Rabs Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I likey the 339 (a blue one would suit me fine :)) (only the blue 339 though, I like the basicness of it). ES 355 Studio $2,115 •Semi-hollow body made from laminated maple •Torrified Maple fingerboard with Pearloid dot inlays •Dirty Fingers Plus Humbucking Pickups in the neck and bridge positions •Black Chrome ABR-1 bridge and Trapeze Tailpiece •Black Chrome Grover® Rotomatics with 14:1 tuning ratio http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/ES/Gibson-Memphis/ES-335-Studio.aspx ES 339 Studio $1,880 •Semi-hollow body made from laminated maple •Baked Maple fingerboard with Pearloid dot inlays •Dirty Fingers Plus Humbucking Pickup in the bridge position •Black Chrome Tune-o-matic bridge and Stopbar tailpiece •Black Chrome Grover® Rotomatic® tuners with 14:1 tuning ratio http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/ES/Gibson-Memphis/ES-339-Studio.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Honestly, a really bad idea by Gibson. 2 bland, ugly finishes. All black hardware on a semi-hollow, in addition to the already dark finishes. Only a bridge pickup. No f-holes. This isn't a Studio. It's a Junior. Just like the SG Junior and Les Paul Junior; 1 pickup, 1v1t, no binding, limited color options. If they're going to make a Real 335 and 339 Studio; offer it in some transparent and/or burst finishes, like the Les Paul Studio, add the second pickup and controls, change the hardware to chrome or nickel, and add some F-holes! The idea of the Studio was to not sacrifice any versatility or tone, only aesthetic features such as figured tops, binding and fancy inlays. They've removed 2 main sounds, the versatility of the 2v2t setup, and the F-holes that are so iconic of the 335 and 339. I don't see these selling well...much better value in Epiphone here. -Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOL! Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 My complaint is the pickups. Why can't they put 57s in more base level guitars? I think dirty fingers cheapen the guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buxom Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Overpriced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PingPongBob Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 There's nothing I like about either of those two guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quapman Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Honestly, a really bad idea by Gibson. 2 bland, ugly finishes. All black hardware on a semi-hollow, in addition to the already dark finishes. Only a bridge pickup. No f-holes. This isn't a Studio. It's a Junior. Just like the SG Junior and Les Paul Junior; 1 pickup, 1v1t, no binding, limited color options. If they're going to make a Real 335 and 339 Studio; offer it in some transparent and/or burst finishes, like the Les Paul Studio, add the second pickup and controls, change the hardware to chrome or nickel, and add some F-holes! The idea of the Studio was to not sacrifice any versatility or tone, only aesthetic features such as figured tops, binding and fancy inlays. They've removed 2 main sounds, the versatility of the 2v2t setup, and the F-holes that are so iconic of the 335 and 339. I don't see these selling well...much better value in Epiphone here. -Ryan Agreed, on all points. Especially the f-holes. I want f-holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Hang on. There's only 1 pup in the pix, the main description says a single pup too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I like those guitars at a $1,000 price point. No way am i paying 2 grand for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I like those guitars at a $1,000 price point. No way am i paying 2 grand for that. The prices shown are MSRP. The street price on them will be about ~$1200 for the 339 and ~$1300 for the 335. Still a huge ripoff. -Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanHenry Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 Those are truly horrible. Ian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bender 4 Life Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 not my cup o' tea...... i'm w/Hombre on the Midtown !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted June 1, 2013 Share Posted June 1, 2013 I, too, think these look horrendous. You are giving us too many ugly choices nowadays, Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted June 1, 2013 Author Share Posted June 1, 2013 Errrmm... I'll get my coat :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deeman Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 The prices shown are MSRP. The street price on them will be about ~$1200 for the 339 and ~$1300 for the 335. Still a huge ripoff. -Ryan Touche, i really want a 335, but i won't go this route. Its like an uglier version of the Tom Delonge gibson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Yeah Dirty Fingers in a semi-hollow body just doesn't make sense. The whole point of a semi-hollow body is to get a warm tone. Dirty Fingers are completely the opposite of that. I won't pass judgment until I play one, but the I can't imagine they would be useful in terms of tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hall Posted June 2, 2013 Share Posted June 2, 2013 Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoreyT Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Here is a video from the Captain and Chappers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted June 3, 2013 Author Share Posted June 3, 2013 Here is a video from the Captain and Chappers. In seeing them I still stand by what I said about the 339 in blue... and they sound monstrous :) (good for dirty rock sounds). (I think a P90 in the front would rock too) The chunky neck means that it wont ever be for me though.. I need a real 339 (or better a 336) for that :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Here is a video from the Captain and Chappers. The guitar sounds absolutely horrid in that video...muddy, tubby, no definition. I can't see that guitar being useful for anything but firewood. Seriously Gibson, you lost us on the look and spec, and now you've lost (at least me) on the tone. Sounds like a cheap bottom-of-the-line Epiphone. Or worse than that even. -Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btoth76 Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Well. When I first heard about these models, I liked the concept. Stripped down, low-price ES. After hearing it, I am not convinced. Of course, it would be nice to try them with a bit less overdrive, but still, I see no hope it would sound to make me smiling. Definitely, the Midtown is far better from all aspects. Cheers... Bence P.S.: And the ES Studio is a Memphis-made model - where all those beautiful hollow-body wonders are crafted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 Well, I gave the demo three minutes and it sounds like absolutely any guitar in the world plugged into a fuzz-box set to 'Manic'. I fail to see the market for that guitar. IMHO if I wanted a basic Rock'n'Roll machine I'd be much happier buying a Les Paul Special than that eyesore. Truly horrific looks and the first three minutes of the demo didn't exactly recommend it to me as a tone machine. What, if anything, has it got in it's favour? 0/10. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quapman Posted June 3, 2013 Share Posted June 3, 2013 I'm not crazy about the sound of it either. Very muddy and muffled sounding. Will have a place? Absolutely, but it's going to be very limited in the tonal range. I think Gibson should rebrand it and give it a new name. Ok it's a semi-hollow,, but that's about the only thing in common it has with a 335 or 339. Even the Captain and Chappers were having trouble saying much good about it. A 335/339 it's not. I think marketing it as such is a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted June 3, 2013 Author Share Posted June 3, 2013 I'm not crazy about the sound of it either. Very muddy and muffled sounding. Will have a place? Absolutely, but it's going to be very limited in the tonal range. I think Gibson should rebrand it and give it a new name. Ok it's a semi-hollow,, but that's about the only thing in common it has with a 335 or 339. Even the Captain and Chappers were having trouble saying much good about it. A 335/339 it's not. I think marketing it as such is a big mistake. Yeah I agree with that.. calling them a 335 or 339 is giving people the total wrong expectation of what these guitars are. Id never actually buy one even though theres something I like about the 339... But im not as down on them as everyone else is, its just something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.