Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

J50 Deluxe


TellyzGuitars

Recommended Posts

Tellyz - not to put salt in your sugar-pie, but the trouble with the double-X is that the 2 cross-constructions take too hard a grip on the top.

The sound of an acoustic to a high and vital degree is connected to the zone between the lower bouts (the hips of the guitar if U like). The freer the better.

Another aspect about this theme is the actual size/thickness of the braces. Again the logic is the same - the lighter the freer the more sound.

These virtues - the light either scalloped or thin sliced bracing plus the single X - created what we know as the classic Gibson sounds, , , and were reintroduced after the Gibson-ship was kept from sinking and regained its masts'n'flag in later half of the 1980's. (Though no extra-X Martin went through something similar).

 

The reason for the double X and thicker bracing was warranty. They simply wanted to fortify the instruments in order not to get too many back for repair.

The Norlin(era) in reality stands for the names of the 2 company-leaders back then. No secret these men didn't know much about acoustic guitar-making.

Some even claim they were into house-building and had their expertise in concrete and bricks. Time to look into that, he he. . .

 

Please promise not to let all this stuff bring you down or burden your feast.

But now you know and can follow the dialog here and elsewhere closer, , , almost from inside. You are welcome. Enjoy ^

 

 

I understand all of the "theory" and the reasons behind it. This is obviously an emotive topic and a bit of a hot potato. Maybe one best left alone :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Looks to have some mojo on it. The bridge appears to be shaved..........quite low and relatively flat profile..........or is that typical of the era?

Pretty typical as the necks tended to be underset, so thinner bridges compensated (?) for that. They also split on many guitars, often soon after purchase in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someplace in the deep recesses of my mind, I recall something about bridges on 1970s Gibsons, for whatever reason, being inlayed into the top. Could just be a fig newton of my imagination though.

Have seen a boatload of 70's Gibsons sans bridge during replacement and/or reglue, but never an inlay. Could be possible, though - if you happen across any documentation for that, I'd really appreciate a heads-up. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand all of the "theory" and the reasons behind it. This is obviously an emotive topic and a bit of a hot potato. Maybe one best left alone :)

All depends on the sound,volume,tone - and such - that makes you happy. No need to be shy about initiating discussion; most of us are mostly civil😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to add, I own a number of vintage and newer Gibsons and Epiphones and being well aware of the logic, etc. my 1972 Gibson SJ Deluxe does have the fullest tone of all of my guitars. However, it has also had the most (actually the only one) that has over the years had a number of issues that I have had to have a Gibson authorized repair person address. (Including a heat press to put the neck back to its proper shape, a neck reset, top cracks fixed, and a broken headstock fixed (my fault, I dropped it). However, it is after all these years alive and well and the fullest sounding of all my guitars. On a negative note, it is the highest action guitar I have due to its neck angle. But, it is a keeper in my collection!

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, first off I hope you had the crack running own fro the edge of the board to the soundhole checked out. That one would keep me awake at night worrying.

 

If nothing else the 1970s was an incredibly innovative period in Gibson history. The R&D guys were going nuts with both electrics and acoustics. But in the case of the acoustics, other than the Mark Series, it had nothing to do with making a better sounding instrument. As somebody already noted, it had everything to do with avoiding any potential warranty issues. Not that Gibson had not done this in the past. Always worried about those big tops on the J-200, Gibson added a second wide angle brace above the soundhole in 1955. In late 1964 they seriously beefed up the bracing on the B45-12 which up to then had the same bracing as six strings and were found to be literally twisting themselves apart. With both guitars though it had to do with survival. In the case of the J-200 I think it improved the sound. With the B45-12 it hurt the sound.

 

But I remember the double X braced Gibsons when they were new because whenever I was in mid-town Manhattan I would wander down 48th St. with the thought of buying me a spanking brand new Gibson. Back then I did not know squat about bracing and bridge plates. Only differences I could figure out was what I could see, feel and hear. My ignorance made me totally unbiased. I was planning on trading in my 1959 J-45 which would get me maybe $75 off of a new version. All I know is I always returned home empty handed. I liked nothing out there better than what I already owned.

 

While I know it is no way to evaluate a guitar, I cannot help but compare the 1970s Gibsons to those built in the 1940s and 1950s. And to my hands and ears they come up way short. But I always wonder what would I think if I had not been raised on a steady diet of old Gibsons. Not sure if it is a blessing or a curse.

 

What does always get me though is that the conventional wisdom is that a few gems snuck out of Kalamazoo in the 1970s. Thing is everybody who owns one of these guitars managed to get one of the gems. That would make the 1970s, if nothing else, the most consistent decade in the history of Gibson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, first off I hope you had the crack running own fro the edge of the board to the soundhole checked out. That one would keep me awake at night worrying.

 

If nothing else the 1970s was an incredibly innovative period in Gibson history. The R&D guys were going nuts with both electrics and acoustics. But in the case of the acoustics, other than the Mark Series, it had nothing to do with making a better sounding instrument. As somebody already noted, it had everything to do with avoiding any potential warranty issues. Not that Gibson had not done this in the past. Always worried about those big tops on the J-200, Gibson added a second wide angle brace above the soundhole in 1955. In late 1964 they seriously beefed up the bracing on the B45-12 which up to then had the same bracing as six strings and were found to be literally twisting themselves apart. With both guitars though it had to do with survival. In the case of the J-200 I think it improved the sound. With the B45-12 it hurt the sound.

 

But I remember the double X braced Gibsons when they were new because whenever I was in mid-town Manhattan I would wander down 48th St. with the thought of buying me a spanking brand new Gibson. Back then I did not know squat about bracing and bridge plates. Only differences I could figure out was what I could see, feel and hear. My ignorance made me totally unbiased. I was planning on trading in my 1959 J-45 which would get me maybe $75 off of a new version. All I know is I always returned home empty handed. I liked nothing out there better than what I already owned.

 

While I know it is no way to evaluate a guitar, I cannot help but compare the 1970s Gibsons to those built in the 1940s and 1950s. And to my hands and ears they come up way short. But I always wonder what would I think if I had not been raised on a steady diet of old Gibsons. Not sure if it is a blessing or a curse.

 

What does always get me though is that the conventional wisdom is that a few gems snuck out of Kalamazoo in the 1970s. Thing is everybody who owns one of these guitars managed to get one of the gems. That would make the 1970s, if nothing else, the most consistent decade in the history of Gibson.

 

Really interesting post, Woof. I’ve played a handful of good Norlin era acoustics (only two exceptional ones, both Gospels with the arched and unbraced back, but several good examples of J50s/J45s which I would be happy to own) but several that I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole. In particular a ‘74ish SJ which sounded like absolute pants, totally muffled with no sustain whatsoever.

 

It’s all subjective, though. Someone who wanted a really thunky, dull sounding guitar would be cock-a-hoop with that SJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, first off I hope you had the crack running own fro the edge of the board to the soundhole checked out. That one would keep me awake at night worrying.

 

Mine has the exact same crack, which hasn't kept me awake for a single night since I first noticed it over 30 years ago. ;) I asked the luthier about this when I brought it in and he shrugged and said he didn't think it was much of a problem, but IIRC he put a small cleat behind it just in case.

 

74_crack.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine has the exact same crack, which hasn't kept me awake for a single night since I first noticed it over 30 years ago. ;) I asked the luthier about this when I brought it in and he shrugged and said he didn't think it was much of a problem, but IIRC he put a small cleat behind it just in case.

 

74_crack.jpg

 

Same story with my SJ Deluxe. The Gibson repair person told me it was nothing to worry on, but put a small cleat behind it. (Made of maple). It was there about 30 years also before it was shored up.

 

Regarding the Norlin era, I've seen a number of real clunkers at vintage guitar shows. Never see anyone but them, either. The good ones are likely in players' collections or hands. I bought mine new and as much as I liked when I bought it new, I do remember telling other guitarists even at the time that as much as I liked it, something about it was different quality-wise than the earlier era ones. Later a lot came out about the Norlin changes, of course. But that guitar was my main one for about 30 years and served me well. Right now it's sitting in my living room as a guitar I pick up and play. But, I no longer gig with it.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the guitar in the above photo, you will note the rosette is not lined up (like that in the photo of the OPs guitar). It could, of course be nothing. But that kind of damage could also be symptomatic of the neck block shifting. Always best to err on the side of caution. I wonder though, as this seems to be a not uncommon thing with 1970s Gibsons, if it is somehow related to the extremely stiff top. Hey, at present I am humidifying the heck out of a 1930s Schmidt Sovereign trying to get a buckled top to regain at least some of its former shape - a problem associated with the fact the guitar is lightly braced. Amazingly, after about a week it appears to be working. Unfortunately if the top actually flattens out I will probably be looking at a neck reset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand all of the "theory" and the reasons behind it. This is obviously an emotive topic and a bit of a hot potato. Maybe one best left alone :)

The topic isn't a taboo at all - it's been discussed 200 times here (and Gibson has shoulders to take it). Hope you can say the same.

And you're not alone with these guitars. Paul Weller of The Jam seems to have chosen a Norlin as 1st priority. So has the guy from Low Anthem -

 

2012 ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQcbCrxFrPI

 

Btw. there was a stage before goin' XX. As soon as 1968 Kalamazoo introduced the bulkier braces, but waited 2 years before seeing double.

My square Southern Jumbo from that year is a heavy sweetie, but has developed a good vintage voice in its own right.

My Gibson-trip btw. started with 2 70's squares around 1980. Both fortified with XX and thicker sticks (and some would add stuffed with socks).

Wonder where they are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic isn't a taboo at all - it's been discussed 200 times here (and Gibson has shoulders to take it). Hope you can say the same.

And you're not alone with these guitars.

 

 

Good to hear. I wasn't quite prepared for the wave, I'll be better preped next time....Peace yall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Btw. the was a stage before goin' XX. As soon as 1968 Kalamazoo introduced the bulkier braces, but waited 2 years before seeing double.

My square Southern Jumbo from that year is a heavy sweetie, but has developed a good vintage voice in its own right.

My Gibson-trip btw. started with 2 70's squares around 1980. Both fortified with XX and thicker sticks (and some would add stuffed with socks).

Wonder where they are today.

 

I have a lot of guitars pass through my hands and I'm glad I can safely say I don't think I'm ever going to see a belly buldge on this thing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen heaps with these cracks. Mine has a cleat underneath.

 

Although this kind of crack CAN be due to a shifting neck block (although usually that would put the strings out of alignment with the neck visibly, and is much more of a problem on the ‘70s Epi FT79 and similar than Gibsons), a luthier friend explained to me that it’s largely down to pickguard shrinkage.

 

Apparently the ‘70s guards with the mottled/swirled pattern have a different shrinkage rate to the largely plain red/brown celluloid that was widely used up until the end of the ‘60s by Gibson. They also switched to a more tenacious pickguard adhesive around that time to prevent warranty claims for peeling pickguards, so the combo of the two tended to result in the notorious “pickguard crack” right there between the neck and soundhole. If the rosette looks out of alignment, it’s largely due to the top being tugged out of shape by the guard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the ‘70s guards with the mottled/swirled pattern have a different shrinkage rate to the largely plain red/brown celluloid that was widely used up until the end of the ‘60s by Gibson. They also switched to a more tenacious pickguard adhesive around that time to prevent warranty claims for peeling pickguards, so the combo of the two tended to result in the notorious “pickguard crack” right there between the neck and soundhole. If the rosette looks out of alignment, it’s largely due to the top being tugged out of shape by the guard.

 

 

Gibson stopped using celluloid scratchplates in the early 1960s. They switched to styrene which was probably the least durable of any plastic out there so probably the reason Gibson compensated by making their pickguards incredibly thick. I am not sure whether Gibson was attaching pickguards to bare wood or the finished top. Normally though, I would only expect to see that kind of damage when the pickguard was attached directly to the wood. Gibson was using Weldwood Cement to put guitars together in the 1970s. Not sure if this is what they used to slap the pickguards on but the stuff became brittle fairly quickly. I am still thinking the stiffness of the top (which had not only more but the heaviest bracing Gibson had ever used) with its lack of flexibility at the least made the guitar more susceptible to damage caused by say a shrinking pickguard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibson stopped using celluloid scratchplates in the early 1960s. They switched to styrene which was probably the least durable of any plastic out there so probably the reason Gibson compensated by making their pickguards incredibly thick. I am not sure whether Gibson was attaching pickguards to bare wood or the finished top.

The super thick pickguards as seen on B-25s from the mid '60 were attached to a finished top. But interestingly, some of Gibson's instruments from the same period received a very thin pickguard, such as my (B-25 clone) '66 FT45n Epi Cortez. Again in this case, the pickguard is attached to a finished top.

 

In fact, I've never come across a thick pickguard on any Epiphone Cortez or Texan from this period, while at the exact same time Gibson was employing the thick batwing guard on B-25s and J-50s.

 

Rather puzzling sometimes to peer into the corporate mind & logic of Gibson!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The super thick pickguards as seen on B-25s from the mid '60 were attached to a finished top. But interestingly, some of Gibson's instruments from the same period received a very thin pickguard, such as my (B-25 clone) '66 FT45n Epi Cortez. Again in this case, the pickguard is attached to a finished top.

 

In fact, I've never come across a thick pickguard on any Epiphone Cortez or Texan from this period, while at the exact same time Gibson was employing the thick batwing guard on B-25s and J-50s.

 

Rather puzzling sometimes to peer into the corporate mind & logic of Gibson!

 

 

The pickguard on my 1956 Epiphone FT-79 was not only attached to bare wood but was actually set into the top. Interesting though that Epiphones would be spared those thick pickguards. Maybe it was just a cost cutting decision - get two pickguards for the cost of one or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pickguard on my 1956 Epiphone FT-79 was not only attached to bare wood but was actually set into the top. Interesting though that Epiphones would be spared those thick pickguards. Maybe it was just a cost cutting decision - get two pickguards for the cost of one or something.

 

A 1956 Epiphone would have been manufactured by the original Epiphone Company, headquartered in NY, before Gibson purchased Epiphone and started making them side by side with Gibsons in Kalamazoo 2-3 years later. Their processes and materials would have differed from Gibsons' in 1956.

 

I have a 1956 (or 1955, not sure) Epiphone F79 also and it has its pickguard attached in a way that I can't really describe. It kinda looks molded or glued into the guitar, but it might just be that it has some shrinkage to it and now looks that way a bit. Either way, very cool guitar, am sure you agree.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1956 Epiphone would have been manufactured by the original Epiphone Company, headquartered in NY, before Gibson purchased Epiphone and started making them side by side with Gibsons in Kalamazoo 2-3 years later. Their processes and materials would have differed from Gibsons' in 1956.

 

 

 

The story of Epiphone between 1953 and 1960 is tough to piece together. My guitar and, I am sure yours, was probably built in Philadelphia. If I recall the 69XXX serial number guitars could have been built in 1954, 1955 or 1956. I figured mine was built in 1956 as it is a dot neck which I always believed were the last ones to be put together.

 

Gibson apparently bought Epiphone on the cheap, Ted McCarty once joking he could give Orphie the money he wanted out of his pocket. As best as I have been able to figure out, the earliest Gibson period Epiphones were not built side by side with Gibsons but first at a rented facility with its own manager and then in 1959 at a start up plant on Eleanor Street. I believe some of the low end solid body Gibsons may also have been built there. With the expansion of Parsons Street facility in 1960, the Eleanor Street facility was closed and Epiphone production moved over. I used to own a 1958 Epiphone Texan which I was a leftover Epi French Heel neck slapped on a J-50 body. This would mean though that Gibson kept a stock of bodies with uncut neck blocks which seems to be verified by the fact they were also selling bodies to National at roughly the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great Epiphone history stuff. Thanks for sharing it. FYI, Mitch 1956 F79 also has a dot neck. Figured it was one of the last F79s, also when Epi used whatever remaining parts to put together their final instruments.

 

Cool stuff...

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

 

You have to forgive me. I spent decades working as a research historian. I guess it is in my blood.

 

I always wondered the same thing though - after the move to Philly was Epiphone actually building instruments or just putting guitars together from parts on hand and did they attempt to kick start the business in '55 and move back to NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...