Gibson Reissues the J50! - Page 2

dirkronk · #16 03-01-2013, 08:21 AM

Hmmm. Bit of historical confusion, I suppose, re the banner.

Still, while I'm thinking of it, cheers to Gibson for bringing back the old-fashioned script logo on several of their new/reissue guitars. I noticed it first on the Robert Johnson model I played a couple of years back, and thought it was a great vintage touch. Nothing really wrong with the modern stylized-script Gibson logo that they've used for decades now...not sure I don't prefer it on electrics, for example. But somehow the older traditional script looks appropriate for an acoustic.

Dirk

Atticus · #17 03-01-2013, 08:29 AM

I probably don't need to buy another guitar right now, but this thread sure has caught my interest. I'd love to know a little more before I start saving up my pennies. This sounds silly, but I guess I'm just worried that it might be too good to be true. I mean, why would someone pay $2500ish for a standard J-45 when this guitar is now available from Gibson for a grand less? Stated differently, what would I be giving up by choosing the new J-35 over the standard J-45?

AF

michaeljohnr · #18 03-01-2013, 08:52 AM

You can purchase J45 Standards for $2100. So the price difference is +/-$500.

$2500 is paying too much.

I'd say the pricing difference is accounted for in the finishes. Burst versus plain top perhaps?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

I probably don't need to buy another guitar right now, but this thread sure has caught my interest. I'd love to know a little more before I start saving up my pennies. This sounds silly, but I guess I'm just worried that it might be too good to be true. I mean, why would someone pay $2500ish for a standard J-45 when this guitar is now available from Gibson for a grand less? Stated differently, what would I be giving up by choosing the new J-35 over the standard J-45?

AF

Tony Burns · #19 03-01-2013, 09:27 AM

Thanks alot !
was thinking the other day , no more gas -love what i have and you guys have to post about a Gibson reissue -I dont have Gibby acoustic any more ( just my old trusty '58 ES125 3/4 )-now i have to find a gibson dealer with one to play -

Atticus · #20 03-01-2013, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaeljohnr

You can purchase J45 Standards for $2100. So the price difference is +/-$500.

$2500 is paying too much.

I'd say the pricing difference is accounted for in the finishes. Burst versus plain top perhaps?

I guess I was comparing apples to apples as best I could. The Gibson advertisement shown earlier in this thread says the J-35 sells for $1700. I figured the street price would be lower, but I don't know how much lower. So I compared the advertised price of a J-45 from several on-line dealerships to the price that Gibson quotes in their advertisement, or $2500 - $1700 = about $800 difference.

One thing is for sure...if the new J-35 is a standard J-45 with a natural finish front...in other words, if it really is a J-50 that sells for some street price less than $1700...I'm in!!!

AF

michaeljohnr · #21 03-01-2013, 10:38 AM

The new one has slightly different bracing than the J45 standards. It'll hopefully sound a little different.

LightningBolt · #22 03-01-2013, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus

I guess I was comparing apples to apples as best I could. The Gibson advertisement shown earlier in this thread says the J-35 sells for $1700. I figured the street price would be lower, but I don't know how much lower. So I compared the advertised price of a J-45 from several on-line dealerships to the price that Gibson quotes in their advertisement, or $2500 - $1700 = about $800 difference.

One thing is for sure...if the new J-35 is a standard J-45 with a natural finish front...in other words, if it really is a J-50 that sells for some street price less than $1700...I'm in!!!

AF

That is exactly what it is. My feeling with acoustic guitars - slope-shoulder dreads especially - is that it can take a long time to find a good one, but when you've got a good one on your lap, it takes about 5 seconds to know it. The store I got mine at ordered 2 that both came in yesterday. And by 6pm, both were already sold. I didn't play the one I didn't buy as it was already gone, but the one I did buy is giving the '62 a run for its money. It's nice having the two to compare side-by-side. I played it in the store for a few minutes and was quite impressed, but I didn't know how it'd sound right next to the real thing. I was not disappointed. The two obviously aren't identical, but they're not that different either.

Atticus · #23 03-01-2013, 11:14 AM

Bolt...does your J-35 have a 1.75 inch nut? Thanks!

AF

J185-4Me · #24 03-01-2013, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zombywoof

I do not think though that even the last J-35s made in 1942 had the Banner logo.

as stopped sometime before spring 1942.

Yes, that was the point -- to observe that "J-35" and "Banner" never went together.

Whereas "J-50" and "Banner" did, although those are as rare as hen's teeth.

Fred

Jim Owen · #25 03-01-2013, 03:02 PM

I've yet to play one of these, but I am glad that Gibby has brought back the 35. I'm thinking the plain top ironically places it at a lower price point than the 45--back in the old days, the sunburst top was meant to hide abnormalities, but we've come to love Gibson bursts. Go figure.

The original 35s had different bracing patterns--some have two tone bars, some three. I wonder what the insides of these new 35s are like?

@Atticus Finch--a few years ago, Gibson brought a natural top J 45 out in its Working Musician line (WM 45) at a much lower price point than the J 45. I never got my hands on one, but there was a lot of love for them. The 35 seems to fit that niche.

Gibson has confused me about model specifications and numbers so many times that I've just gotten used to the fact that their behavior is impossible to predict. It's possible that the folks in Montana don't know that 35s never had banners. Or they know but don't care. I think that the latter is more likely.

GibbyPrague · #26 03-01-2013, 03:47 PM

Why even bother, it will just sound full of socks like all other Gibsons out there, especially at such a ridiculously low price ....

jt1 · #27 03-01-2013, 05:07 PM

Like Fred/J184-4me, I also had a chance to play the new J-35 at my Kalamazoo Gals book release party in Seattle. I thought that it was a great guitar and even chose it to play for the evening's closing jam session:

I also share Fred's consternation over the presence of a 1940s logo and Banner on the guitar's peghead. Still, imho, a really good guitar.

J Patrick · #28 03-02-2013, 09:12 AM

...i don't see why some folks have their knickers in a twist over the fact that Gibsons new J-35 isn't historically accurate...its not like other guitar companies don't change specs....it would be one thing if they were claiming historic accuracy but they don't appear to be doing so...its just a marketing ploy...as its always been with Gibson.. any given guitar might be a gem...or not...

davenumber2 · #29 03-02-2013, 09:31 AM

Music Villa (The Acoustic Letter) has filmed a video review of the new J-35 and will be posting it soon according to their Facebook page.

Frankie2blue · #30 03-02-2013, 09:45 AM

Still no answer as to whether it is a 1.75 nut or not?