Amerson Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I've been down that road with MIC vs MII and I couldn't tell much for a difference that mattered and believe me, I can see a bent hair on a gnats a.. ! None of them are exact copies in look to the real deal Gibson that the Beatles made famous. So the knobs are up or down on the body a smig, or the headstock is bigger or smaller. They aren't identical twins to the Gibson any of them. What I could tell was that I had to hand pick thru 4-5 I think EJ-160E's to find one that I really liked. Several were just dead, some played really crappy (even after a setup in the store) and then I got mine and loved all but the low volume & the hum. Both are fixed now. It's a MIC and IMHO, none of them are much like the 60's Gibson J-160E. None of them are including the new Gibson J-160E except for maybe some appearance. That's not saying that's good or bad. It's just what are you wanting it for. The old ladder braced Gibson is not to many's way of thinking, a versatile guitar at all. To me, I just love it and always play it plugged in. My EJ-160E is a great playing guitar and sounds really pretty dang great too. I don't play it unplugged but could with some nice bright strings on it and be happy playing it. Best suggestion is, don't worry about the MIC vs MII or MIK stuff. If a guitar is okay sounding & playing then it don't make no never mind on those three places. I have to say, I like all my MIA (Made in America) guitars the best in all counts. And besides, economic recovery starts at home with American's working jobs in America. YeeeeeHawww. Back to the topic I really like both the EJ-160E & the IB Texan. After a great setup both look, play & sound just great for the money. Don't think much for resale values on the Epi's however if that ever matters to anyone. Aster where di you buy yor ej-160e can you post some pictures??..the made in indonesia is the closest to the gibson j-160e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerson Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 The current release is NOT made in China - it is made in Indonesia ! it's very nicd to here that the current relese is made from indonesia!!!! very true to the j-160e specs...hey by the way how did you know it's from indonesia??? got to be sure before buying :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diverden Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 MY EJ-160 was made in China. Sounds great; no issues at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Now he is worried again..... My EJ-160 was made in NORTHERN Indonesia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbeyroadman Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Hi - I have the EJ160, purchased it "used", with a set-up and in perfect condition. Added Pyramid flat-wounds. So I have a guitar that delivers as much "Beatle-sound" that I need. I would not recommend it, however, as an acoustic guitar substitute. But no regrets for buying it; it delivers that "unique sound" when set-up (strings) correctly. Not sure what the issue is about the country of origin - all of them are replicas, it seems to some extent, of the Gibson model. The Texan was limited, it seems, to a few songs by McCartney; whereas the Gibson 160 had more use by the Beatles, hands down. I've played the some Texan's at local GC's - they're nice, but I personally would buy a Epi. Masterbilt, then look for a used EJ160E. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerson Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 You asked about 5-7 x the same question... and I told you 3-5 x that all the newer ones I've seen in real and online were made in Indonesia Sweetwater has a Guitar-Gallery with pics of the guitars they have in stock It is really easy to be sure what you plan to buy - just look at the pics There should be a sticker with country of manufacture on it and the fifth and sixth digit should be >23< that is the factorycode for 'made in Indonesia' Hope you've 'got it' now thanx now i'm really buying!!! by the way what do you mean the last 2 digits is >23<?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brannon67 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Just play both of them, and decide for yourself. No one can make that decision for you except you personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerson Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Just play both of them, and decide for yourself. No one can make that decision for you except you personally. but the indonesian made has the right body shape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Amerson...IF you are that picky, save your money, a bit longer, and get a Gibson J-160E. Then you'll know, for sure, it's the right body shape, and made in Bozemen, Montana...USA! ;>) The Beatles J-160's are Gibson's! Anything else, will be some kind of compromise. And, if you're really picky, you'll need to get the "John Lennon" versions, for the correct appointments, laminated tops, and ladder bracing. Good Luck! CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster1 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 but the indonesian made has the right body shape Amerson, I'm going to shoot you a photo of my Gibson 1962 Reissue J-160E next to my EJ-160E and let you see how much difference there is. A hell of a lot in sound & construction, but in looks? Oh yeah, the IBJL EJ has that silly sig. (not that John Lennon was silly, rude to people maybe, but not silly) on the side. But, both the MIC & MII will have that dang thing. If you can't see much difference then I'll make you a hell of a deal on a PERFECT EJ & case. The big thing you'll run into with an EJ is in crappy output & hum with the factory Pup IMHO. Both are fixed on my EJ and I'm a'gonna sell it and my Standard MIC Casino (again perfect & better than 7 of the 8 I played and looked over). I turned down 5 EJ's I think before finding mine. It will be this weekend before I can do that but I'll post it here. Just so you can see. Who knows, then maybe you would prefer the Gibson. It ain't THAT much more $$ if you want it really accurate. Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Amerson...IF you are that picky, save your money, a bit longer, and get a Gibson J-160E. You know, this is the right answer. This guy Amerson is clearly VERY particular about what he wants. His best move really would be to save and save and get the Gibson J-160E. No matter how long it takes to get one, he will know that when he does get one it will be exactly what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonzoboy Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Original J-160-E Gibsons from the mid 60s routinely go on vintage guitar sites and Vintage Guitar Magazine ads for $4,000-$5,000 quite a bargain considering the price of the new tributes that Gibson is making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkuss Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If you want an acoustic guitar DO NOT buy the EJ-160e unless you plan on playing it unplugged. Here are your options with this guitar: Electric strings plugged in: Great Beatles tone! Electric strings unplugged: Easy to play but not very acousticy sounding. Acoustic strings plugged in: Terrible Acoustic strings unplugged: Sounds reasonable but to me it's not very bright or enjoyable comprared to the Texan. I have a Korean EJ-160e and a Tokai J-160e copy and I've just bought a Gibson J-160e 1962 Beatles specs and I'd say that the Tokai is the best sounding acoustic so I'd suggest the IBT as my bandmate has one and it's also a great acoustic and sounds great plugged in. My EJ-160e has a piezo pickup system and I use it with acoustic strings for acoustic songs wheras the Gibson when it arrives will be equipped with electric flatwound strings and used for that early Beatles sound. My EJ-160e was made in Peerless factory Korea and has a Vintage Cherry sunburst which I liked at the time to match my Peerless VCS Casino but the best looking EJ-160es are definitely the Indonesian ones. Some pics: And the Gibson on the left (ply top, ladder bracing, vintage ceramic saddle) is currently on its way from the USA to the UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 And the Gibson on the left (ply top, ladder bracing, vintage ceramic saddle) is currently on its way from the USA to the UK NICE job on customizing the bed-in J-160E! Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkuss Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 NICE job on customizing the bed-in J-160E! Red 333 Wish I could take the credit for this one but it was Jeffrey Levenson of FabGear fame. It was a special order for NY Lennon impersonator Tom Raider and I bought it from him in the summer. - Gibson headstock conversion - Sanded off the finish, tainted it and put a thin layer of Nitro. - Hand scratched the charicatures with pen and then painted them in. - Changed out the Gibson style pickguard and installed a more correct one for this incarnation. - Kluson double ring tulip tuners. - Made the P-100 a P-90. - Made the P-90 holes in the lower part of the sound hole to replicate where it was during the "Fool" paintjob. - Added an acoustic pickup with a selector switch tucked into the soundhole (P-90/Both/Piezo) - Rewired the Tone Knob into a blending knob for the middle position. - Added the string and japanese good luck coin charm on the headstock. The only thing it doesn't have cosmetically that I would like it to is the adjustable bridge. Purely for the looks as it sounds fantastic. It sits in the house most of the time as I only use it occasionally live but it's my favourite acoustic I've ever owned, looks and playability. Gives me the inspiration to practice those harder songs like Julia, Dear Prudence etc which are tough to play on my epiphone because it's so big! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerson Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 If you want an acoustic guitar DO NOT buy the EJ-160e unless you plan on playing it unplugged. Here are your options with this guitar: Electric strings plugged in: Great Beatles tone! Electric strings unplugged: Easy to play but not very acousticy sounding. Acoustic strings plugged in: Terrible Acoustic strings unplugged: Sounds reasonable but to me it's not very bright or enjoyable comprared to the Texan. I have a Korean EJ-160e and a Tokai J-160e copy and I've just bought a Gibson J-160e 1962 Beatles specs and I'd say that the Tokai is the best sounding acoustic so I'd suggest the IBT as my bandmate has one and it's also a great acoustic and sounds great plugged in. My EJ-160e has a piezo pickup system and I use it with acoustic strings for acoustic songs wheras the Gibson when it arrives will be equipped with electric flatwound strings and used for that early Beatles sound. My EJ-160e was made in Peerless factory Korea and has a Vintage Cherry sunburst which I liked at the time to match my Peerless VCS Casino but the best looking EJ-160es are definitely the Indonesian ones. Some pics: And the Gibson on the left (ply top, ladder bracing, vintage ceramic saddle) is currently on its way from the USA to the UK YOU ARE RIGHT the best looking ej 160e is the indonesian made hope they still produced the i like the gibson j-160e bbut it waill take me a very long time!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aster1 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 YOU ARE RIGHT the best looking ej 160e is the indonesian made hope they still produced the i like the gibson j-160e bbut it waill take me a very long time!!! Sorry I couldn't get photo's shot of my MIC vs. 1962 Reissue. But Amerson, how can you say that the Indonesian is closer to the J? The knob spacing is WAY off. For this dumb guy engineer (me) please explain just what is "BETTER" about MII vs MIC? Both are cheap copies, and while I kind of like my MIC EJ, it's so far from the real deal I don't see how it matters? Please indulge me with the explanation. I'll make a better attempt to photograph them both together tomorrow when I can get off work. Clarkus, if that's you in the photo, you're a dead ringer for Sir Paul if I ever saw one? A lot closer than Madame Tussauds wax of Paul in the cover of Sgt. Pepper!!! Aster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I really hate to say this but I'll admit I get a kick out following this discussion. Back in the olden days of my youth there were a lot of magnetic pickups affixed in various ways to flattops and archtops. The strings used on them tended to be the strings the picker normally would use on that type of guitar. A friend has an early '50s Gibbie flattop with a nice Florentine cutaway that he uses as an electric, but with regular acoustic bronze strings. Sounds fine to me. Yeah, he probably kicks up a bit different setting on the amp. I used an old '50s cheapie archtop that I added a single coil to and played some pretty loud rock through a Fender DR in the mid '60s for a while. Never had problems either with unwanted feedback or with not having enough sound or enough sound that was pretty much what I thought was needed at the time. I can't remember what strings I was using, though. They probably were whatever "electric" strings I could find. OTOH, I had a mag pickup on a couple of flattops and used acoustic strings and just messed with volume and tone on the guitar and amp. No problem. Maybe I'm like my parents' age group who were less picky with a lotta stuff 'cuz in the 1930s and through WWII, they mostly couldn't get much of any "stuff" at all. I dunno. But when it comes to a general type of guitar... hey, does it let you coax it into almost playing itself or do you have to work at it. If it's half decent overall quality and helps your hands move to play what you wanna play, buy the darned thing whether it's a perfect this or that copy or not. Yeah, maybe that's just an old guy talking 'cuz his poor old gnarly hands need all the help they can get, and his eyes are so poor that he can't tell the difference between a perfect copy that doesn't play or sound good, and a less perfect copy that plays and sounds good enough for bluegrass or blues... I dunno. <grin> m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkuss Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I really hate to say this but I'll admit I get a kick out following this discussion. Back in the olden days of my youth there were a lot of magnetic pickups affixed in various ways to flattops and archtops. The strings used on them tended to be the strings the picker normally would use on that type of guitar. A friend has an early '50s Gibbie flattop with a nice Florentine cutaway that he uses as an electric, but with regular acoustic bronze strings. Sounds fine to me. Yeah, he probably kicks up a bit different setting on the amp. I used an old '50s cheapie archtop that I added a single coil to and played some pretty loud rock through a Fender DR in the mid '60s for a while. Never had problems either with unwanted feedback or with not having enough sound or enough sound that was pretty much what I thought was needed at the time. I can't remember what strings I was using, though. They probably were whatever "electric" strings I could find. OTOH, I had a mag pickup on a couple of flattops and used acoustic strings and just messed with volume and tone on the guitar and amp. No problem. Maybe I'm like my parents' age group who were less picky with a lotta stuff 'cuz in the 1930s and through WWII, they mostly couldn't get much of any "stuff" at all. I dunno. But when it comes to a general type of guitar... hey, does it let you coax it into almost playing itself or do you have to work at it. If it's half decent overall quality and helps your hands move to play what you wanna play, buy the darned thing whether it's a perfect this or that copy or not. Yeah, maybe that's just an old guy talking 'cuz his poor old gnarly hands need all the help they can get, and his eyes are so poor that he can't tell the difference between a perfect copy that doesn't play or sound good, and a less perfect copy that plays and sounds good enough for bluegrass or blues... I dunno. <grin> m I think there's a lot of value in what you say and for the most part I agree. I've spent most of my life playing the first guitar that i could get my hands on through the nearest (normally solid state) amp with no fancy pedals or effects and often play beaters and electrics unplugged in the house with lots of pleasure. But... For me, as I've gotten older I have become more interested in the differences and varities of tone and quality, and while I'm no snob and definitely no expert it's good to have an opinion about things and attempt to evaluate them, compare and contrast them for your own tastes and if you're on a guitar forum, I'm guessing for giving and taking advice. You could stick bronze strings on a fake chinese EJ-160e with P-100 and play it through a Marshall 50w solid state amp and 9/10 could be fooled into thinking it sounds like the Beatles but there is a difference between that and a 62 RI Gibson with Flatwound nickel strings through an AC-30. It just depends on whether you want to hear it or not! Going back to this thread. Yes the easy answer would be to say, play them and pick whichever you like best but is that really what guitar forums are designed for? I personally don't think so. Discussion and debate is the reason I come on here. The devil is in the detail and I'm certainly no christian! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Clarkuss... Yeah... I can't argue with that perspective. I guess my point comes down to the place that even if you could go back in time and play the same guitar and same amp and same recording equipment and the same underwear as this or that Beatle, you're still not really going to have the same perceived tone. Don't get me wrong, there are variables of this and that which make a difference to this or that picker, but that's normally a lot more of a narrow perspective than to this or that audience, even though "we" should IMHO constantly be searching to improve our quality of performance even if we're just pickin' for ourselves on the front porch. But honestly, I think sometimes we think too much about "tone" and too little about playability and general quality of whatever sound reinforcement we might use for performance in public that does the best job with a practical and cost-effective solution to work with a given type of music in a given venue or sort of venue in physical/acoustic terms. Heaven knows that's difficult enough, and it's more than just one person's guitar and amp and/or mike and/or PA system. I guess that's why I'm not quite so picky. What we think we're gonna sound like in a practice room with one batch of equipment generally ain't what we really sound like to an audience anyway - at least not in my experience. In a big pro venue with a pro sound person and time to really get it all nailed and with lots of experience in a given type of venue, you can come close to what a 1960s record may sound like - but I doubt the OP is looking at that. Heck, I'm not likely in the foreseeable future to be in that latter situation again myself. And back when I was... boy, the sound systems were tube stuff with generally lousy speakers that made it impossible to reeeeally sound like what you think you should sound like anyway. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkuss Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Clarkuss... Yeah... I can't argue with that perspective. I guess my point comes down to the place that even if you could go back in time and play the same guitar and same amp and same recording equipment and the same underwear as this or that Beatle, you're still not really going to have the same perceived tone. Don't get me wrong, there are variables of this and that which make a difference to this or that picker, but that's normally a lot more of a narrow perspective than to this or that audience, even though "we" should IMHO constantly be searching to improve our quality of performance even if we're just pickin' for ourselves on the front porch. But honestly, I think sometimes we think too much about "tone" and too little about playability and general quality of whatever sound reinforcement we might use for performance in public that does the best job with a practical and cost-effective solution to work with a given type of music in a given venue or sort of venue in physical/acoustic terms. Heaven knows that's difficult enough, and it's more than just one person's guitar and amp and/or mike and/or PA system. I guess that's why I'm not quite so picky. What we think we're gonna sound like in a practice room with one batch of equipment generally ain't what we really sound like to an audience anyway - at least not in my experience. In a big pro venue with a pro sound person and time to really get it all nailed and with lots of experience in a given type of venue, you can come close to what a 1960s record may sound like - but I doubt the OP is looking at that. Heck, I'm not likely in the foreseeable future to be in that latter situation again myself. And back when I was... boy, the sound systems were tube stuff with generally lousy speakers that made it impossible to reeeeally sound like what you think you should sound like anyway. m You lost me at "cost-effective" haha! But seriously. I couldn't agree more. In my work band I'm always trying to get close to something that's already been done because it's in the job description but other than the Beatles I personally haven't done any really heavy tone exploration. I'm happy to play the guitar more than fiddling with amps and pedals and changing strings, plectrum material etc. In fact I never play through an amp at home and put Elixirs on most of the guitars I own for longevity's sake. I think there's a lot more "fiddling" and discussing going on in the world than actual playing or at least it seems like that when you spend all day on the internet. Can't see the wood for the trees and that sort of sentiment. But for this thread though, I do think it's important for the original poster to understand the ramifications of each guitar and its potential, particularly with the EJ-160e in that depending on what you're using it for you could have two completely different sounding guitars (acoustic vs electric) and be disappointed if you're going to be using it live because I made that "mistake" with my very first EJ-160e when I probably would have been better off with the Texan as I wanted an acoustic guitar that sounded more traditional but I was won over by the look of the EJ-160e. I later found that acoustic capability with my current EJ-160e and now going back to explore the original J-160e sound with my Gibson. If I wanted a good acoustic with a good acoustic sound unplugged and amplified I still maintain the Texan is better, possibly cheaper and more playable guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Clarkruss... Absolutely no argument on anything you said there - although I'll admit I'm still more of a playability nut. But for a better-playing acoustic sound? Yupper, you've nailed it. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 My (Gibson) J-160E has "Beatles Tone," in spades...why wouldn't it? It's what they used! Acoustic, and/or electric, in the early days. My Texan, sounds a lot more typically "acoustic!" That's what it's designed for, and the pickup is only to be able to amplify it, acoustically, without using a mic. The J-160E, plugged in, sounds like a hollow body "electric guitar," due to the magnetic (P-90) pickup. Even with the tone knob turned down, quite a bit, it still sounds more "electric" (if Jazzier), than truly "acoustic." But, it will, absolutely, nail the early "Beatles" acoustic tone (unplugged), especially mic'd...if you need that volume, and their more acoustic sound. So, to me, it really boils down to, what you really want, from either guitar. If you play "acoustically," mostly...then IMHO, the Texan would definitely be the better choice. If you want both tones, knowing there will be a compromise, to both tones...then, the J-160E would be the way to go. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amerson Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Sorry I couldn't get photo's shot of my MIC vs. 1962 Reissue. But Amerson, how can you say that the Indonesian is closer to the J? The knob spacing is WAY off. For this dumb guy engineer (me) please explain just what is "BETTER" about MII vs MIC? Both are cheap copies, and while I kind of like my MIC EJ, it's so far from the real deal I don't see how it matters? Please indulge me with the explanation. I'll make a better attempt to photograph them both together tomorrow when I can get off work. Clarkus, if that's you in the photo, you're a dead ringer for Sir Paul if I ever saw one? A lot closer than Madame Tussauds wax of Paul in the cover of Sgt. Pepper!!! Aster the made in indonesia ones has the right body shape and true to the aspects of the j's can you please post a photo of both of them the made in indonesia and made in china epi's ej-160e??? cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger11 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I haven't played a Texan apart from a quick strum in a shop but acoustically is there much difference? I know the EJ160 has a longer scale but aren't the body shapes and tonewoods etc very similar. The Texan I believe has a solid back but i don't think this makes much difference as this part of the guitar is uually against your body. The pickups are completely different but acoustically I'd like to know the reasopn why the Texan would sound better? Of course this is subjective! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.