Buc McMaster Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 I'm not in the market, but this looks to be a find example of a late-60s Gibson slope shoulder. Rosewood ADJ bridge/saddle, skinny neck, all original........pretty f'ing clean too. Don't know if the price is right, $2300 with original case, but it might be negotiable. Good to see an old warrior still around in fighting fiddle! 1968 J-50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 That's one of those ambiguous serial numbers that could be almost anywhere between 1965 and 1968. We usually think of 1968 as having screws holding on the pickguard, and 1967 (or so) having the boob logo on the guard, but there are exceptions to every rule. That one looks like it just stepped out of a time machine. Those frets are very typical of those used in the late 1960's, and I really like them. They make for very easy playing, but they don't have a lot of margin for dressing down over time. They are the ones Gibson put on my 1948-'50 J-45 when they reworked it in 1968. If you can deal with the narrow nut (1 9/16", or just under 40mm), that price is a steal for the condition the guitar appears to be in. I'm not crazy about the narrow nut (which is 1/8" narrower than the "traditional" Gibson nut width from the late 1940's to about 1964), but it does teach you how to place the fingers of your fretting hand properly. I've had two guitars with the narrow nut, and still have one, which I will literally keep until I die. The string spacing at the bridge is still 2 1/8" (54mm), so there is virtually no impact from the narrow nut on your picking hand compared to most guitars with a slightly wider nut width. The rosewood adjustable saddles like this one can sound a bit dull. The seller is right about intonation issues for that specific saddle configuration. Note that Zombywoof here just replaced a rosewood adjustable saddle on his B45-12 with a bone adjustable. I'd do the same. I actually modified the rosewood saddle on my old J-45 back in about 1970 by routing a slot in it and inserting a piece of bone. It helped a lot. Nice find, buckaroo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Looks just like my 1965 J-50, but in better condition (mine is in good condition, but it looks its age). FWIW, I paid $2,000 for mine at Guitar Center in 2015. It was originally priced at $3,300 and sat in the store for many months at that price. Finally they knocked it down to $2,400 and it sat there a few more months. I offered $2,000 and they didn't even haggle. I really like the thin neck, just spent some time yesterday with mine after playing the 2008 J-50 for a week. A whole lot less strain on my left hand. But if you are a big fan of the sound of current Gibson acoustics, you probably won't like one of these adjustable bridge models. Very different sound and you have to adjust your playing style to get the best out of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Maybe it's just the resolution/quality of the photo, but what's the deal with the top of the headstock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Maybe it's just the resolution/quality of the photo, but what's the deal with the top of the headstock? Maybe the whole guitar has been buffed out, and the edges of the headstock touched up. The guitar is generally almost impossibly clean, but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Holy Crap - a 2 1/16" string spacing at the bridge? I knew about the skimpy nut but while Gibson has never been overly generous with the string pacing at the bridge this is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Holy Crap - a 2 1/16" string spacing at the bridge? I knew about the skimpy nut but while Gibson has never been overly generous with the string pacing at the bridge this is ridiculous. I'm not sure that's right. The 1968 J-45 bridge I just measured from my parts bin has 2 1/8" pin spacing. It's exactly like the one on this J-50, nominally from the same year. I know mine is a 1968, since I've had it since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Looks like about 2 1/8" on my 1965 J-50, maybe just a bit less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike m Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Has a belly down bridge, and should'nt it say J-50 adj on the insde center seam cover. Gibson used a belly down bridge on '69 & '70 J-50, but they are square shouldered. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Has a belly down bridge, and should'nt it say J-50 adj on the insde center seam cover. Gibson used a belly down bridge on '69 & '70 J-50, but they are square shouldered. m They also used a belly-down adjustable bridge in 1968--I know that because I have one that is unambiguously 1968, since I've owned it since 1968--so that is correct. It should say "J-50 adj" on the centerline back cleat, but not all do. The guitar looks correct to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 Has a belly down bridge I didn't notice that - my 1965 has the belly up bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 Maybe it's just the resolution/quality of the photo, but what's the deal with the top of the headstock? Yea. That just looks weird... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 It appears that the top edge is bevelled, and that is reflecting the light. I don't know if that was something Gibson did with later models, but there is no bevel on the top edge of my '65. Maybe it was sanded/refinished/buffed to get rid of some defects, as Nick suggested earlier? Here is my headstock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 It appears that the top edge is bevelled, and that is reflecting the light. I don't know if that was something Gibson did with later models, but there is no bevel on the top edge of my '65. Maybe it was sanded/refinished/buffed to get rid of some defects, as Nick suggested earlier? Here is my headstock. I suspect that headstock was touched up when the guitar was buffed out. I've never seen conscious factory edge beveling on a Gibson headstock. We all know how the edges of a typical Gibson headstock get chipped and worn from something as simple as leaning against a wall. Because the face of a Gibson headstock is black, it is relatively easy touchup to do. Same issue on the back top of the headstock. Both the front and back edges should have been sharp and crisp originally, although it is possible that someone was over-zealous in buffing when the guitar was built, requiring touchup before the guitar left Kalamazoo. It is really easy to burn through the lacquer in an instant on a sharp edge when machine buffing, and I expect that's what happened here. It's not that big a deal, since at least today a '68 J-50 doesn't have a lot of collector value. And the guitar really does look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike m Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 I think the person who buffed the guitar went too far, removed all the soul of the original laquer finish. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.