The Gibson J-200 sound ... for £250

[stephen]

I've not played a Gibson J-200 or even heard one up close in order to judge what it sounds like. However, my father-in-law bequeathed my wife his Epiphone EJ-200, when he passed away in 2000. This guitar dates from the late 1980's/early 1990's and is the natural finish version. Although I can't compare it to the Gibson, to my ears it certainly doesn't disappoint and it's a fine-sounding instrument that wouldn't merit the fake Rolex analogy. Playability-wise, it has the lowest action I've ever come across on any acoustic of any price and can be strummed hard without any buzz or rattle............no mean feat in itself! One can switch almost seamlessly from playing electric over to this guitar. Over the 12 years that it's been in our hands, I've never had to adjust the truss-rod and I'm sure it's improved in tone, even though it hasn't had the benefit of a nitro finish. My only criticsm would be the quality of the inlay work on the fretboard and 'moustache' bridge. It looks like it was executed (not too perfectly!) by hand and there is noticeable 'filler' around the the inlay in places. I would imagine that the inlays on current production look far more professional. I don't profess to know much about Gibson or Epiphone genealogy/production, so have no idea where this particular guitar was produced. However, if our particular EJ-200 is representative of models produced in this era, I would have no hesitation in recommending that you try and source one second-hand. I very much doubt if you could find a better sounding & playing guitar under £500.
Stephen.

[dave robinson]

I'm sure that The Loar is a great instrument for the money, I'm not disputing that at all. Perhaps I will get the chance to have a play on one at some point and make my own comparison.

Regarding the Epiphone J-200, I had one ten years ago that I thought was wonderful . . . . . until I picked up the Gibson. The sound of the Epiphone doesn't come close or even resemble the sound of it's more expensive cousin. I suppose in the end it depends on what you want to hear and whether or not you feel that the investment is worth the money. One strum of Gibson immediately gives you the vibe of the Everley Brothers or Bruce's Apache sound, it takes over the band when fed through the PA, believe me it is massive !
Hand on heart I have not heard the same sound/tone from any of the cheaper products and I have tried, but it's a case of 'you get what you pay for'. I paid £1999.00 for my Gibson J-200 as Sound Control had deals on them at the time, I'll always get that back should I choose to sell.

[GoldenStreet]

I paid £1999.00 for my Gibson J-200 as Sound Control had deals on them at the time, I'll always get that back should I choose to sell.

That's the reassuring aspect of buying a Gibson - They generally hold their value at least!

Bill

[Mikey]

I too have an Epiphone EJ-200 with a Dean Markley "Sweetspot" under-saddle pickup which sounds good but (to my ears at least) not as good as the Korean made Epi EJ-160 John Lennon Signature I sold recently. To my ears, that had much better tone and projection.
Makes me wonder why I sold it
Agreed, nothing like a Gibson but a nice sound is all most of us want and can get it, even on a modestly priced instrument that's well set up.
Keep dreaming and playing the Lottery

[JimN]

Hi, Mikey,

I would think that the Epiphone version of the Gibson J-160E has a better chance of sounding like the real thing.

Classic 160Es were made of laminated woods anyway (though I understand that current production has a solid top and is really a variant of the J-45, albeit better decorated and with the pickup). The models used by George and John (and supplied by my old mate Bob Hobbs at Rushworth and Dreaper's in Liverpool) were certainly from the plywood days.

JN

[dave robinson]

Hi, Mikey,

I would think that the Epiphone version of the Gibson J-160E has a better chance of sounding like the real thing.

Classic 160Es were made of laminated woods anyway (though I understand that current production has a solid top and is really a variant of the J-45, albeit better decorated and with the pickup). The models used by George and John (and supplied by my old mate Bob Hobbs at Rushworth and Dreaper's in Liverpool) were certainly from the plywood days.

JN

The Gibson J-160e does indeed have a spruce top and has a terrific bass response because of it's construction and the fact that the neck joins the body at the fifteenth fret, rather than the fourteenth - something that my luthier pointed out to me when he heard how 'big' it sounded.
I had an original sixties J-160e and it was very poor for recording acoustically. Soundwise, the new model is almost on a par with the J-200.

[GoldenStreet]

Mention of John's (and George's) Gibson J160E makes me wonder exactly how the rhythm sound was achieved on recordings such as "I Should Have Known Better" and others of the "Hard Day's Night" period, when the jumbo first became a prominent feature of their studio sound. Played through an amp, it sounds pretty much as an electric guitar, rather than the great chunky sound that was achieved. Presumably, it was miked up acoustically in the studio.

Bill

[JimN]

Hi, Bojan,
The "VS" part refers to the finish: "Vintage Sunburst", which I have to say is just like the classic Gibson (and even Kalamazoo) sunburst of the 1930s right through as late as the 1960s. Just think ES-335 or J-200.
I know the same model is available in natural, so assumed that "SN" was a reference to that. I think it may also be available in black, as is the 300-model archtop, but black does not appeal to me at all, even if Les Paul did have a black Loar-era Gibson L-5...
This ought to make it clear: http://www.theloar.com/LH-200.html. But does it? According to that page, "SN" means sunburst and "NA" means natural. And my (sunburst) guitar's label says: "LH-200 FE3 SN". Perhaps I took my cue from the wrong place - the packaging in which the instrument was sent to me.
JN

Here's a video where the guitar is explicitly referred to as the "LH 300 VS" (OK: LM-300-VS):



I knew I'd heard or read it (or both) somewhere...

JN

[GoldenStreet]

Gibson, themselves, use the abbreviation VOS to indicate "vintage original specification".

Bill

[Martyn]

I've been casually looking at a possible acoustic purchase simply to record from at home and don't want to spend lots of money on something that will be used purely as a chord strumming instrument for tracks like Apache etc. If I could afford a Gibson J200, I doubt I'd buy one simply because the amount of playing it would get by me would be so out of proportion to its price. Cost per wearing, as my wife claims when justifying expensive shoes . . .

I recently trawled through several cheap to expensive options in a local music shop and most of their acoustic sounds, compared to electrified ones, were quite dramatically different. In my ignorance I think I'd presumed a pickup would simply magnify the acoustic sound resonating around inside this hollow box and transmit it to the amps exactly as I heard it, but just louder. Whilst some had a very pleasant strummed electrified tone, it bore little resemblance to that Apache strumming sound I was chasing.
I also found one or two cheaper guitars had more comfortable to play necks than a couple of the more expensive options -I have quite small hands and playing barre chords on some necks was almost impossible and at best extremely uncomfortable. I concluded that an acoustic with an electric-type neck would be a good combination and I'm still trying others in my quest for sound and comfort. I recall a couple of Yamahas and a Fender acoustic had comfortably low actions but others I tried had higher actions that weren't even adjustable so I ruled these out.

I'm assuming Bruce's recorded Gibson in those early days would have been miked to an amp, rather than having pickups fitted (?) so I wonder if owners of these fine guitars (and others mentioned in this topic) could comment as to whether or not it's possible to reproduce that same early sound using pickups. I discovered yesterday, much to my surprise, that the built-in mike on my Mac actually produces a very acceptable sound from a strummed guitar, albeit I was playing a strat unplugged so it was very thin sounding and the pick strikes were almost as loud as the notes produced (a bit of a Doh! moment and obvious if I'd thought about it) but as long as I recorded wearing headphones and switched off the speakers to stop their output being picked up by the mike, I could get a reasonable sound, albeit not the one I wanted. I recorded some experimental vocal 6 part harmonies, though, and was taken aback by the quality of sound I was achieving using Garageband's reverbs and a bit of EQ, given the built-in mike is presumably not considered of very high quality.

I've digressed a little but maybe I don't need an electro acoustic as such, when a less expensive acoustic-only guitar could be an option, given what I'm trying to do.