguard size on the 2016 SG models, but the instrument itself is amazing.  Yeah, it came with a gig-bag... but I have a stack of hardcases in my attic already... I don't want or need more hard cases.  Using a GC coupon, my SG was under 1100$ out the door.  I love it.... but then again, I like the chunky 50's neck style in general.  The QC on the 2016 Gibsons I've looked at and played has been solid.  Yeah, most could use a setup... what mass market makers instruments don't need a setup out of the box?  One or two could use some touch up on the binding on the upper end of the fretboard, and that one V had an under-buffed back... but all in all, the QC on the 2016's I've looked at has been pretty good.  I guess that I'm not seeing the QC issues I keep hearing about.... I'm not unboxing for a music store though, perhaps they're intercepting and returning the failures before they hit the racks.

The 2015 changes I didn't care for... but honestly, the QC of the 2015 instruments I played in various stores was impressive.  The paint work on the 2015's was better than I'd seen in a few years.  The forced bag of features was a deal breaker for me though.

And overall, my 2nd best Les Paul is a Deluxe from 1976... it has the pancake body and 3 piece maple neck with volute that is from the darkest days of the Norlin era.  It weighs 11lbs and feels like a bag of cement on the shoulder, but it rings for days and the neck feels like a "fretless wonder" LP Custom... it may be a Norlin era, but it's a great instrument. (it probably helps that the 70's mini-humbuckers have been swapped for some 50's P-90s)

Personally, I wish Henry would hand Gibson off to someone else.  I dislike almost everything about him and the way he's run the company, but I still love their instruments... I feel most of the hate the company gets should more directly be aimed at him.

And on a side note:  Pick up a 2012 Gibson with the baked maple board sometime and give it an honest, unbiased workout.  I don't own a baked maple board, but I wouldn't be opposed after the couple I've played.  I first played a 2012 LP Custom with the maple board, it felt very similar to ebony and sounded dang close to ebony... it wasn't until I was told it was baked maple that I realized I should hate it.  The couple of other baked maple boarded Gibsons I've played have felt good as well.  I hated the baked maple myself, right up until I had hands on time with em.  I still would prefer proper Ebony or Rosewood, but I'm not 100% opposed to the baked maple anymore.

 
I love the chunky neck on Gibsons. I had a LP that I bought back in the 80's with the slim profile and never warmed up to it. I sold it after 10 years of trying to like it. I have been told by a large store I buy a lot from and everyone here would know them, that you would be shocked at the number of guitars they reject from Gibson.

That is the only way I can see the rumblings about Gibson's QC holding water... I'd be very curious to know what percentage of guitars they find issue with.
Perhaps I'll try to pick the brain of my friendly sales guy at the nearest GC when I go there next for anything.

 
From what I have seen in the past at my local GC, they have gotten all the rejects and hung them on the wall for the kids to beat on. When I bought my strat about seven years ago the Gibsons they had on the wall were of very poor quality. I have not seen many since that looked that bad. Their acoustics on the other hand still are not up to the quality level that would even remotely justify the asking price. My 2013 LP Traditional is a thing of near perfection in every way. I love playing it but it just doesn't fit the style of music I do now. Someday my grandson might get it.


 

I have purchased a few of the Gibson faded guitars used, taken them down to bare wood and finished them proper in nitro with decent components, etc.  Easy way to get exactly what you want for under a grand.  You also see how the sausage is made so to speak.  I haven't encountered any crooked necks or geometry issues but am always surprised to find 3 and 4 piece bodies on thousand dollar guitars.  I prefer the fat necks they are using these days, it fits my hand and tuning is more stable but I can't stand the skinny 1 5'8" nuts on every G&L guitar I have held.

If they're good enough for Randy, then they're good enough for me.

Yeah, until he got together with Grover Jackson and Jackson built the Concorde for Randy, which evolved into what is now known simply as the Rhodes.

 
http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/GALLERY_Randy_Rhoads_Original_Jackson_Concorde_Vs

I'm a longtime Gibson guy and have two V's... I've got serious GAS for an original Rhoads V.

I think the original Concorde and the reissues are great to look at, but that vintage style trem is a no-go for me. If I'm gonna have a trem, it's gotta be a Floyd.

 

Not to mention if you change anything from the way it was done in 1950 everyone will have a meltdown.