Help!! Used J-35 vs J-45 studio Walnut new

[Actionman72]

Hello guys.

I'm buying My first gibson.

I hace two options for the same price

 Used J-35 un mint condition or

 J-45 studio Walnut 2019 brand new

Both at the same price.

 

What do You think?

[j45nick]

I believe the J-45 studio has a thinner body than the standard J-45 or J-35, as well as a larger fretboard radius. The studio models are well-suited to performers who play amplified, as they come with a built-in Fishman pickup system. Un-amplified, they are likely to have somewhat different tonal and projection characteristics compared to the full-depth J-45 or J-35 due to the shallower body.

The standard J-35 was a bargain when it was introduced at something under $2000. Unless you play amplified on a consistent basis, the full-depth J-35  with mahogany back and sides may get you closer to classic Gibson un-amplified slope-J  tone than the J-45 Studio.

It would be a no-brainer for me, since I don't play out for audiences at all.

[dhanners623]

I'm biased since I am a J-35 owner, but I've owned a couple of J-45s in the past.

My view, which some may disagree with, is that walnut is not what gave the J-45 the sound it has become famous for. That's not necessarily a bad thing if you like walnut, but to my mind, a J-45 made of walnut really isn't a J-45. It is a walnut guitar shaped like a J-45.

I've got a 2016 J-35 and it is an excellent guitar. And it is made of the woods J-35s are known for.

[ponty]

J-35 for me. Mahogany all the way.

[Actionman72]

Thank You all!

I'll go for the J-35 

[uncle fester]

16 hours ago, j45nick said:

I believe the J-45 studio has a thinner body than the standard J-45 or J-35, as well as a larger fretboard radius. The studio models are well-suited to performers who play amplified, as they come with a built-in Fishman pickup system. Un-amplified, they are likely to have somewhat different tonal and projection characteristics compared to the full-depth J-45 or J-35 due to the shallower body.

The standard J-35 was a bargain when it was introduced at something under $2000. Unless you play amplified on a consistent basis, the full-depth J-35  with mahogany back and sides may get you closer to classic Gibson un-amplified slope-J  tone than the J-45 Studio.

It would be a no-brainer for me, since I don't play out for audiences at all.

Very nice compare and contrast, good post!

[dhanners623]

6 hours ago, Actionman72 said:

Thank You all!

I'll go for the J-35 

 

I don't think you'll be disappointed. In my mind, J-35s were one of Gibson's secret bargains. Mine has aged quite well. 

[uncle fester]

6 hours ago, Actionman72 said:

Thank You all!

I'll go for the J-35 

I don't think you'd be disappointed either way, but I think you're going to love the J35!

[EuroAussie]

Not a fan of the J-35 here. I find the tone to be far too light and thin, Ive never played a J-45 Studio.

However in that lower range price the model that I found to be BY FAR the best in terms of tone was always the J-15, which I find gives the J-45 standard a real run for its money.

[MorrisrownSal]

I have the J45-Studio. I think its a fantastic guitar. Walnut is not far off from Mahogany in terms of "tone". It is slightly thinner... It is comfortable to play. Think "What if a J45 and a Martin 000-18 had a baby".

The Element VTC pickup is great, and it sounds great recorded, and sounds great unplugged. I still prefer the sound of my J45-TV, but that shouldnt surprise most, and it still doesnt detract from the Studio being a great all purpose guitar at a great price.