The Last Bass Outpost

Despite Gibson's suspicious explanation, here's the an extensive interview with BJ Wilkes, the man who took the video and uploaded it.

According to Wilkes, who says he was a facilities guy with Gibson, this was done post-Henry, and was done because the new investors needed to get these guitars off the books. That still doesn't make sense to me.

I guess it's too expensive, but take out the pots, the pickusp, reuse the necks...

Gibson's legal team obviously thought it was too close to Thunderbird. The trademark is for the category of musical instruments, not just any product. It's more overreach. No one would have confused the product shapes, either. The fanned frets and the slanted features set the Dingwall apart. But a small operator like Sheldon doesn't have the resources to fight it. That's a shame.

Never the strongest Dio composition, I agree with Rob, it's too forced. Maybe you need to be grown up a little to do Dio credibly.

Every article I read about the Gibson bankruptcy -- on business and financial sites, guitar magazine sites, Nashville newspaper sites -- made it clear that Gibson's guitar business was profitable, and that the problem was the debt from the consumer electronics companies Henry bought.

Yet in every thread I saw on every forum except ours, and on every music site where comments are allowed, loads of posters filled the threads with their opinions about what Gibson absolutely has to do to save its guitar business. Do these people not read the articles, or just have no ability to understand what they're reading?