I'm a working musician and own both-I use the SJ100 for function gigs, bar gigs and festivals. I keep the SJ200 for shows where I'm playing my own music or gigs that I need to be a bit more "dressy" for. They're both sensational instruments, nothing else in the world sounds like a Gibson Jumbo. The SJ100 is a bit more sensitive to string choice but has INSANE headroom-you can really hit it hard with your right hand and it just soaks it all up and gets louder and more strident. It likes medium/lights or mediums and a reasonably heavy pick. It's a fairly dry sounding guitar with less sustain than the SJ200-it kicks like a mule for blues, which is presumably why Lonnie Johnson played one of the originals for so long. The SJ200 is more dramatic and a louder instrument. It responds in a more full and sustain-y way to fingerstyle, but will strum and flatpick brilliantly and has that classic Gibson Jumbo compression when hit hard. It's very expressive and can be bright or mellow, depending on when you pick it in relation to the bridge. It's less bluesy than the SJ100, but will cover just about any musical style with aplomb. I lean more towards Maple as a tonewood, so if I was forced to choose one, I'd go with the SJ200, but there's no wrong choice here. Both are wonderful guitars that for the professional player will work for and with you for many years and just get better and better sounding. For the hobby/home player, either will give you an instrument that will inspire you and grow with you as a player.
I just bought an SJ 200. I was wondering if it was just me, but you cleared it up. It almost seems to "mellow" with the strings on it now. ( don't know what they are) I think I will try Elixir 12 or 13s.
You need to put a good set of headphones on and have a second listen... Night and day sound comparison... The J200 sound more together and the notes picked are more distinguished. The j100 sounds good too but when the 200 kicks in you hear a better quality tone for sure, cheers
The J-100 mahogany back and sides sound warmer as expected, a great sounding guitar. The J-200 has a nice upper mid tonal character and clarity that distinguishes its tone.
To my ears, the J-200 has a softer edge to the sound it produces; the J-100 is a bit tighter. I think the J-200 would be a killer rhythm/chord guitar, whereas the J-100 is more of an all-around guitar. Whatever... I'll take one of each, please.
Esthetically I prefer the understated look of the J-100, I'm not at all a fan of the ornate pickguard (like on a lot of Gibson acoustics) or the moustache bridge. Tonally however, I much prefer the J-200. I own an Alvarez AJ80 which also has maple back/sides, so I guess you could say I generally prefer maple on jumbos.
i love mahogany. someone once described the tone to me as warm and husky. i fully agree. if i had to pick one, it would be the j100 for that reason. same reason i'm super happy with my j45. smells so damn good too.
J100 sounds fuller in the midrange. More even, maybe because of the mahogany back and sides. And j100 is also the original from the late 30,s. Its all a matter of taste. Both sound great.
I recently shopped and played over 15 different J-200's, and about 7 different J-100's. All of them sounded good, so I thought, until the last J-100 that I found. It simply blew them all away. I even made the trip, (over 350 miles) to play the J-100's again to make sure I was hearing what I was hearing. I purchased the last one that I played originally and it simply is amazing on the low end, the highs are not too high, and it vibrates in your hands like it's alive. You must compare more than a few, and when you find the one you like, you'll know it. Besides my other Gibson acoustics, it makes every guitar I've ever owned feel and sound like made in china junk.
The J100 has a more bass and a softer strum, whereas the J200 has more treble and a lighter strum feel. A bit more string deferential between strings in the J200 as well.
I like both sounds! From the J-200, I prefer the classic Gibson headstock and the inlays and from the J-100, I like the more normal bridge. The J-100 has a warmer sound, and the J-200 has a fuller sound :))
Wish you would give a little more descriptive review of the sound you hear when you play. I'm wearing headphones and having a hard time hearing the 'huge' difference. To me the J100 sounds warmer and the J200 sounds more articulate but what do you the player experience? Sometimes brightly articulated sounding guitars are unpleasant for me to play. In short, your opinion and preference would be appreciated.
Sandy Strait that's about right. The J 100 mahogany is just a slightly bigger sounding J45. The J 200 is brighter without any loss of maids or low end, it's louder and you can clearly hear everything.
I actually have a Morgan Dreadnaught (Mahogany back & sides) guitar and rented a Gibson SJ200. They were very close.Gibson SJ200 $4,100 + Tax Canadian Gibson SJ100 $3,400 + Tax Canadian$700.00 difference. Once your at this price range $700.00 you better just buy the one you want.
I just bought a used WM 180(Mahogany) it’s a stripped back short scale jumbo with a 16 inch lower bout opposed to 17. For me, I think the WM is the best looking one out of the lot. I also favour the Mahogany. Then again Reverend Gary Davis played the 200 and I wouldn’t have contested his point of view.
At Christmas u could of got the the 100 walnut version for a £1000 on amazon here in the UK I was worried of getting stiched but turned out to be genuine only had 2 left wanted to get rid of them
from my experience with both of these the standard sounds more full at every note. the j-100 while sounding superb was bit muffled compared to the 200. but still, the 100 is absolutely one of the best big jumbos made today.
I think that for mahogany & rosewood guitars that the Martin Jumbo size (16" lower bout) works best, as with the J-18 or J-40 & for Gibson's that'd be the J-200 Jr. (or J-185) . For something this big (17" lower bout) maple is just the perfect wood. The bright, treble is balanced by the big size perfectly. You really need a good stiff piece of pine for your top though or they sound dead. I played a lot of dud J-200's before I finally found my own dream- an amazing sounding tobacco sunburst 1997 maple SJ-200. I'm a bit more of a Martin guy (have a great maple Martin J-65), but wouldn't ever get rid of my SJ-200... great to have both sounds & Gibson does the most beautiful sunbursts ever!!
Even allowing for the differences in their respective soundboards, I can hear the difference between the Mahogany back and sides of the J-100 and the Maple back and sides of the J-200. This particular J-100 soundboard is more responsive and sustains notes longer. Combined with the Mahogany, the tone is warmer with more depth. This particular J-200 soundboard sounds muted to me (even through headphones) and appears to be noticeably less responsive than the J-100. The Maple back and sides make for a brighter sound. The less resonant soundboard also exhibits average note sustain at best so some playing will sound better such as single note picking where an individual distinction is desired; a note dying out more quickly won't too readily sound over a succeeding note where any two notes could potentially sustain. Some strumming would be more distinctive too. If I had to choose one of these guitars to work with, I would choose the J-100 as being more compatible with my style of playing and what pleases my ears most.
They both sound different but seem to me to have around about the same loudness i guess i would go for the cheapest which would be the j 100 the j2oo has more ornate inlays which cost a lot more
I got LP Reissue and LP Junior Reissue, They sound like these ones. Standard (j200) shines and has more open sound and Junior (j100) is warmer/darker. Typical thing about maple against mahagony. I mean plugged or unpluggeed. So those who believe that wood doesn't affect the tone in electric solid body guitars should shut up
Both these guitars sound good. They're manufactured for different situations. The 200 sits in a place that would be ideal for a full band situation. The 100 would be better for a solo artist.
Different. Both beautiful. 200 a bit brighter and more resonanced but thinner sound. 100 more balanced, rounder and well defined. Which better? Tis in the hands of the artist. Depends on what tone the artist wants. Tools for the mechanic= the artist. By the way- bigger and heavier the strings the better the sound. Just physical laws. Bigger heavier string has more mass and weight and more tension- this causes top to move more creating more sound. Takes callous fingertips and strong hands- discipline and some pain and dedication and... love yes love.
My J-100 (extra) has Maple back and sides. It also has the crown neck inlay, mustache saddle, and classic tuners. Virtually no difference in sound and feel.
J100 has more mid projection, and sounds more dynamic than the J200 With that said, I think the J100 has a tusq nut, whereas the 200 has a bone is that correct?
Hm, J-200 sounds to have a little more shimmer on the high strings, and a little more melow mid tone (sounding a tad bit like nylon strings). Both gibsons still sound quite a bit different from martins though.
In 2001 I won a trip to the Gibson factory in Bozeman, MT. At the end of the tour, the VP that was showing us around brought us to the finished guitars and said, "take any one down and play it." I pulled down a J200 that was dressed up with tons of gingerbread (MOP vine inlay throughout the fret board, elaborate pick guard, etc.). MSRP - $12,000. My wife asked him, "How many of these do you own?" He said, "I wouldn't buy that one." Then proceeded to pull down a J100 and started to play it. "Same guitar, way less money," he said. As I'm writing this, the video is scrolled up off my screen and I can't see it but I am listening to the audio. My ears may be off from years of loud amplifiers, but I can't tell when he's switching guitars. I can't hear the difference in sound.
The "huge tonal difference" doesn't come off in this video at all. Sounds minimal. Conclusion, what is picked up by a mic and the way a guitar sounds in person is very different.
I own a J200 and think it’s exactly how an acoustic guitar should sound. But having said that, both these guitars sound amazing. Gibson Jumbos are simply the best IMHO.
Mine. J 200 has adirondack top and it's even more articulate than the standard J 200. It's the brightest guitar I've ever played, a huge country style guitar that killed my love for the J 45 / Southern Jumbo
Prefer the warmer, fuller sound of the J100.The J200 is too bright for me and for some reason I always equate bright with cheap which it certainly isn't. Just my opinion.
The J15/J45 was a much better comparison. He kept saying how different these two guitars sounded but they were so similar that the difference was barely perceptible
I have to ask, are all the various styles of beards and hair fake? so many different looks so close to each other, I like the comparison test., glad you changed some of the test pieces the last couple drive me up the f@cking wall
Woaw... People, let me know what you think: I think the J 100 represents the best guitar for rhythm, lots of bass and medium. Paired with a Martin with lots of medium and treble to cut through the mix for soloing, this could be the "best of both worlds" combo... I'd have a j 100 over a j 45, so much more bass! Discuss! :)
๋J-200 bright , mid range good : WIN .... for country .. music J-100 warm , clear : WIN ... for folk , pop .. music I like J-300 (200+100) body : flame maple back, mahogany side :)
OK, I would love to have a J 200 with the J 100 pick guard and the J 100 bridge. I've never been fond of the too showy, over-the-top mustache bridge, sort of looks like cake decoration.
They aren't that different. Each may have a little advantage in some situation. But unless you need the bling or just like spending more money...J-100.
J-100 is a bit boomy, and the J-200 sounds scooped.... to my ears. The J-200 would wrap around the human voice beautifully, while the J-100 would compete for that EQ space. Pretty subtle, but significant.
The J-200 is more open. Not just brighter, but more open all the way up and down. The harmonics are running free, where on the J-100 they're on a tight leash.
J-200 is the guitar to get. These videos are nice but if you haven't physically played these guitars then you should go play them. In person the J-200 beats it by a long shot.
J100 better balanced sound - whereas J200 is boomy Also, the tester played the J200 further back on the saddle, would have preferred to see both guitars played at the same location over soundhole for direct comparison
Yes one could start a whole thread just on J-200’s. In the 70’s they were made in Montana . I had one and it was a dud; just dead sounding. So if you are looking for vintage ; be sure to do your research. I like The J-200. If I want a Mahogany back and sides guitar I go to Martin …. Just IMHO
If I buy the j200 will I write music like Bob and be as talented and intelligent as Bob and all I need is £4000 pound wow that easier than all the practise and skill.
I’ve always loved the J200. There is only a few Gibson’s I would buy, including electrics. Im a Martin/Guild. - Fender/Gretsch player. I’m shocked by how much I prefer the J100. That says it all.
they both seem to lack bass to me especially in drop D. The J200 just sounded dead in general. Maybe Its because I'm a martin guy idk... I prefer the j100s warmth though. Ive always thought maple just sounded harsh.
Well, listening to this video with some good headphones on my ears, I heard a huge difference between the two guitars. Fortunately I liked the 100 more in every aspect than I did like the much more expensive 200. O well, I can't afford neither of them, so I really don't know why I respond so 'happy', hahaha...
The pice difference is because the 200 has the extra inlay details. Because it would cost more in labour time. 1K labour ? Sure...nobody wants to charge small for labouring. The cost is not due to the different market value of woods.
I'm a working musician and own both-I use the SJ100 for function gigs, bar gigs and festivals. I keep the SJ200 for shows where I'm playing my own music or gigs that I need to be a bit more "dressy" for.
They're both sensational instruments, nothing else in the world sounds like a Gibson Jumbo. The SJ100 is a bit more sensitive to string choice but has INSANE headroom-you can really hit it hard with your right hand and it just soaks it all up and gets louder and more strident. It likes medium/lights or mediums and a reasonably heavy pick. It's a fairly dry sounding guitar with less sustain than the SJ200-it kicks like a mule for blues, which is presumably why Lonnie Johnson played one of the originals for so long.
The SJ200 is more dramatic and a louder instrument. It responds in a more full and sustain-y way to fingerstyle, but will strum and flatpick brilliantly and has that classic Gibson Jumbo compression when hit hard. It's very expressive and can be bright or mellow, depending on when you pick it in relation to the bridge. It's less bluesy than the SJ100, but will cover just about any musical style with aplomb.
I lean more towards Maple as a tonewood, so if I was forced to choose one, I'd go with the SJ200, but there's no wrong choice here. Both are wonderful guitars that for the professional player will work for and with you for many years and just get better and better sounding. For the hobby/home player, either will give you an instrument that will inspire you and grow with you as a player.
My SJ200 has rosewood back and sides and it's a wonderful guitar.
Lord JS is a custom j200 or a vintage one?
I just bought an SJ 200. I was wondering if it was just me, but you cleared it up. It almost seems to "mellow" with the strings on it now. ( don't know what they are) I think I will try Elixir 12 or 13s.
Where can I get a J-100 ?
@@lordjs9726 sounds interesting
I like my '94 J100 - it has a great balanced sound. I like the understated look - that way folks don't expect too much and I can surprise them.
the J-200 is really bright and the J-100 is pretty warm so really its between weather you like a bright sound or a warm sound
Closed my eyes and every time I opened them up to a sound I liked it was the J100 most of the time. Both very nice.
You need to put a good set of headphones on and have a second listen... Night and day sound comparison...
The J200 sound more together and the notes picked are more distinguished. The j100 sounds good too but when the 200 kicks in you hear a better quality tone for sure, cheers
Jason Hobbs you nailed it
Love them both, what beautiful guitars. Have to say the J200 though, it's gorgeous both in sound and looks.
The maple really sweetens the tone :)
My grandfather just picked up a j-200 and it's so beautiful, tonally and visually. No one does a burst like Gibson in my opinion
Thanks tony. Ive been hanging my nose over a J200 and I found your comments really helpful.
The J-100 mahogany back and sides sound warmer as expected, a great sounding guitar. The J-200 has a nice upper mid tonal character and clarity that distinguishes its tone.
To my ears, the J-200 has a softer edge to the sound it produces; the J-100 is a bit tighter. I think the J-200 would be a killer rhythm/chord guitar, whereas the J-100 is more of an all-around guitar. Whatever... I'll take one of each, please.
Esthetically I prefer the understated look of the J-100, I'm not at all a fan of the ornate pickguard (like on a lot of Gibson acoustics) or the moustache bridge. Tonally however, I much prefer the J-200. I own an Alvarez AJ80 which also has maple back/sides, so I guess you could say I generally prefer maple on jumbos.
i love mahogany. someone once described the tone to me as warm and husky. i fully agree. if i had to pick one, it would be the j100 for that reason. same reason i'm super happy with my j45. smells so damn good too.
J100 sounds fuller in the midrange. More even, maybe because of the mahogany back and sides. And j100 is also the original from the late 30,s. Its all a matter of taste. Both sound great.
I recently shopped and played over 15 different J-200's, and about 7 different J-100's. All of them sounded good, so I thought, until the last J-100 that I found. It simply blew them all away. I even made the trip, (over 350 miles) to play the J-100's again to make sure I was hearing what I was hearing. I purchased the last one that I played originally and it simply is amazing on the low end, the highs are not too high, and it vibrates in your hands like it's alive. You must compare more than a few, and when you find the one you like, you'll know it. Besides my other Gibson acoustics, it makes every guitar I've ever owned feel and sound like made in china junk.
I'd really love to see a comparison between a standard J-200 and a True Vintage model!!!
This channel is awesome and you're right Tony, I'm glad I subscribed.
What a great video, amazing A/B comparison.
For me l prefer J100 .My ear tell me it sound better
Using headphones you can hear the difference in the brightness coming from the J200.
The J100 has a more bass and a softer strum, whereas the J200 has more treble and a lighter strum feel. A bit more string deferential between strings in the J200 as well.
I like both sounds! From the J-200, I prefer the classic Gibson headstock and the inlays and from the J-100, I like the more normal bridge. The J-100 has a warmer sound, and the J-200 has a fuller sound :))
I think ......I go for the classic one! The J-200!
The J-200 seems a lot more graceful on the distribution of tone (especially on the higher notes).
Poetical the maple
Wish you would give a little more descriptive review of the sound you hear when you play. I'm wearing headphones and having a hard time hearing the 'huge' difference. To me the J100 sounds warmer and the J200 sounds more articulate but what do you the player experience? Sometimes brightly articulated sounding guitars are unpleasant for me to play. In short, your opinion and preference would be appreciated.
Sandy Strait that's about right. The J 100 mahogany is just a slightly bigger sounding J45. The J 200 is brighter without any loss of maids or low end, it's louder and you can clearly hear everything.
J100 xtras have maple back and sides, so they sound identical to J200's,
So, second hand, they are an amazing deal!
I actually have a Morgan Dreadnaught (Mahogany back & sides) guitar and rented a Gibson SJ200. They were very close.Gibson SJ200 $4,100 + Tax Canadian Gibson SJ100 $3,400 + Tax Canadian$700.00 difference. Once your at this price range $700.00 you better just buy the one you want.
I just bought a used WM 180(Mahogany) it’s a stripped back short scale jumbo with a 16 inch lower bout opposed to 17. For me, I think the WM is the best looking one out of the lot. I also favour the Mahogany. Then again Reverend Gary Davis played the 200 and I wouldn’t have contested his point of view.
At Christmas u could of got the the 100 walnut version for a £1000 on amazon here in the UK I was worried of getting stiched but turned out to be genuine only had 2 left wanted to get rid of them
Great side by side comparison, thanks for doing it right!!!
I got both
J100 has more mids as you can hear, typically
J200 better for singing with, J100 better for picking with other instruments
CaribSurfKing1 Either is my unattainable dream guitar. So jealous!
from my experience with both of these the standard sounds more full at every note. the j-100 while sounding superb was bit muffled compared to the 200. but still, the 100 is absolutely one of the best big jumbos made today.
I think that for mahogany & rosewood guitars that the Martin Jumbo size (16" lower bout) works best, as with the J-18 or J-40 & for Gibson's that'd be the J-200 Jr. (or J-185) . For something this big (17" lower bout) maple is just the perfect wood. The bright, treble is balanced by the big size perfectly. You really need a good stiff piece of pine for your top though or they sound dead. I played a lot of dud J-200's before I finally found my own dream- an amazing sounding tobacco sunburst 1997 maple SJ-200. I'm a bit more of a Martin guy (have a great maple Martin J-65), but wouldn't ever get rid of my SJ-200... great to have both sounds & Gibson does the most beautiful sunbursts ever!!
Even allowing for the differences in their respective soundboards, I can hear the difference between the Mahogany back and sides of the J-100 and the Maple back and sides of the J-200. This particular J-100 soundboard is more responsive and sustains notes longer. Combined with the Mahogany, the tone is warmer with more depth. This particular J-200 soundboard sounds muted to me (even through headphones) and appears to be noticeably less responsive than the J-100. The Maple back and sides make for a brighter sound. The less resonant soundboard also exhibits average note sustain at best so some playing will sound better such as single note picking where an individual distinction is desired; a note dying out more quickly won't too readily sound over a succeeding note where any two notes could potentially sustain. Some strumming would be more distinctive too. If I had to choose one of these guitars to work with, I would choose the J-100 as being more compatible with my style of playing and what pleases my ears most.
What is the song at 03:48 I need to learn that one?
John Fahey, "Last Steam Engine Train", one of the very few tunes Fahey wrote in standard tuning
intetesting thread. The mahagony j100 sounds untipycal open what I would expect that maple should.
J100 my favorite.
The J-100 takes the win in my book. I'm a fan of both models, but the J-100 sounds more full and has a better bite to it.
The J200's maple brings a much more muted and delicate tone. Both sound amazing!
They both sound different but seem to me to have around about the same loudness i guess i would go for the cheapest which would be the j 100 the j2oo has more ornate inlays which cost a lot more
I got LP Reissue and LP Junior Reissue, They sound like these ones. Standard (j200) shines and has more open sound and Junior (j100) is warmer/darker. Typical thing about maple against mahagony. I mean plugged or unpluggeed. So those who believe that wood doesn't affect the tone in electric solid body guitars should shut up
Both lovely, but I'd go for the J-100
Both these guitars sound good. They're manufactured for different situations. The 200 sits in a place that would be ideal for a full band situation. The 100 would be better for a solo artist.
I was thinking the other way around!
Different. Both beautiful. 200 a bit brighter and more resonanced but thinner sound. 100 more balanced, rounder and well defined. Which better? Tis in the hands of the artist. Depends on what tone the artist wants. Tools for the mechanic= the artist. By the way- bigger and heavier the strings the better the sound. Just physical laws. Bigger heavier string has more mass and weight and more tension- this causes top to move more creating more sound. Takes callous fingertips and strong hands- discipline and some pain and dedication and... love yes love.
The J200 has that maple edge but I prefer the darker sound of the J100, and it's less garish looks too :)
My J-100 (extra) has Maple back and sides. It also has the crown neck inlay, mustache saddle, and classic tuners. Virtually no difference in sound and feel.
Song at 3:08?
You forgot to mention the neck material!
I think the J-200 is 2 or 3 piece maple
And the J-100 is mahogany.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Both are sweet. May I know what brand of strings you're using and what gauge? Thanks
Very likely the stock Gibson strings, light gauge 80/20 Bronze. I don't know what brand was used back then.
I can't hear any difference. Anyway, both seem great guitars, and well played.
Really!?!? It’s so vast.
Your ear is not very good then. There's a noticeable difference.
Can you do a review of the Blueridge 2500? Vs J200? Thank youuuuu in advance
J100 has more mid projection, and sounds more dynamic than the J200
With that said, I think the J100 has a tusq nut, whereas the 200 has a bone is that correct?
Hm, J-200 sounds to have a little more shimmer on the high strings, and a little more melow mid tone (sounding a tad bit like nylon strings). Both gibsons still sound quite a bit different from martins though.
3:26 is nearly Dear Prudence :D
You forgot to mention the 100 has a select spruce top (laminated) the 200 solid spruce thus the major tonal diference not the sides and back !!!
Gibson does not use laminated woods in their guitars... both of these guitars have solid tops.
The J-100 would be just right for me although I love the sound of the 200
They both sound the same to me but the J 200 is definitely prettier so I would go with the J100 ! Great Video, Tony !
In 2001 I won a trip to the Gibson factory in Bozeman, MT. At the end of the tour, the VP that was showing us around brought us to the finished guitars and said, "take any one down and play it." I pulled down a J200 that was dressed up with tons of gingerbread (MOP vine inlay throughout the fret board, elaborate pick guard, etc.). MSRP - $12,000. My wife asked him, "How many of these do you own?" He said, "I wouldn't buy that one." Then proceeded to pull down a J100 and started to play it. "Same guitar, way less money," he said. As I'm writing this, the video is scrolled up off my screen and I can't see it but I am listening to the audio. My ears may be off from years of loud amplifiers, but I can't tell when he's switching guitars. I can't hear the difference in sound.
I’m looking for a J-100
The "huge tonal difference" doesn't come off in this video at all. Sounds minimal. Conclusion, what is picked up by a mic and the way a guitar sounds in person is very different.
J100 has way more mids, which is typical thing about Gibson acoustics over other brands
J-200 much brighter - records well and has the classic Rock cred
J-100 for me. Reminds me of my martin HD-28. Also like the understated look better.
J - 200!
Thanks for posting.
I own a J200 and think it’s exactly how an acoustic guitar should sound.
But having said that, both these guitars sound amazing.
Gibson Jumbos are simply the best IMHO.
Mine. J 200 has adirondack top and it's even more articulate than the standard J 200. It's the brightest guitar I've ever played, a huge country style guitar that killed my love for the J 45 / Southern Jumbo
But... are they both jumbos???
Yes, that was stated.
ian mccallum it was sarcasm jeez XD
ian mccallum Yeah, I was just being goofy because he said 2-3 times that they're both jumbos. :)
Jesse Watson
You omitted, or are unaware of, one other major difference. The necks are different. Playability is different.
They sound identical. I'm wearing good headphones. I feel whatever difference people feel is psychological.
j100 for me
Prefer the warmer, fuller sound of the J100.The J200 is too bright for me and for some reason I always equate bright with cheap which it certainly isn't. Just my opinion.
J200 is softer and brighter, j100 has more attack and mids.. they both are very distinctive and have that Gibson warmness. I am a Gibson guy.
So close. I guess because top makes most difference & they're both the same in that respect
The J15/J45 was a much better comparison. He kept saying how different these two guitars sounded but they were so similar that the difference was barely perceptible
Great, thanks so much
That J-100 sounds really throaty and distinct, both great guitars but I would take J-100.
J...
I have to ask, are all the various styles of beards and hair fake? so many different looks so close to each other, I like the comparison test., glad you changed some of the test pieces the last couple drive me up the f@cking wall
Woaw... People, let me know what you think:
I think the J 100 represents the best guitar for rhythm, lots of bass and medium. Paired with a Martin with lots of medium and treble to cut through the mix for soloing, this could be the "best of both worlds" combo... I'd have a j 100 over a j 45, so much more bass!
Discuss! :)
J100 for me too mate, I've always loved the sound of Mahogany as a tone wood. It looks nicer than the J200 too.
I'll take either.. I know you're the expert.. but I heard Slight difference not a huge
But then again I'm on my phone
i beg tony to reivew walden cd351/g
๋J-200 bright , mid range good : WIN .... for country .. music
J-100 warm , clear : WIN ... for folk , pop .. music
I like J-300 (200+100) body : flame maple back, mahogany side :)
Not much in it, simple fact is the J100 sounds darker, and the J200 sounds brighter. The j200 also looks damn pretty so sucks you in more.
OK, I would love to have a J 200 with the J 100 pick guard and the J 100 bridge. I've never been fond of the too showy, over-the-top mustache bridge, sort of looks like cake decoration.
They aren't that different. Each may have a little advantage in some situation. But unless you need the bling or just like spending more money...J-100.
J-100 is a bit boomy, and the J-200 sounds scooped.... to my ears. The J-200 would wrap around the human voice beautifully, while the J-100 would compete for that EQ space. Pretty subtle, but significant.
The J-200 is more open. Not just brighter, but more open all the way up and down. The harmonics are running free, where on the J-100 they're on a tight leash.
J-200 is the guitar to get. These videos are nice but if you haven't physically played these guitars then you should go play them. In person the J-200 beats it by a long shot.
Wow - the J-100 has big fat tone - i would say better than the J-200 in this test. The J-200 in fact looks much better :)
J-100 for flatpicking and strumming, but J-200 for fingerpicking IMO.
J100 better balanced sound - whereas J200 is boomy
Also, the tester played the J200 further back on the saddle, would have preferred to see both guitars played at the same location over soundhole for direct comparison
Yes one could start a whole thread just on J-200’s. In the 70’s they were made in Montana . I had one and it was a dud; just dead sounding. So if you are looking for vintage ; be sure to do your research. I like The J-200. If I want a Mahogany back and sides guitar I go to Martin …. Just IMHO
so mahogany back and sides is cheaper, the maple back and sides is more expensive? thats it?
If I buy the j200 will I write music like Bob and be as talented and intelligent as Bob and all I need is £4000 pound wow that easier than all the practise and skill.
I prefer the appearance of the 100, but the 200 just beats it tonally. Less of a huge difference, at least listening on TH-cam rather than in person.
J100 of course!!!
I’ve always loved the J200. There is only a few Gibson’s I would buy, including electrics. Im a Martin/Guild. - Fender/Gretsch player.
I’m shocked by how much I prefer the J100.
That says it all.
J-200 for sure!
they both seem to lack bass to me especially in drop D. The J200 just sounded dead in general. Maybe Its because I'm a martin guy idk... I prefer the j100s warmth though. Ive always thought maple just sounded harsh.
Gibson J-100 £2,199. Gibson J-200 £3,199. I don't hear £1,000 worth of difference.
Well, listening to this video with some good headphones on my ears, I heard a huge difference between the two guitars. Fortunately I liked the 100 more in every aspect than I did like the much more expensive 200.
O well, I can't afford neither of them, so I really don't know why I respond so 'happy', hahaha...
The pice difference is because the 200 has the extra inlay details. Because it would cost more in labour time. 1K labour ? Sure...nobody wants to charge small for labouring. The cost is not due to the different market value of woods.
+Helleboros Retz The 100 is Mahogany, which I heard is rarer than Maple wood, so the cost is in the cosmetic detailing Only.
coolseeker I certainly do. the 200 is much clearer and more balanced. Much better for recording.
j100 sounds absolutely stunning. j200's sound doesn't really fit the look. i'd rather take a martin, but from the options here, j100 wins.
J-200, maybe these old ears just need a bit more treble than the j-100 provides.
@Gandalf the Grey you shall not pass!
How could you possibly tell on a over compressed you tube channel