Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
bonzoboy

The new Ltd. Ed. John Lennon EJ-160-E

Recommended Posts

I just was reading the announcement of the release of the new Limited Edition John Lennon model EJ-160-E and was wondering if it was the same as the original EJ-160-Es like my signature model that I bought in 2009.From what I could see,the woods used etc. were the same as was used in mine,but I didn't notice a John Lennon signature above the soundhole as mine has.Does anyone know if they are the same guitars-other than the missing signature?Mine cost around $550 new in 2009 if memory serves me correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just was reading the announcement of the release of the new Limited Edition John Lennon model EJ-160-E and was wondering if it was the same as the original EJ-160-Es like my signature model that I bought in 2009.From what I could see,the woods used etc. were the same as was used in mine,but I didn't notice a John Lennon signature above the soundhole as mine has.Does anyone know if they are the same guitars-other than the missing signature?Mine cost around $550 new in 2009 if memory serves me correctly.

 

From the description it seems the differences are:

 

Shorter scale, no signature as you mentioned, different tone and volume buttons, E on pickguard. Is the pickup different? Says it's a P100 whereas the old model was a stacked acoustic humbucker by description. Toewoods are the same and it's claiming to have a bone nut and saddle whereas I think mine is imitation bone (looks and feels just like bone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the description it seems the differences are:

Is the pickup different? Says it's a P100 whereas the old model was a stacked acoustic humbucker by description.

 

A P100 is a stacked humbucker. Same thing.

 

Red 333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing I'd mention is that it's a Limited Edition EJ-160e, and not a John Lennon Limited Edition. No signatures or endorsements anywhere. Nonetheless, it looks like a cool guitar. The only thing I'm not crazy about is the big E on the pickguard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I'm not crazy about is the big E on the pickguard.

From the pictures it's the same one as on the AJ-220S and that's made of plastic and fell off within 5 minutes of unboxing. It's more trouble to keep it on there than to get rid of it [biggrin]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....I didn't notice a John Lennon signature above the soundhole as mine has.....

 

I don't normally like "signed" guitars. Big exception in this case! It's very tastefully done and put in a great location. I love my Lennon EJ160e!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A P100 is a stacked humbucker. Same thing.

 

Red 333

 

 

A real P100 is 2 P90s stacked to make a HB. The old EJ160E and the one I own is some kind on mini hb as they said in the specs and in no way a P100 like used on the old Gibson J160E standards before the swap back to the P90 as it should be. I played Gibson J160E standards with the P100s. My standard is a 2008 with the P90 so I have seen them both ways.

 

Curious to see when someone gets one of these if it really is a P100 (at least an Epiphone P100 clone of 2 of their stacked P90s) or the same mini hb that was in the Lennon sig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the pickup has anyone any experience of plugging direct into a PA system in a small club or bar with their EJ160E? Was thinking of adding a straight acoustic pickup but was wondering if the sound was passable with the existing (I love the acoustic sound and have no plans to plug in with electric strings)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A real P100 is 2 P90s stacked to make a HB. The old EJ160E and the one I own is some kind on mini hb as they said in the specs and in no way a P100 like used on the old Gibson J160E standards before the swap back to the P90 as it should be. I played Gibson J160E standards with the P100s. My standard is a 2008 with the P90 so I have seen them both ways.

 

Curious to see when someone gets one of these if it really is a P100 (at least an Epiphone P100 clone of 2 of their stacked P90s) or the same mini hb that was in the Lennon sig.

 

A P-100 has two single coils stacked, but the single coils are not P-90s. The two single coils in the P-100 are designed, when wired together in parallel, to produce relatively the same output and impedance as a single P-90 (and thus, theoretically, a similar sound), while cancelling noise like a traditional humbucker. If you disconnect one of those single coils from the other (as many have tried, trying to get closer to the P-90 sound, as the P100 tends to be warmer and less rich harmonically), the resulting output and impedance of the remaining working coil is very different than that of a single P-90--roughly double the resistance, I think. The resultant tone is that of a nastier, noisier, and louder P-90.

 

Anyway, the P-100 has never been stacked P-90s to my knowledge. It's its own thing, a mini-humbucker designed to fit into a P-90 enclosure so that Gibson did not have to rout new body cavities, etc.

 

There is a Gibson pickup called the H-90 which is a P-90 stacked with a similarly sized dummy coil to produce a humbucking effect. Maybe that's what you were thinking of. It's used currently in the Billie Joe Armstrong Les Paul Jr. I've never seen any evidence of Epiphone using it.

 

Red 333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A P-100 has two single coils stacked, but the single coils are not P-90s. The two single coils in the P-100 are designed, when wired together in parellel, to produce relatively the same output and impedance as a single P-90 (and thus, theoretcially, a similar sound), while cancelling noise like a traditional humbucker. If you disconnect one of those single coils from the other (as many have tried, trying to get closer to the P-90 sound--the P100 tends to be warmer and less rich harmonically), the resulting output and impedance of the remaining working coil is very different than that of a single P-90--roughly double the resistance, I think. The resultant tone is that of a nastier, noisier, and louder P-90.

 

Anyway, the P-100 has never been stacked P-90s to my knowledge. It's its own thing, a mini-humbucker designed to fit into a P-90 enclosure so that Gibson did not have to rout new body cavities, etc.

 

There is a Gibson pickup called the H-90 which is a P-90 stacked with a similarly sized dummy coil to produce a humbucking effect. Maybe that's what you were thinking of. It's used currently in the Billie Joe Armstrong Les Paul Jr. I've never seen any evidence of Epiphone using it.

 

Red 333

 

Red you are correct on what you are saying: http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/gibson-les-pauls/190712-tell-me-about-gibson-p100s.html

 

My point is they use P90 bobbins to wind these PUs and they look like stacked P90s with the covers stripped off = size and shape of 2 stacked P90s.

 

The P90 and the real Epiphone Mini by happy chance both fit in the same P90 route = All those LPs with Epiphone minis dropped into the P90 routes.

 

The thing that is in the Lennon is just what the spec used to say a "MINI" HB = As in strat size stacked Mini. I had mine out years ago and sent to Duncan to rewind. I remember the emails, which I still have, at the time back and forth asking me what did I pull this from and how did I want them to rewind it and magnets to use.

 

None of the Epiphone EJ160Es I have seen, mine, my bandmates etc...... use the P90 size bobbins, or is P90 in size. They were Mini HBs and they were made by Epiphone or their vendors, but they are not anything like a real Epiphone/Gibson Mini HB or Gibson P100 other than being some kind of Mini HB made by Epiphone.

 

That was my point. I don't know if this new EJ160E has a P100, but the old ones sure did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the pickup has anyone any experience of plugging direct into a PA system in a small club or bar with their EJ160E? Was thinking of adding a straight acoustic pickup but was wondering if the sound was passable with the existing (I love the acoustic sound and have no plans to plug in with electric strings)

 

 

My answer from another post about EJ-160 strings:

I know this next subject has been beaten to death on this forum previously, but when plugging in the EJ-160e there are a few options. When plugging in to a PA system directly; 1. Use an active direct box as the P-100 is a passive pickup system. 2. If you do use a passive DI box, the PA must have phantom power turned on for that channel. 3. Use a small amp with a line out to the PA...this is what I do, and really like it. Specifically, I use a Vox Pathfinder 15r amp and I'm glad I've got it, as you can only seem to find the Pathfinder 10s now. The little amp has reverb, tremolo, boost, line out, headphone jack, etc. Plus, I bought the Vox footswitch to go along with it. With this setup, I can also plug in my Inspired by Lennon Revolution Casino for a few tunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Wilco but are you playing acoustically or looking for the Beatles tone?

 

Cheers to you too, Dodger11. My response was simply to point out the number of ways to plug in an EJ-160e. Different types of strings would have to be used for either strictly acoustic, or strictly electric tones to suit one's taste. I use GHS White Bronze strings simply because they have good magnetic properties for plugging in, and sound decent acoustically as well. I have to admit that I only play this guitar unplugged when I'm learning material, and in that regard it sounds good enough for me. The style or variety of tone is, of course, up to the musician's tastes in a performance capacity. When I perform with my duo, I don't necessarily look for "the Beatles tone", as that's somewhat of a holy grail as far as getting their recorded acoustic sound. I read a recent response on this forum where someone said that one would have to hire George Martin to produce one's recordings to get the Beatles' sound. Well, I'd like to take that idea one step further and add that I would hire either Norman Smith or Geoff Emerick to place the microphones accordingly, record the song, and then engineer it as well. Using EMI/Abbey Road studio with analog equipment would be helpful, too. Of course, the Beatles' live sound is another animal, as that's well documented, albeit crudely because of the technology that was available at the time. Just the same, my point is that it's much easier to reproduce a live Beatles tone. Believe it or not, the closest I've come to their acoustic recording sound is when I plug my Gibson J-45 into a quality passive direct box, and then into my PA system. Nice full, rich sound.

 

I love my EJ-160e for its overall playability, and jangly tone through the Vox amp and PA system. It's quite different from the J-45, so I get the best of both worlds. I apologize for the long-winded response...it's just that I really dig discussing tone, and well, The Beatles too. I use 11s on the EJ-160, and 80/20 Elixir 12s on the J-45.

 

My best advice is to seek a great tone that really creates an emotional resonance within, and compliments the style of music one plays. Next thing you know, someone comes up to you after a set and says, "Hey, that sounds just like The Beatles". Then again, it could've been the song I just played! [wink]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for the long-winded response...it's just that I really dig discussing tone, and well, The Beatles too. I use 11s on the EJ-160, and 80/20 Elixir 12s on the J-45.

 

My best advice is to seek a great tone that really creates an emotional resonance within, and compliments the style of music one plays. Next thing you know, someone comes up to you after a set and says, "Hey, that sounds just like The Beatles". Then again, it could've been the song I just played! [wink]

 

No apology necessary Wilco - I enjoyed reading your response and great advice. I have Gibson Masterbilt strings on mine at the minute and although they sound nice I think they suit a big jumbo body better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No apology necessary Wilco - I enjoyed reading your response and great advice. I have Gibson Masterbilt strings on mine at the minute and although they sound nice I think they suit a big jumbo body better.

 

Thanks for the kind response, Dodger11. I've thought more about the subject, and have a couple more examples to illustrate Lennon's J-160 tone in both a plugged-in, and a live acoustic setting. I think it's probably old news, but he quite obviously plugs the J-160 in for the studio version of "I Feel Fine". In fact, that's JL's second J-160 you hear making the feedback at the beginning of the song, after Paul hits an A note on the bass. You can also search YouTube and find the Beatles' performance at the 1965 New Musical Express awards concert, where John plays the same song on the J-160 in a live setting. You'll hear the similarities in tone instantly. I mention "second" J-160 because everyone knows by now that his '62 model was stolen in December of '63.

 

An example on how the second J-160 sounds unplugged and not mic'd up, would be the recording of "Give Peace A Chance". Even though this song was mastered in the studio, it was recorded via remote microphone live at the Bed Peace in Montreal event in his hotel room. Lots of people in the room singing backup, but you can surely hear how this guitar sounded unplugged. I've really no idea what strings he would've been using at that point. He seemed like the type of guy that wasn't too concerned with strings anymore. I saw him live once, and he played a Martin and a steel guitar, so I never got a firsthand listen of that J-160. Here's a pic of it in stripped down fashion ala 1969 at the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame Museum in Cleveland last summer:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S.,

 

Here's a pic of JL's original 1962 J-160 that recently was found, and went to auction. I'd like to point out that the strum marks on both this, and the '64 are in between the bridge and the sound hole. Now, when I play in this position, it's only to purposely get a trebly, thin sound. JL played there all of the time, hence the realization of the studio magic that went into those EMI recordings to get that lush sound that some people note as Beatle tone. I know they even experimented with moving the P-90 back by the bridge for a while.

 

I suppose my point after all of these anal observations can only illustrate that the majority of tone comes from the fingers, and the personal style of how the instrument is played. Recording studio techniques can alter that substantially, if so desired. If I want to try for, in my mind, a Beatle sound, I'll plug my Casino into a Fender Twin for "Get Back", or plug my 325c64 into a Vox for "I Saw Her Standing There". They both sound pretty authentic when played right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noel Gallagher plays his guitars exactly the same position and they do sound much thinner and trebly played there (even a Martin D28 and Gibson J200). His strumming hand is a bit stiff too (he's left handed but plays right handed). I love guitar nerdiness. As you rightly say a lot of the sound is the player's technique not just the guitar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...