A very interesting interview, and as close as you can get to a tour of the Murphy Lab itself! Thank you to all at both Andertons and Gibson for arranging this!
The man who really saved Gibson was Henry Juskiewicz - it was in 1986... but you are too young to know :) This Tom only worked in a booth spraying guitars, man...
@@dreee13 Not from him... and sure not from me ;) I have 5 Les Pauls from late 80s/early 90s.. and I´d buy another in a heartbeat, unseen, unplayed.. they are THAT good - they never let a dud out of the factory then. They destroyed them instead.. and the wood was pure magic.. unobtanium these days
@@tomasvanecek8626I remember when Gibson stamped a 2 on the headstocks for blemished guitars and they were cheaper. They lost the stamp and just sell everything with blems. Kalamazoo forever! I’ll buy Heritage, not Gibson. I personally think Gibson will soon move Nashville to China. They see what people will pay for Epi’s and see dollar signs.
@@dlmyrs That was in Norlin years. There were no "seconds" after late 1986. Those blems were destroyed on a friday late afternoon, by recollection of an employee I trust. simple as that. The QC after Juskiewicz took over was merciless, believe it or not. Also the production numbers were so much lower than later... they had a firm grip, the quality was astonishing. Ever held a Gibson from that era in your hand ? I am sure you didnt.
Seriously ! Its all about charging more money. Wood thats cut off a tree is not a living thing, its dead. The nonsense thats used to justify the money is laughable. Just be honest about the whole thing, customers want beat up guitars so you make them and charge ludicrous amounts for it. Its supply and demand but its got nothing to do with making the guitar some how better. People want ripped jeans and will pay more for them because its a fashion. They are not better because the cotton is a living breathing thing and its "relaxed". Get real.
people paying someone $6000 to beat up a guitar is asinine, even more asinine fora company to actually do it.. what they have done to the guitar world is deplorable, they have single handedly created a black market for fakes and frauds, ridiculous
Fakes? And frauds ?? Try taking a Murphy lab guitar and sell it to a actual vintage dealer and see what happens i understand they are up there in price but don’t judge what other people might think is worth it to them? Let all just enjoy guitars because there fun to play!🎉
@@SlyRyFry How do you figure that? Gibson was building ELECTRIC guitars before Leo Fender built his first amp (not to mention his first guitar), and Gibson was building acoustic guitars for over 30 years before their first electric guitar.
WHY is this even an ARGUMENT? Gibson STILL offer their highest quality instruments with the option of a BRAND NEW finish right? Like if someone wants to spend a fortune on 'pre-distressed' designer denim then who cares? As long as I can still get a pair that aren't already ripped, then what's the problem?
I think it's fair to suggest that only the most resonant / balanced sounding guitars will be cherry picked for the Murphy treatment. I'm willing to bet my house that a dead sounding LP will sound no different with a bit of checking.
Yeah. I have two 64 ML light reissues and I wonder the same. They do have that amazing resonance but they are also some of the most solidly built Gibson's I've owned. Perhaps a little of both make them great. The only other brand that I feel makes great tonal/resonant electrics is Novo (of which I'm also a fan). From what I can tell, if you purchase one of these you'll be getting the best Gibson can make. Perhaps not 3 times better than a standard Gibson (as the price may suggest) but a really great guitar none the less.
Tom said, "...but.." as he picked up a guitar in order to make a point @ 28:13 but never got the chance. Kept looking at the guitar as if he was politely waiting for his chance to show something that he wanted us to see. Feels like we missed something interesting there. Personally wouldn't want to pay extra for this treatment but it sure is neat to contemplate. Good video!
My Music Man St Vincent has a plasticky polyurethane (durable) finish on the body but it resonates more than any other guitar I've ever played. So for electrics, I don't buy that argument. Those vibrations in the body depend on wood grade and construction (neck joint & every contact point of the strings). The effect of the finish will be absolutely marginal (and probably just in your head). However, in terms of 'feel' and 'looks', I do understand why some people want a reliced guitar. For acoustics, on the other hand, I can definitely believe that the finish has a more noticable impact on the sound, even though all the other characteristics (woods, construction) are still way more important.
Hey bedroom rockers and lawyers/guitar collectors, here is a fun fact for you: When you actually play a guitar for years live, it will look completely different than those relic jobs. 🤫🤭
I'll never understand why people will pay more money for a beat up guitar. I understand if you buy a vintage guitar that has been played and earned it's wear, but why get one from the factory like that? I swear people got more money than brains. Just get a regular one, dedicate yourself to it and play it hard for 10 or 20 years. It'll mean more to you than any of these fake relic poser guitars.
3 days ago I put a mark on the head stock of a guitar that I've owned for 8 years, I STILL want to tear my hair out. I'll get it fixed hopefully. I own an older Japanese Strat that has wear marks, checking, chips and I love it. Guitarists are weird, it keeps Tom in a job.
I had a relic'd guitar made by a shredder guitar company through an amp guy's company. And I wound up replacing most of the hardware because it was aged to the point where it didn't work. Screws broke off in the wood. It has sonic problems. The nut had to be replaced. Never again.
About a year ago, I was in the market for a 62-64 ES-335. I'd passed on the chance to buy a '61 a few years ago and bitterly regretted it, so I was determined to find the right guitar. I'd been watching all the usual UK vintage outlets, looking for a guitar with "issues" because I couldn't afford a VGC example, and got to play a few. I was very, very close to pulling the trigger on a piece I'd found at a Denmark Street dealer - '64, cherry, Clapton spec - and it was in my price range. But something wasn't quite right with the headstock - it just looked a bit off. I spent some time studying the photos I'd taken at the dealer and realised the headstock had clearly been smashed to bits and reconstructed, which the dealer was trying to pass off as the usual Gibson headstock break-and-repair. Anyway, accepting that I wasn't going to find the guitar I wanted within my budget, I turned my attention to the Murphy Lab '64 335. And you know what? When I found the right one, there was almost nothing to separate it from an original. The finish cracking was almost identical to the genuine versions I'd played, and the A3 Custombucker pickups have the same hard nose to the note. And the headstock has never parted company with the neck. The only other relic guitars I own are a Custom Shop Strat and an EVH Frankie. People can belittle the idea of relic guitars all they want, but they fill a need in the market. I'm unlikely to ever be in the position to afford an early 60s Strat at £30-50,000, but I've been able to buy a Custom Shop replica. I can't afford a VGC '64 ES-335, I don't have £30,000+ to blow on a guitar, but I was able to sell some stuff and pull the money together for a Murphy Lab 335. That, for me, is the purpose of relic instruments. It allows those of us without hedge fund managers' salaries to get a taste of classic vintage guitars. It's not about posing or faking anything. It's about attaining aspirational instruments that we couldn't otherwise dream of owning.
This! I do own two Custom Shop Strats and they are the best and most playable guitars I have owned in over 25 years. I do have a Mod Shop Strat as well and I really like it but in comparison to my CS Strats, it’s night and day.
I would argue that its not 75% of guitarist being offended by distressing on new guitars, the offended parties are just the loudest complainers about what other people like
I don't see a Murphy's Lab finish anytime in my future, but I will say this. I've refinished two Gibson's and old 78 Marauder and a 98 doublecut. Both of them were black with thick plastic lacquer. It came off in really thick sheets. One was sooid mahogany with a maple neck, the other Mahogany body and neck with a maple cap. I refinished them in oil. Not only did both look 1000% better, they both opened up and were extremely resonant with excellent clarity. I put the same pups back in both, it was a noticeable change. And neck-wise, who doesn't love a velvet soft oiled neck? Both of them cost me under a grand a piece.
Saw a £250000 Les paul at a show and hated it because it was all beat up same with some Strats too I always think make your own scuffs on a guitar Just my opinion everyone is different
I've always liked the look of relic'd guitars. Maybe not so much on the Fender Road Worn series but in general, I'm a fan. Having not played one, I've often wondered how "worth it" the Murphy Labs guitars were... Pete's smile while playing tells me more than anything I could ever read about these instruments.
All you REALLY need to know about Gibson Custom Shop guitars is this: They used up all their stash of great South American wood in 2007, and then switched to green, wet Fiji "mahogany". None of this Murphy hoopla can change that. That stuff isnt right, and all the "Murphies" are just your common CS guitars.. and their relicing is such a poor job... Dont fall for it , no way for the crazy money they ask for this mediocre job - instead, get an "early Henry" era proper Les Paul from 1987-1993, or the pinnacle of Gibby CS from 2006,2007, when they used a Madagascar RW... no better Gibsons on Earth, save for 1959 :)
Folks, yall have been lied too thinking aging, relicing etc makes a sonic difference..... But man had Mr.murphy know how to sell it and do it well. Don't think it's gona sound any better but more importantly you wanting to pick your guitar up based off looks! Don't belive me? Go view the video where a guy goes through a multiple test of neck, no neck, no body etc. ITS ALL IN THE PICKUPS. The actual signal is the string vibrating and the magnetic "picking up" the vibration. THAT'S IT.HE EVEN SAYS IT "WE WON'T CLAIM IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE " I love relicing, but not naive enough to think the way the it's finished makes any sonic difference. You'll get an audible difference for Hella lot cheaper, $5 new strings. Or don't even change them and let them corriode Now a acoustic guitar, that is another ball game where the actual instrument relies on its construction to produce a unique sound
I work at the Garage, a lot of players buy these guitars. Do we have doctors and lawyers? Definitely. But a huge demographic of my sales are actual players
@vigilantebird8675 as I suspected that people do actually buy them to play. It's a well worn cliche that only doctors and lawyers buy expensive instruments. It smacks of jealousy that those with money buy expensive things. If you've got the money then you're entitled to buy whatever you want and good luck to you.
hey y'all - just hyperbole & jokes - i actually own a murphy lab 335 (and love it) and i'm neither a doctor or lawyer. just a regular schlub who saved up some $$ to get myself a killer present. apparently my joke didn't land well, sry - comedy is also not my day job.
I go back and forth on ML guitars. I love the aging but I’m a little partial to buying a VOS CS and just playing it till it looks like a ML. However I’ve never really thought about it from the perspective of not having to worry about scratching it because they’re already there lol. I’ve gained a whole new appreciation for the craftsmanship that goes into building a ML guitar
They dont "build" any SINGLE guitar.. they just take off the racks a good looking CS Gibson.. and do a poor, funny relicing job.. Man, I´ve just seen a ML aged Firebird.. with an "arm wear" , where it NEVER can be ... so pathetic.. A fool and his money ;) sheesh
They do this to give themselves an excuse to crush their factory seconds rather than sell them on cheap. It’s to keep their market price up. Don’t people worry that they pick the guitars that initially failed quality control for this treatment?
I have a friend that builds acoustic guitars and he hangs the guitar from fishing string in a 12’x12’ room and he has a 15” speaker that plays a CD at a really loud volume and goes through normal guitar frequency ranges for 30 days bombarding the wood and instrument strung and tuned to pitch…. And the guitar plays broken in like it was played for 60 years. We are now experimenting with electrics hanging up getting sonically blasted into a looser sound and broke in feel. This is the equivalent of playing it for 60 years. Lighter finish does help… but aged wood and glue that cures right and sound hitting the instrument….. one day everyone will set up a static noise booth much like a PLEK machine… the benefits are real…. Think sympathetic resonance…. This is the cutting edge to making a guitar broke in
Is this dude for real? That's really embarrassing for Gibson. Always new relic guitars were hilarious but this has just sold the truth to us relic haters. This is so unbelievably cringey. I am now even less interested in owning a Gibson Murphy Lab more than I ever was. Now all your ever going to see when you pick one up and play it is Murphy's dirty little tub off rubble and rust. Lol😂
What a cool guy. He's obviously passionate about what he does and seemed very eager to talk about it. Never owned one of his guitars, but maybe someday!
14:27 Come on! The wood moves and cracks the finish? In a guitar body? 😒 As much as I like lightly artifically aged guitars, this sounds like nonsense. Enviromental conditions will change the finish. Yes, how a resonating body is finished will have an effect on its resonance characteristics. How much? I don’t know. Is it that important in a solid body guitar? Probably not. But anyway, there is no need to justify a personal preferance with technical explanations. If it looks good to you, feels good, then it’s perfectly alright. I’m no scientist, but how a guitar resonates depends on the overall and individual mass, density and shape of the guitar and its parts, how individual parts like neck, bridge, nut, headstock, tuners, wood layers come together, the angle of strings in nut-headstock, bridge-body, how the strings sit on the bridge and the nut, shape and material of fretwire, strings, how you hold the guitar, etc. With all these and other factors playing dominant roles, there is probably no need to be obsessed about the finish. Just my view on the subject 🤓
Nope. Nick$ & Ding$ *do not* make a guitar sound better. Lacquer aging, whatever… This is a fantasy that’s built up in his own mind. He convinced himself, and has been able to project this like a snake oil salesman selling a miracle cure. The intricacies that make up a difference are impossible to reproduce. I totally understand the aesthetic appeal, but the rest is b.s.. Look at the millions of excellent mass produced guitars there are in the World today and you will find that what really makes the exceptional ones stand out is the person who is playing them, not the instrument itself.
The doctor with the $50k guitar in the closet story and the Murphy replica he could now take to the gig, “that’s what it’s all about” and that about sums it up.
Love this stuff, just like asking a woodworker to finish a piece of furniture to match a set, it’s a process and it takes knowledge and skill….my 1980 poly finish tele has now worn quite nicely from new, I just played it, but I wouldn’t say no to a Murphy aged! 😎…I see Pete played armed and ready on that SG, nice! 😜
Imagine saving up for months back in the day to buy one of those now coveted Gibsons, and after playing it for a year or two the dang finish starts rubbing off. While I understand the whole relic thing, it stills feels like stolen valor to me.
it doesnt seem worth the trade off to me. its not going to make that much of a difference on the acoustic. i would much rather have a finish that is going to last. he even says himself, beware, because the finish isnt going to last and is not durable. unless you have super human hearing, your not going to notice. no thank you but do appreciate your honesty!
Ive seen better fretboards on squire affinity guitars. The murphy lab is the greatest con that gibson ever played. Tricking Boomers out of their hard earned dollars to buy something that was made from inferior stock selection. I i bought a les paul studio, and it showed up with that fretboard on, that shit is going right back. But, if i paid 7k for it, its fine IG. Gibsons time is running out. As the boomers age out so will demand for this sort of over priced exploitation.
To each their own. Personally, I don’t enjoy shiny new guitars… I want to shoulder a guitar that I’m not worried about, and I couldn’t care less about dinging a relic.
There's a valid reason why Tom said he won't claim it legitimately makes a sonic difference. Because he can't. Once they introduced wax potting the pickups to eliminate feedback, the acoustic reverberating no longer mattered in the electronic circuit. Pickups are no longer microphonic. Meaning the woods, the finish etc, doesn't affect the tone in a significant tangible way. And I'm happy it doesn't. Because I have a Gibson Les Paul, absolutely love it plugged in. But omg does it suck unplugged. It sounds so nasally and midrangey. It's horrid. But when it's plugged in, you don't hear any of that. It warms up, it's crystal clear and dynamic. People forget that wax potting pickups was introduced in the 60s, just after the supposed "golden era of guitars" ended, and pickups stopped getting tonal influences from the body. And there's people on youtube who have done tests by taking the electronics of one guitar, and swapping only the body, to a mica kitchen counter top, plywood, acrylic, metal etc., and the sonic measurements were almost always 100% on the mark each body. Tim Sway I think was the guy who tested it. So yes, I'm not shocked Tom said "I can't claim my aging affects the sonic tone."
Really enjoyed this 😊 I like Tom. He's pretty unguarded about his process, except for the finish formula. I also really like the Murphy lab guitars. I think the pricing is a bit obscene but then all the top manufacturers appear to be thinking up crazy prices these days.
there's an excellent mini doc with Dennis Fano talking about his novo guitars. he says a lot of similar things about the how and why they relic/age their guitars. I love getting to see behind the curtain!
It’s Emperors clothes for me, but… If it makes you think you’re playing something old and inspires you to play better then fair play to you. But rubbing lacquer off and dinging the guitar to make it sound sonically better… Come on, that’s pure snake oil.
Tom did basically say that he felt having thinner and chequred lacquer makes the guitar more resonant, but he did imply that was more a feel thing than a sonic thing. He was making no claims about the (electronic) sonics, just how it feels and sounds "in the hand"... and how it makes the player feel and play just because of the looks and vibe (something Lee also talked about). It was quite refreshing to hear compared to some of the nonsense some companies spout.
Tone is in the finish is such BS. If it does make a difference your ears will never detect it. People buy these as aged guitars feel played in making them good in the hand; that makes you play a little differently and therefore a change in tone.
This guy is complicit in ruining thousand of “nice” guitars. Gibson probably created his job to mask their quality control “rejects” and sell them off for 2or 3 times the price.
All this sounds great- too bad the guitars don't sound just as good. They sound good, I'm not saying they don't- but imo they sound no better than an old Strat or an old Gretch. Wood ages, it sounds better with time- end of story imo. And maybe that's just because my ear isn't refined enough to hear this 1-2% difference you keep talking about but- imo that's a blessing, not a curse. The guys who can hear it- 99.9% of them are tone chasers- they spend years searching for the perfect tone- I would much rather spend that same amount of time learning to play better. Playing guitar is like playing a video game- you're just sitting around picking one day and "beep, beep" all the sudden you level up. And now you're playing something you couldn't play yesterday- that's awesome. To me it's what playing is all about- there's no room or time left for chasing tone. Good enough is good enough.
Nice job lee, no mollycoddling straight to the positive and negative points your customers have told you. Well done Captain. I’m from the VOS is my happy place and 15 years later there starting to check and the dings are all me, the tarnish is all natural. Great job on the Gibson shops, loved the look at all the Gibson plants.
I used to work in furniture restoration and we'd take brand new Oak Doors and hit them with chains, paint around the nails with black ink, hit the bottom and top with the back of a saw to create cracks, it was an art form because there's a fine line between looking old and looking stupid! I once matched a brand new Oak Door to go with a 200yo door using the above techniques with off the shelf stains, tea bags, coffee and managed to match the look exactly to match with the 200yo door!
Lutherie is the same. A pal is a violin maker and repairer. He learned aging/antiquing techniques as part of his training. When you repair a vintage instrument, you must make the repaired part look as if it belongs on the instrument. You cannot wait for 200 years for the repair to acquire a patina and blend in.
A pub I used to frequent (when I had a social life) wanted to make some changes a few years ago. Remove an old shop counter, extend the bar counter, put in some dividers, install a stove etc. The owner hired set designers and builders. It was done so well, even as someone who went there for 20 years beforehand, I started doubting myself after a while. Questioning whether something was new or had it been there all along. You would be hard pressed to spot which bits are 5 years old or 150+ years old.
Relic'ing is all about aesthetic. And I like it. But any tonality is all in your head. But if the "improved" tonality inspires one to play then all good.
😂🤣 This is simply not true. Science and actual recording comparisons completely disprove all of the myths purported in this video. Note that dude said they officially "will not claim claim the sonic benefits," because it doesn't have any. They would get sued for false advertising if they made such a false claim. This is the one job in the world that should not exist. He's an absolute liar, or a deluded shill.
You should keep it secret Tom.. "The secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" - Pablo Picasso. I'm still buying more Murphy Labs though ; )
I have a really weird Martin acoustic that had almost no finish on it from the factory. It was only produced for a few years in the early 2000s as an affordable all solid spruce and rosewood guitar. It's basically bare wood, and I think that adds to why it sounds so damn fantastic and why people always think it sounds like an old guitar. Tom is on to something with that.
@@CrossGuitarWorks Martin just called it a "Custom D." I got mine around 2005-06. It's very basic, but all-solid sitka Spruce top and Indian rosewood back and sides. They also made them in mahogany back and sides. They come up now and then on Reverb.
I was working in one of the original vintage guitar stores in 1974. My employer had purchased some guitars on the road and brought them into the store. I let the sit for several hours and opened an old 335 case up first. It didn't shatter, it was a slow and complete checking. I was horrified. It went from excellent condition to a shattered windshield effect. There is a reason the recommendation to not open the box on your new nitro finish guitar for a day is there.
Here are my thoughts: 1. The “magical” LP rock tones that people today still try to emulate came about from roughly 1966-1975, when Bursts were 8-17 years old...not 65 years old. Were these guitars all aged and distressed already then? 2. While Gibson CS is certainly making much closer reproductions of Bursts (and all solid guitars in general), they seem to be neglecting the fact that the mahogany and rosewood that they’re using currently are very different from the originals Also, the materials used in the potentiometers aren’t the same as they were in the 50s and 60s, and the magnets in the pickups varied a lot in terms of quality control. I can understand why it is almost impossible for them to us the exact same pots and magnets as back then, but anyone who’s spent a lot of time with the old pots know that they are somewhat different. I get why people want copies of old Gibsons, as I’ve played many good ones, and own a few myself, but I just cannot justify buying an R9 for these prices when the woods are incorrect. Surely, Gibson can get still ahold of some old growth Honduran mahogany and Brazilian rosewood for at least some of their historic series. It can be purchased still, but they don’t want to pay for it. I know it’s a lot more expensive and hard to get than what they’re using, but they’re charging roughly 3-4 times the inflation adjusted prices for R guitars than what they charged for the originals.
It's all bullsh1t. They will try and scam people into believing that scuffing a guitar and running a blade over it will make it sound better. How absurd.
Im certain those original 50s and 60s Gibsons and Fenders were 'seasoned' for way beyond the 8-15 years you mentioned. I would think these companies have wood stashed away for decades before use. Independent luthiers have always done it that way.
Back then Gibson was getting its wood via the furniture industry, and Michigan had a ton of South American wood coming there for furniture. I highly doubt that they were holding wood intentionally for many years before using it, but it’s certainly possible that it took them that long to get through their surpluses. The difference here is that the old growth mahogany took like 80-100 years to grow before harvest, whereas the modern stuff is 20-30 years old. When you “fast-grow” this wood, the density changes dramatically, and that will affect how it feels when vibrating. Fender - Leo would have used scraps from pallets if he could have gotten away with it. It was never a priority for him to source high quality woods...I mean his first guitars were made of pine without truss rods, but he was forced to upgrade based on player feedback. And the bolt-on necks were designed so that they could be thrown away and exchanged when they crapped out. Leo was a genius in regards to design, but he knew almost nothing about actually playing instruments.
Paying thousands of dollars more to artificially age something that is not even really old is really a counterfeit 😂. Ridiculous! I own over 80 guitars from late 60s to last year's Jackson custom shop. Mine all genuine and real!
I'm not against aging guitars, but the suggestion that the finish will dampen the sound when the thing is clamped between several dampening body appendages when it's being played is laughable to me.
