i think it means they use what's available, be it indonesian mahogany or alder. an epi may or may not sound exactly like a gibson, but then, if you play five seemingly identical gibson les pauls you'll get five different sounds, so who's to say the epiphone's wrong?
some say the gibson's better because it uses one or two pieces of mahogany for the body while the epi may have four different pieces. so how come people are now paying over the odds for seventies les pauls, which are built nothing like a proper standard, with up to seven pieces of mahogany, a three piece maple neck, and hardly any top carve? i'd say 7 times out of 10 i'd take an epi les paul before one of those. not that the construction makes them bad guitars, it was the build quality and penny pinching that did that :roll: .
i have three gibson les pauls and three epiphones, a gibson is my favourite followed closely by two of the epiphones. the guitar i currently play the most is an epiphone les paul hollow body.
okay, i've rambled a lot there, point is, the epiphones can't be expected to be exactly like the gibsons, but they are perfecly good guitars in their own right, it's entirely up to the buyer, and whether they need "that" name on the headstock.
thank you and goodnight :lol:
