Epiphone Les Paul ??
 

Anybody have any thoughts? If someone wanted a Les Paul but couldn't afford a Gibson is an Epiphone a decent alternative? And I guess a big question is how can Gibson allow Les Paul's name to be used on the Epiphone's?
This is all very confusing to me.

From what I've read, the Epiphone LP is considered a highly acceptable substitute for the Gibson. Many folks change the pickups, although that's obviously a matter of taste.

As Epiphone is owned by Gibson, they are free to use the name as they see fit.

It does give up some to the Gibson in appointments and niceness of feel, but the Epiphones can give them a run for the money in tone with a few upgrades like pickups and the wiring harness. I've enjoyed mine for a few years now, but am finding myself preferring the sound of semi-hollows and Teles now.

if you are adept at doing mods to a guitar, and, can get the parts you need fairly cheaply, it will be a great guitar. if not, by the time you spend top dollar for the parts and have someone else do it, you could have had a gibson.

play music!

What would be wrong with leaving it as is and playing it?

Not a thing!

+1.

Nothing wrong with leaving it as is, Nut. The pickups and electronics are cheaper in an Epiphone but you won't really notice too much difference if you're playing through a cheap amp. You can get a beautiful looking, used, Epi Les Paul for (I'm guessing) around $300. You can always upgrade pickups later if you feel the need to.

A little history. Epiphone used to be a big name and produce high quality guitars that rivaled Gibson. Gibson acquired them in 1957 and used the Epi name to produce the economy line of guitars. That's how Les Paul's name came to Epiphones. It enables people who can't afford a Gibson to buy an Epiphone. That's where you come in.

I hope this helps a little.

Ya it does.
You guys have helped me figure out what I will do. Thx.

Absolutely nothing at all. There's a mentality which assumes that all inexpensive guitars need upgrading in some way - and I've certainly fallen prey to that.

The biggest problem with the notion is that you can never, ever, be sure that what you did to it actually made any real difference. The time it takes to swap out controls, pickups, wiring and so on means that your only point of comparison is your rapidly dimming memory of how it used to sound - and after all the effort (and cost) you've just been through, it's tough to admit that it sounds no better - when, in truth, you don't really know.

Case in point - my Douglas Tele Thinline P90. I bought it, for a princely $99.99, expecting that I would probably have to do much to it. It turns out that the only thing I've done is replace the pickup mounting screws - the originals were like lag bolts, completely inappropriate for soapbar P90s. The switch is fine, the volume and tone controls are smooth and well-voiced, and the jack is solid. It sounds heavenly, and plays great. It's one of my favourite guitars.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/d...ps18b7c14b.jpg

I think the upgrade money is probably better spent on hardware. Tuners, bridges, saddles. They tend to be the areas that less expensive instruments skimp on, and replacing them with better quality components will be far more beneficial to the overall playability and longevity of the guitar - but even that is getting more blurred.

Whatever you buy, live with it for a while.

Right on the first count, but the Kalamazoo Epiphones were easily the equal of the Gibson line - and in some cases arguably superior. The initial acquisition occurred as a result of Gibson's loss/destruction of their double bass tooling during World War II; when Ted McCarty bought Epiphone from Orphie Stathopoulo in 1957 for $20,000, he assumed he was simply buying the bass tooling and work-in-progress. What he received was the whole nine yards - guitars, amplifiers, basses, bodies/necks-in-white, and all necessary components - such that he approached Maurice Berlin (head of CMI) and proposed restarting Epiphone as a full-line operation to be offered as an exclusive to dealers in "protected" Gibson territories. In the wake of what was then perceived as a debacle, when the korina instruments (Flying V, Explorer, and the apocryphal Moderne) tanked in the marketplace, Epiphone also served as Gibson's skunkworks, producing instruments deemed insufficiently mainstream (e.g., the Professional guitar/amp combo, Al Caiola Standard/Custom, Emperor Thinline, Howard Roberts, Excellente acoustic) to include in the Gibson line; Epiphones were also the first instruments to receive mini-humbuckers - designed to vaguely mimic the appearance of early/mid-50's New York Epi pickups - which would eventually find their way to a number of highly successful Gibson models...

As regards "economy," FYI several Epiphones were in fact priced higher than their Gibson counterparts, often possessing unique and idiosyncratic features that made them desirable in their own right (a small cadre of savvy jazz soloists prefer Epiphone hollow-bodies for their deeper cutaways): the Sheraton came in above the Gibson ES-355 (in spite of the former's mono-only wiring), and the aforermentioned Emperor Thinline (made in extremely small numbers and most often associated with Carl Perkins) listed at over $1K when it was discontinued in 1964 - only the Gibson Super 400CES and Gretsch White Falcon Project-o-Sonic were comparable in price or prestige. When the guitar boom went bust in the late-60's Epiphone production was moved to Japan, and except for a few limited-production model runs Epis have been made by a number of Pac-Rim companies ever since. FWIW I've owned examples from all three eras - New York, Kalamazoo, and Pac-Rim - and played countless others in the last 50+ years; while certain production is to be avoided - 1955-57 (the last of the New Yorkers, and so bad that Gibson destroyed most of the work-in-progress rather than risk their reputation) and 1970-80 (the first wave of MIJ production, and their present rarity in the used market attests to their unpopularity even in their day) - they've always been among the best-constructed instruments in their respective price brackets, and in that regard they've succeeded in keeping the tradition alive in their current lineup...

I'm strictly a Gibson guy when it comes to electrics. I don't understand Gibson's marketing. I mean is Epiphone the economy line or not?

They have Gibson Les Pauls, Les Paul studios, Les Paul juniors and les Paul Specials. They have Epiphone Les Pauls, Les Paul studios, Les Paul juniors and Les Paul Specials.

(and a ton of various models of all of these and everything in between)

if Epiphone is the economy brand, why do they sell a cheaper Gibson Les Paul special or junior or Jr?

Thanks for the clarification Steve. I didn't realize that the Kalamazoo Epis were equal to Gibsons. Sounds like the economy line took a while to become so.

Probably because there are buyers who just must own a "Gibson."

Me, my first guitar was an Epiphone Casino, back in 1965 or so. I have no problems owning an Epiphone!

It's been my experience that Epiphone line is perfectly acceptable on up to a professional level. Your Epi Les Paul will sound better if you swap out the pickups but as far as playability they are typically spot on. The pickups are still okay though so it's a great guitar to buy and play right out of the box and then one day you may choose to do an upgrade on the electronics.

Fazool wrote:
Sachi replied:
+1. I think some people want the Gibson logo and they want the Made in USA stamp.