ES-335 Studio

Bogwhoppit

I'd like to see it in white before I condemn it to room 101......perhaps not, pull the lever.

chrisj1602

It seems to be way off the mark for what it is actually labelled as. The LP Studio is a cheaper version of the LP because it offers the same (to an extent) guitar at a lower price by taking out binding and flame tops etc.  The 335 and 339 Studios take away a pickup that would be very often used in a Studio. They have added black hardware... why? To me it is not a Studio model, it is a rock/metal version of a 335 or 339.

chrisj1602

raulduke said:

Looks like a piece of shit to me.

An expensive piece at that.

Agreed.

daveyh

I rather like it tbh (apart from that stupid neck joint plate). I don't know why it's not the usual 'studio' template but it seems derived from the Tom DeLonge 335. If there was one in white I might be tempted. 

stickyfiddle

chrisj1602 said:

It seems to be way off the mark for what it is actually labelled as. The LP Studio is a cheaper version of the LP because it offers the same (to an extent) guitar at a lower price by taking out binding and flame tops etc.  The 335 and 339 Studios take away a pickup that would be very often used in a Studio. They have added black hardware... why? To me it is not a Studio model, it is a rock/metal version of a 335 or 339.

You seem to be under the illusion that Gibson understand their own naming conventions... Sadly not the case

ThePrettyDamned

It would be fine as a home build - personal and cool. But as an off the shelf gibson, it's a bit disgusting...

ChrisMusic

stickyfiddle said:  ... the illusion that Gibson understand their own naming conventions... Sadly not the case

Gibson understanding anything is a minor miracle.  They can't even think 'joined-up', never mind.

For example, coil taps vs coil splits - it's all over their marketing literature.

Now I do get the new LPJ, even if it's got a bit of a hard time here.

(see thread http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/2432/gibson-lpj-any-good)

They have taken some chances over the years, some good some bad, and not usually well accepted, but at least they try something new (ish) now and again.

But this 335 is just a bad decision from the big G, what were they thinking?

It can't do their reputation any good in the long run either, bad focus groups and marketing dept I recon, sad to see imho.

daveyh

ChrisMusic said:

Gibson understanding anything is a minor miracle.  They can't even think 'joined-up', never mind.For example, coil taps vs coil splits - it's all over their marketing literature.

To be fair, Fender are probably much more guilty of this with the the 'tremolo'.

ThePrettyDamned

daveyh;37429" said:

ChrisMusic said:





Gibson understanding anything is a minor miracle.  They can't even think 'joined-up', never mind.For example, coil taps vs coil splits - it's all over their marketing literature.To be fair, Fender are probably much more guilty of this with the the 'tremolo'.

I hate that.

It's a wang bar!

Lixarto

There used be a 1980's model with the same name that was nicer.

http://cdn1.gbase.com/usercontent/gear/2825445/p1_ul5kltd55_so.jpg

http://www.gibson-talk.com/forum/es-sential-hollowbodies/1350-1986-gibson-es-335-studio.html

rpr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzgcRUS7KUk

impmann

Pair of chimps. 

What did we learn from this review - erm... erm... erm...

Its meh

johnhe

I really like it. I don't like the blue, but in sunburst it would be great. Even better, in a Goldtop finish, it would be outstanding.

daveyh

339s are horrible, like a 335 with a growth disorder

fretmeister

That guitar is vile. A 335 is one of the few guitars I covet, but that is awful.

TTony

Hmmmm.

I just stumbled across this model, and the third page of Google hits brought me here.

1.  That's not bad for theFretBoard!

2.  I'm with @WezV in that the "hide-the-iffy-neck-join" scratchplate puts me off.

3.  Have any of us played one?  Despite the scratchplate, I'm still being tempted ...

usedtobe

Horrible.