So I want to discuss these, I found a new old stock 2016 SG special for $500 and bought it a few years ago on a whim when I was ready to drop $2k for a nice guitar. i had previously spent time with an ES339 which converted me to a Gibson fan from a typical hater. Nothing compares. I don’t know if it’s the scale length or neck profiles or what. But this leads to my question: what was going on during the bankruptcy era? Why were these SGs so cheap? They retailed as low as $799.99. I look at mine and I can’t figure out why it was cheap, what am i missing? The 16 Special has -small block inlays -Firebird minis (Don’t appear to be Epiphone LP deluxe style) >Satin Nitro 2 piece body to my eye >Zamak bridge >deluxe tuners >Maple Neck The new SG special starts at $1500, but it has thicker nitro and binding but otherwise seems the same. With the exception of the aluminum bridge and P90s. Now many call Zamak pot metal, but in the US Zamak has a legal definition of 97% Zinc plus a few addatives for strength. Don’t belive me? Paul Reed Smith is using Zinc on his guitars these days. Cheaper? Yes, but it’s a good alloy when it’s to spec, doesn’t tarnish, and historically correct. did Gibson outsource hardware during these years for the low price point? We’re they eating cost by doing lower mark up? are the tuners and bridge actually chinesium low zinc pot metal or are they up to spec ? I will say my SG goes through a daily ‘warm up’ period of going out of tune. Usually after 5 mins or so I need to tune, usually G occasionally more, and then it settles and won’t need tuning again until I’ve set it down for a period. I assumed this was just typical SG ‘lube the nut’ syndrome. But the pricing lately has made me wonder if there is some other manufacturing loop hole they went with that has made them unstable? Smaller Neck tenon or something? Anyone have any thoughts or insight on how Gibson met it’s price point during the ‘bankruptcy’ era? Also, I’ll just add a few comments, slightly off topic. 1. Gibson actually gained guitar sales during the bankruptcy era while the rest of the industry lost sales. The bankruptcy stemmed from Gibson’s very poor attempts at diversifying out of the guitar industry. Bad websites, bad Chinese firms and other business ventures fell flat one after the other, the guitar sales were strong and allowed Gibson to survive all the wasted investments. The whole ‘Gibson has bad QA and that’s why they went bankrupt’ is a totally false narrative that emerged from the YouTube e-celeb world. A few low volume high end experimental guitars like the Modern Double cut or Firebird X were hardly factors either. 2. The 2019 ‘model year zero’ line actually seems to be more ‘cost cut’ focused to me than the previous years. Atleast on first look. Firebird for example doesn’t have the chamfered head stock or banjo tuners. I was about to check out with one in my hand and then I realiZed I was about to pay $1999 for a shortcut Firebird. SGs as well have weird bridges that to my eye seem thinner and Less stable than the one on my 16. There are less variety of pickups and less variety of color. I was thinking I should replace my ‘bad’ SG with a new ‘fixed’ one but the SG 61 reissue has a wobbley bridge. I couldn’t believe it. Anyway, please discuss, as we approach NAMM and 2020 year two of model year zero. Are these new guitars ‘better’? Why were the Bankrupcy guitars cheaper? I’ve been on the verge of selling my ‘16 for a ‘61 standard, a 19 Firebird, and even a Clapton Strat. But as I played all of those I couldn’t actually see anything wrong with mine that those improved on? at this point I’ll likely keep the SG special until I find Custom shop model with a Sunburst model I like unless I’m missing something big?