Gibson J-45... 2009 vs 2010/11

[Matt_plan-R]

Just curious if there were any major manufacturing/pick-up changes on the current J-45 Standard vs the 2009 version. Anyone know? Or are they identical?

 

Thanks!!

[Folky_Grunge]

I'm not sure about specific year-to-year changes, but Gibsons in general tend to vary a lot (at least in my experience). Using J-45s as an example, one store in my area had one that I really, really liked; another store (which I went to a few days later) had two, they were a bit different, but both sounded horrendous.

[Rada]

exactly... I've played DOZENS of J-45s before I found one that sounded like an angel. The second I strummed it, even my wife's eyes went wide at the tone (and she knows nothing about guitar) I think mine is a 2008 or 2009

 

I've seen some J45's recently that look like the fretboard was carved with a pocket knife, but mine is practically flawless. Perfect action, smooth neck, etc... I really think (like with any $2000+ acoustic) you need to play as many of the model as you can and don't settle.

 

 

 

[katopp]

The one consistent thing with Gibson acoustics is teir inconsistency.

Gibson - notoriously - has the lest motivated workforce in the industry, go figure.

While any half-assed frustrated dimwit can glue a plank together and call it an electric guitar, building an acoustic guitar involves much more .... involvement and so Gibson is not on my priority list anymore.

Even though Martin churns out probably multiples of Gibson in numbers, I still have to hear that many horror stories about the sound and product qualty issues than I hear about Gibson. Most favourite issue seems to be bridges not properly glued, glue not properly cured and bridges creeping towards the soundhole, loose bracing and excessive bulging...

Apparently, if you happen to get one of the good ones they are stellar, but the average Gibbo is - to me - much less appealing than the average Martin in the same price bracket. And, honestly, you can get the same quality of an average Gibbo in China for 10% of the price.

[Jersey Jack]

While I'd always advise people to try guitars before buying, I don't agree with the claims made here about Gibson's inconsistency. Both of my Gibsons were stunning just as I picked them up; and then later when they started to open up, WOW! I've played a few other Bozeman acoustics and never found a dud.

 

Now perhaps I have good luck; but I believe that this idea is out there primarily because the Gibson thump is a subtle virtue, one that has to grow on you; on the other hand the Martin boom and the Taylor sparkle are much more noticeable. Hence in a showroom environment many people become convinced that Gibson either isn't in the same league as Martin and Taylor (this is hard to hold, however, when one looks at the major recording artists who use Gibson) or that the Gibson they heard in the store must be a dud.

 

It ain't so, in my experience.

[katopp]

Fair enough JJ, there are a lot of recording artists and sound engineers who say that Martins and to some extent Taylors are hard to record and Gibsons record much easier.

But what I see is that I see more mentioning of Gibson niggles than Martin, Taylor or Yammie niggles.

Given tne relative output - even of the Bozeman factory now - there shouldn't be any mentioning of Gibbo niggkes out there and gazillions of Martin, Taylor - you name it - niggles.

But it's always the same: Gibbo and always the same niggles, lifting and creeping bridges, for instance.

[Folky_Grunge]

While I'd always advise people to try guitars before buying, I don't agree with the claims made here about Gibson's inconsistency. Both of my Gibsons were stunning just as I picked them up; and then later when they started to open up, WOW! I've played a few other Bozeman acoustics and never found a dud. Now perhaps I have good luck; but I believe that this idea is out there primarily because the Gibson thump is a subtle virtue, one that has to grow on you; on the other hand the Martin boom and the Taylor sparkle are much more noticeable. Hence in a showroom environment many people become convinced that Gibson either isn't in the same league as Martin and Taylor (this is hard to hold, however, when one looks at the major recording artists who use Gibson) or that the Gibson they heard in the store must be a dud. It ain't so, in my experience.

 

I think you've been very lucky. I like the "Gibson sound" a lot (more than either Taylor or Martin), but I've only played a few Gibsons that I really liked; the ones that I did like, I really liked, but the ones that I didn't usually sounded really muffled and kind of gross (sorry, but I'm bad at describing sounds). I don't have any direct experience with the quality control issues (Gibsons are way, way out of my price league), but they seem to be a lot more common than with any other high-end acoustic manufacturer than I know of, which is also a bit off-putting.

 

Of course, maybe I just have bad luck with Gibsons, or they just don't send the good ones to Washington. Either way, I think it's kind of sad, because Gibsons (at least should) have a great sound.

[larry50]

 

exactly... I've played DOZENS of J-45s before I found one that sounded like an angel. The second I strummed it, even my wife's eyes went wide at the tone (and she knows nothing about guitar) I think mine is a 2008 or 2009 I've seen some J45's recently that look like the fretboard was carved with a pocket knife, but mine is practically flawless. Perfect action, smooth neck, etc... I really think (like with any $2000+ acoustic) you need to play as many of the model as you can and don't settle.

 

 

That's exactly what happened when I first found my J-45. I had played perhaps two dozen over a year or so, not a concerted effort but I played one every time I found one somewhere. Then I happened into the Hollywood/Sunset GC two years ago, and there was a one J-45 on the wall. It was jaw dropping from the first chord. Even the salesman glanced up and winked at me when I played a few chords runs and single note lines. An absolutely amazing guitar, found by pure chance.

 

I'm not aware of any structural changes (other than that the new ones have an inlaid headstock logo, rather than the old silk screen version). But our experience sure shows that you have to be very patient looking for one.

[larry50]

While I'd always advise people to try guitars before buying, I don't agree with the claims made here about Gibson's inconsistency. Both of my Gibsons were stunning just as I picked them up; and then later when they started to open up, WOW! I've played a few other Bozeman acoustics and never found a dud. Now perhaps I have good luck; but I believe that this idea is out there primarily because the Gibson thump is a subtle virtue, one that has to grow on you; on the other hand the Martin boom and the Taylor sparkle are much more noticeable. Hence in a showroom environment many people become convinced that Gibson either isn't in the same league as Martin and Taylor (this is hard to hold, however, when one looks at the major recording artists who use Gibson) or that the Gibson they heard in the store must be a dud. It ain't so, in my experience.

 

I think the main difference in sound (that is comparing, a round shouldered J-45 to a square shoulder typical Martin) must come from the difference in scale length. I think the closest Gibson to a typical Martin "standard" dread (eg D-18, D-28, D-35 etc) is the Advanced Jumbo, which I am also now lusting after, which has the same longer scale length as the Martins. I played one at Bananas at Large in San Raphael CA yesterday that was AMAZING in every way.