ShortScale.org

This is the internet equivalent of thinking aloud, really. Although my Sheraton's pretty enough and playable enough for it to be a keeper, I love the look and smaller body size of the 339s. And now they come with soapbars instead of double coils.

I only use my Mustang when I want to do an overdub or simply have a break from my JM, so I'm half-inclined to stick that on the classifieds. The thing is, you can get P90-sized double coils and JM-style pups these days, so a pickup swap further down the line isn't a big deal either.

I must say I'm tempted. Argh.

I mentioned this in another thread, but I wouldn't buy an Epi 339, personally. IMO even a Dot is a nicer guitar. Aside from the body size, they look and feel just like any other cheap-o 335 copy out there. Nothing stands out about them at all. They should cost half what they do, but there's no way they'd be sold for that cheap, so you're paying for brand recognition.

Dillon wrote:I mentioned this in another thread, but I wouldn't buy an Epi 339, personally. IMO even a Dot is a nicer guitar. Aside from the body size, they look and feel just like any other cheap-o 335 copy out there. Nothing stands out about them at all. They should cost half what they do, but there's no way they'd be sold for that cheap, so you're paying for brand recognition.

I have to disagree on that I'm afraid. Those statements would apply more to Gibsons in my experience, which can be just as inconsistent in terms of quality control, and ARE overpriced for what they are.

I don't get the "Epis are cheap shit" argument to be perfectly honest. As much as I'd like to splurge a four figure sum on an archtop, realistically not all of us can do that. To me, Epis are the Gibbie equivalent to Squiers: not as good in a direct side-by-side comparison with their upmarket equivalents, but an appealing option as far as a backup/live instrument is concerned.

A lot of people did notice a drop off in quality when they shifted production from Korea to China and to others it doesn't make any difference. The made in Japan Epiphones that you rarely see over here are also quite good.

I personally didn't like the main feature of modern epiphones slim taper d profile neck on my Wilshire. It is wide an thin, apart from scaring flexibility after playing bar chords for long period of time my fretting hand always cramped. It caused some unpleasant symptoms in my hand and I even started to think about carpal syndrome. Further more D profile with its shoulders is totally uncomfortable to play with your thumb on the low E string, at least for me. If they had 59 profile that is for me a perfect neck I would try one.

Concretebadger wrote:

Dillon wrote:I mentioned this in another thread, but I wouldn't buy an Epi 339, personally. IMO even a Dot is a nicer guitar. Aside from the body size, they look and feel just like any other cheap-o 335 copy out there. Nothing stands out about them at all. They should cost half what they do, but there's no way they'd be sold for that cheap, so you're paying for brand recognition.

I have to disagree on that I'm afraid. Those statements would apply more to Gibsons in my experience, which can be just as inconsistent in terms of quality control, and ARE overpriced for what they are.

I don't get the "Epis are cheap shit" argument to be perfectly honest. As much as I'd like to splurge a four figure sum on an archtop, realistically not all of us can do that. To me, Epis are the Gibbie equivalent to Squiers: not as good in a direct side-by-side comparison with their upmarket equivalents, but an appealing option as far as a backup/live instrument is concerned.

Hmmm? I didn't mean to say that Epi is cheap shit. I had an SG G400 that I paid $150 for and really liked. Gibson is indeed overpriced. It's just that the 339 in specific is not worth the price to me. It's not about quality though, it's about the feeling of it: Generic. Like an off-brand. Feels no different than any of the other, cheaper copies (Jay Turser and Washburn come to mind). Squier, at least, feels and sounds a cut above those kinds of copies. That's all I meant. No doubt they are capable players, especially with some upgrades. But if it doesn't inspire me to play, I'm not buying it.

Any QC issues aside---both brands have had their problems---here's what it boils down to for me:

Epiphone 339 has cheap-looking binding and inlay. It has chrome hardware, mediocre pickups, and cheap electronics. It has an incredibly thick finish, as if it were dipped in plastic. The frets don't feel right to me, either; they're some weird size. I pick it up and think, huh, well this is interesting, but it's nothing special. I would spend $2-300 extra on it just to upgrade it.

Gibson 339 has nicer binding (but still cheap-looking to me) and pearl inlay. It has nickel hardware, a TonePros bridge / tailpiece, Gibson pickups (love 'em or hate 'em), CTS pots, and Kluson tuners. Typical of a good nitro finish, it shines like glass and feels "thin" and smooth, yet it's durable. I pick it up and think, damn, this is a quality instrument.

Would I pay $2600 for a brand new Gibson? Hell no. But I would sure save up for a used one, because even though that's still 3x the price of the Epiphone, I would pay that premium for a guitar that feels like something I want to pass down to my children some day. All a matter of personal preference