#2
if someone was offering them to me i'd take the gibson studio, sell it on ebay, but an epi lp custom, and put the change in to my bank
#3
I'd go with the Gibby. The Studios are great guitars. They're pretty much a Standard without the frilly stuff.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#4
Are we talking about the Epiphone Elitist Les Paul Custom, or just the normal Les Paul Custom.

I'd definitely take the Elitist over the Gibson.
Recognized by the Official EG/GG&A Who To Listen To List 2008
Quote by utsapp89
^I'd let a pro look at it. Once you get into the technicalities of screws...well, it's just a place you don't want to be, friend.
#5
Quote by FacingUsAll
Are we talking about the Epiphone Elitist Les Paul Custom, or just the normal Les Paul Custom.

I'd definitely take the Elitist over the Gibson.

Or a Elitist Standard Plus over the Studio (which is what I really did)
#7
The Epi, without a doubt. Even if it was just the regular, non-Elitist Epi Custom, it'd still be better than the ****ty Gibson Studios.
#8
Quote by bokuho
The Epi, without a doubt. Even if it was just the regular, non-Elitist Epi Custom, it'd still be better than the ****ty Gibson Studios.


they can't be ****ty!! even if they were made from plywood they would still be good. the GIBSON on the headstock makes them the best guitars in the world!
#9
Quote by bokuho
The Epi, without a doubt. Even if it was just the regular, non-Elitist Epi Custom, it'd still be better than the ****ty Gibson Studios.

How are studios shitty?
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#10
Quote by piefaceFX
they can't be ****ty!! even if they were made from plywood they would still be good. the GIBSON on the headstock makes them the best guitars in the world!

He probably has never played one thats been set up decently and has had the tuners switched from the plastic ones to real ones.
#12
Quote by hitl
i mean a regular custom epi


i thought you meant elitist... then the gibson without a doubt
#13
Quote by just17n8
i thought you meant elitist... then the gibson without a doubt

yup but the gibson is also x2 the cost of the epi
#14
I had the alpine white Epiphone LP Custom. After playing it for a few days, I had regretted that I had not bought the studio. I returned it and paid the difference. I was so much happier with the studio. In my opinion, you'd be happier knowing you have the studio, but thats only my opinion.
Guitars
1998 Gibson Les Paul Standard
1992 Ibanez RG550
Amplifier
1978 Marshall JMP 2203
#15
Quote by Jaz969
yup but the gibson is also x2 the cost of the epi

yeah and the gibson is als 2x the guitar

get the ****ing gibson dont even debate over it... those epiphones suck balls, i had one people just bitch about gibsons being ****ty and decide to be epiphone nutswingers because theyre too broke to shell out the money for a gibson so take that into consideration


.... and once you get a gibson you will experience a very unique sense of satisfaction that ONLY gibson owners understand... you will feel alot better knowing you bought the better guitar... trust me
2008 M.I.A. HSS Strat
Marshall JCM 900 50w Dual Reverb
#16
Quote by piefaceFX
they can't be ****ty!! even if they were made from plywood they would still be good. the GIBSON on the headstock makes them the best guitars in the world!
I... I hope you're just trying to take the piss (and failing)


Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
How are studios shitty?
Must this be gone over yet again? It's posted in virtually every thread that mentions them:

- inferior wood
- inferior wiring and pots
- inferior hardware
- inferior construction
Are just some of the problems with Studio models.


Please people, don't be so naive. There is a reason why they're so much cheaper than Standards, and it isn't just because they took off the binding. You're paying half the cost of a Standard, and guess what, you're getting half the quality too.

Quote by Jaz969
He probably has never played one thats been set up decently and has had the tuners switched from the plastic ones to real ones.
I've owned two Studios and one Faded, which is the same build as the Studio. All three blew, hugely. I currently own two Classics (one regular, one Antique), and a Standard. I also own an Elitist, a couple of production Epis, among other unrelated guitars - I know what I'm talking about.

Quote by LPstudioWRz28
.... and once you get a gibson you will experience a very unique sense of satisfaction that ONLY gibson owners understand... you will feel alot better knowing you bought the better guitar... trust me
You're lucky though; you have a '93 Studio. The early and mid-90's Studios were superb guitars, which really were exactly the same as Standards just without the 'flash'. The new Studios though, which are what's being questioned here, suck. The quality in them has dropped substantially since the 90's, and they're no longer worth buying. The idea that people would use them for studio use is a joke - the new Studios are tonally vapid, and would never be used for recording. The only thing the new ones are good for are providing a cheap way for people to say "look at me, I've got a Gibson, awesome!".

If you want quality now, you have to either get at least a Standard, or an Epi Elitist. At least Elitists don't use ****ing offcuts in their bodies.
#19
Quote by bokuho


You're lucky though; you have a '93 Studio. The early and mid-90's Studios were superb guitars, which really were exactly the same as Standards just without the 'flash'. The new Studios though, which are what's being questioned here, suck. The quality in them has dropped substantially since the 90's, and they're no longer worth buying. The idea that people would use them for studio use is a joke - the new Studios are tonally vapid, and would never be used for recording. The only thing the new ones are good for are providing a cheap way for people to say "look at me, I've got a Gibson, awesome!".

If you want quality now, you have to either get at least a Standard, or an Epi Elitist. At least Elitists don't use ****ing offcuts in their bodies.


What an ignorant and useless post. FYI - the Studio, Classic, and Standard are all weight-relieved.
#20
I had two Epi's over the years, mainly because they were cheap and I had very little money. They were great "value for money" guitars... but not great guitars. Now I have money I have a couple of Gibsons, one of which is a Studio and I personally wouldn't swap it for 10 Epi's.
Gibson Les Paul Studio
Gibson DC Pro Custom shop
Fender American Stratocaster - Vintage custom
Fender Squier Strat
Fender Standard Telecaster
#21
Quote by piefaceFX
they can't be ****ty!! even if they were made from plywood they would still be good. the GIBSON on the headstock makes them the best guitars in the world!


so if i got a marker and wrote gibson on my mates samick strat copy. itll be good? i kid i kid.
#22
Quote by bokuho
I... I hope you're just trying to take the piss (and failing)


Must this be gone over yet again? It's posted in virtually every thread that mentions them:

- inferior wood
- inferior wiring and pots
- inferior hardware
- inferior construction

Are just some of the problems with Studio models.


Please people, don't be so naive. There is a reason why they're so much cheaper than Standards, and it isn't just because they took off the binding. You're paying half the cost of a Standard, and guess what, you're getting half the quality too.

I've owned two Studios and one Faded, which is the same build as the Studio. All three blew, hugely. I currently own two Classics (one regular, one Antique), and a Standard. I also own an Elitist, a couple of production Epis, among other unrelated guitars - I know what I'm talking about.

You're lucky though; you have a '93 Studio. The early and mid-90's Studios were superb guitars, which really were exactly the same as Standards just without the 'flash'. The new Studios though, which are what's being questioned here, suck. The quality in them has dropped substantially since the 90's, and they're no longer worth buying. The idea that people would use them for studio use is a joke - the new Studios are tonally vapid, and would never be used for recording. The only thing the new ones are good for are providing a cheap way for people to say "look at me, I've got a Gibson, awesome!".

If you want quality now, you have to either get at least a Standard, or an Epi Elitist. At least Elitists don't use ****ing offcuts in their bodies.


Don't give me that bollocks! I highly doubt the woods are drastically 'inferior' compared to the Standards. This whole Gibson 'quality' thing gets blown out of proportion too. Of course the quality is going to drop. Gibson has to keep up with supply and demand. They can't hand make all of the instruments because the demand for Gibson guitars in overwhelming. So what if off cuts are used and they aren't 'what they used to be'? They still play good, they still sound good and that's really all that matters.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#23
The only difference between gibsons and epis are the pickups. the epis are great guitars, i own one and love it.
#24
hmm nah.they have diffrent woods, necks, tuners


i like my epi too
#25
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
They still play good, they still sound good and that's really all that matters.
Evidently you've never played a new Studio against a Standard. The difference is huge. If you define a Studio as 'good', than either you have very low expectations, you don't know your arse from your elbow, or you're deaf.

Quote by Scream And Fly
What an ignorant and useless post. FYI - the Studio, Classic, and Standard are all weight-relieved.
I never even mentioned the weight-relieving at all.

So well done. Go back to school and learn how to read, please.
#26
Quote by bokuho
Evidently you've never played a new Studio against a Standard. The difference is huge. If you define a Studio as 'good', than either you have very low expectations, you don't know your arse from your elbow, or you're deaf.

I never even mentioned the weight-relieving at all.

So well done. Go back to school and learn how to read, please.


Yes, yes I have actually. I've owned a new Standard too as well as played new Studios. Sure, they sound a bit different but if you dropped burstbuckers in it, it would sound fairly similar.

I think you just have your head stuck too far up your ass.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#27
Quote by k00kie M0nster
The only difference between gibsons and epis are the pickups. the epis are great guitars, i own one and love it.


You're very, very wrong.

And you'd be stupid to not get the Studio. **** all the elitist **** about wood, maybe a Standard Gibson has some thicker Mahogany or something, but it's not different enough to be worth comparing. A Studio comes with an SG pickups, which you could change. The Standard is slightly better quality than a Studio in terms of construction, it's true. A Standard brings up the quality, but very little. You get what you pay for, but the Studio's a pretty great buy.
#28
Every 'Studio' I've played ended up being pretty darn good after a quality setup. I've never been a fan of the 490/498 pickups so I bought a 'Vintage Mahogany' and have never been happier. The finish is inferior, but that's kind of the point, everything else is top notch (or was after a quality setup).
ESP LTD EC-256 and a Fender Deluxe VM
#29
Quote by bokuho
I... I hope you're just trying to take the piss (and failing)


Must this be gone over yet again? It's posted in virtually every thread that mentions them:

- inferior wood
- inferior wiring and pots
- inferior hardware
- inferior construction
Are just some of the problems with Studio models.


Please people, don't be so naive. There is a reason why they're so much cheaper than Standards, and it isn't just because they took off the binding. You're paying half the cost of a Standard, and guess what, you're getting half the quality too.

I've owned two Studios and one Faded, which is the same build as the Studio. All three blew, hugely. I currently own two Classics (one regular, one Antique), and a Standard. I also own an Elitist, a couple of production Epis, among other unrelated guitars - I know what I'm talking about.

You're lucky though; you have a '93 Studio. The early and mid-90's Studios were superb guitars, which really were exactly the same as Standards just without the 'flash'. The new Studios though, which are what's being questioned here, suck. The quality in them has dropped substantially since the 90's, and they're no longer worth buying. The idea that people would use them for studio use is a joke - the new Studios are tonally vapid, and would never be used for recording. The only thing the new ones are good for are providing a cheap way for people to say "look at me, I've got a Gibson, awesome!".

If you want quality now, you have to either get at least a Standard, or an Epi Elitist. At least Elitists don't use ****ing offcuts in their bodies.


I call BS. Please cite your sources concerning the wood.
My anecdotal experiences are quite different than yours.
Epis are decent substitutes for Gibsons on a budget. Believe me I understand budget. I own an Ibanez AS73 I am quite fond of, but I would never say its better than a Gibson 335, that would be more BS.
#30
Quote by bokuho
I... I hope you're just trying to take the piss (and failing)


Must this be gone over yet again? It's posted in virtually every thread that mentions them:

- inferior wood
- inferior wiring and pots
- inferior hardware
- inferior construction
Are just some of the problems with Studio models.


Please people, don't be so naive. There is a reason why they're so much cheaper than Standards, and it isn't just because they took off the binding. You're paying half the cost of a Standard, and guess what, you're getting half the quality too.

I've owned two Studios and one Faded, which is the same build as the Studio. All three blew, hugely. I currently own two Classics (one regular, one Antique), and a Standard. I also own an Elitist, a couple of production Epis, among other unrelated guitars - I know what I'm talking about.

You're lucky though; you have a '93 Studio. The early and mid-90's Studios were superb guitars, which really were exactly the same as Standards just without the 'flash'. The new Studios though, which are what's being questioned here, suck. The quality in them has dropped substantially since the 90's, and they're no longer worth buying. The idea that people would use them for studio use is a joke - the new Studios are tonally vapid, and would never be used for recording. The only thing the new ones are good for are providing a cheap way for people to say "look at me, I've got a Gibson, awesome!".

If you want quality now, you have to either get at least a Standard, or an Epi Elitist. At least Elitists don't use ****ing offcuts in their bodies.


I would agree with this man 100%, I have done research because Studios are only $50 off the price of my current Elitist, so I had a choice between the two, and obviously I discovered that the newer Studios blew. Regarding my first post calling him inexperienced, I just assumed since a lot of people on here are!
#31
Gosh this makes me so happy, I have the world's only good 2007 Les Paul Studio!