"Modern Classics"...

[Eddie Rondack]

This has probably been discussed, but how messed up is it that Gibson sticks big ol' Grovers on a J-45, Southern Jumbo and SJ-200 and calls it a "Modern Classic". I know there are other differences but, visually, this one just ruins those guitars for me.

 

Aesthetics are key to the Gibson attraction and this just works against "the look", I think.

 

Surely the greenish white "tulips" or the oval white buttoned "klusons" can't cost much (if any) more than the Grovers?

 

Why?

[maninblack]

i agree. they look cheap and out of place.

[bkharmony]

As a "Modern Classic" owner I can say, yes, it sucks.

 

I'd like to get tulips put on my SJ-200, but I'll probably go with these. They look like they just bolt right on where the Grover rotomatics go. No drilling and/or filling.

 

http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Tuners/Guitar,_solid_peghead_tuners/Grover_Tuners/Grover_Super_Rotomatics.html?tab=Pictures#details

[onewilyfool]

As a "Modern Classic" owner I can say' date=' yes, it sucks.

 

I'd like to get tulips put on my SJ-200, but I'll probably go with these. They look like they just bolt right on where the Grover rotomatics go. No drilling and/or filling.

 

http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Tuners/Guitar,_solid_peghead_tuners/Grover_Tuners/Grover_Super_Rotomatics.html?tab=Pictures#details[/quote']

 

 

I like those Grover's.....you know I've heard (even from Luthiers) that the extra mass of the Grovers actually HELPS the sound of a guitar???? I just like that they are sealed, clean, and work very well. I know a lot of guys that don't like them. I find that they look good on big Dreadnaught Guilds, and guitars with big headstocks, but on Martins, and small headstock guitars, they look too big visually.......

[BigKahune]

I like those Grover's.....you know I've heard (even from Luthiers) that the extra mass of the Grovers actually HELPS the sound of a guitar???? I just like that they are sealed' date=' clean, and work very well. ...

 

+1

 

I've got a SJ-200 MC and I like the gold Grovers. And, I don't care for the look of the "greenish white 'tulips' or the oval white buttoned 'Klusons'."

Aesthetics comes down to personal taste.

[Jinder]

I have 'em on my SJ200. The original 'Gibson Deluxe' units fell apart after a year, I replaced them with Wilkinsons which were nothing special and fell apart within six months, then fitted the Grover Kluson copies which lasted two years.

 

They may not look much, but for four live shows a week, year in year out, the honking great Rotomatics really hold up well.

 

My favourites, though, are the mini rotomatics on my Blues King...best machineheads I've ever used. I previously installed a set on an Epi Sheraton I owned ten years or so ago, and the damn thing would stay in tune forever, which is the case with the BK-two hour live shows need about four tuneups, not including altered tunings...sensational performance from such humble wee machines.

[bkharmony]

I like those Grover's.....you know I've heard (even from Luthiers) that the extra mass of the Grovers actually HELPS the sound of a guitar???? I just like that they are sealed' date=' clean, and work very well. I know a lot of guys that don't like them. I find that they look good on big Dreadnaught Guilds, and guitars with big headstocks, but on Martins, and small headstock guitars, they look too big visually.......[/quote']

 

Don't get me wrong - they're great machine heads. I've got them on my Dot, a Michael Kelly Resonator and my L-4A. Got no problem there. But on the J-200 they look out of place to me. Like you said, BK - personal taste is personal.

[rar]

... how messed up is it that Gibson sticks big ol' Grovers on a J-45' date=' Southern Jumbo and SJ-200 and calls it a "Modern Classic". ... Aesthetics are key to the Gibson attraction and this just works against "the look", I think.[/quote']

 

Once upon a time, the folks in Bozeman got tired of people complaining about ways in which the standard production J-45s (and other models in the "Historic Collection") differed from old ones, so they decided to build two standard production model J-45s: one for purists who care about things such as whether their J-45 had the right tuner buttons and the other for people who don't. Since they believed Rotomatics function better than Kluson-copies and that they looked okay, that's what they put on the model for "people who don't".

 

Hearing about this, the Marketing Department got a bit carried away -- as is traditional throughout the long history of Gibson. They dubbed the models for purists "True Vintage" and the models for non-purists "Modern Classic", and proceeded to write flowery prose about how the TV models were just like the vintage models that inspired them (which, of course, they aren't) and how the MC models had abandoned the slavery to tradition that was reducing their potential for greatness in This Modern Age. (The latter pitch was so nonsensical that they subsequently changed the moniker to "Standard", which is a much improved description of what they are.)

 

Moral: If a Standard J-45 with Rotomatics looks wrong to you, you're not alone. You're one of the people the J-45 TV was designed for.

 

-- Bob R

[davenumber2]

I have 'em on mine. Look fine. Work great. It's not worth it to me to change them to look more "authentic".

[Jack6849]

While I agree that personal taste rules, I'll just throw in a vote for the tulip-style tuners. Back in the 60s, for a while, I thought Rotomatics looked "high-tech", and wanted them, but after seeing a lot of Gibson and Martin headstocks drilled out (i.e. maimed...) to accommodate them, I lost my respect, and, to me, the added mass always made guitars with them feel "top-heavy" anyway. I guess you like what you like...

 

No doubt Rotomatics are a great machine, though. My '68 Les Paul Custom was the first guitar I owned that had a "factory-installed" set. Before that, I was gigging with a 1964 ES-330TD, and if I had had the money I would have added Rotomatics to that guitar too. Fortunately, I was a poor college student at the time, and couldn't afford it. (In fact, I was so poor that I had to start teaching guitar at the store where I got the new Les Paul Custom, just to pay for it.)

 

Ever since the Beatles' J-160E, I've thought tulip-style tuners looked best on a Gibson headstock. I still do... I recently bought a "Southern Jumbo Modern Classic" at Dave's Guitar Shop in La Crosse, and a change of tuners from Rotomatics to tulips was part of the deal. Same thing on an Ebony Custom Shop ES-355 that I got from Dave last November.

 

My SJ-200 "True Vintage" came with tulips, and I specified them on my latest Gibson, a Bozeman Special Order "J-200 Jr." with an Adirondack top and a bound fretboard and headstock. I am still waiting for that one.... Perhaps in another month or so..... Anyway, everyone is entitled to their tuner preference, be it based on looks, feel, or performance.

 

For me, its Tulipstyle tuners on most Gibsons. Stuck in my ways, I am...

 

Jack6849

[Dove Histronic]

... the honking great Rotomatics...

 

what a superb band name:

 

"The Honking Rotomatics"

 

Thanks Jinder, gonna use it and tell everyone I thought of it myself

[Red 333]

Once upon a time' date=' the folks in Bozeman got tired of people complaining about ways in which the standard production J-45s (and other models in the "Historic Collection") differed from old ones, so they decided to build two standard production model J-45s: one for purists who care about things such as whether their J-45 had the right tuner buttons and the other for people who don't. Since they believed Rotomatics function better than Kluson-copies and that they looked okay, that's what they put on the model for "people who don't".

 

Hearing about this, the Marketing Department got a bit carried away -- as is traditional throughout the long history of Gibson. They dubbed the models for purists "True Vintage" and the models for non-purists "Modern Classic", and proceeded to write flowery prose about how the TV models were just like the vintage models that inspired them (which, of course, they aren't) and how the MC models had abandoned the slavery to tradition that was reducing their potential for greatness in This Modern Age. (The latter pitch was [i']so[/i] nonsensical that they subsequently changed the moniker to "Standard", which is a much improved description of what they are.)

 

Moral: If a Standard J-45 with Rotomatics looks wrong to you, you're not alone. You're one of the people the J-45 TV was designed for.

 

-- Bob R

 

The MC became the Standard because Henry J wanted standardized model desigations across the eletric and aoustic line so customers would understand the up-sell strategy: artist, stanard, pro, etc. That's why you had the headscratchingly priced J45 Pro, which simply had a headstock inlay to make it different (and much more spendy). They may have begun to back off this strategy lately, but that's wha' happened, Loozy.

 

As to the tuners: you can't please everybody. When the J45 came with button or tulip tuners, the first thing many did was change them to Grovers! If the guitar come with Gotoh bean tuners, some people want Waverly's. Another forum member with a J45TV was telling me he wished the white buttons were more ivory. Different strokes.

 

Peronally, I've NEVER had trouble with any tuner on any guitar. I think most people who report tuner instability don't know how to put the strings on. But I understand changing tuners to personalize the guitar. I've done it from time to time, depending on my mood, as like many of you, I often prefer one type to another on certain models.

 

But yes, the Grovers are a visual clue (like the white label) that the Standard is not a TV. After all, there's not much you can do to make one model of J45 stand apart from another: tuners, logo, banner, pick guard, bridge style to some extent. You can't change too much or it won't be what we affictianados identify as a J45. It might be a J50! Or a Southern Jumbo. Or a Country and Western, or a Texan, or Honkey Tonk Duece, or whatever (which non-guitar fans would say are all the same guitar--they don't notice and debate the details like we do).

 

No wonder they're issuing so many artist models. They got to give us some reason to get another J45 that doesn't look exactly like the two we aleady have, LOL.

 

Red 333

[KL]

I don't like those big ugly heavy Grovers on J-45's. I'm sure they work great but they do add a lot of weight to the guitar. I've always like how when you pick up a J-45 it is as light as a feather. Love the ones with the plastic buttons on my 2002 J-45 and the old open back ones on my 1966 J-45.

[rar]

The MC became the Standard because Henry J wanted standardized model desigations across the eletric and aoustic line so customers would understand the up-sell strategy: artist' date=' stanard, pro, etc. [/quote']

 

Hey, Red, don't let the facts get in the way of a good fable! (Anyway, my point was really just that the people in Bozeman who designed and built the Modern Classics had nothing to do with the "Modern Classic" designation -- which was widely agreed to be goofy -- or the way MCs were characterized in promotional materials.)

 

No wonder they're issuing so many artist models. They got to give us some reason to get another J45 that doesn't look exactly like the two we aleady have' date=' LOL. [/quote']

 

Not to mention that artist models are where the (relatively) big profits are. Soaking people who can afford to pay a little extra helps hold prices down on the standard models.

 

-- Bob R

[Red 333]

Hey' date=' Red, don't let the facts get in the way of a good fable! [/quote']

 

Sage advice, my friend. As they said at the end of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, 'Print the legend."

 

Red 333

[Murph]

'Print the legend."

 

[BigKahune]

... No wonder they're issuing so many artist models. They got to give us some reason to get another J45 that doesn't look exactly like the two we aleady have' date=' LOL.

 

... ...artist models are where the (relatively) big profits are. Soaking people who can afford to pay a little extra helps hold prices down on the standard models.

 

. . . . . .

 

Good thread. Great stuff.

[pit_s_xroad]

Hi,

 

after a while I changed mine to Tulip type...

 

 

 

this pic is before the change...

 

 

Greetings,

PIT...

[RASHARU]

Hi,

 

after a while I changed mine to Tulip type...

 

]

 

Greetings,

PIT...

BEAUTIFUL picture! This really helps me decide on mine because my J45 Vine's headstock is VERY similar to yours. You did have to drill additional screw holes in the back of the headstock, correct .. which would obviously make this a "permanent" upgrade? (but worth it!)

[pit_s_xroad]

BEAUTIFUL picture! This really helps me decide on mine because my J45 Vine's headstock is VERY similar to yours. You did have to drill additional screw holes in the back of the headstock, correct .. which would obviously make this a "permanent" upgrade? (but worth it!)

 

Thanks... yes you're right... another hole needs to be drilled... but I never looked back and regretted it... I almost have forgotten that there have been other tuners installed... I just get reminded once I see the older picrures... \:D/ ...not only does it look better, it also takes off a little weight from headside and the guitar sounds somewhat more open...

 

I did this also with my ES-335...

[RASHARU]

Thanks... yes you're right... another hole needs to be drilled... but I never looked back and regretted it... I almost have forgotten that there have been other tuners installed... I just get reminded once I see the older picrures... \:D/ ...not only does it look better, it also takes off a little weight from headside and the guitar sounds somewhat more open...

 

I did this also with my ES-335...

Isn't that same Gibson Deluxe set available with the larger size threaded bushings (diameters) that would exactly match your original Grovers? #PMMH-010, I think? I'm asking because I'm curious if the press-fit style bushings actually make for a better tuner. They would seem to maybe support the post a little better. Your opinion, please...

[Jack6849]

Rasharu,

 

In my opinion, Pit has chosen..... wisely.

 

Those "tulip-style" tuners, for me, make a J-200 look like the classic it is. Again, for me,..... there is no comparison. But as someone has mentioned, people's tastes differ. If you go with what looks and feels right to you (and your choice makes you happy), then that's all that matters.

 

Jack6849

[pit_s_xroad]

Isn't that same Gibson Deluxe set available with the larger size threaded bushings (diameters) that would exactly match your original Grovers? #PMMH-010, I think? I'm asking because I'm curious if the press-fit style bushings actually make for a better tuner. They would seem to maybe support the post a little better. Your opinion, please...

 

Hi,

 

the Gibson deluxe are these with the screw-nut, aren't they? I don't like these Gibson Deluxe at all... I had these on three Guitars factorywise (1 x 1996 LP Studio GEM, 1 x 1992 LP Standard and a 1997 SG Special)... I even had some tuning issues with these... They are running too easy...

 

The press-in only ones are not weak or sloppy at all... I have equipped all in all 6 guitars with these vintage-typish tulips over the years and on my R6 and R9 these are installed factorywise... which speaks for itself I would say...

 

Greetings,

PIT...

[Shambolic]

got the grovers on my J-200mc, love em they run smooth and I like the large tops easier to turn.

[vourot]

Put me down for the grovers. I have never warmed up to the buttons or the tulips. When the time comes I will replace the tulips with grovers on the SG that I haven't bought yet.