I like the California Carve Tops (PRS Copies), very nice guitars.  I would n't hesitate to buy one at all.  I have owned several Carvin guitars and amps.  My first was a 50w all tube back in 1983.  I don't remember the model number, but it was basically a Marshall copy.
 
Rain, I stopped by Guitar Center for lunch and I saw several SG's that looked very similar to yours.  I did n't have a chance to play one, because I spotted several Gibby LP's  that were in the $599- 999 range.  I ran through them on a Fender Super Sonic amp.  I really like one in particular, a P90 soap bar Gold Top that was listed at $699.  I was pleasantly surprised by the workmanship on it and play-ability.  It was not at the same caliber as a Standard, or a Lifeson Axcess, but it seemed like a descent player for $699.  I was going to try the SG's and play around with some of the mid priced Strats, but I just flat ran out of time.

The thing with this one in its 2013 incarnation is that it has the rounded 50s neck, which I personally prefer, but which many SG player don't like as much as slimmer necks. And Gibson seem to have gone back to slim neck for 2014.
 
And as much as I love the Les Paul model, and as I said before, even if I think they're the most gorgeous guitars, it's become hard to switch back from the SG to one of my Les Paul's. It's hard to explain, but playing that SG makes me feel like everything has been taken out of the way, all the stops have been removed - I'm just blasting my way on that thing like I never have.
 
So I may have painted myself in a corner there, in terms of future guitar purchase. Even if I wanted to buy another SG, the features which make this one so good to me just aren't standard, and hard to find, even if budget was not an issue. And it obviously is.
 
But who knows? Maybe now that I've made the transition it'll be easier for me to find SGs that I like.
 
BTW, one thing I notice is that the bridge parts seem to be made of a different alloy because, even if the chrome finish on the stud has vanished, the part did not change colour - it's still silver, unlike my Epiphones, which systematically end up looking like below.
 
I'm also including a (poor quality) close shot of the finish below the pick up where my hand is constantly rubbing against it, so that you see what I mean by seeing the wood through the finish. That's 2 weeks worth of playing - I can play the strings aggressively at time, but the aggression is restricted to the strings only. IOW, the guitar itself was treated very gently.
 

 
Bridges - Gibson vs Epi. See that copper coloured alloy which shows up once the shiny finish has gone on the Epi. I can't tell for the bridge itself because so far it's fine, but the stud on the SG seems to have no intention of turning copper.
 

 

Before you can chrome plate a part it has to be plated with copper or nickel as a base to endure it sticks. The reason it shows up on your Epi is likely just very thin chrome over a copper base. If your sweat is acidic, it will take the chrome off fast.
 
I had a LP custom in '78 and it was horrible. They didn't use a base plating on the alloy so the gold plating just flaked off leaving a flat grey metal behind. That, combined with a weight near 13 pounds made it a candidate for worst guitar ever. Gibson was real bad in the 70's.

At last, an actual explanation. :) Thanks, John!
 
I've always wondered why all those old guitars still looked awesome, the parts were simply not shinny anymore IMHO, they'd look gorgeous, nonetheless.
 
I couldn't imagine that a guitar that had been played for 30 years or more would not have eventually ended looking like mine did after a few weeks or months. On my black LP with the chrome pick up covers, it's even worst.