rbpicker Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Just played one here in the metro Detroit area. It was ok... Not great, just ok. I suspect within 6 months of being played it will improve a lot. Needs a bone saddle. The tusc sounds quite brittle. BTW, this one has the banner headstock and very light mahogany B/S like the J50's. RBI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltonwce Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Wildwood ad. has specs as solid mahogany with banner. $1699.00. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Wildwood ad. has specs as solid mahogany with banner. $1699.00. Curious that they would issue these with Banners? http://wildwoodguitars.com/products/10433028.php?CategoryID=432&n=0 and why a rectangle bridge, but a drop-in saddle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeljohnr Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Gads.....You guys are killing me. I really like the looks of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 ...why a rectangle bridge, but a drop-in saddle? To accommodate the compensated saddle, which is pretty much a stock size, and for the Baggs Element pickup transducer. Remember, this J-34 is a modern interpretation, not a strict re-issue. The rectangular bridge recalls the bridge shape on a vintage J-35 guitar, but beside being slotted for a modern saddle and fitted with a pick up, its been redesigned in another respect, too: it's even in height on the bass and treble sides. The original was higher on the bass side. Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 To accommodate the compensated saddle, which is pretty much a stock size, and for the Baggs Element pickup transducer. Remember, this J-34 is a modern interpretation, not a strict re-issue. The rectangular bridge recalls the bridge shape on a vintage J-35 guitar, but beside being slotted for a modern saddle and fitted with a pick up, its been redesigned in another respect, too: it's even in height on the bass and treble sides. The original was higher on the bass side. Red 333 Ah, I see. Wait a sec, no I don't. The bridge height all the way across is the same in height - but the two rectangle bridges I have on other guitars, slope a bit towards the treble side. Does that give enough compensation for the B string? I wonder if the Gibson folks were thinking that perhaps the new LR Baggs "Lyric" would be in high enough production by this time, and they could have been release together, ala the J-45 "PureVoice" - even though that is a different company. I know the thru bridge saddle cannot accomodate an under-saddle, it would have been interesting with the new Lyric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Ah, I see. Wait a sec, no I don't. The bridge height all the way across is the same in height - but the two rectangle bridges I have on other guitars, slope a bit towards the treble side. Does that give enough compensation for the B string? I wonder if the Gibson folks were thinking that perhaps the new LR Baggs "Lyric" would be in high enough production by this time, and they could have been release together, ala the J-45 "PureVoice" - even though that is a different company. I know the thru bridge saddle cannot accomodate an under-saddle, it would have been interesting with the new Lyric. The sloping of the wood thickness from maximum height on the bass side to thinner on the treble on the vintage style rectangular bridges is not for compensation. The theory of the time was that the greater mass on the bass side would produce deeper bass response. You can see this variance in thickness by looking at the bridge from the endpin. Higher on the bass side is a design characteristic of Gibson rectangular bridges from the 30's and early 40's, not Martins. It's not really known whether the design actually has an audible effect, but Gibson reproduces that style of bridge for vintage reissues because that's how the original guitars were equipped. The vintage style bridge would not not work with a standard, modern compensated saddle, because the extra height of the bridge's wood on the bass side could potentially cover up some of the saddle on that side, change the break angle of the strings, etc. Slotted saddles on the vintage style rectangular bridges are especially shaped to prevent this, as they are shaped to be much higher on the bass side, the way the bridge is. Compensation is achieved in the vintage style rectangular bridges (and every style of bridge) by the angle that the saddle is set into the bridge. The saddle is further from edge of the bridge on the bass side and closer to the edge on the treble side to slightly change the speaking length of each of the strings, which is necessary to keep the guitar in tune up and down the neck. A modern compensated saddle has a little notch at the B sting position (or on other stings) to further fine tune the string's length by individually adjusting its point of contact with the saddle, which is also called the crown. You can find the mathematical formula for determining string compensation, and a first-class explanation of why its necessary, on the Stewart MacDonald lutherie website if my attempt is unclear. Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn6490 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 That is on beutiful guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lefty Guy Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Just wondering why the end of the fingerboard is so much further from the edge of the soundhole than on a J-45? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Just wondering why the end of the fingerboard is so much further from the edge of the soundhole than on a J-45? I just looked at my J-50 and noticed the fingerboard is much closer to the soundhole than the J-35 pictured too. Strange. I will try to play it later today.I'll bring my Zoom to Sam Ash (if they still have it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I just looked at my J-50 and noticed the fingerboard is much closer to the soundhole than the J-35 pictured too. Strange. I will try to play it later today.I'll bring my Zoom to Sam Ash (if they still have it). If you look at an old J-35 (or some early J-45's or LG's, etc.), you will see that's how Gibson made guitars in the thirties and forties. At that time, Gibson fretboards had 19 frets (which means it was shorter than the one used on most guitars today), so the fingerboard ended well before the soundhole. In the early fifties, they got 20, which extended the overall length of the fretboard, bringing the bottom closer to the top edge of the soundhole, where they are today. Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Red, you are treasure trove of accurate information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 That's not the same guitar Don had at Namm . Banner or no banner she's a beauty ... I wonder if you can order both versions ? JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 The sloping of the wood thickness from maximum height on the bass side to thinner on the treble on the vintage style rectangular bridges is not for compensation. The theory of the time was that the greater mass on the bass side would produce deeper bass response. You can see this variance in thickness by looking at the bridge from the endpin. Back when I first got my hands on an old Gibson I noticed the height diffrence in the bridge and assumed it had been shaved and done poorly which was why it was thicker on the bass side. In the early 1970s I spent some time learning how to build guitars and brought my Gibson in so the guy I was working under could look at the bridge. He told me exactly what you said - that it was just the way Gibson made 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Just came back from Sam Ash. They had one J-35 - so they must have sold the other one. The strings were horrible. If this had Lifespans on it it would sell to the next guy who walked into the acoustic room. The bottom line is if I didn't already have a J-50 it would have come home with me. Picture and ZOOM soundclip follow. Excuse the warts in my playing as I was trying to record quickly in between breaks of Stairway to Heaven and Green Day songs permeating the store... https://soundcloud.com/sal-from-chatham/new-2013-gibson-j-35-at-sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 Sal , that's a fine guitar and as others have said ... that's the worst it's ever going to sound !!! beautiful !!!!! Don wasn't kiding when he said it was great =D JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenumber2 Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Sounds like a winner to me. Sal, did it sound like either your J-50 or TV? Any notable differences? Hard to tell subtle things from a recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Dave - I liked it slightly better than my J-50. It had a little more Gibson Growl. It also felt noticeably lighter. I would love to see the specs side by side. Or - if one of you want to byt my new Martin 000-17SM, I will buy the J35 and do a detailed side by side with my J50 :) LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeljohnr Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Sounds good! That's it. I'll have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 Dave - I liked it slightly better than my J-50. It had a little more Gibson Growl. It also felt noticeably lighter. I would love to see the specs side by side. Or - if one of you want to byt my new Martin 000-17SM, I will buy the J35 and do a detailed side by side with my J50 :) LOL Sal , can't you still return the Martin ? JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Sal , can't you still return the Martin ? Naah. I bought it from a place with a one week return (Maurysmusic). JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Wannabe Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Well, then the obvious thing to do is to buy the J35, string it up proper, do some extensive A/B-ing with your J50, and then return it to Sam Ash. OK, just kidding! Thanks a lot for the sound clip -- it sounded really good. I'd love to hear one of these A/B'd with a J45 or J50, but I'm sure someone will do that on youtube in the near future. Just curious Sal, what year if your J50? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Well, then the obvious thing to do is to buy the J35, string it up proper, do some extensive A/B-ing with your J50, and then return it to Sam Ash. OK, just kidding! Thanks a lot for the sound clip -- it sounded really good. I'd love to hear one of these A/B'd with a J45 or J50, but I'm sure someone will do that on youtube in the near future. Just curious Sal, what year if your J50? I just bought it late 2012? SO I guess it is circa 2012. I'll have to check the serial number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Wannabe Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Sorry I can't remember from your other posts, but is your J50 one of the Fuller's customs or some such? I was thinking Gibson stopped making a production J50 a few years back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 It is from Fuller's. I do think it is production though - J-50 Modern Classic. It is the same as the J45 Natural Modern Classic, but with the different pickguard. The Modern Classic line I think is the same as Standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.