Comments on: Acoustic guitar – Gibson or Taylor ??

By: Henry J

Henry J — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:03:59 +0000

Both are good however, I find the Taylors to be much more consistent in quality compared to the gibsons. I also think the taylors are more versatile .
References :

By: PJH

PJH — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:20:59 +0000

Like everybody says – play both and judge yourself. But one thing – if you're used to the sound of the Taylor, a new Gibson is going to sound really dull. The braces are really heavy and the tops are thicker so they are very durable. After 5 or 10 years they start to "open up", especially the maple bodied ones. That was the biggest innovation that Taylor made – their guitars sounded "old" right from the start. While you're trying them out, try a Martin HD28 while you're at it – that's the "Holy Grail" they're all imitating.
References :

By: andy muso

andy muso — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:01:59 +0000

Go for the Gibson just for contrast.
References :

By: cconsaul

cconsaul — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 07:35:59 +0000

If you've got the money, then find the time. Take yourself down to a few good guitar shops and wrap your fingers around a few guitars until you find your dream. Gibson is Good, Taylor is Good, Martin is Good, Rainsong is Good, they are all good. When are you going to go all out though, and find the guitar that genuinely speaks to you? Find that one guitar that you can't put down and have to carry out of the store. Find a luthier and get it made if you have to. I'm not trying to put any manufacterer down here. There are some wonderful guitars out there, but even in these days of production lines and composite materials, there are some special guitars out there, and one of them is exactly the one you have always heard in your head. It's waiting for you to resue it and set it free, so get going on your quest and don't forget the glass slipper (sorry about the lame Cinderella reference)
References :

By: guitarpicker56

guitarpicker56 — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:51:59 +0000

I've played Gibson acoustics since my beginning days and still enjoy them. Their sharp tonal responses are a bit different from the warmth of Taylors and Martins, but their construction has much improved.

Both the Gibson and the Taylor–and some Martins–have great playability because of the necks and string action. I believe the Jumbo Gibson will bring years of satisfaction to you as well as any Taylor could. They simply have different projection.

Note: Cconsaul makes a great point in finding the true instrument. When I stumbled across a certain HD-35 Martin, I knew I had to have it, feeling it was made specifically for my style of playing. This Martin is my preferred guitar to play today.
References :
Long-time player-51 years. Started out on an LG-3 Gibson parlor.

By: Mr_Moonlight

Mr_Moonlight — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:38:59 +0000

NEITHER.

Both builders overcharge for their products!

I'd buy a Crafter GA sized Pro series guitar! get a WORLD class guitar for 25% of a Taylor or Gibson!

Oh Wait thats what I DID DO!!! LOL

Oh Ok If I DID have to choose? Taylor, they are MUCH better than Gibson! ;o)
References :
Me, Myself and I have tried them all! ;o)

By: Golfer MS

Golfer MS — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 06:25:59 +0000

Gibsons are great guitars and you already have a Taylor, so why not get something different, otherwise your just buying something you already have.
References :

By: the_lipsiot

the_lipsiot — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 05:54:59 +0000

Yes – and I prefer the Gibson for the feel, nice action and tonal quality. But then I've played Gibsons all my life – so I probably feel about them the same as you do about Taylors.

You, however, may find the Taylor to be more to your liking. You really must try both in a good music store and decide which one you like, as it all comes down to personal preference in the end.
References :

By: moanalindsey

moanalindsey — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 05:15:59 +0000

Personally for me, buy a better Taylor. They make thee absolute BEST acoustics.
Gibson is known for the BEST electrics. But don't get me wrong they're acoustics are good, but not the best
References :