Gibson M-III is back!

[Snoogans]

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Elec...USA/M-III.aspx

After all, it was such a winner last time around....

[markD]

yeah, that guitar is hideous....though it looks a little better this time around. doubt it will sell well.

[lefty]

Wow, I remember those fugly POSes. Looks like a Rickenbacker threw up on
Strat or something...

[shreddermon]

A desperate attempt to gain a share of the modern super strat-like market. Both then and now.

Will Jackson build Gibby shapes now? Well, maybe very ugly versions of them LOL

[leftykingv2]

My dog has left nicer looking things in the back yard. More crap from them as per usual. It's so funny to watch these people who are running this company do things like this. Just like Snoogans said this thing bombed the first time around. It wasn't a hit last time because they're so innovative and ahead of the times. Now people will "Finally" understand Gibsons genius! LMAO! It looks like one of those hideous things that Gary Kramer made when he first started Gary Kramer Guitars. That thing is a really expensive piece of firewood in my opinion me at best. Phil Spector should be let out of jail to run Gibson. Maybe he would shoot Henry J. and do us all a favor. I would be shocked if they sell 500 of them world wide. That has got to be one of the ugliest guitars I've ever seen in my life. Second only to the "Reverse V" and we all know how awesome looking that thing was.

[Vass]

They get bashed when they re-issue every old tired design they've done 1000 times

They get bashed when they try to innovate (last Gibson bashing post about the LPX, which had inboard effects and Bluetooth and USB connectivity with other features) as not being innovative or trying new things. Same with the Robot.

They can't win. Not every idea is going to be a winner, but that's what happens when you try new things. Everyone shits themselves when Jackson starts offering strat heads but when Gibson offers new products that people who don't like them don't have to buy they're jackasses.

FWIW I own exactly one Gibson so I'm hardly a fan boy. I am a fan of private companies who spend their own capital on R&D to try to move the instrument forward- no matter how fitfully.

[toejam]

Eh, it's okay. I remember the old ones, but never really cared for the funky pickguards some of them had.

[CowboyFromHell]

I've seen worse. Change the "crayon-tip" inlays and it might not be so bad. Has good fret access.

[leftykingv2]

Slice it how ever you want in my opinion it's very ugly. I don't see how anyone could think making a second run of a guitar that's already failed miserably is " trying to move the instrument forward." It sounds and looks like Gibson just doesn't want to admit to the miserable failure this guitar was when it first came out. It also makes me think they think their customers are morons. I could just hear Henry now. "Oh this failed back then?" We'll wait ten years and re-release it, the dumb asses will lap it up and pay 2K for this ugly turd. Again, that's just my opinion but what the fuck do I know.

[Chad]

Did not like then. Do not like now.

[tomanyjacksons]

WRC is the only Gibson I could see buying. Reissue that.

[Axewielder]

In fairness, they did bring back the Les Paul to much success...

[Maiden89]

If they would have used a strat or soloist styled body and changed the inlays, it would've probably been one of two Gibson's I would consider buying; the other being an explorer, just because I think it looks cool.

[Nightbat]

When Gibson introduced the M-III in 1991 it totally embodied the “shred” guitar

...and we all know Gibson is THE authoritive last word on what a shred guitar should be

then again, they call a glued in maple neck innovative, so perhaps I'm not living in the same century as their PR machine




Fuck it, just Reissue the V'90 and maybe I'll rethink my opinion of Gibson

[Hellbat]

It looks like a modernized wilshire, except somehow uglier. Kind of a vagazzled Wilshire.