-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RockabillyHell
-
-
here is a quarter sawn walnut guitar back...
Nice looking piece of wood. Is it 'better"? That's subjective and I'm glad that I'm not hung up on "I gotta have that because of what others say and think" I wouldn't trade in my j-15 for anything else. It's a fine guitar tonally and in build quality. It is not an entry level guitar.
-
All this great advice from a guy that doesn't even take the time to properly care for his guitar. Hmmmm?
It's clear now that your objective is to bash what you personally consider to be "inferior" Your opinions are noted, but still just "opinions. The fact is that price has little or no relevance once you get beyond certain features. A few years ago I had a short-scale Gibson IR AJ that I traded in for a solid wood hog Seagull and cash some back. The Seagull was the better guitar to my ears. The AJ cost three times as much but wasn't for me.
-
I didn't make my self to clear when posting about the wood. The wood itself is just fine it's the way they cut the wood that is the problem. When you use smaller dimension wood to achieve the proper dimensions for a guitar back from the smaller less expensive logs they need to be flat sawn. This is not as good a cut as quarter sawn. Quarter sawing uses a lot bigger log and that makes it more expensive.
Everyone that knows anything about guitar construction will tell you this. As to gun stocks: Yes they are made from walnut. English Walnut. Not the species that Gibson is using on the J-15. English Walnut is a far superior wood and the gunstocks are never flat sawn they are always- ALWAYS quarter sawn. I'm surprised that someone from England doesn't know this.
In another thread there was a reference to Martin making a $12,000.00 guitar from Walnut. Well the answer is quite simple the use English Walnut and they quarter saw it. This is more expensive wood and the quarter saw cut also adds to the expense.
They call it a J-15 because it is 2/3 the quality of a J-45. If it was 1/2 as good it would be a J-22.5 wouldn't it.
In another thread someone asked what Ren thought of the guitar. These are but a few of his observations.
The J-15 is a passable entry level instrument. The price point is achieved by cutting some important corners. That is just fine with me. My problem is that some folks here are calling the guitar a Cadillac of guitars and as good or better than a J-45. It clearly is not. I stated some of the reasons. I guess that would qualify me as a troll. Honest information is not treated kindly here. Did I mention the J-15 has a great neck?
I've had My J-15 for almost two years. I haven't properly humidified it(I really should) The humidity in my house is 20%. It hasn't fallen apart and it shows absolutely no indication of not being properly humidified. A couple of times I banged it with my heavy brass belt buckle, Not a ding on it. The walnut used is fine quality. You mentioned the tuners? What's wrong with them? They're well made and do what they're supposed to do which is accurately tune the guitar. You seem hooked on "more expensive better" "less expensive bad, inferior" people tend to do that to make themselves feel about their own stuff. I bought the J-15 because it sounded better to me that the other guitars in the shop that I played, including other Gibson's. I once owned a Martin cherry SWD which was a fantastic guitar. Is cherry an "inferior wood"? Saying that a J15 is an entry level guitar is incorrect and getting caught up in "this is the only way to cut wood" seems silly. And the price point is due to to curent supply and sustainability.
- 1
-
Hey Rock - great tune ! Did you amp that J-15, or straight into the board?
I mic'd it with a Shure super 55 pointed at the 12th fret. Thanks for listening too!
-
This is the fist song that I've recorded using the J-15 with my project in progress "The Defilers" It's an outtake and a rough mix but you get the idea.TWO A.M.
Gibson J15 - Review
in Gibson Acoustic
Posted