You know, I've heard stuff like "it was a pre-2006 custom shop SG so it was a good one". I have seen this in a couple of places and this stands out to me especially because I happen to have a 2006 custom shop SG historic reissue. So I guess that means somehow it's crap compared to one made a few months earlier. I don't know, it seems very well made to me. I guess the ones from 2005 are just amazing somehow? I don't really know where this comes from for reissues at least. They are essentially the same guitar with minor tweaks from year to year so drawing some line in the sand like they lost the secret recipe in 2010 but got it back in 2011 makes no sense to me. I could see someone saying "they stopped drilling the ABR-1 bridge into the guitar body and put the posts into studs starting in 2012 and I like the sound better before then" but that's at least a specific thing that you can point to where you don't like it, not "they were all awful that year". (by they way, I don't know when they made that change on the reissues, I just made up 2012) On the other hand, the models that were unique releases for a year or a handful of years could certainly be met with "that's a great model" or "oh lord what were they thinking?" But that wouldn't be because Gibson lost their mojo that year, just that people didn't "click" with that design choice. Or so it seems to me.