|
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 2
| Can someone please do a brief compare and contrast on S/Shallow Cutaway V Mid-Depth Cutaway, specifically between model 1771 and 1861?
Thanks |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 3005
Location: Las Cruces, NM | Jan
Try a search using the words "mid" and "shallow" and "bowl", as these have been discussed fairly thoroughly for all models. If that doesn't work, there is plenty of opinion here on the subject. Welcome to the board.
Bailey |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2002
Posts: 181
Location: Queens, NY | Ahh the Standard Balladeer, good choice! I'm thinking of getting one myself (the 1771).
Check the topic "Deep Bowls" for a recent lively discussion.
As I mentioned there already, I prefer mid-depth over super-shallow. I think if you're used to playing acoustics, play mostly unplugged, or play seated most of the time, I think the mid-depth is better. However, if you're used to playing electrics, play mostly plugged in, or play standing a lot, you might like the super-shallow better.
One of my general rules about life is that when in doubt, pick "medium". I figure that way I'll at least be partially right.
That's just MHO. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 2
| Thanks for the great advise. I played a lovely black balladeer at Guitar Center, and loved it. But I've never actually bought a "Brand New" guitar. I bought a nice Takamine and I have no complaints, but my heart still thinks about that Balladeer. So I keep looking on ebay, thinking I'll find a "deal" but I believe those are no more. Maybe I'll bite the bullet, or the Balladeer in my case, and go back to Guitar Center during one of their "blow outs."
Thanks again |
|
| |
S/Shallow Cutaway V Mid-Depth Cutaway
