The reason people suggest Agiles is because you can get a great guitar with more features for less money. As far is the "Les Paul" look, it's a Les Paul "style" guitar.
Let's face it, either you have a genuine Gibson Les Paul, or you don't, and no matter how much a guitar may "look" like a Gibson Les Paul, it either is or isn't.
Some don't like the short horn, but it makes the guitar much more comfortable to play than the real thing. Form follows function.
The U.S. court (Gibson vs PRS) ruled that not only is the shape of the Les Paul generic, but that the term "Les Paul" is also a generic term that refers to a style of guitar, and doesn't refer to a particular brand. As long as the headstock is not copied, anything goes. I seriously doubt Gibson would ever want to go to court to try to protect the headstock trademark, because they couldn't chance losing their claim to it.
I would think that as musicians, the first priority would be tone, followed by playability, and last, looks.
Your money, your decision.
Let's face it, either you have a genuine Gibson Les Paul, or you don't, and no matter how much a guitar may "look" like a Gibson Les Paul, it either is or isn't.
Some don't like the short horn, but it makes the guitar much more comfortable to play than the real thing. Form follows function.
The U.S. court (Gibson vs PRS) ruled that not only is the shape of the Les Paul generic, but that the term "Les Paul" is also a generic term that refers to a style of guitar, and doesn't refer to a particular brand. As long as the headstock is not copied, anything goes. I seriously doubt Gibson would ever want to go to court to try to protect the headstock trademark, because they couldn't chance losing their claim to it.
I would think that as musicians, the first priority would be tone, followed by playability, and last, looks.
Your money, your decision.