Harrison Posted November 12, 2010 Share Posted November 12, 2010 hi all, Has anyone tried the USA and Japanese versions of this guitar? (Red333?) I'm interested to know if the nut widths are different, - come to think of it, they shouldn't be as the are supposed to copied from Paul's original. I love the quality of my Japanese macca Texan but was interested to know if the necks on Texans are all really slim, the nut width on mine seems to be just about 42mm maybe a smidge over.... any thoughts..??? enjoy your playing alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el capitan Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Alex, I too have a Japanese Macca I'm well pleased with.I've never seen another,let alone a US one. In the sixties (66-68)Epi necks got very narrow 1 1/2"on some.I had an Elitist Texan for a while (MIJ)& recently bought an Inspired by.This has a chunkier neck than Macca and a bigger body which won't go in the Macca case. Keep pickin' Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted November 26, 2010 Share Posted November 26, 2010 hi all, Has anyone tried the USA and Japanese versions of this guitar? (Red333?) I'm interested to know if the nut widths are different, - come to think of it, they shouldn't be as the are supposed to copied from Paul's original. I love the quality of my Japanese macca Texan but was interested to know if the necks on Texans are all really slim, the nut width on mine seems to be just about 42mm maybe a smidge over.... any thoughts..??? enjoy your playing alex Hi, Alex. I don't have a US McCartney Texan (I have two of the Japanese ones and an Elitist, or three total), but I have played one, and had a chance to fool around on several vintage ones. The US and Japanese McCartney Texans seemed to have the same nut width and general neck profile (the US may have bid a shade deeper, but individual necks vary), though I wasn't consciously comparing them. I didn't notice any great variation between the McCarneys and any of the vintage ones I played, either, but again, I wasn't specifically looking to find any. Hope that helps. Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadedepi Posted November 26, 2010 Share Posted November 26, 2010 According to the Epiphone '08 catalog, the nut width is 1.625. ( 1 5/8") Faded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 thanks for the replies - just been strumming away - I never get bored of this guitar and find it hard to put down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozigor Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Hello all, I have an IB64 texan. How does this differ from the macartney model?? I love the sound of mine but needed to lower saddle and nut slots a little to get better action (yeah red333 you predicted correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el capitan Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 If you played a mid to late 60's you'd have noticed the skinny neck.OK for a strummer or lead lines,but useless for country hammer-ons/fingerpicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el capitan Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I have a Macca & a SB IB.YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozigor Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 SO the differences are in the quality of the workmanship, is that you are saying el capitan?? Excuse my ignorance but can you be a little more explicative please?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el capitan Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Macca is a lighter,more responsive guitar than the IB.It is on a par with the original. IB is OK for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Hello all, I have an IB64 texan. How does this differ from the macartney model?? I love the sound of mine but needed to lower saddle and nut slots a little to get better action (yeah red333 you predicted correctly Ozigor, The McCartney Texan and IB Texan differ from one another because of a manufacturing and marketing philosophy. The McCartney Texan was designed to replicate a specific guitar as closely as possible. Because of the McCartney name, selling price was less of a consideration when making choices as to how it would be manufactured, where, and out of what material. The Inspired By Texan, as the name suggests, uses the 1964 Texan as a jumping off point. It's not a slavish copy (though it's close cosmetically), and Epiphone's goal was to produce a very affordable product. One version of the McCartney Texan was made in Japan, by Terada (about $2K), and two other, even costlier versions were made in the USA by Gibson ($4k, and $25K + for a hand aged version). Obviously, labor costs are greater in Japan and the USA than in China, where the IB Texan is made. Labor is the chief component of a guitar's price, and a guitar that requires more labor to make must sell for more. Similarly, a guitar marketed to sell for more can get more time and attention from the makers during individual stages of the building process. More time and attention increases the likelihood that a well-made instrument will be produced. It's not a guarantee, but that's why less-expensive instruments can sometimes be more hit and miss. While the Epiphone factories in China are producing excellent guitars overall, Terada luthiers are world-class masters. They ain't no slouches there in Bozeman, MT, either : ) As el capital pointed out, the selling price of the two models influence what kind of materials they can be made from. Since it was made to sell for more, Epiphone could specify the use of use of more premium tone woods in the McCartney. They could also do things like use a true one-piece neck and heel. To produce a one-piece neck/heel, the block of mahogany used to cut that shape must be larger, which adds to the costs. The IB Texan has a one-piece neck (nice!), but the heel is a separate piece that is joined on to it, which lowers the cost. What advantage does a single neck and heel have? Well, those that study acoustic science believe that joints of any kind inhibit acoustic vibration and absorb energy. Traditional builders (like Gibson) use a one-piece neck/heel, as they believe this helps to deliver superior volume and tone. (On the other hand, Taylor and many classical guitar builders not only have joints between the neck and heel, but somewhere in the neck below the headstock, too. You can't say one is "better," only that this type of construction contributes to the overall signature tone of an instrument.) Similarly, the headstock angle is different on the McCartney Texan and the IB. The McCartney Texan has Gibson's traditional 17 degree pitch, while the IB has a 14 degree pitch, like most other Epiphones produced in Asia. Again, less wood is needed to produce a neck with a 14 degree headstock angle. It's thought that a guitar with a 17 degree headstock angle puts increased string pressure on the nut, which results in a different tone. So, I'm not saying an added heel or a 14 degree headstock angle are bad; by all reports, the IB Texan (and from my experience, other guitars with these features) can sound excellent. However, if your goal is produce an instrument with the same tone as another, you want everything relatively equal. In other words, vintage specs and construction methods should get you closer to the vintage sound, if that's what you're after. It may interest you to know that the Elitist Texan (the model that preceded the McCartney) also has a 14 degree headstock angle and separate heel. What other manufacturing processes account for a cost difference? The McCartney Texan has a traditional nitrocellulouse finish, while the IB Texan has a poly finish. Nitro is more costly because it takes more time to prepare the instrument for it, to apply it, and for it to dry. There's no doubt that whatever kind of finish is used on a guitar or instrument will in some way effect its tone, as it no doubt inhibits vibration in some way. The thing with nitro is that it never truly becomes a solid, so it gradually becomes part of the cell structure of the wood, which is something that contributes to that "vintage sound" lots of players look for. Nitro also has an advantage of being very easily reparable, while poly is more difficult. The McCartney Texan also has certain period correct features like a corrian nut and adjustable bridge that should contribute to producing tone more like the original's (though McCartney's Texan may actually have had a plastic bridge back in the day, and may still have it for all I know). Many people would say those features actually inhibit the tone of an instrument. Again, the point is arguable. These features helped define the tone we know from the records and performances, so they must be present in any effort to duplicate it. Changing them will certainly alter the tone somewhat. It's up to you decide if the altered or original tone is "better" or not. The IB Texan uses a fixed saddle (and a bone nut, I think), features generally prized by more people for their contribution to a guitar's volume and tone. The biggest difference between the McCartney and IB Texan (in my mind, anyway) is the one that's hardest to see: it's the x bracing. The McCartney's x bracing duplicates the original's. The IB Texan's seems to have the same pattern as the Masterbilt AJ 500M and R, which is shifted way away from the soundhole, and is much wider by comparison. Now, those Masterbilts sound good (I have four!), but different from a Gibson (nine) or vintage Epiphone. That's why the IB Texan also sounds good, but different from a vintage or McCartney Texan. I would imagine there's a manufacturing efficiency to use a single bracing pattern across as many models as possible, which helps bring costs down. I think it also allows Epiphone to use very thin tops (which help acoustic guitars' volume and tone), but the position of the Masterbilt style bracing protects them from cracking. So there are some differences. Others, like the electronics (there are none in the McCartney), you know. Hope that helps, and I hope you enjoy your IB Texan. I played one in a Sam Ash and liked it quite a bit. It seemed very well made, too. It' almost miraculous how fine an instrument you can get these days for comparatively so little. Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 As always, Red comes through with a very concise, cogent and insightful answer. Guitars are the sum of their parts, and the bottom line is that the McCartney Texans and the IB'64 Texans have different parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 As always, Red comes through with a very concise, cogent and insightful answer. Guitars are the sum of their parts, and the bottom line is that the McCartney Texans and the IB'64 Texans have different parts. You are a gentleman. Thank you. You, however, are much more concise: "Guitars are the sum of their parts, and the bottom line is that the McCartney Texans and the IB'64 Texans have different parts." If I had thought of that, I would have saved myself a lot of typing! Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozigor Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Red, I appreciate greatly you taking the time to answer in such a detailed and intersting manner. I feel I know my guitar a little more intimately and that I have learned a little more in general about guitars. Thank you. Ozigor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 You are a gentleman. Thank you. You, however, are much more concise: "Guitars are the sum of their parts, and the bottom line is that the McCartney Texans and the IB'64 Texans have different parts." If I had thought of that, I would have saved myself a lot of typing! Red 333 I may have been more concise, but your reply imparted a lot more information. Tons of stuff I didn't know, and that's why we're lucky you're here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgermod Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I may have been more concise, but your reply imparted a lot more information. Tons of stuff I didn't know, and that's why we're lucky you're here. both great answers and that's why this is a great forum - guys like yourselves take the time to share their knowledge and don't always get the thanks and appreciation you deserve thanks lads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.