Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
EuroAussie

Played a J-29 and J-100 today

Recommended Posts

Had some spare time in afternoon so popped into our one and only Gibson dealer here in Prague. I used to go there often but now work on other side of town so lucky to make it there once a quarter.

 

They basically stock Taylor and Gibson in the high end room and a few Seagulls and laminate rubbish in the main room.

 

I was pretty excited to spot a J-100 and J-29, two guitars Ive not had a chance to play. I was pretty impressed with the J-100, sounded and felt like a Gibson jumbo. Balanced, warm, real fun to play. Not particularly projective and a little mellow, didnt have quite the bite of the maple jumbo, but nevertheless a real fine guitar and great feel. The neck was realy comfy.

 

Next tried the J-29, and it really didnt move me much. I cant my finger on it but it just did not grab me, had new strings, was quite bright but I didnt feel or hear much character, it almost sounded a bit Taylorish, good god you say.

 

I played a few others there, a J-45 custom with old strings which sounded superb. Rich, chocolately (for you PM), complex and first rosewood J-45 that didnt sound muddy, even though it had old strings. Really great, rich tone, pleasure to play.

 

Had a go also at J-45 standard, which sounded nice but had brand new 80/20 strings. God knows why Gibson puts 80/20's on J-45's, just far too bright I reckon and hide the true tone of the guitar. Also played a Songwriter studio and reminded me why I sold mine, a bit too much overtone and bit boxy tone.

 

It also confirmed to me again that Taylors are just not my cup of tea. Simply lack character, the only model that I sort of liked, which I felt had some warmth and character was a 414ce.

 

It also confirmed to me that Seagull make the best guitars in that price range. I played an S6 mahogany and it was a really great all round guitar in terms of tone and feel. In actual fact Id place it higher than some of the Gibsons at a quarter of the price.

 

 

So the final order from todays shoot out goes like this:

 

(1) J-45 custom

(2) J-100

(3) J-45 standard

(4) Seagull S6 mahogany

(5) Songwriter

(6) J-29

 

Ill come back there again probably in a couple months again and might give you another review.

 

EA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the J-100 mahogany B/S with the old timey bridge?

 

My local shop has one and it didn't do much for me. Love the stripped down look of that jumbo though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the J29, aside from the new strings (brightness) sound tone wise when compared to other rosewood guitars you play? It doesn't sound like my "cup of tea," but is there anything that kind of perks your interest in it? How does it feel compared to other dreads (bigger/smaller)? A friend of mine told me that the J29 he played felt a bit smaller than his Songwriter. He did say it was easy-on-the-fingers and nicely put together. I'm not interested in another rosewood guitar, but am wondering what others are finding attractive about this reasonably-priced instrument. It appears to be a high quality guitar offered at a good price.

 

Also---good point on the Seagull. They're a lot of bang for the buck. Also agree on the Taylor....lol....Nicely made, but they don't speak to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the J-100 mahogany B/S with the old timey bridge?

 

My local shop has one and it didn't do much for me. Love the stripped down look of that jumbo though.

 

Yes it was that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounded like a J-45, sort of. Cant put my finger full on it, I think overall it didnt have a clear, distinct sound. Just something was missing. When I played the J-45custom is sounded like a realy beefy J-45, but definitely J-45. The J-29 sort of feels like its lacking identity not sure if its Martha or Aurthur ...

 

 

How does the J29, aside from the new strings (brightness) sound tone wise when compared to other rosewood guitars you play? It doesn't sound like my "cup of tea," but is there anything that kind of perks your interest in it? How does it feel compared to other dreads (bigger/smaller)? A friend of mine told me that the J29 he played felt a bit smaller than his Songwriter. He did say it was easy-on-the-fingers and nicely put together. I'm not interested in another rosewood guitar, but am wondering what others are finding attractive about this reasonably-priced instrument. It appears to be a high quality guitar offered at a good price.

 

Also---good point on the Seagull. They're a lot of bang for the buck. Also agree on the Taylor....lol....Nicely made, but they don't speak to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I played the J-45custom is sounded like a realy beefy J-45, but definitely J-45.

 

This is exactly how I felt when I played, and ultimately bought my Custom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

 

I played a few others there, a J-45 custom with old strings which sounded superb. Rich, chocolately (for you PM), complex and first rosewood J-45 that didnt sound muddy, even though it had old strings. Really great, rich tone, pleasure to play.

 

I love marketing sorts... haha trying to carve out a language there's no need for. Had 2 bars of chocolate on my desk since yesterday, EA, they haven't made a single sound no matter how I've strummed them. Keep banging the drum, though, man... but you can't turn chocolatey into a real thing. Makes no sense at all.

 

I wonder if in a parallel universe there's someone posting on a fish & chip supper forum how their latest supper tasted like the opening beat to When the levee breaks.... or that they'd had a kebab on the walk home from the pub that irrefutably tasted like Stevie Wonder. I really doubt it, but I hope there is.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love marketing sorts... haha trying to carve out a language there's no need for. Had 2 bars of chocolate on my desk since yesterday, EA, they haven't made a single sound no matter how I've strummed them. Keep banging the drum, though, man... but you can't turn chocolatey into a real thing. Makes no sense at all.

 

I wonder if in a parallel universe there's someone posting on a fish & chip supper forum how their latest supper tasted like the opening beat to When the levee breaks.... or that they'd had a kebab on the walk home from the pub that irrefutably tasted like Stevie Wonder. I really doubt it, but I hope there is.....

 

chocolatey is totally real man!

 

its like a dark rich tone that makes you feel warm inside. I know ive heard that tone before!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, you evil bankers have no imagination. So how do you describe wine ... its red, or its ..white ?

 

I love marketing sorts... haha trying to carve out a language there's no need for. Had 2 bars of chocolate on my desk since yesterday, EA, they haven't made a single sound no matter how I've strummed them. Keep banging the drum, though, man... but you can't turn chocolatey into a real thing. Makes no sense at all.

 

I wonder if in a parallel universe there's someone posting on a fish & chip supper forum how their latest supper tasted like the opening beat to When the levee breaks.... or that they'd had a kebab on the walk home from the pub that irrefutably tasted like Stevie Wonder. I really doubt it, but I hope there is.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chocolatey is totally real man!

 

its like a dark rich tone that makes you feel warm inside. I know ive heard that tone before!

 

Exactly. Somebody gets it, thank you... [rolleyes]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chocolatey is totally real man!

 

its like a dark rich tone that makes you feel warm inside. I know ive heard that tone before!

 

No it's not... It's a descriptive term that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

 

Exactly. Somebody gets it, thank you... [rolleyes]

 

It's madness... imagine a bunch of gynaecologists....ah what's the point.... don't bother :D

 

Ah, you evil bankers have no imagination. So how do you describe wine ... its red, or its ..white ?

 

There we have it, imagination... we're trying to describe something using wild imagination and colourful words that advertisers use, ie, nonsense and jibber-jabber. It's baseless, it has no meaning at all..... claiming my guitar sounded like kippers on toast is every bit as valid, equally absurd and utterly senseless.

 

How do I describe wine? with words associated to taste related descriptions... much like for everything tastebuds based. Just had 2 squares off a bar of Dairy Milk, tasted like the Stone Roses. Going to have a bag of crisps shortly, had the same ones before they taste like Eminem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not... It's a descriptive term that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

It's madness... imagine a bunch of gynaecologists....ah what's the point.... don't bother :D

 

 

 

There we have it, imagination... we're trying to describe something using wild imagination and colourful words that advertisers use, ie, nonsense and jibber-jabber. It's baseless, it has no meaning at all..... claiming my guitar sounded like kippers on toast is every bit as valid, equally absurd and utterly senseless.

 

How do I describe wine? with words associated to taste related descriptions... much like for everything tastebuds based. Just had 2 squares off a bar of Dairy Milk, tasted like the Stone Roses. Going to have a bag of crisps shortly, had the same ones before they taste like Eminem.

 

you just havent heard a chocolatey guitar, youll know it when you hear it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still havent answered my question PM - how do you describe wine, give me examples ?

 

Your so not going to win this argument, but of course you already know that ... [thumbup]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, go on, indulge me... what sound does chocolate make?

 

its not about what sound chocolate makes. Its a tone that reminds me of chocolate.

 

no need to get literal here. Were trying to describe the indescribable. which means we have to use some non orthodox language to get our point across

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still havent answered my question PM - how do you describe wine, give me examples ?

 

Your so not going to win this argument, but of course you already know that ... [thumbup]

 

Light, crisp, fresh, tangy, heavy, fruity, acidic and so on... Ie words that describe things associated with tastes and are somewhat related.

 

Describing a guitar as chocolatey is just talking sh&t, mate. No basis for reality at all. Chocolatey, milk chocolate, dark chocolate? Cocoa heavy? See what I mean it's generic bs folk in your line use to sell stuff.

 

Describing a guitar as bassy, trebley, Mids focused, resonant etc... They have a basis. Your 'imaginative' terms don't.

 

Your turn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However pretentious the comparisons may get in wine-tasting circles, the vast majority of the the analogies used are based on taste or scent. Given that wine tasting involves using the palate and nose, the basis for those comparisons is surely perfectly sound. 'This wine smells like strawberries' is a valid comment because strawberries have a particular scent. Similarly, 'there is a lemony acidity to this wine' is valid, because lemons have a particular flavour, part of which is a certain acidity. Chocolate does not sound like anything, and so the basis of comparison between a guitar's tone and chocolate is far shakier. Comparing sound to taste is clearly taking analogy to a further remove than comparing taste to taste.

 

I'm beginning to agree with you over J45s and 80/20s. I've had a new set on the Woody for a month now and they still sound twangy rather than thumpy, metallic rather than warm. Still, after a couple of years, they might sound perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chocolate does not sound like anything, and so the basis of comparison between a guitar's tone and chocolate is far shakier. Comparing sound to taste is clearly taking analogy to a further remove than comparing taste to taste.

 

Yep. What he said ^^

 

 

.....Still, after a couple of years, they might sound perfect.

 

Haha, You are a hero mojo. Nobody can claim you're not committed when it comes to strings. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno boys, me head shakes.

 

No need to shake the head. can you qualify what you mean? You're speaking in terms of unrelated variables totally open to contextual understanding and declaring it as if it were factually (or even firmly) based. It isn't...

 

Take your ad-man hat off for a sec and qualify it. It can't be done. I just want you to admit its silly then I'll leave you alone about it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...