I repost and expand from the other thread
In my opinion small inaccuracies that come from the production process, the way instruments are built, can't be always called issues.
If we take the Gibson case as an example, they basically build guitars in the same way they always did, a way that is not aimed to perfection, a way that produces small imperfections.
Some of those imperfections are expected and not somenthing has slipped through the QC check.
Things like bleeding, small imperfections on the finsh, small glue residues, the way the guitar stay (or doesn't stay in tune), the headstock construction, all this kind of thigs are part of what a Gibson guitar is and, I guess, want to be.
A different matter is when an instrument has issues that are beyond the usual quirks, things that are not a byproduct of the building process, outside the expected outcome, like defective parts, heavy and visible tooling marks, dead spots, scratches, etc. These kind of issues are a QC problems and should not happen.
In my opinion brands with a long history and a legacy are "allowed" to keep on building instruments with a process that retains a certain % of small flaws. They are allowed because it's their history and there's value (real or only perceived doesn't matter) in that history.
While cosmetic perfection and modern techniques might have a value is not a value per se, surely not for everyone.
After all there's no such a thing like the ultimate guitar and if we don't agree on that we then should only play fanned guitars, for example, because traditional frets are a design flaw just like the Gibson headstock.
)
The screw is gone now, but the head was completely stripped out.
