my guess is that they feel the exact same but are made of different wood and use different pups. look what kind of wood they're made out of and the pups and try to find a bass with similar parts that you can try out. its what i did before i bought my schecter.

The Studio version doesn't have the finish and fancy "extras"...er gold hardware, fancy bling, bling type appointments.

It's a studio because it is identical to the original version, build-wise, just not fancy for stage use.

That's what I've been led to understand anyway...straight from musiciansfriend's catalog.

The Epiphone Thunderbird [also made by Gibson] but at the low end of the financial range, is an alternative you may wish to consider if money is a bit tight Geo. There is very little difference in the quality except all the fancy trimmings are not there. Still sounds brilliant and the quality of workmanship is there, it's even made in the same factory I believe with similar quality control - just the nametag is different. I have one and love it, although I do prefer a J&D that I have altered a lot, to the extent that it is almost a derek built job, simply because it has been altered to my own feelings of what a bass should feel like to hold and sound like to play..and there is a thought! buy an old banger and make it your own!

Derek

I know for a fact that they're worth about 1/4 of what they sell for. For the kind of money you're spending you may as well spend it on an Epiphone. Not trying to put you off, but try one out first.

The studio Gibsons are built on a budget, hence the lower price. Again, I have a feeling they've been discontinued (?) buy don't quote me on that. I know that the Les Paul Studio I played was a lot heavier than the Standard Gibson Les Paul as well, so it might be the same for the Thunderbird.

Liam :)

Thanks Guys.... It looks like it makes a lot of sense to go the Epi route