Members SwingingPRS Posted March 7, 2006 Members Posted March 7, 2006 Hi folks!I need some help choosing my guitar. I live kind of far away from any big town so it isn't easy to get my hand on too many guitars. But today I was in the city. And I tried a Gibson Hummingbird (it was a Sherl Crow signature by the way). But I don't like the shape. I love the j-200 shape... Is the j-200 just as wonderful to play as the hummingbird? Because I got an offer to buy both a sj-200 cutaway and a pete townshend signature... looking forward to hear from you! thanks
Members Scope Posted March 7, 2006 Members Posted March 7, 2006 Hi, From my standpoint, the SJ 200 is a completely different animal than the Hummingbird - Both wonderful guitars.. I have a 12 year old J-30, which has the same specs as the Hummingbird when they made them long-scale (early/mid-90's) - The current Hummingbirds are short-scale, same square shoulder design, mahogany back/sides.. The scale length has some effect on the 'feel' of playing the guitar, due to the differences in string tension on a short vs. long scale set-up. If I remember correctly, the current production SJ 200 is a long-scale design - in contrast to the Hummingbird. In addition, the 200's maple back/sides deliver a significantly different vibe/sound than the Hummingbird's mahogany. My experience playing the SJ 200 is that they deliver a really crisp, dry sound. You may absolutely love it, but in general maple b/s guitars deliver a 'punchier'/dryer - less 'sweet' tone than mahogany (Generalization warning!..beware of the saying - different guitars will differ, differently). So check out the 200, because it may be perfect for you - but IMHO these two are really at opposite ends of the spectrum, so to speak.. Best of luck! Jim
Members 54merk Posted March 7, 2006 Members Posted March 7, 2006 Before you jump on an SJ200 I sure hope you realize that this is one big guitar. Why else was it called the King of the Flat Tops? The SJ stands for Super Jumbo, and that is an apt description. If you found a Hummingbird, a square shouldered Dreadnaught, uncomfortable to play, why would an SJ 200 be easier to play. I am not bad mouthing the SJ200, I am just telling you to know what you would be getting into. BTW, most of them are Maple however they also come in rosewood, and some Koa versions have been made as well.
Members SwingingPRS Posted March 7, 2006 Author Members Posted March 7, 2006 Well, the hummingbird is a dreadnought...I really don't like that...unfortunate.
Members Johneecatt Posted March 7, 2006 Members Posted March 7, 2006 Originally posted by 54merk The SJ stands for Super Jumbo, and that is an apt description. I have a 70's SJ that is the same shape and style of the Sheryl Crow model. It may be different now - but back then it stood for Southern Jumbo. .......Jus' sayin'.........
Members Treborklow Posted March 7, 2006 Members Posted March 7, 2006 Buy what sounds good to you and forget the shape. I was shopping for a J200 or J45 and I played those and the Sheryl Crow the same day. Even though I preferred the looks of the J200 I bought the Crow and have never regretted it. It played better and sounded better. I've had it for a few years now. I still thought I wanted a J200 so I bought one and then resold it 6 months later. It didn't record as well as the Crow (too boomy for my mics) and it was too cumbersome to deal with.
Members DonK Posted March 8, 2006 Members Posted March 8, 2006 Um, first of all, Sheryl's guitar is not a Hummingbird, it's a '62 Country Western, which is similar but tecnically not the same. The SJ-200 is a completely different guitar. Apart from the HUGE body (compared to the Sheryl Crow, or any other dread for that matter), it's got a 25.5" scale, compared to a 24.75" for the SC (and the "real" Hummingbird). So, no, it's not going to play the same, which isn't the same as saying it won't play "great"; that's subjective. Frankly, apart from the neck profile, nut width and maker (Gibson), the Sheryl Crow (or an actual Hummingbird) has almost nothing in common with an SJ-200. Dramatically different body sizes, different scale lengths, different woods (mahogany vs. maple for the back and sides). They aren't going to play or sound even nearly the same.
Members Hudman Posted March 8, 2006 Members Posted March 8, 2006 Originally posted by DonK Um, first of all, Sheryl's guitar is not a Hummingbird, it's a '62 Country Western, which is similar but tecnically not the same.The SJ-200 is a completely different guitar. Apart from the HUGE body (compared to the Sheryl Crow, or any other dread for that matter), it's got a 25.5" scale, compared to a 24.75" for the SC (and the "real" Hummingbird). So, no, it's not going to play the same, which isn't the same as saying it won't play "great"; that's subjective. Frankly, apart from the neck profile, nut width and maker (Gibson), the Sheryl Crow (or an actual Hummingbird) has almost nothing in common with an SJ-200. Dramatically different body sizes, different scale lengths, different woods (mahogany vs. maple for the back and sides). They aren't going to play or sound even nearly the same. I agree 100%. It's like night and day. Two completely different guitars. In the Gibson line, I like the Songwriter Deluxe (25.5" scale) and the J45 (24.75" scale) the best. In a perfect world I would own both.
Members SwingingPRS Posted March 8, 2006 Author Members Posted March 8, 2006 hi thanks for all replies! I got my hand on a SJ-200 from 2001, the sound was quite different. Couldn't decide if I liked it more or less than the hummingbird thow (the sound). But the hummingbird was "easier" to play. Probably because of the short/long-scale?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.