Victory Pete Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 Okay so the peak must be on all of them. I have a lot of deflection in the top in front of the bridge, this is normal, all my guitars have this. But the pickguard being thick lifts up very slightly at certain points because it cant flex with the top. Has anyone else seen this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted September 2, 2016 Author Share Posted September 2, 2016 I am not really sure how to do this Photobucket thing? is there a way to get the pictures up on the page? Apparently I set up an account a while ago but never used it. http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/victoryguitarshop/story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave F Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Here's some of your photo's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted September 3, 2016 Author Share Posted September 3, 2016 Thanks Dave, I will have to learn how to do that myself. I have been analyzing the sound of the Western with the rosewood and the 4 ribbon bridge. It is louder than my HD-28 but doesn't have the midrange punch. This punch is directly related to the high break over angle. The string is more firmly held down to the saddle increasing vibrations to the body. But it also affects the way the string is strummed or plucked. It bounces back more, the pick springs back faster. I like this effect and have been strumming this way for years. The Western with the lower break over angle seems to have a more scooped midrange, but more chime, I almost thought I was playing a 12 string last night. The pick seems to "give" when strummed or plucked for a very different effect indeed. Being new to Gibson acoustics I found this a limitation but now I realize it makes for a very different playing experience, fingerpicking and soft flatpicking is more responsive, I played "Stairway" and was blown away. I am going to be buying a Martin J-40 for further comparisons and analysis. This is sure getting expensive. I went on a spending spree with Gibson electrics 10 years go so I guess it is only natural to now expand my small acoustic fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Beautiful collection!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted September 3, 2016 Author Share Posted September 3, 2016 Here is the first picture I could find of Ray Whitley with the original. I wonder when they came up with the Western Classic name. http://www.imissyou.com/ray-whitley-750290786 I just found this picture. This guitar is different than the other one, look at the bridge with what may have been a very high break over angle. It must have been very loud and punchy. Is it just me or is that a short neck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Good eye, Pete. 'Guess the rectangle bridge wasn't Singing Cowboy enough. Beautiful pickguard, and yes, appears to be a 12-fret neck. Gibson Acoustic forum member SJ200fan had gotten a Custom, 1 of 6 (?) 12 fret SJ-200 from Mandolin Brothers. 'Believe that was a short scale guitar. Captured here, a bit of a swan song moment: the late great Stan Jay of MandoBros demo'ing the 12 fret SJ-200: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSbG3LbK_g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 I've always been curious about those 12-fret SJ-200s! I think there's another video of Stan playing that one, or a different one. I believe the non-moustache-bridge is a Ray Whitley prototype and is in fact 12-fret (but probably not short-scale--but maybe!!). Eventually they moved toward 14-fret, and at one point they wanted a scale of 27" or 26" inches. At that time, it was all about outdoing Gene Autry and his Martin D-45. And when the Gibson Jumbo body came out (which was the first? I can't remember... the J-45 wasn't the first, but that's the iconic example now), it was all about outdoing the Martin dreadnought. The Jumbo was bigger than the dreadnought... and the Super Jumbo was WAY bigger. And then in the '60s they said, okay, we don't need to outdo the Martin dreadnought, and they made one themselves and called it a Hummingbird. (It's not the same shape, though--I think it's actually bigger than a Martin dreadnought, too, and of course shorter scale.) Hard to go wrong with Martin and Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogeye Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 I've always been curious about those 12-fret SJ-200s! I think there's another video of Stan playing that one, or a different one. I believe the non-moustache-bridge is a Ray Whitley prototype and is in fact 12-fret (but probably not short-scale--but maybe!!). Eventually they moved toward 14-fret, and at one point they wanted a scale of 27" or 26" inches. At that time, it was all about outdoing Gene Autry and his Martin D-45. And when the Gibson Jumbo body came out (which was the first? I can't remember... the J-45 wasn't the first, but that's the iconic example now), it was all about outdoing the Martin dreadnought. The Jumbo was bigger than the dreadnought... and the Super Jumbo was WAY bigger. And then in the '60s they said, okay, we don't need to outdo the Martin dreadnought, and they made one themselves and called it a Hummingbird. (It's not the same shape, though--I think it's actually bigger than a Martin dreadnought, too, and of course shorter scale.) Hard to go wrong with Martin and Gibson. If you are curious about the 12th fret SJ-200's just read the history. The complete and highly accurate research can be found on pages 76 to page 84 in the Gibson's Fabulous Flat-Top book. The author, Eldon Whitford, did an exhaustive research of the guitars and even acquired access to the Raw Whitley files. While going thru the files Eldon came across the hand written original copy of "Back In The Saddle Again" written for a movie Gene Autry was staring in. The song later became Gene's signature theme song. When Gibson first introduced it's "Jumbo" guitar in 1934 the guitar was called "Jumbo". It was not bigger than the Martin dreadnaught. The difference was that "Jumbo" was a short scale, round shoulder guitar. The Martin dreadnaught is, of course, a square shoulder long scale instrument. The Super Jumbo is not way bigger than the Jumbo. The Jumbo is 16 inches across the bottom bout and the Super Jumbo introduced in 1938 is 16 7\8 inches. The guitar was resized to 17" in 1939. The big difference is the narrow waist of the Super jumbo. This narrow waist gives the top almost the same number of square inches as the Jumbo top. The history of the Super Jumbo Ray Whitley can be read on pages 76 to 78 in the Gibson Fabulous Flat-Top book. No speculation here just the facts. The Hummingbird is the same shape and size as a Martin dreadnaught. The reasoning for the guitar being built as you stated is quite amusing and of course your speculation. There are plenty of very accurate books written about the Gibson history. Speculation is not needed here as the record is quite clear on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 You attempt to be historically accurate and say things that are inaccurate yourself. The Jumbo is bigger than the dreadnought. Martin's dreadnought is 15"; the Jumbo is 16" across at the lower bout. That's a pretty big increase. And the SJ is 17". It's not just about the waist, although of course that has a tremendous impact as well on the tone. And, as we see comparing a Hummingbird (or Dove) to a Martin dreadnought, the sound is completely different, whether the short-scale or long-scale version. And, if you reference the book you cited, you'll see the Martin dreadnought and the Gibson square-shoulder do differ in their measurements. Just do some Googling for the various accounts of the history of the Ray Whitley model, which became the SJ-200 we know and love, and you'll see the record is anything but clear and that even historical record is based upon whatever speculation in the end seems the most likely to be accurate. I don't know where I read that "Jumbo" was meant to be a knock against the dreadnought, but at that time, bigger was considered better, and it is, in fact, bigger than a dreadnought. And an entirely different guitar, to be sure, as you pointed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Well, never mind. Apparently the Martin D is 15-5/8" across and 4-7/8" deep, so that is not much difference at all from the Gibson slopes or the Gibson squares in those particular dimensions. The Gibsons still might be a tiny bit wider/deeper, but not much... Sorry. 17" is still bigger than 16" though--at least I can't be wrong about that. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hogeye Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Well, never mind. Apparently the Martin D is 15-5/8" across and 4-7/8" deep, so that is not much difference at all from the Gibson slopes or the Gibson squares in those particular dimensions. The Gibsons still might be a tiny bit wider/deeper, but not much... Sorry. 17" is still bigger than 16" though--at least I can't be wrong about that. :) Yes Jesse 17 inches is bigger than 16 inches. The problem is just this. You are comparing one dimension. The bottom bout. The rest of the specs are quite revealing. So... Yet once again you are wrong. Sorry.... You're sayin it's kinda' like this Jesse. A 1956 Buick has a bigger front bumper than a Sherman Tank therefore it is bigger. All credible Gibson historians will agree that the Eldon Whitford research on the SJ-200 is the real, historically correct, version. There are other opinions and interestingly enough all of them are used to drive some agenda. The Wolverton version is pushed by some to drive the narrative and make this guitar worth a lot more than it really is. Just so you know. I have talked at length with both Eldon Whitford and Ray Whitley's grandson Scott Wartenburg. George Gruhn and Walter Carter are in agreement that Eldon's research is the correct version. As well as Stan Werbin,Mac Yasuda,Gene Autry,and Akira Tsumura just to name a few. Yes I do own a Ray Whitley reissue. #7 of 37. The reissue is correct in every detail. I was there at the Country Music Museum in Nashville when Ren Ferguson took the Ray Whitley guitar out of the display case and inspected it and took the specs for the reissue. This was all done with the consent of the Whitley family. I have nothing more to add to this discussion except to say that I won't participate in the forum unless there is a gross distortion of factual information. This should be a place for facts and not silly speculation. Just so you know it's raining and snowing in Bozeman, Montana today. That does make me a little on the crabby side. Sorry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted September 4, 2016 Author Share Posted September 4, 2016 Yes Jesse 17 inches is bigger than 16 inches. The problem is just this. You are comparing one dimension. The bottom bout. The rest of the specs are quite revealing. So... Yet once again you are wrong. Sorry.... You're sayin it's kinda' like this Jesse. A 1956 Buick has a bigger front bumper than a Sherman Tank therefore it is bigger. All credible Gibson historians will agree that the Eldon Whitford research on the SJ-200 is the real, historically correct, version. There are other opinions and interestingly enough all of them are used to drive some agenda. The Wolverton version is pushed by some to drive the narrative and make this guitar worth a lot more than it really is. Just so you know. I have talked at length with both Eldon Whitford and Ray Whitley's grandson Scott Wartenburg. George Gruhn and Walter Carter are in agreement that Eldon's research is the correct version. As well as Stan Werbin,Mac Yasuda,Gene Autry,and Akira Tsumura just to name a few. Yes I do own a Ray Whitley reissue. #7 of 37. The reissue is correct in every detail. I was there at the Country Music Museum in Nashville when Ren Ferguson took the Ray Whitley guitar out of the display case and inspected it and took the specs for the reissue. This was all done with the consent of the Whitley family. I have nothing more to add to this discussion except to say that I won't participate in the forum unless there is a gross distortion of factual information. This should be a place for facts and not silly speculation. Just so you know it's raining and snowing in Bozeman, Montana today. That does make me a little on the crabby side. Sorry.... I noticed this picture does not have Ray's name on the headstock, can you explain please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 I noticed this picture does not have Ray's name on the headstock, can you explain please? ??? ?? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave F Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 I bet there were a few versions of the guitar before it became the one we're familiar with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted September 5, 2016 Author Share Posted September 5, 2016 ??? ?? ? ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimt Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 I bet there were a few versions of the guitar before it became the one we're familiar with. Now thats a neat looking one.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted September 7, 2016 Author Share Posted September 7, 2016 More testing and comparisons. I measured the HD-28 and the Western Classic with my Sound Pressure Meter. They both read around 85 db with the same strumming style for the same chords. I think the Western is slightly louder. It certainly sounds louder as it has a more full sound to it with scooped midrange. The HD has more midrange and less bass. Both seem equally bright thanks to the good ole Rosewood. Again the pick attack is very different between them and being new to Gibson acoustics I am slowly getting used to and enjoying this new sound. I still cant get too comfortable with the Waverly tuners, they are tiny and hard to turn. I don't get what all the fuss is about them. I supposed it would be foolish of me to change them to some vintage looking Ivory Klusons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-200 Koa Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 More testing and comparisons. I measured the HD-28 and the Western Classic with my Sound Pressure Meter. They both read around 85 db with the same strumming style for the same chords. I think the Western is slightly louder. It certainly sounds louder as it has a more full sound to it with scooped midrange. The HD has more midrange and less bass. Both seem equally bright thanks to the good ole Rosewood. Again the pick attack is very different between them and being new to Gibson acoustics I am slowly getting used to and enjoying this new sound. I still cant get too comfortable with the Waverly tuners, they are tiny and hard to turn. I don't get what all the fuss is about them. I supposed it would be foolish of me to change them to some vintage looking Ivory Klusons. Removing the Waverly tuners would be a big mistake....in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted September 10, 2016 Author Share Posted September 10, 2016 Removing the Waverly tuners would be a big mistake....in my humble opinion. Yes I know. I guess I will get used to them. I just wish they were bigger. After all, more mass on the headstock improves volume and tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 Yes I know. I guess I will get used to them. I just wish they were bigger. After all, more mass on the headstock improves volume and tone. I don't know. I mean, I think Waverlies are fantastic, and Schallers and others, but you got to go with what you like! It's your guitar. Some people think more mass is better; some people think less is better. (You could always test your preference by adding a bunch of weight to the headstock to see what you think.) But in the end, you got to have tuners that you love. I've replaced the tuners on 5/7 of my guitars and will eventually replace the other two as well. I know what I like when it comes to tuners. (None of the ones I replaced were Waverlies, but like I said, we all like different things!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 ... After all, more mass on the headstock improves volume and tone. This has yet to be verified. It's already proven to contribute to neck-heaviness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capmaster Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 Sorry, late to the party as often... Congrats on your nice catch, HNGD! What a beautiful guitar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse_Dylan Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 This has yet to be verified. It's already proven to contribute to neck-heaviness. I do think a good, thick, big, stiff neck (including with a strong, non-adjustable truss rod) contributes to tone, which unfortunately guitars have moved away from. Headstock weight, I'm not sure about that. Some people actually think a lighter headstock is helpful. Might depend upon what kind of tone you prefer. I sure haven't noticed any difference in tone from switching tuners at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.