Lars68 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 ...I have no idea why Gibson would call an SJ with a modern Gibson logo, wartime banner logo, and rosewood back and sides, a 1947 reissue. It most likely sounds fantastic, but I don't think it is very representative of a 1947 guitar, or?? http://www.ebay.com/itm/GIBSON-SOUTHERN-JUMBO-ACOUSTIC-GUITAR-RARE-1947-BANNER-REISSUE-ROSEWOOD-BACK-/152468950870?hash=item237fdb8f56:g:gbQAAOSw4CFYxI4H Lars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Very weird ... then again, it is Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Not weird - just the usual Gibson marketing conjuring up the illusion of some mythic guitar from a past catalog which more often as not in reality means a mishmosh of cosmetics and woods. As you say though it could very well be a fine sounding and playing instrument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldCowboy Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 We now live in the age of post-truth😳 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I reckon its all fake news. Im sure some alternative facts are at play here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I think this was a short run from the late 90s /early 00s (seem to recall mention of it on the old umgf site). Rosewood B&S, hence the "1947" (even tho the RW SJs came out in 42) and the banner; modern logo because, well, who knows? Only that common use of the Gold script logo began with the True Vintage series, although some early 90s models had them. Suspect mangt though it wants a big deal. "Well, the guitar was made in 1998" Called it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Well, the guitar was made in 1998. As of the new model year in '99, the overall lineup was significantly revamped to focus more accurately on recreating traditional (and desirable) instruments from the past - and Gibson started cranking out some very nice pieces into the early 2000s. Prior to '99, I believe they played a bit more footloose & fancy free with historic details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldCowboy Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I reckon its all fake news. Im sure some alternative facts are at play here. 😂It's all done with microwaves😅 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbiii Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 It for someone who values Gibson and its history, this is really sad. OTOH, it looks a lot like this -- a 43 SJ RW. Why not call it that? -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 It for someone who values Gibson and its history, this is really sad. OTOH, it looks a lot like this -- a 43 SJ RW. Why not call it that? -Tom Well, if you replaced the block logo with script,removed the fretboard binding, and installed period-correct repro tuners, you'd probably be sort of OK calling the re-issue a "43 rosewood SJ". As-is, calling it a 1947 SJ re-issue is ridiculous. It wouldn't be that hard for Gibson to get this right, if anybody there cared. It just makes you shake your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I would not rule this out. Gibson did all kinds of stuff back then. Maybe one exsists somewhere . JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldCowboy Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I would not rule this out. Gibson did all kinds of stuff back then. Maybe one exsists somewhere . JC Whatever spins your wheels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 It wouldn't be that hard for Gibson to get this right, if anybody there cared . I think the crew in Bozeman cared about making good guitars, but they company didnt have a **** Boak there who knew the history. [hey mods, that's a proper name: **** BOAK. He works for Martin. The one who gets their reissues right] Tho by then Fab Flattops was so, so there was no great mystery. Just an indifferent marketing dept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldCowboy Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Well, if you replaced the block logo with script,removed the fretboard binding, and installed period-correct repro tuners, you'd probably be sort of OK calling the re-issue a "43 rosewood SJ". As-is, calling it a 1947 SJ re-issue is ridiculous. It wouldn't be that hard for Gibson to get this right, if anybody there cared. It just makes you shake your head. Yep. It's not about authenticity, just $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 **** Boak. **** Dale. ****(ey) Betts. **** Clark. **** Cantino. **** Cathcart. Proper names, all. Sheesh. Phillip K **** for ski-fi fans. **** Butkis (Chicago Bears). And (how can we forget), **** Cheney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I think the crew in Bozeman cared about making good guitars, but they company didnt have a **** Boak there who knew the history. [hey mods, that's a proper name: **** BOAK. He works for Martin. The one who gets their reissues right] Tho by then Fab Flattops was so, so there was no great mystery. Just an indifferent marketing dept. Fair enough, and maybe the number of those who care about these things (like me) is simply too small to pay attention to. Martin is so far ahead of Gibson in this regard that it isn't funny. It's just frustrating. I truly believe Gibson is building some of the best guitars they've every built. But they fall down on the simplest, forehead-slapping details of authenticity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Yep. It's not about authenticity, just $. Probably just careless, but yeh, attention to detail is costly. Martin and National Resophonic have always gone the other mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 I truly believe Gibson is building some of the best guitars they've every built The big picture. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimt Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I would not rule this out. Gibson did all kinds of stuff back then. Maybe one exsists somewhere . JC They do now as well.. Btw I have a script 1992.. rosewood.. its a fine guitar.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 For me, I don't care if it's a true vintage, reissue of whatever year, historic, classic, mystic, if it's made with hide glue or gorilla glue(...lol...) etc. If the guitar has great playability for me, sounds good and is in good shape, then I'm interested. Trying to keep-up with all the variations Gibson does of each model will drive you crazy and it's not worth it to me. When I buy a guitar, I just want what I feel is a good guitar for me (for the money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokeyGhost Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 It's one of those strange aspects of guitars. I'd understand if it were a $100 cheapie. You certainly wouldn't expect much but when your prepared to fork out a considerable amount of hard earned you would consider there would be a level of consistency. However, I'm lucky not having a clue about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimt Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Its kind of like.. everything now adays is a re issue of a reissue.. of a re issue.. back a couple years ago.. I was just kidding about 70s reissues.. I should of known better.. but even for the new Guitars.. if it was not for that gibson label ..we would all be lost.. 50 years from now when someone out there cares.. they will argue the fact that guitars were made of quality wood in 2017.. but which models had what? I bet that SJ45 sounds good.. and at 2400 and ( Real ) rosewood.. not a bad price I would think.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars68 Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 For me, I don't care if it's a true vintage, reissue of whatever year, historic, classic, mystic, if it's made with hide glue or gorilla glue(...lol...) etc. If the guitar has great playability for me, sounds good and is in good shape, then I'm interested. Trying to keep-up with all the variations Gibson does of each model will drive you crazy and it's not worth it to me. When I buy a guitar, I just want what I feel is a good guitar for me (for the money). MP, your way of evaluating a guitar, of course, makes perfect sense from a true musician's point of view. However, what I don't like about this particular guitar, as well as many other Gibson "reissues", is the fact that they are marketed falsely. For me, it would be perfectly okey to simply market this guitar as SJ "XYZ", and don't pretend that it is a reissue. I have a Sheryl Crow SJ, its design has a lot of vintage inspired features, but it's not marketed as a reissue. It just is what it is. This may sound strange to a lot of people here, but I come to the guitar hobby for several reasons that are not connected to the music I can make on the guitars I own. I am fascinated by the history of music and the guitars used to make it. If I had unlimited funds, I would most likely only buy vintage guitars. However, in the real world, I buy new guitars, but I want them to be faithful to their historical ancestry. If I were to buy this SJ, and later find out that no rosewood SJs were ever made in 1947, I would be extremely dissappointed. So for me, and a lot of people, there is MUCH more to the guitar that matters beyond the music it makes, and it really is a shame Gibson can't get the basics right. Lars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustystrings Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 My nit-picky authenticity-insistent vintage-guitar-nerd tendencies sniff at much of the "reissue" stuff that Gibson has put out. Much of it is more "reissue-ESQUE" than true reissue. My first thought when I saw the specs on the True Vintage guitars was, "The True Vintage series is neither. Discuss amongst yourselves." But as the years have passed, and as I have shifted more and more back towards using and playing the objects in my life, and less towards venerating them as borderline idols, things have changed for me. It is one thing to go for a vintage-y vibe. That is the charitable view I take of my favorite guitar, a 2005 J-45 Historical Collection. From what I have been able to learn through years of quietly looking around and listening, it is one of 670 J-45s made for Guitar Center that were essentially the plain old, standard version, generic J-45 as Gibson made them that year. Sitka spruce top, EIRW bridge and fingerboard, Tusq nut and saddle, Gotoh Kluson-clone tuners, Fishman Matrix Natural pickup, 20-fret fingerboard that (alas!) covers part of the rosette, which in turn is (along with the soundhole) closer to the neck because of Ren Ferguson's change of the bracing angle to 98 from 103 degrees or so, and a badly-placed pickguard that covers another quarter of the rosette. The neck carve matches my memory of my 1960 LG-2, the tone is ENOUGH like my memory of my long-gone 1950 J-45, and it just feels like a nice old Gibson. Not, mind you, a specific Gibson from a specific year - but a generic "old" Gibson, or maybe a "traditional" Gibson. It has enough of the feel and the sound and the playability and it doesn't pretend to be a specific, moment-in-time snapshot. It's still ultimately about a playable guitar that references the past but has features and touches that reflect decades of refinement. It is NOT a "collectible" guitar. It is simply an instrument with a bunch of vintage-ish features sold at a price point by a big-box retailer that just happens to work exceptionally well for me, an individual and somewhat idiosyncratic guitarist. All of that works for me. "Historic Collection" was actually not a bad descriptor - it is loosely based on Gibsons from the past. "True Vintage" vintage was a little sloppier. Were there ever original "Banner" Gibsons with belly-up bridges? Is the Gibson logo placed correctly? Wait - you have a banner and a 20-fret fingerboard? Okay, we'll let this slide. The Legends were really nice, and much closer - but, wait. Those are red spruce tops, Adirondak red spruce, right? Isn't there a school of thought that Gibson used Michigan white spruce, instead? I mean, it's a very similar wood, but available locally in large quantities without the greater shipping charges. I KNOW red spruce is hip and marketable, to the extent that I am forever reading someone oooh and ahhh over a guitar top made in the 2000s from a piece of lumber that Harmony would have rejected in 1960, much less Martin in 1935. But it's red spruce! And hide glue! And a truss rod that you can't adjust! And, and, and ... and come on, the next thing you know you're paying extra to have somebody beat up a perfectly good new guitar to make it look old. And how silly is that, and who would do such a thing and - oh, wait. Gibson and Fender both actually do that? And people actually pay a premium for it? Why do I find myself thinking, a ____ and his ____ are soon ____? At that point, it has ceased to be about musical instruments and the making of music and it has become all about purchasing an identity that one can put on. The military guys will come down on you for "stolen valor," which is just an extreme version of this. What it does, really, is it sells guitars to people who probably already have guitars, and it reduces instruments to the status of Hummel figurines or special commemorative plates from the Franklin Mint or some other crap from the back pages of Parade magazine. I do sympathize with those who complain about Gibson's lack of attention to detail when they do a reissue. Cynically, it just means that later on they will do a more precise reissue that gets the details closer to the original, which means those who have the earlier reissues will feel driven to consider purchasing the newer reissue that is somehow more authentically a copy of the old original. Lather, rinse, repeat. Fender did it with their reissues starting in '82, and it sold a lot of guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I love it when someone takes the time to type what I think Well put rusty 👍🏻 And I've your guitars brother or sister , a 2005 historic that's the cats pyjamas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.