Tim Tim

I can relate. For years and years, every J45 I played sounded dull. I wrote it off as “I’m not a Gibson guy.” Then I played one random J45 standard at a guitar center that sounded far better than the others. So I started looking into J45s. I jumped on a Legend that was underwhelming, to say the least. I finally gambled on a newer Historic, and it is incredible and my very favorite guitar. And to think, I’m a “Martin guy!” Lol. The D18 authentic is a close second, but these Historics are the best of Montana Gibson.

I don’t blame Gibson for following in Martin’s footsteps on these relic guitars, but their pricing doesn’t compete. A prewar martin D28 is over $100k, and a D-18 in good shape isn’t a lot less than that. So the aged Martins are 10% of the originals. $6500 for a Murphy J-45? There’s a KILLER all original 40s J45 on the AGF want ad right now for less than $2000 more than that. Vintage Gibsons should cost more, but they just don’t. The pricing on these makes no sense when you can have the real deal for not much more. The thing about Martin’s aged Authentics is that the finish is thinner, and they SOUND BETTER. Jury is out on whether these sound any different than the Historic version. Thirdly, the aging/relicking on these is pretty subtle. Seems to me, people who like these for the visual aesthetic are going to want it to look worn, not just a few little scuffs. Gut tells me this is a lot of money for minimal aging that may or may not affect tone, at a price that is not much less than the real deal vintage guitar. Hard pass.

He’s talking about averages. There are some good examples that escaped the 70s, but there are more issues than average vs the 60s and 80s. The bridge placement intonation issue and huge bridgeplates are the two major issues discussed from that period. Both are fixable, but an 80s guitar, at least, will have the bridge in the right place. FWIW The HD-28 has always had the small maple bridge plate since its release in ‘76. That’s an exception to the rule until Martin wised up on that in ‘88. The necks on those 70s martins are awesome.

What happened in 1982? The mid 80s brought over finish pickguards, adjustable truss rods, and low profile necks. As far as I can tell, the bridge misplacement intonation issue was fixed in 1980. They didn’t get small maple bridge plates until the late 80s. It depends what folks consider improvement, but to me, if you want a 70s martin with the intonation issue fixed, get one from the early 80s. Better yet, have the bridgeplate pulled and replaced. Otherwise, you’re looking at a 90s model with a small plate and skinny neck.

Folks here are right that you need to make sure the neck angle is good (or that it's priced to pay for a neck reset). As long as you're comfortable getting those measurements, that's easy to check. Make sure the frets are in good shape. If it needs a refret, then relief (truss rod issue) is a non issue since relief on those guitars is set by compression (re)fretting. If it doesn't need a refret, make sure relief is where you want it. Also, I'd double check the serial number to get the exact build year. 70s Martins often have intonation problems due to mis-placement of the bridge. That was corrected in 1980. If it's a '79, you might want to measure the nut-to-saddle scale length to make sure it's right on the money. Get a look inside just to check for history of repairs or loose braces etc. If the price is right, and it doesn't need major work (or is priced for the repairs), these are wonderful guitars. These 70s/early 80s guitars have the very best necks out there IMO. They have the pre-CNC accurate body shapes and 40 year old wood. Post over on the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum too. Lots of very knowledgable luthiers and vintage nuts over there. Good luck!

The 000-15 shouldn’t sound “tinny” or “flat” at all. To the contrary, mahogany topped guitars are usually thick, warm, and woody sounding. My old 000-15SM was a wonderful guitar for that sound. Very syrupy rich sounding. That’s either not a great example, doesn’t have the right strings (try Med/Light gauge Martin Retros!), or the guitar is just not a match for your ears. They’re pretty popular for good reason though. But not a standard series guitar. At $1200-1400, not bad for that sound tho.

Weird guitar. Kind of like the Gibson version of a Martin 0000. With a very wide nut and 12 fret access. I bet it flops, but I know nothing. Would be fun to play; I bet it sounds nice!

Which is why I’m looking used. Any leads greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Definitely tempted. Quite a bit less $$ to get ‘em used…

Title says it all. Ideally the newer thinner checked finish but open to whatever you’ve got. References available on request. Thanks, Tim

Yikes. On the one hand, it’s cool to see such a traditionally minded company do something more outside-the-box, but on the other hand: yikes. Only two ever made. Someone will buy it.

Martin has been dying their ebony black since before WW2. They only finally stopped just this year.

These aren’t “Martin” problems getting tone woods. This is a worldwide problem. This has been a Taylor problem and a Martin problem and an Eastman problem and soon to be a Gibson problem. Taylor and martin have been using it for years, and martin just stopped the practice of dying the streaked pieces. The bigger factories are the first to feel the effects of deforestation since they use larger quantities of rare (quality) woods. reportedly, lutz spruce has the potential to be stiffer than, and just as light as, Sitka, which may push it more in the direction of European or Adirondack spruce. For some, this surprise may turn out to be a pleasant upgrade. I’m eager to play one, personally.

For those interested, NYT did a nice piece on Billy next year. It’s pretty clear the guy made it in spite of his childhood and not because of it. It’s a miracle he’s alive, let alone a big star. He’s a hero. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/arts/music/billy-strings-renewal.html

“Records well” is always sort of a backhanded compliment. Great if you’re recording, but if you’re not, often means less power and volume, less bass, less overtone. Not better or worse, but unless you’re recording, there aren’t a ton of us who really want a guitar that “records well.”

Not questioning his brilliance and talent. Just saying that a) I don’t play at all like that, so the guitar doesn’t sound at all like that in my hands, and b) for all his talent and brilliance, he’s so fast and flashy he’s really not pulling a ton of tone out of the guitar. In that way, every guitar he plays sounds more like him than the guitar. Great for him, but not helpful when buying a guitar.

This guy’s videos tell me nothing about how a guitar will sound in my hands or really anything about it’s tone. Too bad, cause he’s clearly talented, and it’s clearly a beautiful guitar.

D35 has good bass, but it’s still a straight braced guitar. A scalloped HD-28 or HD-35 or authentic D-28 will be boomier still. I completely understand wanting a good martin strummer and a good Gibson strummer. They’re just such different but iconic sounds. The J185 is not a boomy guitar. Kind of like Gibsons answer to the martin 000. I wonder if that particular guitar you played got one or two extra shaves off the braces compared to most. If I were you, I’d play at least one more before writing off the model. We all really do hear and appreciate differently, so ultimately you’ll have to play a few yourself to find out. Have fun.

So just just had an opportunity to play my J-45 Historic along with a J-35 Historic and think I know what you mean. The notes on the J-45 were a bit more blended where the 35 had a bit more separation and crispness. Also had more headroom and a more booming bass. Honestly, the J-35 sounded incredible. Had all the ripping mid strength of the 45 but with more volume, crispness, and low end strength. i actually had calipers and measured the body depths at heel and tail and laid the guitar backs against each other to compare shape. These two models definitely use the exact same body shape and depth. (I wish I’d remembered to check out the back bracing…) Only things I didn’t love about the J-35 Historic were the neck and aesthetic. I think it’s partly because of the wider nut, but the neck felt a lot more shallow than I was hoping for. Very flat across the back and doesn’t really fill the hand at all. Kind of disappointing. Taper up the neck is very gradual as well. Visually, the headstock decal looks super cheap in person imo and already looked like it was wearing through on this particular guitar. The burst on this one was super yellow and can’t stand the fire stripe pickguard. But aesthetics aren’t the biggest deal. If the neck was perfect, I think I would have traded in my 45. But as is, tonal difference isn’t different enough to accept the drawbacks to the trade. End of the day, they’re both great guitars.

Super helpful, thank you. I also emailed a guy who sells lots of both at a large Gibson dealer (which seems to match what Red is saying), so I’ll include his comments below for posterity… “Yes, I do tend to hear a difference between J-35s and J-45s, although somewhat subtle depending on the specific guitar in question. Overall, I find better string-to-string separation with a J-35 and more balance, treble to bass. To my ears, the J-45 is (usually) a "wall of sound." Power, with a heavier bottom end. J-35 has a bit more crispness/presence to the attack. If I were recording a large bodied guitar, I'd probably pick a J-35 over the J-45 since it'd be practically effortless to mic up and get a great sound…”

I know about YouTube. Thanks.

We agree on that. I’m looking for spec and tone comparison on the two modern versions above…

Nut width and bracing pattern and aesthetics are definitely different. Not sure about body.

I somehow missed this statement. So the shapes ARE different? Do you know HOW exactly, or how it affects sound? AJ upper bout and waits look maybe a tiny bit narrower. Low bout wider too? Not sure on depth…

Nevermind, upload data limits apparently won't allow a few small photos. Bummer. Anyone measure these or can comment on whether bodies are the same size or different?