Review and Commentary: The Gibson G-45 six-string acoustic and the Art of interpreting online guitar reviews
One of the first things a savvy guitar buyer does when considering any model is to research it on the Internet. In some cases, the person may have a friend who already owns the model, and he can get a first-hand look at it or check it out at a nearby Guitar store.
A good way to develop a preliminary judgment on a guitar is to see how many good comments it gets in user review sections. However, that can be confusing because there'll sometimes be experts or vocal guitarists in comment sections who claim those are superficial impressions from people who love the guitar they just bought.
In other words, the implication is many of these happy new customers don't know better. That can be a valid point when discussing technical specifications or judging the build quality of a particular guitar. However, it sometimes creates the dichotomy of users liking a specific model while many experts consider it mediocre or a poor buy/investment.
The investment angle is an essential factor to consider not only for the possible future sale of the guitar but also for the type of bias it can introduce into a review. Whether or not a guitar will increase or even hold its value is a factor that can mean everything or nothing in terms of the actual pleasure and utility of a guitar.
…contradiction…
This contradiction between consumers and experts was clear to me when I was considering the purchase of a Gibson G-45, an economy model that costs around a thousand dollars new and has received quite a few mixed or negative reviews (with many seconding opinions in the comment sections).
The reviews and commentary were particularly negative on YouTube, with some experts openly contemptuous. The main objection seemed to be the price; many commentators didn't think it was worth $1,000 and didn't really "sound like a Gibson."
I have to admit that when I looked at the various YouTube reviews, the sound of the G45 struck me as similar to a Taylor or Guilds that I've heard, but it did have a bit of the Gibson flavor.
I wasn't looking for a traditional Gibson sound anyway. I have a vintage parlor with the old Gibson LG0 sound, so I was looking for something more "modern” in sound. There was a G45 that only cost $600, so I was only checking the reviews to see if it was a good deal.
…video reviews…
Checking out video reviews isn’t an ideal way to evaluate a guitar; it's always better to play it, but it's a good way to get a feel for a possible online purchase. It's also a good idea to check both bad and good opinions. Sometimes, a negative comment can highlight a serious flaw in an instrument.
However, checking out bad reviews is more about being thorough and open-minded because those often reflect that particular reviewer's taste or criteria, which doesn't necessarily match mine.
I remember watching a review of this particular Gibson. From the start, the reviewer showed his distaste for the guitar and played it in a public and noisy environment, which I would never do with an acoustic instrument. There's a reason why most guitar stores have a quiet room where acoustic instruments can be tested. Ambient noise can make it difficult to judge the acoustic tone, which is a complex blend of sound from different guitar parts and your technique.
The person didn't like the guitar, and that's okay, but it was clear that the guitar wasn't fairly tested. The negative opinions in agreement in the comment section were mainly from people who hadn't even personally seen or played the guitar.
I quit watching the person's reviews after that (there were other borderline reviews of his). There's a difference between being opinionated (which is okay) and being peevish or dismissive.
Most online reviews are a single person's experience with a particular guitar. While it can't possibly be a definitive analysis of the entire line, it can be a valuable opinion from someone who has had an experience with the instrument. A reasonably careful evaluation is helpful even if you disagree with the conclusion.
If the person is opinionated, like I said, that's okay because someone with a passion for guitars will take the time to look at it (in most cases), and one can always take any bias into account when judging the content of the review. However, when a reviewer simply blows off an instrument, I consider it a waste of time to watch (or read) such a review.
…good reviews…
It's just as important to be careful about the good reviews, too, because if those are featured on a commercial website, certain biases are always going to be there. For example, no matter how good an economy brand might be, most reviewers who work for a site will always add that it's a “beginner guitar” or similar classification that makes sure that you know it's not as good as a more expensive model.
That informal caste system is there because these sites depend on advertising from manufacturers. The reviews will be carefully worded to ensure that the advertiser's entry-level line is seen as a logical step toward the future purchase of professional-level instruments. A reviewer might note that a particular high-end model is expensive, but he or she will rarely tell people to go buy a cheaper model instead.
Another reason such reviews may not be useful is that reviewers often use language that doesn't tell you what the instrument is like. When one thinks about it, what does it really mean when someone says a guitar has "a vintage sound," "best for classic rock," or "is too quiet? " There are a lot of standard review phrases that really don't mean anything except maybe in a subjective sense.
Also, to assume that anyone or even a group of reviewers can tell you a lot about a particular product line isn't a given. In any scientific study, the researchers always want a sample size that is as large as possible. No one would ever approve a new medication based on a test on a dozen people; for such products, it can take years and tests on thousands of case subjects before anyone can conclude a new product.
In terms of the entire product line of a guitar, it's already understood that some guitars within that line will be better than others due to construction and other factors, so it's not necessarily a good idea to base any purchase on any review or any group of reviews unless you actually can try out the instrument yourself. Or, at the least, buy it from an online site or brick-and-mortar store that has a good return policy.
That's why the recent spate of negative reviews on the new Fender Standard line, which most people haven’t seen yet, shouldn’t be taken seriously. Until a large enough group of people have real-world experience with the guitar, at least in a store or through online purchases, there's no way to know how good those guitars are.
…back to the G45…
But, getting back to the Gibson G45, I noticed that purchaser reviews were generally good. A lot of people who actually bought the guitar liked it, so the large number of reviewers who didn't like the guitar wasn't that relevant to me.
If that group of users were mainly people who tried it out in the store and said they liked it, then that would have to be taken into account, but if people who buy it like it and want to keep the guitar, that does mean something.
One reason I looked into buying this particular model was that it was a stripped-down Walnut body version of the very popular J45 model (which uses mahogany). I should note that both have spruce tops. However, I wasn't interested in it at the new price of 1,000. In fact, I wasn't that interested in any new guitar, for that matter.
If that's what I wanted, I would have the money to buy an actual J45, but I wasn't looking for that "classic Gibson sound." I was looking for a more modern tone that would fit the instruments I've been recording with. Until I ran across the possible deal on the G45, I was looking at various used Taylors and Guilds.
Now, running across a used G45 at 600.00 was a different story. It was only a year old, and it was cheaper because the top had a repaired crack. That's a deal breaker for quite a few people, though in my case, after over 50 years of playing guitar, I don't personally treat any crack in the body of an acoustic guitar as that big a deal as long as it's been properly repaired and the price reflects it.
To make a long story short, I liked it better than the various other guitars I was looking at, so I purchased it.
…a closer look…
I held off writing a review of the instrument for a couple of months until I played it for a while. So far, it's been an excellent value, and I like the sound. I should add that the J45-size body makes it extremely comfortable to play.
One feature that was liked by many users but received mixed reviews online and in comment sections was the "Player Port" on the side of the guitar, which is intended to project more sound upwards towards the player.
The sound hole makes a lot of sense when one plays it in a room instead of watching it on a video. Most of your playing will be alone in a room, and having more mids and highs project upwards adds to the experience. One can always plug the hole up for recording if that makes a difference
I saw some comments that claim it reduces the amount of bass, but it really doesn't do that; it projects a more balanced sound that’s more like what's coming out of the front of the guitar. If a player has spent most of their time playing the guitar without a Player Port, they will hear what could be described as a deeper sound because you're not directly in front of the guitar. That can certainly give the impression that there's less Bass.
The neck has what Gibson calls an "advanced response neck profile," which in technical terms means a soft V-neck that becomes a modern C profile by the 9th fret. It does have a slightly thicker feel in the first and second positions than some modern acoustics, but it feels easier to play as you move up the neck.
In terms of sound, it has a Gibson-like tone. The G45 has a sweet tone all the way up the neck but gets a bit quieter up there compared to a Martin or Taylor. That tonality isn’t apparent in videos because of the relatively poor sound quality in the recording and from the device, which is generally a phone or tablet.
…an honest guitar…
The G45 reminds me of a Fender Telecaster, an "honest" guitar. If you play it indifferently, it'll sound mediocre, and you'll hear every mistake. However, like a Tele, if you play it, it does certain things you usually wouldn't see from an old Gibson.
In other words, you can get a lot of different tones, particularly when playing fingerstyle. You can make it sound like a Taylor or the kind of sharper tone you hear on many recordings these days, or you can get more of the old Gibson sound, which is very sweet and rich. The notes can be sharp or round or a little of both; it's a guitar that responds to touch and phrasing. That makes it an excellent guitar for recording.
This Gibson has a nice punchy sound when played with a pick, and players of all skill levels will find them excellent guitars for almost any genre of music. However, you might prefer a more traditional Gibson or Martin tone.
The best thing I can say about the G45 is you can make the tone as complex as you want, or you can back off, relax, and enjoy it as a leisure guitar. There are many beginner or intermediate guitars you can't say that about. Some sound quite pleasant, but they won't respond to intricate playing or give you a different sound.
One reason the tone is more versatile is that it has excellent balance across the strings. Many cheaper guitars tend to be bassier or booming because that appeals to many people who play chords or strum a lot, and that's frankly not a “bad” characteristic. It’s really just being optimized for a price range and potential.
For example, my Yamaha sounds great for relaxed playing, but the bass tends to overwhelm the mids and treble. The excellent balance of the G45 makes it a superb fingerstyle guitar, and if you flat-pick, all of your notes will come out as nice and clear as you want.
…mojo rising…
I do have to add that part of the enjoyment is mojo. In other words, I got it reasonably priced, so I can't necessarily say how I would feel about it if I paid $1,000. When you get up into that price range, even if it's considered an "economy" price for a Gibson (or other brands like Martin, Taylor, etc.), there are many excellent choices, and there were some Guilds in particular that I liked. That said, after playing the Gibson for a couple of months, I wouldn't sell it to get one of those Guilds. Also, given what I know about the guitar from experience, I would consider buying it new.
Honestly, even after a couple of months, I haven't noticed the exact specs and build quality other than looking up the data after purchase. I don't personally look at specs very closely when considering the purchase of a guitar except where they might affect the price. Those of you who've read many of my reviews will know that I assume that exact technical specs can be considered part of a thorough research on any guitar anyway.
I should note that my attention to technical detail is idiosyncratic.
…attention…
I pay attention to certain things, like whether the guitar has X or ladder bracing, etc. However, unlike some reviewers, I don't consider one or the other necessarily superior in terms of sound. Both have characteristics that make them ideal for different genres and guitar styles. X bracing is considered exceptional in terms of support, but if you're looking to get the old Blues sound, for example, you do have to consider getting a ladder-braced guitar (because that was the type with which most of the old classics were recorded).
I also can't help thinking that the mixed reviews from reviewers also helped drive the used price down, so perhaps the negative reviews ended up helping me.
In any case, my experience with the guitar just reinforces my feeling that online reviews are a helpful tool but hardly something on which I would base a decision. Your own instincts and how you feel about a guitar when you play it are always going to be more important.
It's always a good idea to review the reviewers when researching guitars online…
- Al Handa
4/19/2025
G45 Specs:
Natural Finish
Sitka Spruce Top
Walnut Back and Sides
Scalloped X Bracing
Utile Neck Material
Richlite Fingerboard
Advanced Response Neck Profile
24.75" Scale Length
20 x Standard Fret
Tusq Nut Material
1.73" Nut Width
Richlite Bridge
Traditional Belly Up Bridge
Tusq Saddle Material
Tusq Bridge Pins
Mini Grover Rotomatic Tuners
G Series Padded Gig Bag
