Funny you call it improper, as this guy - http://www.youtube.com/user/mapexdad - had a Vintage SG copy before he got the young guitarist of the year award. And I can't say it sounded bad.
Originally Posted by meltedbuzzbox
But it's about these two guitars. I am just trying to understand why the guitar that has less features and is of the lower range costs the same as the upper level guitar. What kind of magic is this? And is it worth it?
I wouldn't say improper. To be fair to the vintage it is a damn fine guitar for the money second hand. I can't knock it.
As for the 2 gibsons, its all about the name. The Junior particulary. I dont get the appeal and have never liked them but thats a personal thing.
Personally I hate guitars with one pickup... but thats an issue for another thread.
As with all guitars, you have to play them and see which one is right for you/third party.
Faded SG, light as a feather and looks badass.
Just was watching the James Bell videos someone linked... wow! He looks like a little Joe Bonamassa. He's good! And a multi-instrumentalist... wow!
The tones he gets out of the Fret King on the Gnarls Barkley cover is pretty cool too... (that's the LP style one) :D
The studio has a carved top and an extra pickup with the additional knobs etc so not too different in time spent in construction to the Junior.
Originally Posted by muffmuffin
The faded finish Studio is considerably cheaper than the normal gloss Studio simply because of the extra time spent in finishing on the more expensive model.
Personally I think the finish suits the Junior but just looks cheap on a carved top.
Pricing is down to marketing. The Junior looks like an all-time classic, an iconic guitar played by famous players, whereas the Studio, although obviously more expensive to produce, looks like a cheapo version of a classic guitar (the Standard).
Similarly, Teles have always been the same price as Strats, despite being obviously cheaper to produce.
As far as learner guitars are concerned I think the versatility of the Studio makes it a better choice than the Junior.
All my instincts are against buying a Gibson for a child who's never played before though, and not through some kind of retrospective jealousy. If he takes to it, he will never experience the excitement of his first proper guitar later on, which is a truly inspiring transitional experience for most of us.
Thank you for your insight everybody.I decided to listen to you and go with a cheaper alternative - Yamaha RGX-A2. Will buy it as soon as it will be restocked at Thomann.
I was going to post something along these lines - whereas I'm bang alongside the idea of having a really good quality guitar to start out on (e.g. the Yamaha that the OP has decided on which will almost certainly be bang-on in terms of build quality and playability), I think that given the challenge of the first few months of playing, it can be a real motivator to have the possibility of a dream guitar further down the line if he sticks with it, something that he could also save up to chip in for - if he saw Jack Black playing a cherry red SG Standard...
Originally Posted by p90fool
(his tastes might also change! One thing that playing guitar does is introduce you to a lot of new music with all the magazines and websites and whatnot)