Gibson J-200 polarized views?

[Dok]

It took me quite a while to figure it out, but a big part of the reason I wasn't getting along with my J-45 was due to the short scale. The J-100 is 25.5" and that made a lot of difference, somewhat unexpectedly.

[dilver]

3 things bug me about a J-200:

1. They’re freakin’ huge. Maybe fine for a bigger person, but at 5’8, I look like a child playing one.

2. Maple is a particular sound. It’s big and bright, especially in the high mids. Good for some things, but not an all arounder, IMO

3. That mustache bridge. You either love it, or hate it.

If you’re looking at Gibson acoustics, you’re likely a strummer. The right Hummingbird excels at this. I went with a used, but practically new 1960 Fixed Bridge model. No regrets.

[donlyn]

Gibson J-200 polarized views?

Originally Posted by dilver

3 things bug me about a J-200:

1. They’re freakin’ huge. Maybe fine for a bigger person, but at 5’8, I look like a child playing one.

2. Maple is a particular sound. It’s big and bright, especially in the high mids. Good for some things, but not an all arounder, IMO

3. That mustache bridge. You either love it, or hate it.

If you’re looking at Gibson acoustics, you’re likely a strummer. The right Hummingbird excels at this. I went with a used, but practically new 1960 Fixed Bridge model. No regrets.

> 1. They’re freakin’ huge. Maybe fine for a bigger person, but at 5’8, I look like a child playing one.

I'm of the same height and probably shrinking as I am a practicing septuagenarian. I look great with mine. Of course it's in the eye of the beholder.
And I can reach all the strings and notes on the fretboard, and in a seating position, the guitar sits so low on my leg that it is a breeze to play.


> 2. Maple is a particular sound. It’s big and bright, especially in the high mids. Good for some things, but not an all arounder, IMO

Mine is rosewood. Highly recommended. For all things.


> 3. That mustache bridge. You either love it, or hate it

Guess what. I love it, and it looks very distinctive.


> If you’re looking at Gibson acoustics, you’re likely a strummer. The right Hummingbird excels at this. I went with a used, but practically new 1960 Fixed Bridge model. No regrets.

I fingerpick all my guitars, using my nails as picks. No regrets. No dreads.


De gustibus non disputandum.

Be well and play well,

Don
.

[LAPlayer]

Mike, as I'm sure you already know, forums are a bunch of different people, with different needs/wants disagreeing on their various opinions. Yours is the only one that matters. A guitar I would never buy might be your grail. If you are in Bethesda, you have access to spend a day, weekend, week.... to sample some guitars in the Balt-DC-NOVA area and get a sampling to find out what YOU like. Otherwise you'll just circle the drain with everyone's opinion of what you should do swirling around you. There is no "best" of anything and the J200 is no exception. Find one ( or a J45 or Country Western, or AJ....) that you love. Happy hunting.

[JMorse]

Originally Posted by jim1960

A J-200 was long on my list because I loved the sound of that guitar coming from some 60s-70s era artists I really love. The modern J-200 just doesn't have it the way those late 50s adi/maple versions did. As a company, Gibson has gone through too many transitions and I think they've lost the plot in some ways.

After hearing one, I wound up buying an adi/maple Iris ND-200. That guitar really captures the tone from those early records and those late 50s J-200 guitars. Further in the plus column, I was able to custom size the nut width (Gibsons are just too narrow for me), the neck is more comfortable, and I saved a couple of thousand dollars.

This is similar to what I did as well. The King of Flattops in my opinion is the prewar J200 with rosewood back and sides. I wanted to get a similar sound but a more affordable, comfortable version. So I ordered the Iris AB with Torrified Adirondack & Rosewood 12 fret. I use medium string to make it louder. It has a very similar sound to the prewar j200 and is way more comfortable to play. Also less than half the price.

[abn556]

From previous experience owning a J-185 and an older SJ-200, the maple backed jumbos need a little time for the maple to age and season. the 200 that I had back in the 80s was a 60s guitar that sounded wonderful. I was really not much of an acoustic player at the time so I traded it for a Les Paul. The J-185 I bought new 25 or so years ago and kept it for 23 years. The first few years I didn’t play it much. It sounded very tight to me. As it aged it got better, but I had already decided to go a different route. Its hard for me personally to overcome a negative first initial impression on a guitar. My J-185 spent a good bit of its life in the case. The guy I sold it to was a music student. He was excited to get it.

I realize now that I gave up the J-185 way too early and never really gave it a chance.

[Moldstar]

Originally Posted by Pickcity

I have to disagree here. I’m not “wowed” by anything other than the way my J200 sounds and plays. After playing for 35+ years and owning well over 100 guitars, many high end, I got over the phase of buying just because something looks cool. The fact that a J200 looks cool is simply a very pleasant bonus. I also don’t think there is a better strumming Gibson. I’ve owned a lot of Gibsons, and none compared to the J200. I can have any of them. I wouldn’t choose the J200 if I didn’t think it was better.

Fair enough, and I do not own one so I cannot speak as an owner. I have played a lot, and my preference is for the 3 other Gibsons, I mentioned.

[Silly Moustache]

I had one once, previously owned by Don Partridge (famous British busker superstar -and VERY hard on guitars) It might have been a '50s era, but was so beat up.

I sold it on pretty quickly.

I've never found a Gibson that suited me, but I worked as a side-man for a young lady for a while who had a J100 (?) and it was a great sounding/playing instrument.

[EZYPIKINS]

200twins.jpg
I have two J-200's. A 2014 SJ-200 Ultimate, and a natural 2002 SJ-200 50's RI The tones are rich and full. Just not as loud as you might expect.

To allot of people, Tone=loud. I think the 2014 is the most playable for my small hands. But the 2002 has the best tone.

Also have two J-185's. If you're not after electronics, the 1952RI J-185 is probably the best acoustic I own. I installed a K&K pure mini in it. But the K&K can't hold a candle to the Fishman Aura electronics in my 000-28 Modern Deluxe.

The 000-28MD is the guitar I have reached for the most for the past year or so.

But I have been playing live again through a PA.

[Murphy Slaw]

Originally Posted by LAPlayer

Mike, as I'm sure you already know, forums are a bunch of different people, with different needs/wants disagreeing on their various opinions. Yours is the only one that matters.

Bingo.

Dave Rawlings played a tiny old archtop for years using mics.

Willie played a nylon classical.

There are no rules.

[Jimbo00]

For me the body width & depth alone is a deal killer. But by the same token, per Gibson:

The King of the Flat-tops

The Gibson SJ-200 is the world's most famous acoustic guitar and earned its designation as the "King of the Flat-Tops." Since its release in 1937, its wide use by American artists has made the Super Jumbo one of the most widely played acoustic guitars of our time. The most striking features of the new SJ-200 Original include the carved four bar Moustache bridge, an engraved tortoise pickguard, mother-of-pearl crown fretboard and headstock inlay, and exquisite flamed maple back and sides. The SJ-200 is an American original with its shape and elegant appearance.

https://www.gibson.com/en-US/p/Acous...ntage-Sunburst

Gibson also has several Modern versions of the SJ-200 (Standards & Studio for different wood species). And then there's Custom Shop (Pre-War version) that's the most expensive of the bunch. Confusing to say the least to be underwhelmed. But as I said, that body is huge that alone would overwhelm me.