Spot the Gibson

GuitarStv said:
Struggling to follow your logic here. In what way is imperial superior to metric?
Click to expand...

I'm saying it isn't. They are simply two different ways of measuring. If we lived in a computer it would all be base 2 or whatever.

Measure is a measure. Accuracy is what counts. There is variability in everything if you measure finely enough.
 
Aceman said:
I'm saying it isn't. They are simply two different ways of measuring. If we lived in a computer it would all be base 2 or whatever.

Measure is a measure. Accuracy is what counts. There is variability in everything if you measure finely enough.
Click to expand...



What you're saying might make sense if you were comparing a base 2 measurement system with a base 10 measurement, but doesn't at all with Imperial. The imperial measurement has been shown to increase production time and mistakes in calculation because of it's non-sensical idiosyncrasies. There's certainly variability in everything, but a measure isn't a measure if using it costs you to use it.
 
In any case, however you measure it, I am sure Epi has the exact measurement the Gibson uses. They are either not allowed to use that, or chose not to.
 
GuitarStv said:
The imperial measurement has been shown to increase production time and mistakes in calculation because of it's non-sensical idiosyncrasies. There's certainly variability in everything, but a measure isn't a measure if using it costs you to use it.
Click to expand...

Dude - really? I'm a Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt, with a PhD and 29 hrs of graduate statistics. I'm not even gonna go into this because you can't afford me to have a discussion with you about wrong this is. I do not argue with Engineers, because it is useless...
 
Mincer said:
In any case, however you measure it, I am sure Epi has the exact measurement the Gibson uses. They are either not allowed to use that, or chose not to.
Click to expand...

I'll argue they are both more precise and more accurate. In any system.
 
GuitarStv said:
What you're saying might make sense if you were comparing a base 2 measurement system with a base 10 measurement, but doesn't at all with Imperial. The imperial measurement has been shown to increase production time and mistakes in calculation because of it's non-sensical idiosyncrasies. There's certainly variability in everything, but a measure isn't a measure if using it costs you to use it.
Click to expand...

But is that really a problem with the system, or the quality of people hired to use it?
 
beaubrummels said:
But is that really a problem with the system, or the quality of people hired to use it?
Click to expand...

Metric is a direct base 10 number system that can be extrapolated to any scale and converted with ease on the fly -any resolution is available for any accuracy needed.

Imperial is not actually a "system" -it's a series of arbitrary relationships which causes incredible inefficiency in order to use versus a Metric solution -regardless of employees.
 
Aceman said:
Dude - really? I'm a Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt, with a PhD and 29 hrs of graduate statistics. I'm not even gonna go into this because you can't afford me to have a discussion with you about wrong this is. I do not argue with Engineers, because it is useless...
Click to expand...

st,small,507x507-pad,600x600,f8f8f8.jpg
 
NegativeEase said:
Metric is a direct base 10 number system that can be extrapolated to any scale and converted with ease on the fly -any resolution is available for any accuracy needed.

Imperial is not actually a "system" -it's a series of arbitrary relationships which causes incredible inefficiency in order to use versus a Metric solution -regardless of employees.
Click to expand...
Really, the only good idea that came out of the French Revolution.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
 
Demanic said:
Really, the only good idea that came out of the French Revolution.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ha. It's weird how people hold fast to the imperial system for any reason other than they are used to it.

But there is no comparison, really. It is funny how it gets politicized though -when really it just should be obvious.

Eurpeans ditched their use of the abacus when the Arabic world was able to run circles around them place value system with the Algorismic method.

This is literally a perfect analog for imperial versus metric now.

In the same what Americans should swallow their pride and move on to metric completely.
 
I love the metric system, and I remember everything from 3rd grade when we learned how easy it was. That was the year the bill was up to get passed, but didn't.
 
I like the Imperial system because it forces my brain to exercise more.
Of course, as I have said before, the best is working with tech that is a mix of both.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
 
Securb said:
Which guitar is the Gibson and which is the Epiphone

EpUrpxqW8AU9g4c
Click to expand...
Oh, and I think that the Gibby is on the right.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
 
That's an interesting observation.

The thing I wonder about: every couplafew years, it seems like there's a particular budget model that punches well above its price. I'd be interested to look at how companies react time those unexpected hits. Do they keep them around? Kill them off? Attempt to move them upmarket?*



*-I can only think of one relatively recent example of this -the Squier '51- but there are very likely others.

Mincer said:
Other than the headstock, does Gibson cripple the Epi's design so it looks like an overseas imitation on purpose? Fender does this with pickguards- the overseas ones have screw holes that don't line up, I am guessing, on purpose.
Click to expand...
 
Demanic said:
Oh, and I think that the Gibby is on the right.

Sent from my SM-A115A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is not...though on these models, headstock aside, Epi did a more accurate copy of a '60s Gibson than Gibson did...so it makes sense to think that if you are not familiar with these models in particular. I happen to be familiar with them, owning the Gibby one, and having seen the Epi one come out a year later with a more vintage-accurate look.

Vintage inaccuracy aside, the Gibby is a smoking guitar, and stunning to behold. It's basically a Candy Apple Red finish: clear coated translucent red over a gold metallic coat. The pickup placements and corresponding pickguard look odd...as does the "Gibson" decal used for the headstock, as opposed to a proper inlay...as does the thick cream neck binding, as opposed to vintage-correct thin white binding. But when purchasing this model, I had already accepted that this wasn't anything close to a reissue. It was just a cool Gibson. The Epi, OTOH, is really close to being a reissue, headstock aside.

IMG_6978-4.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: IMG_6978-4.jpg Views: 0 Size: 39.4 KB ID: 6042312
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top