Your thoughts on Guild Jumbo Junior

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by donlyn

…So how about some new terms to differentiate the species.

• "Jumbo Junior" has a nice alliterative ring to it, so let's use it for the mini-jumbo size. Think 14" lower bout.
• I would submit "Jumbette" for the small-jumbo. Think 15" lower bout.
• How about re-naming the medium-jumbo simply a "Jumbo". since it's the median entry. Think 16" lower bout.
• And the "full-jumbo" can now appropriate the descriptive adjective of it's distant relative, the elephant, and henceforth be know as the "Bull Jumbo". Think 17" lower bout. This is the size of the original Gibson J-200.

Hi Don

My point is there is no 'agency' governing size, or names. I'm not that interested in the names…I play music and look for musical properties.

Names are not as revealing as actual dimensions…yet the most important thing is the tone, string balance, resonance, sustain, projection etc.

And then there's the whole all-solid versus part/all laminate aspect too. And what wood combination it's built with.

My Kronbauer mini-Jumbo is 16¼" at the widest point of the lower bout, and 4" deep at both the tail and neck/body join. Not really mini unless compared to a full 17" jumbo.

It's wider than my Dreadnought (which is 15½" across the lower bout) and has a narrower waist, but the Dreadnought is 4½" deep at the tail & 3½" at the heel of the neck. The mini-Jumbo is the loudest projecting of my three main guitars (kicks like a mule out front). My Olson sure sounds better for finger picking.

I've played several Kronbauer mini-Jumbo guitars (Trevors best design I think), and they tend to be be loud but not as bass-prone as Dreadnoughts, and for flat picker this might be a great combo for a bluegrass lead (with the right wood combination).

And I have a friend who owns a Kronbauer mini-Jumbo in Ziracote/Cedar which is a rich, full bodied, well balanced instrument. Totally different tonal character than others I've played (I suspect due to the woods).

[Steadfastly]

Originally Posted by donlyn

Steadfastly,

Go back two steps to post (reply) #12 and all obfuscation will disappear.

Don
.

Yep, I just just agreeing without such a wordy post.

[donlyn]

Hey ljguitar,

The quick Jumbo re-cap. Once upon a time there was only 1 company making the Jumbo, which was Gibson. It was an original design. See post #12. They originally varied the bling and woods and models and costs partly based on materials and worker availability during WWII. Post war standard became spruce over maple back and sides, all construction being subject to whims and material availability. Somewhere along the way, other manufacturers started making jumbo models too. Even the creator of the dreadnought made jumbo models. And yes, the jumbo company made dreadnoughts too. But they weren't the same and probably never could be, possibly due to any copyrights and patents involved. And jumbo body sizes were varied too, even within a given company.

As a long time fan of large guitars, and also being just as confused about manufacturers' "jumbo" nomenclatures as everyone else, I had previously invested a bit of time with this subject. So I posted based on a lot of my past research and opinions on jumboes. So to repeat your question,

What do you consider the size of a full-jumbo and small-jumbo to be? Which dimension is the qualifier for you?

See post # 12 for a four size breakout for jumboes, with a common delimiter, the lower bout. Because somewhere along the way, that 17" lower bout on the jumbo became twisted from a size to a model type in different sizes. Note I gave the dictionary definition for the word "jumbo", if only to show that's what the guitar was named for and what it was supposed to be. Please note that I was serious in the classification, albeit facetious with the names. But they all got a name which is mnemonically sounder than say class/size A, B, C, And D

I realize that the lower bout is not the only important measurement, but attention needs to also be on what makes a jumbo a jumbo. If 'jumbo' is now more a shape than a size, things like the waist have to be accounted for too. And depth is less important than the shape because a jumbo is now more a shape than a size.

In your second post, your point is an observation which I believe correct, but it will never change. There is no reason to be consistent within a company, and there is certainly no reason to have inter-company industry standards. Quite the opposite, as each company tries to catch the next big thing and exaggerate the differences on why their product is best for consumers.

Don
.

[donlyn]

Originally Posted by Steadfastly

Yep, I just just agreeing without such a wordy post.

OK, I get it now.

I like to have fun with words. My last wordy post is a bit more serious.

Don
.

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by donlyn

....Bonus points if you know why a J-200 (or SJ-200 as it's sometimes known) has that nomenclature.

It's sometimes known as an SJ200 because that's what's on the label. I don't know why people drop that "S."

Gibson calls it a super jumbo, but to Guild, it's just a jumbo. My Guild jumbos are a bit over 17" lower bouts.

Gibson also has a CJ or "compact" jumbo.

Guild jumbo F-50R

[[J.K.]]

Lexical debates aside, I think the "jumbo" body shape seems sensible for the size of the Guild JJ, though I haven't found one out in the wild to play yet. I'm surprised that people are so willing to put the GS Mini as the high bar of comparison. I've played one nearly every time I went into a store and found that the tone is almost entirely dominated by overtones (and I play fingerstyle with mostly flesh). 50% of the tonal emphasis just sounds like an unplugged electric to me. I have wanted a Mini for so long, I don't find any richness in their tone, and it seems more practical just to get a concert-sized acoustic with a smaller body and have an extra inch of scale length.

[numb fingertips]

I was speaking mostly of guitars that have the Jumbo shape but smaller. I've seen different companies use different names, mini jumbo, small jumbo, junior jumbo. I use to listen to Northwood mini jumbo on youtube and took a liking to them. I've had a seagull entourage rustic mini jumbo which I liked sonically but had an issue with the smell of the wood coming from the sound hole. I currently have a yamaha SJ 180 which is nice enough but I liked the seagull better. I have seen a few webber mini jumbo's go through the classifieds and been curious. I never really considered the actual measurements of the guitars and just considered what the maker called them. The mini jumbo guitars I would find locally would usually be yamaha's and seagull. Saw an ad for the guild jumbo junior and I happen to like guild guitars in general, so I wanted to pick the minds of the many members on this forum.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by donlyn

Before this gets too far, here is the definition of "Jumbo" according to Webster on-line (for those not in the know, it is a dictionary) :

"Definition of jumbo
: a very large specimen of its kind"

"Other Words from jumbo:
jumbo adjective"

"Synonyms
behemoth, blockbuster, colossus, dinosaur, dreadnought, elephant, giant, Goliath, leviathan, mammoth, mastodon, monster, titan, whale, whopper"

* * *

The original "Jumbo", circa 1935, was a very large body guitar designed by Gibson from specs sketched by Ray Whitley. His original custom designed guitar inlaid with his name now resides in the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville. It was a spruce top with a rosewood back and sides.

* * *

The use of "small" in conjunction with "Jumbo" is an oxymoron, as would any other adjective referring to size, as "Jumbo" relates to size by definition. Thus a "full-jumbo" is redundant and misleading as it implies otherwise is possible.

Having said that, it appears that the word "Jumbo" has become accepted parlance in the world of guitars, and that the word once defined as a size has been re-tooled primarily as a shape and not a size. Thus we also have "medium" size jumboes too.

So how about some new terms to differentiate the species.

"Jumbo Junior" has a nice alliterative ring to it, so let's use it for the mini-jumbo size. Think 14" lower bout.

I would submit "Jumbette" for the small-jumbo. Think 15" lower bout.

How about re-naming the medium-jumbo simply a "Jumbo". since it's the median entry. Think 16" lower bout.

And the "full-jumbo" can now appropriate the descriptive adjective of it's distant relative, the elephant, and henceforth be know as the "Bull Jumbo". Think 17" lower bout. This is the size of the original Gibson J-200.

* * *

So the question is, is this a continued corruption of the English language or an etymological evolution?

Bull or No-bull?

Bonus points if you know why a J-200 (or SJ-200 as it's sometimes known) has that nomenclature.

Don

Because it cost $200 when introduced. It was named 'Super' Jumbo because Gibson already had the vast Super 400 arch top in the catalogue, and 'Super' emphasised the SJ's size in comparison to the Original Jumbo. It was cowboy star Ray Whitley's idea to have Gibson build him the J200 which went into production, redesigned, shortly thereafter.

[donlyn]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

Because it cost $200 when introduced.

Andrew is correct. And as odd as this may seem, care to guess what Gibson charged for their budget J-100 back when?

Don
.