Les Pauls - does it really need to be a gibson?

[mout]

No.

ESPs are my favorites.

[chadd]

In theory, anyone can make a guitar to the same specs and have it be great. In reality, very few will put in the time and quality of materials to do the design justice. Gibson also ships with much better pickups than any of the copiers out there. I just haven't played any non Gibson as nice as my Les Pauls. Then again, I've played a lot of Gibsons that weren't as good as my Les Pauls.

[JTEES4]

Legally speaking it can be either Gibson or Epiphone....period. Any other guitar can only be Les Paul like regardless of what it is.

[notjonahbutnoah]

While I realize that there are many who can build as good, if not better Les Pauls than Gibson, the fact of the matter is that the Gibson will hold it's value far better than anything else. Ten years down the road, you might not be an LP guy anymore and you'll wanna sell it.

 

I can't see myself ever buying a non Gibson LP, for this reason alone.

 

On a lighter note... I want one that says LES PAUL, not Love Rock or Lemon Drop... I can't help it, it matters to me.

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

 

While I realize that there are many who can build as good, if not better Les Pauls than Gibson, the fact of the matter is that the Gibson will hold it's value far better than anything else. Ten years down the road, you might not be an LP guy anymore and you'll wanna sell it.

 

 

That'll be why guys actually make a decent living buying MIJ LPs and selling em on at silly profits. Post a 3 year old Gibson LP Std these days on EBay and you can barely sell them for 60% of their retail price, while some Edwards LPs are selling at 100-120% of their original MRP

[RaVenCAD]

Here are my two cents:

In order for a guitar to be considered a "Les Paul", it has to say either Gibson or Epiphone on the headstock. Anything else is not a Les Paul. It's a Les Paul style, but it's not a Les Paul. Gibson owns the Les Paul name and the rights to market it. Anything and everything else, regardless of relative quality, is not a Les Paul. It's simply a single cut design. That goes for the cheap crap imports and the premium USA made 10-tops equally.

[notjonahbutnoah]

 

That'll be why guys actually make a decent living buying MIJ LPs and selling em on at silly profits. Post a 3 year old Gibson LP Std these days on EBay and you can barely sell them for 60% of their retail price, while some Edwards LPs are selling at 100-120% of their original MRP

 

 

Yeah, there is that one pickle. Heh, and funnily enough, I may, one day, grab up an old black Japanese Custom... but it's not on the agenda any time soon.

 

Personally, my goal would be to stick with Gibson, but the old Japanese ones are as far as I would ever stray, and again, I don't plan to. I will say that my one experience with Japanese guitars is an all out grand slam (Charvel So Cal Style 1 2H).

[timmyfirst]

The other guitarist in my band has one of the top end Tokai Les Paul Customs, its a an absolute belter. Its certainly nicer feeling and sounding than most Gibsons i've played in the last few years!

[Verne Andru]

RC - I don't believe Gibson can claim ownership on the "Les Paul" name. It's the name of a person and that would mean nobody else could be named that. Same with Lloyd Loar. Copyright extends to the creation of "something" and trademarks to the visual presentation of something.

My LP-style set me back a whopping $25. Swapped electronics out and did a setup. A few months after I got it I was in a music store and picked up a $4000 Gibson. Felt identical. What's the difference? $3975 and some silkscreening on the headstock IMHO.



But if you are set on having "Gibson" on the headstock, then nothing else will likely do.

[DavidMgT]

I should also add, that while I love my Gibson Les Paul R8, I also have a Hamer Studio Custom that is a better guitar in just about every conceivable way.

[soliloquy]

Nitro is pretty easy to find on MIJ copies. A few even do oil finishes.

 

 

i keep hearing two different things about japanese guitars.

some say that japanese guitars DO have nitro, however, they first have a poly finish, then they throw nitro over it.

 

while others say that its just pure nitro.

 

and some even say that they only use poly...

 

what does edwards use?

[Ratae Corieltauvorum]

 

what does edwards use?

 

 

Nitro over poly

[Wyatt]

 

i keep hearing two different things about japanese guitars. some say that japanese guitars DO have nitro, however, they first have a poly finish, then they throw nitro over it. while others say that its just pure nitro. and some even say that they only use poly... what does edwards use?

 

 

Ratae's right, the Edwards LT series means Lacquer Top, poly color coat, nitro clear coat. Otherwise it's poly.

 

As for the rest it depends.

 

Tokai uses all nitro on their top of the line guitars LS150, LS180, LS200, etc. These guitars typically sell for over $2K and really are built with a similar attention to detail as the Gibson's CS guitars (just without things like fake bumble-bee caps). But the LS100 and lower are generally all poly.

 

IIRC, Burny and Fernandes are poly.

 

Bacchus Handmade uses an oil finish.

[danswon]

a few friends of mine have Epi Les Paul Standards which sound and play fantastic. (although they have mostly fitted Duncans and Gibson pickups)

[Guitar Heel]

 

I don't believe Gibson can claim ownership on the "Les Paul" name.

 

 

No

 

That said, the name on the headstock has little to do with quality, as it is a legal concept. There's tons of good LP style guitars that don't read "Gibson" on the headstock, as has been mentioned a lot in this thread.

[crohny]

there are copies out there just as good as gibson. i have a prestige heritage standard and i LOVE that guitar. ive played some higher end usa shop gibsons and a few custom shops. all where amazing, but i refuse to pay the prices they go for new. i have a gibson 60s tribute that is an awesome guitar for the money. sooner or later ill own a gibson lp or a top notch copy. i dont care who makes as long as it sounds good and plays good. HOWEVER i played an original 58-59 lp that i have yet to be topped by any other lp/lp copy ive played. nothing sounds as good as that guitar.

[soliloquy]

yeah, in that case i might as well stick to gibson as for their hundred dollar or less guitars still get me a nitro finish. i care more about the feel than the sound (i know, weird...) but if i can get that feel out of a 1000 dollar guitar, then why spend it on a 2000 dollar guitar EVEN if its better than a 3000 dollar gibson?

 

as for burny and greco, i only find REALLY old japanese ones on the bay, or new chinese ones. the old ones are a bit too old and would require fret job or new frets soon ( i have acidic sweat i think :S) and the new chinese ones are poly finished...so again, not exactly what i'm looking for

[Steadfastly]

While I realize that there are many who can build as good, if not better Les Pauls than Gibson, the fact of the matter is that the Gibson will hold it's value far better than anything else. Ten years down the road, you might not be an LP guy anymore and you'll wanna sell it. I can't see myself ever buying a non Gibson LP, for this reason alone. On a lighter note... I want one that says LES PAUL, not Love Rock or Lemon Drop... I can't help it, it matters to me.

How about Vicks VapoRub? I have a cold and that one immediately came to mind.

[Steadfastly]

 

Here are my two cents: In order for a guitar to be considered a "Les Paul", it has to say either Gibson or Epiphone on the headstock. Anything else is not a Les Paul. It's a Les Paul style, but it's not a Les Paul. Gibson owns the Les Paul name and the rights to market it. Anything and everything else, regardless of relative quality, is not a Les Paul. It's simply a single cut design. That goes for the cheap crap imports and the premium USA made 10-tops equally.

 

 

I don't agree. If I build a guitar and put Les Paul on the head stock, it will be a Les Paul; if I put Less Paul on the head stock it will be a "Less Paul" and if I put More Paul on the head stock it will be.................yes, that's right, a "More Paul".

[soliloquy]

 

I don't agree. If I build a guitar and put Les Paul on the head stock, it will be a Les Paul; if I put Less Paul on the head stock it will be a "Less Paul" and if I put More Paul on the head stock it will be.................yes, that's right, a "More Paul".

 

 

i think his point is that if the guitar isn't made by gibson and epiphone with either 'gibson' or 'epiphone' saying on the headstock (so no ghost building), then that qualifies it as a les paul and nothing else will ever say it is a les paul or even be a les paul...

[soundcreation]

 

i keep hearing two different things about japanese guitars. some say that japanese guitars DO have nitro, however, they first have a poly finish, then they throw nitro over it. while others say that its just pure nitro. and some even say that they only use poly... what does edwards use?

 

 

as others have said..it varies greatly. Generally it's like this...low end are poly...mid to upper mid nitro over poly sealer, and at the high end full nitro....but even then there are exceptions....some of the top line ones do nitro over a poly sealer, and some of the early 80's mid range can be full nitro.

 

Basically being into MIJ means doing A LOT of homework...lol....

[_pete_]

Here are my two cents: In order for a guitar to be considered a "Les Paul", it has to say either Gibson or Epiphone on the headstock.

 

Or if it says "Orville" or "Orville by Gibson".

The Japanese built Orvilles were commissioned by Gibson and have just as much right to the name.

 

Mine (I have added a "Les Paul Custom' truss cover since this pic was taken.)

 

[Guitar Heel]

correct. Great guitars too.

[Bbreaker]

Unless it's made by Gibson, you can't call it a Les Paul.

[Verne Andru]

No That said, the name on the headstock has little to do with quality, as it is a legal concept. There's tons of good LP style guitars that don't read "Gibson" on the headstock, as has been mentioned a lot in this thread.

 

 

Hmm, if you're saying Gibson has a claim to exclusive use of the term "Les Paul" are you saying this under copyright or trademark law?

 

There could be an argument made respecting "trade dress" if the guitar is exactly the same and the way the name is used and the font style is identical, but otherwise I'm not aware of any legal convention that lets anybody "own" words - which is what the term "Les Paul" is. It's not even his real name!