Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

bobouz

All Access
  • Posts

    3,933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by bobouz

  1. As someone who loves the metallic overtones produced by models sporting the historically-maligned plastic adjustable bridge, this is one of the few topics that draws me out of the woodwork these days.  Often overlooked is the fact that string vibrations travel through the metal framework to the top (somewhat like an archtop bridge), and not through the plastic.  The plastic faux-bridge serves only as a pin holder.  Note that none of this applies to the non-adjustable plastic bridge on models such as the LG-0, where string energy must indeed travel through the tone-deadening plastic.

    And it’s truly rather amazing how well some of these plastic adjustable bridges have held up.  The one on my ‘66 Epi Cortez is bone stock, and in perfect condition after 57 years.  A lot of traditional bridges have led much briefer lives!  A totally goofy idea for sure, but one with a very interesting outcome.

  2. All features on your Heritage conform to a 1968 or 1969 build date.  The rosewood back & sides are laminated, and this can clearly be seen by comparing the grain lines on the back with those visible through the soundhole.  1965-1967 Heritage models had solid rosewood back & sides and a belly-up bridge.  Rosewood used during this period most commonly was Brazilian.

  3. I haven't posted on this board in well over a year.  Occasionally I'll look in to see if much has changed (the answer is no), but for some reason this thread caught my eye, and I simply cannot believe how far off base the responses are - even from my fellow geezers!  If you wouldn't own a guitar with the fifth string kissing the sixth, that leaves out a huge number of hourglass-headstock Epiphones made by Kalamazoo in the '60s, and it leaves out one heck of a lot of Gibsons, too (including my own '66 Epi FT-45n Cortez & '66 Gibson ES-125T).

    The issue is how far inward the tuning peg holes were drilled on the headstocks of '60s Epis & Gibsons- and it was almost always further in than we commonly see today.  Three-on-a-plates were typically slanted to the point where the sixth & first strings toed inward (frequently resulting in the fifth string touching the sixth).  On individually mounted tuners (as on the Frontier), the same scenario occurred as well, but there could be variations in the placement of the holes.  There could also be variations in holes drilled on the right or left side, as to how far inward they were drilled.  This too could sometimes result in the fatter fifth & sixth strings touching.

    And now the important bottom line:  The fifth string rubbing the sixth as it passes by has virtually no effect on tuning.  The OP's headstock holes could have been lined up a little better, but ten to one it was patterned after an actual '60s Kalamazoo Frontier!

  4. Can’t get much better than that!  No question, the ES-330 and it’s Epi Casino soulmate are right at the top of my favorite electric guitar list.  I’ve got this territory well covered with three fine instruments, but my oh my, you’ve hit the absolute  motherload by finding a natural finish vintage 330 - Congrats & Enjoy!

  5. It’s an LG-1.  Ladder bracing, no back center-seam reinforcement, and another tell-tale marker is that from what I can make out in your photo, it has single-ply top binding.  Both the LG-2 & LG-3 had multi-ply top binding, while the LG-1 had single-ply.

    This is pretty basic stuff, so the “vintage” shop either doesn’t know much about Gibsons, or they’re pulling a fast one.  The guitar was clearly misrepresented as an LG-3, which means the situation should be easily rectified unless they are completely dishonest.

    Hope a resolution to the matter is quick & straightforward.

    Edit:  Regarding the finish, the guitar was either stripped of it’s original sunburst, or perhaps special ordered in natural.  But the basic key factor remains - it is ladder braced rather than X-braced, which takes a huge chunk out of the guitar’s value as opposed to a true ‘50s  LG-3.

  6. The 1948 L-48 I owned had a solid pressed & arched mahogany top.  The sides & back were solid mahogany as well, but looked like they had been pulled from a shelf of flat-top acoustic parts, with the back being flat & fully braced.  It was a flea market find of mine from back in the ‘70s (when virtually no one wanted an acoustic archtop), and one of my few regrets in letting a guitar go.  To date, I’ve never seen another one like it.

    That said, the L-48 is a model that indeed went through many transitions in woods used & construction during it’s long production run.  Enjoy your new-to-you beauty!

  7. On 2/6/2022 at 4:01 AM, Leonard McCoy said:

    So no, I do not subscribe to your starry-eyed view. I have not seen anything from Epiphone that comes even close to matching American-made acoustics. You get exactly what you pay for with Asian brands like Epiphone (because that is what Epiphone has effectively become). The abandoned Elite/Elitist series is a forgotten thing of the past—they did not match their American counterparts in terms of quality, feel or sound, nor were they supposed to. It has been the first time in a decade I have even heard anyone mention the Elite series at all or in any high regard.

    The run of Texans that were produced for the Adopt-A-Minefield gala was so short that it hardly justifies mentioning.  Nobody I know has ever really seen these instruments in person or knows anyone that does. Yes, the Terada version of the Texan had the less desirable slim nut width truer to original specs, but that doesn't say anything, now does it?

    The "highly regarded" Epiphones you mentioned produced in the 1990s and 2000s were just really cheap and crappy plywood guitars that but looked the part from a decent distance away. I know because I have owned a couple of them, like the SQ-180. Even their later attempts at working with solid-wood materials failed to produce desirable results. But at least it checked some clueless customer's spec list somewhere and probably filled a niche in the market. But as it turns out, solid wood materials (of questionable quality and resonance) do not automatically make good soundboards or good-sounding guitars. The Epiphone Inspired by Texan was such an attempt—it was not a good guitar. I know because I owned one.

    Ah, where to begin.  First let me say that you now have met someone who owns a 2005 Terada-made 1964 McCartney Epiphone Texan.....  and also a Terada-made 2000 USA-Series John Lee Hooker Sheraton.....  and also a Terada-made Elitist Casino.  I have also played an Elitist Byrdland.  And I've been able to directly compare the quality of those instruments to similar guitars I currently own including a J-45 Rosewood, J-50, ES-330L, ES-33Ovos, ES-335, & ES-339, as well as other Gibsons I currently own or have played.  The world is littered with guitar generalizations regarding brands, manufacturers, eras, and so on.  I never put out a specific opinion on the build quality or tone/playability of an instrument unless I've owned it, or have had it in hand to play.

    Now remember, my point here has nothing to do with the demise of the Epiphone brand.  I'm reasonably well versed on the history of both Epi acoustics and electrics, post 1970.  I started playing guitar in 1971, at the ripe old age of twenty.  A college friend showed me a few chords and a Travis picking pattern, and off I went to the music store to buy a guitar.  The only choices in my entry-level price range were Yamahas made in Taiwan, and Epiphones made in Japan.  In comparing the two, even then the Epiphones struck me as cheaply made.  The four-bolt neck & very mediocre tone steered me directly towards the Yamahas.  In the following two years, I became somewhat obsessed with guitar construction, and by '73 had made a habit of looking for good quality older guitars at flea markets to buy cheap, repair as needed, and trade in to buy the best high quality guitar I could afford.  Those tactics landed me four new Guilds (D-40, F-20, F-30, F-40) at various points during the decade.  Some of my flea market finds included a number of Gibsons: '48 L-48, '50s LG2-3/4, '50s ES-125, and a '64 Epiphone FT-45n that ended up having a lifelong impact on my tonal preferences.  Many Gibsons & Epiphones were to follow, so yes, I get where you're coming from.

    With the above said, let's take a look pacific-rim build quality.  Even back in the '70s, there were clear signs by the end of the decade that Japanese factories were capable of building some fine instruments, including mandolins & guitars marketed by Ibanez (again, which I owned & played) and Takamine (including a Gallagher Doc Watson clone that was quite impressive).  But I want to move forward into the '90s & 2000s to talk about Peerless.  Like almost all Epiphone acoustics outsourced first to Japan, then Korea and China, Gibson has continually speced these instruments to fill the very lowest price points.  But on the electric side, Peerless built Epiphones with a significantly more refined level of build quality.  Models such as the Casino, Regent, and Emperor that came out of the Peerless factory were being recognized as excellent bodies to upgrade (as Gibson saddled them with mediocre electronics).  At one point there were four Korean factories manufacturing Epi electrics.  When I sold my Peerless Casino, the fact that it came from Peerless was a very real selling point I was able to utilize (and today, you will continue to find sellers on Reverb using Peerless as a selling point).  Peerless clearly had the capability to build fine quality instruments.  Today, there is a Korean factory building electrics for Guild.  Again, I can tell you about them first hand, because I own a fully acoustic Guild archtop made in 2014, before Fender sold the Guild brand to Cordoba.  This model is the A-150b (blonde), with a solid spruce top & floating D'Armond monkey-stick pickup.  Overall build quality is very high, and speaks volumes about their capabilities.

    Now let's get to the most direct example of world class build quality I can discuss first hand - Terada.  It is my understanding that Ibanez sourced instruments from Tereada as far back as the '70s.  They were building Epiphone electrics for Gibson in the very early '80s, but then Gibson turned to Korea for it's acoustic & electric production.  However in 1999, Gibson returned to Terada to build the USA-Series Lennon Casino (two versions), and then the following year added the John Lee Hooker Sheraton (there had been a Korean JLH version in the '90s that did not remotely compare to the two new Terada JLH models).  These models essentially represented Gibson telling Terada to utilize their finest build quality, for a product that would be labeled as "Assembled in the USA" and sold as comparable to Gibson's own ES instruments.  Because of the models I own, I can tell you through first-hand comparisons that the Terada JLH Sheraton's build quality is unquestionably on a par with it's Gibson counterparts.  The USA-Series Epis flew briefly under the radar, but they clearly demonstrated that Terada had become a world class manufacturer.  In 2002, the rather extensive Epi Elite (later Elitist) line was released, with the Riviera and another new Sheraton version immediately being recognized as best-buy picks by Guitar Player Magazine.   Elitist models remain in demand and sell well on Reverb.  Of all the models produced, the Byrdland and Broadway represent Terada's finest Elitist endeavors, with carved solid spruce tops, and again, impeccable quality.

    So on to the McCartney Texan, the only guitars Paul has ever allowed to use his name for endorsement/selling purposes.  This is another model people know little about today, but it's the best example I'm aware of where Gibson finally asked Terada to build an acoustic with the build quality of a Gibson, and with solid woods throughout.  When the one I own arrived, after setting it up to my preferences, I was floored by the tone I was getting - it just nailed the dry & slightly metallic overtones I so love from '60s Gibsons with adjustable bridges.  My example of the Terada McCartney Texan feels light as a feather, and is easily equal to today's Bozeman Gibsons in build quality.  And once again, I can directly compare it to the two very fine Gibson roundshoulders I own.  All three are different, but they are all equally satisfying.

    The guitar industry has changed and evolved considerably from the earliest days of offshore production.  The best builders worldwide use similarly automated equipment, and employ labor forces populated with people who just need a job.  The Kalamazoo days of skilled craftsmen working their entire careers with one company & retiring with a pension are long gone.  Guitars are built differently today, and what the manufacturing process looks like around the world has increasingly leveled out.  That said, who manufactures what & where will continue to be driven by specific price points, and of course, labor costs.

    Fun stuff, huh?  I don't know what will determine Gibson's future directions, but the more USA-made Epi classics, the better!  (Edit: The oval-soundhole Howard Roberts acoustic carved-spruce archtop would be soooo cool!).

                  

  8. Bravo - A thoughtful response that goes well beyond the curt one liner!  I agree with much of what you say, but we’re talking about two different issues:  Post 1970 Epiphone production vs the current ability of top pacific-rim makers to produce instruments on a par with their USA counterparts.  Will get back to you tonight when I have more time to discuss further.

  9. 6 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

    Stop pretending Gibson is so much better or special. They are both companies that make guitars. Neither is hand made as some claim they are. Both use CNC machines and probably work under pressure filled conditions to get there products to market.

    Hello?  Having a little difficulty comprehending?  If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a “bazillion” times, and most recently in the second paragraph of my last post.  Again, these companies both build fine guitars, and they essentially operate on a similar playing field.  Thanks so much for repeating what I just said, which apparently indicates that we are in agreement on that point.

    But where the corporate road currently separates is in Martin’s handling of the loose binding and neck reset issues.  Terrific that you have not experienced these problems to date, but the world does not end at your nose.  Thanks to sbpark for being just one of the “bazillions” to share how Martin left him in the lurch with his neck reset issue.  Again, plenty more of these testimonials over at UMGF.

    Now if you’d like to get off the dance floor, we could sit a few out & grab a beer.

  10. 5 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

    How many come here complaining of their Gibsons and the s-hit that gets through QA to make the man money. It goes both ways. You know it, and others do to yet look the other way cause my guitar has Gibson on the headstock. I’ll take your s-hit, but I’ll give it back when need be. I’m pretty sure if you look in all the different section there are threads with QA issues. Go look, and you  know there there.
    Had my one of mine out too today. I only had to push the binding back in place 3 times.

    We can keep doing this dance for as long as you want to keep going down the same repetitive road.  Of course people come here to ask about Gibson QA stuff, just like they go to UMGF to ask about Martin QA stuff.  And guess what?  For anything similar to these assorted blemish issues, Martin guys typically give the exact same answers:  "Oh, it must be the dealer's fault.....  Decide if you really want to keep that guitar, and if so, try negotiating a discount you can live with.....  I wouldn't keep anything sold as new that isn't perfect - send it back.....  If you want to keep the guitar, it might be covered under warranty, contact Martin."

    For the umpteenth time, my point being that these two companies exist on the same playing field.  They both make good guitars, and they both have screw ups from time to time because they are significantly automated production line manufacturers with regular staff turnover.  That said, Martin's systemic & extended binding problem is the most severe example I can recall in recent decades, and their corporate leadership's silence on the matter is disappointing to say the least.  Hopefully their loyal customers will be better served in the future.

    And speaking of loyalty, it seems pretty obvious that if ever there was a Martin fanboy, you are it.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  But a Martin fanboy who continually feels the need to elevate Martins above Gibsons on a Gibson forum is rather sadly pathetic.  So why are you here?  Have you torched your bridges with every other forum via your typical calling card incivility?  No problem - you can tout your Martins here all day long, post pictures as you have, and enjoy sharing with everyone how much you like them.  Beyond that, I would refer you once again to Frank's sage advice.     

    • Thanks 1
  11. On 2/3/2022 at 7:17 PM, Sgt. Pepper said:

    None of my new or used Martin’s have ever arrived like that, but let’s hear the neck reset and binding pop BS about them.

    Glad you brought that up again.  And feel free to get about a bazillion testimonials on UMGF’s “Technical Info” section as to how problematic that “BS” has been for Martin owners, while Martin’s corporate heads ignore it all.  Then read a bit further to find stories about Martin screw ups along the lines of this finish blip.  Most recent one I recall was about four blemished areas on an otherwise beautiful rosewood back, most likely caused by an assembly line machine that holds the instrument stationary during an automated buffing process.

    You opened this door once again, all on your own, to create another Martin vs Gibson thing.  We get that you love your Martins & that’s great - but in today’s world, they’re just another automated USA production line instrument, and screw ups will sometimes happen.

    Far from not liking Martin’s, I had one of mine out last night & thoroughly enjoyed playing it.  They do indeed build fine instruments.  But for a variety of reasons, I like playing my Gibsons even more.

     

    • Like 1
  12. Maple is my favorite tonewood, as it typically produces punchy & percussive notes that work well with my fingerpicking style - Just perfect if the tone is well balanced from string to string.  Conversely, sustain & lingering overtones are the enemy in my house.

    Here’s hoping the Bozeman Frontier’s maple delivers the tone you’re after - Enjoy!

  13. On 1/21/2022 at 3:52 PM, mihcmac said:

    Below are the Epiphone factory codes used in the SN# from Guitar Insite

    Numbered factory codes
    NUMBER FACTORY COUNTRY
     10 unknown  China
     12 DeaWon or Unsung  China
     13 unknown  China
     15 Qingdao (electric)  China
     16 Qingdao (acoustic)  China
     17 unknown  China
     18 unknown  China
     20 DeaWon or Unsung  China
     21 Unsung  Korea
     22 unknown  Korea
     23 Samick  Indonesia

    Factory code letter

    LETTER FACTORY COUNTRY
     B Bohêmia Musico-Delicia  Czech Republic
     BW ??  China
     C Cort  Korea
     CI Cort  Indonesia
     DW DaeWon  China
     EA QingDao (akoestisch)  China
     ED Dongbei  China
     EE QingDao (elektrisch)  China
     F Fuji-gen (Elite/Elitist modellen)  Japan
     F Fine Guitars  Korea
     FC Fuji-gen (jaren '90)  Japan
     GG ??  China
     GR Farida, Guang Dong  China
     I Saein  Korea
     IS Samick, Bogor  Indonesia
     J Terada Gakki Seisakusyo  Japan
     K Korea Ins.  Korea
     L Leader Musical Instrument Co Ltd.  Korea
     MC Muse  China
     MR Mirr factory China [Korea to 2004]
     O Choice  Korea
     P Peerless  Korea
     R Peerless  Korea
     QG Qingdao Gibson  China
     S Samick  Korea
     SI Samick, Bogor  Indonesia
     SJ SaeJun  China
     SM Samil  Korea
     T Terada Gakki Seisakusyo  Japan
     U Unsung  Korea
     UC Unsung China  China
     Z Zaozhuang Saehan  China

    Unclear Letter factory codes

    LETTER FACTORY NOTE
     H ??  Probably Hunan, China
     GP ??  Probably Korea
     JK ??  Probably Korea or Indonesia
     SK ??  --
     SN ??  Probably Indonesia
     SW ??  --
     WF ??  Probably China
     X ??  Probably China

     

    This is a great list, and very accurate, based on the many Epiphones I’ve examined and/or owned over the years.  Of the above, the stand out pacific-rim manufacturer would be Terada-Japan.  I’m fortunate enough to own three Terada instruments, and they emit quality from every pore - Always worth a look when one becomes available!

  14. 3 hours ago, Leonard McCoy said:

    Not really, not even close.

    Well actually, very close Leonard.  What I'm saying here is that these top tier pacific rim factories have the capability to build as high quality of a guitar as you want.   They are rarely asked to do so by the companies that contract out with them, and instead have traditionally filled the roll of producing entry & mid level instruments.

    A clear and very real example of top-end capability is the Epiphone Elitist line produced in Japan.  Terada has manufactured all the hollow, semi-hollow, and acoustic instruments associated with this line since it's inception in 2002.  A few years before that, Terada began producing the nitro-finished bodies for the USA-Series Lennon Casino & JLH Sheraton, which were then shipped to Gibson-Nashville for installation of pickups & hardware - and received a "Assembled in USA" sticker on the back of the peghead.  Then there was the Adopt-A-Minefield (fundraiser) Paul McCartney Texan in 2005, with a version manufactured by Terada & two versions produced in Bozeman (I recall reading that Terada's version was actually closer to McCartney's original-instrument specs).  Terada also manufactured the bodies for an Eric Clapton ES-335 model associated with a Clapton/Guitar Center fundraiser campaign (one instrument per store), and these instruments were sold as full-bore Gibsons.  Want impeccable workmanship?  Terada can do it all day.  Want a flawless nitro finish?  They can lay down a thin nitro finish as smooth as glass.

    Peerless built highly regarded Epiphone models for Gibson for many years through the '90s & early 2000s.  Sure, they could have built them with nitro instead of poly, and one-piece necks instead of scarfed, but they were made to fill a price-point niche.  There are other factories in Korea today, as well as the Indonesian Samick factory that can build whatever quality guitar you want, and these recent all-solid-wood Epiphone models are an indicator of that.

    We no longer are talking about highly skilled craftsmen performing tasks by hand at Gibson & Martin for decades, and then retiring from the company.  What we now have are significantly automated guitar production lines, with staff that most likely last no longer than five years.  The playing field has leveled, and essentially similar production environments now exist in factories outside the USA, with capabilities to match.      

    • Like 1
  15. Very interesting to see the current Epiphone jumbo offering at Sweetwater.

    Whether it be the currently utilized Indonesian Samick factory, or Terada-Japan, or Peerless-Korea, they’ve all been capable of building instruments that are equal to those from the USA in build quality.

    But per the key factor, their Epiphone branded products reflect specifications as predetermined by Gibson, with the goal of fitting neatly into specific price points.

  16. On 1/25/2022 at 5:42 PM, jibberish said:

    Knowing what you know about EJ-200s, how much do you believe you would EVER pay for one (sentimentality, famous/previous owners, etc aside)

    If I played a EJ-200 example that appealed to me enough to want to buy it, $300 is the maximum I’d pay - and hopefully I’d have a gift card to put towards it, bringing the out of pocket amount closer to the $200 range.

    Did that six years ago with a solid mahogany topped EL-00 Pro, and ended up spending only $150 in cash.  A limited run with a natural finish, it’s a sweetheart of a little guitar that plays far better than it has any right to!

  17. The guitar is legit.  If the seller & deal is legit, then it’s a screaming give-away of a deal, as the guitar appears to be in rather good condition.  And in this day & age of easy information access via the internet, that sends up an automatic red flag of caution.

    Without digging deeper to narrow it down -  it’s got a truss rod, so it’s an L-style acoustic archtop from the mid 20’s to early ‘30s.  Typically these have very chunky necks, but can be a joy to play if you enjoy the punchy archtop acoustic tone.

  18. This guitar is most likely a B-25 from 1968 or later, and my best guess would put it at 1970 with the following notes of interest:

    - The lack of a peghead veneer was initially a 1970 characteristic.

    - The shape of the back cross braces doesn’t conform to small-body Gibsons from 1967 or earlier.

    -the serial number is consistent with 1968 or 1970 (but in 1970 it should also be stamped “made in USA”).

    - The last year of the plastic belly-up adjustable bridge was 1966.  1967 & into 1968 had rosewood belly-up adjustable bridges.  The belly-down adjustable rosewood bridge was standard by 1969.   A non-adjustable belly-down rosewood bridge was standard in 1970.

    Bottom line:  1968 to 1970 was a period of significant transition at Gibson, in which parts and construction details were sometimes mixed & matched based on available stock on hand.  1970 was the true kickoff of the Norlin Era, which represented a low point in the history of Gibson acoustics.  Because this guitar points towards the start of the Norlin Era, it’s value should be somewhat depressed - but as always, a guitar is worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...