Les Paul VS. Rip-off Les Paul

I bought a Samick Avion AV-1 a while ago, because I wanted something a) cheap b) with humbuckers c) that resembled a Les Paul. It's a pretty good guitar, but when I'm ready to upgrade I'm wondering is it worth it to go for the Gibson Les Paul, or is better for the money to get the Epiphone or another Samick? Or is there another brand that makes good, reliable, reasonably priced Les Paul ripoffs?

Well if your going to go for an Epiphone you must go for an Elite because the regular Epiphones suck ass. And, if your gonna go for an Elite you might as well go for the real deal. I went this route and I am extremely happy with my Les Paul Classic.

When I had my other LP's my Tele was still my main guitar. Now the LPC is my main stage and recording guitar. The tele is there for stuff with vibrato or thinner-sounding-stuff.

My buddys got a Gretsch (however thats spelled) and is in the process of replacing all the hardware with Gold and quality Gibson pickups. Ive asked a few "experts" at guitar shops about it and the only difference when hes done between that and a REAL Les Paul is the wood in the body. Costs a few hundred in hardware and pickups , but it IS beautiful now. Sounds great too. THe Gretsch is a 70s model he got from his father, used to suck .

i mean, go for the real deal. I was gana buy some knock-off strat, like something called austin....i was kinda low on cash, but then i found an amazing used strat, so hey, if you've got the cash, go for the gibson. I've heard people play les pauls(though i never have,i kind of, not really just kinda of...haha, want to) i played this knock-off, austin or arbor or something and i was like AHHH!!!so, if you really have to go for an lp...lol, go for the real deal

I wouldn't call guitars other than a Les Paul "rip-offs". The LP is a solid-body version of traditional acoustic guitar design going back more than 100 years.

As for which is a better buy, you might find >this thread< interesting. I now have two black 1984 SBG1000 guitars and I still find Gibsons disappointing.

I've got an Encore Les Paul copy that I bought about 10 years ago for £90. I put a good Dimarzio pickup in the bridge position and I can honestly say I still think it's fantastic. Plug it into any valve amp and it sounds excellent.

You could just cut yourself a decent shaped body from mahogany or something and put all your components in it. It'd sound pretty sweet.

Everyone will tell you the older Gibsons are way better than the new ones and they are right. Mines a '76 and I think it's the best guitar I've ever played (biased statement). However I also have an Epiphone LP I got a couple years ago and it's great too. I guess it all boils down to personal taste. Lats likes his Yamahas. Ponyone likes his Gretsch. I like my Gibson. Pogo likes his Encore. I guess you just have to find the one you like.

Originally Posted by: LordathestringsI wouldn't call guitars other than a Les Paul "rip-offs". The LP is a solid-body version of traditional acoustic guitar design going back more than 100 years.

Les Pauls were however the original for the electric guitar design, and thus any electric guitar coming after it and using the same design are just ripping off the LP. Would you say that all those Strat knock offs are original designs?

Originally Posted by: acapella rapemeLes Pauls were however the original for the electric guitar design, and thus any electric guitar coming after it and using the same design are just ripping off the LP. [/QUOTE]
Not even close. Solid-body guitars were developed as a response to the feedback problem players were having with their hollow-body guitars, which started out as acoustics with pickups installed in them. Les Paul did not invent solid-body guitars any more than Eddie Van Halen invented tapping.

[QUOTE=acapella rapeme]Would you say that all those Strat knock offs are original designs?

Leo Fender's designs were quite original. Not entirely unique, but much closer to a blank-page fresh approach than anything Gibson was doing at the time. His designs were based on using simple production techniques to make them easier (and therefore less expensive) to build. He also put a lot of effort into getting advice from working professionals on how to make the instruments more comfortable to play. These days, that part of design is called ergonomics - in his day, it was called common sense. Other groups were pusuing similar goals, although in different ways. Bigsby and Danelectro were two of them. So "all those Strat knock offs" are not entirely original designs, but then not many things are. Leo Fender added a lot of his own ideas to what had been done previously, and others have since added their ideas to his work. More examples of our current heroes "standing on the shoulders of giants".

And so it will be 'til the end of time.

personally I think most solid body guitars are in some way copied from strats, les pauls and flying v's. you can see the similarities in most guitar bodies these days (theres a few vox guitars that are a bit different but not a hell of a lot more)

I dont think all guitars are based on Les Pauls and strats really. If I am correct, Rickenbacker made the first commercially available electric, with Fender making the first mass produced solid body, being the broadcaster, now called telecaster.
There are many many different designs and influences, Paul Reed Smith's guitars are very heavily influenced by old Les Paul Juniors (which are very different to Lp Standards)...

However, it is true that the guitar producing world has been split into two worlds, largely because of the Lp and Strat...so I guess you could say any 2humbucker guitar ( with a set neck, often mahogany) is influenced by the Les Paul, whilst any guitar with a bolt on neck is influenced by the strat...but they are usually just influenced by...not knock offs, if you get what I am saying

I actually kinda shot myself in the foot there because i completely forgot explorers and the entire bc rich back catalogue :rolleyes:

I have found that it doesn't really matter how much a guitar costs in reference to how it feels in your hands.I've played guitars costing in the thousands as well as those costing in the low hundreds,and found the cheaper more comfortable at times simply cause of the neck shape,body to string height etc.Personally,I think the idea of a mix and match guitar is best.For example,if you like the feel of a narrow neck(jackson,ibanezetc)but want a strat body,prefer humbucker sound over single,tremolo or non,then go buy the parts that make up the perfect setup for ya.If you cant put it together yourself,get a pro to do it.This way,you get
the best of all worlds! Northwind

There seems to be a great deal of confusion about my "original design" comment. I am NOT saying that the LP was the original electric guitar, or that Strats ripped off the LP, or Gibson invented solid-bodies or anything like that. What I AM saying is that the Les Paul was an original design, and since it came out its been copied many times. That is ALL I was saying.

Originally Posted by: acapella rapeme... What I AM saying is that the Les Paul was an original design ...

It was a fairly obvious evolution of traditional acoustic guitar design, including traditional construction techniques. And it was contemporary with several other designs that were very similar. For example, research some early Bigsby designs.

The Gibson Les Paul is basically a 'signature series' guitar. Les Paul was a big part in developing it along with the staff at Gibson, but it was not a ground-breaking, "original" design. The guitar that bears his name was a matter of recognising a popular and highly-skilled player, much like the Steve Vai JEM series, or the EVH Peaveys, or the Nuno Bettencourt and Dimebag Darryl Washburns.

The man's rightful reputation as a pioneer is based on his work in multi-track recording technology. That was something truly original, and it changed the course of musical history.

I aint argueing with you LATS. I think the fellow is just saying that a lot of different companies make a Les Paul style guitar. With a variety of quality.

Originally Posted by: magicninjaI aint argueing with you LATS. I think the fellow is just saying that a lot of different companies make a Les Paul style guitar. With a variety of quality.

THANK YOU!!! That is exactly what I'm trying to get across here! So if we could get over this and try to answer my question instead of just insulting my lack of perfect explanation, that would be great.

The first 7 replies did answer your first question. Then you started another line of thought in post #9.

I Still like my answer. Lats is right btw. He's just saying even the origional Gibson LP was a rip off hence all are. Don't worry about it LATS will destroy all at guitar history. I tend to take his word as gospel.

Originally Posted by: magicninjaEveryone will tell you the older Gibsons are way better than the new ones and they are right. Mines a '76 and I think it's the best guitar I've ever played (biased statement). However I also have an Epiphone LP I got a couple years ago and it's great too. I guess it all boils down to personal taste. Lats likes his Yamahas. Ponyone likes his Gretsch. I like my Gibson. Pogo likes his Encore. I guess you just have to find the one you like.