Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

New Gibsons


djw171

Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd share these, see what you all think. Sweetwater have a couple of new J45's (a cutaway and Big Leaf Maple) and a 1947 J50, as well as the 2017 HP range. I think personally I'd prefer the Big Leaf Maple in a sunburst finish, much like my J185.

 

Link to site page below.

 

11736086-angle-large_zpsbjw1qn9s.jpg

 

11896022-body-large_zpsq1lnst1a.jpg

 

11786024-angle-large_zpskeeqhd1o.jpg

 

http://www.sweetwater.com/c599--Gibson_Acoustic--Acoustic_Guitars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with PickitPaul - that blonde babe will be a beauty in 2035 when the waiting cream-hue has found its way to the woods.

 

A cut-away J-45 !? , , , mmmmm, sure of course it should be tried, but admit I got to get used to it.

 

Have to admit to myself that the baked tops generally leaves me twi-minded.

The ones I've tried (5 or 6) have all been very convincing, if not splendid. Same with what was heard here and on the Tube. Including a played Mart. D-35 50 year anniversary model from last year.

 

To be honest I really like them, but feel doubt for 3 reasons :

 

1/ How will they age - will they over-open at some point - meaning 'be too loose'.

 

2/ There's something forced or artificial 'bout the concept, isn't there, , , and I really dig the purist dimension to the whole acoustic guitar thing.

 

3/ It is as if getting a torrifried axe inside the collection would kind of betray the real vintage dry, smokey, fast responding deers in the herd (the monk senses).

 

 

Don't know, , , really don't know. As said, the ones tried all stood out like something special. Must look further into this dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood the cutaway. If acoustic guitarists throughout the years managed without clean access to the highest of notes, why now the sudden need to access those notes? It's an acoustic guitar and not an electric one. I understand why electric guitars are designed the way they are. Lead guitarists like to noodle way up high. Any acoustic player found noodling that high should be handed an electric guitar. Same for five and six string bassists. At what point do you tell them that they're clearly electric guitarists in denial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the application of a cutaway for some acoustic slide players (Tom Rush playing some tunes with guitar flat on lap to reach the high frets), but it seems on the whole to be an affectation on the part of folks like me who don't ever need that kind of access. A fair number of younger players started on electric, though, unlike the old-timers - maybe that comes into it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got to admit that I could forsake a burst for one of those natural tops. I could also live with most any of the dozens of J45 variations, BUT, a cutaway J45? Pure debauchery. Looks a lot like all those cheapie imports hanging on the walls of music stores. Everything changes, but these HP models look like Gibsons trying to not be Gibsons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this rosewood / ebony not a J-45 ?

 

For you it seems so. To me it's more a short scale AJ. I suppose I'm a bit stodgy about it, but a guitar model designation should describe a particular set of woods and appointments without variation to avoid confusion in the marketplace. Indeed, it looks like a J-45, but the wood combination of spruce/rosewood is AJ......yes?

 

Jimmy: You play guitar too?!

Bob: Yeah, for a few years now.

Jimmy: Cool man! What guitar do you play?

Bob: A Gibson J-45.......I love it!

Jimmy: Oh yeah! Great piece! Gotta love the punch of mahogany!

Bob: Oh. No, mine's maple.

Jimmy: Oh. Well.......that's cool. It's still a stripped down workhorse of a guitar!

Bob: Oh no! This one has all the bling on it! Bound ebony fretboard, abalone inlays, flower pot on the headstock, gold hardware......looks great!

Jimmy: Oh...... Round shouldered maple? I'd never have thunk it.........

 

If umpti 'leven versions of the J-45 make you happy, great, but you've got to admit it's confusing and dilutes the model's long and storied history. I guess I'm just too traditional when it comes to this issue.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of us here are a testament to the 'variety is the spice of life' concept - and own multiple versions of the 'same' guitar.

As a matter of personal preference - I would not go so far as to support the idea of a J45 cutaway, for the reasons stated by MO Picker and SmurfBird above.

I completely agree w Em7's take on the torrification/horrification of spruce tops. Visions of Petrified Wood float in my head. But, the jury is still out.

I guess acoustic players tend to be more traditional and purist than electric players. One electric maker uses vintage car parts - one model is a reproduction of a '59 Cadillac tail fin complete with working red taillights!

And, of course, while I'm a biased purist - I'll have to politely agree with Murf and endorse the inclusion of Rosewood in the J45 family.( As well as Koa which is a cousin of mahogany!)

Bottom line - if Gibson feels they can increase their bottom line by pushing past OUR comfort zone - they should. It will just help them improve the brand overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no life-altering issues with what Gibson does with it's guitars. I pretty much like most of them. Some more than others. I even own a short-scale Koa AJ. That said, I have to agree pretty much with what Buc is saying. He's speaking from the perspective of someone who really enjoys the traditional things about guitars (in this case, Gibsons) and I think he's right. When does a J45 stop being a J45? When does a Hummingbird stop being a Hummingbird? There's got to be a point where the changes to an iconic instrument model make it no longer that particular model. Why not call a J15 a J45? Its a slope-shouldered dreadnaught... There's no more difference in the J15 from a J45 than all the different J45 variations. For me, the tone woods would be a very drastic change in what a particular guitar is. I'm not talking about the quality of the instrument. They're all sweet guitars. I'm just saying they all need and deserve their own name. All these variations are good enough to stand on their own. I guess my Koa AJ is an AJ, because Gibson markets it that way, but I know the differences from a traditional AJ are numerous. To me, the Koa guitar is the "Koa AJ." The Rosewood AJ is simply "The AJ.". I know it all comes down to personal opinion, but I'd rather all these different guitars have different names... Likewise, the pedigree of guitars like "the birds" and J45s deserve to remain as solid as possible. Too many mutts around that deserve their own name and pedigree. [cursing]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, they can all have their own name, but to be dubbed a J-45 has to be a huge selling point for Gibson. I am mostly a traditionalist when it comes to a J-45. I know in the WWll years they were made out of just about anything, but that was not a marketing thing, it was what was available and there was no long standing idea of what a J-45 was then. Now there is and the vast majority of J-45's have been spruce and mahogany. But not everyone that buys a J-45 knows the history behind it, but may very well know the name, so they buy it no matter what the back and sides are made of. It might sound good, but not like the iconic one. But a sale is a sale, and a sale is better than not a sale. If calling it a J-45 sells more guitars, that is what a company that wants to sell guitars will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the only thing uglier than a square box looking Martin D-style guitar is one that also sports a cutaway (like the Alvarez Jerry Garcia played). There is just zero aesthetic attraction. So even though a J-45 appears to me as a beautiful, voluptuous shape while a Martin D is just plain square and distasteful, putting a cutaway on a J-45 detracts from the aesthetic and I would never want to own one. And too, I find Florentine cutaways way more appealing than Venetian cutaways a la the CF-100. Where a cutaway seems to make the most sense to me is in conjunction with a 12 fret neck join so that the access to those higher frets lost to the neck join at the twelfth are somewhat regained by the cutaway. Cutaways always seem to be added to existing guitar styles after the non-cutaway version gains acceptance and then we end up with an addition to a design that appears as the afterthought that it is. One of the reasons I always liked the design and cutaway on the Selmer guitar that Django played is that it was inherent to the design from the get go. But, whatever blows ones hair back, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it ain't spruce over mahogany it ain't a J-45. Geez.

 

 

That's ridiculous.

 

Gibson has used different woods on J-45s for years.

 

Is this rosewood / ebony not a J-45 ?

 

Don't wanna sound like Salomon here, but I see both angles, , , thus could call it both a short scaled AJ and a rose J-45.

 

But Pittgibson45 is right - let's not forget some of the early 45's came in maple.

Those creatures are considered highly recommandable guitars - ask Russ Barenberg and his Banner slope. .

 

 

2015 ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj57H0Efj0w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, if a person does his or her research on the thermal curing process one will come away with the awareness the process is not new or untested. .

 

Yes, it's been done different ways for centuries - mostly to treat building lumber and feed grain. But, to be fair, it's only been used for guitars for a few years. Martin was the first major builder - and introduced torrefied guitars to the market less than 2 years ago. Taylor and Gibson quickly jumped on the bandwagon. The process changes the cell structure so the wood is resistant to absorbing humidity. So, the face will react to dampness differently than the rest of the guitar. I'm sure it's fine and Martin's research has been thorough, , but I just can't subscribe to claims you can torrefy/tune a guitar top to replicate the cell structure and sound of a guitar to the extent you can dial in "60 years old" or "80 years old" or "100 years old".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I surely didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, and everyone has an opinion.

 

Having said that I own a solid walnut SG and feel it's an SG. They build Les Paul's, Strat's and Tele's out of everything.

 

I understand acoustic's have a certain voice BECAUSE of the woods, but that doesn't demand a new model name for every single guitar with a different fretboard, bridge, top, sides, neck and back wood type for every single model. That would create literally thousands of different models.

 

I, for one, LOVE the different options of wood on my favorite model of guitar and the strangling Government regulations put on guitar builders these days certainly requires that they use some imagination when building our instruments of choice.

 

Great topic though, and I really do love youse guys..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...