Bluesy69

As usual things are misconstrued , so allow me to clarify, I LOVE GIBSONS.... I PREFER GIBSONS....All I was ever saying was that I think now a days Gibson has gotten so full of themselves and their name that they have been resting on their laurels and charge astronomical prices for mediocre quality. Why hasn't Fender had such massive price hikes? The Stratocaster is equally as popular as the Les Paul, but the most expensive strat is like $2000 but all other American models can be had for $1800 and under, Les Paul Standard or Traditional or HP models start at $2700 and $3200 or $3700. The company was forced to restructure for a variety of reasons, the jackass C.E.O., the extra electronic companies they purchased.....and most important over priced guitars with hit or miss build quality. So all I'm saying is if Epiphone can crank out such close and accurate quality guitars to their Gibson counter parts for such a low price, then maybe Gibson should crank out steady flawless quality guitars with like $1000 price drop per model. Then I truly believe guitars will fly out of the stores....and for the record I do own a new Epiphone ES335 Pro, and I love it, and there is nothing about it that I would ever change, but I also plan on getting a Gibson Les Paul in the near future, and I hope when I do, that I get a good price or at least a flawless quality instrument for the money, in recent years Gibson has not offered much of either, I am hoping the companies restructuring will change that.

You do realize of course that today all the guitar companies source their wood from the same place right? Due to the shortages of the commonly used mahogany, maple and rosewood, selections. Gibson is perhaps better equipped to extract the moisture content from the woods with more control and in more precise ways than others, but especially since Gibson owns Epiphone, they get there wood from the same contractor. Secondly Gibson is also better equipped with auto-cad machines and original program specs for those machines such as the ES345 to be able to make it exactly how it was, and while all of this does make for a better guitar, I prefer the guitars more made by hand then by machine when it comes to wood sculpting. Now I'm not saying I prefer Epiphone over Gibson, I am saying that even though Gibson DOES make better guitars than Epiphone they are not $3000 better, $1000 maybe. Just like if I had to choose between buying a fun 4x4 off road Jeep Rubicon or a more practical and fuel efficient Toyota Rav 4, I'm choosing the Toyota, why? because the Toyota is more affordable, better on gas, also 4 wheel drive and much more reliable, and yet they both do the same thing, get me from point A to point B. The guitars listed here look similar, sound similar and feel similar.....Does one look, sound, and feel better than the other? of course it does, but not enough for me to pay another $3000.

You have to realize something though, after a certain amount of time goes by, if a company has had the good fortune to be in business for 50 to 100 years their brand name carries a lot of clout along with it, and before you know it after countless ads, and marketing and sales it's at the top of that particular product industry that they produce, which propels that name into super stardom.. Here's an example, my teenage son works part time and buy's himself $250 Nike sneakers from Footlocker, I pick up a pair of $20 no name brand sneakers at Wal-mart, now my son and I both wear 10-1/2 size shoes, so I told him lets swap shoes for a minute and walk around the house, and we did. Once done I asked him, now forgetting name brands and price, did they feel any different on your feet? and he said no, I said ok yours felt no different to me either, now lets wait 6 weeks and see how much wear and tear is on each pair of shoes, and we did...and both seemed to have a small layer of rubber sole worn away, and the inside padding flattened down considerably. My lesson to him was name brands don't always mean a better product, and can end up costing you more money just for the name. The Epiphone name has officially been in existence longer than Gibson, however since C.M.I. who also owned Gibson at the time bought them out in 1957 and used them to make Gibson style guitars, things changed, especially after the 70's & 80's when Epiphone was moved to Asian countries to be made. Now the Gibson company of the 50's to the 80's made thee best guitars on the planet BAR NONE ! equal to if not better than Fender and everyone else, at that time.....and therefore, at that time if you had a Gibson, well then you had a perfect treasure of an instrument that would actually increase in value, while during those same years Epiphones were made with a lesser quality to say the least, compared to a Gibson from that time. Fast forward to today Gibson's name is still among the best in the world, but there is still Fender, and Rickenbacker, and of course PRS, and during the 90's and early 2000's Gibson's quality and attention to detail suffered greatly, and that jackass of a C.E.O. that they just got rid of didn't help things either. However lets fast forward to this past decade where Gibson's quality is basically a hit or miss but better than it was 20 years ago, although now Epiphone's quality has greatly improved, and there are such comparison video's on YouTube where the Bionic Woman could not hear the difference in sound quality between a Gibson and an Epiphone. The point of all this is your paying for the name, that's all and that's it, body styles are the same, woods are the same neck profiles are the same in certain models, pickups are subjective to the player, capacitors may last longer on the Gibson depending upon the amount of use, otherwise I will go so far as to say these guitars listed here in this post are 98% the same, and for that measly 2 percent and the name of Gibson people are coughing up $3000, and it's just not always necessary depending on the model. So I hope you or anyone else is not replying to this because you or someone else paid the $3500 plus for the Gibson brand and is trying to justify the purchase, because that's not being honest...If you want to be honest go to a music store with your smart phone find another guitar playing customer in the store and ask him to try and Epiphone 335 Pro and a Gibson 335 traditional and then record him doing so, and continue recording when he's done and ask him if he felt a $3000 difference between the two, whether he liked the Gibson better or not, just ask if he felt and heard a $3000 difference, and I guarantee you his answer will be no.

Plus another thing you have to remember in video's like this, is that, the guy on the right (Lee Anderton) is the owner of one of the biggest music stores in England, and the guy on the left (Rob Chapman) is working for him in these video's. So they will never admit on camera that the cheaper of any two guitars is the one to buy...they are trying to sell guitars and make as much money as possible. Therefore they will always leave it off as the more expensive guitar just feeling and sounding a bit better than the cheaper guitar, and in a lot of cases it may be true, but as I said I have owned both, and I can tell you if they both have the same profile neck, the feel was the same, otherwise there was only ever a difference in sound because of the different pickups used, which we know is personal preference, and those can be swapped out regardless. So bottom line is we can't believe every review we watch, especially from store owners or store employees.

I've watched that video as well, and again their comparing an Epiphone Dot 335 to a Gibson Traditional 335, and the guitar I'm talking about is the Epiphone 335 Pro which does have different pick ups than the Dot model, so not an accurate comparison video in all fairness.

Yeah I saw that video a while back and I just watched it again to be fair, however they are talking about two different models than what I've mentioned here and the quality of Epiphone has really improved over these past few years. So although I think it's fair to say an Epiphone may feel different or not quite as comfortable as certain Gibson's in a players hand, it also depends on the particular player as well as the guitar, and even then I don't believe it would feel $3000 different or better.

Hey guy's now I know I'm in a Gibson forum, but your also ES lovers and guitar players who had to start with a moderate budget at one time...So please be honest, now I know there are some minor differences between these two models I've listed here. Such as pick ups, capacitors, tuners, but for the most part they use the same wood for neck and body, same rosewood fretboard, same scale length.....and the sound in various comparison videos is nearly identical. Now for those who can get over the obvious fact that Epiphone is made in China and wherever else, Gibson does have American employees in those Asian countries overseeing the quality and construction of these guitars, so realizing that, just what makes you want to spend $3000 more on a Gibson besides the name? I myself have played and owned both and I personally prefer the slim taper neck on the Epiphone, which Gibson doesn't offer too often on too many ES models of recent, but truth be told I just did not see a $3000 difference and I went for the Epiphone because it honestly seemed just as nice, and for that much of a price difference...well after all these years I just couldn't see where all the difference in dollars have gone with the Gibson, and I've been playing for 30 years and I've owned almost every model of every brand you can think of at one time or another, it's just these differences seemed to have gotten more and more subtle to me over the years, what do you guys think? So please look at these links with no bias, and please try to be as objective and honest as possible and tell me what is so drastically different, that someone would elect to spend $3000 more on the Gibson. Just look at these links and compare specs, and then watch the YouTube videos and compare sounds, it's actually just happenstance that the guys in each video are lefties but I just like their similar tones and style of playing. So take a look and give an honest response keeping in mind Gibson owns Epiphone so there is no betrayal here just mere opinion of sound and feel. http://www.epiphone.com/Products/Archtop/ES-335-PRO.aspx http://www.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/2018/Memphis/ES-335-Traditional-2018.aspx#ESDP18VENH1

Don't do it, The one in the store may feel and sound good, but the Les Paul Tribute Les Paul's are having notorious string buzz issues. My friend has been going through hell with his new 2018 LP Tribute, the poor guy has waited 30 years to get his hands on a Les Paul, but he's never had much money, he even took out a loan to be able to get his LP Tribute. The first one he had suffered from severe string buzz and loud hum from bad grounding connection, so he returned it for another 2018 LP Tribute and this one has worse string buzz issues than the other one, my friend even went so far as to pay a luthier for a professional set up and $65 later 95% of the buzzing was gone. Weeks later after some regular day to day playing the buzzing came back, now he switched from the 9 hybrids to 11's thinking that would fix the buzzing but the guitar was not setup for 11's so the buzzing is still there....Now he told me he's going back to the luthiers and getting the guitar set up for 11's and replacing the nut as well. The 2018 L.P. Tribute has been a time consuming money pit since he got it, and most people are blaming the current state of Gibson, and their employees being so miserable.....Who knows but I wouldn't purchase a new Gibson right now, no matter which model it is, maybe try finding an older model in mint condition.

Hey Guy's my new 2018 Les Paul Traditional is on the way and I noticed in Gibson's description of that guitar and many others that their using 9 & 10 hybrids. In other words three strings are 9 gauge and three strings are 10 gauge....Does anyone know the reason behind this decision. I normally use Ernie Ball 9's, but as long as there is no buzzing, and the action is good, I don't think I would mess with the strings until they needed to be changed when the time comes. I just thought it was a bit odd that they were doing this and I was wondering if anyone knew why....is there benefits to it, or are they just experimenting? Please let me know if you know. Thanks.

Ya know what, I've come in here multiple times over the years excited about one guitar over another, and it wasn't always Gibson, and sometimes it was, but that's irrelevant, we are all guitar players, and I could care less if someone who preferred Fender or Rickenbacker or what ever came in here and sang that particular guitars praises and bashed Gibson. That's their personal opinion, all guitars are capable of moving a particular person in one way or another, as long as their jammin' and making music and lovin' it...who cares what their current preference is. I currently am lovin' my PRS 594, some day I might find a Strat or Ric, or even a Les Paul that appeals to me and feels and sounds good, point is everyone who is a guitar player should be welcome here not just Gibson lovers. You guy's hate on people too often and too easily, no wonder there's so much violence and bad crap going on in the world, kids today just want to criticize and hate. Whatever man, I admit I almost got sucked up into the hate and anger, but I'm stopping myself. You guy's go on and say what you want, I'm out of it......Later.

You don't understand, I want a solid body guitar, ever since I was a kid and heard the Allman brothers and Duane Allman and Dickey Betts playing their SOLID 59 Les Paul's, that's the guitar I fell in love with and wanted for over 30 years, and when I wasn't happy with the traditional Les Paul, I thought I finally found what I was looking for with the PRS and now I find out that might be weight relieved as well ? Weight relief is not a solid body guitar...........But fortunately for me Sean from PRS customer service just called me back and told me the 594 is a SOLID body guitar, and he actually laughed when I mentioned that some guy's in the forums suggested it may be weight relieved. However he said "if it was weight relieved we would have to disclose that on our website,, so not to worry you got yourself a SOLID body guitar there"......AHHHHH what a relief.

Why do you have to be so hateful man ? I didn't do anything to you, I prefer a solid body guitar, and that's what I thought I was buying, at least now Gibson tells you on their website if a model is weight relieved or not. I would hope PRS would do the same thing, but if not, then I was seriously mislead....and you find that funny....real nice, thanks a lot.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, in fact right now I am currently both pissed and saddened to find out that PRS has done chambering and weight relieving to their guitars. I currently have a call into PRS right now and I'm waiting for them to get back to me, and when they do I will be asking if the PRS 594 is weight relieved, if he tells me it is then my PRS will returned tonight. I want a SOLID BODY guitar....DAMN IT....well I won't freak out just yet until I talk to the PRS rep, but I will tell you guy's what he says. What I do know is the guitar does feel very light for the amount of thickness it has, I'm hoping that's just the body carve and not weight relief, but I'll get to the bottom of it soon.

I personally don't care for the look of the single cut 594 either which is why I bought the double cut.....actually to me the double cut PRS looks better than a double cut Les Paul and the Les Paul looks better to me than the single cut 594.

The man was trying to start a guitar company in a world where such multi million dollar companies like Fender, Gibson and Rickenbacker have existed for decades. So yeah he has to get right in peoples face and show them that there is something new and different to try, and it's because of his incredible drive and motivation back then that he is now among the elite manufactures that I just listed. Plus if you think he rushes the process like Gibson or Fender, then you just flat out haven't watched any PRS factory tours or listened to his lectures on guitar building as I have. The man puts innovation and quality guitar building above all else, yes even profit. Leo Fender himself left Fender because he was disgusted with the low quality of the mass production process and eventually started G&L guitars, a similar choice made by Ted McCarty when he was at Gibson, these guy's were master luthiers and they enjoyed making a quality instrument, which is why Ted McCarty was such a mentor to Paul.

So how long did it take you to make this up in Adobe Illustrator ? or whatever graphic program you used, because I've seen countless PRS factory tours and none of them have ever shown weight relief. Quite the opposite they showed their bodies being made for all various models and none of them were weight relieved.....so I'm not buying your re-touched picture.

This video shows the thickness of a Les Paul and a 594 side by side and they are the same thickness. Plus if you think the regular McCarty is the same thickness as a 594, you need glasses immediately, because you obviously have never seen a 594 in person, it's PRS's thickest guitar thus far. Why do you think guy's like myself who do love Les Paul's are gravitating to the 594 ? PRS is essentially copying the Les Paul, and with those new 58/15 low turn pickups, it's the Les Paul sound to a tee.

prsguitars Actually the neck profile is PRS's beefiest neck it's pattern vintage, and the neck and the body is bound, the body might be faux binding but it still looks great. Plus the guys at Andertons music in the U.K. did a side by side comparison and the Single cut 594 is the same thickness as a Les Paul, and the double cut, is just a hair thinner than that. PRS has been making their guitars the same way for 30 years I expected it to look precisely as it does with the lower bout unbound and all, it's always been like that.

I whole heartedly agree with you about John Mayer, good but not great, I'm a Clapton, SRV and Dickey Betts & Warren Haynes, man myself with the occasional Skynyrd and Gary Moore and Hendrix thrown in for good measure. However I think you would've remembered the 594 if you had played it, it's the only PRS model that's as thick as a Les Paul in both mahogany and maple. Your friendly and passive attitude towards myself and my choice of guitars is a refreshing change to the majority of other responses I've been getting, I was never personally attacking Gibson and yet they all took it as such. I was just saddened by Gibson's recent lack of quality control, and I hoped that they would improve....that's all. As you said we're all musicians and nothing is better than finally finding that guitar that feels as if it were made only for you and forming that bond with it, that very few people except the players like us here in the forum can understand. Thanks for the extended and honest, friendly reply, it's good to know someone understands what I'm saying, and please let me know if you do play a 594, I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

I have been recently educated by Gibson and another seller about the binding. However it will never change the fact that I don't like the way it looks, I personally prefer the binding to cover both front and back paint seams, that's the look I like, and I'm partial to the traditional because it had the SOLID body I wanted, Kluson tuners, Rosewood fretboard, burst buckers 1 & 2 and even the honeyburst finish I like....so everything was there. If the binding had just evenly covered the seams all the way around, this post would never exist, and I would've been very content with my new Les Paul.

Nice story, I see your a bargain hunter, and have bought a few used guitars, I myself on the other hand am a firm believer in, you get what you pay for, and therefore I never buy used, I don't even buy so called new guitars off the wall, to me that's not new, when hundreds of people can come in the store and take them down and hold them up against their clothes with metal zippers and buttons, giving the guitars scratches and dings and so on, but I'm an anal nut I admit it. I sincerely hope your guitar shows up in flawless condition, because I soon learned, especially with Gibson, no guitar is ever as pretty as it's stock photo....best of luck, I hope you love it.

Good story and believe it or not I had a similar experience with a PRS custom 22 I owned a few years ago, I ordered it online because it was too costly for the store to inventory it, and the guitar arrived aesthetically perfect but it didn't feel great when I played it and it didn't have that fat woman tone of the 59 LP's that I love, so I eventually sold it and I was going to go back to Les Paul's, which eventually lead to this whole experience that I started the post with. However in all your hours of playing PRS guitars I bet you didn't play a PRS McCarty 594, that is a completely different animal, and aside from the usual PRS perfect aesthetics, it feels and plays great with that vintage pattern neck and such low action you can only slide a piece of paper between the strings and fretboard. Many have said "it's what the Les Paul should aspire to be" or" what it would be if the Les Paul evolved", and those are various reviewers words on YouTube not mine. So to be clear I'm not comparing any other PRS to a Gibson Les Paul, just the McCarty 594, and having recently played both the Standard and Traditional LP's in the store I can say this " The Les Paul is not anywhere close to being in the same league as the McCarty 594".....it's just not, and unless guitar players here have played both like I have they can't offer an honest opinion. Instead they'll just argue and dismiss it as the ramblings of a so called troll, because they have to justify having spent thousands of dollars on their Les Paul's and never wanting to admit that their is something better out there with better components and a better build quality, so for them to do that they resort to name calling or other false accusations about a person they never met. All so they can glorify their choice of company and guitar instead of actually trying the McCarty 594, or even going on YouTube and trying to find a bad review about the 594...go ahead I challenge anyone of you go and look for a bad review, you won't find one, in fact you'll hear guitar players of all ages sing it's praises....watch the John Mayer on Periscope video, and listen to his praises of the guitar, or will you find some way to disrespect him now and say that his praises aren't genuine ? if you do that, then whose the Troll ? We know the Les Paul has established itself as the worlds most famous and iconic guitar, so of course you can find thousands of videos on Gibson's behalf, but the PRS McCarty 594 is a new model and NO ONE has bashed this guitar, EVERYONE who plays one wants one....don't believe me go to YouTube and see for yourself.

C.F. Martin is the only reputable company you mentioned the others are all low end Asian guitar manufacturers, or just dropped down to being an online only company, but even Martin just uses the Richlite on lower end inexpensive models while reserving the rosewood or ebony for the higher priced models. Now if Gibson did that, fine no problem, but their asking people to purchase a guitar that costs over $2000 and the fretboard is Richlite crap and not real wood. "Even you must realize that !"

I'm sure there's that and a 100 more articles with Gibson explaining the so called benefits of weight relief. They have to, since it's pretty much in half the guitars they build, however I love these guys that come in here and say that it's more trouble for Gibson to eliminate the extra wood in the weight relieved bodies. Umm no it's not, it's all done on their CNC machines, the weight relieved bodies might have to stay in the CNC for an extra 60 seconds. Plus we now need to address why Gibson is the only guitar maker constantly using Richlite composite crap in their fingerboards ? when Fender, PRS, Rickenbacker, and all the Asian guitar makers are still using rosewood on all their models . It 's not to spare the environment, because it was already reported that due to the hurricanes and tsunamis in Southeast Asia like Indonesia, the trees that were knocked down during these storms for the past 60 years have been stock piled and auctioned off to various guitar manufacturers. So again why the Richlite crap ? Gibson even made a limited edition 2016 SG Supreme with the Diablo carve and it had the mahogany and maple body, Burstbuckers and was over $2000, and yet Gibson puts Richlite on that $2000 limited edition guitar and not only effects the quality but just ruins an otherwise beautiful guitar. This is probably the biggest money making guitar company in the world but yet they are the one's cheaping out the most with their parts......plastic jack plates, acrylic nuts and inlays, Richlite fingerboards, and yes less wood in each Les Paul.....WHY ??? This is a billion dollar company, why the heck are they being so cheap ?

I knew they did it for the historical and custom shop models, I just didn't know they did it on the Traditional models. By the way I never got an answer to my question from all of the so called more knowledable than me Professors of guitar in here. If weight relieving is so revolutionary and sustain improving, why is Gibson the only one doing it ? You mean to tell me that Leo Fender and Paul Reed Smith, don't know what their doing with sustain by still making solid body guitars without weight relieving ?I seriously doubt it.