which Korean Les Paul copy do you think is best?
jeff
Pauls, on Ebay, and many new brand names. Are most of these brands
basically one brand, Samick, and then are there real qualitative
differences between these brands? For instance,are there any
distinctions between a SurfCity, Agile, Dillion, and a Kona Les Paul?
How do these guitars compare with the Japanese "golden age" and or
"lawsuit" era?
for personal replies, email to jeffp at "en why see" dot "ar ar" dot com
Xeromus
ESP EC-1000 is the best of the Les Paul copies
¤ Alias
wrote:
>
>ESP EC-1000 is the best of the Les Paul copies
>
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 02:13:41 GMT, jeff <nob...@everywhere.com> wrote:
>
>>There's alot to choose from in terms of very inexpensive Korean Les
>>Pauls, on Ebay, and many new brand names. Are most of these brands
>>basically one brand, Samick, and then are there real qualitative
>>differences between these brands? For instance,are there any
>>distinctions between a SurfCity, Agile, Dillion, and a Kona Les Paul?
Agile is the best value - for the $$$, it's a pretty good guitar. I
don't know how it compares to the ESP, though.
Agile isn't made by Samick, to the best of my knowledge.
>>How do these guitars compare with the Japanese "golden age" and or
>>"lawsuit" era?
Unfavorably, probably.
But that doesn't mean they're not decent guitars.
¤ Alias
www.dannyschorr.com
winnard
"jeff" <nob...@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:3e9hhvsc1fv75ilc6...@4ax.com...
> There's alot to choose from in terms of very inexpensive Korean Les
> Pauls, on Ebay, and many new brand names.
The hands down best Les Paul copy I've ever played is on my strap right
now. It is the Epiphone LP Xtreme. The guitar is built great, has awesome
tuners, and the neck is fast and furious. I've changed the pickups to
Seymour Duncan Antiquities and it's never leaving my sight. You can get one
for 250 bucks if you look on ebay.
winnard
Xeromus
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 03:12:00 GMT, "winnard" <8tra...@SPAMcox.net>
wrote:
Jim Anable
Epi's had for a while.
Jim Anable
> There's alot to choose from in terms of very inexpensive Korean Les
> Pauls, on Ebay, and many new brand names.
There are only two Les Paul's. The Gibson, and the Epiphone that is made
under license by Samick for Gibson. All other guitars look like Les Pauls,
but will not have the same dimension or features.
> Are most of these brands
> basically one brand, Samick, and then are there real qualitative
> differences between these brands? For instance,are there any
> distinctions between a SurfCity, Agile, Dillion, and a Kona Les Paul?
> How do these guitars compare with the Japanese "golden age" and or
> "lawsuit" era?
My opinion, and I played guitar back in the "golden age" and "lawsuit era",
with few exceptions they are poor quality.
If budget is a concern, wade through as many Epiphones as you can and choose
the best. You can look at the Samicks and other brands, but side by side
they are NOT Les Paul's.
Jim Anable
> Are they Korean? They've got that funky headstock logo that the chinese bolt on
> Epi's had for a while.
Never mind. I found one for auction on eBay, and it has a Korea sticker, but a
different headstock shape? I won't comment on the neck markers and unusual finish
(I actually talked the store down on the price of my Slash model because of the
logo). If cosmetics don't kill it for you, these could be a good bargain.
Arthur Dent
wrote:
>no offense, but isn't that the REALLY ugly one?
No, they're pretty cool looking, at least the amber finish is. But I
don't see them as a Les Paul copy, though there is some resemblance.
winnard
"Xeromus" <xer...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:f6hhhvol2od1b5pp3...@4ax.com...
> no offense, but isn't that the REALLY ugly one?
>
It depends on which color. I have the red over yellow and it's sharp
looking. The green over blue looks like dog vomit! The finish is nice, but
it really isn't the most good lookin' guitar you'll ever see, but the
playability makes up for it.
winnard
winnard
"Jim Anable" <j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote in message
news:3F18D628...@seattle-attorney.com...
They do look strange, but they grow on you after awhile. They play
really great, and that makes up for the funky colors. 250 bucks or less is
a great deal for a set neck guitar with great tuners and pickups and it
plays just like a real Les Paul, you have to agree.
winnard
Pankoski
the Chinese now with LP copies from Jay Turser, Tradition, Johnson, Copley,
etc etc. The Jay Turser copies are great for the $$, I saw a couple of
Copley's and Tradition's in stores and they were OK looking but I never
tried them.
Nimrod
But the Epi Les Pauls (1) don't have mahogany bodies and (2) have a
very thin maple top (just a veneer). Also since the top is so thin it
is obviously the body which is carved and not the top.
These are not trivial distinctions.
For $300 the Agile LP-2800s offer (1) a mahogony body and (2) a
thicker maple top.
Two distinctions from a Gibson LP are (1) the neck is maple (2) it is
still the body which is carved and not the top.
According to one of the books on LPs that I have, for a period during
the 70s some Gibson LPs actually had maple necks. (Geez).
The only Epiphones that seems to have the same wood specs as a Gibson
LP are the Elitists.
The phrase "made to Gibson's specs" does not mean the Epiphones are
made to the same specs as Gibsons. It only means they are made to the
specs that Gibson specified for the Epiphones to have. Gibson is
running the show and specified that the Epiphones would "be close but
no cigar" for the obvious reaon of propping up the prices of their
Gibson LPs .
I haven't heard any horror stories about Epiphone Elitist quality
control yet, so maybe they are the best bet as far as getting a mail
order LP. Just a guess on that point.
Bruce Oliver
binding, pickguard, inlayed name head stock etc. I paid $275 new because
it'd been in the amp 'Demo Room'. I know it was made by Samick but can't
find 'Korea' stamped on it anywhere even though it had all original 'passed
& 'inspective by stickers'. I found out the difference when it got knocked
off it's stand during a break. Minor fall but it put a deep dent (1/16") on
the back of the body.
Bruce
"jeff" <nob...@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:3e9hhvsc1fv75ilc6...@4ax.com...
Jim Anable
> But the Epi Les Pauls (1) don't have mahogany bodies
Mine does.
> and (2) have a
> very thin maple top (just a veneer).
Not mine.
> Also since the top is so thin it
> is obviously the body which is carved and not the top.
Not true.
Jim Anable
classic LP. I've had the pickups out, and I've seen the
thickness of the cap. It is NOT as thick as Gibson, but it
is NOT a thin veneer over a carved body.
The body on mine is three pieces of mahogany, but the center
piece is at least 75% of the guitar. The back does have a
mahogany veneer to cover the pieces, you have to look on the
side to see where it is joined.
Other Epi's may be as Nimrod describes, I don't know. But I
know what mine is.
Nimrod
I don't know why people get so emotional about Epiphones (on either
side of the issue). The specs for the current Epi Les Paul Stand
specify the body as Mogany/Alder. For all I know that means the center
is Mahogany and the wings are Alder.
Nimrod
Do you own an Agile LP ?
Agiles go for like $250 - $300. For $300 how far can a person go
wrong?
I have been thinking of getting an Agile LP-2800 to possibly put
burstbuckers or duncans into (if it is even necessary). I can't resist
breaking out the soldering iron if there is half an excuse to use it.
I have a "real" Gibson LP from 1977. I've owned it that long. I'd be
careful buying Gibson LPs from that era. The frets are really small
and there is not enough room for a single leveling. Also the neck has
a slight twiston mine. There are other gripes about the sandwiched
wood body design making it a less than ideal vintage. So it collects
dust.
If nothing else I can play the Agile while the Gibson is awaiting
liposuction and a face lift.
>Agile is the best value - for the $$$, it's a pretty good guitar. I
>don't know how it compares to the ESP, though.
>
>Agile isn't made by Samick, to the best of my knowledge.
>
The ESP is not a cheap guitar. $700-$800
The elctronics uses a single tone control rather than two. But heck,
separate tone controls were always a bad idea in the first place.
Also, it is ugly like all the other ESP guitars!
But it may play/sound great.
Jim Anable
> I appreciate the info on the Slash Epi.
>
> I don't know why people get so emotional about Epiphones (on either
> side of the issue).
I don't think my response was emotional, but let's take a look at your
original message.
You responded to my post about Epiphone Les Pauls. In response, you
listed certain "facts" about Epiphones, and you listed them (1), (2)...
Your list was entirely false, at least as it applies to my Epi Les Paul.
I replied to this bad information as a simple correction so that others
didn't rely on bad information. Are you trying to dismiss this reply as
emotional? I've seen emotional posts, including many negative posts on
Epiphone's from Gibson owners that really don't know what they are talking
about. Could it be that they are trying to justify the major expense of a
Gibson, trying to convince themselves?
The simple fact is that Gibson's have a definitive edge on Epiphone's, but
you PAY a lot for that edge. Since each guitar is an individual, so you
have good and bad with any name on the headstock. With new pickups, a
good Epi is 90% of the guitar for a fraction of the cost, and that's what
seems to upset the Gibson owners.
If you want to read emotion into all of this, fine. But all I want to do
is state the CORRECT facts.
> The specs for the current Epi Les Paul Stand
> specify the body as Mogany/Alder. For all I know that means the center
> is Mahogany and the wings are Alder.
This thread could have been avoided if you would've stated "for all I
know" in your original post. BTW, you are incorrect on the "wings being
alder."
Jim Anable
ESP does offer some LP copies that have upgraded p'ups. Some have EMG
81/85, others have Seymour Duncan 59/Jazz (but cheaper models have the HZ
passive EMG's).
Like all "copies" (anything other than Gibson or Epiphone), if you look at
it, you can tell it isn't a Les Paul. It only has one tone control. The
body shape is different (pointy cutout, wrong lines). I don't know that
I'd call it "ugly", but it is not a true Les Paul.
Nimrod
Actually, when I said I don't know why people get emotional, I didn't
mean you in particular. I was referring to the gazillion other
emotional Epi/Gibson threads in the past. Did you participate in any
of them? :)
Quite frankly I am on the same page with you. I am looking for a
decent value guitar to fill the LP slot in my collection/closet
arsenal.
But why do people have to go overboard and act like an Epiphone LP
only differs from a Gibson LP with regard to the quality of the
pickups and tuners? It's not just the precise geometry of the wood
design that differs, but also the "quality" of the wood. The resonance
of the wood.
An Epi LP differs from a Gibson LP in enough ways that all the other
LP copies are at least worthy of consideration. Some of the other
copies even cost more than an Epi. The ESP Ec-1000 is an example.
Darnit Jim, you are a lawyer! Go out and buy a Gibson. You deserve
one!
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 16:29:01 -0700, Jim Anable
Nimrod
But, a guitar that looks different from a Les Paul but has attention
to the quality of the wood and the thickness of the carved maple top
may have a better chance of sounding like a Les Paul than an Epiphone.
Choosing a guitar is complicated if price is a factor.
Jim Anable
> Actually, when I said I don't know why people get emotional, I didn't
> mean you in particular. I was referring to the gazillion other
> emotional Epi/Gibson threads in the past. Did you participate in any
> of them? :)
Yeah, I've made my opinion known (the average Gibson is "better" that the
average Epi, but a Gibson is not always worth the extra price when compared to
a good Epi with some upgrades).
> Quite frankly I am on the same page with you. I am looking for a
> decent value guitar to fill the LP slot in my collection/closet
> arsenal.
>
> But why do people have to go overboard and act like an Epiphone LP
> only differs from a Gibson LP with regard to the quality of the
> pickups and tuners?
There are other differences, it is more than country of origin, it *is* quality
of woods and workmanship The workmanship on Gibson necks is generally better
(and a nice Gibson neck is WAY better than an average Epi neck). But it isn't
unheard of to find an Epi with a nicer neck than the rest of the Gibsons on the
same floor. The quality of the "cheap" guitars is improving, now that they use
the same machinery and as they gain experience.
It all boils down to whether you think the Gibson LP is really worth the extra
money. Even then, you can't be assured that it is good just because it says
"Gibson" on it, you still need to cherry pick.
> It's not just the precise geometry of the wood
> design that differs, but also the "quality" of the wood. The resonance
> of the wood.
>
> An Epi LP differs from a Gibson LP in enough ways that all the other
> LP copies are at least worthy of consideration. Some of the other
> copies even cost more than an Epi. The ESP Ec-1000 is an example.
Maybe I'm being picky about what is a copy and what is not. I said that the
only "real" Les Pauls are the Epi and Gibson, but I never MEANT to say that you
should limit your choice of brand to Gibson or Epi. I was just saying that the
copies are noticeably different, and often don't feel right to me.
> Darnit Jim, you are a lawyer! Go out and buy a Gibson. You deserve
> one!
Yeah, but I'm not a pro player. ...and I'm NOT a rich attorney, either. My
Epi Slash is fine for me. I put SD Jazz/JB p'ups in it, with a ton of options
on four push/pull pots. I leveled the frets myself. I like how it plays, and
the name on the headstock doesn't bother me one bit.
Would I trade it for a nice Gibson? You bet, I've got no special attachment to
it, and I'd just as soon lose the snakepit logo. But I just don't feel a need
to spend more money. If I was to spend more money, I'd rather get another
guitar than "upgrade" from my Epi to a Gibson. Besides, I prefer Seymour
Duncans to Gibson pickups (as far as passives go), so even if I found a nice
Gibson, I'd end up having to change the p'ups!
Remove NOSPAM to reply
> people get emotional, I didn't mean you
> in particular. I was referring to the
> gazillion other emotional Epi/Gibson
> threads in the past. Did you participate
> in any of them? :)
I have, and I know Jim has, too. Most of us Epi owners aren't tring to
say that the Epi is every bit as good as the Gibson.
What inevitably happens is someone who's spent a fortune on his Gibson
comes in here and proceeds to tell the world that his Gibson guitar is
the be all/end all, and anyone who plays an Epi is a worthless wannabe
who wouldn't know quality if it bit him in the ass, etc. Who's emotional
now?
>Quite frankly I am on the same page
> with you. I am looking for a decent value
> guitar to fill the LP slot in my
> collection/closet arsenal.
Epiphone's set neck Les Pauls are definitely worth a look, then. I know
that some newer ones are made with alder instead of maple, but the
Classic is still maple, IIRC.
>But why do people have to go overboard
> and act like an Epiphone LP only differs
> from a Gibson LP with regard to the
> quality of the pickups and tuners? It's
> not just the precise geometry of the
> wood design that differs, but also the
> "quality" of the wood. The resonance of
> the wood.
While it's true that there are more differences than pups and tuners,
changing those puts the Epi squarely in Gibson's ballpark sonically. I
find that the difference pricewise is nowhere near that same ballpark.
>An Epi LP differs from a Gibson LP in
> enough ways that all the other LP
> copies are at least worthy of
> consideration. Some of the other copies
> even cost more than an Epi. The ESP
> Ec-1000 is an example.
Worthy of consideration, certainly. I don't know of anyone who disagrees
with that. Most of them are made by Samick anyway, but of those, only
the Epi has the LP's shape and dimensions. Personally, I like the look
of the ESP, even though it's a bit of a different shape.
~Rich
See my gear at the link!
http://community.webtv.net/one4rich/RichsGuitarPage
Nimrod
(Remove NOSPAM to reply) wrote:
>Who's emotional
>now?
>
That would be you :)
Getting bent out of shape over the relative merits of an Epiphone Les
Paul is a concentric circle of hell.
Gibson has brilliantly been able pass down their price premium from
the Gibsons to the Epiphones. I'm not saying that Epiphones suck. I'm
just saying that they have a line of bullshit preceding them. The
bullshit is centered heavily around the Les Paul endorsement. It
creates the illusion that they are the same darned guitars with
different headstocks.
At one extreme you have to ask yourself why you would pay $500 for an
Epi whe another brands copy would be $300. At the other extreme the
Elite Standard Plus Epiphones go for $1049. Isn't that what a Gibson
Les Paul should really sell for?
A Gibson Les Paul Standard goes for $1900. That's a lot of money but
if I am blowing $1049 for a solid body guitar I am going to be asking
myself why I am not getting the darned Gibson for $1900.
Paying a premium for the Gibson brand name is one thing, but it really
pisses me off to think that I will be paying a premium for the
Epiphone brand name.
I'm not saying it won't ever happen, but when I buy an Epiphone I'll
be pissed about that proxy Gibson premium.
Jim Anable
I humbly suggest that you go and play a few Les Pauls (Epiphone and
Gibson). Then play some copies. Then report back. You obviously haven't
played the right Epiphone.
I've played a few myself, and my opinion is that the Epiphone is the best
bang for the buck.
I've read your following message. Twice. It now seems to me that YOU are
the one getting emotional and that YOU are falling into the "concentric
circle of hell."
Additional comments below:
Nimrod wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:26:14 -0500 (CDT), oneNOSP...@webtv.net
> (Remove NOSPAM to reply) wrote:
>
> >Who's emotional
> >now?
> >
>
> That would be you :)
>
> Getting bent out of shape over the relative merits of an Epiphone Les
> Paul is a concentric circle of hell.
>
> Gibson has brilliantly been able pass down their price premium from
> the Gibsons to the Epiphones. I'm not saying that Epiphones suck. I'm
> just saying that they have a line of bullshit preceding them. The
> bullshit is centered heavily around the Les Paul endorsement. It
> creates the illusion that they are the same darned guitars with
> different headstocks.
Good Epiphone Les Pauls are WAY closer to a Gibson LP than the copies I've
played.
> At one extreme you have to ask yourself why you would pay $500 for an
> Epi whe another brands copy would be $300. At the other extreme the
> Elite Standard Plus Epiphones go for $1049. Isn't that what a Gibson
> Les Paul should really sell for?
It WOULD be much more reasonable to price the Gibson at double the
Epiphone price, instead of four times the Epi price!
> A Gibson Les Paul Standard goes for $1900. That's a lot of money but
> if I am blowing $1049 for a solid body guitar I am going to be asking
> myself why I am not getting the darned Gibson for $1900.
Hmm. Let's see. You can justify paying TWICE the price of an Elite just
to have the Gibson name (actual Elite price is $949), but you can't
justify an extra $200 for an Epi over some Chinese guitar that isn't even
the correct shape, doesn't have the same features, and doesn't feel like a
Les Paul?
Earlier, you were talking about the ESP's. The difference in price
between the Epi LP Std. and the ESP EC-300 is only FIFTY BUCKS. I'm
willing to pay $50 for the correct shape, weight and feel. And the ESP
with the decent p'ups are $200 MORE than the Epi. Much more than the cost
of a couple of Seymour Duncans or EMG's.
What $300 LP's are you referring to, anyway?
I guess I'm missing your logic.
> Paying a premium for the Gibson brand name is one thing, but it really
> pisses me off to think that I will be paying a premium for the
> Epiphone brand name.
Come on now, you honestly believe you'd be paying a premium for the
Epiphone name? If there is a premium involved, I'd say it is worth it,
for the correct shape, features and feel.
The consensus of MANY guitar players is that you get MUCH more value with
an Epiphone, compared to a Gibson. Sure, the Epi needs some upgrades, but
is the Gibson really worth four times the price?
Uncle Remus
>Paying a premium for the Gibson brand name is one thing, but it really
>pisses me off to think that I will be paying a premium for the
>Epiphone brand name.
Why? By your analogy, the Gibson is almost double the price.
If you can buy a nice Toyota for 20,000, that is comfortable, well
built, drives well, and is reliable, would it be practical to pay
40,000 for a Lexus that does exactly the same thing, point A to point
B for double the price? No, definitely not practical, but people buy
them for status. Perhaps the same thing happens with Gibson vs
Epiphone? Just an observation from someone neutral, I don't own
either.
jeff
It's of no concern to me for a "copy" to look exactly like a Les Paul,
in fact I like the idea of experimentaion and innovation. I am not
sure what "real" means regarding Les Pauls because if you play 30
different Standards from varying years you will be playing 30
different guitars that all will feel and sound slightly different.
And some will say that if you play 30 Standards from the same year,
you will also be playing 30 different guitars.
Remove NOSPAM to reply
> why you would pay $500 for an Epi whe
> another brands copy would be $300. At
> the other extreme the Elite Standard
> Plus Epiphones go for $1049. Isn't that
> what a Gibson Les Paul should really
> sell for?
Yes, that's exactly the point...a Gibson *should* sell for $1049!
Unfortunately, only the used ones go for that, and isn't that considered
a deal?
>A Gibson Les Paul Standard goes for
> $1900. That's a lot of money but if I am
> blowing $1049 for a solid body guitar I
> am going to be asking myself why I am
> not getting the darned Gibson for $1900.
Agreed! I think the $1049 is too high for the Epi Elite or whatever you
want to call it. The biggest reason the Epi is a good value is it's very
close quality-wise, but *much* lower price-wise. If there were only
$250-$300 difference they wouldn't sell so many Epis. Keeping the
Gibson's prices in the stratosphere sells loads of Epis.
>Paying a premium for the Gibson brand
> name is one thing, but it really pisses
> me off to think that I will be paying a
> premium for the Epiphone brand name.
Agreed!
Jim Anable
> >At one extreme you have to ask yourself
> > why you would pay $500 for an Epi whe
> > another brands copy would be $300. At
> > the other extreme the Elite Standard
> > Plus Epiphones go for $1049. Isn't that
> > what a Gibson Les Paul should really
> > sell for?
>
> Yes, that's exactly the point...a Gibson *should* sell for $1049!
> Unfortunately, only the used ones go for that, and isn't that considered
> a deal?
>
> >A Gibson Les Paul Standard goes for
> > $1900. That's a lot of money but if I am
> > blowing $1049 for a solid body guitar I
> > am going to be asking myself why I am
> > not getting the darned Gibson for $1900.
>
> Agreed! I think the $1049 is too high for the Epi Elite or whatever you
> want to call it.
The Epi Elite uses American hardware and pickups, upgraded wood, and bone
nuts. It's a fair price when you consider the product and the current
market. By the way, the correct price is $949 in MF, which I find to be a
good indication of what GC will take as a cash offer (sometimes even less
than MF prices).
Jim Anable
> It's of no concern to me for a "copy" to look exactly like a Les Paul,
> in fact I like the idea of experimentaion and innovation. I am not
> sure what "real" means regarding Les Pauls because if you play 30
> different Standards from varying years you will be playing 30
> different guitars that all will feel and sound slightly different.
> And some will say that if you play 30 Standards from the same year,
> you will also be playing 30 different guitars.
This is true. And if you play 30 Gibson's and 30 Epiphone's, the Gibson's will
NOT necessarily be the 30 best guitars, despite the fact that they cost four
times as much.
Jim Anable
Unfortunately, I don't live by Rondo music, so I can't try it. It looks like
they have a 30 day return policy, if somebody wants to do mail order
roulette. The site won't give me shipping charges unless I register and give
them an e-mail. But I will admit that the $299 flame model with alnico p'ups
looks interesting. The appearance is fairly accurate, but the neck has a
flatter radius.
Too bad I can't try it out. I used to go to Rondo when I lived in New Jersey
(high school years). I'm not in the market for another LP, but I would like
to see what it has to offer.
¤ Alias
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>I looked back on your messages and did a search of the Agile copy.
>Unfortunately, I don't live by Rondo music, so I can't try it. It looks like
>they have a 30 day return policy, if somebody wants to do mail order
>roulette. The site won't give me shipping charges unless I register and give
>them an e-mail. But I will admit that the $299 flame model with alnico p'ups
>looks interesting. The appearance is fairly accurate, but the neck has a
>flatter radius.
>
>Too bad I can't try it out. I used to go to Rondo when I lived in New Jersey
>(high school years). I'm not in the market for another LP, but I would like
>to see what it has to offer.
I've tried 'em. Some were really good, some were decent. None were
bad.
They vary alot, not in quality but in the particular tone of each.
Overall, its a hell of a guitar for the money, but you take a bit of a
chance by not being able to play it,which is true of any mail order
guitar. But they have a good return policy AFAIK.
You can call Rondo - someone there will give you the shipping $$$.
(I don't have the 800 number handy)
BTW, If you walked into Rondo today, you'd see the same faces there
you saw when you were in high school! Same owner, same manager...
¤ Alias
www.dannyschorr.com
Nimrod
Rinse, wash, repeat.
Nimrod
I'm not sure the Toyota Lexus analogy is parallel to my point about
Gibson/Epiphone. Is a Toyota a Lexus knockoff?
I'm just trying to say that everybody knows when you buy a Gibson you
pay a little (maybe a lot) too much for the Gibson name on the
headstock. When you buy an Epiphone your paying a little too much for
a guitar that has the right to "look just like a Gibson".
It just gets a little wierd when Epiphone owners acuse Gibson owners
of snobbery. Both groups are buying into and paying up for the same
brand name myth.
Being a dead ringer visually doesn't mean the Epiphones are the most
accurate copies as far as musical issues go.
There's an Epiphone snobbery that looks down on other copies (and even
looks down on Gibsons because they are overpriced). Just look at the
hit squad that shows up every time this thread starts up in one form
or another.
Paul A.
Both are great for their respective prices but there are a few
misconceptions here.
Epi Les Pauls (not Elites) have Mahogany bodies (not Honduran) and
Alder Tops with a Maple veneer on top of that. Some even have Alder
bodies. Anyone at Epiphone would gladly fill you in on that fact (as
they once did for me). I don't care if you pulled your Epi apart and
scientificly tested each piece, it is not made of the same materials
as a Gibson Les Paul.
Gibson Les Pauls do not have Maple necks. Theirs are usually Honduran
Mahogany. Whatever Les Paul book you are reading from - it's wrong. Go
to the Gibson site and check for yourself. A few Les Paul Customs in
the past have featured Maple necks (70s models) and of course the Zakk
Wylde Signature Bullseye Les Paul has an unfinished Maple neck.
The number one thing to remember about an LP is the wood it's made out
of. It's where the guitar gets it's distinctive tone from. Gibsons
feature Honduran Mahogany bodies and necks (as opposed to the African
Mahogany Bodies of the Elites - just a point of trivia there not that
it means much) and a 3/4 Maple top. There are many decent copies but
you'd be lucky to find a good one for under $600. And that's used.
Mind you the Dean EVO is quite good. I suggest checking one of those
out. Any questions send me an email.
Jim Anable
If I was in the market, I'd probably give it a chance, but I don't need another
LP.
I have some fond memories of the Rondo store. I'd go every chance I got, which
was not often. I lived in Martinsville, Bridgewater Township, Somerset County.
I also remember this little music store in Manville, sold mostly accordions at the
time, it seemed. I bought a Maestro Fuzz from them with serial number 0007. See
pic: http://www.seattle-attorney.com/0007.jpg
Uncle Remus
>I'm not sure the Toyota Lexus analogy is parallel to my point about
>Gibson/Epiphone. Is a Toyota a Lexus knockoff?
I think it is. Same company, similar cars, different price points.
Gibson and Epiphone, similar guitars, different price points.
Epiphone=good quality, practical price. Gibson=good to very good
quality, poor price point. Status? Yes. Epiphone is not a "knockoff"
of Gibson, they are the same company.
Nimrod
Epiphones = Gibson Wholly Owned Subsidiary "knockoffs" of Gibsons
Gibsons = Gibson made replicas of Gibsons made several decades ago by
Gibson
Nobody here mentioned Tokai.
Is Tokai back in the game?
Uncle Remus
>Epiphones = Gibson Wholly Owned Subsidiary "knockoffs" of Gibsons
Normally a "knockoff" is an unlicensed copy.
Nimrod
Well, that's the genius of the Epiphone scam right there: the license.
Nimrod
I didn't say "that Les Pauls have maple necks". I said that according
to the book a few in the 70s did. You said as much yourself right
after correcting me!
The Gibson bodies in the 70s were also an awful sandwich of mahogany,
a thin piece of PLYWOOD, mahogany and then a maple cap which was
bookmatched by a blind person. Polite people prefer not to mention
those Les Pauls at all.
What definitely does have a maple neck is the Agile copy I was talking
about. After hearing you describe the Epiphone body the maple neck on
the Agile doesn't sound like such a big deal.
On 22 Jul 2003 09:05:32 -0700, padam...@yahoo.com.au (Paul A.)
wrote:
¤ Alias
>
>I have some fond memories of the Rondo store. I'd go every chance I got, which
>was not often. I lived in Martinsville, Bridgewater Township, Somerset County.
I know the area - nice place. I helped a friend of a friend put some
windows in his house up on Dock Watch Hollow Rd. last year.
>
>I also remember this little music store in Manville, sold mostly accordions at the
>time, it seemed. I bought a Maestro Fuzz from them with serial number 0007. See
>pic: http://www.seattle-attorney.com/0007.jpg
Can't beat that!
¤ Alias
www.dannyschorr.com
¤ Alias
>The Gibson bodies in the 70s were also an awful sandwich of mahogany,
>a thin piece of PLYWOOD, mahogany and then a maple cap which was
>bookmatched by a blind person. Polite people prefer not to mention
>those Les Pauls at all.
I must have gotten lucky thrice - I've had a 72 LP Deluxe and a 72
Custom that were both great guitars.
My current LP is 1 71 Deluxe routed for Humbuckers. It's absolutely
killer.
¤ Alias
www.dannyschorr.com
Uncle Remus
>Well, that's the genius of the Epiphone scam right there: the license.
LOL! Scam. Right. So Toyota should allow other companies to build the
Camry for example, spec for spec? Puhleaze my nizzle.
Nimrod
What I am trying to say is that the Epiphone Les Paul license is
smoke and mirrors that distracts and dupes people.
Epiphone is given an "exclusive license" and what do they do with it?
They do what they were told to do with it:
They make a guitar that looks almost exactly like a Les Paul except
for the headstock, but then they screw around with the wood to the
point that other copies have a better chance of *sounding* like a Les
Paul than the "official" Epiphone.
There are knockoff brands that stear clear of the visual infringements
and try to deliver a more faithful wood design. Samick is one.
The "scam" works pretty well. People really believe that Les Paul (god
bless him) personally went out of his way to insure that Epiphone Les
Pauls are faithful to the Gibson design before he let them use his
good name. It's just marketing.
Nimrod
Well, part of the reason may be that your Gibson LPs are from the
early 70s. The LP I have is from 1977. I think that may have been
their darkest hour.
The body is a sandwich as I have described with an obnoxious piece of
thin plywood separating the upper and lower slabs of mahogany. The
maple top didn't even bother trying to be bookmatched. It's composed
of three pieces of maple rather than two. The frets are also another
disaster. At that point in the decade they decided to go with really
low frets. It makes for a very light touch but there is absloutely no
room for a leveling job. It costs a fortune to maintain and you have
to ask yourself: why bother?
One thing I would have to concede is that an Epiphone has a chance of
being a better guitar than this Gibson is.
I think I am looking to find a buyer for this LP who just wants to
look cool at a distance while playing rhythm guitar so I can invest in
another LP.
I'm eyeing a Tokai or maybe one of the Elite LP Plus LPs.
Ever checked out any Tokais? They seem to be back in business with
dead on clones floating around again.
>$ Alias
>www.dannyschorr.com
Jim Anable
Nimrod wrote:
> What I am trying to say is that the Epiphone Les Paul license is
> smoke and mirrors that distracts and dupes people.
>
> Epiphone is given an "exclusive license" and what do they do with it?
Epiphone is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gibson. They aren't "given" the
license, Gibson owns it and Epiphone contracts the product out to Samick, a
Korean manufacturer.
> They do what they were told to do with it:
Epiphone IS Gibson.
> They make a guitar that looks almost exactly like a Les Paul except
> for the headstock, but then they screw around with the wood to the
> point that other copies have a better chance of *sounding* like a Les
> Paul than the "official" Epiphone.
Epiphone doesn't "screw around with the wood." The wood may not be the same
quality as US Gibson's (but I've played Epi's that sound better than some
Gibson's). The cap may not be as thick. The cap may be maple veneer on
alder (alder is still a good tone wood).
YES, there are several cost cutting compromises on the Epi LP, but it is a
Les Paul produced by a branch of the Gibson company under the direction of
Gibson. Epi doesn't "screw around" with anything, they have it built under
Gibson specs.
> There are knockoff brands that stear clear of the visual infringements
> and try to deliver a more faithful wood design. Samick is one.
Ummm. Samick makes the Epiphone! Infringement involves more than visual
aspects and likelihood to confuse the marketplace.
> The "scam" works pretty well.
You now have ZERO credibility. Epiphone IS Gibson, there is NO scam. If
Gibson's legal staff sees your message, you may get a letter.
> People really believe that Les Paul (god
> bless him) personally went out of his way to insure that Epiphone Les
> Pauls are faithful to the Gibson design before he let them use his
> good name. It's just marketing.
Again, Les Paul "(god bless him)" worked with EPIPHONE in the early days to
develop "the log." The first electric guitar. He worked with EPIPHONE, not
Gibson. He later worked with Gibson on the Les Paul model. Gibson later
bought Epiphone. Gibson then decided to capture more of the market by
having Epiphone produce a Les Paul. This was contracted out to Samick Korea
to cut cost and capture more of the market. Gibson has now decided to
capture that middle market by producing the Elite, using US hardware and
bone nuts with upgraded woods and attention to detail.
I highly doubt Les Paul had any input on the guitar at either Gibson or the
Epi model for MANY years. I'm betting he was paid for the name years ago,
and no longer has input. There may or may not be a contract limiting the
extent of use of his name. Of course he doesn't inspect Epiphone Les Pauls!
Nimrod accuses others of getting emotional about Gibson vs. Epiphone. Then
he gets emotional and posts misinformation about Epiphone's and talks about
"scams," like he has something to prove. He either doesn't understand the
truth around the Epiphone/Gibson relationship and the guitars that are
produced, or he doesn't care about printing misinformation.
If you are in the market for a Les Paul type guitar, play everything you can
get your hands on and then decide what is right for you. I have not special
attachment to the Epiphone label, but I don't like seeing misinformation.
Nimrod
Good lord dude. We get it.
Gibson owns Epiphone. (big deal)
And from that you can deduce what?
You can deduce nothing.
To be blunt, like the original poster, I am looking for a Les Paul
copy.
I'm looking for something with a mahogany body and a maple top with
the right fretboard radius, scale, pickup placement, simlar weight,
feel and tone coming from the wood. It's a tall order.
Once you start throwing Alder into the body (like in an Epiphone), you
should just take that fake crap away from me. It's not what I am
looking for.
Epiphone is just trying too hard to make copies that leave you wanting
more.
Unknown
I've been very happy with my '77 Custom since I copped it in
1984. It's about the best $450 I ever spent. I know all about the
Norlin-era complaints, and a lot of them make sense to me. But if I
stand on the principle that "the only thing that counts is what comes
out your speakers", then I have never had a problem with mine. I love
it dearly, and I'll never sell it.
In fact, I'm thinking about having it re-finished.
In newsprint. Believe it or not.
When I think about it, the hardest part would be picking all the
right headlines.
Billy
Walter Luffman
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>The Epi Elite uses American hardware and pickups, upgraded wood, and bone
>nuts. It's a fair price when you consider the product and the current
>market. By the way, the correct price is $949 in MF, which I find to be a
>good indication of what GC will take as a cash offer (sometimes even less
>than MF prices).
Good points. While it's true that the pickups aren't the same ones
used in (most?) Gibson Les Pauls, they're certainly a step up from the
quality found in "ordinary" Epi LPs. Same is true of the hardware, I
understand. As for the wood, some of it may indeed be the very same
quality, from the same source, that Gibson USA uses ... or not.
Now, to address the unasked question implied by the original
discussion that began this thread: Are Gibson and/or Epi Elite LPs
overpriced? I suppose that depends on how one defines "overpriced".
I have never paid the asking price of an Epiphone Elite Les Paul to
buy any guitar; I'm cheap, but beginning to come around. I doubt I'll
ever pay the list price for the Gibson Les Paul Standard Plus I'd
really love to have, because there's just no way I could ever justify
the purchase to myself. In that sense, I suppose the Gibson LP
Standard is ridiculously overpriced and the Epi is almost reasonably
priced.
But there are those, especially working professional players, who can
easily justify paying whatever it takes to acquire a guitar that both
sounds great and has the sort of professional appearance they're
trying to project onstage. For those people, that same Gibson LP
Standard may be a bargain.
And of course there are trust-fund babies, lottery winners and Bill
Gates; they can afford anything that catches their eye, whether they
actually need it or not. But most of them seem to be buying
Harley-Davidsons instead of guitars right now. Someday we'll probably
see huge numbers of RUBs (Rich Urban Bikers) dumping their
status-bikes for a fraction of the price they originally paid; I don't
expect the same to happen with Gibson LPs, because they tend to be
bought by people who actually enjoy playing. Besides, few people try
to impress their neighbors by going up and down the street playing
their guitars.<g>
Walter, Honda rider and generic Strat-clone player
___
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal-opportunity annoyer
Uncle Remus
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>Nimrod accuses others of getting emotional about Gibson vs. Epiphone. Then
>he gets emotional and posts misinformation about Epiphone's and talks about
>"scams," like he has something to prove.
LOL! Maybe it should be "Nimwit" ?
Larry Lowe
about Gibson. It could be that the best Gibsons made are made actually
by a "knockoff" firm.
http://www.worldclassguitars.com/guitar/gibson/gib_her_gib.htm
"Why should I take this jerks word on it?".... then click here too:
http://www.worldclassguitars.com/misc/dealers.htm
I haven't bought one yet myself.....but that is because I don't
have the money.....YET.
--
Larry Lowe
larry...@t-online.de
http://larry.lowe.bei.t-online.de/index.html
Jim Anable
> Good lord dude. We get it.
If truly "get it," why not stop posting bad information?
> Gibson owns Epiphone. (big deal)
>
> And from that you can deduce what?
>
> You can deduce nothing.
>
> To be blunt, like the original poster, I am looking for a Les Paul
> copy.
>
> I'm looking for something with a mahogany body and a maple top with
> the right fretboard radius, scale, pickup placement, simlar weight,
> feel and tone coming from the wood. It's a tall order.
Let me know if you find one. I'm serious, not being sarcastic at all. I'm not
promoting Epiphone, just trying to present the correct info.
> Once you start throwing Alder into the body (like in an Epiphone), you
> should just take that fake crap away from me. It's not what I am
> looking for.
I own three alder guitars, and love them. (Vintage Strat, MIM Tele and Yahama
bass). There's nothing wrong with alder. Some Gibson LP's don't have a maple
cap, anyway.
> Epiphone is just trying too hard to make copies that leave you wanting
> more.
Well, you've introduced personal opinion into that. The Epi necks usually leave
me wanting more (often true of Gibson, also). The pickups ALWAYS leave me
wanting more (same goes for Gibson, but to a lesser degree). Finish itself (not
the neck feel, the wood finish) often meets or exceeds Gibson (although the
finish is poly on the Epi).
I don't expect the SAME guitar from Epiphone as I do from Gibson, that would be
foolish.
Hey, you're looking for best bang for the buck, and that's fine. That was my
position when I bought my Epi (details below). I'm just saying that you're not
doing yourself any favors by dismissing Epiphone. Play the right one, and your
attitude would take a 180. Don't limit yourself with "anti-brand" prejudice.
The upgraded Agile model DOES look interesting. Are you close to Rondo?
Look at: http://www.rondomusic.bigstep.com/
click on electric guitars
click on the bottom link, "new items/specials"
click on "Agile 2800 DLX set neck"
Compared to the standard Agile, it has alnico p'ups, graphite nut,. thicker maple
cap, and hand finished frets (the others only get machine finishing???). If I
was in the market and close enough, I'd check it out. It comes either quilted
maple or flamed. $300. Price is right.
Compared to Epiphone/Gibson, the neck radius is off slightly. The scale is
slightly off (24.7 vs. 24.75, negligible). Nut width is off slightly (1.68 Epi
vs. 1.625 Agile). General appearance is very close (pot positions moved
slightly, for example).
Look, there's always a price and quality issue with ANY guitar. Here's the story
of my Epi:
My Epi was the "limited edition" Slash model. It had the Classic neck (I
prefer), upgraded hot pickups (still replaced them), black hardware and a snake
pit logo (big deal, I could live without the logo), and a transparent red finish
with flame maple cap (a big plus). It had list of $1049, I think the "sale"
price was $599, and a "close out" price of $499. They also had a special "buy
now, get a $50 coupon one month later." It was also at a time when GC had just
bought out the MF retail locations. GC had severed ties with Gibson/Epi. The MF
stores had Gibson/Epi stock and the new GC managers were told "UNLOAD all Gibsons
and Epiphones." My guitar also had a couple of defects: an ugly nut, a funky
pot and a loose tuning nut.
It still played decent (despite a miserable setup), felt good, had sustain, and
looked great. I bitched about the snake pit logo and pointed out the defects and
said: "the best I can do is $399, and you have to sell me a Seymour Duncan Jazz
and JB in for $100 in one month when I get my $50 coupon." They took the offer.
I got the guitar AND both p'ups for $449. I got the repairs done free under
warranty. I swapped the p'ups and did a custom four push/pull wiring job. Not
liking the warranty repair on the nut, I reset the nut and dressed the frets
myself.
Does that sound like such a bad deal? To some degree, I approached the guitar as
a project, but would you reject THAT deal, just because the guitar says
"Epiphone" on it?
Uncle Remus
<larry...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Ok......All of you should maybe have a look at what Mr. Roman has to say
>about Gibson. It could be that the best Gibsons made are made actually
>by a "knockoff" firm.
Are you kidding? The only person in this thread more opinionated than
Nimwit is that asswipe Ed Roman. Just my opinion of course :)
Jim Anable
> of my Epi:
>
> My Epi was the "limited edition" Slash model. It had the Classic neck (I
> prefer), upgraded hot pickups (still replaced them), black hardware and a snake
> pit logo (big deal, I could live without the logo), and a transparent red finish
> with flame maple cap (a big plus). It had list of $1049, I think the "sale"
> price was $599, and a "close out" price of $499. They also had a special "buy
> now, get a $50 coupon one month later." It was also at a time when GC had just
> bought out the MF retail locations. GC had severed ties with Gibson/Epi. The MF
> stores had Gibson/Epi stock and the new GC managers were told "UNLOAD all Gibsons
> and Epiphones." My guitar also had a couple of defects: an ugly nut, a funky
> pot and a loose tuning nut.
>
> It still played decent (despite a miserable setup), felt good, had sustain, and
> looked great. I bitched about the snake pit logo and pointed out the defects and
> said: "the best I can do is $399, and you have to sell me a Seymour Duncan Jazz
> and JB in for $100 in one month when I get my $50 coupon." They took the offer.
>
> I got the guitar AND both p'ups for $449. I got the repairs done free under
> warranty. I swapped the p'ups and did a custom four push/pull wiring job. Not
> liking the warranty repair on the nut, I reset the nut and dressed the frets
> myself.
>
> Does that sound like such a bad deal? To some degree, I approached the guitar as
> a project, but would you reject THAT deal, just because the guitar says
> "Epiphone" on it?
Mediocre quality picture of my Slash Epi, complete with the ugly snakepit logo:
http://www.seattle-attorney.com/slash.jpg.
I need to get better pictures, the finish is actually pretty decent. The cap is not
"AAAAA" by any means, but it is maple and has a good appearance.
Uncle Remus
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>I own three alder guitars, and love them. (Vintage Strat, MIM Tele and Yahama
>bass). There's nothing wrong with alder. Some Gibson LP's don't have a maple
>cap, anyway.
Alder is probably the most widely used tone wood in mid to upper
priced solid body electrics.
Nimrod
By the shear length of this response, I imagine that you are foaming
at the mouth and pulling at your restraints!
Epiphone LPs are "legal" copies of Gibson Les Pauls.
There, are you happy now?
Perhaps they should call them "Esquiers". Or keeping up with the
times: "E-SQUIERS". But then there is that trademark problem with
Fender Squiers to worry about. Heck, maybe Gibson should sue Fender
for stealing their idea of having a wholly owned subsidiary devoted to
making knockoff guitars that look like the parent brand's guitars.
Exactly what is the "misinformation" about Les Pauls that I am
supposedly getting emotional and spreading?
I've said that the bodies are different. That's misinformation?
Nimrod
I'm not close enough to Rondo to check out the guitar in person.
For $300 the guitar sounds like it would be close enough for my needs
and look darned pretty.
I do have a reservation about the neck.
The fact that the neck is maple doesn't put me off as much as the
radius being 13.5" or whatever. I think a Gibson has a 12" radius and
I actually prefer the 9.5" radius on my DeArmond Starfire. It's not
that I want a Gibson with a 9.5" radius, but I think that the overly
flat neck on the Agile would give me some trouble bending doing whole
tone bends at or below the 7th fret.
I'm eyeing a Tokai Love Rock at the moment also. Again, I won't be
able to play it in person. It's around $600 and I think the specs are
dead on all around. The pickups may even be adequate. (Ok, I have no
poof of any of this).
It even has the lawsuit era profile and it was made this year!
I would probably end up replacing the pickups in either or both
guitars, which would bring the cost of ownership up a little more.
I find it hard to believe that I would leave a guitar's pickups alone
unless it shipped with burstbuckers.
One advantage the Epiphones DO have is wide distribution. You can
always check one out in person.
Jim Anable
> By the shear length of this response, I imagine that you are foaming
> at the mouth and pulling at your restraints!
Not at all. I'm at the keyboard a lot (and waste too much time on NG's when I don't
have pressing issues). I do my own drafting of documents, etc. Some of my messages
do get long, but maybe you should have read my last one before you responded. I'm a
attorney, I can be long winded...
> Epiphone LPs are "legal" copies of Gibson Les Pauls.
> There, are you happy now?
No need to worry about making me happy. But if you wanted to make me happy (and if
you wanted to be correct), you'd say that the Epi LP is an Epi LP, and the Gibson LP
is a Gibson LP. The Epi is not a copy, it is built with slightly different
specifications that necessarily make some compromises to keep cost down. BTW,
individual specifications vary depending on the particular Epi model. The same thing
is true with Gibson. They produce Les Pauls that don't have a bit of maple in them.
Personally, I'd rather have an alder cap than a guitar that is just mahogany (like
some Gibsons).
If you go back and read the message that you responded to, you'll find that I was not
"foaming at the mouth" at all. I tried to give some information about an Agile model
that looks interesting to me. You may not care about the details of my purchase, but
you can see how it is much different than picking up a random Epi LP and paying $500
for it. I suspect that you'd be very happy to get the deal that I did, even though
you seem to rate Epiphone LP's below copies.
The misinformation that I was complaining about began with your statement that
Epiphones do not have mahogany bodies. Then the constant talk of "scams" and
"copies."
It's just a different version of a Les Paul, why is that so hard to understand?
Nobody is telling you that you need to like it as much as a Gibson, but it is not a
"copy" or a "scam."
Nimrod
Well, your terminology is fairly precise here and hard to refute.
>
>No need to worry about making me happy. But if you wanted to make me happy (and if
>you wanted to be correct), you'd say that the Epi LP is an Epi LP, and the Gibson LP
>is a Gibson LP. The Epi is not a copy, it is built with slightly different
>specifications that necessarily make some compromises to keep cost down. BTW,
>individual specifications vary depending on the particular Epi model. The same thing
>is true with Gibson. They produce Les Pauls that don't have a bit of maple in them.
>Personally, I'd rather have an alder cap than a guitar that is just mahogany (like
>some Gibsons).
>
I don't have a gazillion dollars to throw at each guitar but at this
point a couple of my entry level guitars are lining up at eBays door
waiting to be recycled into something new.
(Anybody interested in a well cared for DeArmond M-72 or M-70?)
What's frustrating about this "brand name" entry level guitar stuff is
how crafty the companies are in hiding the inferiority of their second
tier offerings.
I think the internet has improved the situation somewhat. With places
like Harmony-Central, these NGs, and even the Gibson and Fender
websites you can really know exactly what you are buying when you go
shopping.
This year Fender started offering MIM Tele's and Strats which feature
Alder bodies. And for those who think the polyester finish on the
Alder body is still a sore point (ruining the tone), they offer Satin
finishes on the Alder bodies (this is all at the same entry level
price).
I wish Epiphone would throw us a couple of entry level bones like
that!
¤ Alias
>
>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:36:20 GMT, ¤ Alias <-@-.> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:27:06 GMT, us...@nimrod.net (Nimrod) wrote:
>>
>>>The Gibson bodies in the 70s were also an awful sandwich of mahogany,
>>>a thin piece of PLYWOOD, mahogany and then a maple cap which was
>>>bookmatched by a blind person. Polite people prefer not to mention
>>>those Les Pauls at all.
>>
>>I must have gotten lucky thrice - I've had a 72 LP Deluxe and a 72
>>Custom that were both great guitars.
>>
>>My current LP is 1 71 Deluxe routed for Humbuckers. It's absolutely
>>killer.
>
> I've been very happy with my '77 Custom since I copped it in
>1984. It's about the best $450 I ever spent. I know all about the
>Norlin-era complaints, and a lot of them make sense to me. But if I
>stand on the principle that "the only thing that counts is what comes
>out your speakers",
Exactly.
>then I have never had a problem with mine. I love
>it dearly, and I'll never sell it.
>
> In fact, I'm thinking about having it re-finished.
>
> In newsprint. Believe it or not.
>
> When I think about it, the hardest part would be picking all the
>right headlines.
You gotta use those rags from the supermarket checkout.
I read in one of those that Bigfoot is on the loose again. Jesus
spotted him from the window of his UFO as HE was returning to this
world. Must be true, or else they couldn't print it, right? ;-)
>Billy
>
>http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
¤ Alias
www.dannyschorr.com
Nimrod
One thing I will admit to being emotional about (in this thread) is
that I was ripped off by Gibson once already!
Some of that is obviously my fault. I bought my particular LP on a day
when I had more money than sense and not enough experience to know
exactly what I was looking for in an electric guitar.
The other thing that gets me emotional is how expensive these LPs have
gotten since then.
But that's the reason there are people asking for advice on LP copies.
..Have you considered Paisley for the LP?
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:09:56 -0400, Billy Beck <> wrote:
Larry Lowe
But I believe my response was exaclty in line
with the subject of this particular thread.
RE: Which Korean Les Paul copy do you think is best?
Well I guess that the Heritages are made in Kalamazoo, and not Korea
but they are comparably priced with the Tokai as a "cheaper"
alternative to an over-two thousand dollar Gibson, with
generally equal or better hardware and wood. Do you have
some proof otherwise? Bad experiences? Do tell, because
you'll save me some trouble, because I plan to buy one. Soon.
I have only played them in the store, an ES copy to be
exact, and it smoked the Gibson hands down, acoustically
and plugged-in through an AC-30 Vox. The only ES that
came close was the Super Lucille model.
But hey, I was just trying to help. I actually play an Ibanez.
At least for right now.
Unknown
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:59:53 GMT, us...@nimrod.net (Nimrod) wrote:
>The other thing that gets me emotional is how expensive these LPs have
>gotten since then.
I don't know who's paying those prices, but I can barely believe
what I'm looking at.
OTOH, I think about an average guy raising what Gibson wanted in,
say, the mid-60's, and I don't know how they did it, then, either. In
Dad's guitar case, I found a Gibson SRP list dated February 1, 1965.
For example, the ES-355TD listed at $680. I suppose it would do to
run the inflation-index numbers, but that strikes me as a hellacious
sum of money in those years. As it is, I have no earthly idea how Dad
raised the $395 that he paid for his '62 355 in 1966. He was a tech
sargent in the Air Force, with five children. If you know what that
means, then you can figure it out.
Here's one of the favorite family jokes: he never missed an
opportunity to remind me that he'd sold his '55 Les Paul Jr. to pay
the hospital bills when I was born... with the lingering insinuation
that he'd rather have that guitar back.
>..Have you considered Paisley for the LP?
<hah> No, but now that you mention it...
I've only started thinking seriously about this in the past week
or so.
You see, it's a worker, and I've never been extremely careful
with the finish. For example, I've been wearing a stirling-silver
bracelet on my right wrist. It's fashioned like a motorcycle chain.
(It's a memorial to my Harley Sportster, destroyed by a drunk driver,
while I was sitting on it and doing 65 mph.) I never take it off,
except when I'm handling someone else axe. (...and, now, the 355.)
It's done a pretty good job of eating a hole in the finish just above
and aft of the bridge. If you people could see it, you'd start
throwing bombs.
So, I've started thinking about doing something about it. But
I'm not sure.
That paisley idea is intriguing.
Billy
Nimrod
There have been surprisingly few actual "suggestions" in this thread.
I keep forgetting about Heritage guitars when I start pricing Gibsons
(and get disillusioned) again.
So, thanks for the suggestion!
Nimrod
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:38:47 -0400, Billy Beck <> wrote:
>
> Here's one of the favorite family jokes: he never missed an
>opportunity to remind me that he'd sold his '55 Les Paul Jr. to pay
>the hospital bills when I was born... with the lingering insinuation
>that he'd rather have that guitar back.
>
It's two bad your dad couldn't have done a reverse mortgage on the 55
LP. It would probably still be paying dividends.
>>..Have you considered Paisley for the LP?
>
><hah> No, but now that you mention it...
>
The Larry Burton Telecaster over at Fender has a paisely finish. Bill
Perry is holding a Telecaster with a Paisley finish on his last CD.
Remove NOSPAM to reply
rejected it in favor of my birdseye Classic, but you got me by quite a
ways on your price! I paid $599 and made the guy throw in the case. I
used the MF argument...MF had the same guitar with case for $599, so he
matched it. I got to actually play the guitar before I bought it, so I
knew what I had, and got it for the internet price. Not quite as good as
your deal, but I'm happy.
~Rich
See my gear at the link!
http://community.webtv.net/one4rich/RichsGuitarPage
Jim Anable
> Y'know, Jim...I played a Slash model when I was shopping for my LP, and
> rejected it in favor of my birdseye Classic, but you got me by quite a
> ways on your price! I paid $599 and made the guy throw in the case. I
> used the MF argument...MF had the same guitar with case for $599, so he
> matched it. I got to actually play the guitar before I bought it, so I
> knew what I had, and got it for the internet price. Not quite as good as
> your deal, but I'm happy.
>
> ~Rich
I've had good luck with a few low offers after pointing out "problems." In
all honesty, it really was the snakepit logo that made me low ball them $100
below close out price. As it turns out, the Slash has really retained its
value (based on ebay sales). The "limited edition" thing seems to help
resale (rightfully so or not).
Uncle Remus
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>I'm a attorney, I can be long winded...
No shit, thats why we live in such a f*cked up country.
Too many Attorneys.
Uncle Remus
<larry...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Ok Remus...if that is your humble opinion fine.
>But I believe my response was exaclty in line
>with the subject of this particular thread.
Its not only my opinion, check his web site, he admits he is a prick.
I do not think the Heritage guitars by the way are still made in
Kalamazoo. They apparently were many years ago, but I think they are
sourced from Asia now.
Dan Stanley
"Nimrod" <us...@nimrod.net> wrote in message
news:3f201152...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>
> There have been surprisingly few actual "suggestions" in this thread.
>
> I keep forgetting about Heritage guitars when I start pricing Gibsons
> (and get disillusioned) again.
>
> So, thanks for the suggestion!
You oughta keep yer eye open for Guild Bluesbird, too ( the only thing is
that the body isn't solid mahogany, it is chambered...some high $$$ Gibsons
are too, these days), or the new Hamer...I forget the name...but it's a
single cut, mahogany/maple beauty.
Of course, they aren't Korean, and they are a little on the pricey side. But
they are priced right for what you get.
Dan
Nimrod
http://www.squierguitars.com/gear/gear.php?partno=0347700
Do you have one of the Guild Bluesbirds and is it a recent model?
If so, how do you like the pickups?
Fender closed down the Guild plant a couple of years ago from what I
remember hearing in this NG and combined operations with their Fender
production or something.
I was eyeing the Bluesbird but lost interest after buying a DeArmond
M-72 from MF (during the blowout).
It's completely unfair of me to compare the two guitars. The M-72 just
proved to me that cheap wood and questionable pickups make a big
difference. I stopped thinking about the bluesbirds after that.
The factory drawings showed the M-72 was supposed to be wired like a
Guild Bluesbird, but the ones I saw were wired like LPs. That could
have been part of the reason the M-72 underwhelmed me.
I think the Guild wiring gives you added tone control over a trebly
pickup. After Fender moved the Guild operations and started specifying
Duncan made pickups I was wondering if they just made a mess of the
Guild line altogether.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:38:12 GMT, "Dan Stanley" <vze2...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Jim Anable
I'm one of the good ones.
Uncle Remus
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>I'm one of the good ones.
Now thats an Oxymoron if I ever heard one :)
Larry Lowe
"Uncle Remus" <fordpr...@hotmail.acom> wrote in message
news:dfcuhv8a67kc459gf...@4ax.com...
> Its not only my opinion, check his web site, he admits he is a prick.
> I do not think the Heritage guitars by the way are still made in
> Kalamazoo. They apparently were many years ago, but I think they are
> sourced from Asia now.
>
Hmmm, I have also heard that they are no longer made in
Kalamazoo. If they are, in fact, made in Asia somewhere then
you have now proven, that I was even more on target than
I originally thought. Thanks.
Larry
Dan Stanley
> There is a Squier version of the bluesbird these days.
>
> http://www.squierguitars.com/gear/gear.php?partno=0347700
>
> Do you have one of the Guild Bluesbirds and is it a recent model?
I have a recent Blues 90. Essentially, a Bluesbird w/ P-90 pickups.
Love it. Made post-Fender buyout, but I don't know where. Nashville?
Arizona? California?
> If so, how do you like the pickups?
They are Duncan P-90's, stock. Haven't felt the need to change them, so I
guess I like them. I'm an inveterate pickup changer, though. I'm sure
eventually I will. The 'bucker version also comes with Duncans, stock. '59s,
I think. I could be wrong about that.
> Fender closed down the Guild plant a couple of years ago from what I
> remember hearing in this NG and combined operations with their Fender
> production or something.
>
> I was eyeing the Bluesbird but lost interest after buying a DeArmond
> M-72 from MF (during the blowout).
BIG difference between Bluesbird and M-72. I liked some of the M-** guitars,
but mostly the vibe was rock-a-billy, if I recall. Bigsbys and old style
DeArmond pickups. I suppose there were others with more std. apppintments,
but none come to mind now.
> It's completely unfair of me to compare the two guitars. The M-72 just
> proved to me that cheap wood and questionable pickups make a big
> difference. I stopped thinking about the bluesbirds after that.
>
> The factory drawings showed the M-72 was supposed to be wired like a
> Guild Bluesbird, but the ones I saw were wired like LPs. That could
> have been part of the reason the M-72 underwhelmed me.
Bluesbirds ARE wired like LPs. Two pickups, pair of volumes, pair of tones,
pickup switch up there on the upper bout.
> I think the Guild wiring gives you added tone control over a trebly
> pickup. After Fender moved the Guild operations and started specifying
> Duncan made pickups I was wondering if they just made a mess of the
> Guild line altogether.
I've been pretty impressed by just about everything I've seen from Guild.
Certainly they stand up handsomely next to their Gibson analogs. ( I'm
comparing US to US made guitars here.)
I don't know if this is true for the acoustics. I haven't seen a single
post-Fender Guild acoustic yet.
Dan
Dan Stanley
"Larry Lowe" <larry...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:bfnulh$1d5$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
A friend visited the Heritage factory in Kalamazoo just last month. Still
there, still making guitars there.
*Could* be that some are outsourced, but if Ed Roman says so, it's
*probably* a lie. Ed and the truth don't often meet up, and when they do, Ed
still usually gets it wrong.
Dan
Jim Anable
Nasty divorce? Child support?
There are attorneys that went to law school to actually help
people, and who stand by their ethics.
Nimrod
Guild and DeArmonds to be wired up was a variation of the LP wiring
that is recommended as an upgrade to standard LP wiring by some
people. (I think that www.guitarnuts.com has a drawing that shows how
to do it).
You connect the output of the pickup to the centertap rather than to
other exteme end of the POT. The signal is then taken from the other
extreme end of the POT (extreme end from ground that is) rather than
from the center tap as in standard LP wiring.
The most obvious feature of this wiring is that when you have the
switch in the center position, rolling down the volume on either POT
all the way to zero doesn't completely cut off the output from the
other pickup.
That's the obviously good thing about that wiring. The other thing it
does is present the pickup with a gradually decreasing load to ground
as you roll off the volume. That effects the tone. So it may or may
not be what you want to do with a pickup with an already full bottom
like a duncan '59.
I can't figure out from the Guild website whether those are Duncan 59s
or special OEM Guild pickups not available to the general public. They
have 3 screw mountings like Guild pickups, so maybe they are designed
to sound like Guild pickups rather than PAFs.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:32:40 GMT, "Dan Stanley" <vze2...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>
>Bluesbirds ARE wired like LPs. Two pickups, pair of volumes, pair of tones,
>pickup switch up there on the upper bout.
>
But then again, all of the DeArmonds I owned were *really* wired like
LPs.
I never had a Guild in my hands so I don't know if the factory
drawings for the Guilds were right or not.
Dan Stanley
> Actually, the way the factory drawings from the Fender site showed the
> Guild and DeArmonds to be wired up was a variation of the LP wiring
> that is recommended as an upgrade to standard LP wiring by some
> people. (I think that www.guitarnuts.com has a drawing that shows how
> to do it).
>
> You connect the output of the pickup to the centertap rather than to
> other exteme end of the POT. The signal is then taken from the other
> extreme end of the POT (extreme end from ground that is) rather than
> from the center tap as in standard LP wiring.
I do that to all my two pickup guitars. Yeah, I remember opening the Guild
up and it was already like that.
> The most obvious feature of this wiring is that when you have the
> switch in the center position, rolling down the volume on either POT
> all the way to zero doesn't completely cut off the output from the
> other pickup.
Yup, that's why I do it.
> That's the obviously good thing about that wiring. The other thing it
> does is present the pickup with a gradually decreasing load to ground
> as you roll off the volume. That effects the tone. So it may or may
> not be what you want to do with a pickup with an already full bottom
> like a duncan '59.
I just like being able to "mix" pickups. On the Guild, though, I have a
tendency to slam it from one to other, and not leave in the middle, like I
do on my LP and other double 'bucker guitars. Just the way it is, I guess. I
love P-90s.
> I can't figure out from the Guild website whether those are Duncan 59s
> or special OEM Guild pickups not available to the general public. They
> have 3 screw mountings like Guild pickups, so maybe they are designed
> to sound like Guild pickups rather than PAFs.
You're right about that. I never realized it, so I checked a recent Fender
Frontline I have hanging around, and sure enough, the guitars have a three
screw mount. I do recall seeing a hang tag that said "Duncan <something or
other>'s".
Dan
Dan
Nimrod
Aside from Ed Roman being a prick, are the Heritage guitars worth
looking for? Are they a bargain?
Uncle Remus
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>Nasty divorce? Child support?
Not at all, happily married, two great children.
>There are attorneys that went to law school to actually help
>people, and who stand by their ethics.
On what planet?
Count Scrofula
"Uncle Remus" <fordpr...@hotmail.acom> wrote in message
As far as regulars on this newsgroup, I can think of one in Seattle and one
in Dallas for sure.
He's just jealous of us, Jim!
Jim Anable
> Aside from Ed Roman being a prick, are the Heritage guitars worth
> looking for?
Yes
> Are they a bargain?
Probably not.
Uncle Remus
<nos...@axbestosjuxtice.com> wrote:
>He's just jealous of us, Jim!
Jealous of a profession that is riddled with scum sucking low lifes
who thrive on shttp://www.musicbakery.com/tripping people of their
possessions through frivolous lawsuits? Yes, that must be it. LOL!
Paul A.
> I didn't say "that Les Pauls have maple necks". I said that according
> to the book a few in the 70s did. You said as much yourself right
> after correcting me!
Sorry. My mistake.
> The Gibson bodies in the 70s were also an awful sandwich of mahogany,
> a thin piece of PLYWOOD, mahogany and then a maple cap which was
> bookmatched by a blind person. Polite people prefer not to mention
> those Les Pauls at all.
Ahh the pancake. Well, not all of them were like these but thems
Norlins for you. Don't really like em myself.
> What definitely does have a maple neck is the Agile copy I was talking
> about. After hearing you describe the Epiphone body the maple neck on
> the Agile doesn't sound like such a big deal.
Yeah, I don't mind maple at all. The Agile is a pretty decent copy for
the value apparently.
Paul A.
Paul A.
Yeah, well as soon as Heritage make something that actually looks like
a LP (their design is funky (that's funky-bad)) I may check em out.
Uncle Remus
<fordpr...@hotmail.acom> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:29:26 -0500, "Count Scrofula"
><nos...@axbestosjuxtice.com> wrote:
oops, have no idea how that got inhere.
Jim Anable
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:29:26 -0500, "Count Scrofula"
> <nos...@axbestosjuxtice.com> wrote:
>
> >He's just jealous of us, Jim!
>
> Jealous of a profession that is riddled with scum sucking low lifes
That's how most of the world views rock musicians!
> who thrive on shttp://www.musicbakery.com/tripping people of their
> possessions through frivolous lawsuits? Yes, that must be it. LOL!
Attorneys don't bring lawsuits, plaintiffs do! I've turned away many
potential clients because: (a) claim was frivolous; or (b) it wasn't
worth their while to hire me to do it, they should do it themselves in
small claims court.
Here's one "generalization" that is usually true: People who
generalize a prejudice about any group or race of people are usually
ignorant. Life ain't black and white, it is full of shades of gray.
The vast majority of attorneys that I've had contact with are highly
ethical professionals. There are "low lifes" in any profession, and
unfortunately, you those of the ones you hear about.
What are YOU going to do if you are ever wrongfully accused of a crime,
hit by a drunk driver, etc.? You'll be on the phone to an ATTORNEY.
Uncle Remus
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>Attorneys don't bring lawsuits, plaintiffs do!
LOL! Right. Thats why there are so many ridiculous ambulance chasing
commercials, infomercials and Yellow page ads that cost more than some
small homes. Sell that line to someone else, the public isn't buying
it. There are plaintiffs because Attorneys create an environment that
invites litigation like a siren in the night.
Uncle Remus
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>Here's one "generalization" that is usually true: People who
>generalize a prejudice about any group or race of people are usually
>ignorant. Life ain't black and white, it is full of shades of gray.
Now this is a pedantic rationalization if I ever heard one, and not
even close to being analogous. We're not talking ethnicities, we're
talking about bottom feeding vocational lust.
Count Scrofula
"Uncle Remus" <fordpr...@hotmail.acom> wrote in message
Using big words doesn't make you smart. Unkie's ignorance is showing.
Uncle Remus
<nos...@axbestosjuxtice.com> wrote:
>Using big words doesn't make you smart. Unkie's ignorance is showing.
Sorry, didn't mean to send you off to your dictionary :)
It isn't ignorance, its perception. Perhaps if more attornies got
involved in policing the ethics of their peers through professional
organizations, the public perception wouldn't be what it is. All that
money spent on billboards and embarrassingly bad television spots
could be used to reeducate the public, don't you think? Ask any man
on the
street, and I'll bet 9 out of 10 will give you the same answer about
Attorneys.
Jim Anable
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:33:07 -0500, "Count Scrofula"
> <nos...@axbestosjuxtice.com> wrote:
>
> >Using big words doesn't make you smart. Unkie's ignorance is showing.
>
> Sorry, didn't mean to send you off to your dictionary :)
> It isn't ignorance, its perception. Perhaps if more attornies got
> involved in policing the ethics of their peers through professional
> organizations, the public perception wouldn't be what it is. All that
> money spent on billboards and embarrassingly bad television spots
If you think that that's a common form of advertising by the average
attorney, you're more ignorant than I thought. I've been called by these
advertising firms. My answer to them probably wasn't a whole lot different
than what YOU'd tell them! These advertisements do tarnish what truly is a
noble profession.
>
Uncle Remus
<j...@seattle-attorney.com> wrote:
>If you think that that's a common form of advertising by the average
>attorney, you're more ignorant than I thought.
Well Jim, ignorance has nothing to do with it, other than your
demonstrating a superior level of obstinance. Its the ONLY form of
advertising we see, so yes, in reality it is quite common. You're an
attorney, motivate your peers to ban this type of advertising. What
once truly was a noble profession is now dominated by opportunistic
leeches, and yes, that is a commonly shared opinion (there is that
word again). Do you see Physicians advertising like this? No? Why not?
Perhaps they rely on the quality of their work, word of mouth, and
reputation to ensure a steady flow of business? Hmm. Interesting
concept isn't it? By the way, we're not very fond of your brethren for
obvious reasons.
Catalina Thunders
>
> If you think that that's a common form of advertising by the average
> attorney, you're more ignorant than I thought. I've been called by these
> advertising firms. My answer to them probably wasn't a whole lot different
> than what YOU'd tell them! These advertisements do tarnish what truly is a
> noble profession.
>
>
>
Hey Jim (where you goin' with that gun in your hand),
Most of us who aren't lawyers are "more ignorant
than you thought", 'cause most of us don't hang
out with lawyers -- so take it easy!
I like to think that most people in ANY profession
are good people -- and they probably are. But the
point here is that a lot of people think all
lawyers are scum because the most VISIBLE ones
look a bit, umm...unsavory. I'm *sure* you can see
that.
Anyway, I do know a few laywers who are very cool
people, who are probably as appalled as anyone at
the sleazy commercials.
As a lawyer, you ought to know:
Some people generalize because they don't know
better, some people can't be taught not to
generalize because they're willfully ignorant.
Don't let it get you down.
Cheers,
Cat
Uncle Remus
<thunde...@diespambotsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>point here is that a lot of people think all
>lawyers are scum because the most VISIBLE ones
>look a bit, umm...unsavory. I'm *sure* you can see
>that.
Precisely!
>As a lawyer, you ought to know:
>Some people generalize because they don't know
>better, some people can't be taught not to
>generalize because they're willfully ignorant.
This is a bit contradictory given the preceding quoted paragraph.
You were right the first time, quit while you're ahead :)
Uncle Remus
<thunde...@diespambotsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Anyway, I do know a few laywers who are very cool
>people, who are probably as appalled as anyone at
>the sleazy commercials.
And yes, this I agree with also, and Jim seems like a pretty decent
guy, but my point remains about the lowbrows of his profession.