Gibsons and copies

[markb]

When you bring QC into the equation we shouldn't underestimate sample variation. A particular Epiphone might just be better than a particular Gibson hanging next to it in a particular shop. This does not mean that all Epiphones are better than all Gibsons, just that you got lucky

[Eric***]

When you bring QC into the equation we shouldn't underestimate sample variation. A particular Epiphone might just be better than a particular Gibson hanging next to it in a particular shop. This does not mean that all Epiphones are better than all Gibsons, just that you got lucky

Good point. Oddly enough (since it was a reply to a tangent), I think your point is actually somewhat related to the original question.

What's your impression of NWB's original question about clones vs. Gibsons? Can an imitator ultimately make a product as good or better than the original, or is it an asymptotic pursuit?

[markb]

Good point. Oddly enough (since it was a reply to a tangent), I think your point is actually somewhat related to the original question.

What's your impression of NWB's original question about clones vs. Gibsons? Can an imitator ultimately make a product as good or better than the original, or is it an asymptotic pursuit?

While a copy could be made just as well as or better than the original, it will never be the "real thing". A Sid Poole (UK custom builder, no longer with us) "Les Paul" easily outranks a factory Gibson but, deep down you'd still think of it as a "copy".
We are very sensitive to the value of brands these days, mostly because marketing people have sold us the concept of "authenticity". Hence all the reissues, relics, "'59", tribute and signature models not to mention licensed copies like Squier or Epiphone. They are all striving to be what they are most definitely not.

So, yes, I think you can make a better Les Paul than Gibson and cheaper. The question then becomes "can you sell it?".