Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Gralst

All Access
  • Content Count

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-12 Bad

About Gralst

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Hi i'm Anna.

    I am the frаgile and gentle wоmаn who needs a strong and reliаble partner in lifе.

    My photo hеrе https://sex-gibson.tumblr.com

    Kisses Gralst

  2. Judging by bridge, headstock logo and other details it's a Samick-made (Korean) model made between 1989 and 1994.
  3. I don't like pickguards on ES guitars (They cause static electrical interference).
  4. That's fine except what are the "true" Kalamazoo specs since over the course of the Kalamazoo era (1957-1970) there were many changes in "specs" such as nut width, bracing size and pattern, hardware used (nickel or chrome?), electronics used to say nothing of the myriad changes in the horn/body shape of models like the Crestwood and Coronet to say nothing of the amount of changes the Epiphone head stock itself under went. To me the best solution would be to keep the specs that were specific to the model year/era the particular Epiphone model is representing with guitars that were originally Kalamazoo Epiphone models and with the Gibson models that the Epiphone models are an impression of should remain clearly different and distinctive to the actual for the reasons of the Gibson consumer being entitled to the distinctive Gibson model differences and material and manufacturing improvements. It also males it more difficult for the unscrupulous to pass off the lower priced guitar as something worth significantly more to someone less informed. As I'm sure you know at the point in time when Epiphone began more universal distribution of their product lines with more accuracy in design and features Matsumoku was making a pretty accurate line of Japanese Domestic product as well as a re-badged line of Aria instruments. In about 1983 Samick began Korea production which by 1985 included a Sheraton model as did the JDM and Aria lines. Initally they used a different head stock shape and logo to make the distinction eventually using only a different head stock. In 1993/1994 they had a short run of American (Nashville-made) Sheratons and Riviera (et al) utilizing the Kalamazoo headstock so for a short while there were Japanese, USA and Korea Sheratons and Rivieras in the market place and with only small differences such as the clipped corner Sheraton headstock and the full sized hum bucker routs and minute differences in the cut away horn shape. Just a few years after that the AIUSA lines came along and added even more chaos to the party. I believe this is why there has to be differences and distinctions. If the basic premise of the model is there along with the intrinsic function and basic design I don't it needs to be an exact clone and if someone pays for a particular guitar to be a more exacting impression of something they should receive that without someone else getting it for free. For the most part, regardless of brand, Gibson, Epiphone, Fender whatever the "distinctive original" features that are desired were things that were changed or discontinued were changed or discontinued as a result of cost cutting or manufacturing methods so ultimately to make guitars "like they used to" is going to price some instruments out of reach for some. I can only speak for myself but I think I'd prefer having a guitar that isn't quite an exact clone of something to being required to pay considerable more for features that don't improve the function but only make the guitar more expensive through the inclusion of non-essential and superficial cosmetic differences.
  5. I've been coming to this forum going on about twenty years and thinking back to my early visits the Gibson V. Epiphone debate was as heated and ubiquitous then as it is now. And now, as it was then I'm certain there's no resolution. I ask myself: "why would anyone want Gibson to drop the Epiphone name and have a single brand?"The most obvious reason would be to be able to own a "Gibson" for the price of an "Epiphone" but in order for it to be an actual "Gibson" the cost cutting measures that allow for an Epiphone to be in the market place at its price point would have to be instituted and the resulting instrument wouldn't be close to the Gibson in terms of materials and manufacturing quality. Simply putting a head stock shape and logo on an Epiphone isn't going to magically turn it into a Gibson. The consumer who walks into the music shop with the intention of buying an actual Gibson and all that goes into it being an actual Gibson isn't going to go for having the brand diminished in such a manner. Agree or disagree with the concept, the cost of having the craftsmanship, higher grade materials and wood and even the, nitro finish is something the potential Gibson customer has accepted when he (or she) is reaching into their wallet. To them the head stock shape and brand are going to be representative of the expectation of that product, not that I agree with that always being the case. In the past thirty years Epiphone has been instrumental (lol...see what I did there?) in transforming the guitar industry through bringing a high quality, high utility, aesthetically pleasing guitar at a reasonable price point but it's not, and will never be a Gibson. It's not even what some of us old geezers see as an Epiphone. I think it's a great disservice to the brand when people want to change the minutiae so that it appears to be something else other than what it is. The cosmetic and superficial changes I've most seen asked to be changed speak more to the insecurities of the owners rather than to any deficiencies in the guitar. The head stock shape and brand have zero influence on the guitar's play ability, tone, utility or intrinsic quality. I drive a Buick Regal and I'd love it if I could get an Aston Martin DB 10 for the same cost but that's not reality and like the Gibson costing a lot more than the Epiphone there are reasons it does. The Gibson owner has made the commitment and investment and should be entitled to have those features that set it apart. The Epiphone instruments are nothing to be ashamed of, in fact they're pride-worthy guitars. I own both. I'm not ashamed of the Epiphones and I don't think I'm special because I have the Gibsons. I'm currently seeking out an Epiphone FT-79 Texan to replace one I've had since 1966 that is now on the verge of giving up the ghost. With no reflection upon the owners of said guitars or their choices, the Inspired By line doesn't do it for me so I'm left with two choices, a Kalamazoo vintage model or a Japanese Elitist. The Elitist is going to be about half what the vintage is going to cost but my intention is to use and actually play the guitar not stick it in a cabinet to look at. To pay stupid money for a fine vintage instrument and then schlep it around exposing it to wear and tear or maybe even theft is just wrong. In this case the economy route is the smart and more practical route. I'm certain the Elitist is going to be different in some ways to the Kalamazoo but not different in ways that matter and at the end of the day it's going to be a solid mahogany, long scale, AJ bodied acoustic with none of the prestige of a vintage Texan but I'm not buying it for prestige I'm buying it as a guitar. I've ranted and rambled quite enough. My point is accept and appreciate what the guitar is and don't try to make it something it isnt.
  6. I happen to see on the Epiphone web page that there's a "Limited Edition" 1964 Elitist Texan. I'm aware that there was one in the early 2000s but the information seems to suggest this is a new and current offering but I've seen no other information elsewhere. I'm at the exploratory stage of replacing my close friend of fifty two years and was actually looking for a vintage Kalamazoo Texan but since this is going to be a player I could be more than happy with a contemporary Elitist. The one at the Epiphone page is advertised as having solid rims and a nitro finish albeit it it does have the old adjustable bridge. I'm not interested in the "Inspired By" or whatever it is but I am curious about the Elitist model and whether it is in deed a current offering and the list price. Thanx in advance for any info you can give me.
  7. Thank you. After you made your post I remembered that I have a pickguard (from an Epiphone Zenith I thought but I just went and looked at it and it's identical to the one on the Emperor so maybe it's worth something) in my parts drawer with an aluminum epsilon. Thanx for answering that.
  8. Red, What is the bottom bout width (size) of the post 1944 FT-79? What is the bout width of a J-185? and what is the lower bout width of an OM/000? Now we can split hairs here but for a generalization I think it's reasonable to call the FT-79 and J-185 "Grand Auditorium-sized" guitars as they each have bodies that are ~16" X ~20"X ~5"or of "Grand Auditorium" size (The J-185 started with a 5 1/4" and in 1955 went to a 4 15/16"-I haven't found the body depth of the mid-40s FT-79 but I was told by someone I believe it was ~4 3/4") . The OM/000 is CONSIDERABLY smaller with a ~15" lower bout 19 3/8" body length and 4 1/8" body depth..in other words, if you were in a complete dark room you couldn't as easily distinguish the J-185 from the FT=79 but the OM would be a no brainer so an analogy of a golf ball and a softball doesn't work unless you're talking about distinguishing the FT-79 from the OM. As I stated, the J-185 changed body shape slightly when they added a fret in 1955 an made the body shallower. If this doesn't work for you there's nothing more I can say about it. If you can't see the differences in size and don't think the FT-79 and J-185 are more alike than an OM and the FT-79 then we're just going to have to disagree. What would be more interesting is if your photo comparison was to actual scale. As it is all three guitars look alike. and if you think the minuscule difference shown with the FT-79 behind the J-185 proves anything you're mistaken...it does prove that the FT-79 is LARGER than the OM and since the J-185 and FT-79 are every bit as close as your out of scale OM over the FT-79 I'd have to say this is a draw.
  9. That doesn't look like a J-185? You are aware that an additional fret was added in 1955 which makes the post 1955 J-185s more square at the top. Going back to the beginning I told Red that he was correct and that I had forgotten about the two or three years of dread-shaped FT-79s (1942-1944) and that they more resembled J-185s after the dreads...and the FT-79 changed in 1948/1949 again in 1952 and again in 1954 and again in 1958 when they became long-scaled J-45s and J-50s. Now, if you don't see the resemblance as I have again stated then there's nothing I can do about you...please compare it with 1952-1954 J-185...and of course I'm aware of Martin "J" sizes. I ended up buying my Tacoma JF-1912 (Exact specs as an early version J-185 with a better neck profile and scalloped advanced X bracing for maximum punch) instead of the Martin because as much as I adore, love and worship Martins I got two guitars for less than the cost of one.
  10. Just for the sake of accuracy please understand that the Epiphone Wilshire was a Gibson-designed guitar first introduced in 1959. Epiphone never made a solid body electric (Lap steels not withstanding) or semi-hollow body electric until after Gibson bought Epiphone (May 10, 1957). My first grown up guitar was a Crestwood Custom and I've always liked them but they were of Gibson origin. The large "E is called an epsilon (the fifth letter in the Greek alphabet). To my knowledge it was never used on a pre-Gibson guitar.
  11. First off...it's not always about you Bobouz...and after reading the postings earlier in the thread I thought "kids" was apropos. I think the reason you're hypersensitive and seeking out my "mistakes" is because you're afraid your status and position here is threatened or something...Fear not... I'm quite secure with my personal station and have no desire to steal any of your glory as resident Epiphone expert. I don't know anything about you but I don't want you to feel butt hurt so I promise I won't refer to you as a "kid". I'm also pretty secure in my knowledge so please, feel free to correct me...but please, at least be correct yourself first. Oh, and I own a 000-18 and an OM-28V...they have 15" body widths...which is considerably different from a J-185 which I've also owned (albeit a 12 string version)which has a 16" lower bout. Now. Relax and don't be so insecure and you may even learn something. Have a really great one.
  12. I spent over an hour last night trying to get two photos to post without success. The two guitars you posted are the two examples I was trying to post. I'm not interested enough in this topic to continue but I'll leave by asking: What is the body width of the 1940s grand auditorium FT-79....and the body width of the J-185? ...and the body depth of the same two guitars? and now what is the lower bout width of a Martin OM or a Martin 000?...and the Martin's body depth? OK...now which dimensions are more similar? Have a good one, guys.
×
×
  • Create New...