Bert plays a SG? Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I know the scale length for the Modern Classic J-45s are now 24 3/4, but what about the other J-45s? Scales are longer? Shorter? I wanna know if they are all the same because they only had the Modern Classic at my music store. I can't find the info on the web either. I wanna know if some of them have tighter or more tensed strings. If not, do you have any suggestions (Gibson of course...). Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith9509 Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 I could be wrong, but I believe that all J-45's have the shorter scale. That has been a defining characteristic of the model since it was invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryp58 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I believe the only difference between the Modern Classic and the TV line is the pick-up and the solid back. Same scale length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajsc Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I believe the only difference between the Modern Classic and the TV line is the pick-up and the solid back. Same scale length. Solid back????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadgrateful Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I think you'll find that they both have solid backs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerpopper Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Say it ain't so! Are you telling me my MC's all have plywood backs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith9509 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I had to fix a big dent in the side of my J45 MC, and I am 100% certain that it is solid wood. The website description of the modern classic also describes the back and sides as solid pattern-grade honduras mahogany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajsc Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Scared me!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinder Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 This is an error. All Bozeman Modern Classics have solid back and sides. The only lam-back guitars from Bozeman were a run of the Blues King J185ECs with an arched, braceless back...I'm not even sure if they are still in production. Rest easy, folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerpopper Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I own both a MC and TV Hummingbird and the TV is noticeably lighter. Same with my Southern Jumbo MC compared to my J-45 TV. Wondering what, other than the very light electronics on the MC's, accounts for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajsc Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I have an 05 Historic J-45. It's light as a feather. I think if I dropped it, it would "float" to the ground. I love this guitar!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 The Gospel reissues from Montana had plywood backs, too. Just like the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadgrateful Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Lighter bracing and tuning heads perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryp58 Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 Let me re-phrase that! I have seen book-matched backs as well as solid backs. Plywood backs? Say it ain't so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinder Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 I have an 05 Historic J-45. It's light as a feather. I think if I dropped it' date=' it would "float" to the ground. I love this guitar!!![/quote'] AJSC, I had a '97 "Early" J45 which was a mite shallower of body (like the J45 Western from the early '90s) than the standard J45 and was light as dust...an incredible tone, too. A bit less stodgy (not meant insultingly, Gibson stodge is part of the thump!) in the lower mids and wonderful for just about every style of playing you could imagine. I ran out of money and had to sell it a couple of years ago, but I still miss it. Glad we cleared up the two piece/one piece back issue...that had me worried for a while! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith9509 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 When I switched my J45 MC from the stock Grovers to Waverlies, it took nearly a pound off of the weight of the instrument. The electronics and 9V battery probably contribute another 1/4 pound. So with just tuners and electronics, the MC is over 25% heavier than a four pound TV. Incedentally, I know another guy who has a genuine 1943 J45. It's actually heavier than my MC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert plays a SG? Posted April 7, 2009 Author Share Posted April 7, 2009 Wow! Interesting! Thank y'all very much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 Let me re-phrase that! I have seen book-matched backs as well as solid backs. Plywood backs? Say it ain't so! i think you have the terms mixed up. what you call a "solid back" is called a "one piece back". we we talk about a "solid back" we mean it's not a laminate. so, a two piece bookmatched back can still be a solid back. we're talking about how many pieces make up the thickness of the wood, not the width of it. that being said, i don't think they make any 1 piece back J45s.... but all are solid backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 When I switched my J45 MC from the stock Grovers to Waverlies' date=' it took nearly a pound off of the weight of the instrument. The electronics and 9V battery probably contribute another 1/4 pound. So with just tuners and electronics, the MC is over 25% heavier than a four pound TV.Incedentally, I know another guy who has a genuine 1943 J45. It's actually heavier than my MC.[/quote'] but a whole set of grovers doesn't weigh a full pound... certainly not enough over a pound to make up for the weight of the replacement tuners. i can see however that they will affect the balance of the guitar, and make it feel better on your shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustystrings Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I have the immediate predecessor to the MC, a J-45 Historic Collection. Think of it as a reproduction of a c.1951-54 J-45, but with 20 frets instead of 19 and a Fishman Matrix Natural II pickup. It's shockingly light compared to the rosewood Taylor 815C jumbo it replaced, lighter feeling than the Guild GF-25C the Taylor replaced, and feels about as light as my memory of the refinished c.1950 J-45 I used to own. Anyway, what I think separates it from a Modern Classic is (a) the Baggs pickup with volume control, ( the heavier cast Grover Rotomatics vs. the stamped Gotoh Kluson copies and © possibly heavier bracing, in an attempt to make it slightly less feedback prone. The TV has the older, Advanced Jumbo bracing, which allegedly gives it a more "old-timey" sound, though I am not at all certain any of the original J-45s had that pattern bracing. This leads to an observation - for all of the desire to have a J-45 that sounds like a bannerhead from the first few years, how many of the guitars that formed our idea and ideal of what a Gibson slope-shoulder jumbo were POST-war? In my case, just about every one. This may be why I tend to be utterly content with the admittedly less expensive HC, because it surely does nail that postwar sound. And here's my heretical statement of the day, which may get me drummed out - what if you view the Gibsons built between 1946 and 1965 as the pinnacle? The ones built through '54 or so had the scalloped bracing, which is a delightful sound - but I also quite like the lower, wider bracing of the '55-65 Gibsons, built before they over-braced them and changed the headstock pitch. I would contend that the guitars of that era were pretty consistently stable instruments that held up well but still sounded wonderful, a balance of tone and reliability that is hard to beat. I suspect the MC, if played well and broken in, will be just fine and dandy - but I'd scrap the modern Grovers, which are apparently wretched compared to their forebears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerpopper Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 ...but I'd scrap the modern Grovers' date=' which are apparently wretched compared to their forebears.[/quote'] And if one is interested in replacing the Grovers, is there a Waverly option that does not require new holes to be drilled? Or is there an option that requires less in the way of modification than another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith9509 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 but a whole set of grovers doesn't weigh a full pound... certainly not enough over a pound to make up for the weight of the replacement tuners. i can see however that they will affect the balance of the guitar' date=' and make it feel better on your shoulder.[/quote'] You are correct- I miscalculated. A full set of Rotomatics weighs .62 pounds, while a full set of Waverlies with metal buttons weighs .36 pounds. I have the ones with the ivoroid buttons, which are actually closer to .3 pounds. So in switching, I saved about a third of a pound- roughly 12% of the total instrument weight. As noted, the factory Grovers are really wretched. They don't make them like they used to- my 2001 Taylor has the "real" Grovers, and there is a night-and-day difference. However, the Waverlies are in another league; they are really exceptional. They are smooth as silk, the ratio is just right, and the reduced weight really improves the instrument's balance on a strap. Oh, and they're pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmith9509 Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 And if one is interested in replacing the Grovers' date=' is there a Waverly option that does not require new holes to be drilled? Or is there an option that requires less in the way of modification than another?[/quote'] Replacing full-sized Grovers with Waverlies is a piece of cake. You just need to get the correct sized bushing, as the one that comes with the Waverlies will be too small for the Grover hole. Stewart McDonald sells them. The existing Grover screw-hole is perfectly positioned for the Waverly tuner, and does not need any modification. This makes lining up and drilling the second hole a piece of cake. Just BE CAREFUL not to drill through the front of the headstock; mark the drill bit with a piece of tape so you know the right depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajsc Posted April 7, 2009 Share Posted April 7, 2009 I know the scale length for the Modern Classic J-45s are now 24 3/4' date=' but what about the other J-45s? Scales are longer? Shorter? I wanna know if they are all the same because they only had the Modern Classic at my music store. I can't find the info on the web either. I wanna know if some of them have tighter or more tensed strings. If not, do you have any suggestions (Gibson of course...). Thanks![/quote'] I never played any J-45 that I didn't want to own!!! "I NEED SOME MONEY"!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert plays a SG? Posted April 7, 2009 Author Share Posted April 7, 2009 Ok I've tried the J-45 Modern Classic and the True Vintage: Modern Classic is better (for me). I'm still shaken by this experience of playing it today LOL!! To be precise: the back is a one piece, non-plywood, very solid, with light bracing lol! I've checked and the neck is actually thinner than the one on my 2007 Gibson SG Standard... which I find very interesting! Same scale but thinner neck?!?! I really dig the pick-up! Wow!! +volume control! I'm not sure about the tuners though... they are not that bad... just feel loose... I dunno why... Oh! And it also sounds incredible!! Wow! Now I just gotta work a few extra hours here and there to get it - 2700$ tax. inc. :( Getting close! I wanna it soon, for the summer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.