220volt Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I got offer to buy early (made in January '65) 1965 Country Western with wider nut for $2,500 + shipping. In great shape. Some scratches and weather checking, but that's about it. Bridge was replaced with similar one (still adjustable), but everything else is in great shape and original. Case is not original though. $2,500 seems little high to me, since I've seen those go for less, but I'm pretty new to vintage Gibsons and seen prices vary widely, so I might need help from some more experienced Gibsonians here :) Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-1854Me Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I wouldn't consider that to be an unreasonable price for a good, solid CW of that era. Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 I got offer to buy early (made in January '65) 1965 Country Western with wider nut for $2,500 + shipping. In great shape. Some scratches and weather checking, but that's about it. Bridge was replaced with similar one (still adjustable), but everything else is in great shape and original. Case is not original though. $2,500 seems little high to me, since I've seen those go for less, but I'm pretty new to vintage Gibsons and seen prices vary widely, so I might need help from some more experienced Gibsonians here :) Thanks in advance You came to the right town - CW's are very intriguing guitars and something tells me '65 was a good year. Regarding the square Gibsons, Kalamazoo began to change a few things during that year : Narrower nut width, and different shaped back-braces (knife-like, not flat upper edge/side). This might have started as soon as 64, where narrower shoulders also were seen. You must post 3 or 4 pics. Of the overall guitar and close-ups of the width / neck's 4 first frets and a shot inside the box through the hole (don't have to dive in). Since it's a January release, the width could be still be a 11/16. Mine 65'er is 9/16, but has something really special in its voice I can't let it pass so play it capoed on the second. If goin' 60's square, you really need to click into the special character of these creatures. They are something else, , , and if you get it, I swear you'll be hooked. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Yep I definitively came to right board :) I've played couple of 60's CW and fell in love. Has that deep, dry but clear punchy sound that I love. It will complement my Martin really well. Also, my wife was born in 1965 so this year is almost a must. Especially to justify a purchase to her (I know I'm evil) Here are some photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The price is OK but not great. The guitar though looks to be in nice shape and if it was built early in the year the wider nut is a big plus. 1965 Gibsons commonly had double line rather than single line tuners. But as the specs did not change at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, they may have been holdovers from the previous year. I would also check the bridge plate to see if it is laminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 That one looks more like my 64'er - talking p-guard here. Look, the shoulders are slightly narrower than the first wave squares and though it's hard to zoom, the back-braces seems to be the 'knifey' ones. The adj. sized bone(?) insert won't be prob, rather the opposite : A good opportunity to jive around with different materials and finally hit bulls eye. My 64'er is more red where the 65'er is serious-choko-brown with a more even guard (due to smaller busier tortoise patterns). Both the guards follow back'n'sides in hue thus give the 2 different identities. You should offer this guitar a chance - might overwhelm you with that otherly charm. A real fine counterpoint to any Martin. With both in house you'll be happy, , , , and soon find yourself reaching for the CW 6 times for every 1 Mart. round Well, we'll see. . Keep us informed, 220volt. Ouh, can't check the width (usually watch the lower third fret parallelogram's distance to the neck binding). Be sure it's not too narrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hall Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Hmm. My Gibson of choice. Is that tuner ok? If so, it will fetch that price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Thanks for the feedback everybody. So knifey braces should be a good thing, right? Thinner the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Hmm. My Gibson of choice. Is that tuner ok? If so, it will fetch that price. Like is the tuner functional or is it original? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hall Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Working order. It might just be the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 Working order. It might just be the photo. Ahh I just saw it. Top left. I'll make sure I ask them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 So knifey braces should be a good thing, right? Thinner the better. It's only the back-braces and I'm not sure how much they do alone, but they're a sign of the overall changes. As mentioned above, shoulders is another, which might be a bigger sonic factor. Absolutely no reasons to be nervous or sceptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 From the pics, this one doesn't look rode hard at all. The "G" string tuner is a bit wonky. If the action on this is good, and its not a candidate or a neck reset yet - and the bridge plate uider the hood is not too chewed up, and that neck width is 1 11/16 or better, I would pay $2,500 for this - looks like a fun player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Thanks for the feedback everybody. So knifey braces should be a good thing, right? Thinner the better. Not really. There is very little difference in mass of the non-scalloped braces. You do not get any appreciable change in bracing until 1968. What generally does come into play is the skinny 1960s Gibson neck profile and nut width (whether 1 11/16" or 1 9/16"). If it don't feel right it really does not matter what it sounds like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 It's only the back-braces and I'm not sure how much they do alone, but they're a sign of the overall changes. I stand corrected, , , eeehhh, by myself. Just checked the upper braces (those reachable without loosening the strings) and it seems they turn knifey during/after 64 as well. Regarding impact, it won't change the overall nature of the voice - but if you speak to well-skilled luthiers about bracing, they'll tell you that even the smallest amount of change or mass removal will play a role. Seriously. Still I happen to have both versions here and what was said in line 3 is true. Count on that, , , and don't hold back. This will be an adventure and you can always sent the CW further. Here's a borrowed slightly psychedelic yet illustrative shot of the interior of a flat upper-side braced Bird (same guit. as you probably know). 1962 ~ Compare when you get there ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 And here the beautiful, almost sensual inner chamber scenography of another flat cut. . 1963 ~ Note the b-plate metal diffences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 11, 2016 Author Share Posted February 11, 2016 Man, looking at those braces, they beg to be scalloped. I actually do scallop my own braces, change nuts, saddles etc... Anything but refret or other major jobs. But if i do get this 65 CW, I would not touch it. Because I played few of them and all were magical, so I would be afraid of ruining the sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Nice looking guitar. I have a 1972 Natural Sourhern Jumbo D in my collection which translates to the CW, except mine is from the Norlin era where they began to seriously make some cut backs on the midel. (Besides forgetting that the natural version of the SJ is the CW). Love my version, but the CW is the real deal version. I have played done CWs like in the photo. AWESOME! QM aka Jazxman Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubee Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 One of the only guitars I ever regretted selling was a '65 CW just like that one, with the wider nut. It was a very clear and powerful guitar. I just was cycling thru too many guitars way back then, it had a minor problem I could have fixed myself if I'd known what I know now about fixing guitars. A friend still has a '67 he bought because he liked my '65 so much and though it's a nice guitar even with the narrow nut, mine walked all over it. A good one is a great player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Man, looking at those braces, they beg to be scalloped. I actually do scallop my own braces, change nuts, saddles etc... Anything but refret or other major jobs. But if i do get this 65 CW, I would not touch it. Because I played few of them and all were magical, so I would be afraid of ruining the sound. Wouldn't be too sure. It's a matter of mass and these sticks are thin. Lots of old Gibsons, which tone and nature we rate so high, have braces like this - fx some of the classic 45's (experts chime in here). So as you say, NO - don't do it. Shouldn't mess with balance in the star-system. Planets might roll out of control. Wow, do I look forward to following your adventure and hearing that 65 CW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 And here the beautiful, almost sensual inner chamber scenography of another flat cut. . 1963 ~ Note the b-plate metal diffences. Yeah, this one has a wood bridge, and the one before that has the plastic bridge, with all those extra lag screws holding it on. This one is also a direct photo, and the other is a reflection in a mirror, explaining the apparent opposite slant to the saddle. Either that, or one is a lefty and the other a righty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody78 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Found this new version of the C&W the other day. Looks beautiful. Have you guys seen them? http://www.coda-music.com/gibson-limited-edition-country-western-p-23127.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Found this new version of the C&W the other day. Looks beautiful. Have you guys seen them? http://www.coda-music.com/gibson-limited-edition-country-western-p-23127.html "Hummingbird Natural", just like the original slope-J version was the "SJ Natural" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Wrong address - look below Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Found this new version of the C&W the other day. Looks beautiful. Have you guys seen them? http://www.coda-musi...rn-p-23127.html Nope, man, but highly interesting. I'm sure you are aware of the Sheryl Crow, , , but this one has the ADJUSTABLE bridge/saddle. Like the Donovan signature cherry J-45, I'm almost sure it's the tusq saddle and it isn't the same. HAS to be ceramic to bring on the right effect and they should begin producing those again. A wave of Birds featuring similar concept was launched some years ago - tusq saddled too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.