Gibson J-35

[Petty1818]

I know this topic has probably come up already but just wondering what everyone thinks of the Gibson J-35? I will admit that I am one of those guys who really likes the Gibson sound. However, I have been less than impressed by the overall quality of the instruments. The best ones I have played have been custom shop models but the standard line is really hit or miss. I don't want to start a debate over the quality, I am just being honest.

With that said, there's something appealing about the J-35. I am not sure if it's the affordable price or not but it seems to be pretty versatile. From what I have heard so far, the tone of the J-35 seems to be a lot more woody sounding than the J-45 with a brighter/stringy type of tone. I have watched numerous videos online and sometimes that bright/stringy tone seems to lack depth, bass and sustain but other times it sounds great. I have seen players use it for bluegrass and it actually sounds great for that but it also seems to excel with finger picking and strumming. The short scale is appealing as well. I just feel as though it would be a great guitar to have around, especially on stage. Just looking for opinions. Do any of you find that it's too bright or lacks bass?

I played one before and remember not being impressed but honestly, the Gibson dealer in my area tends to leave old strings on their guitars. It's difficult to really get into a guitar when the strings are dead.

[eljay]

My j-35 is a collector's choice, not a standard model.

with that said, I find the dry, woody, tone of mine very appealing. very different from the j-45, perhaps a little "thinner" sounding in a very good way.

My two cents is to play some if you can. good luck with your quest!

Originally Posted by Petty1818

I have watched numerous videos online and sometimes that bright/stringy tone seems to lack depth, bass and sustain but other times it sounds great. I have seen players use it for bluegrass and it actually sounds great for that but it also seems to excel with finger picking and strumming. The short scale is appealing as well. I just feel as though it would be a great guitar to have around, especially on stage. Just looking for opinions.

I owned one for a couple of years, and would still have it, if it weren't for some shoulder pain issues I've developed. It's just a great, great guitar!

First, it's loud. You can play fingerstyle passages with just flesh (no nails), and hear every note ring like a little bell. Dig in with a pick, and it practically shouts. Palm-muted chords effortlessly deliver the Gibson 'thump' we all know and love. It's one of the most responsive guitars I've ever played, probably due in part to its light build.

Secondly, it is bright, but that may be because of the bone saddle I installed. I never felt that the bass was lacking, but I experimented with a lot of strings in order to tame the high frequencies, eventually settling on Pyramid Western Folks (roundcore .012s) to balance out the brightness without losing the shimmer.

As a performing guitar, it's all I could ever ask for. It's so light weight you can stand up with it for hours, and the neck is just impossibly perfect for my hand. A little chunky, but never fatiguing. If I could put that neck on my LG2, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I took the Baggs Element pickup out and replaced it with a K&K Pure Mini, and much preferred its tone over the stock UST. From the firestripe pickguard to the period-incorrect banner logo, there honestly wasn't anything about that guitar that I didn't like.

[Jukie]

What exactly is the difference between the J-35 and J-45?

[eljay]

the internal bracing, as I understand.

[MrMartyr]

I wouldn't call their build quality bad, its just not up to par with the other makers in the same price range. A friend of mine has a J-45 and he really likes it. Heck, I really like it. We compared it to my Eastman and determined that both guitars had similar build quality. Not a very flattering compliment if you are Gibson. Like I said, its a good build quality, just not quite up to par with Martin and Taylor. They have a certain "handmade" quality to them that I really like.

[JMW01]

Mine was a bit on the bright side but I recognized the potential. I removed the Baggs UST, installed a Colosi bone saddle and got a professional set up. Problem solved. My luthier is well known & respected and he gave unsolicited compliments on the tone. If you knew him, you would understand why that means something. He is not a man of many words.

The neck is very easy to play, the guitar is very light and comfortable for long periods using a strap. This is a huge plus now that I am a bit on the older side. The tone has both the classic Gibson honk and fundamental Martin clarity. The low end has the deep thump but overall it is very well balanced. The clear note separation allows me to play more musically for a lack of better terms. The overtones are apparent but not excessive. My phrasing is better because I can do more without things getting muddy due to too much sustain or getting washed out from over bearing lows or highs. It is also loud and responsive.

Bluegrass, finger style, strumming... this guitar is a great all rounder. If you can't tell... I love mine and I have had and still have much more expensive guitars. But like any guitar, try before you buy.

[pjroberts]

Originally Posted by Jukie

What exactly is the difference between the J-35 and J-45?

The original J35 was the predecessor of the J45, coming during the Depression and therefore originally priced at a super reasonable $35, hence the name. It had 3 tone bars in the top, non scallops bracing. Like the J45 it mostly came in a burst, but back then the burst was not really more expensive and was intended to hide ugly wood. J45 came around US entry to WWII and moved to scalloped bracing ... I think between the J35 and J45 there was also a two tone bar pattern. Can't remember if the J45 started out at $45. The J50 I think was a natural J45, which may explain a slightly more expensive price.

Someone better informed will have to confirm ... I think today's J35 has something closer to the later J35 bracing, and is standard natural finish. Of course today, it is cheaper to naturally stain than do a good burst. I did some research when I bought my CJ35, but there are different versions of the Gibson story. I'm reading Kalamazoo Girls now, but it's not deep on the instruments themselves, with an appropriate focus on the people.

[Rmz76]

Originally Posted by Jukie

What exactly is the difference between the J-35 and J-45?

Both are professional stage worthy instruments.

Comparison of 2016 J-35 vs 2016 J-45

What's identical between the two:
Body mold/shape
Scale length: both short scale
Nut width: Both have a wide nut
Top wood: solid Sitka Spruce
Back wood: solid Mahogany
Finish: Thin layer of Nitrocellulose lacquer
Pickup system: Both come stock with LR Baggs Active Element Piezo
Factory: Both built in Gibson's Bozeman, Montana plant
Case: Both come with a Gibson hardshell cass

What's different:
J-45 Standard comes in Sunburst but can be special ordered in other finishes. J-35 comes in natural finish but can be special ordered with other finishes
Pick guards are different
Rosett is different
Binding is different
Headstock is different
Tuners are different
Bridge design is different
Bracing pattern under top is different




My assessment is they feel very similar but really have only a little in common tonally. The J-35 has a vintage vibe to it all the way down to the classic banner headstock. It's a great guitar but the J-45 Standard's scalloped bracing gives it just the right amount of projection.

[email4eric]

Willie pretty much covered the bases as far as I'm concerned. I find mine immensely versatile, rich, and very, very lively. It really is a joy to play and it fits like an old baseball glove. I added a bone saddle and nut. I've tried a dozen different types of strings and always come back to the stock Gibson Masterbuilt 80/20s. They don't last very long but are the most balanced in my opinion. I tend to pay attention to the sound that attracted me initially
and those were the strings that were part of that equation. I also like Elixirs as well though they are more subdued. The Gibson strings are lively and there's a fundamental woodiness that these strings bring out. They are a tad bright, however.

While looking at J-35s I found them highly variable in terms of build quality and sound. I knew that I would have to look far and wide for "the one" and it indeed took 6 before I found mine. They weren't all bad, it's just that there were a couple of problems with each and only a couple had the tone I was seeking. One or two were embarrassingly "off." I admit I am pretty picky.

Personally, I chalk up the variability in these Gibsons to them being mass produced craftsman grade instruments. They're largely hand made and Gibson seems to be pretty loose (at least with J-35s) in terms of build variability. I've not found as much variety between individual copies of an instrument made by Martin or Taylor for instance. I don't have enough experience with other Gibson guitars to know whether or not this largely is a J-35 phenomenon or similar across other lines.

Take your time finding the right individual copy. Look them over carefully. When you find the one for you, maybe have it looked at by your luthier. At least have any "contenders" strung-up with fresh strings. I've also heard that you may find better copies at 5 star dealers. I don't know if that's so or not.

When you connect with the right J-35, you'll love it! They can be very special.

Good luck in the hunt!

[gmr]

I really like Gibson acoustic guitars. I do agree that I have seen my share of poorly set up Gibsons on the showroom floor. But the only bad ones I have ever seen are those I have played at my local G C. Our other local dealer's line of Gibsons are simply wonderful, with a truly hand crafted sort of vibe to them, like you would see from a custom luthier's shop. I have never played a bad one there. I only own two Gibsons. A J45 TV and my father's 1950 ES125. If cost were not an issue, all my acoustic guitars would be Gibsons. Okay, maybe a Martin 000 12 fret too.

[JMW01]

Originally Posted by email4eric

It really is a joy to play and it fits like an old baseball glove.

You summarized what I was trying to express in one sentence. Well put!

[GibbyPrague]

I find the J-35 a very easy and fun guitar to play, but too light in tone. I cant take it as seriously as a J-45.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by pjroberts

Someone better informed will have to confirm ... I think today's J35 has something closer to the later J35 bracing, and is standard natural finish. .

The bracing used in the current version of the J-35 is a short scale adaptation of the bracing pattern used for the Gibson Advanced Jumbo, which means that the braces are forward shifted ("advanced") and scalloped.

What this means in terms of a discernible audible effect is that the modern J-35 is more projective than the vast majority of J-45's. J-45's tend to have an immersive, enveloping sound that surrounds the player but doesn't necessarily cut through all that well when other instruments are being played at the same time. The Martin D-35 is much the same way in this regard: they both bathe the player in this warm, rich sound, with almost a "SurroundSound" effect, but neither is especially projective.

The different bracing pattern gives the modern J-35 a much more projective sound, and also a livelier treble response than the J-45 has. There have been some negative comments posted in threads like this one, written by J-45 fans who were evidently expecting the J-35 to sound and respond just like a natural finish J-45, only to discover that they're as different as two guitars sharing the same body shape, scale length and tonewoods can be. The word "tinny" has been used to describe the J-35 by more than one of these folks.

I won't deny that the treble response of the J-35 can be startling if you aren't expecting it, but if you listen closely you can hear that the J-35's have plenty of bass response, too, they just present differently than J-45's do.

Anyway, I think the modern J-35's are wonderful guitars, and actually more suitable for my playing than J-45's are.

J-45's are kind like taking a down comforter and wrapping yourself in it on a clear, beautiful winter's day and sitting in a chair on the front porch of a mountain cabin, sipping on a cup of hot chocolate and marveling at the scenery. By contrast, J-35's are like an elegantly cut summer weight suit that fits perfectly and makes you look 10 lbs lighter than you actually are.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[cisco7]

Hi, i believe it all boils down to personal taste. I used to have a J35, not a bad guitar at all: loud, lightweight and responsive to my light fingerstyle touch. But boy, when i tried my j45 she just spoke to me. It's almost all about the sound, she fits my voice perfectly and the tone is much more balanced than the "harsher" j35. Just my 2 cents. Best of luck.