1963JayFifty Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Hey guys i'm new to the gibson forum, i recently acquired my grandfathers 1963 Gibson J50(he bought it in 1964 for $600 canadian), it plays smooth like butter, action is on point everything is great, my only issue is the headstock logo, my grandfather kept putting the capo on there and the clearcoat is looking like ****, do any of you think it'd be safe to sand or wet sand until the whole clear coat is off and leave it natural or should i just leave it alone? thanks in advance for the help, -Chester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 First off, leave it alone. Second, I doubt it's a '63 because there's no headstock overlay and a J50 in 1963 would have been around $200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963JayFifty Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 i checked the serial number,its a 63, regardless he bought it in '64 so it can't be older then that , this guitar has had a lot of work done over the years, some guy sat on it once and it got rebuilt by an old luthier on the east coast, the guitar now has a sunburst top and custom bridge, he probably fixed the headstock during that time, not here to argue with you just asking for advice, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 That's not ONLY capo abuse. No offence to the OP but there's been kits of talk of capo damage. And unless he out the capo all over the headstock then that's not all that causes this damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963JayFifty Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 no offence taken, i just want it to look good, i'm not just some random person i've worked on restoring guitars before i just want to make sure i do it right. this is my baby now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayyj Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I agree with ksdaddy that the headstock looks odd in the photo for a Gibson of this age but if it's a significantly messed with '63 and the current headstock bothers you then the best route would be find a decent repairer who is experienced in refinishes and have it redone. The originality is long gone anyway, so it's down to whatever looks best to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I'd like to see photos of the rest of the guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963JayFifty Posted March 4, 2015 Author Share Posted March 4, 2015 back of head stock,it wont let me post any more photos,the files of the ones i posted were probably too big, back and sides of guitar looks fine, the binding has yellows with age, and the bridge was custom made with 2 fleur de lis mother of pearl inlay ,made of rosewood. when the guitar was broken it was only the top replaced and stained and the bridge replaced, new grover tuners as well because old ones stopped working properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 I agree with ksdaddy that the headstock looks odd in the photo for a Gibson of this age but if it's a significantly messed with '63 and the current headstock bothers you then the best route would be find a decent repairer who is experienced in refinishes and have it redone. The originality is long gone anyway, so it's down to whatever looks best to you. Pretty much, my advice also... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It's pretty clear that at least the back of the headstock has been re-finished, as you can see the location of the original tuner screws, but there is no imprint from the tuner plate, which is always there. By my sources, that serial number is either 1966 or 1969. If it is a round-shoulder guitar, 1966 makes sense, It would be useful to see a picture of the entire guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963JayFifty Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 No, not much to do about it really. Maybe change the tuners to white ovals and go all worn'n''vintage'. Is it the guitar seen in your avatar pic, , , is it a slope-shoulder at all. . . ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Is it the guitar seen in your avatar pic, , , is it a slope-shoulder at all. . . ?? Interesting point. The resolution of the avatar photo is too low to say definitively, particularly from that angle, but as you suggest, it almost looks more like the later square dread shape, which would probably say 1969. 63JayFifty, is the body shape like the one in E minor 7's avatar in the above post, with square shoulders, or is it more like the photo below, which is the round or slope shoulder J-45/J-50 body form? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 cool Here's how to get around the file size issues when posting photos: http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/11005-sticky-how-to-post-photos/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DenverSteve Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 As already posted, there is no collector or original value as there has already been substantial work done to it. Therefore, make it exactly like you want it. How to do it is up to you or your luthier. I would love to see photos of it. I don't know how anyone has commented on the look as there are no photos posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963JayFifty Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 here are the images, i had deleted them to resize it, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Original schmoriginal, that looks pretty cool. The bridge: was that your grandfather's design? My vote is to wear it's history and enjoy knowing it's past. Admittedly, there is something that adds to the anticipation and the experience when removing from the case an instrument with beautiful workmanship, inlay, and wood selection, but as we all have to remind ourselves, you don't see 'em when you're playing them. Any chance of your measuring the scale length from saddle to nut? Wait a minute, Chester... Welcome to the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 here are the images, i had deleted them to resize it, The guitar looks cool, but the body shape shows that it is definitively post-1968. I like the fancy bridge, but I've been known to pimp guitars pretty heavily in the past, as you can probably tell from the picture of my 1948 J-45 posted above, which I've owned since the mid-1960's.. The pimp-out on my guitar may have occurred about he same time as your father's guitar was worked on. He and I might even be about the same age, and clearly shared some sensibilities. I would say that if the face of the headstock bothers you, get the clearcoat re-done. You should love this guitar in part because it represents your father's own love affair with it over the decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 That doesn't look anything like a 1963 Gibson to me (I have a 1965 J-50 and a 1974 J-50). Body style and headstock look like my 1974, but the burst and pickguard look like a J-45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 I can't help but wonder how the headstock and body are in , apparently from the photos anyway , such different states of repair. Maybe it was a horrible capo. Just a novices tuppence worth Any expert opinion on this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Yes, this looks like a late 60's even 70's square J-45 with a modified Heritage bridge. (We have to look at the s-hole rings also). Maybe it IS a Gibson Heritage. Cühl old buggar. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 here are the images, i had deleted them to resize it, Looks late 69ish to 70ish to me. Transitional Norlin! Got in before the volute and Made in USA stamp. Features that point to this assumption (if original) are the natural peghead facing, the pickguard shape and the Fancy-Dancy bridge that started appearing on some 70's models. I rather like the bridge! Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The serial number also works for 1969 which would make sense given the square shoulders. The rosette though throws me. Nothing like anything I have ever seen on a J-45. Possibly a total re-finish ( or perhaps re-do would be more appropriate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The rosette though throws me. Nothing like anything I have ever seen on a J-45. Possibly a total re-finish ( or perhaps re-do would ne more appropriate) The busier rosette speaks about 1970/71 and further. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The busier rosette speaks about 1970/71 and further. . . I would think even later - more mid-1970s. But I do not have a ton of time under my belt with these guitars so am not certain of features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.