It is......but it ain't...........

[Buc McMaster]

Something I've pondered for awhile about Gibson's acoustic variations.....the recent quilt maple Hummingbird post is a good example. A Hummingbird has always been a mahogany backed guitar. Doesn't putting a maple back on it make it more of a short scale Dove than a 'Bird, tonaly speaking? Doesn't putting a rosewood back on a J45 make it more like a short scale AJ? It just strikes me that when you change the back wood of a traditional model it's really not the traditional model anymore but a hybrid. No less of a quality instrument, mind you, but not what the name indicates any longer. Anyone else see it this way?

[BigKahune]

.

I'm there too. When I buy acoustics, I'm looking for the traditional set of materials and specs. But Gibson has found a willing market for those variations.

 

OTOH, Gibson has varied materials in the past - JT's book brought some of this to light for me. And of course there's all the material changes that came with the Lacey era, particularly fretboards in both the acoustic and electric divisions.

 

 

<edit> Good topic Buc - looking forward to seeing the responses here. . B)

 

.

[duluthdan]

Viva le Differance ! Its all in the marketing I suppose - easier to just tweak some componentry and keep the names consistent, Anyone remember whatever became of the "Sparrow"? Probably a really fine guitar, but perhaps with an unfortunately weak marketing name.

[ksdaddy]

I see both sides. I'm a traditionalist in the sense that once a model has "made a statement" as to it's design and construction, I am reluctant to accept a variation. For example when they mucked with the Telecaster in the 70s and had the Custom, Thinline, Deluxe, etc., and all the post CBS variations.... to me, there is one basic Tele. And ditto for the examples you quoted.

 

However there are examples where I would be more accepting, particularly on more inexpensive instruments. Take an LG0 for example. Most were all mahogany, some had spruce tops. If they found a pallet of maple and decided to use it, I'd be cool with that. I would in fact respect that, because a cheaper student grade or utility instrument should be made out of material that is cheap and plentiful. Of course there will be varaitions in tone but cripes, there will be variations regardless.

 

I like keeping things basic. If I were driving the bus I would stick to the most basic line for daily production and pare the line down to meat 'n' potatoes Gibsons but keep the custom order availability. I would not fill a 400 page catalog with every varaition under the sun like Fender does. What a juggling act that must be, trying to produce a model to satisfy every whim.

[zombywoof]

There were HBs with maple bodies made in the early 1960s so at least it would not be a totally fanciful recreation.

[Hall]

www.garysguitars.com 1963 maple Gibson Hummingbird in the Gibson pages list around page 3, I believe.

 

I have a Custom Quilted Maple Hummingbird so I am in the position of defense on this one. I have a mahogany one also. I love them both. They each sound like Hummingbirds are famed. But, the maple is the sweetest of the two. Granted, I can only speak as to my own guitars I understand and respect the tradition aspect, but it is not exclusive with the Hummingbird and mahogany.

 

Steve

[62burst]

When someone just says "J-45" or "AJ", they're pretty much referring to the guitar in its original form. Although I enjoy trying to listen for differences (real, or percieved) in a certain model of guitar constructed with different woods, ...

 

..there will be variations regardless.

[E-minor7]

Yea, the tale has it that some of these were made in 60's Kalamazoo too. More or less as a result of coincidence.

A To many maple back'n'sides and not enough long necks right now, still the production must flow kind of situation.

 

There are rare long scaled hog Birds from the first half of that decade as well.

I imagine some will argue they were done as controlled Custom Shop experiments – but know others would say they were born in the sometimes anarchistic heat of logistic realities back then.

 

I'm basically a 'fundamentalist' - However it's hard to be negative about the in-betweens as I'm sure some of them are fantastic.

Besides they add to the legendary labyrinthine G-universe.

 

I for 1 would definitely be curious when meeting a 'blendy' and wouldn't let the cross-factor get in the way if the guitar was outstanding.

 

Another thing to consider when calling something a short scaled Dove or AJ is of course the braces and exact bracing positions.

[Jerry K]

I am all for experimenting with new configurations and some of these odd duck guitars turn out great. I do wish marketing at Gibson acoustic would show more respect for tradition. If you make a new body shape, don't call it by a name associated with another body shape. Whenever possible avoid calling something a J-45 if the body shape isn't even from the same mold. Quite a few at the factory know their history but sales and marketing are very weak on it. Even the most die-hard enthusiasts like Hogeye moan and roll their eyes about short-scale, mahogany AJ or whatever the latest silliness is. It has always been a quirky company!

 

Edit: It would also be great if they would work out a consistent way to talk about 'replicas'. If it's exact, say so. If it's a combination of features from different eras, don't say it's an exact replica, and don't allow big vendors to use that rhetoric if it isn't true.

[MissouriPicker]

Real good questions. I've been wondering some of the same things. With all these additional variations of the Hummingbird, J45, etc., it kind of muddles-up the situation: just what is a Hummingbird guitar? or a J45 or a J200, etc. I understand what Gibson is doing. It's good marketing, at least from a "sales" point of view, but it does make for a confusing situation. How many Hummingbirds/J45s/J200s do we now have? The Hummingbird is no longer "a" particular guitar. It is now a group of guitars all sharing the name "Hummingbird" name along with sometimes similar and sometimes not similar specifications. Same for the J45 and J200, and the Dove to a lesser extent. The Hummingbird and J45 are iconic guitars. Just like the D28 and HD28. When was the last time any of us played a maple HD28? Wouldn't it kind of kill the idea of an HD28? To me it would. I'm not saying I won't somewhere-along-the-line own one of these newer models, but I think Gibson has gotten a bit eclectic in the image its portraying for some it its guitars. There are countless really cool bird names Gibson could give to all of these new models. I think they should have used them. They did do the "Sparrow" for GC/MF, so it's not a new idea.......This is in no way meant to be a comment on the outstanding quality of these newer Gibson guitars. Not talking about that at all. They're obviously outstanding guitars. I just don't think all of these guitars are Hummingbirds, J45s, etc.. And as already stated, there is something to be said for tradition.

[J-200 Koa]

The reality is that there is a finite number of tonewoods you can use on

a guitar, but there is an infinite number of ways marketing people can

come up with to "add variety". A maple Hummingbird, a rosewood Dove,

even a mahogany AJ. People are always clamoring for something new, or

better yet, something unique. It is what keeps the Custom Shop in

business. True Gibson fans know what makes a Hummingbird a Hummingbird,

a Dove a Dove and so forth. We just accept these "non-standard" versions

as marketing experiments and buy the ones that strike our fancy.

[E-minor7]

I follow JerryK and MissourriP regarding the confusing double-game of certain models.

One thing is that the respective models develope over time - sometimes drastically. Both aesthetically and in-box wise.

That's hard to prevent and should be 'allowed'.

But the Hummingbird Pro f.x. is a blooper. I'm sure the guitar is good, but why the heck call it a Hummingbird, , , , a Hummingbird Pro !?

It should have been called the Swallow and we would have had a clean cut new original.

 

Imagine all the goofing and blabbing around these issues in the shops - BLUR. And the sales-men again and again are taken on the wrong leg.

That counts for the True Vintage concept also. I dare saying that over 80 % of the sales-people around the planet tell their customers that the TV's are exact copies of the originals.

While slightly hidden Forumites behind amps and stuff everywhere stand knowing better.

Do I want to embarrass my good salesguy - NO !

Do I want to keep him ignorant about important facts he and the more ordinary buyer is entitled to know - another NO.

 

But that's how it is and the dragon of confusion has been out for ages. The more you know about the Gibson universe, the more you find out how untameable and unmanageable it is.

It's all something we have learned to accept -

[chipss36]

Well I am glad gibson is mixing it up some and giving choice to many.

That said I am die hard traditional , and the j45tv was a close as I could get $$$ wise.

I don't build guitars, I do however build all my own tube amps , mic pres , compressors, eq...stuff like that.

And OCD on staying true to what ever I am building a clone of, the end result I have been happy with, and confident that I got as close as I could.

 

Anyway for sure I into the classic recipe .

[BigKahune]

... Imagine all the goofing and blabbing around these issues in the shops - BLUR. ... But that's how it is and the dragon of confusion has been out for ages. ...

 

Excellent point Em.

 

To be honest, I find it difficult to keep up with the ever growing array variations, tributes, reissues, custom editions, replica editions, vintage year editions, true vintage editions, new vintage editions, legend editions, special editions, exclusive editions, limited editions, signature editions, museum editions, etc, etc, etc . . . . .No wonder those new to Gibson are overwhelmed, let alone the sales people. Choices are good, but there's no place to go on Gibson's website to look a some kind of chart that could help sort out what's been made and what's available under any given model name, like Hummingbird - ie 2008 Hummingbird Gold Custom Limited Edition Quilted Maple.

 

 

.

[GDC]

I wonder how any future historians will book all of these variants. For years Gibson has run variants.

 

Many years ago, a frined of mine bought a J-45 Koa. It is, of course, a slope shoulder. It has Koa back and sides and a blonde spruce top. I'm like, this is a J-50 if anything, but it aint a J-45. I'd never seen one. I inquired of customer service; he said he didn't know anything so he transferred me to Montanna. I could hear the plant running in the background as some guy told me he vaguely remembered somebody doing a run of those. He kind of laughed and said that Gibson gave them a lot of freedom to make great guitars and that's what they did. Why was I worried about a label? I found that a positive trait of Gibson.

 

Seems now, Gibson is exploiting that trait. I think it's a good idea. But it does blur the lines on model names.

 

I recently bought a new acoustic. There is a model number on the inspection card that reads something like RS45TSGH1. Customner service says that's not really the model (J-45 Red Spruce Sunsetburst is the model): rather, the alpha-number in the model space on the card is the company's stock -keeping unit. I remember seeing a similar SKU on the ES 335 I bought a couple years ago. This SKU is interpretable from an abbreviation standard Gibson uses - not sure how exact it is, but it's pretty close.

 

All that to say this: why couldn't Gibson just refine this SKU-ing process, post it, and include it with the advertisements of their models on their web-ste as well as on the interior label? Much like they did with their serialization to eliminate all the confusion about build dates/locations.

 

Truth told, we guitar weenies are probably the only ones who give a hoot about such things, but it'd be one way of removing the mystery and confusion about the Gibson offerings. Doesn't do anything for the traditionalists who want a Dove to be a Dove, etc., but it would help with instrument identification.

[onewilyfool]

I kind of like that Gibson is un-predictable in their models....keeps things fresh.....I mean they could have said "Dove, with Hummingbird appointments" stuff like that.....but the architecture of the bones of each instrument remains the same, the tone woods will change the sound, and the incestuous appointments keep it interesting. Mix and match.....trick is to look beyond the tradition and names and find one that SOUNDS good to you!!!

[GDC]

I kind of like that Gibson is un-predictable in their models....keeps things fresh.....I mean they could have said "Dove, with Hummingbird appointments" stuff like that.....but the architecture of the bones of each instrument remains the same, the tone woods will change the sound, and the incestuous appointments keep it interesting. Mix and match.....trick is to look beyond the tradition and names and find one that SOUNDS good to you!!!

 

I agree with that. It's what makes Gibson Gibson.

[BigKahune]

There is a model number on the inspection card that reads something like RS45TSGH1. ... This SKU is interpretable from an abbreviation standard Gibson uses - not sure how exact it is, but it's pretty close. All that to say this: why couldn't Gibson just refine this SKU-ing process, post it, and include it with the advertisements of their models on their web-ste as well as on the interior label? ....

 

Good idea. Gibson includes the model number on the factory checklist that comes with every new Gibson, acoustic or electric.

My J200: SJ20ANGH1 which is SJ200, Antique Natural finish, Gold Hardware, 1 (not a 2nd). . Your RS45TSGH1 would be Red Sunset, j 45, Tri Sunset burst, Gold Hardware, 1 (not a 2nd).

 

 

.

[GuitarLight]

Excellent point Em.

 

To be honest, I find it difficult to keep up with the ever growing array variations, tributes, reissues, custom editions, replica editions, vintage year editions, true vintage editions, new vintage editions, legend editions, special editions, exclusive editions, limited editions, signature editions, museum editions, etc, etc, etc . . . . .No wonder those new to Gibson are overwhelmed, let alone the sales people. Choices are good, but there's no place to go on Gibson's website to look a some kind of chart that could help sort out what's been made and what's available under any given model name, like Hummingbird - ie 2008 Hummingbird Gold Custom Limited Edition Quilted Maple.

 

Exactly. +1 to BigKahune. The models are a picture of mass confusion to any new young guitarist who wants to buy Gibson.

.

[Hall]

Man, I feel like I have violated the Inter-Galatic Gibson Tradition Creed, or something, by owning a Custom Quilted Maple Hummingbird. I went to play my Country Western just now and thank goodness the pickguard was different or I could have sworn I was playing a mahogany Bird! OOPS! The Country Western is exactly the same instrument as my square shouldered Southern Jumbo that I keep out back. Wait a minute, that can't be! I had an SJ-200 built for me in the custom shop and I'll be darned if I didn't end up with a maple body Custom SJ-200. Where is the rosewood? I'm hangin my head all the way to my SJ-150 which could be a ........., NAW !

 

Well, anyway, enough from this end. As I said, I'm playing defense on the maple Bird only because I own one. I promise I do understand the position on wishing Gibson would have stayed consistant with models, names and materials. But, they didn't. And I know I don't want to have to put my two favorite guitars away because of this decision by the maker. They shore are nice soundin guitars!

Steve

[onewilyfool]

Have any of you tried the "Classic Modern Custom Masterbilt True Vintage 50th Anniversary Pro Artist New Vintage American Legend Classic Pre-war Deluxe Standard Limited Studio Rosewood Hummingbird" yet???

[ksdaddy]

Must have one massive mofo truss rod cover to fit all that!

[BigKahune]

.

And the inside label is pretty big too. B)

 

 

.

[chipss36]

Have any of you tried the "Classic Modern Custom Masterbilt True Vintage 50th Anniversary Pro Artist New Vintage American Legend Classic Pre-war Deluxe Standard Limited Studio Rosewood Hummingbird" yet???

 

 

I played one , sounded great, but the headstock was so heavy

The guitar hung head down on a strap.

[rar]

I want to add a little different perspective on this, which was nicely expressed by Shakespeare:

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.

 

Consider the case of the J-45. Within the first couple of years of production, they found themselves building J-45s with simpler binding and rosettes, J-45s with maple neck reinforcements rather than truss rods, J-45s with laminated maple necks rather than mahogany, J-45s with mahogany or Sitka spruce tops rather than Adirondack spruce, J-45s with laminated maple bodies and/or rims rather than mahogany, J-45s with black-button Klusons rather than white-button Klusons, J-45s with poplar neck blocks rather than mahogany, etc., etc. (Of course, this was mostly attributable to wartime shortages, but that's beside the point.) Approximately 1 zillion variants in four years. Every one yclept "J-45". Gibson didn't bother telling anyone about the changes. (They probably had the same disclaimer about "changes in specifications without notice" then that they do now.) A dealer ordered a J-45, and he got whatever Gibson decided a J-45 was at the time it was built.

 

How exactly was this a problem? You go play a guitar that's for sale. If you want it enough and can afford it, you buy it. What difference does it make what model Gibson decided to call it?

 

For that matter, what difference does it make at buying-time if the back is mahogany or maple, etc.? As an "end-user", specs should be irrelevant when buying. If you have a choice of a maple J-45 and a mahogany J-45, you base your buying decision on tone, feel, and appearance, not which is made of which wood, right? Exactly the same criteria you'd use if both were mahogany or both were maple. Wood species just doesn't figure into the calculation.

 

And the Hummingbird? Within a couple years of production, Gibson was building long-scale, maple Hummingbirds. By this time, someone in marketing decided that the public should know about these "new and different" Hummingbirds. After all, some people out there had probably tried a mahogany Hummingbird and thought "I bet I'd like this better in maple" or "I just wish this was long scale". Let those people know that there were long-scale, maple 'birds out there, and maybe they'll make a point of giving one a try and maybe they'll buy this time. From the customer's perspective, this isn't much different from the J-45 case: try and, if you like, buy. The name on the label might get you to make an extra trip to the music store, but why would it affect your buying decision?

 

Today, there are lots of different guitars Gibson calls Hummingbirds. They vary a lot. So what? Calling something like that GC special edition a "Hummingbird Pro" might make you more inclined to check it out. (Or less inclined, depending on how you feel about the other various Gibson Hummingbirds.) But why would labeling it a "Hummingbird" rather than "Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker" affect your ultimate buying decision? You play it and, if you like it, you buy it, right?

 

-- Bob R