Jerry K Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 lower bout----Long scale---------------short scale 17"-----------J200 16------------J200 jr---------------------j185-------------(same lower bout as dreads, j-45) 15"-----------L-200 Emmy---------------J-165 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Thanks Jerry....are these similar bout sized guitars actually the same shape too??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry K Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Thanks Jerry....are these similar bout sized guitars actually the same shape too??? Well the ones in the chart (except for guitars mentioned in parens) are all the jumbo shape. The different sizes are not precisely proportional; there are a lot of subtle differences between them about the way things work out and the bridge placement but basically the shapes are the same, just bigger/smaller and the two scale lengths. If you mean is a j185 same shape as j200 jr, see j185-4me's pic: There are some similar pics of the 15 inch jumbos here Now some of the comparable 16" guitars like dreadnoughts and J-45's obviously have different shapes from a jumbo but they are probably pretty similar in interior volume. Depths are similar, but the smaller waist and upper bout and other characteristics of the jumbo shape may make it slightly smaller in interior volume, but not by much, in my estimation. The 185/200jr body is actually a biggish guitar, comparable to dreads at least in size. It only seems small by comparison with those mammoth J-200's. I suppose it could be argued that the L-1 is the smallest of the jumbo shaped guitars, at 13 and 3/4 inches, jumbo shrimp: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry K Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Course the whole circular lower bout idea seems to go all the way back to Orville Gibson: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyRocker Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 The original CJ-165 did not have a cut-away. I think the new incarnation "J" with the EC is about the same but with cut-away. The original CJ-165 had as one of the differences in specs between the maple and rosewood models was that the maple version had rosewood bridge and fret board while the rosewood model was spec'd with ebony bridge and fret board. PS: I am looking at the product page on gibson.com and the page is for the Rosewood model, but the picture is of a maple version. Gibson goofed ---you can see the maple flame inside the soundhole!! The spec still says ebony fretboard on the specs page, but the picture shows the maple version with rosewood....LOL!! There are differences between the CJ and J. They have tried to cast the new J model as being much more of an Acoustic/Electric as opposed to the original CJ was an acoustic that had a pick up.... Hope that sorta makes some sense? Here is a pic of my Maple CJ-165 bought in 2007 I think it was....not too long after the model was first offered. Re: mine had the pick guard included in the case, but had not been installed. I am not sure how they do it now, but I have chosen to keep the pick guard off mine for now. I love the look with out it! Hi nodehopper, I'm still reading/researching more on my J-165. I'm going to try to post a pic like you have, but maybe it will only attach (looks almost like your room too!). I thought mine was a 2005, but after examining the serial number I see it's a 2006. So the J vs CJ is either rosewood vs Maple or it's an early gap between manufacturing and marketing. I think the newer EC indicates Electric Cutaway?... Here are what I see as the differences between ours. 1. Mine has an orange label and is marked J-165 2. Mine is Rosewood with an Ebony fret board and bridge. 3. I have gold hardware. Hope this helps a little. This thread has helped me learn more about my find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.