cody78

Going back to the original topic, how do you find the Gibson RD you mentioned Megafrog? I've never tried one myself, but was always interested in the look of them. The only unusual shaped guitars I have tried/ or own is a Gibson Firebird V which I bought a couple of years ago and many years ago a guy I knew had an Explorer which he let me test out. I like the Firebird because it feels so different to other guitars and has unique tone with the mini humbuckers. I imagine the RD would be along the same lines in feeling and sounding very unique. I must try one someday, either Epi or Gibson.

The thing I don't get is if he hates Epiphone's so much, why does he spend so much time posting in this forum? It's not even a rational argument he has for his dislike of Epiphone. Most good guitarists could find a (Chinese) Epiphone that they like. I'd love to hear him play guitar...I bet he sucks big time

Yes, good point about his tribute His posts do annoy me, but I must learn to ignore him.

Dude, some might say a Gibson Les Paul Tribute is just a cheapo Gibson that is not a proper Les Paul. Oh wait, you own one of those. You put binding on it to make it look like a real Les Paul, so why not buy a 'proper' Gibson? Could it be you can't afford one? Guess what, Gibson Les Paul Tributes are never going to be collectors items, so why mock people who like Epiphone guitars? Megafrog, congrats on guitar number 100! Hope you enjoy the RD. I loved the look of his Epi LP Artisan.

Like CB, none of my SG's have suffered from neck dive either (I own a couple of the same SG's as him - Gibson SG Custom Kirk Douglas and an SG Original). I've never owned an Epi SG so can't comment on them, but I have an Epiphone Thunderbird bass in my collection which does neck dive a little bit. Doesn't bother me at all and I think it's a really nice bass - used it on some recordings recently and sounded great.

England vs America? Oh dear Both countries have good points and both have bad. I'm English, but don't feel the need to start posting dumb comments here about either country. Back to the guitar. Interesting someone mentioned the grain on original bursts not being perfect sometimes. Those guitars were never seen as Gibson's top of the line models back in the 50's and not quite as much care was put into them as many would believe. For example, look at the positions of the silk screens on the headstocks back then and you'll see some were way off. Wood chosen could be average or spectacular in terms of figure and/ or blemishes. It's only collectors who turned them into the holy grail of guitars. Yes bursts were great, but at the time archtops like the L5 were still considered Gibson's flagship models.

I was going to say Searcy has been posting some cool rare Gibson models in his Gibson of the day thread (a lot of which I think look great), but sadly the N-225 here just looks all wrong to me. That said, it probably plays and sounds really good and would be worth testing out. I'm sure I saw some natural versions of these which looked much more appealing. The black one reminds me of that pinstripe Les Paul they did a while back. EDIT: Ah, here's one in natural which I would consider buying for $799 if I was in the market for one.

Ha! I didn't realise he meant no binding on the f-holes. On my laptop it looked like there was lacquer missing near the edges of one of them...think it must be the photo/ angle I was looking at. Anyway ES 175's never have bound f-holes, therefore, definitely not an issue. My 175 looks just the same too.

On archtops, to my knowledge, Gibson never finish under the 'neck pocket' as you call it - the section underneath the end of the fretboard. I do feel you are being overly picky, however, the unfinished sections around the f-holes does seem bad as I've never seen that before with the lacquer missing...also the cracking on the binding seems unusual too. The other things you mention usually happen over time anyway, so I wouldn't worry. So long as it sounds great and feels great don't stress about it. It's still a beautiful guitar. Remember, nitro finishes do have a tendency to split/ crack over time (as seen in your picture of the headstock logo/ thistle and also the neck/ body join). Check out some pictures of old Gibson archtops from the 60's or before and you will see nitro cracking all over the place and other signs of wear. It's gonna happen to most guitars one day, so embrace it. I myself bought an L5CES last year and was horrified to see some finish cracking appear down the back of the neck within the first 6 months. Now I realise, it's just one of those things that can sometimes happen. The guitar is still a fantastic instrument, it's just the bummer of a nitro finish! Some people love it, though I would rather the instrument remains flawless personally. What can you do? I have an Epiphone Broadway which is not finished with nitro and it is perfect in terms of no signs of age/ cracking...but the tone is only probably 3/10th's as good as the L5. The Epi is still a good guitar though, despite the difference in tone.

My Studio in the middle of my LP Special and LP Junior. Had the Studio from new when I got it back in 1998 and it still is a pleasure to play. I've gigged it numerous times, but looked after it so it still looks fairly mint except for marks on the back. Mine had a 50's rounded neck which I love and sounds sweet to this day. They really are great guitars. It was my first Gibson, so has a very special place in my collection.

Hey Blackzeppelin. Thanks for the link to this thread (I missed it somehow before). It seems you have had a similar experience to me with my L5 neck lacquer cracks. I have to say, I have never seen cracks like that on the top of a relatively new LP before. It seems strange some guitars seem more prone to this than others. I have one Reissue Les Paul (a '57 Custom made in 2009) and it hasn't developed any checking/ cracks. Like you, all my guitars live in the same room and I look after them all in the same manner, yet only my L5 and ES 5 have these small cracks appearing on the back of the neck/ heel area. The odd thing is, my ES 5 is from 2010 and I bought it in 2011 and it has only developed these cracks in the last couple of years. I don't know what changed in my house to make this happen. I have never actually gigged with my L5 or ES 5, yet the Gibson's I do gig with (my old LP Classic being one) have never developed these cracks and these are the ones that have been through all kind of temp/ humidity changes, alongside having sweat dripping on them in live situations. All very bizarre IMO.

Thank you for your entertaining and amusing rebuttal and proving once again that you know everything there is to know about Gibson acoustics even though you were wrong in your earlier statements. It appears you believe everyone else on the forum is a moron (well at least the ones who question your knowledge or prove you wrong). You put me, bobouz and rct in our place for sure. We are mere mortals and bow to your superior knowledge God of Gibson acoustics. I imagine when you visit Gibson Montana you put the employees in their place too and tell them that they know nothing about being a guitar maker compared to yourself. Btw, since my last post the back of my J-15 collapsed when a particle of dust landed on it. Turns out it was inferior wood after all

Bobouz, here are even more examples from the 1957 Gibson catalogue showing flat-top naturals costing more than sunburst. There will be many more examples in the other catalogues show here too. These can be found by scrolling down the page in the link http://vintage.catalogs.free.fr/Index.htm J-185......$225 J-185N.....$240 J-200.....$370 J-200N....$385 Yes, Mr Truth was totally incorrect. It proves that even people with a God complex can be wrong

Btw, I apologise for my personal attack towards you the other day, it's just I feel some guys on this forum may have saved up for a guitar like a J-15 for a while. They may not be as well off money wise as some of the more fortunate members here (I'm pretty lucky these days financially, but I remember being broke a number of years ago and it sucked!) and telling these people their guitar is pretty much a piece of trash in such a demeaning way is both slightly arrogant and in bad taste in my opinion. I still think my J-15 is great and very well made despite your comments.

Hogeye, for once I agree with you on most points, BUT... I was discussing natural vs sunburst archtops in my earlier post as mickthemiller had stated a sunburst guitar costs more than a natural. Now, Gibson HAVE always charged more for natural archtops (electric or acoustic). It has been listed in loads of books that this is the case and also current price lists reflect this. Shipping totals in numerous books state that natural guitars generally didn't sell nearly as much as sunburst models too. Acoustic flat tops are different as natural or sunburst are the same price for some unknown reason to me. Peace. Same guitar, but way different price as seen below... http://www.richtonemusic.co.uk/products/gibson_l-5_ces_vintage_sunburst.asp?gclid=COvH0cfG0MoCFeISwwodcbAHDg http://www.richtonemusic.co.uk/products/gibson_l5_ces_natural.asp?gclid=CJ3__uDG0MoCFSoUwwod4-sOzg

That all makes sense rct. I read about the natural vs. sunburst cost differences in a book called 'Gibson Super 400: Art of the Fine Guitar by Thomas A.Van Hoose who is expert in the field and has a crazy collection of these guitars. Maybe he was mistaken? I'm no expert on buying blanks or manufacturing guitars so I take on board all these theories and come to my own (possibly wrong!) conclusion. I realise that the actual cost of making an instrument is significanly lower than retail price it is sold for. It's a bit like the premium you pay just because a guitar is 'made in the USA'. Take the exact same materials used to make say a J-45, but have it made instead in China with cheap labour costs and the exact same guitar will drop in price by a fairly hefty amount. I do appreciate the craftmanship and skill of producing a superb guitar such as a Custom J-200 or Martin D45, but also appreciate the charm of cheap guitars too and sometimes the gap between them in terms of tone and playability really isn't so far apart as we are led to believe. Surely it wouldn't make good business sense for a company to produce a guitar that will self-destruct down the line? I mean if all our J-15's implode in perhaps 5 years, then Gibson's reputation would sink lower than it was in the 70's Norlin period? They worked so hard to get out of that, that I believe it to be a very questionable idea that my J-15 will not last more than a few years.

Not doubting you, but this is always the opposite in archtops. A natural L5 always cost more than a sunburst, likewise a natural ES-175 cost more than a sunburst too and it is well documented in many Gibson books. I assume this would have applied to acoustics too? I must go reference my Gibson flattop book! Although, most regular Gibson J-45's, J-200's and so on natural or sunburst are priced the same here. For example a pre 2016 J-45 £1,599 and a J-200 £2749 in either colour. Also, denversteve, this does not make a sunburst any less of a guitar than a natural, it's just an observation from many Gibson books I've read over the years. I'm on the side of all the people who love their J-15's. Not J-15 related but price related, I still believe a £100 guitar can be excellent, that you can play anything on any guitar (pretty much) and that price is insignificant if you find an instrument you love. As I mentioned earlier I have an old Yamaha FG which I still sometime play and it's sounds and feels great to me. I don't much care how it was made or if it's seen as an inferior instrument by some.

I found your comments very interesting and valid Mick, however, to my knowledge sunburst finishes are usually cheaper than natural finish guitars because they don't need to use perfect (or near perfect) pieces of wood for the top, back or sides. Sunbursts can cover any imperfections in the wood and therefore is less costly. Also, someone made a point earlier that the J-15 is called a 'J-15' because it's 1/3 of the guitar a J-45 is. I believe this to be totally incorrect as here in the UK when they came out they were price at £1099 with a J-45 at £1599. This is actually more like 2/3 in reality and in the US I think they were $1500 when they came out, hence the 15 reference. Another point that I have to question is that a J-15 is only £500 cheaper than a J-45. This is not a great difference IMO. In some recent sales here you could pick up a J-45 for £1200 making the gap even less. While a J-45 is a fantastic guitar, it was only ever a 'players' guitar or 'workhorse' as it became known. It was not seen to be a top of the line instrument anymore than the J-15.

Reminds me of when I was studying music 10 years ago. I used to use a Fender Squier Affinity Strat all the time and people used to say 'why the heck are you using that piece of rubbish?! I used to say 'hey, it's a guitar, it works, doesn't sound too bad and I like it!', they used to think it was stupid. Arthur Lee from the band Love used a white Squier Strat at the Albert Hall DVD concerts btw. These days there aren't many really bad guitars anyway. The quality of lower end instruments has improved greatly over the years. I remember seeing a band using Encore Strat copy guitars many years ago and they sounded fantastic. This all applies to acoustics too. Yamaha FG's sound great too btw. I have an old one my parents bought me when I was a kid. It has a lovely tone and feel to it. Anyway, in conclusion J-15's are fantastic & like many others here I love mine.

Well said I 100% agree with you. Now that's funny! I'm glad your J-15 saved you

Well, posting negative comments to lot of people who love their J-15's and basically saying they are garbage 'just on step above firewood' isn't a particularly nice thing to do either. I don't go over to the Epi forum and tell people their Epi LP Juniors are garbage because they cost £99 and are made with very cheap materials. Partly, because that isn't cool and also because some of those Epi Juniors are a lot of fun to play and do sound good for the money.

If a player loves a certain instrument such as a J-15 and feels it's their favourite, then to that person the guitar is equally as good as a J-45 if not better. Some cheap guitars play and sound great. You don't need a high end instrument to sound great. I play a lot of jazz with Gibson archtops and your comments remind me of some of the traditional jazz idiots who claim laminated guitars are garbage and solid is the only way to go. What a load of rubbish! That's why many of the greats used laminated ES 175's and similar models. I have a solid wood L5CES and also a laminated ES-5 & ES-175 and neither is better or worse, they are just different, similar to your J-15 vs. J-45 argument. Hogeye, I wonder how good of a player you are? Some people posting comments about instruments being 'inferior' tend to not be very good players to begin with and seem more concerned with every little detail of an instrument's build yet can barely play themselves. If you can only play 3 chords and have done for years, it doesn't matter what guitar you play as you are never going to be Segovia! I studied music for 7 years and own my high end Dove and L-5, but also have a number of cheaper instruments such as an Epi Broadway, an Epi AJ200e and even an Epi LP Special. They all play and sound just fine to me and I love them all expensive or cheap! I recently did a wedding gig with my Epiphone ES-175 as I didn't want to take my Gibson 175 and it went well. Which proves at the end of the day... who cares? Besides, J-45's are clearly crummy instruments because they don't cost as much as J-200's and therefore have cheaper construction methods and materials used. Nonsense! J-200's suck because they don't cost as much as Martin D-45's! Nonsense...and so it keeps going. I better start saving for a Gibson Citation at £15,000 plus, because obviously that's the only guitar a real player should use!

I have 3 Gibson acoustics; a Dove (which I mentioned earlier), J-185 and J-15 and to my ears the J-15 is right up there with my J-185 & Dove. Each sound different and have a unique sound all of their own, but they all play feel and sound great. The J-15 might not look quite as impressive as the Dove or J-185, but still is a beautiful instrument. I love the walnut and think the back looks great. At over £1000 it's hardly a budget instrument! Yes, it may be one of the cheapest Gibson acoustics, but it's still a professional guitar IMO. No offense Hogeye, but the idea it will just fall apart very soon is as ridiculous as some of the other comments made, like the idea that the only good part is the neck. Maybe I should just smash the body and keep the neck?

I really don't that the sawing methods make that much difference to a better or worse tone.

Good point