Why can't they just stick to what they do well??????
Agile, tokai, edwards and more do it better?
I've yet to play a Les Paul from any maker than feel better to me than my 2. Yes I've played quite a few... tons infact of Gibson which were at best ok, but then again I've played loads of other makers LP's that were meh too.
Playability is a matter of opinion. Its my observation that all the above have more consistent (and on average higher) quality control standards.
I've never played your guitars, so I cant make an assesment based on them ;)
Fair point, I will admit whilst I love mine and wouldn't sell them... are they worth 2 x, 3 x or more the cost of the likes of Tokai or Edwards etc? No is my simple answer! 
That said (to my previous) THE best les paul I've ever played was a gibson. A friend of mine hunted for one for years; hes a very bright chap and not the sort to let himself be fooled into thinking the guitars automatically good by a name, only enchanted (knowingly) by its image and rock heritage, and went hunting for the best LP he could find. 5 years into the hunt he found a few on the same day that were candidates and called me out for a second opinion. Out of those there we chose the same one (he just said "what do you think of these?" and sat there impassively so both our decisions were only influenced by the guitars). It was a kickass guitar, still stands out in my memory as one of the best guitars I've played.
But its the exception to prove the rule, in my experience.
So, yes, I believe completely that you *can* have a couple of kickass gibsons: I've seen it with my own ears. Even to the point where, for that little extra mojo that makes all the difference, one can spend far more on them.
I just think you have a better chance at getting a better guitar, in terms of objective quality measures, with several non-gibsons.
Poll