Announcement

**Swillmaster** · 03-20-2004, 03:23 PM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

I've had 3 Gibsons: Les Paul Studio, Gothic V, and a Gothic Explorer. All good players, but for the money I thought that the fit and finish should have been much better. (excess glue, finish flaws, rough fret edges, crappy wiring)
As for Kramers: Mid 80's Focus 1000 and a MusicYo Striker. I didn't care for the neck on the Focus, but it was a solid buy based on the components (OFR, decent humbucker). The Striker played well and sounded good, great buy when they were blowing 'em out at $149. Just didn't like the body contour.
Haven't played an Agile yet, but its very tempting at the going price. I've been trying to find one of the older LP's (2500?) with the sharper cutaway. A few pop up on the bay every now and then.

**Chuckracer** · 03-20-2004, 03:41 PM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

What you are paying for is the quality of the wood for the most part. Good wood is the single most expensive part of a good guitar.
You guys thinking the Agiles and $200 Kramers are just as good as Gibsons or whever are sadly mistaken. You can put good hardware on a cheap guitar and now you have a shiney turd.

You Get What You Pay For.

**Accept2** · 03-20-2004, 03:44 PM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Companies can legally call Nato, Mahoghany, but in the end, its all shit Nato wood held together by the think glossy finish..........

**ApeDosMil** · 03-20-2004, 03:55 PM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

I never said that, i was just wondering.

So the wood quality is what makes it?

**442w30** · 03-20-2004, 04:58 PM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Chuckracer's right, and even gibsons have varying wood 'qualities'. The SG standard (higher end, block inlay) is made of fewer pieces of wood glued together and retails at right over $1000. The cheaper Gibson brand SG Special with dot inlays is made of at least three pieces, though still good mahogany, but comes in at much less price-wise. It's also been said that Fender solid color bodies are typically painted that color because the wood is not suitable for clear or sunburst finishes, though this is probably less true today with the caps or veneers used frequently for 'flamed' guitars and such. Check out that indian mahogony, definitely not as fine a wood as the wood you see on a lot of american guitars (look in the trem cavity on an indian jackson out, wood is kinda cheesy).

[ March 20, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: 442w30 ]

**Black Mariah** · 03-20-2004, 07:24 PM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

It's not just Fender, it's ALL manufacturers. Pieces of wood have to be almost perfectly matched in coloration to look good under transparent finishes. A few shades off in either direction can make the guitar look like total crap. The wood is still good, just not suitable for trans finishes.

Yeah, there are quite a few imports that are just as good as, or BETTER THAN Gibsons. So what if the wood is cheaper? I don't have to do any fretwork after the fact, the finish isn't sinking, and there isn't a ton of glue on the fingerboard to scrape off. Don't like the tone? New pickup time! You're still spending less than the cost of a Gibson, plus it'll probably sound better in the end.

From what I've seen recently Gibson has improved their quality control dramatically, especially on the low end. The faded series has made massive leaps in quality, and I'm still trying to convince myself I don't need a faded SG.

Yes, I probaly contradicted myself several times in the above, but that's sort of the point.

**slayer** · 03-20-2004, 07:53 PM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Michael, if you are leaning towards the Agile, their 3200 Prestige model is getting rave reviews everywhere, and for like $350 it has alot of features. If you are leaning towards the Gobsons, the Faded series suck big time, and all of their guitars are hit and miss. If you are going to spend good money on a LP type guitar, get a Hamer USA Monaco Eilte, Hamers on top of their game man, and much nicer than a Gibson and about the same price. Play one and you will see. Jack.

**ApeDosMil** · 03-20-2004, 11:45 PM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Thanks for the input.

I checked out Hamer, but the headstock really ruins it though [img]graemlins/puke.gif[/img]

I think im going to go to sam ash and try a Gibson Faded Les Paul again before i do anything.

I've looked at Tokai, Greco, Orville, and Burny. I'd love to get one of those, but 130 bucks for shipping sucks and they get pretty high also.

**lerxstcat** · 03-21-2004, 12:33 AM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

If your goal is to get a decent Les Paul fix without paying the high price, the Agile should be compared to the Epiphone
rather than the Gibson Les Paul.

These guitars play and sound pretty good, but better woods, pickups and hardware will add up to a better guitar.

**Black Mariah** · 03-21-2004, 01:10 AM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Lerx with the slam dunk. [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] He's absolutely right. If you're looking at high-end Gibson vs Agile, there's no contest. On the other hand, low-end Gibson vs Agile vs Epiphone is a viable comparison.

**ApeDosMil** · 03-21-2004, 01:38 AM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

ya thats why i said Gibson faded [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

**hippietim** · 03-21-2004, 01:53 AM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Originally posted by lerxstcat:
If your goal is to get a decent Les Paul fix without paying the high price, the Agile should be compared to the Epiphone
rather than the Gibson Les Paul.

These guitars play and sound pretty good, but better woods, pickups and hardware will add up to a better guitar.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In that case the Agile is the winner. They are doing a much better guitar for the money than Epiphone. The Agile is about half the price. Both need to have electronics and/or misc. hardware upgraded. For about $450 you can have a pretty decent Agile. I'd still save up and get a Gibson though. You can get a smokin' Gibson Les Paul for $900 if you're patient. That may be a fair amount more but it'll be a LOT better guitar.

FWIW, I've got an Agile cherry sunburst flametop fretless Les Paul. I can't comment about the fretwork obviously but the rest of the fit and finish is really good. The pickups don't actually sound horrible but they aren't spectacular. Since it's a fretless and more of a novelty for me, I haven't bothered with any upgrades yet. The tuners are Grovers and seem pretty good. If this were a regular guitar, the pots and pickups would get replaced. I'd probably also replace the bridge and tailpiece for something a bit sturdier (definitely at least the tailpiece).

**toejam** · 03-21-2004, 02:19 AM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Originally posted by MichaelMadeja:
I checked out Hamer, but the headstock really ruins it though [img]graemlins/puke.gif[/img]

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hamers rule, and their headstocks are awesome, as are Carvin's 3+3 and Jackson's 3+3... not to mention they've got straighter string pull over the nut than any Les Paul or LP copy. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] I'm eventually ordering a custom Hamer Monaco Elite, and though it is expensive, the price really isn't that bad for the options I want. [img]graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]

**ApeDosMil** · 03-21-2004, 02:30 AM

Re: Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

This is why i want a beat up gibson [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img]

Announcement

Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Agile Vs. Gibson Vs. Kramer

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment