I recently had the opportunity to undertake a side by side comparison
of my genuine 2004 Gibson Les Paul with a friend's Epiphone Les Paul.
This page identifies the surprising numbers of differences in design and
manufacture between the two instruments, and the effects this has on the
playability and sound the two guitars make.
Gibson is the original manufacturer of Les Paul style guitars, but they
are related to Epiphone, who make less expensive versions of the same
designs. This page examines how close a match the Epiphone is for the
Gibson and should help prospective buyers who have their hearts set on
a Les Paul decide which version to go for.
Materials and construction
The Gibson's body is one solid piece of mahogany with a maple top. The Epiphone's
body is made up of several pieces of wood (type unknown) glued together. You
can clearly see this on the reverse of the body.
The body on the Gibson is about half centimeter thicker than the Epiphone.
You can feel this in the weight difference between the two guitars. The Epiphone
weights about 80% of the total weight of the Gibson. (That's an estimation,
not scientific.) The corners on the reverse of the Epiphone are much more rounded
than on the Gibson. This makes it marginally more comfortable to play.
 
Epiphone on the left, Gibson on the right
|
Both guitars have a separate top . The book matching and clarity of the
grain on the Gibson is far better than on the Epiphone. It really glows
on the Gibson, and is much more beautiful. On the Epiphone the top is much
thinner, and possibly only a veneer. You can tell it is thicker on the Gibson,
because in the cutaway you can see where maple top extends below the line
of the binding and joins the mahogany. (This is the only place on the guitar
you can see this.) On the Epiphone, you can't see this join, so the top
must be thinner. This possibly accounts for the slightly murkier tone on
the Epiphone. Mahogany is a darker, warmer sounding wood, and the maple
is a much harder, trebly wood. The mahogany body and maple top combination
is designed to give the warmth, but also the ringing clear trebles. With
a thinner maple top, you would lose some of that clarity.
The head stock on the Epiphone is a separate piece of wood to the neck. You
see the join at around the 3rd fret if you look closely. On the Gibson, the
head stock and neck is all one piece. (bad for rain forests, good for sustain.)
 
Notice how on the Epiphone, the machines are not in a straight line.
|
Head stock
There are numerous differences in the head stock. Firstly, and most obviously,
the shape of the top is clearly different, and this is what helps distinguish
an Epiphone from a Gibson from miles off.
The machine heads on the gibson are marked "GIBSON DELUXE", whereas
they are not on the Epiphone, although the design is otherwise very similar.
On the Gibson, the machines are all perfectly in line down each side. On the
Epiphone they are not. This seems to be necessary because the shape of the sides
of the headstock on the Epiphone are more curved than on the Gibson.
On the reverse of the headstock, the Gibson has the serial number and MADE
IN USA branded into the wood. On the Epiphone, the serial number and MADE IN
KOREA are decals that have been lacquered over.
Neck
The inlays on the Gibson are mother of pearl. On the Epiphone they are
some sort of silvery plastic. The neck on the Gibson is the 50's style rounded
neck, whereas the Epiphone is only available with the thinner 60's style
neck. The frets and finger board are otherwise similar.
The shape of the heel is different. On the Gibson, the transition between
the neck and the neck-joint starts slightly earlier, and has a more rounded
profile. On the Epiphone, the profile of the curve is slightly flatter and
straighter. This may be just because of the differences in the the necks
thicknesses on the two guitars compared. This makes the upper fret access
marginally easier on the Epiphone, but upper fret access is tricky at the
best of times on a Les Paul. You can see this in the pictures below.
 
Epiphone on the left, Gibson on the right. Notice the different shapes to the heel.
|
Hardware
Bridge and tailpiece
The bridge is the same design on both, but very close inspection reveals that
finish of the chroming is slightly lower quality on the Epiphone. More importantly,
when I took all the strings off the Epiphone, all the components on the bridge
were very wobbly and imprecise. This is going to have a very detrimental effect
to the tone. When I took the strings off the Gibson, everything still felt tight
and well machined, even without the tension of the strings holding it all together.
The bolts that hold the tail piece down on the Gibson are engineered
so that when they are fully tightened, the screwdriver slots across
the top both run in the same direction, along the line of the bridge.
On the Epiphone, the screwdriver slots both point in different directions,
and don't line up with anything. It is the details in the construction
like this that sets the Gibson apart from the Epiphone.
Pickups
These look the same. The plastic surrounds are a bit thinner and wobbly on
the Epiphone whereas on the Gibson they are solid. They sound pretty similar,
but the output on the Gibson pickups is much higher. It is difficult to judge
the pickups in isolation with all the other differences affecting the tone however.
Selector switch
On the Gibson, the TREBLE and RYTHUM labels are gold, to match
the sunburst. On the Epiphone, they are black.
Pots
The volume and tone pots on the Gibson are more more effective, and far more
linear than than on the Epiphone, where they have a certain "all or nothing"
feel to them.
Summary
The Gibson is obviously better, but is it really worth about £1000
difference? Overall, the quality of the finish, workmanship and materials
on the Gibson is far higher. Apart from the making the Gibson prettier to
look at, the main difference is in the tone and sustain which is what really
matters. Both guitars were re strung with the same stings (Gibson Les Paul
10-46's. In my opinion the best for this guitar.) and set up, and played
unplugged. The differences in tone was very noticeable, with the Gibson
having much more clarity, definition, and sustained about 50% longer when
an open chord was played. This differences are very significant and noticeable
when you audition the two instruments side by side.
I was not able to find any real discernable differences in the playability
between the two guitars apart from the amount of sustain available. The sustain
on the Epiphone really suffers on the high notes where the sounds drops out dramatically. The geometry and set up
were virtually identical. If there was any difference, the intonation towards
the top of the neck on the Epiphone was slightly worse, but not baldy worse.
This could probably be fixed with a professional set up. I expected the
finish of the finger board and frets to be poor on the Epiphone, but it
was fine, and comparable with the Gibson.
The Gibson is without doubt the superior guitar, but the Epiphone
is still
very good, and excellent value for money. If you've got the money,
are really
passionate about guitars, want to own a timeless classic that will
never
de-value if you look after it, and want a guitar to record with or
gig regularly,
get the Gibson. If you are starting out, and want a practice
guitar or a
back-up, get the Epiphone. Go to your local music shop and try
them both out. If you can't tell the difference, get the Epiphone. You
would not be disappointed with either. You
could drastically improve the Epiphone with a professional set up,
and replacing
the pickups with something a bit more firey. Making these
conversions to
the Epiphone would leave you with a very fine guitar, and be much
less expensive
than investing in the Gibson. But it would always be a copy of the
real
thing. Have you ever seen a picture of Slash playing an Epiphone
Les Paul?
Didn't think so.
