50's vs 60's J-200's

[EuroAussie]

Ive been listening to quite a few samples of J-200's from these two decades and to my easrs I find the tone of the 60's models significant stronger that from the 50's (but hate the 60's bridge).

 

To me the 60's sound much more punchier, brighter, clear, very strong mids and just very, very rock n roll, to me J-200 at its best. While the 50's sound more mellow, softer, less punch and midrange and rather muddy, actually they dont really grab me. (but looks amazing)

 

So, I was wondering which do you prefer and also whats the essential differences in the 50's and 60's models ? Werent the 60's models laminate, hence the somewhat punchier, rockier tone? I guess the saddle must have been a factor ?

 

Here's a couple vids to demonstrate what Im hearing..

 

60's

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9TCPhbgypc

 

Another one

 

 

50's

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=-v0PjyWvI4Y

 

Another one:

 

 

 

Thoughts ?

[j45nick]

ZW may know this, but didn't at least some of the 50's J200's have laminated B&S?

 

Maybe has something to do with the way the 60's J-200 is played. Pete Townshend taught us that the J-200 is meant to beaten within an inch of its life when played, under threat of destruction. Almost anything will perk up under those circumstances.

[EuroAussie]

ZW may know this, but didn't at least some of the 50's J200's have laminated B&S?

 

Maybe has something to do with the way the 60's J-200 is played. Pete Townshend taught us that the J-200 is meant to beaten within an inch of its life when played, under threat of destruction. Almost anything will perk up under those circumstances.

 

 

Ha, ha ..quite possible Nick, maybe thats why I chose clips where the playing is similar, yet i constantly hear the same consisten difference between 50's (mellow, soft) and 60's (punchy, projective)

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Bracing patterns may be a factor too.

 

 

 

Pete Townshend said this about J 200’s :

 

What’s the story on your original J-200? What is it about a J-200 that makes it so essential to you?

I picked it out from about five at Manny’s in New York. It had a crisp sound and an easy neck. It was only later I found how well the J-200 records when you play it hard. Like the Everly acoustic, it has a rather dead soundboard and that allows you to really dig in when strumming. They are hard to bring to life with piezo pickups because the sound is so distinctive in real air, but the body shape, the necks and the sheer strength of the guitar are all very important to me. They also look utterly beautiful.

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[zombywoof]

That is my wife's favorite Gibson 6 string you are talking about. My guess is though is that when Gibson and others made changes they did so not necessarily for sound but structure. I always got the impression that Gibson was always a bit edgy about supporting that big old top. Gibson went to stiff laminate back and rims in 1955 which they made themselves. Gibson's laminate was made of even layers of the same wood glued together so none of that cheap filler stuff. Also in 1955, Gibson returned to the pre-1940 style bracing footprint reintroducing the second wide angle brace above the soundhole. Ours was built in 1960 so while avoiding ADJ Bridge it does have the skinny neck carve. Also in 1960 Gibson began making every J-200 in the newly created Custom Dept. on the third floor of the Daylight Plant. Story is the white wood foreman tap tuned them. Also in 1961, Gibson went with a large floating brace held in by a big old screw to help support the top. Fortunately, however, these nasty things were easy to remove so did not prove much of a problem.

 

Here be ours.

 

[j45nick]

Also in 1961, Gibson went with a large floating brace held in by a big old screw to help support the top. Fortunately, however, these nasty things were easy to remove so did not prove much of a problem.

 

 

ZW, that description exactly fits what Gibson put inside my old J-45 when they re-topped it in 1968. DO you have any pictures, drawing, or other info about that device? You are the only other person I've ever heard mention it.

[ksdaddy]

I've never actually seen one of those braces but they were generally looked upon as a tone killer and most were yanked out.

[62burst]

Luscious photo, 'Woof.

 

So- the "seasonal" jam where the heat's turned off. . . they're not worried about frozen pipes, or are you playing away in a manger gig?

[E-minor7]

And as Townshend stated i 1990.

"I don't have romantic misconceptions about musical instruments — they're just wood, probably far more useful as pulp than anything else. There are actually a couple of instruments that I would miss, and in fact a weird thing happened to the J-200 that I've had for a long time. Half way through Iron Man it got wet in the studio and exploded, and it was almost like the guitar getting back at me — the only guitar I cared about dying on me!"

Okay, Pete - karma is karma, , , you tasted the acoustic variation.

 

The 200 apparently was the sunburst 1968er mentioned by JCV.

[j45nick]

I've never actually seen one of those braces but they were generally looked upon as a tone killer and most were yanked out.

 

 

I certainly yanked the one out of my J-45. Still have just a few of the pieces in a bag. I honestly thought it was something they accidentally left in when they re-topped it.

[EuroAussie]

Thanks for the input.

 

Do you guys also hear a difference between the 50s and 60s samples ?

 

Do you have a preferance ?

[zombywoof]

ZW, that description exactly fits what Gibson put inside my old J-45 when they re-topped it in 1968. DO you have any pictures, drawing, or other info about that device? You are the only other person I've ever heard mention it.

 

Here 'tis. We got away lucky with our Gibson restoration. While I am not sure all what they did the only things noticeable are the re-finish and new tuners and TRC (which I have since replaced with an original). My repair guy said pretty much everything else was as it left Kalamazoo in 1960. The only reason we know Gibson did the work is the FON stamped into the back of the headstock.

 

[zombywoof]

Thanks for the input.

 

Do you guys also hear a difference between the 50s and 60s samples ?

 

Do you have a preferance ?

 

My preference is 1950s but that is only because of the neck carve. As far as sound, I have never gotten my hands on any SJ/J-200 made from 1955 on that I like the sound of better than that which we own. But again, ours was built before all the floating brace and ADJ bridge stuff. It is certainly beautifully built - the pinnacle of the guitar builder's craft. If you are looking for fancy wood though unless you snag one that was custom ordered, what you got was luck of the draw. Ours has both a bit of quilt and flame. It is also the heaviest acoustic guitar I have ever had the pleasure to hang around with.

[j45nick]

Here 'tis. We got away lucky with our Gibson restoration. While I am not sure all what they did the only things noticeable are the re-finish and new tuners and TRC (which I have since replaced with an original). My repair guy said pretty much everything else was as it left Kalamazoo in 1960. The only reason we know Gibson did the work is the FON stamped into the back of the headstock.

 

 

 

That's it, exactly!

 

Did Gibson do a "restoration" on your J-200, and if so, do you know the year? I know they put that floating brace in mine in the summer of 1968, since I'm the one when sent the guitar to them. In my case, the side supports were mahogany. In your case, it looks like they may have replaced some top kerfing as well, since it's a different size.

 

Also, like yours, my J-45 came back from Gibson with the FON stamped on the back of the headstock. I remember staring at that and thinking "I'm sure that wasn't there before." I kept staring at my guitar, with new cherryburst top and adj bridge, thinking "is this really my guitar?"

[zombywoof]

That's it, exactly!

 

Did Gibson do a "restoration" on your J-200, and if so, do you know the year? I know they put that floating brace in mine in the summer of 1968, since I'm the one when sent the guitar to them. In my case, the side supports were mahogany. In your case, it looks like they may have replaced some top kerfing as well, since it's a different size.

 

Also, like yours, my J-45 came back from Gibson with the FON stamped on the back of the headstock. I remember staring at that and thinking "I'm sure that wasn't there before." I kept staring at my guitar, with new cherryburst top and adj bridge, thinking "is this really my guitar?"

 

Yeah, that FON stamped on the headstock of ours also initially threw me. I do not have a clue when Gibson worked on ours as we got it well after the fact. But as I said, it appeared to be mostly cosmetic stuff. They reused the original pickguard and bridge. But for all we know the guitar might have started life as a natural top. A second pickguard was added but I am not sure Gibson did it. I had it removed. Did not change the sound any but I liked the way the guitar looked a whole lot better with it gone. You can still see its outline in the photo I posted.

[FemmeParallell]

Thanks for the input.

 

Do you guys also hear a difference between the 50s and 60s samples ?

 

Do you have a preferance ?

 

 

 

 

yes, i hear them too, just like you mentioned the 50s sounds more mellow (more like i would expect maple to sound), i too prefer the 60s sounds although i enjoyed both type of sounds

[j45nick]

yes, i hear them too, just like you mentioned the 50s sounds more mellow (more like i would expect maple to sound), i too prefer the 60s sounds although i enjoyed both type of sounds

 

 

I'll second these comments, based on the sound clips.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

To my ears at least this 56 J 200 sums up the sound of a maple super jumbo:

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[EuroAussie]

To my ears at least this 56 J 200 sums up the sound of a maple super jumbo:

 

 

 

 

 

JC

 

 

Intersting how that top almost looks like a cedar top from the aging.

[E-minor7]

I follow your ears regarding these guitars, but would't be able to say if it's a general pattern.

 

Didn't you have a favorite 200-video at some point.

You know I have memory like a, , , Jumbo - and recall you setting 1 spezial oldie up more than once a couple of years ago.

 

Here are 2 64ers that seem to confirm your theory.

 

1964 ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_UPptb921A

 

 

1964 ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdHi9l_fs6w

 

Ouh, , , and let's not forget the Tune-O-Matic-factor. How d'you rate them ?

[EuroAussie]

I follow your ears regarding these guitars, but would't be able to say if it's a general pattern.

 

Didn't you have a favorite 200-video at some point.

You know I have memory like a, , , Jumbo - and recall you setting 1 spezial oldie up more than once a couple of years ago.

 

Here are 2 64ers that seem to confirm your theory.

 

1964 ~ [mediAa]

[/media]

 

 

1964 ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdHi9l_fs6w

 

Ouh, , , and let's not forget the Tune-O-Matic-factor. How d'you rate them ?

 

 

Ah yes, how could I possibly miss that first vid, yes indeed. Its quite possibly the best sounding Gibson Ive heard on youtube, really. It has it all, in spaed. Warmth, yet incredible articulation on the high notes, a highly projective front, soft back, its the quintessential Gibson sound to my ears.

 

Our Japanese friend is a great talent and I enjoy watching his vids. Actually I copied his 'Last Christmas' version (yes, shoot me) for a sing along at an open mike. That J-200 also sounds very full, but almost like the mike was placed too close, it sounds a bit boomy or even too 'sensitvve' in how its recorded it that makes sense.

 

Those 60's J-200's are out of this world, but if im totally honest my 2002 J-150 absolutely competed and in my humble or maybe not so humble opinion has a stronger tone that most of the 50's J-200 samples Ive come across on youtube. Alas Ive never played or touched a 60's / 50's Jp200 so cant say directly.

[zombywoof]

Hard to tell much from a video but as that is the best I have to go on compared to the one we have in the house the balance on the guitar in the vid is different. The '64 did sound more articulate than our 1960. But it also does not have the saturated mids ours has. The high end in particular sounded thinner while the lower mids have less oomph. So while blanket statements are dangerous, I would say the pre-Tune-o-matic J-200s remain the better strummers. If you do more single string stuff the ADJ bridge guitars might be more up your alley.

[Jinder]

Hard to tell much from a video but as that is the best I have to go on compared to the one we have in the house the balance on the guitar in the vid is different. The '64 did sound more articulate than our 1960. But it also does not have the saturated mids ours has. The high end in particular sounded thinner while the lower mids have less oomph. So while blanket statements are dangerous, I would say the pre-Tune-o-matic J-200s remain the better strummers. If you do more single string stuff the ADJ bridge guitars might be more up your alley.

 

I've played some sensational '60s SJ200s, the best being Mickie Most's pickguardless 200 which Jimmy Page used to record the intro to Stairway To Heaven. That thing had everything, literally the whole lot. Despite the Tune-O-Matic and skinny neck...just a wonderful instrument.

 

I've never played a '50s example but I can't imagine the tone being BETTER than the Mickie Most guitar.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Here’s a rad 52:

 

 

 

 

JC

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Another awesome 56:

 

 

This 68 doesn’t do it for me:

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC