2019 Gibson acoustic Studio models

[Larry Mal]

Maybe some people here will find them interesting, probably not for me, but I'm a big fan of Gibsons in general and their acoustics in particular so thought I'd pass them along. This is the Hummingbird Studio:

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... ue-natural

There's a lot going on here. For the first time I'm immediately aware of, they have deviated from the 12" radius that Gibson is known for and gone with a 16" like what Martin uses. They call this the "Advanced Response" profile but there may be more to it than that, I don't know.

It seems like they are making a bid to have different woods be accepted, the fingerboards are walnut, for instance.

Here is the J-45 Studio:

http://www.gibson.com/Products/Acoustic ... -2019.aspx

You might notice that this J-45 Studio looks a lot like the well-received J-15, but there is one important difference that seems to be prevalent across the line, the body itself is shallower on the Studio from the J-45. This would certainly change the sound and would probably be the main reason I wouldn't want one, that might be unfair since I haven't seen one.

If I had to guess, I might say that Gibson is hoping these guitars will be successful with women, who are a burgeoning market for guitars at the moment, God love 'em, and might appreciate a dreadnaught/jumbo size guitar that isn't as deep as the typical Gibson, which can be something of a beast. That's just me speculating.

Anyway, I thought maybe some folks here might find these cool, they are probably great guitars and it's interesting to see Gibson doing something new in the world of acoustics.

[raindog13]

To me, Gibson makes the finest acoustics that money can buy. I've wanted a Hummingbird as long as I can remember, ever since a much younger version of myself saw a picture of Keith playing one on the steps of Nell Cote. Then playing one... well, you just have to play one to know. The amount of money you have to shell out for one of them, though, it's a heartbreaker. I mean, I get it, I do, it's just frustrating that, even given their current financial circumstances, they still don't produce anything that's reasonably affordable for a player's guitar. You could argue that, if you want a player's Gibson, you could buy an Epi Hummingbird, but I would challenge you to find me an Epi that plays and sounds even a quarter as good as a Gibson. That's what you pay for, again, I know, but the proportions just seem too skewed to me. That new J-45 comes close, but then, given the changes, is it really a J-45? Ehhh....

I love Gibsons, but they've just had their head up their asses for so long now that, even in the throes of bankruptcy, they still can't manage to really "get it right" and be in touch with the average guitar player. I don't know where they got this "boutique" image they have of themselves, but it's getting tiring.

[Larry Mal]

Oh, I don't know... sure, the Hummingbird is expensive, but if you want a spruce/mahogany 24.75" guitar they do have the J-35, although that is braced differently.

But basically Gibson just hasn't ever bothered to compete at the lower levels of acoustic guitars much, I think they run a fairly small factory up in Montana and the guitars are basically handmade.

People complain that Gibson should just focus on quality and run a small and lean operation, which is what the acoustic branch does, then people don't like the prices.

Anyway: I would like to buy a Hummingbird also, and I might try and make that happen fairly soon. What it would add that my J-45 doesn't do I don't know, though.

And you are right, Epiphone acoustics are nowhere near the quality of what Gibsons are, it's not at all the same as the quality similarity between the electric guitars.

[marqueemoon]

I just can’t get excited about Gibson acoustics. For every really nice one I’ve played there’s been a dud.

[Larry Mal]

Yeah, I had always heard that, and every time I would play Gibsons in the showroom I was always unimpressed. I came to realize that the setup on Gibsons is just horrible from the factory and in the Gibson tradition you need to kind of finish it up yourself. Sky high action, ridiculous plastic saddles, what a turn off.

Once I wrapped my head around that and learned how to get them where I wanted them to be, I found them all to be pretty consistent.

I'm no expert, though, I only have four Gibson acoustics and they are all from the Bozeman era. I don't have the courage to mess with anything truly vintage and suspect the quality would be pretty all over the place there, and of course the Norlin era acoustics are just worthless.

Now I feel as comfortable ordering a Gibson acoustic online as I've ever felt with their electrics. Anyone's opinion might vary, I just have personally never seen the awful quality control that internet wisdom tells me I should have seen by now. Frankly, when it comes to Gibson acoustics, which I had long written off, I wish I had been more open minded a long time ago.

[Larry Mal]

This use of walnut on the Gibson 2019 acoustics kind of represents something I've been seeing, as the typical woods are become less sustainable, some of the big name (and smaller name) acoustic makers are starting to feel out the market's acceptance of alternate woods.

This is the Martin America 1, which is kind of a D-18 but made with all woods that can be sourced from North America.

I think that stuff is great, and while I probably won't be able to easily participate, I like seeing things like the Martin and the Gibson J-15. I hope the market does come to accept that stuff.

[sookwinder]

I am also a fanboy of gibby acoustics, but you cannot call that "thing" a Hummingbird.
Let's be very clear here, every 60s Hummingbird was 25.5" scale. Yes I know the first catalogue in 1961 said it was 24.75" scale length, but the catalogue was wrong. Yes I know every "acoustic expert" who has written a book on acoustics and has had to begrudgingly add a section on 1960s Gibsons, even though their true love was 30s Martins, has said the Hummingbird was 24.75", .... they were wrong.

A 24.75" scale square shouldered Gibson is called a (60s) Southern Jumbo or Country-Western.
A modern 24.75" scale Hummingbird will sound like a SJ not like a 60s Hummingbird.
So if you want the Keef sound then it isn't a 24.75" scale Hummingbird you need, it is a 25.5" Hummingbird

To those who question that there are 24.75" scale Hummingbirds in the 60s... have a good look at where the end of the necks cut through (or don't cut through) the rosettes.
Compare a Texan with a J45,
then compare a 60s Hummingbird with a Southern Jumbo.
It is very easy to determine the scale length from where the neck end cuts through the rosette or not.

Comparison of J45 (24.75" scale) and Texan (25.5" scale)


Hummingbird (25.5") / Frontier (25.5") / Southern Jumbo (24.75")

[raindog13]

I think that stuff is great, and while I probably won't be able to easily participate, I like seeing things like the Martin and the Gibson J-15. I hope the market does come to accept that stuff.

I agree that it's great that they're trying to source this stuff "locally," but (without getting in too deep here) as an American, I'd love to buy American, but it's just priced too far out of my expendable income, and it's a shame.

[Larry Mal]

Well, the J-15 was the lowest priced Gibson there was, though, you could get that new for around $1200-1300 if you looked.

If that's too expensive for you, sure, I get that, but then again it is an all solid wood instrument made in the States and with upscale appointments like hand scalloped bracing and tuned tops, and you aren't going to find that from any other guitar maker for the same price easily.

[Larry Mal]

I am also a fanboy of gibby acoustics, but you cannot call that "thing" a Hummingbird.
Let's be very clear here, every 60s Hummingbird was 25.5" scale. Yes I know the first catalogue in 1961 said it was 24.75" scale length, but the catalogue was wrong. Yes I know every "acoustic expert" who has written a book on acoustics and has had to begrudgingly add a section on 1960s Gibsons, even though their true love was 30s Martins, has said the Hummingbird was 24.75", .... they were wrong.

Always good information. Yeah, I guess if you want the Gram Parsons/Keith Richards sound you won't get that from the modern Hummingbird. And Gibson has been using the Hummingbird moniker a lot over the years, there's the Hummingbird Artist, the Hummingbird Pro for a while there, now this Hummingbird Studio... and I do tend to agree that if it doesn't have the etched pick guard with the Hummingbirds on it, why would you call it that?

Still, I love, love, love that Gibson gives the guitars names. When I look at a Martin and it's a GPXP-1000XPCL or whatever the fuck, I have no idea what I'm looking at. I'd take a Hummingbird Artist Pro Studio Custom Deluxe Modern Vintage over that because I can at least remember that shit.

At this point, though, I would think we could just agree that the Hummingbird is a 24.75" with as much legitimacy as anything else at this point. Sure, the original 60's run of about ten years before the Norlin era might have been long scale, but Gibson Montana has been making them short scale since 1990 or so and that's no less a part of the Hummingbird's history. I reckon we could discount whatever Norlin was calling the Hummingbird in the 70's and early 80's as being representative of nothing in particular.

From where I sit, though, I would prefer it if the Hummingbird was long scale. I kind of would like a long scale spruce/mahogany acoustic at the moment, I sold my old Taylor and can't afford the D-18 I really want. I'm debating getting an old Montana J-30 but those are pretty rare and I'm reading mixed things, still, I can get one for a lot less than the D-18 and it seems like Gibson directly aping the D-18.

That might seem like a suspicious strategy to get a cheaper guitar, but I have the Gibson J-60 which is Gibson directly aping an HD-28, and while I haven't A/B'd those two models, the J-60 is so wonderful it does not make me want another long scale rosewood guitar.