2019 Gibson J-45 Studio? R.I.P. J-15?

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by paulzoom

Thank God they still have the J-45 standard.

Originally Posted by rokdog49

Yes and thank God I have a "good one".

Yep...glad I got a “good one” too!

[Static]

Originally Posted by paulzoom

To make matters more confusing there is a J45 Walnut Avant Guard.

Thank God they still have the J-45 standard.

Sheesh. Every new Gibson acoustic is thinbody and walnut back and sides. They definitely doubled down....11 or 12 new models with these specs.

They still have all their standard models but talk about milking the crap out of one idea for the new models. The "Studio", "Sustainable" and "Avant Garde" models are all essentially the same thing if I'm not mistaken.

[HeyMikey]

Walnut also helps with exports re: cites restrictions

[Beakybird]

I heard they're changing the name of the Toyota Corolla to the Camry Studio.

I hear these new models have the V-class bracing.

[TheDrake]

I'm a bit confused about the pricing. The Gibson website states $1499. Checking the Sweetwater website, they state MSRP $2148, but discount the price $ 649 with the "Sweet Water Savings" to...... $1499. Doesn't seem right.

[cmd612]

Originally Posted by Static

. . .
In the description, it says this has a thinner body and flatter fretboard. . . .

Thoughts?

Sounds like an HP 415 minus cutaway.

[guitarmac62]

I had been wanting a J15 for quite some time. I just bought one a few weeks ago from Sweetwater and absolutely love it! It was on their “yellow tag” clearance sale so got what I believe to be a very nice discount off normal retail. When he quoted me their discounted price I verified that it was for brand new and not a second, blem, return etc... He said they were overstocked on them and that Gibson wasn’t going to make them anymore. I thought he just meant no more 2018 models. So is Gibson discontinuing the J15?? I always thought it was odd that Gibson made a cutaway J15 model, same wood and specs I believe, but called it a J45.

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by TheDrake

I'm a bit confused about the pricing. The Gibson website states $1499. Checking the Sweetwater website, they state MSRP $2148, but discount the price $ 649 with the "Sweet Water Savings" to...... $1499. Doesn't seem right.

Gibson, Taylor and some other manufacturers are only listing MAP on their websites now...not MSRP. So Sweetwater and Gibson are in sinc...each listing MAP.

[ilikeguitar90]

J-15 have been getting rave reviews with their walnut back and sides so I don't see any issue with using those same materials for back and sides on all these new models. I do see a problem with the thinner back though, I'm guessing that might translate to less depth in the tone compared to a standard J-45/J-200/Hummingbird/etc.

This might put a dent in the market for the J-15, J-29, and J-35 though. I'm thinking the average guitar player would think "why buy one of those when I can get a J-45 or Hummingbird for the same price or less?"

[canyongargon]

I’m torn on this. I like the idea of the thin body for comfort’s sake, but I’m wondering how much bass response is going to be lost. I’ll have to try one, there’s always the used market.

[Paddy1951]

I had the opportunity to play a J15, J35 and a J45 Standard all in one place and actually with fresh strings.

Heres what I concluded:
The J15 is a bit brighter than the J45, but not by much. I attributed that to the maple neck. The J15 sounded more articulate than the J35 IMHO. The J35 sounded kind of muddy to me. The J45 sounded good but lacked the "thump".
(Apparently you must need to buy the Vintage model to get the thump?)

Is the J15 maybe too good of a guitar?

I will be curious to hear the Studio with a mahogany neck and thinner body.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Paddy1951

I had the opportunity to play a J15, J35 and a J45 Standard all in one place and actually with fresh strings.

Heres what I concluded:
The J15 is a bit brighter than the J45, but not by much. I attributed that to the maple neck. The J15 sounded more articulate than the J35 IMHO. The J35 sounded kind of muddy to me. The J45 sounded good but lacked the "thump".
(Apparently you must need to buy the Vintage model to get the thump?)

Is the J15 maybe too good of a guitar?

I will be curious to hear the Studio with a mahogany neck and thinner body.

My J45 has plenty of "thump".
What are you comparing it to? Something in the past?

[v32 finish]

Originally Posted by Paddy1951

I had the opportunity to play a J15, J35 and a J45 Standard all in one place and actually with fresh strings.

Heres what I concluded:
The J15 is a bit brighter than the J45, but not by much. I attributed that to the maple neck. The J15 sounded more articulate than the J35 IMHO. The J35 sounded kind of muddy to me. The J45 sounded good but lacked the "thump".
(Apparently you must need to buy the Vintage model to get the thump?)

Is the J15 maybe too good of a guitar?

I will be curious to hear the Studio with a mahogany neck and thinner body.

This hasn't been my experience, at least not re: your comment about the Vintage model to get the 'thump'. I've played a few J-45's recently, standard models, including my own that I owned for a few months and eventually traded up to my AJ, but they all had a decent "thump" or growl, whatever you want to call that particular snap on the bass end. My own model was noticeably better overall (and this thump more pronounced) than the 2 or 3 others that I played in GC, but they were all decently good enough guitars. None of them I would call a dud or inconsistent. Also, to my ears, the walnut J-15 I played, I wouldn't call it a bright sounding guitar. Again, all subjective, but I like what most would call a warm or kind of dark sound, and I really liked the sound of the walnut.

Re: your point about "is the J15 too good of a guitar", that just made me think.. that I'm surprised they removed it entirely from the line, as I know (like someone else said) it had a bit of a following. I don't know that all those people who liked the J15 would rush to go buy a "J-45 Studio". I know they're marketing this as a "back to basics" type campaign, but I think they're kind of complicating it a bit.. with all the "AG" models, do they need another 10-12 walnut "studio" models??

That being said, I asked a GC employee yesterday about their Gibsons. I've noticed for about a month now, ALL their Gibson acoustics have been marked way down. I'm talking at lest 30-40%. The J-45 went from 2749 to 1999, the J-200 from $5k to $3.2k, the J-15 I think was 1999 to 1599 .. . anyway, when I inquired about whether it was part of a promotion or sale, he rolled his eyes and kind of snarkily replied, "No, just because they're Gibsons". Like that was the most awful thing in the world.

I guess he didn't know that I was a fan, but I kind of played along and tried to see why he felt that way. He said their quality has really dropped off in the past 5 years (which has been the opposite of my personal experience, quite frankly) .. he talked about a 335 they had, which you could "see the seam on the binding, which is inexcusable for a $3k guitar". And while I semi agree with that point, Overall, it just kind of confirmed to me that Gibson has a pretty bad reputation, and I don't think all of it is justified. He flat out said "none of their guitars are selling at this price, so we asked them if we could mark them down". Which, OK, I do* thin they are a bit overpriced, but GC tries to sell them flat at MSRP with no wiggle room. I don't think I would ever pay 2800 for a new J-45, despite really liking the guitar, so..

Anyway, sort of a long post, but I think it kind of falls in line with what we're seeing, re: all of these other "Avante Garde" and studio models. I think they've gone a bit overboard, though, and I think they could stand to mark down their base models all by about $3-400 and I think that'd be a tremendous help. My gut tells me that their sales would likely improve greatly if this was the case. Then again, wouldn't GC bought those guitars from Gibson for a set price, am I right? Then whatever they sell them for over their cost, is their profit? Did they really have to "ask permission" from Gibson to mark them down? Or are they just a dealer, in the sense that GC hasn't paid for them yet, they just take them from Gibson and sell them, and just take a percentage of the final sale?

Just confused about how this works, but it threw me off a bit how much they were openly bashing a brand like that. I didn't speak up the way I should have, but in the end I did mention that I had a Gibson acoustic that I loved, and he backtracked a little bit, but I just thought it was interesting that my experience pretty much coincided with the rolling out of all these 2019 studios.

I think they're not addressing the problem, and that is that the base model is too high. I'd love to own a Hummingbird but I'm not going to ever in my life pay $6 or 7,000 dollars for it . They're crazy for pricing some of their stuff where it is, and Taylor is closely riding that same cliff edge right near the boutique makers.

Sorry for the long post,
Cheers,

Scott

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by Paddy1951

I had the opportunity to play a J15, J35 and a J45 Standard all in one place and actually with fresh strings.

Heres what I concluded:
The J15 is a bit brighter than the J45, but not by much. I attributed that to the maple neck. The J15 sounded more articulate than the J35 IMHO. The J35 sounded kind of muddy to me. The J45 sounded good but lacked the "thump".
(Apparently you must need to buy the Vintage model to get the thump?)

Is the J15 maybe too good of a guitar?

I will be curious to hear the Studio with a mahogany neck and thinner body.

Huh? My standard has plenty of “thump.” Love that it’s there when you want it...but you can adjust your technique and keep it in the background, too. One of the things that makes a 45 so versatile. They don’t call it the “Workhorse” for nothing.