Recently, I had the chance to test drive a Gibson ES-339, a guitar that’s been generating considerable buzz for its comfortable size and versatile sound. My local dealer had a Blueberry Burst model that caught my eye, despite the rather hefty price tag. As someone who appreciates semi-hollow guitars – with a collection that includes a Gibson ES-335, multiple ES-355s, PRS Thin Hollowbodies, a Gretsch, and my trusty Epiphone Sheraton Pro – I was eager to see if the ES-339 lived up to the hype. The smaller body promised enhanced comfort and a potentially snappier tone, intriguing prospects for any semi-hollow enthusiast.
My initial experience with the Gibson ES-339, plugged directly into a Fender Blues Junior, was positive. The guitar sounded undeniably good, rich and resonant with that classic semi-hollow warmth. While the dealer generously offered a studio session to truly put it through its paces, the $4700 price tag (Canadian dollars, as I’m in Canada) was a firm deal-breaker for me. As an alternative, they suggested trying out a cherry red ES-339 that had been in the store for a bit longer.
Now, seasoned players know that color and inlays are purely cosmetic and don’t impact the sound. The cherry ES-339 felt a touch lighter than the blueberry version, but the difference was negligible. These are fundamentally straightforward guitars: two pickups, no coil splits or fancy switching – just pure, unadulterated semi-hollow tone. The cherry model was priced at $4000, which is the Manufacturer’s Advertised Price (MAP) across Canada.
Through a blackface Twin Reverb, the cherry ES-339 truly sang. It was less impressive through my Tone King Gremlin, which, while a fantastic amp, can be a bit finicky to dial in perfectly. Ultimately, I turned to my Fender Tone Master Blonde Deluxe Reverb for recording tests, eventually running it through a range of amps I have available.
While undeniably a very nice guitar, the $4,000 price point remained a significant hurdle. During my evaluation, I noticed some minor imperfections. The marker inlays and control knobs weren’t perfectly aligned. Attempting to gently adjust the neck volume knob to align it properly, the rim of the knob unexpectedly snapped off in my fingers. While I take responsibility for the breakage and intended to replace it, it was a surprising incident – my first experience breaking a hat-style knob in this way. My guitar tech, Kevin, later reassured me that I might have dodged a bullet, as he’s seen instances where overly tight knobs on new Gibsons have pulled the potentiometer right through the thin hollow top. Yikes!
To be fair, the rest of the Gibson guitar exhibited commendable craftsmanship. The maple laminate top, while flawlessly finished, didn’t boast particularly striking figuring – perhaps best described as understated. The finish itself was excellent, free of blemishes or drips. The binding was impeccably clean, devoid of the dye bleed issues I’ve unfortunately witnessed on Gibson instruments in the past. Remarkably, the typically sharp binding edges were rounded over, a welcome detail I hadn’t encountered on a new bound Gibson in recent years. The frets were smooth, with no sprout or binding issues. The Grover Rotomatic tuners operated smoothly and reliably. The tone controls offered a gradual and usable sweep, avoiding any abrupt drop-off in the lower range. While Gibson doesn’t specify the potentiometer brand, endoscopic inspection through the f-hole suggested they were likely the smaller Alpha pots. Gibson proudly highlights the use of orange drop capacitors and hand-wired electronics, which, in my understanding, primarily signifies the absence of a circuit board block. While capacitor quality is important, the sonic impact of orange drop versus other quality capacitors is debatable. Importantly, there were no unwanted noises from the pots or switch. The neck profile was comfortable, and the action was well set up from the factory. Naturally, it came strung with what felt like overly heavy gauge strings, but as with any new guitar, replacing the factory strings, especially on Gibsons and Fenders, is always my first recommendation.
I genuinely appreciated the ES-339’s reduced body size. The pickups, a 57 Classic in the neck and a hotter 57 Classic+ in the bridge, are moderately voiced, which aligns with my preference. The 57 Classic is rated at 8k ohms, while the 57 Classic+ comes in at 9k, both utilizing Alnico II magnets. Overall, the Gibson ES-339 is a very appealing instrument, presented in a well-constructed hardshell case with plush lining and case candy.
However, the price remained a sticking point. Considering that the US MAP for the ES-339 in both cherry and blueberry burst is $3499 USD, the Canadian price felt inflated. The lower prices I’d observed on cherry and black versions in other shops likely indicated older stock.
This experience led me to revisit a strategy I’ve employed in recent years, especially given some inconsistencies in new Gibson quality: checking Epiphone’s “Inspired by Gibson” lineup for an ES-339 equivalent. And indeed, Epiphone offers an ES-339 in sunburst, natural, cherry, and Pelham blue metallic finishes. While Epiphone utilizes a gloss polyurethane finish compared to Gibson’s gloss nitrocellulose lacquer (which I personally prefer), the real revelation was the price. The Epiphone ES-339, manufactured in Epiphone’s Chinese factory, has a Canadian MAP of just $799 CAD. Naturally, I had to investigate further.
Upon examining the Epiphone ES-339, several impressive features emerged. Epiphone specifies 500K CTS potentiometers, verifiable through endoscopic inspection. The jack also stood out, exhibiting a precise and snug fit, securely locking the cable in – arguably more effectively than the Gibson. Like the Gibson, the Epiphone features Grover Rotomatic tuners. Based on my assessment of the Gibson’s wiring, I’d confidently categorize the Epiphone as hand-wired as well, given the similar construction.
Both guitars share a comfortable C-shaped neck profile and a 12” fingerboard radius. Current Epiphone models feature laurel fretboards, while Gibson specifies rosewood. Close inspection suggests both fretboards are dyed. However, the Epiphone I examined, having been on display for a while, surprisingly sported a rosewood fingerboard that appeared darker than the rosewood on the Gibson. Both guitars utilize GraphTech nuts. Gibson specifies an aluminum stop tailpiece and ABR-1 bridge, while Epiphone employs their LockTone versions of the same hardware. In both cases, the saddle notches were cleanly cut and free of burrs, though both benefited from lubrication. The nut slots were expertly cut on both instruments. In terms of overall feel and playability, I honestly couldn’t discern any significant difference between the Gibson and the Epiphone ES-339.
The Epiphone pickups are their proprietary Alnico Classic Pro models, employing Alnico V magnets, making them slightly hotter than the Gibson’s pickups. However, in a blind sound test through the Twin Reverb, I struggled to detect a meaningful difference. The selector switches appeared identical internally. One anomaly I did observe was on the blueberry Gibson: the maple center block didn’t appear to make full contact with the guitar’s back. This wasn’t present on the Epiphone or the cherry Gibson, so I’d consider it an isolated issue.
The Gibson was still equipped with its factory strings, and since it wasn’t mine and played adequately, I left them as is. The Epiphone also played well, but the strings felt a bit rough, and the fret surfaces exhibited minor roughness. Given that the dealer mentioned it had been in stock for some time, I replaced the factory strings, polished the frets, and treated the fretboard with Music Nomad F-ONE Fretboard Oil followed by Monty’s Guitars Montepresso wax. Had I purchased the Gibson, I would have performed the same maintenance. I must admit, I’m puzzled why in 2023 both Gibson and Epiphone still use nickel silver fretwire when stainless steel is now comparably priced and offers superior durability. Many high-end shops transitioned to stainless steel fretwire years ago, and I find it smoother for bending and less prone to corrosion.
Once re-strung and properly stretched, I plugged the Epiphone into the same Fender Tone Master Deluxe Reverb I used for the initial Gibson recording test. Given the vast price difference, I anticipated hearing a more pronounced sonic advantage from the Gibson. However, in terms of playability and build quality, the two guitars were remarkably similar. The only tactile difference I could perceive was due to the Epiphone’s fresh set of Curt Mangan 9.5-44 coated strings, compared to the Gibson’s factory strings, which, as regular readers know, aren’t my favorite. From a recorded perspective, I was unable to discern any audible difference between the two guitars.
Audio Samples
For the following audio samples, each guitar was recorded directly into the Deluxe Reverb (DI out via XLR to a Clarett+ 8 Pre interface running Logic Pro). Judge for yourself if you can distinguish a difference and which guitar you prefer. In a month, I’ll update this article revealing which recording is which. Both guitars were recorded using the same cable into Input 1 of the “vibrato” channel (tremolo off, reverb on), with identical volume settings, treble at 6 ½, and bass and middle at 5. The Tone Master’s cabinet IR using a Celestion Neo Creamback and an SM57 microphone was selected for both recordings. No post-processing or plugins were applied to either sample.
