charlie brown Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Yeah, I agree, but it's all the more reason a person needs to do their "homework," on whatever they're buying, cars, guitars, furniture, whatever.... The information IS out there, if you care to look for it. Most of the "guitar" materials info is HERE, on this forum, or Wiki...for Epi's. And most here, are only toooo willing to share that information, you know? The thing is, you need to ask BEFORE you buy, not after...if it's that big of a deal. ;>) CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Yeah' date=' I agree, but it's all the more reason a person needs to do their "homework," on whatever they're buying,cars, guitars, furniture, whatever.... The information IS out there, if you care to look for it. Most of the "guitar" materials info is HERE, on this forum, or Wiki...for Epi's. And most here, are only toooo willing to share that information, you know? The thing is, you need to ask BEFORE you buy, not after...if it's that big of a deal. ;>) CB[/quote'] I don't think you should have to double-guess a manufacturer's specifications in order to find out what they are really selling. Epiphone should be more forthcoming in this regard. It's not like it's going to hurt their sales; maybe they'd get more sales since people would start to trust the products more. I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byrds1965 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Having also owned Gibson SGs and many G400s I would back everything Spud says here. The EE models are the very close to the right Gibson specs now on the body beveling and my Pelham Blue G400 was really nice. The lastest batch of faded Gibson SGs at my Sam Ash have the beveling sanded down to almost knife edge points. I would rather have the EE G400 than one of those things! Relating to the original poster yes it is not real mahagony, but what do you expect for the huge price difference? Is the tone close, yes it is close whatever mystery wood they are using. The only problem is I tried to put a set of Burst Buckers in my Pelham Blue and they just did not work. The Burst Buckers work well in real SGs but not my MIC example. If you are going to change PUs I would stay with better 57s in this guitar. Mine sounded fine with the factory Epiphone 57s, but I bought the Pelham Blue with a specific project in mind and when it didn't work out I sold it. I still own 2 MIK G400s now and play them all the time. I never found them too different than the faded Gibson SG I used to own also. I really never thought my faded $649 Gibson had the same wood as the top line SGs do. I do agree though Epiphone should be up-front and just say they are made out of Phillippine Mahogany. I don't see what the big deal is. The G400s are good guitars for what they are, but the buyer has to know for the price they are not getting real Honduras Mahogany for $349 on some level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I don't think you should have to double-guess a manufacturer's specifications in order to find out what they are really selling. Epiphone should be more forthcoming in this regard. It's not like it's going to hurt their sales; maybe they'd get more sales since people would start to trust the products more. I dunno. Not arguing that, Spud, and wouldn't. I have long been an advocate, for more disclosure on specs, materials, and getting back to REAL SG beveling and knob placement, as you have been, also. But, in the face of "Reality" (Gibson, and likewise Epi, are notorious for being tight lipped), I just think we (all) have to be more diligent in our research/homework, prior to the sale, that's all. Of course, if you can't GET answers, that's another thing. But, most of this kind of stuff is available. Here, if nowhere else. Lot's of folks here, know "what's what," on these things. It's good to hear, though, that the newer G-400's are more correct, than the earlier ones. That's always a step in the right direction. ;>) CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 WTF is WITH this board?! Spacing problem is back, and it's now "Stretched!" I give up!! UNCLE, UNCLE, You win!! ;>b CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 It's not the board, it's your PC, CB. Get a Mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 How about..."Wow!! My guitar's made of Luan!! That' so Awesome!" Why not approach it this way? ;>)You liked the guitar before you knew it was Luan with a laminate' date=' right?! IF the woods, specs, hardware, and pickups are really that important to you, WHY buy an Epiphone??? Why not SAVE more money, and get a Gibson?! People do this all the time, here. Buy an Epiphone, then complain about everything about it! What's up with that?!! It's a well know fact, that Epi's are nice, but budget priced guitars, made in Asia (mostly), with Asian woods, elctronics, and hardware. You CAN "upgrade the electronic and hardware, of course, but it will NEVER be a "Gibson," or even an American made Epiphone! Just ENJOY it, mod it if you must. OR...wait and get what (maybe) you really want?! As far as "Truth in Advertising?" LOL...that's an Oxymoron! CB [/quote'] =D> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I really never thought my faded $649 Gibson had the same wood as the top line SGs do. AKAIK it's the same wood. The price difference between a Faded SG Special and a regular SG Special is what... fifty bucks? No, the corner they cut on that one is in the finishing; a lot less labour to do a satin unfilled finish than to do a glossy one. And for the record the SG Specials have two 490 pickups where the higher-end Standard has the 498T in the bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 So what exactly are g400's made of...? "Lauan and wires, and smoke from hell's fires... plus a drop of Angus Young's blood." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geff Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Well' date=' the tonal purity of Lauan versus Mahogany is one thing, and I agree that Lauan is definitely in the ballpark, especially if you get a good piece, but I think the issue here is one of accurate and honest identification of the product being sold. I mean, if you bought a Dodge RAM with the Hemi engine in it but found out later that all you really had was a 2.0 litre engine out of a Neon with a vacuformed cover that [i']looked[/i] like the top of a Hemi... I think you'd be pretty pissed. Just for the record, I have four Gibson SGs (Honduras mahogany), an Elitist SG (African mahogany), three Epiphone G-400s and a Dillion SG (most likely by Unsung or a Saein) (Philippine mahogany) and none of the Lauan-bodied guitars is quite as resonant as the genuine mahogany ones, but then again maybe I'm just biased towards the latter; the proof would have to be in some kind of double-blind test. Is that a collection or an addiction?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 I have a g400. It sounds good for its price' date=' it feels okay for any price, and goddammit, does it look good or what. I'm pretty sure the guitar is not fake since the serial number makes sense.... I03040316 Meaning it was made back in april 2003....works fine, since the TRC says "Gibson", rather than "SG", as they all did before 2004. Also, the tuners are Grover, like they started putting on G400's after 2002. About a year has passed, and I decided I want to upgrade this guitar. I wanna replace the pickups and all kinds of hardware, and turn it into my dream guitar. Hey, it's made of mahogany, right? So how hard can it be once I change everything else? So I brought it to a specialist, and turns out that it's made of Luan. With a fake-mahogany cover, to fool costumers that can't tell the difference. Wherever you look, Epiphone claims that this guitar sports a "Solid Mahogany Body". At first, I felt cheated, since they say "Mahogany" and what they really mean is "PHILIPINE Mahogany". Which is sort of a dirty trick, but oh well. Until I checked the book, and turns out that... ------------ Per Federal Trade Commission § 250.3 Identity of woods. * Mahogany. 1. The unqualified term mahogany should not be used to describe wood other than genuine solid mahogany (genus Swietenia of the Meliaceae family). The woods of genus Swietenia may be described by the term ‘‘mahogany’’ with or without a prefix designating the country or region of its origin, such as ‘‘Honduras mahogany’’, ‘‘Costa Rican mahogany’’, ‘‘Brazilian mahogany’’ or ‘‘Mexican mahogany’’. 2. The term ‘‘mahogany’’ may be used to describe solid wood of the genus Khaya of the Meliaceae family, but only when prefixed by the word ‘‘African’’ (e.g., ‘‘African mahogany desk’’). 3. In naming or designating the seven non-mahogany Philippine woods Tanguile, Red Lauan, White Lauan, Tiaong, Almon, Mayapis, and Bagtikan, the term ‘‘mahogany’’ may be used but only when prefixed by the word ‘‘Philippine’’ (e.g., ‘‘Philippine mahogany table’’), due to the long standing usage of that term. Examples of improper use of the term ‘‘mahogany’’ include reference to Red Lauan as ‘‘Lauan mahogany’’ or to White Lauan as ‘‘Blond Lauan mahogany’’. Such woods, however, may be described as ‘‘Red Lauan’’ or ‘‘Lauan’’ or ‘‘White Lauan’’, respectively. The term ‘‘Philippine mahogany’’ will be accepted as a name or designation of the seven woods named above. Such term shall not be applied to any other wood, whether or not grown on the Philippine Islands. 4. The term ‘‘mahogany’’, with or without qualifications, should not be used to describe any other wood except as provided above. This applies also to any of the woods belonging to the Meliaceae family, other than genera Swietenia and Khaya. --------------- So how do you explain that? Anybody? Either my guitar is fake, and isn't really Epiphone, in that case meh. But if all g400's are made of Luan, like this one, then it goes beyond being a dirty trick - straight into the realm of strictly illegal. Anybody wants to help me on this one?[/quote'] You're argument presumes the guideline/law you cite was passed before your guitar was made. If not, then there was no regulation, and the wood could be called anything the seller wanted. If the guitar was made after the regulation, *and* you can find marketing material from the same time the guitar was made, then perhaps you have a point. IF the law/guideline applied to *all* wood products, not just furniture, as pointed out by another user. Further, if you look at the various models on the Epi front page, you will see there is a distinction, some are listed as alder, some basswood, laminated alter/maple, and others, mahogany. My (made in Korea) Iommi G400 is listed as mahogany. I can see a seam in the paint, indicating the body is (at least) 2 piece. But it's called a solid-body. Should I be upset that it is not solid (in that there is a gap (albeit, filled with glue) between the body pieces...ergo, it is not truly solid (one piece). Per item 4, who decided only South American mahogany was "genuine" and all others imitation, even if the same genus or family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 Is that a collection or an addiction?! Both. And I've picked up two more since I prepared that image; a Gibson '61 RI and another Vintage G-400. I'm trying to find the local chapter of SGs Anonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byrds1965 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 AKAIK it's the same wood. The price difference between a Faded SG Special and a regular SG Special is what... fifty bucks? No' date=' the corner they cut on that one is in the finishing; a lot less labour to do a satin unfilled finish than to do a glossy one. And for the record the SG Specials have two 490 pickups where the higher-end Standard has the 498T in the bridge.[/quote'] Thanks for the info Spud. I never really bonded with my faded Gibson. I liked my G400s better and that is why I sold the Gibson. I never really liked the PUs in the thing, plus it felt pretty rough, mine did not feel so much faded...more like rough sanded. When I compare the G400s to Gibson SGs I thinking back to my old red SG or the 61 RI. Mine had the 57s and that is the PU I like in SGs and in general. I am not sure that Gibson uses the same wood in the Specials/Faded as these: http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Gibson-SG-61-Reissue-Electric-Guitar?sku=518935 And would I like my G400s as well as one of these........I am guessing no which is why I avoid playing them at GC and SA. I play the Specials/Faded when I go and still leave happy owning my 2 G400s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 You're argument presumes the guideline/law you cite was passed before your guitar was made. Pretty sure that this particular FTC regulation was in effect long before Epi went over to Korea to make cheep Les Pauls and SGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 ...plus it felt pretty rough' date=' mine did not feel so much faded...more like rough sanded.[/quote'] Precisely. Basically they don't bother with the filler and sanding sealer which is required to prepare a good base for a gloss finish. They just paint 'em raw, and they end up pretty rough. Trying to pass these finishes off as 'aged' is pure BS too. I have a '65 SG Special and although it has been much abused by its previous owners it nonetheless, after a bit of work with a bottle of GHS Guitar Gloss, is as glossy as the day it left the factory. I am not sure that Gibson uses the same wood in the Specials/Faded as these: http://guitars.musiciansfriend.com/product/Gibson-SG-61-Reissue-Electric-Guitar?sku=518935 It's all South American mahogany, friend. I have the '61 and the wood doesn't look or feel any different from that on a Standard or a Special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 1972 SG is definitely more dense than my 2008 faded SG, and thicker. Gibson was definitely more generous with the wood on it's older guitars .... although I do like my faded, especially since dropping in the Dimarzio Super D's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender 4 Life Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 I don't care if i's made of soapbox derbycar leftovers, it sounds as good as it looks , and thats all I need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 1972 SG is definitely more dense than my 2008 faded SG' date=' and thicker. Gibson was definitely more generous with the wood on it's older guitars[/quote']1972 is not exactly what anyone would refer to as a 'reference year' for Gibson SGs. As to density, well, nature is kind of inconsistent that way. Just because one piece of wood is lighter than another doesn't mean it's a different species; remember that specific gravity figures are average values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Trying to pass these finishes off as 'aged' is pure BS too. I have a '65 SG Special and although it has been much abused by its previous owners it nonetheless' date=' after a bit of work with a bottle of GHS Guitar Gloss, is as glossy as the day it left the factory.[/quote'] I was at the Dallas Guitar show last weekend, and I saw several vintage SGs. Over time, their original finish had sunk into the wood, so they now closely resembled a Faded Series. I was suprised a bit, frankly. Before that, I never thought the Faded Series looked worn in an authentic way. It's like that with acoustics: sometimes you see a real vintage one with an obviously old, but still somewhat glossy finish, and sometimes you come across one that appears to have a thin satin or even no finish at all. I guess there must be a lot of environmental as well as manufacturing factors that determine how the finish will eventually age. GOOD to see you back here! Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Thanks, Red, it's good to see the ol' gang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 1972 is not exactly what anyone would refer to as a 'reference year' for Gibson SGs. As to density' date=' well, nature is kind of inconsistent that way. Just because one piece of wood is lighter than another doesn't mean it's a different species; remember that specific gravity figures are [i']average[/i] values. I hear ya about the 70's SG ...... However my SG200 has been almost a flawless performer since 1974 (with exception of the tuners).... I have no idea what types of pups are in this thing, but it sure has a tele/strat tone, with the feel of a Gibson.... Great sounding AXE that really helped me through my Jimi-Jeff phaze.... I love the way it sings through the AC50.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duane v Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byrds1965 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 It's all South American mahogany' date=' friend. I have the '61 and the wood doesn't look or feel any different from that on a Standard or a Special.[/quote'] Thanks again for the correct info Spud. I never would have thought that it was the same wood by looking at them. In the future I may have to take another look at the Faded's and find a nice red one and throw in a set of 57s. One final thought comes to mind. What is stopping Epiphone from using the real Mahogany and putting their poly finish on it with their PUs and jack the price up as they need to? I would not have a problem paying $700-800 for an Epiphone G400 with real Mahogany, poly is fine by me. I am guessing it would cut into the Gibson low end sales too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elleon ricardo Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 @ Charlie Brown : its true epi and gibson its never the same, in fact it is beyond compare but what's bugging me is when epi selling their product falsely e.g this mahogany stuff, dont you think it would make their customers dissapointed and ( maybe ) not trusting the epi product anymore..? as far as i concern is mahogany is a TONEWOOD ( wood that could produce good sounding ) and because of that, the guitar sounds good and its would be VERY different if you have a guitar without this kinda wood e.g agathis or teak or lauan or etc.. i dont know lauan characteristic but in these reply, i assume it has the same char's like mahogany except its doesnt good as real mahogany in matter of sound quality because that's not a TONEWOOD.. so why would you buy guitar that sound dreadfull from the beginning? epi is budget priced guitar.. and even if the MODEL is the same with gibson, dont be overestimate with it LOGICALLY epi is around 500 ~ 1000 USD and gibson is 2000 and more, dont you think isn't it a bit ackward if you state that epi is better than gibson base on quality, sound, aesthetic and wood? i dont put "model" in it because epi is gibson copy with lower price.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 In the future I may have to take another look at the Faded's and find a nice red one and throw in a set of 57s. That'd probably be sweet. Since getting my '61 RI I've really come to like the sound of the '57s. One final thought comes to mind. What is stopping Epiphone from using the real Mahogany and putting their poly finish on it with their PUs and jack the price up as they need to? I would not have a problem paying $700-800 for an Epiphone G400 with real Mahogany' date=' poly is fine by me. I am guessing it would cut into the Gibson low end sales too much.[/quote'] Well, thing is... when you hit those kind of prices it might as well be a Gibson. You're so close to the price of a Special that nobody'd buy it. Heck, people wouldn't buy the Elitists and they even had the decent pickups and nickel hardware. No, for that to work, they'd have to be no more than $600... which may be possible, at least using African mahogany which is fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.