Jesse_Dylan Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Curious what you guys think of this puppy. https://reverb.com/item/1182761-gibson-j-200-1959-sunburst http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icNUVE9utX8 On their site, it says "was $5,676.77, now $4,876.00 Save: 14% off," but on reverb it's like $3600 or something. Yeesh. According to that video, that guitar has been in stock there for two years. Sheesh! Did all the 1949- (til I don't know when) SJ-200s have 1-11/16" nuts? Then narrower in the '60s until they went to 1.725" in the '90s? They didn't start using laminate back/sides until the '60s, right? And what year did they switch over to Sitka spruce from Adirondack? If it were sunburst (it is) and the nut width were 1.725", and there weren't any other problems, I'd be totally okay with a refinished guitar as long as the price was good and all else was well. Here's another refinished 1950s, but the price is quite a bit higher on this one (I guess 1950 vs 1959 or something). http://www.gbase.com/gear/gibson-sj-200-1950-sunburst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I thought it was a very ordinary refinish, the burst looks substandard to me. The tone, pretty average, the guitar sounds muddy to me and not particularly inspiring. I have to say that Ive played a few 50's J-200's and unlike the vintage Birds and in partticular banner Slopes, I find the J-200's do not sound significantly stronger than their modern versions. Infact many modern super jumbos i found to sound stronger. My J-150 has an amazing tone and can give any vintage super jumbo a run for its money. I would pass on this one. From the youtube vids when I think of vintage J-200 this one keeps coming back to me as having an amazing tone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_UPptb921A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 A 1959 J-200 is a totally different beast than the modern versions. Yes, they had a 1 11/16" nut. Also laminate maple back and sides. What flame or quilt you get is just luck of the draw. The big deal though is first, Gibson took an amazing amount of care with these guitars. They only built 100 or so a year and went to trouble such as hand tuning the tone bars for each individual instrument to work with that particular top. Second, the top bracing was very different from a modern version. They are not what I would call light guitars - a lot of bracing in there. There are two extremely wide angled X braces with the second one being above the sound hole. The angle is so wide my repair guy could not believe the top on my wife's 1960 J-200 had not bellied to the point of being unplayable. But again, they are J-200s. Not to everybody's liking. I personally prefer a good J-45 or SJ. By the way, the original case can add maybe another $400 to $600 to the value of the instrument on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerohead Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 1444504204[/url]' post='1701515'] But again, they are J-200s. Not to everybody's liking. Huh? Whaaaaa? Blasphemy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin 1940D28 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Amazing tone on any and or every video or recording is at the whim of the recording engineer. IN HAND, is what you really hear, and get!!! This J200 ? I kinda like the looks of it. Gibson did build some great guitars thru the '50s and early '60s and in my opinion the 1970s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave F Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think I'd opt for a newer one unless I actually held and played the guitar and it blew me away. J-200's are abound and it should not be hard to find a good one. I picked up this custom, brand new for less than 3K and I got to play it before buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I've got an '89 and a 2000. The '89 is supposedly desirable because it's early Bozeman. The blonde 2000 is a frickin' lap piano. I don't play either of them. I would love to have an older one. I know the Bozeman ones are superior to most of the guitars that came out of Kalamazoo but those are the ones I held up as the gold standard when I was a kid. My father bought an early 50s one when I was 9 in 1969 for fifty bucks and I almost cried when I held it. I did some repairs on a Norlin '73 a few months back and although it clearly didn't have the tone of either of the Bozemans, it DID feel mighty nice... it had an old broken-in pair of shoes feel that the Bozemans lack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share Posted October 11, 2015 I don't think there's any way I'd ever find a used one "in the wild" up here. You'd think being next door to Montana, they'd be all over the place, but they're not. I'm lucky if I can even find new ones around here. The local place carried Gibson for a few years (think they did have an SJ-200 at one point, but I missed it), then dropped them with the snaffu in 2014. Hoping they've got them back again now! I need to get up there and check. I think if I were going to get a used one, I'd get one from 1990-2001. Or a 2006. Anything newer than that, and I might as well just get a new one (which is probably what'll end up happening anyway). It's hard, because it has to be sunburst. :) Otherwise I'd be gunning for Tman's! Unless I somehow manage to play an SJ-100 walnut and A/B with an SJ-200, that is... The vintage market (especially 1950s and the like) is a totally different thing... I don't think I could get past the nut width anyway. Just thought this one was interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerohead Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 1444516118[/url]' post='1701566']I think I'd opt for a newer one unless I actually held and played the guitar and it blew me away. J-200's are abound and it should not be hard to find a good one. I picked up this custom, brand new for less than 3K and I got to play it before buying it. You have some nice toys Dave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Now that is how a J-200 sunburst should look, well done ! I think I'd opt for a newer one unless I actually held and played the guitar and it blew me away. J-200's are abound and it should not be hard to find a good one. I picked up this custom, brand new for less than 3K and I got to play it before buying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share Posted October 11, 2015 Apparently I inquired about the nut width on the 1949/1950 one which is odd since I would never pay that much. Got a very friendly message saying it's 1-5/8". Yikes! Perfect for some, but I think the tops of my fingers would get in the way. Maybe it would be good for me, but when all my other guitars are either 1.75" or 1.725", and switching between the two already vexes me a little, I think that would be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Apparently I inquired about the nut width on the 1949/1950 one which is odd since I would never pay that much. Got a very friendly message saying it's 1-5/8". Yikes! Perfect for some, but I think the tops of my fingers would get in the way. Maybe it would be good for me, but when all my other guitars are either 1.75" or 1.725", and switching between the two already vexes me a little, I think that would be an issue. One thing to remember is that people don't always measure nut width with adequate precision. To measure accurately, you need to use either a digital caliper or an accurate small steel scale. The difference between 1 5/8" (1.625) and 1 11/16" (1.6875) can get lost pretty easily if you aren't careful. When it comes to comfort, the string spacing at the nut is probably more critical than the actual nut width. And, of course, the neck profile can as important as either nut width or string spacing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Back in the day, Gibson though was never generous with string spacing. At the saddle about the best they could muster was 2 3/16." I am guessing the new ones would be 2 1/4" which seems to be pretty much the industry standard, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Apparently I inquired about the nut width on the 1949/1950 one which is odd since I would never pay that much. Got a very friendly message saying it's 1-5/8". Yikes! Perfect for some, but I think the tops of my fingers would get in the way. Maybe it would be good for me, but when all my other guitars are either 1.75" or 1.725", and switching between the two already vexes me a little, I think that would be an issue. All the more reason to play before you pay. I cannot tell you how guitars I have passed on over the decades for one reason or another. Not saying they were bad guitars, just a bad fit for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.