Approximate reading time: 1 Minute
Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged  ·  Source: Gibson

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray chipped back

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray chipped back  ·  Source: Gibson

Gibson has announced a new colour scheme or two for 2017 for their Les Paul Standard range. What is more interesting to me is they have used a shot of a damaged guitar for their promotional material on the website!

Damaged Goods

With an RRP of USD $4799, you would think that Gibson would have at least chosen an undamaged guitar for their promotional materials surely? Well, unfortunately not. This is the marketing shot the company has published here:

Just check the back of the guitar on the screen shot below and you will see an obvious chip on the bottom edge of the guitar.

Looking good?

“Gray never looked so good” is the heading they chose to use for this guitar. How ironic. They clearly let this ‘good looking’ guitar through the net and into the wild. Quality control?

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged and chipped

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged and chipped

Chipped!

How did this get through proof reading the site? You can clearly see a big chip out of the Oxford Gray paint job!

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged, closeup

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged, closeup

 

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged

 

Gibson Les Paul Standard Oxford Gray damaged

Yes, definitely a damaged Les Paul.

 

Standards

I have been saying for a while that Gibson’s standards have been dropping, but this one is a bit of an embarrassment even for them, surely?

Launching a brand new colour and then putting up damaged promo shots on your own site is not a great way to encourage your customers to part with their hard earned cash.

RRP – USD 4799

Gibson Les Paul Standard 2017 in Oxford Gray  page

 

by Jef

57 responses to “Gibson shows a chipped and damaged $4799 Les Paul on its website”

  1. João Telha says:

    Maybe the photo is fine and the guitar is meant to be like that: the marketing guys at Gibson just forgot to mention that it’s a very mild relic’d finish, made in the USA by highly skilled artists, and it replicates the day some guitar hero clumsily took his brand new guitar out of the case for the first time (hence the hefty price tag, of course). 🙂

  2. Liam Merwede says:

    Don’t worry, Gibson will damage it a bit more, stick on a “Custom Shop” label, up the price with $2,000, and pass it off as a light relic.

  3. Scott Goldman says:

    Looks as Meh as the price.

  4. TonyB says:

    Damaged? Or road worn/pre-aged/relic? Some people pay extra to have the finish damaged. Now you complain! You want it all ways!

  5. Peter D. Lamborn says:

    No Les Paul is worth that, even undinged.

  6. Edsel says:

    Standards are 5k now?

  7. F Munky says:

    Did the photographer actually look at what they were shooting? Surely, this is an obvious issue with a promotional photograph? Or does Gibson no longer have a decent photographer on their payroll perhaps?

  8. jclyerly says:

    Actually the damage is on the inside of the top edge.

  9. John Splntr says:

    Looks like the pic has been fixed now. The real issue is who thought painting a Les Paul GRAY was a good idea??? Blech…

  10. lane darby says:

    probably the best they could find.
    now days the Epiphone line beats Gibson on fit and finish hands down. QC at Gibson really stinks. I played a $1500 es-339 and ended up with a better playing Epiphone for $400. Pickups were the only thing that the Gibson had going for it. rough frets, poor finish, cracks around the bridge mounting studs. just felt cheap.

  11. Raj Mahal says:

    Henry strikes again…

  12. Secret Squirrel says:

    Yeah, but it was chipped by Slash as he flicked his cigarette into the sawdust, so the price went up.

  13. Guys, look closely and you’ll notice it was just a digital corruption error in the photo upload when they were in photoshop putting the guitar pictures together. The original photo was fine and they corrected the error, it’s not a damaged guitar.

  14. George Hummel says:

    Jeez, in the digital age they could at least FIX THE PICTURE!

  15. Jason Johnson says:

    Such anal retention…

  16. Calis Sims says:

    $4799 for an old log.

  17. Dave Pheifer says:

    who cares?…if it sounds good and feels good, what’;s the problem?

    • T Douglas Boleyn says:

      Epiphone is the same spec for the most part, costs 1/4 of that price.

    • Colin Wright says:

      The grey looks shit anyway

      • D Man says:

        I’m always a bit suspicious of a solid coloured guitar, regardless of the brand, as I feel they are hiding something… usually 2nd or 3rd rate timbers with knots and faults in in it.

        • Junior says:

          Unless it’s a CS Goldtop. I’ve seen some of them, that were converted to ‘busts, that had AAAAA tops hiding underneith all that gold paint.

          • D Man says:

            Agreed. I have #081 of the 157 1957 Gold Top 50th Anniversary lesters and you can see it’s a 2 piece top, one piece body and is gold on gold on gold and all the bling you ever need to bring.
            As much as it’s a collectible guitar, I just love playing it and gigging it at the right venues without a belt or metal pants buttons.

  18. T Douglas Boleyn says:

    That grey is olive green. I’m not a fan of Gibson in the first place. I’ll never pay over $1200 for a mass production guitar. I prefer Epiphone. I paid $600 for a Pelham Blue LP Standard, which I put through a mild custom overhaul: EMG 57/66 Chrome, Aluminum Bullet knobs, Oval chrome strap retainers.

    I used to work for Mayones Custom Shop in Gdansk Poland, so I know the value of a quality guitar. If I buy a guitar for over $1200, I’d best not have to do anything to it to personalize it.

    What are you getting from this $4000+ LP that you can’t get from an Epiphone? Just showing off your inability to make good financial decisions. You could have purchased six good Epiphone LPs, and added gear.

    • FlushTheFool says:

      “What are you getting from this $4000+ LP that you can’t get from an Epiphone?”
      A headstock that doesn’t look like a peg leg?

      • Jef says:

        You do have to question the value of such instruments, especially with their serious lack of quality control these days.

        A good Gibson can be a great instrument, but I have found that you really do have to search to find a really nice one. I’d be happy playing an Epiphone and have no brand loyalty, so I can see where you are coming from.

    • john says:

      Seriously? You’re seriously saying the only difference between a Custom Shop LP and an Epiphone is the bloated price tag? I played an Epi for 6 years before buying an SG Standard a year ago. Haven’t touched the Epi since. Epiphone makes some decent guitars for a decent price; Gibson makes very, very good guitars for a reasonable price (USA line) and superb guitars for a price comparable to what you would have paid back in 1959 (Custom Shop).

  19. irish says:

    For some reason, this does not bother me. In fact, it reminds me of the supermodel quandary; how fashion publications and ads objectify what “beauty”or perceived “perfection” of women (and men I guess) ostracizing the majority of our species whom don’t for in that framework. It also occurred to me perhaps the photog chipped it and clammed up!
    Regardless, it a nice ax, and this certainly created a BUZZ!
    ANY publicity is good publicity, yea?

    Peace,
    Irish

    https://youtu.be/KoM58xxTX-A

  20. irish says:

    For some reason, this does not bother me. In fact, it reminds me of the supermodel quandary; how fashion publications and ads objectify what “beauty”or perceived “perfection” of women (and men I guess) ostracizing the majority of our species whom don’t for in that framework. It also occurred to me perhaps the photog chipped it and clammed up!
    Regardless, it a nice ax, and this certainly created a BUZZ!
    ANY publicity is good publicity, yea?

    Peace,
    Irish

    https://youtu.be/KoM58xxTX-A

  21. Gary Loader says:

    If you look at the side photo of the neck, there seems to be a chip on the headstock too

  22. Junior says:

    Probably barrowed it from Guitar Denter?

  23. Duke of Wolves says:

    Yeah, but it was chipped by Slash as he flicked his cigarette into the sawdust, so the price went up.

  24. Angel says:

    who cares?…if it sounds good and feels good, what’;s the problem?

    • Jef says:

      Image. Funnily enough, many players have an image of Gibson and this rightly or wrongly tarnishes the brand.

      But I agree, if it plays well and sounds good then it isn’t a huge deal. Just we live in a world where image and branding play a huge part on how and why we buy instruments.

  25. Lasse says:

    ??????????????????

  26. lucas beck says:

    Hahahaha.

  27. David King says:

    Isn’t this the new “Pre-Dinged” model …. pay extra for it’s first ding so you don’t have to feel bad when you ding it! 😀

  28. florian schafer says:

    People who want it road worn are those that’ll never play a live show or take it off the wall. Posers suck.

  29. Captain Catfish says:

    Overpriced. Still, I would be happy to play the instrument,scratch and all. I think that grey-green color would look good alongside a flamed maple fretboard. Anyone agree?

  30. Dav Devax says:

    Hey people at Gibson, Here’s a serious offer for next year photo session : I can use photoshop better than your actual person in charge AND I’ll do it for cheaper 🙂

  31. Jeremy Deats says:

    Gibson instructs vendors to take a hammer and destroy even mildly defective product. So we know this guitars fate.

  32. Rob Crowe says:

    They fixed it on the site now, but I don’t think they took new photos, they just photoshopped the old photos to remove the damaged bit. Funny.

  33. john says:

    Never mind how did it get past the website proofreader, how the hell did it get past the photographer who took the shots in the first place? I can see if it was a tiny blemish used in one shot…maybe. But that’s three images with a bloody great gouge out of the thing. Maybe someone’s giving Henry a bit of payback?

  34. […] Over the summer Gibson unveiled the 2017 Les Paul Standard with a photo that showed an obvious ding in the $4,799 guitar’s finish. […]

  35. […] When you build poor quality instruments and charge a lot of money for them don’t be surprised if guitarists shop elsewhere. […]

  36. That’s so you know it’s a Gibson! (Gibson’s quality control makes GM look like Honda!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *