mojogood Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I have owned and played both 50s & 60s J-45s, and the 50s always sound better. I especially like that deep thunk of the old dried out mahogany. My question is, are there other structural differences between these models that affect the tone, besides the bridges? I know the extra age helps, and the larger neck must add a sonic benefit, but would a 1965 J-45 converted to a fixed bridge still sound thinner than an early to mid 50s J-45? Opinions please and thanks in advance, mojogood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvguit Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Gibson used tall, thin and scalloped braces for the tops of guitars made pre-1955. In 1955 they retooled and began using a shorter, non-scalloped version of bracing. In my opinion, both versions are good because they are both very delicate and lightweight. They are very different though. The adjustable bridge is, admittedly, a bad design but I think it takes more heat for being a tone killer on forums than it really deserves. I have a 1964 Epiphone Texan with an adjustable bridge that I am quite taken with. It's a great finger picker and strummer. Paul thought so too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Agree with tvguit in that I think the "tone killer" reputation of the ADJ bridges has been a bit overplayed. The main thing about a '65 that will make it stand out of the crowd is not only the thin neck but the narrow nut. '65 is also the year Gibson lessened the angle of the headstock. But as always with Gibson you will find some overlap of features so it often comes down to how early in the year the guitar was built. As far as structural stuff - you do not see a real change in the bracing from 1955 until 1968 when the top bracing started getting heavier. It got even heavier in 1969 and then ridiculously heavy in 1971. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo huggabee Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 i've not had the pleasure to play a banner j45, but i've played a few of the post banner, pre 50's, i own a 55 j45, and it's my dream team. NOTHING COMPARES for what i play, and how i play. didn't like the true vintage reproductions, and the adjustable saddles, are ****!, if you want a blues j45 that you can finger pick, and open pick, (doesn't have the head room that the banner's do), but the 55 is the way to go! mine has an open center on the top though, some slipped out with red spruce i've heard, but the mahogany is top quality to anything that is cut today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo huggabee Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Agree with tvguit in that I think the "tone killer" reputation of the ADJ bridges has been a bit overplayed. The main thing about a '65 that will make it stand out of the crowd is not only the thin neck but the narrow nut. '65 is also the year Gibson lessened the angle of the headstock. But as always with Gibson you will find some overlap of features so it often comes down to how early in the year the guitar was built. As far as structural stuff - you do not see a real change in the bracing from 1955 until 1968 when the top bracing started getting heavier. It got even heavier in 1969 and then ridiculously heavy in 1971. idk man, i've compared my 55 to the 56 adjustable saddle, and it's not a comparison they sound like crap, now if someone wanted to equalize that they could set saddle height, measure the difference and cut a slab of bone to stick under the saddle, because once it's set, there is no reason to have it be adjustable. unless you were switching between hard open picking and sweet finger style, then someone could make a new nut and have the thing turned into a slide guitar. that would be such a pain and wouldn't compare to having 3 separate guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvguit Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 idk man, i've compared my 55 to the 56 adjustable saddle, and it's not a comparison they sound like crap That's a pretty small sample set. I'm not saying it's not true, but there are a lot of guitars out there and all of them have their quirks. I have a banner era J-45 that blows all of my 50s and 60s Gibson dreads out of the water, adj saddle or not. Does that mean that my 50s and 60s dreads are not worth playing? Certainly not! They're great guitars! You would be doing yourself a great disservice by writing off the ADJ saddle for good. I think that we should call the ADJ saddle a tone "changer" instead of a tone killer. I really do love some of my 60s Gib ADJ guitars. They're all different and I think that's what makes them fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunningham26 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I think that we should call the ADJ saddle a tone "changer" instead of a tone killer. I really do love some of my 60s Gib ADJ guitars. They're all different and I think that's what makes them fun. After a year or so playing my adj almost exclusively when it comes to acoustics, it has come to define the gibson sound for me, and while I appreciate the woodiness and dry yet rich sound of the 40-50s era, I prefer my sound. Don't prefer the skinny nut, but to my ears the sound is a little warmer and works for me. To compare one to another (a 55 bone and 56 adj for that matter) to such a degree that one is a dream and the other is crap is invoking too much hyperbole and is honestly a bit masturbatory. Glad you found the guitar to get your rocks off Bo, but different strokes for different folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.