#1
Does anyone know if Gibson makes an acoustic that isn't priced for those that make a 7 digit salary because I can't find one?
#2
Have a look at the Epiphone J-200. You can find one for probably $400-$500.
Quote by Dirtydeeds468
People don't like Dave Mustaine because he created something that owned Metallica in just about every single aspect of thrash metal.


it's true
#3
Why do you have to have a Gibson?

Gear:
Partscaster/Tele into a bunch of pedals, a Maz 18 head, and a Z Best cab.
#4
you can get a taylor or a martin for the price you'd pay for a gibson acoustic...I know what I'd rather have written on the headstock....

And yeah, the epiphone copies of it's gibson bredderin are nice guitars....
#5
^I think it's sad that I know who that is avatar.

Gibson acoustic guitars are very nice. You can't get a very nice guitar without paying a very high price. If you want a good guitar then you pay a good price. Gibson doesn't do good guitars. Epi does OK guitars at an ok price but thy are not good guitars and they are not good prices.
Not taking any online orders.
#6
If Gibson makes an acoustic that sells for less than $1500.,I'd sure like to hear about it.
I just got home from a visit to my local GC where I picked on a J-45. The Epiphone may look like a Gibson, be made by a Gibson subsidiary and sound somewhat similiar, but they are NOT a Gibson.
That J-45 projects sound like CRAZY. You won't have to worry about anyone not plugged in,playing over you. A tad bit too bassy IMO. But still a FANTASTIC sounding guitar. I WANT ONE!
#7
Quote by EL Conquestidor
If Gibson makes an acoustic that sells for less than $1500.,I'd sure like to hear about it.
I just got home from a visit to my local GC where I picked on a J-45. The Epiphone may look like a Gibson, be made by a Gibson subsidiary and sound somewhat similiar, but they are NOT a Gibson.
That J-45 projects sound like CRAZY. You won't have to worry about anyone not plugged in,playing over you. A tad bit too bassy IMO. But still a FANTASTIC sounding guitar. I WANT ONE!


The J-45's are nice guitars, but at the price, I would definitely take a Taylor / Martin / Larrivee etc...Gibson make nice guitars, but theyre definitely outdone in the acoustic side of things.
#8
Out done? Value wise I agree. IMO you can buy a comparable quality guitar in the brands you mention for less. But comparing a Martin to a Gibson sound wise is IMO like comparing a Ford to a Chevy. Basically the same thing while at the same time VERY different. If you want that GIBSON sound, for now anyway you have to pay the price. And I would note that these other brands have guitars models that sell for as much or more than the Gibson J-45.
But I hope someday Gibson will make a more afforable guitar.
#9
^ They don't have to make an affordable guitar...people will walk in and pay for the Gibson name. It happens constantly with other brands' acoustics (fender and ibanez), and it still happens when people are plunking down a couple grand. I've played several different Gibson acoustics, and I would never, ever buy one. Why should I pay $1500 for a guitar with laminated sides and back? The Gibson name isn't enough.

Gear:
Partscaster/Tele into a bunch of pedals, a Maz 18 head, and a Z Best cab.
#10
The J-45 is a LAMINATE guitar? Shudder!
I guess I just assumed from the price it was all solid. Still sounds damn good tho.
#12
Thank you all for the input I like the sound that a Gibson puts out and Larrivee as well I guess I'll either save up for what I like or by some miracle find a guitar that sounds good to me in a more affordable price range a friend of mine has a Tak e/a and sounds ok maybe i'll try some of those out. Thanks again everyone.
#13
Quote by EL Conquestidor
The J-45 is a LAMINATE guitar? Shudder!
I guess I just assumed from the price it was all solid. Still sounds damn good tho.



I wasn't talking about that specific guitar...I've played a couple of Gibsons, looked at the price tag, and been flabbergasted at the quality. I go home and check the stats on it, and it has laminated sides. Gibson has several models which have laminated sides, even .they though their cheapest model retails for over $1000.

Gear:
Partscaster/Tele into a bunch of pedals, a Maz 18 head, and a Z Best cab.
#14
Thats what I was saying. The gibbos are nice, buy there's no way they can justify being in the same playing field as the "proper" acoustic boys. You're right roaming, a huge part of a Gibson is paying a premium for the name. I will definitely stick to my les pauls for electric, but I'll leave the gibbo's alone in the acoustic department (although the songwriter was a tasty model )

The epiphone masterbuilt series are exceptionally good, if you can find one, check those out....Please remember epiphone are NOT just a cheap sister brand of gibson, knocking out cheap crappy instruments (like fender squire), theyre thier own brand of guitar and now have models upwards of 1000$ so they really are well worth looking at.

Takamine, make really nice, well made guitars at an honest price...You could probably pick up a Tak that sounds nicer than the J-45 for 4/500 dollars less.
Last edited by lessthanthree at Aug 26, 2006,
#15
"A Tak that sounds nicer than the Gibson".
That would be a matter of opinion. IMO a Tak sounds very different from a Gibson. Mostly in terms of bass tone. Like I said before, IMO a Gibson tends to be very Bassy which some people like. I personally prefer the briter yet balanced tones of Martin type guitars. And I've always loved the tones of an Alvarez. But strangely, Taylors and Takamine's never really grabbed me. Maybe a tad TOO brite I think.
As far as an equivilent to the Gibson bassy tone, IMO closest is a Guild.
But it's ALL about one's presonal preferences. Which why you should PLAY BEFORE YOU PAY.
As a young guitar whippersnapper, Neil Young was a huge influence on me. So naturally I've always wanted a guitar that sounded like his Martin D-45.
I agree that the Epiphone Masterbuilts are a good value. And my old 1970's vintage Epiphone FT 145 Texan is IMO a great guitar.
Last edited by EL Conquestidor at Aug 26, 2006,
#16
Quote by EL Conquestidor
"A Tak that sounds nicer than the Gibson".
That would be a matter of opinion. IMO a Tak sounds very different from a Gibson. Mostly in terms of bass tone. Like I said before, IMO a Gibson tends to be very Bassy which some people like. I personally prefer the briter yet balanced tones of Martin type guitars. And I've always loved the tones of an Alvarez. But strangely, Taylors and Takamine's never really grabbed me. Maybe a tad TOO brite I think.
As far as an equivilent to the Gibson bassy tone, IMO closest is a Guild.
But it's ALL about one's presonal preferences. Which why you should PLAY BEFORE YOU PAY.
As a young guitar whippersnapper, Neil Young was a huge influence on me. So naturally I've always wanted a guitar that sounded like his Martin D-45.
I agree that the Epiphone Masterbuilts are a good value. And my old 1970's vintage Epiphone FT 145 Texan is IMO a great guitar.


I don't think I've made clear what I'm trying to say I completely agree with you that tone and sound is a matter of personal preference. What I am trying to say is that Gibson acoustics are very overpriced for what you are getting compared to say Martin/Alvarez etc...
#17
As for Takamine, I own a AN-16S acoustic dreadnought. This has to be one of the best solid spruce and solid rosewood models on the market.
It's non electric.
I had a proper set up string height to my liking, and a quality bone sadldle replacement (yes it has two bridge saddles) and the tone and sustain are great.
The quality and workmanship is first rate.
It may not equal my Martin HD-25 and HD-35, but it's still a fine sounding acoustic.