JuanCarlosVejar Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Folks , don't know if most of you even pay attention to these demos but here's one more : JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Another nice find from JCV. And the Don sounds pretty darn good - it's rich and loose already and a lot of stuff could be done on this acoustic. Is the guy indicating the nitro-finish is thinner than the Bozeman-norm or is he just comparing with the average. Don't know. What I do know is that he totally neglects the adjustable saddle, which probably is the most significant feature of this 45. This guitar has an adjustable tusq saddle, which tries to emulate the ceramic ditto of the 60's ! - and actually does the job quite well. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hall Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 JC - do pay attention and appreciate them ... this one included! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Another nice find from JCV. And the Don sounds pretty darn good - it's rich and loose already and a lot of stuff could be done on this acoustic. Is the guy indicating the nitro-finish is thinner than the Bozeman-norm or is he just comparing with the average. Don't know. What I do know is that he totally neglects the adjustable saddle, which probably is the most significant feature of this 45. This guitar has an adjustable tusq saddle, which tries to emulate the ceramic ditto of the 60's ! - and actually does the job quite well. . I knew that one would wake you up a bit. I'm not sure the Tusq is as bright as the ceramic, but it certainly does a good job of replicating that mid-60's J-45 tone. I bet this guitar has standard modern J-45 bracing, which isn't a bad thing compared to the original 60's bracing (pre-XX, but post scalloping, and a bit short and fat). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson Artist Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Folks , don't know if most of you even pay attention to these demos but here's one more : JC Beautiful sounding git but i find it annoying Musiciansfriend doesnt even give specs on a 3k guitar?? I had to go find it on the Gibson site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 . I don't always comment on these posts. But I do check them out and I appreciate your efforts. Thanks JC. . B) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainpicker Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I always check them out and appreciate you putting them up. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitarLight Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Nice guitar. I like the look and the color and even its sound..(per my computer) ...but considering the many negative comments I have read on adjustable saddles and their adverse affects on sound and tone, I'm wondering why Gibson has done this even if earlier years used them in the past. I'm not sure that I have EVER read a positive recommendation or comment for any adjustable saddle, with most guitarists appearing to be repulsed by them. I would have to say that this feature alone would stop me in my tracks from considering this guitar. But other wise it is a beauty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Nice guitar. I like the look and the color and even its sound..(per my computer) ...but considering the many negative comments I have read on adjustable saddles and their adverse affects on sound and tone, I'm wondering why Gibson has done this even if earlier years used them in the past. I'm not sure that I have EVER read a positive recommendation or comment for any adjustable saddle, with most guitarists appearing to be repulsed by them. I would have to say that this feature alone would stop me in my tracks from considering this guitar. But other wise it is a beauty! I wouldn't want one on my only guitar, but it can offer a different coloration if you have multiple guitars to choose from. Em7 here experiments with saddles a lot, and has made some pretty thoughtful comments in the adjustable ceramic saddle of the 1960's. I have a J-45 that at one point had a rosewood adjustable saddle, which I found a bit muffled and mushy, with mediocre note separation. The ceramic saddles are a whole different ballgame, and colored a lot of 60's music when combined with a mixed-down electric. A big knock on the Gibson adjustable bridges on flat-tops is that the mid-late 60's ones were also combined with a big plywood bridgeplate, heavy top bracing, and a massive saddle adjustment mechanism. Not sure what this modern Donovan re-issue has. It's a reason one guitar is never enough, and an excuse to buy more...... Incidentally, almost all acoustic archtops have adjustable bridges/saddles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Nice guitar. I like the look and the color and even its sound..(per my computer) ...but considering the many negative comments I have read on adjustable saddles and their adverse affects on sound and tone, I'm wondering why Gibson has done this even if earlier years used them in the past. I'm not sure that I have EVER read a positive recommendation or comment for any adjustable saddle, with most guitarists appearing to be repulsed by them. I would have to say that this feature alone would stop me in my tracks from considering this guitar. But other wise it is a beauty! if you've ever read em7's comments , he has nothing but pro comments to make on these saddles. certainly wouldn't put me off . certainly did the stones no harm ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted September 20, 2014 Author Share Posted September 20, 2014 Nice guitar. I like the look and the color and even its sound..(per my computer) ...but considering the many negative comments I have read on adjustable saddles and their adverse affects on sound and tone, I'm wondering why Gibson has done this even if earlier years used them in the past. I'm not sure that I have EVER read a positive recommendation or comment for any adjustable saddle, with most guitarists appearing to be repulsed by them. I would have to say that this feature alone would stop me in my tracks from considering this guitar. But other wise it is a beauty! GL, In the past they were ceramic ... now gibson has been able to make a modern t.u.s.q version but retaining the sound of the 60's. These new ones really do sound great . JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B1ues Boy Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 This guitar is not for me I'd have to replace that bridge and saddle so fast But thank you for putting this up.....BUT why is Gibson going back to the thin sounding guitar years of Gibson history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 I been trying the get over the black'n'white perception of the thing. Simply because reality taught me nuances about these saddles. Have the wooden version in the 1965 CW right now as it just went our for sale and it sounds splendid - softer, but splendid. (for sale due to nut-width) Not so long ago I enjoyed a long period with the ceramic in the '63 SJ and a couple of 1964 ceramic saddled J-45's encountered out in the real world was terrific. Sharing a very gibsonesq vintage voice - dry, open, generous and balanced with that slightly overworldly ring from the white burned clay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitarLight Posted September 20, 2014 Share Posted September 20, 2014 Thanks guys for your comments on adjustable saddles! I've never owned one of those so your comments were enlightening. Either way that guitar sure is a beauty! Thanks Em7 for your knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Hunt Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I'm not sure that I have EVER read a positive recommendation or comment for any adjustable saddle, with most guitarists appearing to be repulsed by them. I would have to say that this feature alone would stop me in my tracks from considering this guitar. But other wise it is a beauty! Most Guitarists have zero playing time on one of the Gibson guitars with the Adjustable Tusc saddle but the internet says they are a bad idea so it must be true.. But hey, by all means let that stop you in your tracks, no point in swimming against the tide of the Internet's collective wisdom. How does this one sound ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhuFeVuVsw0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Most Guitarists have zero playing time on one of the Gibson guitars with the Adjustable Tusc saddle but the internet says they are a bad idea so it must be true.. But hey, by all means let that stop you in your tracks, no point in swimming against the tide of the Internet's collective wisdom. How does this one sound ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhuFeVuVsw0 Of course, that may be the original ceramic saddle rather than a Tusc saddle, but your point is well-taken. It helps to have a good player show off that sweet little guitar. Remember, "a poor worker blames his tools"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 It's easy to long-distance join the negative chorus about the adjustables on the basis of the 'saddle have no top-contact' idea (and the bunch of sub-bolts, washers and screws). And I presume many people do that. But of course one have to go out and meet those guitars live. I bet a lot of the sceptics would be surprised - so do yourself a favour and pick one up next time it's there. Don't forget this isn't about maximum volume or theoretical logic. A good and lucky guitar depends on the combination of components. Like a football team or a cast for a play on Broadway. And remember the saddles actually so and so often rest on the top anyway. Would Gibson have relaunched the Hummingbird Reissue and fx the recent Donovan if the concept was the blooper of the century it's been called - Don't think so. It would be to make massive fools of the audience. Every time I have gone up against the wind to give the adjustables a chance, interestingly other members have been ready to support - from real-life experience. And I have behind-curtain-contact with a person from this Board, who was close to exchanging his TV Bird with an adjustable Reissue this fall. Add to that how good the early-60's LG3 in the video above sounds - and btw. notice is has the wooden, not plastic bridge. For that's a whole other b-game. The 2 other controversials : The plastic bridge and the 1970's double X. And though you could meet folks who'ld be ready to defend both, I wouldn't/couldn't be among them, , , simply from lack of knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Thanks for posting, I love that guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 When Gibson reissued the adjustable saddle, they remedied the concerns people used to have with the ceramic and wooden saddles. It was the ceramic and wood that was causing people to replace the bridge, so they could get a bone saddle in it. By simply putting in a tusq saddle in the adjustable bridge in the reissues, that solved the 50/50 split over the old adjustable saddles. Why they didn't just make a bone -like material saddle originally I the adjustable bridge is really the only question. FYI,there are now also bone replacement saddles on the market for the ceramic, wooden, and reissue tusq saddles. I have a 1964 custom shop j45 reissue. It was made in 2006. It came with a tusq saddle. It sounded great. I would never think of replacing the bridge. It works great to adjust the string height. Someone on the forum suggested I also try the replacement bone saddle for on the market. I was reluctant, but after awhile I thought no harm in trying it. I was even more impressed with the sound the bone saddle in the adjustable bridge sounded and have had it in for about two years now. It was never the adjustable bridge that some people thought was a time killer and others liked. It was the ceramic or wooden saddle I'm it. Now resolved with a tusq or replacement bone saddle. Al great deal of all those folks way back who changed the the originals' adj bridge, would not have done do had it been the modern era. They would have just bought a replacement tusq or bone saddle for it. Progress.... Why it took so long is another question. But Montana Gibson figured out the controversial aspect of the adj bridge by changing the factory saddle on it. Thus,the reissue de of the authentic bridge on the reissues of guitars that originally had it. Hope this helps understanding of the modern day version of the adj bridge. Jazzman Jeff aka QM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Respect your perception, QM, but have to disagree with the post above. The tusq version to me sounds lifeless compared to the ceramic and the bone is nothing more than okay. Let's presume it varies from guitar to guitar. I'm definitely on the ceramic/wooden team with Stones, Donovan and James Taylor (the latter did all his golden stuff with wooden insert - the 2 first worked porcelain). But different strokes for different folks and I recommend people to try their way forward. The ceramic has an amplifying slighty otherworldly, but highly gibsonesq quality to it - the wooden can sound surprisingly good acoustically, but will perform excellent on certain recordings due to the mellow nature of the rose. Of course the mainstream choice is a wooden insert with ordinary sized bone saddle, which can be splendid as well. . . P.S. - The Beatles was ceramists up till 1968. Okay, Lennon and Harrison played the J-160E's, which were often behind in the mix and a bit brittle, , , but listen to Yesterday. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Here's a couple of chats - http://forum.gibson....-bridge-owners/ http://forum.gibson....ceramic-bridge/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Eminor7- I respect what you are saying. Was just giving the perspective of how the tusq or bone saddle replacement would have solved those who were anti adj bridge and replaced it with a fixed bone saddle bridge. In the originals. I personally liked the ceramic saddle in the adjustable bridge and the adj bridge itself in the originals. But it was always s 50% for and 50% against controversy. Now maybe with the tusq/bone replaced saddle its a further split controversy,but all the more reason now for someone to now not remove an adj bridge. Jazzman Jeff aka QM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Was just giving the perspective of how the tusq or bone saddle replacement would have solved those who were anti adj bridge and replaced it with a fixed bone saddle bridge. Yes yes, that could have presented serious alternatives. Btw. I have one in old-vase-ivory and it makes the 1965 CW here sound unique. . Of course the big question with any adjustable is whether one should replace it with wood with ordinary sized bone saddle - to experience the difference. The solution here is to go custom made wooden insert with bone saddle. A component meant to take out again if wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Agree. There are now bone saddle insert replacements for the adj bridge in the market place. Someone on the forum steered me place that was selling them on the Internet a year or two ago. Cost 25 dollars. No reason it would not fr what I could tell that it wouldn't also fit the original adj bridgie insert as it fit the reissue one. Anyone in the present environment considering replacing an adj bridge with an affixed bridge should first try the adj bridge replacement saddle before such a drastic measure. I think they'll find the replacement bone insert is much cheaper, keeps the original adj bridge in use use, and likely produces what they were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poopsidoo Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I love it. I just bought that exact guitar in pristine condition, except mine was made in Kalamazoo!, it is awesome....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.