Taylor Grand Concert or Grand Theatre?

[PeteyPower16]

In general, for a smaller sized all-solid parlor guitar, would you prefer the GT or the GC?

I recently purchased a Taylor Grand Concert 312 (Sitka/Sapele). Prior to purchasing, I was considering the slightly smaller (but still all solid wood) GT Urban Ash (Sitka/Ash) as an alternative option. These two wood combinations (soft resonant top with warm woods back/sides) are quite comparable tonally.

I have a GS mini and 414 (GA). My initial impression was that—despite the solid wood construction and innovative bracing—the GT sounded more like the mini than the GA. Both sounded boxy compared to the GC and GA. Compared to the GT, the GC improved on the treble chime and projection but did not offer much more bass—to get more bass, at least a GA was needed—or even a GS.

I hypothesize that the body size drives the tone much more than solid wood construction. If I were to classify these models (GS mini, GT, GC, GA), I would group the GS mini and GT together and put a solid line between these models and the larger body sizes. The GA and GS are full-size guitars. To me the GC is somewhat of a hybrid, falling in between the small body models and the full-size models, leaning toward the tone of a full size guitar while playing more like a smaller body guitar.

I am curious if you would tend to agree with my observations about the GT and GC, or if you have found the GT to offer much more than the more affordable GS mini?

In general, for a smaller sized all-solid parlor guitar, would you prefer the GT or the GC?

[donlyn]

Taylor Grand Concert or Grand Theatre?

I have had two Grand Concerts for quite a while. Just got to play a Grand Theatre a few weeks ago for the first time.

Frankly while the Grand Theatre is kind of nice, the Grand Concert has it beat all over the place. Body size and comfort, nut width, feel, and sound. And an HS case. Wanted to try an 811, but the Guitar Center I was at didn't have one.

With that said about an 811, I will take my Grand Concerts over a Grand Theatre every time.

My Grand Concerts are a spruce over rosewood and an all mahogany (mahogany top over mahogany B&S and a mahogany neck). Both are X-braced and well broken in. In short, keepers, and that is the competition a Grand Theatre is up against.

I will still be looking for an 811 to try, but the narrower neck is noticeable when used to 1+3/4" nut widths. I do have guitars with 1+11/16", but they are somehow better that the GT. Maybe simply because they were built on full size guitars?

I fingerpick all my instruments using my nails as picks, and I string most of my six string guitars (including my two Grand Concerts) with Elixir PB HD Light gauge (.013 - .053).

Don
.

[scotchnspeed]

Originally Posted by PeteyPower16

In general, for a smaller sized all-solid parlor guitar, would you prefer the GT for the GC?

In general, for a smaller sized all-solid parlor guitar, would you prefer the GT for the GC?

Well...Taylor doesn't have a parlor sized guitar, and neither the GT nor GC qualify as such. Both are 15" guitars, which are closer to OM size. Parlors are 12-13".

In case anyone thinks this is wrong, consider that 2" difference is the same as the difference between an OM/000 and a super jumbo!

That being said, I have always thought the GC was *by far* Taylor's best size and design. The GT is a flop with its full sized body and toy/travel scale length.

I'd go with the GC, especially older ones with the standard/long scale. But neither are parlors.

[donlyn]

Grand Concert or Grand Theatre?

Grand Concert lower bout is 15" wide. Grand Theatre is close to 14" wide. (See edit below.)

Grand Concert body is based around a Grand Auditorium only smaller. In actuality, both are effectively smaller Jumboes in shape.

Grand Theatre body is a shrunken version of a Grand Orchestra body, which is in itself Taylor's replacement (the Grand Orchestra) for their Jumbo. The Grand Orchestra is basically a re-braced Jumbo with a wider waist, and a deeper body, than the old Taylor Jumbo body.

Don
.

Edit=> Taylor does list the width of a Grand Theatre as 15". Somehow I felt that it seemed smaller all over. Or maybe just played 'smaller'.

And my fingers kept pulling the high 'e' string off the fretboard. (I am used to a .013 'e' string with the HD gsuge.)

[bendandsnap]

I’m a big fan of the GT. Tried a 811 and it was a beautiful guitar and it sounded great. I like the shape of the body more than the GC.

[Cool555]

I concur with your analysis of the GC and the GT.

Depending on the price difference between the GC and the GT, if it's not too great and if it's close, I would definitely go for the GC. That's my vote.

But the all Koa GT is interesting, if you like hardwood tops.

[colins]

The grand theatre sounded interesting so I looked up the specs on the Taylor website. 15 inch lower bout, 4.25 inches deep. And then a 24.125 inch neck? Seems a strange combination to me. But I guess I’d need to try one to make a proper assessment.

[PeteyPower16]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

Well...Taylor doesn't have a parlor sized guitar, and neither the GT nor GC qualify as such. Both are 15" guitars, which are closer to OM size. Parlors are 12-13".

In case anyone thinks this is wrong, consider that 2" difference is the same as the difference between an OM/000 and a super jumbo!

That being said, I have always thought the GC was *by far* Taylor's best size and design. The GT is a flop with its full sized body and toy/travel scale length.

I'd go with the GC, especially older ones with the standard/long scale. But neither are parlors.

Would you consider the Taylor GS mini to be a parlor-sized Taylor? Or is this “travel guitar” size? What’s the difference?

You stated that the GC has a full sized body and a travel scale length. Do you think that the tone of the GT (less rich than a GC in my opinion) is driven by the short scale length more than the body size/depth? I always assumed it was primarily body size that had the greatest influence on tone.

[SpruceTop]

Taylor Grand Concert gets my vote.

[cliff_the_stiff]

Baby Taylor, GS mini, GT are little guitars.
The GC is a normal sized guitar very close to a 000 Martin.
The 12 fret GC is a great guitar.

[scotchnspeed]

Originally Posted by PeteyPower16

Would you consider the Taylor GS mini to be a parlor-sized Taylor? Or is this “travel guitar” size? What’s the difference?

You stated that the GC has a full sized body and a travel scale length. Do you think that the tone of the GT (less rich than a GC in my opinion) is driven by the short scale length more than the body size/depth? I always assumed it was primarily body size that had the greatest influence on tone.

I would consider the GSM to be a budget quality travel guitar and nothing more. Laminated woods, less quality tops and necks, etc... I believe you mentioned solid woods before, so this would not be in that rank. Parlors are also typically 12 fret, though of course there are 0 bodies and some specialty guitars like the SCGC Firefly.

The GT no doubt has a full sized body (15", same as traditional 000/OM and deeper than an OM), but has a ridiculously short neck. I believe this is why it falls way short in the tone category.

Originally Posted by cliff_the_stiff

Baby Taylor, GS mini, GT are little guitars.
The GC is a normal sized guitar very close to a 000 Martin.
The 12 fret GC is a great guitar.

The GT is not a little guitar. It has the same volume (same lower bout, slightly less upper bout, but deeper body) as an OM! I am not sure (and not going to check), but it might even have more geometric volume than the GC, which no one disputes is full size. The older 90's GC with 25.5" necks were among Taylors finest among all models they ever produced.

[gerardo1000]

I played both and, in my very personal and humble opinion, there is no comparison: the Grand Concert is so much better. I am afraid tha,Taylor doesn't have a hit with the GT.

[guitar12]

I echo what the majority seem to be saying here, the GC is the clear choice over the GT.

Rob

[PeteyPower16]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

I would consider the GSM to be a budget quality travel guitar and nothing more. Laminated woods, less quality tops and necks, etc... I believe you mentioned solid woods before, so this would not be in that rank. Parlors are also typically 12 fret, though of course there are 0 bodies and some specialty guitars like the SCGC Firefly.



The GT no doubt has a full sized body (15", same as traditional 000/OM and deeper than an OM), but has a ridiculously short neck. I believe this is why it falls way short in the tone category.







The GT is not a little guitar. It has the same volume (same lower bout, slightly less upper bout, but deeper body) as an OM! I am not sure (and not going to check), but it might even have more geometric volume than the GC, which no one disputes is full size. The older 90's GC with 25.5" necks were among Taylors finest among all models they ever produced.

It seems to me that scale length is a driving factor for tone: both when considering the GT body size that is similar to the GC but less rich tone—perhaps due to scale length, and also when considering another poster’s statement about the 1990’s 25.5-inch GC’s (compared to today’s ~24.75-inch) being among the best that Taylor has made.

[nostatic]

For me ergonomics factors higher than tone, and I find body depth to be a big factor. One reason I didn't get along with any of the Taylors is I find a sub 4" depth body (usually 000/OM) to fit my body. Totally ymmv but typically a lot of talk about bout size, not so much about body depth.