Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

reviews or personal use opinions on the Masterbilt DR500M ?


lucille64

Recommended Posts

Cliff......... I couldn't agree more.

 

I have owned nothing but famous brand name high dollar instruments almost my entire 60+ years of guitar playing.

 

It wasn't until I took a "roll of the dice" shot at buying my Epiphone BB King Lucille that I realized this was an exceptional instrument just stock.

 

Then as everyone now knows I had it stripped down completely and rebuilt with the very best of every service and part available BUT

it was because and only because I wanted it to be even better than it was originally made.

 

Lucille opened my eyes to the quality of Epiphones. Until then I wouldn't have been "caught dead" playing one like the snob I was.

 

Then came my Masterbilt DR500M and I was truly humbled and had my eyes opened to the incredible craftsmanship and quality of these models.

 

Now all these years and countless thousands of dollars later almost every one of my "high End" status labeled headstock instruments are gone and I play and live very happily with my two Epiphones.

 

That is not to say that big name headstock instruments aren't wonderful and exceptional... it's just that Epiphone instruments can be very rewarding and quite amazingly wonderful to play.

 

I simply adore my Lucille and my Masterbilt .... I think that says it all for me

 

Right on! What's your real name, Lucille? Have you made any records or anything? I'd love to check out your stuff if you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points Red. What are your thoughts as to why Epi makes pretty much all their acoustics with the long scale and thinner nut width?

 

 

I think it goes back to the late 80s early 90s.

 

There was a Import Texan back then (not the current one) but it was Spruce top Maple back and sides laminate.

 

I would guess a few reasons or theories:

 

1, They knew the real Texan was 25.5 and built the rest of the line on that scale the EJ160E copied that early Import Texan at least Peerless did anyway and they are using that same CAD file today for the new IB Texan, on my 2 examples anyway?

 

2, Epiphone was making nothing then and the subcontractors they used like Peerless were already set up to build 25.5 acoustics so duplicated that?

 

3, Gibson did not want them 24.75?

 

4, Instead of designing from ground up new CAD files and machine programming Epiphone just used the same files and specs over and over in their own plants, not many complaints so why bother?

 

5, Someone asked Jim Rosenberg years ago when Gibson had the "4Henry forum" and his answer seemed to indicate either he was not aware of the scale on the acoustics as he had not heard it before and went on to state that "Epiphone can build to any scale so not sure why they don't"

 

6, The new Masterbuilt J45 clone if it comes out and comes with 24.75 seems maybe someone is listening somewhere. This guitar from the pre production photos seems to be a ground up design and a much closer match to the real 45 body shape than any other slope shoulder Masterbuilt I have seen or they dug up the old AJ45S CAD files Peerless was using back when they built that guitar in 1998-2002? Or they borrowed some CAD files from Gibson and put a Masterbuilt headstock on it.

 

 

 

 

My main guess is they started out that way (25.5) when the line relaunched in the late to mid 80s and no one complained or so few did they are not aware there is a problem and people keep buying them so why update/fix what is not broken.

 

If people really want Epiphone to copy the things right then I would guess more people need to say so or petition here maybe. People companied about the PUs and they updated them.

 

The whole point of Epiphone (today, I know the history) though, is unless you are buying an Epiphone specific guitar (and some of those are not exact to spec poly vs nitro for example, wide and wrong spaced F holes on electrics to speed construction) then the buyer should be aware going in you are not getting a Gibson exact duplicate that is low priced and renamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last Friday, I bought a Masterbilt DR500M (new) and am very happy with my purchase.

 

Welcome to the board, Jake, and congratulations on your new purchase. I'm confused, though, about your "new" Masterbilt DR500M. Was this just never sold, never played? Did they stop making the DR500's around the same time they stopped making the EF500's? Or is yours an MCE, which you can get new these days....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, this guitar was never sold, never played (unless in the store to prospective buyers, of course). It certainly looks brand new. I don't know anything about manufacture or discontinue dates, so can't help you with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, this guitar was never sold, never played (unless in the store to prospective buyers, of course). It certainly looks brand new. I don't know anything about manufacture or discontinue dates, so can't help you with that.

 

Also, when I registered it for the warranty, it came up as a DR 500M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am also in the DR500M club. My first real guitar, and after three years, I'm glad I got an all solid wood guitar. It's been cool to observe how the guitar has cured. I recently started using light strings which turned out to be more appropriate for this somewhat gentle guitar. It's basically a perfect example of a Depression era guitar, right down to it's affordable price.

 

I recently added an IB Texan because I wanted something for loud strumming at blugrass jams. But the DR500M can do everything else which for me is fingerstyle and slack key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it goes back to the late 80s early 90s...

 

 

5, Someone asked Jim Rosenberg years ago when Gibson had the "4Henry forum" and his answer seemed to indicate either he was not aware of the scale on the acoustics as he had not heard it before and went on to state that "Epiphone can build to any scale so not sure why they don't"

 

 

 

That was me Jim was replying to!

 

Now, only five or six years later, we get the promise of a short-scale J-45. We'll see...

 

I think Epiphones mostly have long-scale for two reasons.

 

When Gibson bought Epiphone in the 60's, they abandoned most of the models had been building in NY and elsewhere. Instead, they started building Epiphone branded models that were based on pre-existing Gibsons. They did this to gain manufacturing efficiency (they built them side by side on the manufacturing line with common components and processes), and so they could sell in territories where there was already an exclusive Gibson a dealer. Gibson changed some cosmetics and a few features here and there so the Gibson dealers wouldn't catch wind or complain. Thus, the J-45 got new inlays and a long scale, and became the Texan, etc.

 

When Gibson ceased US manufacturing of Epiphones and started importing Arias and other pac-rim instruments, branding them Epiphone, these were mostly long scale because the vast majority of guitars are long scale. The pac-rim manufacturers were set up to make them that way. They continued even as Epiphone sought to introduce models that were cosmetically closer to USA-made Gibson or Epiphone originals because that's the tooling and equipment they had. The manufacturers didn't want to invest in the tooling needed to change the scale (or body shape, which is why there are so many slope shouldered Epiphones that are simply Martin-shaped dreads with softer shoulders--the bean shape) because they were getting contracts based on making a product at the lowest cost--not for providing the highest quality or historical accuracy.

 

Red 333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was me Jim was replying to!

 

Now, only five or six years later, we get the promise of a short-scale J-45. We'll see...

 

I think Epiphones mostly have long-scale for two reasons.

 

When Gibson bought Epiphone in the 60's, they abandoned most of the models had been building in NY and elsewhere. Instead, they started building Epiphone branded models that were based on pre-existing Gibsons. They did this to gain manufacturing efficiency (they built them side by side on the manufacturing line with common components and processes), and so they could sell in territories where there was already an exclusive Gibson a dealer. Gibson changed some cosmetics and a few features here and there so the Gibson dealers wouldn't catch wind or complain. Thus, the J-45 got new inlays and a long scale, and became the Texan, etc.

 

When Gibson ceased US manufacturing of Epiphones and started importing Arias and other pac-rim instruments, branding them Epiphone, these were mostly long scale because the vast majority of guitars are long scale. The pac-rim manufacturers were set up to make them that way. They continued even as Epiphone sought to introduce models that were cosmetically closer to USA-made Gibson or Epiphone originals because that's the tooling and equipment they had. The manufacturers didn't want to invest in the tooling needed to change the scale (or body shape, which is why there are so many slope shouldered Epiphones that are simply Martin-shaped dreads with softer shoulders--the bean shape) because they were getting contracts based on making a product at the lowest cost--not for providing the highest quality or historical accuracy.

 

Red 333

 

 

Red,

 

I read all the posts years ago before they took the forum down.

 

I thought it might have been you that asked Jim but could not remember that detail, so did not want to state as fact.

 

Same as what I thought, the vendors they used were already set up for 25.5 and that early Texan was correct at that scale so as they increased the line just stuck with that scale and body shape.

 

The early EJ160e was that same Texan body at least the 2 Peerless ones I have anyway, Natural and Burst the Natural is older with the paddle headstock but the bodies are identical and the exact same body as my 2 IB Texans. The Indonesian plants seem to be using different CAD programs to build their EJ160Es.

 

 

Curious did you go through all the posts when the forum was up?

 

There was a pretty direct one from Henry when someone asked about the Epiphone LPs and he stated that they (Epiphones) are quality guitars but no way is he giving you a Gibson at the Epiphone price and went on to mention the woods used too in his post, not real Honduras Mahogany etc.......

 

Henry is still the owner so the corporate culture will still follow his direction/lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Curious did you go through all the posts when the forum was up?

 

There was a pretty direct one from Henry when someone asked about the Epiphone LPs and he stated that they (Epiphones) are quality guitars but no way is he giving you a Gibson at the Epiphone price and went on to mention the woods used too in his post, not real Honduras Mahogany etc.......

 

Henry is still the owner so the corporate culture will still follow his direction/lead.

 

I don't remember that particular post, but I interpret what you remember about Henry's reply as him saying there's a reason a Gibson costs what it does--different, traditional (and arguably superior) materials and processes, etc. And there's a reason Epiphone is able to offer their versions as affordably as they do: different, non-traditional, less expensive, and arguably less desirable materials, and cost-saving processes.

 

And yes, that is the direction Henry gives to leaders of both divisions: make sure the customers who can afford to buy Gibsons at their higher price points feel they got a good deal, and make sure those customers who buy Epiphone at their lower price points feel like they got a deal. Use the materials and processes to produce products that customers will feel are a good deal and will make us a fair profit at those pricepoints.

 

I liked that forum a lot, but couldn't for the life of me figure out how Henry thought he could keep up with all the replies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like long scale a lot. My Texan is loud, sounds great and is easy to play. The Recording King Dirty Thirties Single O that I just gave my wife to learn on is loud, sounds great and is easy to play as well. I don't get what the whole anti-long scale thing is all about. Why and when did people start having a problem with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clifften...

 

As far as liking different scales...

 

Yeah, I have a batch of 25 1/2 flattops. They're fine for playing certain stuff for me.

 

OTOH, I keep going back to my 24 3/4 inch, 16-inch bodies. archtops - and wishing they had the 24-inch scale at times that I have on a 1950s archtop, but without the "baseball bat" neck that keeps that old "cheapie" from being my #1 guitar because of the ease of doing what and how I tend to do "stuff" up to the 10th fret, but seldom above.

 

The Fender Jaguar, ditto, with its 24-inch scale, although I dislike the Fender neck radius. Even Joe Pass used one of these, although he's best known for his playing on the 24 3/4 inch scale.

 

In fact, I'm considering a Little Martin specifically because of its 23-inch scale, and giving away a 25 1/2 scale Takamine AE flattop to a teen who lost his guitar in a house fire.

 

I think it's very much a matter of technique and how an instrument is used. That old "baseball bat" archtop with a single, single pole mag pup was marvelous for country rock and early rock and similar material in small saloons. Much as the neck was more than I like or ever was quite comfortable with, I could do about anything needed for those gigs easier than on any other two instruments.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember that particular post, but I interpret what you remember about Henry's reply as him saying there's a reason a Gibson costs what it does--different, traditional (and arguably superior) materials and processes, etc. And there's a reason Epiphone is able to offer their versions as affordably as they do: different, non-traditional, less expensive, and arguably less desirable materials, and cost-saving processes.

 

And yes, that is the direction Henry gives to leaders of both divisions: make sure the customers who can afford to buy Gibsons at their higher price points feel they got a good deal, and make sure those customers who buy Epiphone at their lower price points feel like they got a deal. Use the materials and processes to produce products that customers will feel are a good deal and will make us a fair profit at those pricepoints.

 

I liked that forum a lot, but couldn't for the life of me figure out how Henry thought he could keep up with all the replies!

 

 

He couldn't keep up that is why he had them get rid of it. (forum)

 

I remember most of his post and it is most of what you said but he drew the line in the sand in that an Epiphone will be an Epiphone and a Gibson will be a Gibson.

 

That is his vision of the company, and that is fine, I like my Epiphone's fine too but know what they are.

 

They will never return to the pre Gibson days, obviously, but also will never return or be allowed to return to the McCarty days where the only difference was the name on the headstock, and that is the period I like the 60s.

 

The Elitist line was as close as I think he will allow.

 

For me that is fine, it has taken years but I have a nice Gibson collection and some nice Epiphones too, but other than having a Gold top Epiphone LP that I don't worry if it goes missing I would like to see some specific models offed as in the past.

 

I own the Sheraton and Casino reissue, I would pay the upcharge to buy a new 60s version built in the Nashville or Memphis plant. It would be nice if he allowed maybe 1 guitar a year to be produced or 1 acoustic and 1 electric per year limited run and change models per year. I would like a Riviera, Casino, Sheraton correct to the 60s years with the right F holes and nitro finish MIA.

 

 

 

That said this is the DR500M post. I owned one it was a nice guitar, but it was not voiced like a Gibson or understanding their business model was intended to be.

 

The Gibson branded Garrison line from a few years back I wanted to like and even when SA was blowing the last stock they had out for $700 with case I still could not bring myself to like enough to buy one. The AJ15s and AJ35s I think are an attempt to fill that gap and voiced traditionally. If I did not have a great J45 would buy one or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like long scale a lot. My Texan is loud, sounds great and is easy to play. The Recording King Dirty Thirties Single O that I just gave my wife to learn on is loud, sounds great and is easy to play as well. I don't get what the whole anti-long scale thing is all about. Why and when did people start having a problem with it?

 

I don't think most folks have a problem with either scale. Most of us on this forum just wish that when Epiphone made a guitar and named after a Gibson model they would be true to the Gibson scale lengths.

 

Red 333

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think most folks have a problem with either scale. Most of us on this forum just wish that when Epiphone made a guitar and named after a Gibson model they would be true to the Gibson scale lengths.

Red,

 

I wasn't really referencing people in this forum so much. Everyone's very affable here. I should have been more specific. I see a LOT about this sort of thing over on the AGF, so I was really painting with a much more broad stroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...