Epiphone Les Paul Uke - What's the beef?

Baz's review was three years too late,

I take your other points Bill, but I wouldn't say the review was 'late' in any way. I reviewed it at the time I received it, and that's it. If all instruments can only be reviewed at the date they were launched it would make the vast majority of reviews (not just mine) invalid too. For example, I have recently acquired a Kiwaya KTS-5. I will be reviewing it. They have been around for years. Doesn't make my views on it in 2017 any less valid or late.

In short, I don't consider my reviews to be 'hot of the press' stuff that accompanies the launch of new models. They are just reviews of models as I come across them. I leave the 'launch reviews' of stuff to the stores and big magazines who have a vested interest. Of course, channels that review things with a vested interest don't (I don't think) carry the same impartiality. But they still serve a purpose I guess. For me though, I kind of want my reviews to come across rather like hearing from a friend telling you about 'this uke I just bought'...
 
ps - had a friend who recently bought one of these - whilst it 'could' have been old stock, if it was new stock, I can confirm that Epiphone have changed nothing at all.

RE the idea that Epiphone are in some way keeping the result top on Google - I doubt it highly. It's more likely due to the fact that there are actually not all that many ukulele reviews online.

eg - if you type 'Tinguitar review' into Google, I get top rank on that search too - Tinguitar is a tiny luthier build in West Yorkshire in the UK - I seriously doubt he is paying Google for that ranking - the real reason is I suspect I'm pretty much the only person who has written a detailed review of his work.
 
I judge them as a "novelty uke" and by how much enjoyment they provide, both to the owner and to those who get a big kick of them when they see it, and again when they hear it plugged in to an amp. I got mine several years ago for $87 and some change and they were on sale recently around that same price - $87.50 I think with free shipping. Huge fun factor for that kind of money. To non-ukers, looks like a million bucks. Never did believe in comparing apples to oranges anyway.
 
There is no way I could give this uke as good a review as Barry did. I saw one at sam ash music too, and was so turned off by it's looks, that I never even picked it up. a friend bought one last year, and I rarely see her play it.
each to her own.....
Now, Barry's review of the Cocobolo tenor last year was very good, but I'd give it higher marks, probably because I may have played more of them, and we own 2.
The reader of a review needs to think objectively, just as the reviewer does.
We each "review" Barry's reviews, and believe me, he is accurate, and not thin skinned.
 
Last edited:
I bought my Epiphone Les Paul concert uke before bazmaz made his YouTube review, which I only watched today.

From the sounds heard in the review bazmaz could have been even harsher, as he doesn’t mention what is my biggest problem with this uke: the intonation is bad because the distance between the first fret and the nut is too long. I have considered getting a capo to sit in the 1st fret just for this reason.

One of bazmaz’s gripes with the Les Paul, the lacking sustain, rather may be the problem of the impossibly bad strings it came with.

Currently I have the LP mounted with Aquila Reds tuned to fourths G-C-F-Bb, because I use it to practice bass uke patterns, where I never use open strings (which would be horribly flat due to the long semitone of the 1st fret. With the better strings the sustain is much better.

I bought the Les Paul over the phone, and the seller warned that the acoustic sound was not satisfying. But I knew that instruments built by this principle are meant to be played via an amplifier. I have two guitars of that type, an Ovation Viper with a classical fretboard intended for nylon strings and an Epiphone Les Paul Black Beauty, of course with steel strings. And yes, both of these guitars are way better than the Epiphone Les Paul concert uke.

Klaus
 
Actually the one I had wasn't bad with intonation - which in itself shows that they are variable.

The sustain issue - yeah, definitely terrible strings - but for all my reviews, I ALWAYS review them with stock strings - basically what people change them to is so subjective there is no point in me picking just one set.
 
Your policy of reviewing on basis of the strings mounted by the maker is fair. But then I wonder why makers, including some serious ones skimp on putting adequate strings on their new ukes. I live far away from any uke store, so I buy via the web, mostly, and via the phone, rarely. If I on basis of reviews and videos trust a certain model, then I am ready to discard the strings that come with a uke. Often the same day it arrives.

The situation is different for customers going to stores with a good selection of ukes. They buy by what they hear, and there I find it silly to loose sales because of bad strings.

Of course there always will be questions about which style of strings to put on a new uke. Rougly one could put Aquila Nylgut strings on ukes intended for strumming and fluorocarbon strings on ukes responsive enough to be for finger picking.

I would accept that even if I prefer strumming on fluorocarbon strings, because they are so much more refined in their overtone patterns. And they are better in promoting the individuality of different tonewoods. And in furthering the feel of aliveness in well built ukes.

Klaus
 
But then I wonder why makers, including some serious ones skimp on putting adequate strings on their new ukes.

I think you have summarized why Barry tests with the stock strings (of course, he can elaborate further), but in this world where there are so many string choices (including fishing line!) you would think that a company would want to pair an instrument with strings that showcase the ability of the instrument.

In the case of the Les Paul, there are far too many sources that say, "Trash the original strings, put on good strings, and then you will see how good it is."

So, the universal question becomes: if that is the case, why would Epiphone ever sell that ukulele with those strings?

The real reasons may be cost savings or the look of the black strings on the instrument.

Not that I completely like the strings that ship with other ukuleles; from a personal taste, I like fluorocarbon vs. Nylgut--and this is a personal preference and I will never, ever question someone else who likes Nylgut. The only instrument of my own that still has Nylgut is my Banjolele, as I am not sure how Fluorocarbon will look and work with that ukulele. On a similar note, I didn't like wound strings (including Martin) on my Baritone, and I didn't like the stock strings that came with my Pono. The Rye Rabbits that came with my Outdoor Ukulele were fine, but frayed.

So, I generally stick with Martins on most of my ukuleles and Living Water (unwound fluorocarbon) on my Baritone.

If I were to buy a Les Paul--which I would do if I saw a used one for $60--I would change those strings in a second and just enjoy the looks of the ukulele, which appeals to me--and I totally understand that others hate that it looks like a Mini Guitar. Incidentally, I would hope that they feel the same about the new Risa electrics...
 
I think it makes the impartial viewer rate your reviews even higher. You seem to give an honest opinion (just ones man's opinion as you say) but when you have genuine enthusiasm for a uke, it just seems to shine through. Hard to fake that and gives the review credibility in my book.

Ditto to this!
 
If I were to buy a Les Paul--which I would do if I saw a used one for $60--I would change those strings in a second and just enjoy the looks of the ukulele, which appeals to me--and I totally understand that others hate that it looks like a Mini Guitar. Incidentally, I would hope that they feel the same about the new Risa electrics...
My Les Paul (new from Musician's Friend, a little over a year ago) arrived with Aquila Nylgut strings on it (and the Aquila tag). I assumed MF didn't change out the strings so figured Epiphone had switched to Aquilas. Anyone know if that's true or not?

They're still on mine, but having just put some South Coast strings on my soprano, I'm now curious how fluorocarbons would work with the Les Paul.
 
I saw one in a store the other day Rich and it was the same black strings.

Incidentally, can I chip in here to say - yes the stock strings are bad, but it's not the ONLY thing I didn't like about the instrument! Whilst different strings may improve it some, it still wouldn't get my recommendation.

And no Bill, plugged in it doesn't have plenty of sustain either! That's an odd claim from epiphone - it's still essentially an acoustic instrument at it's heart - you can't make sustain when there isn't any with a piezo pickup
 
Yeah, neither the Epiphone nor Musician's Friend site mentions Aquilas and both show black strings in the photos. Maybe Aquilas were a short lived experiment on the part of one or the other company.
 
Yes, I know this thread is old, but it still seems like the right place for this post ...

Just yesterday, I picked up my Epiphone Les Paul Uke, and I have to say I actually do love it.

The "look" is timeless.

Now, does it sound like a traditional uke in it's acoustic state? No, of course not.

Did I expect it to? Nope.

Did I buy it because it looks so curious and it's electrified? Yes.

Do I care it's not a solid wood top? No.

Do I care the pickguard is glued in place? No.

And by the way, when it's plugged in, it sounds just like I expected it would.

But, ... and I know this is may be being a bit too picky, ...

If this is "supposed" to be a uke ... and yes, I realize they're also trying to emulate a full-size LP, ... why the hell did they put the fret markings in places as though it actually was a guitar, meaning at frets 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12?

How the hell am I supposed to find fret #10! :mad:

Hey, Epiphone, it's supposed to be a uke!

I wanted to see markings on 5, 7, 10, and 12, just like any other uke!

Other than that, for the deeply discounted price I paid, I love it.
 
....Runs to the hills miles away and hides in a cave....
 
Hahahahahaha! Love it! And I have to confess, I just read this entire thread with great interest, without realizing, until I finally got to Uke66's post from today, that the thread has been here for a long time! I have been mindful of the varying opinions on the Epiphone Les Paul uke, and when I started reading I thought, "Uh oh, someone just swatted the hornets' nest with the whiffle bat..."
 
I thought that reviewing their new one (the Hummingbird) that it would deflect attention on this one!
 
I agree, Bill1. If Baz were to adopt the philosophy "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all", then all we'd see would be gushing reviews, and although we'd have high confidence in their integrity, we wouldn't have the opportunity to consider the not-so-great aspects of certain instruments and factor those into our own decision as to whether we might want to acquire a particular uke. I appreciate the frankness of Baz's viewpoint when it comes to the Epiphone Les Paul uke, and I decided to get one anyway, last year. There are things I really like about it-- the feel of the neck profile, for instance, and what I perceive as the pleasing tone of the uke's unplugged sound, despite not having much volume (but it's good for quiet practice, where you can play it reasonably aggressively and not worry about bothering the folks on the other side of the wall). Having said that, I will also admit that it doesn't get much playing time...
 
Top Bottom