So you think Epi's are inferior to Gibson?

[rafaelh]

Oh' date=' I forgot to mention that I turned in my resignation at the company I work for after being employed by them for 15 years. My current job is a daily 80+ mile round trip and takes me right through the heart of the snow belt (look it up if you don't know what that is), the new job is less than 20 miles round trip and it pays more and has better benefits.

 

I leave my current job on Dec 19th and start the new one on Jan 5th.[/quote']

 

Darn... congrats Strum! With the lack of jobs now a days due to the economy I'd say you are one lucky son of a gun....gutsy too.

 

Again congrats

[rafaelh]

Hmm' date=' maybe I could use that coffee mentioned in the f hole thread.[/quote']

 

Ha...I just switched to coffee myself..the Crown was doing me in. It is the holidays...still, I think

 

 

BTW, incase I forget later and still in the festive spirit, hope you all have a good holiday and they find yous and yours all well.

[Just Strum]

 

Darn... congrats Strum! With the lack of jobs now a days due to the economy I'd say you are one lucky son of a gun....gutsy too.

 

Again congrats

 

Thanks. It was a tough decision, but this place I am going to has great people. I met with the GM for breakfast over the Thanksgiving holiday and thought if I was that important to them, then it was worth the move.

[Just Strum]

 

Ha...I just switched to coffee myself..the Crown was doing me in. It is the holidays...still' date=' I think [/quote']

 

ahh Raf, it's March.

[Nelson]

 

ahh Raf' date=' it's March.[/quote']

god, I hate when that happens...

 

Nelson

[Just Strum]

god' date=' I hate when that happens...

 

Nelson[/quote']

 

I like the avatar. It must be one of her hunting rifles. You know when you are out there hunting Democrats.

[generation zero]

I guess I'm an odd duck in this argument, because of the two, I generally prefer Epis, given a pickup swap to Duncans. I'll get to the amp portion of my opinion in a moment, so bear with me, LOL...

 

I do have a few reasons in general that I prefer the Epiphone Pauls over the Gibson counterparts... most of them come down to look and feel though, as opposed to tone. In my experience, having owned almost a half dozen Epis and 3 Gibsons over the years, (and that's only the Les Pauls... I've owned a few other Epis as well, and numerous other brands of guitars, from no-name strat copies to Parker Flys,) I've found that certain construction points that are generally accepted by purists to be the defining factors in why Gibsons are superior actually detract from my enjoyment of the guitar.

 

First and foremost, the finish: I drastically prefer the feel of Epi's poly finish to the nitrocellulose lacquer of a Gibson. I've yet to play a 20 plus year old Epi, but I have played brand new and vintage Gibsons. To me, the new gibsons with fresh nitro feel very sticky and uncomfortable, particularly on the neck. In contrast, an Epi straight out of the box has a smoother, glassier feel to it. The '75 Gibson LP Custom I had for a while had obviously seen years worth of stage time, and was well worn in... but it felt more like old furniture than a musical instrument to me. Not to mention, I am a fan of "pretty" guitars, so the shinier the finish, the better the guitar looks IMO. Poly definitely trumps nitro in shine, so point goes to Epi.

 

People also whine about Epis having veneered tops as opposed to the Gibsons having a thicker, carved maple top. While it may make a slight difference to tone, I can't tell through any rig I've ever run both through. The difference I can see, is that a mid level Epiphone generally has a far more figured top than even many of the top of the line "AA" figured Gibson tops, simply because it's harder to find a 5/8" thick piece of imaculately quilted maple big enough for a bookmatched guitar top, but veneers are much easier to come by. So, from a purely aesthetic stance, the Epis are generally superior when it comes to figured tops. Being a fan of "pretty" guitars, I like that better. 2-0 Epi.

 

My third and final point is aimed more at newer Gibsons, since a nice old Gibson generally costs considerably more than its' modern equivalent. Call me crazy, but I like a nice heavy Les Paul. I want to feel like that guitar is solid through and through. A good LP should weigh in at 10 pounds or more... I want to feel it around my neck. If I want a lightweight guitar, I'll play a Fender or a Parker. Nowadays, unless you want to spend 3 or 4 grand on the NOS or whatever Custom Shop reissues, practically every guitar coming out of the Gibson factories is weight relieved, or chambered, if there is a difference as Gibson would have you believe. Holes routed out in the body are holes routed out in the body, I don't care what pattern you follow with the router. I don't like Fenders because they feel hollow and cheap to me... as do many of the modern Gibsons I've played, and even owned. My Epi standard is about 3 pounds heavier than the '06 Gibson Studio I had, and that wasn't even weight relieved, to my knowledge. I think a solid body should at least be an option... but it is not. All my Epis are nice and chunky though, so by my scoring method, 3-zip Epi.

 

Granted, my criteria is skewed somewhat from what the general consensus agrees on being "better" per se, but for me, it's Epi versus Gibson all the way. Well, almost. There is still that matter of headstock envy. My other guitarist plays a '75 Gibson LP Custom, so my Epi preference makes some people look at me as the guy who couldn't afford a "real" Gibson. (Even though I could, if I wanted to.) So my preferences in construction made me take a hit in the ego... until I found my new favorite guitar last week on Craigs List. I scored one of those illegal Chinese counterfeit Gibsons... it's a transparent green Custom with a sweet dragon inlay all the way up the fretboard, and a very convincing Gibson headstock. It is built almost exactly like an Epi though... heavy mahogany body, poly finish, all the things I like about my Epis, but with the appearance of being a $4,000+ Gibson. (At least from a few feet away... let's not talk about the binding work. To call it shoddy would be a compliment.) Of course I had to completely gut the electronics, but it's pretty well built considering its' origins. Not quite up to Epi standards, but pretty close. Close enough for hard rock anyway... plus it has that added mojo of being illegal and all. I figure I'm doing a service to the public and taking it out of the hands of some other potential buyer who may have tried to pass it off as the real deal in a resale scam... (That's how I justify feeling good about owning it, anyway. )

 

Holy crap, I've written a book here already! Oops...

 

Anyway, real quick... amps. I used to run a Behringer V-Amp pro and Bass V-Amp pro in parallel, into a solid state power amp pushing two Behringer 4-12 cabinets. My Epis sounded great through that rig with stock pickups, no issues at all. I eventually upgraded to a Mesa Boogie Dual Rectifier Roadster into a Mesa Rectifier 4-12, and all of a sudden my guitars didn't sound so great. That's when I bought the Gibson Studio... it sounded much better in stock condition. I was pleased at first with my purchase, but every time I played my old Epi at practice, I still felt like I liked it better, even though it didn't sound as good. That's when I decided to try some replacement pickups... The Seymour Duncan Jazz/JB combo worked out great, and I eventually sold the Gibson. I've since Bought another Epi, and that one got a set of Duncan '59s, on reccomendation by a friend. That guitar is hands down the best sounding, best playing instrument I have ever owned. And that's a long list. Bottom line, the Mesa opened up my ears to the tone of the actual guitar far more than the digital rig ever could. So yes, obviously the amp you're playing through will make a considerable difference in your perception of "better" or "worse".

 

Now let's see if this thread gets steered into the other old debate... Marshall vs. Mesa?

 

And I promise that all the rest of my posts here will be far shorter than this one... LOL!

[JefferySmith]

The one bad thing about Epis (compared to Gibsons) is if they take a hard blow to the finish. Instead of an innocuous dent, it looks more like a head went through a windshield. It has to be polyurethane rather than polypropylene. But someone in the Homer Formby industry needs to invent a polyurethane that doesn't react like safety glass after an impact.

 

I didn't do this to my guitar. One of the floor models at a local GC was seriously "spidered".

[Legend Killer]

This whole Gibby vs Epi thing. For me its about the guitar. My 2 favorite axes are my Epi Japan built les paul.

and my 91 Gibson les paul. My 3rd is a 70's les paul copy but I had to do a lot to make it gig worthy.

I dont get too hung up on whats on the headstock. I recently played a dot that had the worst fret job I've ever seen

It was a crime to hang it on the rack at G.C. I also played my friends 07 Gibson les paul its a real piece of crud Bad frets,

buzzs, sounds horrible. Needs a new nut right out of the box.

So quality can be crappy on both ends. I think you really have to play a lot of guitars to find the one for you.

For me its about the best quality for the best price.

If Money was no object I would have a Jimmy Page les paul custom built and play whole lotta love till my hands bleed.

But hay thats my thing.

 

KJK

[Schtang]

I am a thru and thru Gibson guy - but I will have to admit I really like the Epiphone Sheraton II . I had a Sherri stolen about 6 weeks ago, I could afford a Gibson 335 but will state here that i much prefered the Sheraton so I track myself down another. I am NOT a big fan of epi solid bodies (give me a gibbo any day) but the epi make great hollow & semi-hollow guitars. So what I am saying here is that IMHO the Epi sherri is a better guitar than the gib 335 when comparing the $ to $ value (hell! I think the Sherri is the better guitar PERIOD - just take the neck alone, the Sherri's neck is far far superior to the Gib 335, therefore a much better player in my mind), cosmetically the sherri is just so much more appealling.

[TWANG]

all that bling and a better neck... gotta agree with schtang.

I never cared about bling until I got it..

and the one you like is the one..

my sheri aint goin nowhere without me.

TWANG

[antwhi2001]

If you are after classic rock tones, the amp is so important. A good tube amp definitely closes the gap between good and mediocre pickups.

 

And if you buy an Epi instead of a Gibson, you have more money left over to invest in a better amp. For the same money, I'd rather have a stock Epi and a Fender Twin than a "real" Gibson and an average solid state amp.

 

FWIW, the gap in quality between Epi and Gibson solid bodies seems to widen if my new EE LP Custom Plus is anything to go by. Nothing like the build quality of Korean Samicks from 2000-2001 period (I've had 3 of those and was very happy quality-wise).

[Thermionik]

I like my Epi - to the point where I have sold three beaters to help pay for it.

 

I like my brother out-law's ES-335 too, and a load more I have played.

 

But I cannot say so on here because it is deemed inflammatory.

 

So I just play instead.

 

Easier that way. B)

[Bender 4 Life]

I've done "head to head" comparisons between my Gibbys and my Epis through the same amp at the same settings.

I play mostly Chicago and Texas style Blues, with some Classic Rock and Metal tossed in "to break things up".

 

I've discovered that my V-factor, and my G-400 flametop sound almost identical in tone, although the V has a lot more volume headroom.

 

My Sheraton II outshines everything I have for tone, it has very "next level" type of tone which I can only refer to as a "sweet, singing growl with very vocal highs". The volume isn't tremendous, but more than adequate to "light up" my tubes. It has also become my "go to" electric for jamming and recording.

 

Lastly comes my old Les Paul (Gibson) that has the '57 paf pickups. It sounds thin and "tin-ish" compared to the rest, and doesn't have much volume, although I suspect ALL of this may be due to a sub par rewiring and 3-way & volume pot. swap done by a local "authorized repairman" after an amp meltdown literally MELTED the insulation off most of the internal wiring, and burnt my 3-way & volume pot.(He said my p'ups weren't damaged, but I still wonder)

 

I'm very seriously concidering rewiring it myself, with OE Gibson wiring and switches, because I KNOW the volume pot. isn't a Gibson, it looks nothing like the others. Maybe i'll turn this into my 08/09 winter project, and even drop in some better p'ups, as i've never really liked the stock '57's.

 

I guess what i'm saying here, is that BOTH brands are quality instruments, that can produce whatever tone you desire with an adjustment to "this knob or that".

 

It's all relative to the ear of the beholder.

[Stewie]

So JS does that mean you won't be needing my directions in the Toronto area any more. Not that they helped LOL

Glad to hear about the new job and the smaller commute. I did a 70 mile commute for 30 years.

That will give you more time to play with your .........Dot.

[sexygibson]

There is no doubt that a good amp can make an inexpensive guitar sound great and a crappy amp can make a better guitar sound worse.

I had a Fender Hot Rod Deluxe when I had my Epis and they all sounded great . I now have 3 Gibsons and a Peavey tube amp that I am not happy with at all. The Gibsons, as do anything else, sound like crap through this amp.

I tell anyone starting out; put your money into a good amp first and then worry about your guitar.

[lpdeluxe]

This whole Gibby vs Epi thing. For me its about the guitar.

 

KJK

 

There ya go.

[Thermionik]

Bender 4 Life - interesting comment on your Sheraton II..... and the "head to head" comparisons between your Gibbys and your Epis.

 

I would be very interested to hear more about your conclusion. Quite apart from the fact that I sense we may agree, I am fascinated to hear somebody elses experience, because the flaming I received when I suggested that it was a hard call justifying the money for a Gibson when the Epi came so close has led me to doubt my own judgement on this one. I keep thinking I knew what I felt and heard - but I must have been tripped out or whatever.

 

And that's genuine - I am not trying to rile the guys who jumped on me last time - I really am interested.....

[aj]

Bender 4 Life - interesting comment on your Sheraton II..... and the "head to head" comparisons between your Gibbys and your Epis.

 

I would be very interested to hear more about your conclusion. Quite apart from the fact that I sense we may agree' date=' I am fascinated to hear somebody elses experience, because the flaming I received when I suggested that it was a hard call justifying the money for a Gibson when the Epi came so close has led me to doubt my own judgement on this one. I keep thinking I knew what I felt and heard - but I must have been tripped out or whatever.

 

And that's genuine - I am [u']not[/u] trying to rile the guys who jumped on me last time - I really am interested.....

 

 

I did a head to head on my Epi LP+ and Gibson Studio.

Same amp, same settings.

 

Before I get into my opinion of the results, here's some background:

As you can tell from my av, I'm LH.

 

In general, LH guitars in any flavor are hard enough to find in any brand, and you can have any color you want as long as it's black. So when something different comes along, you look at it really hard, especially if you are suffering from GAS : )

 

 

Anyway, ran across the Studio at GC, so I took the Epi over and compared.

 

The Gibson was a shorter, lighter, and thinner. Not by much, but noticeable enough

The neck didn't "grab" at my hand as I was moving around.

It was not black.

Of course, as a Studio, it didn't have binding.

Has a decent amount of 'flame' but not as much as the tiger stripe on the Epi.

speed knobs vs top hats

So much for the physical.

 

 

In GC, likely due to the amount of background noise, it was really difficult to tell much of a difference.

 

And I wasn't willing to pay 1500 for it, so I left it there.

3 months, a couple of mardowns, a 'this weekend only' sale later, and an unspent 'stimulus check' later,

for about 400 out of pocket, I have a non-black guitar, and it is a Gibson.

 

 

Once I got it home and played in on my amp, the difference between the Epi and the Gibson became apparent.

 

 

For lack of a better word, the Studio sounds 'sweeter' than the Epi, especially clean.

The highs are not as harsh, the lows are deeper, and the sustain is longer.

 

Ex: On the Epi, once I got into the 12-17 range, the pitch was enough to make my do howl, and often, me cringe (independent of the dogs complaint).

On the Studio, she does not howl, nor do I cringe.

 

(think the string 1: 7,9,10,12,10,12, 14,12,15,14,15,17 progression near the beginning of 'Closer to the Heart')

 

 

The Gibson tuners have finer adjustments.

It also stays in tune much longer (and closer) than the Epi.

Against my Iommi, the weight, balance, and shorter neck are the biggest factors. The LP is easier to play.

 

The variable is strings - both my Epis have D'aDarrio 10's, the Studio, Gibson Brights.

 

 

Ultimately, for me, it wasn't a single big thing that makes me prefer the Studio, its a combination of several little things.

And it was a price that was hard to pass up.

[lpdeluxe]

The most obvious difference between my Sheraton II and ES-335 is that when you pick each one up and strum it acoustically, the Epi sounds tinny and the Gibson sounds full.

 

I just pulled the 335 out of the case for the first time since October (got snagged into playing harmonica for a state U production of Big River and that was that for November) and I was struck by how good it sounded before I plugged it in.

 

The Sheraton sounded good, if I used a friendly amp, but it didn't sound good through everything, the way the 335 and my LP do.

[Just Strum]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28110465/

[Thermionik]

"In 2001, Frederic Brochet, of the University of Bordeaux, conducted two separate and very mischievous experiments. In the first test, Brochet invited 57 wine experts and asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn't stop the experts from describing the "red" wine in language typically used to describe red wines. One expert praised its "jamminess," while another enjoyed its "crushed red fruit." Not a single one noticed it was actually a white wine.

 

The second test Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle was a fancy grand-cru. The other bottle was an ordinary vin du table. Despite the fact that they were actually being served the exact same wine, the experts gave the differently labeled bottles nearly opposite ratings. The grand cru was "agreeable, woody, complex, balanced and rounded," while the vin du table was "weak, short, light, flat and faulty". Forty experts said the wine with the fancy label was worth drinking, while only 12 said the cheap wine was.

 

What these experiments neatly demonstrate is that the taste of a wine, like the taste of everything, is not merely the sum of our inputs, and cannot be solved in a bottom-up fashion. It cannot be deduced by beginning with our simplest sensations and extrapolating upwards. When we taste a wine, we aren't simply tasting the wine. This is because what we experience is not what we sense. Rather, experience is what happens when our senses are interpreted by our subjective brain, which brings to the moment its entire library of personal memories and idiosyncratic desires. As the philosopher Donald Davidson argued, it is ultimately impossible to distinguish between a subjective contribution to knowledge that comes from our selves (what he calls our "scheme") and an objective contribution that comes from the outside world ("the content"). Instead, in Davidson's influential epistemology, the "organizing system and something waiting to be organized" are hopelessly interdependent. Without our subjectivity we could never decipher our sensations, and without our sensations we would have nothing to be subjective about. In other words, we shouldn't be surprised that different people like different bottles of cheap wine".

 

Thanks to AXE® from the Gibson forums - where the same debate rages.....

[arobatto]

Please allow me to beat this infinitely long dead horse issue of E v G.

 

In my humble opinoion, in the days of Anastasios Stathopoulos, Epiphones were clearly better than Gibsons - especially when the Epiphone competed with Gibson! Just look at this gorgeous 1946 Emperor

 

 

 

... or how about this delicious 1953 Broadway

 

 

 

Look at the inlay work that was done then

 

 

That's all I have to say on this. Thanks folks.

 

Alex

[charlie brown]

Well, if you're the proud owner of those guitars...I'm envious. They are lovely, and look to be

in great condition, for their ages.

 

CB

[arobatto]

Well' date=' if you're the proud owner of those guitars...I'm envious. They are lovely, and look to be

in great condition, for their ages.

 

CB[/quote']

 

Hell no CB! I copied the images from www.archtop.com I wish I could afford/own these beauties! I just appreciate the level of craftmanship and artisanship that Epiphone was founded on - not to mention that I'm a sucker for fine archtops!

 

Alex