Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums


All Access
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24 Neutral

About sbpark

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I've never been a fan of Grovers in J-45's. Consequently, I don't mind them on the Martin D-35. I swapped out the Grovers on my J-45 Standard with some Kluson 3-on-a-plate tuners and never looked back. Just needed some conversion bushings from StewMac and some polish to buff out the "raccoon eyes" left by the Rotomatics. Took me easily under an hour start to finish. Before: After:
  2. For me at least I don't think it has anything to do with the fretboard radius. The reason I do not like flat picking on a J45 is because of the shorter scale length. I prefer the longer scale length of the Advanced Jumbo and Martin dreads. Even with heavier strings the J-45 feels floppy. I like a bit more resistance. a Martin scale length dread of longer scale AJ and some 13's and that's the way to go for flat picking, and for that type of playing my D-18 crushes a J-45.
  3. I bought a 2017 J45 in 2016. There is a 2017 stamp on the back of the headstock and the serial number (that's also on the back of the headstock) dates it a 2016, with matching serial number on the label visible through the sound hole. Gibson is/was releasing the following year's models early, similar to what automobile makers do. I also have a Fender that has a 2017 serial number on the back of the headstock, but the stamp at the heel (on the same neck) says 2018. Go figure.
  4. Every guitar is going to sound different from one to another. Torrification isn't necessarily the deciding factor that determines the sound. It's the complete sum of it's parts and how they all sound when combines together.
  5. The YamahaFG Series has always had a reputation of being a killer value. They're VERY affordable guitars that are made well and are very consistent and sound pretty good. With that said, I don't think they are mind-blowing in how they sound, but they do sound really good, especially for what these can be had for, mores if you buy one used. Pennies on the dollar. I had a Yamaha FG441-S for many years. Bought it brand new around 1997. A few years ago the action started creeping up and couldn't justify a forking out for a neck reset so I just sold it for next to nothing to a guy who bought budget guitars for school music programs. I was really nice guitar.
  6. I had a J45TV with a very light bridge, and it was legit.
  7. You should check out the 000-15M. All mahogany, and if you want a wider fretboard, LA Guitar Sales does a Custom Shop model with a 1 3/4" nut. Seriously awesome fingerpicking guitars and very affordable.
  8. You should also consider tossing in a nice Advanced Jumbo in there!
  9. I own four acoustics...two Gibsons (J45, AJ) and tea Martins (D-18, D-45) My first love was Gibson acoustics, but I am also smitten with my Martins. They all have their own voice and each has it's "thing" it does better than the others. My J45 is growly and sweet at the same time. My AJ is a bluegrass/flatpicking monster and is LOUD. The D45 has this three-dimensional presence, almost like ti has it's own built in reverb, and is killer for both finger picking and singer songwriter stuff. The D-18 is probably the best "all-arounder" of the bunch. I can do everything with this guitar and be happy...flatpicking, fingerpicking, bluegrass, singer-songwriter. It does it all. Very woody and "old school" sounding, if that makes any sense. Old school country, bluegrass and fiddle tunes just beg to be played in the D-18. Yo see a lot of people wanting to compare and agonizing over deciding between J45's and D-18's. To me they're not even close in comparison. Different body shapes,, different scale length, ever so slightly nut width on the Martins (mine are 1 3/4"). I sort of think of the J45 as a small-body guitar in a larger guitar's body and string mine with 12's. D-18's are a flat pickers dream, are monsters with 13's. has a larger body, longer scale neck, overall bigger voice. I've always thought the D-18 is pretty much the Swiss Army knife of acoustic guitars. If you could only have one guitar and play Bluegrass and fiddle tunes in your repertoire it's hard to beat a D-18. The "newer" (post 2012) D-18 Standards when they went to the 1 3/4" nut with, and back to scalloped and forward shifted bracing are pretty darn sweet., If you don't play any Bluegrass or fiddle tunes the J45 is tough to beat. Of course, neither of these are hard, fast rules.
  10. There are many definitions used to determine if a guitar is "vintage", so neither of us is wrong, only a difference of opinion. I'll put it you you this way...just because a guitar meets criteria as "vintage" (use whatever criteria or definition you'd like), doesn't automatically mean it's anything special, desirable or valuable. It can still be defined as vintage and be a worthless p.o.s., and just because you aren't keen to certain guitars made during a certain era doesn't automatically discount them from being defined as vintage. You may not like it, but that doesn't discount it from being something.
  11. Seems a bit excessive to refinish the entire top for a few CA glue drips and dribbles. I'm sure there is a way to fix this to a satisfactory state, and even to the point where you can hardly notice the screw up without having to refinish the guitar. As a previous poster has mentioned, CA glue is used extensively in guitar repair and a skilled repair person should be able to scrape the existing flops down, then do some delicate sanding and finally buffing to get it to a good place. Pictures would really help.
  12. Again, as many have already stated, you can't make blanket conclusions on an entire era/decade/period of guitars based on one example from that time. There will be amazing ones, great ones, good ones and awful ones from every period, new and old, vintage and modern, etc. You're also comparing a 0 size Martin to a 000 size Martin. Only thing in common is the name on the headstock. Would be like comparing a J45 and a LG0 and saying you prefer one over the other thinking it's apples and apples. And jsut because these two guitars in the video look the same/very similar on the outside and both have the "35" in the model name doesn't mean they are even remotely the same or similar under the hood, because they are not.
  13. Looks like Gibson actually acknowledged the issue and remedied it, while Martin, for whatever reason apparently hasn't done a thing about it.
  14. By definition "vintage" usually denotes a guitar greater than 25-30 years old.
  15. Who knows, and if they knew, I'd would think they would have corrected the issue by now. Maybe Martin doesn't see it as an issue. Their neck angles are literally all over the place out of the factory. I had a 2014 000-15M that I bought brand new and after a couple years (like 2.5 years to be exact) the action was so high I ran out of saddle and had nowhere left to go with sanding it down. Took it to an Authorized Martin repair shop and they along with Martin (I was there when the repair person at the shop called Martin and had them on speakerphone so I could hear because he had been dealing with this issue for a while and wanted me other it direct from Martin because he had some very unhappy customers when they refused to warranty a neck reset) acknowledged the issue but would not authorize a neck reset. They instead offered two options, to have Martin send the shop a lower bridge to replace the stock bridge, or have the shop shave down the existing bridge. I opted for the latter (the shop owner also builds gorgeous acoustics so I had no question about his skill and ability) and the guitar came out looking perfect. My only worry was the neck angle would keep settling/moving, so I sold the guitar. I will say this...every "newer" Gibson I've owned (from 2012 to present) have all had basically the same/identical and perfect neck angles from the factory.
  • Create New...