Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

J-45 Hell


Leonard McCoy

Recommended Posts

Seriously folks.....This guitar is pre 1994, and and could be as old as 30 years.

Gibson didnt let this out of the factory in any bad way.

The cracks are from abuse! In video 4, the'luthier' points out that there is a 'cleat'

on the upper bout, bass side - both my '93 J-45s have this. Curious, I emailed customer service,

to find out what this was. They stated that this additional 'patch' was placed there to support the addition.

of control knobs if the customer wished to have electronic placed.Thats all it is. Not to hide cracks from the factory.

If you have a 1990s J-45, check this out, yours may have one too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Provenance?

Someone we don't know takes a guitar they claim is a 1992 or 1994 Gibson to a taxidermist and a few newbies here leap to the conclusion that Bozeman is conspiring to sell defective merchandise.

Since you were referencing my post, I feel somewhat compelled to respond. Firstly not as a newbie, as secondly not as someone suggesting that Bozeman is conspiring to sell defective merchandise.

 

I am suggesting that it would be very helpful to know the year of manufacture. The cut of the neck joint does look wonky, and if this instrument carries a valid serial number, it very well could be indicative of a lean period in construction. In interviews, even Ren has spoken of periods of time during his tenure where there were issues with the final product leaving the plant, and of course we're pretty familiar with the '70s. Unfortunate things do happen.

 

Yes, there may be something off base here, but in general, I'd rather have more information as opposed to less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously folks.....This guitar is pre 1994, and and could be as old as 30 years.

Gibson didnt let this out of the factory in any bad way.

The cracks are from abuse! In video 4, the'luthier' points out that there is a 'cleat'

on the upper bout, bass side - both my '93 J-45s have this. Curious, I emailed customer service,

to find out what this was. They stated that this additional 'patch' was placed there to support the addition.

of control knobs if the customer wished to have electronic placed.Thats all it is. Not to hide cracks from the factory.

If you have a 1990s J-45, check this out, yours may have one too.

 

Hilarious. Informative post of the week there, Ponty.

 

So I took the '93 J-100 out for a look:

 

eHQAooR.jpg

 

As far as the Luthier from Hell guitar in this thread; who knows what guitar-flipper/chainsaw- luthier/poly re-sprayer person had this guitar before it's current owner, and before it got to this "luthier".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to get drawn off the path by those so-called 'logical fallacies' I used to teach writing students to avoid. In this case we're looking at a classic case of inadequate sampling, drawing premature conclusions on the basis of too little data. On the bright side, that trend appears to be reversing as more posts are added👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you were referencing my post, I feel somewhat compelled to respond. Firstly not as a newbie, as secondly not as someone suggesting that Bozeman is conspiring to sell defective merchandise.

 

I am suggesting that it would be very helpful to know the year of manufacture. The cut of the neck joint does look wonky, and if this instrument carries a valid serial number, it very well could be indicative of a lean period in construction. In interviews, even Ren has spoken of periods of time during his tenure where there were issues with the final product leaving the plant, and of course we're pretty familiar with the '70s. Unfortunate things do happen.

 

Yes, there may be something off base here, but in general, I'd rather have more information as opposed to less.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was replying to you, sort of in a 'continuing the points you made' kind of way.

Clearly you are not a Newbie - and I agree/agreed with every point you made in the comment you made to which I replied.

And further - yes, I agree, I'd rather have more info than less.

My concern is when people post things and don't ask for info. They post partial, left field types of things and then make broad, sweeping statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was replying to you, sort of in a 'continuing the points you made' kind of way.

Clearly you are not a Newbie - and I agree/agreed with every point you made in the comment you made to which I replied.

And further - yes, I agree, I'd rather have more info than less.

My concern is when people post things and don't ask for info. They post partial, left field types of things and then make broad, sweeping statements.

As referenced by my 'inadequate sampling' notion☺

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OC - in the spirit of Full Disclosure - I posted my reply to Bobouz BEFORE actually reading your comment. So, I wasn't plagiarizing !

PLAGIARISM! I call foul! You must repeat the class or suffer lifelong academic disgrace😡

Seriously - I figured we were just on the same page, to put it into punspeak😛 Neither of us has any need or inclination to plagiarize😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLAGIARISM! I call foul! You must repeat the class or suffer lifelong academic disgrace😡

Seriously - I figured we were just on the same page, to put it into punspeak😛 Neither of us has any need or inclination to plagiarize😎

 

I prefer mixed metaphors: Same page, different church.

Or did I just plagiarize from Yogi Berra?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer mixed metaphors: Same page, different church.

Or did I just plagiarize from Yogi Berra?

Ah, Yogi did indeed have his way - meant to say he had A way (or away?) - with the language😄😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1994....it's mine.

 

 

So, you were able to decipher the serial number after all? They guy working on the guitar in the video implied it was unreadable.

 

What kind of shape was it in when you acquired it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you were able to decipher the serial number after all? They guy working on the guitar in the video implied it was unreadable.

 

What kind of shape was it in when you acquired it?

The serial number on the back of the headstock is ..as he said so full of finish that it is nearly all unreadable but the sound hole sticker is as new and yes it is indeed a 94, The guitar was in good condition other than the crack in the back of the neck at the 1st and second frets and a slight bend in the fret board at the the 14th fret giving the neck a bit more relief than it should of had, as it turns out the neck had started to pull away from the body and that was why it was determined that a neck rest was in order. This all unfolded from there. That was when he found the neck block broken and reglued and the dovetail joint off center of the body therefore requiring the shims to center it to the body when assembled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The serial number on the back of the headstock is ..as he said so full of finish that it is nearly all unreadable but the sound hole sticker is as new and yes it is indeed a 94, The guitar was in good condition other than the crack in the back of the neck at the 1st and second frets and a slight bend in the fret board at the the 14th fret giving the neck a bit more relief than it should of had, as it turns out the neck had started to pull away from the body and that was why it was determined that a neck rest was in order. This all unfolded from there. That was when he found the neck block broken and reglued and the dovetail joint off center of the body therefore requiring the shims to center it to the body when assembled.

 

Sorry you got stuck with this one. It certainly doesn't reflect well on Gibson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where is the guitar now? Did the break near the headstock happen before or after you got the guitar. . . , meaning, was it previously repaired, and the headstock sprayed a second time, rendering the serial # stamp there more unreadable? And do you feel that the guitar may've been refinished (check inside for overspray around the soundhole, under the top).

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where is the guitar now? Did the break near the headstock happen before or after you got the guitar. . . , meaning, was it previously repaired, and the headstock sprayed a second time, rendering the serial # stamp there more unreadable? And do you feel that the guitar may've been refinished (check inside for overspray around the soundhole, under the top).

 

Thanks.

The crack was there at the headstock end when I got the guitar but not to the extent it was when I shipped it out to be fixed, and no, I don't believe the guitar had been refinished, the crack in the headstock is due to the two way truss rod putting to much stress in the back of the headstock (because of the amount of wood removed to accommodate it) while trying to get some of the relief out of the neck due to..in my opinion, the dovetail joint being in the condition it was found to be in when the neck was removed. This whole thing started with a slight crack in the back of the neck behind the two way TR...and has unfolded from there.

 

...this whole two way truss rod/ cracking the headstock was discussed here on this site shortly after I bought the guitar two or three years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1994, huh? Wow!

 

Neither Norlin nor Nashville...

Yeah, disappointing to say the least, I made sure when I bought a J45 it was from the Ren Ferguson era....and it still bit me. I don't blame Gibson per say...but it looks like the had some incompetent help to weed out...hopefully that isn't a problem now. I wouldn't hesitate to buy another Gibson...I would however be a lot more particular before I handed over my money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe this guitar is a 94. The 94 J-45s were Centenary models, and has the 'only a Gibson is good enough'

banner on the headstock. Like this one,

https://reverb.com/uk/price-guide/guide/7066-gibson-j-45-1994-sunburst

You could be right...but when I used the method Gibson offered, to use the serial number it told me it was a 1994, I don't have the serial number at the moment or I'd post it but I'll contact Randy and have him send it to me and post it here when he gets it to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe this guitar is a 94. The 94 J-45s were Centenary models, and has the 'only a Gibson is good enough'

banner on the headstock. Like this one,

https://reverb.com/uk/price-guide/guide/7066-gibson-j-45-1994-sunburst

 

. . . and the soundhole label would be hard to forget- Frenchie here on the forum posted this nice shot of his:

 

lWVZnjD.png

 

. . . does this label look familiar, Allie?

 

(Guessing that Frenchie never found out what the back & sides of his J-200 Special were)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

. . . and the soundhole label would be hard to forget- Frenchie here on the forum posted this nice shot of his:

 

lWVZnjD.png

 

. . . does this look familiar, Allie?

No, mine is an oval white tag that says made in Bozeman Montana with the serial number and model J45 VS which stands for Vintage Sunburst..It actually had tulip tuners on it when I got it and I believe they were original too. I recently put white button tuners on it because the old ones where sloppy and I like the white ones better.

 

I'll have the SN tonight at some point and post it up here.

 

Edited for content

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...