NevadaPic Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Folks, Help me out in deciding which model of maple-bodied J-185 to go for. Has anyone A/Bed these models and can describe the difference? I have a J-150 now which I like very much but I'm starting to really appreciate the Gibson short-scale neck after playing my WM-00 which I seem to go to more and more... In favor of the True Vintage is it lacks any kind of electronics on board. On the other hand though, it is significantly more expensive. I'm not sure what accounts for the added expense besides a maple neck, Madagascar rosewood fingerboard/bridge and a bone saddle. Thanks! Pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarstrummer Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 The TV has been much better, of the ones I've A/B'd. The TV models also have an upgraded case, thinner vintage style back braces, authentic Tuners, orange label, aged toner, bone nut and saddle, and historic binding over the fret ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwatsonfan Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 pic.....I've had a 2004 J185 , and currently a proud owner of a 2007 J185TV I vote for an older J185 WITH the maltese cross, or the current TV's I just can't see buying a J185MC and not getting the maltese cross on the bridge#-o btw.......the neck on my TV is mahogany the J200JR has a maple neck , I know , had one of those too! oh.......gotta love those WM's my 2004 WM45 is probably my desert island guitar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaPic Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share Posted June 22, 2008 Mike, Thanks for the reply. I'm leaning towards the True Vintage, thinking it will be the last guitar I buy (ha, ha). Before I blow an extra $700-$800 I guess I want some justification for it. I'm not so much focused on the vintage, historic stuff as the sound... I can always remove the pickup and electronics from the Modern Classic and replace the saddle with a bone one if need be but if the True Vintage really has an edge sound-wise A/Bed then that's what I need to know... Pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaPic Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share Posted June 22, 2008 Doc, Thanks for the heads up! Mahogany neck is fine as far as I'm concerned as long as there is something else to the True Vintage that makes it worthwhile... You are correct, ya gotta love those WMs. The more I play mine the more I like it. They are very plain, no nonsense guitars with a lot of sound. I am still trying different kinds of strings to find what's best. In the meantime, it's a pleasurable search... Pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwatsonfan Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 quote:as long as there is something else to the True Vintage that makes it worthwhile... I would say it is worthwhile I got mine used for 3 or 4 bills more than a standard and I think well worth it........ It is extremely resonant , and not as dry as a SJ very sweet and balanced fingerstyle it can't be beat IMHO ! otoh.....if you haven't already , try some john pearse NM710 (new medium) phosphor bronze strings on the WM I get them from " talkin_monkey" on ebay! super seller with great service ! cheers, Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Well let's see....the Gibsons that everyone admires and lusts for, from the pre-war and wartime eras, were often noteworthy for the exceptionally light construction, as well as their incredible tone. Maybe there is a cause and effect relationship there. The TV models are significantly more lightly built than the MC models, and the ones I've played reflect that tonally----in a good way. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in SLC Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Pic, Simple choice for me: the '07 TV I bought sounds more like the 1950's J-185's than the MC's I've played. Dave in SLC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaPic Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Folks, Thanks ya'll for the replies. Ya'll have talked me into it! Now the quest begins... Pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NevadaPic Posted July 16, 2008 Author Share Posted July 16, 2008 Folks, Took delivery of an almost new, used J-185 TV produced in 2007. It sounded terrible when I first withdrew from its case. The action was 7-8/64th at 12 fret/high E and the strings were medium gauge PBs of unknown maker. Following some judicious saddle work resulting in 4/64ths at 12th fret/high E and light gauge 80/20 d'Addario's it sounds MUCH better now and I am happy. Outside of the poor setup the guitar was otherwise pristine. Still has the plastic covering on the (plastic) pickguard. I think it will age well. The case is nothing short of phenomenal. Industrial strength, good looking inside and out. I wish all my guitars had cases of equivalent quality. However, I am still at a loss trying to understand the significant differences between the True Vintage and the Modern Classic versions of this, and other, models. Outside of fingerboard/bridge of Madagascar rosewood, a bone saddle, no electronics and aforementioned case there doesn't seem to be much difference. The Gibson website is of no help in illustrating the difference. I am not complaining. I got my TV for more-or-less same price I would have paid for a new Modern Classic. I have a J-150 that sounds phenomenal. It is not a True Vintage model but I refer to its sound and playability by way of comparison. Different guitars to be sure, but where is the $600-$700 difference between the True Vintage and Modern Classics? Pic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 What I noticed right away, was the difference in the mass and thickness of the back braces, between my standard (not a modern classic) J185, and the TV. The TV was noticeably lighter in weight, as well. From what I could sense, the top bracing must be thinner, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefleppard Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 What I noticed right away' date=' was the difference in the mass and thickness of the back braces, between my standard (not a modern classic) J185, and the TV. The TV was noticeably lighter in weight, as well. From what I could sense, the top bracing must be thinner, as well.[/quote'] help me out here, guys. yesterday, i played a 185 and the price was 2075cdn. would that have been an MC or is there a standard model below the MC and TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 The modern classic designation wasn't in use when my J-185 was made. It was a standard J185, with no electronics. That's the way things were before Gibson decided to equip their garden variety models with standard electronics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.