Talk:Epiphone Les Paul

Combination?

Should this be combined into Gibson Les Paul article since they are pretty much identical, and epiphone is owned by gibson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Produde94 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I would like to see information on the following http://web.archive.org/web/20060614224222/www.cmt.com/shows/events/cmt_summer_of_music/rules.jhtml

I removed the following from the ES section. This page needs some serious work. Marshall Stax (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I know: Epiphone Les Paul ES was produced from 1999 to 2000. They had some backorders that ran into 2001. This is a Les Paul style semi-hollowbody with F-holes, was available in hertiage cherry sunburst, amber, vintage sunburst, and wine red. The Epiphone Les Paul Elite or "ES Custom Ebony" was built from 1996 to 1998. This guitar was a higher grade ES and was only available in black.It came first in it's history and was forced out due to cost cutting. The ES came in as the redesign of the Epiphone semi-hollowbody guitar.But the Elite was much higher grade. Some people refer to it as a Custom, but it is Elite. It had multible binding on the body, neck and headstock and a split diamond MOP inlay headstock, like a Gibson. The Elite had acess panels on the back of the guitar, which is nice for repair. The ES did not have covers on the back. Elite had a Indian Rosewood fretboard. Elite had Block MOP inlays on the neck, the ES had trapazoid shape MOP inlays. They are both beauiful guitars.

Now if you look at the 1996 Epiphone Les Paul ES to the right, that is not an ES.The ES did not come out until 1999. That is a Epiphone Les Paul Elite. They were made between 1996 to 1998. But It is the first one I ever seen with vintage sunburst finish. All the one's I have seen are Black. But this ES is an Elite, the diamond MOP inlay headstock did not come on the ES, and block MOP inlay did not come on the ES. NEVER SEEN this color on a Elite.TG

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epiphone Les Paul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140518171716/http://www.epiphone.com/Products/Les-Paul/Les-Paul-Standard-Plustop-PRO.aspx to http://www.epiphone.com/Products/Les-Paul/Les-Paul-Standard-Plustop-PRO.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

why this article fails

1. As noted above, there is no good reason to have Epiphone Les Paul running around independent from Gibson Les Paul, in much the same manner that Squier Stratocaster reroutes to Fender Stratocaster.
2. This is a LIST of Epi LP clones. There is no "article" here to offer actual information, such as why/when Gibson chose this path.
3. No source is cited to support the existence of the list, therefore it's impossible to know whether it is representative or exhaustive. If it is neither, then it should not exist in Wikipedia (as in "be immediately deleted").
4. Taken at face, most models on the list have apparently been made since the dawn of time (or at least 1988) AND are presently available.

Support quick deletion.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Reorganize

I feel like at the very least this needs to be reorganized. All sections/section headers are just different models of the series/subseries, not even under a "Variations" section. It makes it difficult to figure out how everything is structured and to add new information if you find some. I found articles to use as sources for adding different models and information on Epiphone LP but because of the way the article is currently laid out, it seems like it would just make it worse, even if I could identify where the information should go.

I know this project isn't super active lately, but I'm going to look at other articles and try and identify a way to clean this up so that it can be easier to judge for deletion and make it easier to comprehend.

Lizzyd710 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Better idea: just redirect it. There's no independent notability to Epiphone-branded Les Paul guitars. They're just low-cost versions of the Gibson line made overseas (and with some lower-quality parts) to reduce costs. This "article" as it stands clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTCATALOGUE (not that the main Gibson Les Paul article is much better). Wikipedia is not here to catalogue every possible minor variant of a 70-year-old guitar model with a level of detail that is of interest to only a small specialist audience. Plus there are zero independent sources in this article; they're all just first-party catalogue listings. I'm going to be bold and redirect it. oknazevad (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)