vw1300 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Was out and about playing guitars today and ran across this one - label on it says it's on consignment, they thought it was a J-45 from the '70s which was refinished. In short, I don't think it is - tapered headstock, 19 fret net, laminated maple (?) back. However, it was redone with a belly down bridge, incorrect pick guard, and block decal label on the headstock. There were no visible numbers anywhere inside or out. It played punchy, strong and bluesy. The action was a tiny bit on the high side for me, and they had a low saddle in it so it might need some adjusting. But the neck didn't look twisted and the top was not warped. Price was $1599. Seems fair to me. Sorry for the quick iPhone pic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Charlie, Charlie, Charlie- you're killing us (me). Do you have a Photobucket account you could throw that photo up to? Any chance you took another photo or ... ? This could be a very interesting redone Banner-era guitar (you did note tapered headstock, yes?), or it could be a 70's model... Are those 3 truss rod cover screws?? That lo-fi photo is a real teaser. Argh ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Interesting, but it needs much better pictures to be definitive. Tapered headstock, 19-fret neck, and body shape definitely mean 1954 or older, and tapered headstock generally means 1952 or older. If by "laminated maple back" you mean a multi-piece back, that would say banner era (probably 1943-1945) if it is original. If you mean "laminated" like plywood, it would probably be a replaced back. Lack of FON suggests pre-1951 to me, as that happened quite a bit. Look more closely at the neck block to be sure. A small LED flashlight can be very useful. Belly-down bridge is ambiguous, as is the block logo. You could have a block logo, tapered headstock, and 19-fret neck between 1948-1954, but not with a multi-piece maple back, so pix are key here. Bridge and pickguard could have been replaced at any time, as could the headstock logo. Top 'burst looks original, but doesn't jibe with the belly-down bridge unless there is evidence of top touch-up. Look at top bracing: scalloped, or straight with tapered ends? Back bracing, if original, would be tall (1/2") and narrow (1/4-5/16"), and tapered in section almost to a knife-edge at the top. Did you measure the nut width? Need more and better pictures! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vw1300 Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share Posted June 23, 2015 The back looked like one big laminated piece - definitely not mahogany, and not sure it's even maple. It's something with not a lot of grain to it. Didn't measure the nut width, but the neck felt sort of chunky not unlike my AJ. Definitely not from the '70s, it's a slope shoulder. A FON or serial number could have been removed during refinishing or repair. I looked inside the best I could. Couldn't judge the back braces, but the big X braces seemed not to be scalloped. The guitar was definitely refinished, my best guess it was damaged severely at one time and there was nothing to lose by redoing it. I'll try to get back there tomorrow but if I don't it will be a while until I can return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Ok, Charlie. Good if you can get back there. If not, don't sweat it. Nick- those maple Banners are pretty much considered to be lams. One slab o' lam back. Weighty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vw1300 Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share Posted June 23, 2015 Went back for a few more pictures, attached. Back braces are tall and skinny, tuners are 3 on a place Gibson deluxe. Neck might need some relief adjustment, the rod cover plate is 2-screw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The double line Gibson Deluxe tuners were the kind used from the late 1960s into the mid-1970s so may not be original to the guitar. But they could explain the store assigning the 1970s date to the guitar. I still come up with 19 frets though and if nothing else that says pre-1955. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 The shot of the back of the headstock shows evidence of re-finishing, but the sunburst looks pretty distinctly Gibson, so the guitar may have been back at the factory at some point for major work. As ZW says, the tuners are substantially later than the guitar appears to be. I have no experience with the laminated-back banner Gibsons, so I don't really have anything I can add at this point. If that back is original--a picture of that might help--we might have more thoughts. The back bracing sounds original-style, which suggests that the back itself could be original, even if it is laminated. That could mean banner era. My own 1948 J-45 was returned from Gibson after major work in 1968 looking like a brand-new 1968 J-45, so these things do happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vw1300 Posted June 24, 2015 Author Share Posted June 24, 2015 Nick, I thought of your guitar when I was looking at this one - I'd say if the work was factory, it was '70s work - belly down bridge, '70s style sunburst, pick guard, tuners, and logo. But old underneath. Perhaps a little more sympathetic work on this one though - the top was old as was the visible top X brace. I wish I had asked if it had the case - who knows, maybe the case was a real old one? It had an interesting vibe but I passed on it - $1600 + 8% tax. Trying to explain all this to a buyer if/when I try to sell it in a few years will be impossible. It's a hard one to quantify. If someone with a good reputation for knowledge of vintage guitars like Elderly or Gruhn etc. could confirm all of these suspicions, they could probably get more. But I'm not them. You really have to play and see this one in person to make a judgment. FYI, It's at Rockin' Robin in Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Well, the body is a nicely finished maple. Here are some pics from the seller: To VW1300's wondering if the neck may even be original to the body, the heel cap is flatter/wider(?) than one would expect. Also- the neck should be showing a 3 or 5 pc laminate construction. Nice tapered headstock, though. Maybe it did go back to Gibson, but not for that heavy burst over the rosette and Martin style pickguard shown in the OP: Also, Charlie had mentioned backchannel some weird plasticky stuff (filler, maybe?) around the bridge pins. Repair person may've gaffed up the location of the pin holes when installing the bridge. Anyone have any thoughts on this bridge plate? Seems to be either a laminate one, or installed directly over the original: Having the burst redone by a top notch refinisher may be out of the question due to sanding on the top that may've already been done. Lots of questions on this one, but when judged on it's own merits, could be a very funky, if not expensive, vintage Frankenstein campfire/beater. Just don't try to ever sell it ; ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phelonious Ponk Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 How does it sound? P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Gibson, of course, started using laminate bridge plates in the 1960s to support the heavy ADJ bridges. Whether this is one of those or as mentioned a cap over the original bridge plate I do not have a clue. What would be bothering me a bit is the store is obviously clueless about the guitar. It does not take a whole lot of looking to figure out the number of frets, nut width, appearance of fabric side supports or whatever helps tell you something about a Gibson. On the other hand a clueless dealer is just the kind of place you can walk out of with a heck of a bargain as the interweb has really helped kill off those kind of finds. Just too easy these days to figure out what you have. If the store slaps a price tag of $1600 on what they believe is a refinished 1970s J-45, I do not want to think what they would be asking if they believed the guitar had some Banner DNA. If the guitar does have a maple body from say 1944 it would be intriguing even with a later transplanted neck. But I would have to be darn sure the top was not sanded down too much and other things such as all of the bracing was 100% original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 The additional picture are helpful. This appears to be an adi top with scalloped adi bracing, judging from the bridgeplate picture. Hard to tell whether that is a laminated plate, or a plate on top of the plate. I'm guessing the latter. The small bridgeplate suggests this was a straight-bridge guitar originally, which would be consistent with 1947 or earlier. The one-piece back looks original to me, and would probably say banner era. I can't really tell what the wood is, but I would guess it is maple ply. The sides probably are as well, although there isn't enough of a photo to tell. The mix of a mahogany neck with a maple body doesn't bother me. Guitars were pretty much pieced together from available parts in the banner era. I went through the complete Banner Gibson registry (which is, of course, incomplete), and found at least one example of the mahogany neck/maple body combination. The shape of the neck heel is hard to judge definitively from the photo, because of the angle. But remember that these were hand-carved necks, and any part of it could vary from the standard template in any number of ways, particularly if someone made a mistake that had to be faked in, or they were working around a flaw. Looking at the grain pattern and direction on the back of the headstock, it's a miracle that this headstock hasn't broken off at some point. This neck may have gone into the bin early in the game, and only have been retrieved and used later, when this guitar was built, due to war-time shortages. I've only played one banner maple J-45, and I didn't particularly care for it. It sounded a bit brittle to me--sort of cranky and old--but it's hard to dismiss any guitar based on one example played for five minutes. The guitar interests me from an historical perspective, but not enough to buy it at what seems like a reasonably fair price, but not a bargain price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 A couple of other things on this guitar came to mind: Here is a Banner-era rosette: ... and the rosette of the puzzler guitar: ... and a 1951's rosette (last full year for tapered headstock): Also- an interior pic: does this really look like maple, or mahogany on the side? ('51 also last full year for side support fabric strips): ... and a pic showing the unmistakable maple sides on a Banner maple: A luthier will typically make a strong case for the removal of the back of the guitar for big jobs such as bridgeplate/ bracing replacement. Could a new back have been installed at that time? Arguably, it was not unheard of for Gibson to mix wood varieties for the back/sides during wartime, but again... the rosette from '48-> ''51 with what appears to be (as suggested by pics in post #10) a dramatically grained, non-laminate back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I'm pretty sure fabric side stays were gone by 1948-'49. I have a J-45 with an ambiguous FON (3644 8) that could be either 1948 or 1950. It has wood side stays, rather than fabric. I'm confident those stays are original to the guitar, since I've had it since both it and I were teenagers. This one certainly looks like an adi top with scalloped bracing. The very small bridgeplate (though modified from original) suggests a non-belly bridge, I believe. The back? I just don't know what to think about that one. I'd like to inspect it first hand. In any case, it's safe to say this is pre-1952. If the block logo is original, that would say sometime in 1947 as the earliest date. Although it's an imperfect comparison, I have a 1947 script-logo L-7 from about April or May of 1947 (A-235), and have seen another with a serial number only 100 higher than that guitar with a block logo. I have seen small bridges on early block logo guitars, and that would probably be consistent with the rosette as well. I suspect you would still have fabric stays in 1947. I think sometime in 1948 may have been the last year for those. I haven't had a luthier suggest removing the back to do bridgeplate work, but maybe it's just the luthiers I've worked with. You would have to re-bind the back, and the likelihood of cosmetic damage is significant. Maybe if you had to re-brace the top as well, but this top bracing (what you can see of it) looks original. Right now, the back is the only thing sowing real confusion, particularly since the back bracing itself looks original. As has been pointed out, the burst overspray on the rosette would not be original, and there is other evidence of re-finish as well. Maybe the back was damaged and replaced at some point, and the guitar either partially or completely re-finished at that time. I doubt that Gibson would have overprayed the rosette like that, but it would be looking at Gibsons from the 1970's for comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 From CFH's labor of love site, now called "guitar hq" (re: 1952 side support strips gone): It is just an interesting puzzle. I, too, was looking at 70's bursts and wondering if the refin of the top was done in the Norlin era, but why overspray the top unless there was damage to it, as well. Giving a close look at the kerfing inside shows it to be looking original, or about the same size as original. As Nick had mentioned, the binding on the back is in really nice condition and quite possibly original. I'd done more looking at heel caps, and mid-forties were more rounded, in general. 'Must say that if the back was replaced, it was well done. Outer maple grain and inner does seem to line up, although it has been suggested elsewhere that the inner ply could be laid between to still give the appearance of one solid piece of wood. All of the luthiery done north of the neck joint is beautifully done, strangely not a mark on the headstock (even if it was a leftover tapered headstock neck), judging by the photos of the nut/headstock posted earlier in the thread. ? ? ? Phelonious Ponk had asked "How does it sound?" Charlie (vw1300) reported that it sounded good, punchy, and loud. Being priced similarly to a used contemporary J-45, this guitar would be an interesting exercise for some brave soul gassing for something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Do not get me wrong I generally like the CFH site. But it is, of course, not 100% accurate. Gibsons from the day are just too flippin' elusive to get a handle on that easily. It was not that long ago when every one of these kinds of Gibson history sites told us the J-50 was not introduced until 1947. Then J.T.'s book came out offering proof that the model was first made in 1942. Even though most of the sites we use to ID our guitars have been updated, I still get folks questioning me when I tell them I own a 1942 J-50. I have run across two J-45s in the past few years with FONs which showed the guitars dated to 1947 (a year in which FONs were still not always there). In both instances it is known that the instruments were shipped and sold in 1948. May just come down to the FON being placed on the neck block in later 1947 with the guitar not being completed until the following year. I have heard tell of later 1940s J-45s being built with maple backs and mahogany sides. Just hearsay though. I do recall a late 1940s J-45 popping up for sale a few years back that had a walnut back. The store swore up and down the guitar was born with it. On first look it truly did appear to be original in terms of bracing, back strip and such. But on very close inspection, you could see that the back had been re-glued. But I have also heard it said with older Gibsons that if it matches the catalog specs spot on it is probably a fake. A bit overstated but there is no denying that specs were pretty fluid. And if you are talking transitional periods like 1950/51, 1955 and such, good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 From CFH's labor of love site, now called "guitar hq" (re: 1952 side support strips gone): It is just an interesting puzzle. I, too, was looking at 70's bursts and wondering if the refin of the top was done in the Norlin era, but why overspray the top unless there was damage to it, as well. Giving a close look at the kerfing inside shows it to be looking original, or about the same size as original. As Nick had mentioned, the binding on the back is in really nice condition and quite possibly original. I'd done more looking at heel caps, and mid-forties were more rounded, in general. 'Must say that if the back was replaced, it was well done. Outer maple grain and inner does seem to line up, although it has been suggested elsewhere that the inner ply could be laid between to still give the appearance of one solid piece of wood. All of the luthiery done north of the neck joint is beautifully done, strangely not a mark on the headstock (even if it was a leftover tapered headstock neck), judging by the photos of the nut/headstock posted earlier in the thread. ? ? ? Phelonious Ponk had asked "How does it sound?" Charlie (vw1300) reported that it sounded good, punchy, and loud. Being priced similarly to a used contemporary J-45, this guitar would be an interesting exercise for some brave soul gassing for something different. With all due respect, the site you use here contradicts itself in successive sentences: re the 1950 J-45 ".....fabric side supports discontinued....", followed by (for the 1952 J-45) "....fabric side supports no longer used...." So, which is it, 1950 or 1952? Or 1951? Ditto the emergence of the belly bridge and the block logo. Anyone who has owned and studied post-war, pre-1955 J-45's will tell you that there is often a mix of features, making dating in this period by features alone almost impossible to do definitively, especially when there is no FON for reference, as in this case. Maybe it's an out-the-back-door employee guitar. I have heard--but cannot verify--that the shipping ledgers for some of these years are simply not available, so there will always be speculation. I use this site a lot as well, but have found enough things that cannot be said definitively to know that it ain't the gospel. The only gospel you get with Gibson is "expect the unexpected". If that is a one-piece solid back (no matter what the wood), that was a pretty big tree, even for a plain-sawn piece of wood like this. I'd like to inspect the guitar, since I am more than a little bit of a wood geek from my days as a boatbuilder, when I defined my job (for those who asked) as turning large pieces of endangered tropical hardwoods into small pieces of the same, while producing large piles of worthless sawdust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Yes, Clay's site is not gospel by any means, but it's what we have. Why he listed info that could be/should be loosely interpreted, taking into account inventory of a particular part to be used up, and for partially assembled guitars to be completed, yes? Maple Banner J-45's have had my attention for quite a while. There are almost two distinct tones going on: there is a sweetness and a clarity, but there is also present some kind of less-than-flattering-to-the-bottom-end "kettle" sound (a dampened sound- a laminate guitar thing?), while still having that maple bite. While they were prone to delamination of the finish over the maple, most still have their walnut stained backs, which makes it a little harder to get a good look at their grain. This guitar has less of the flame maple look, and more of the drama of walnut. It would be interesting to compare to one of the contemporary maple J-45's, such as the three that are currently on eBay. Sincere apologies to those who have all but run out of popcorn on this thread ; ) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Sincere apologies to those who have all but run out of popcorn on this thread ; ) .[/size] I never, ever, get tired of trying to solve old Gibson mysteries. You don't get too many of them with Martin, since they've been so methodical with their serial number and registry system since it was instituted in the late 1800's. I think my own J-45 from the same period as this one would be a mystery to anyone who didn't know its convoluted history. That's one thing continuity in ownership gives you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It sure is a lot easier to figure these things out now then it was back in the days. Prior to the late 1980s there was not much info out there and unless you happened to live next door to George Gruhn not only was it almost impossible to figure out what year your guitar was made but in some cases what model it was. Using the specs I had figured out from years if hanging around with Gibsons about the closest I could come to dating an instrument was to know a guitar was built between 1955 and 1959 or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickthemiller Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I'm just fascinated by what you guys know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smurfbird Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Never apologize for giving us all an education. It might be confusing. It might be too much for mere novices like myself to take in during one sitting, but that's what this board is also good for, besides sharing the beauty and excitement of NGD and the performances of our talented fellow posters. $1600 may not be a "bargain" price, but if this guitar is of stable build and vintage Gibson sound, well, someone would surely be getting a guitar worth many years of enjoyment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 The trail has grown over a bit on this one, but a casual mention of added info by ksdaddy in his "Ugly Dream" thread has provided a few more pieces of the puzzle. Although he did not directly contribute to this thread, he'd mentioned that his first thought was that the guitar was refinished by Gibson in the 1970's, as dark sunburst over the rosette was the burst du jour of that period (as seen in this listing at Elderly Inst): Ksdaddy also noted that the thick, black, Martin-style pickguard added to the refinished guitar... ... appears to have been lifted from the parts bin of guitars destined to be Gibson Heritage models, which went from tortoise to black guards in '68-'69: J45Nick had suggested that it was not entirely necessary to remove the back of the guitar for many major repairs such as bridge plate &/or brace work. Judging by these photos, some sort of work was done inside, and if this galling was not on the inside of the top before original assembly, it may've occurred during it's bridgeplate replacement, if repairs were done without removing the original back from the guitar: Speaking of the back, the figuring of the grain threw these eyes off the trail; this shot of the interior shows such a dark color which maple would rarely exhibit if unfinished: Maybe just a very nice slab of mahogany after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 The trail has grown over a bit on this one, but a casual mention of added info by ksdaddy in his "Ugly Dream" thread has provided a few more pieces of the puzzle. Although he did not directly contribute to this thread, he'd mentioned that his first thought was that the guitar was refinished by Gibson in the 1970's, as dark sunburst over the rosette was the burst du jour of that period (as seen in this listing at Elderly Inst): Ksdaddy also noted that the thick, black, Martin-style pickguard added to the refinished guitar... ... appears to have been lifted from the parts bin of guitars destined to be Gibson Heritage models, which went from tortoise to black guards in '68-'69: J45Nick had suggested that it was not entirely necessary to remove the back of the guitar for many major repairs such as bridge plate &/or brace work. Judging by these photos, some sort of work was done inside, and if this galling was not on the inside of the top before original assembly, it may've occurred during it's bridgeplate replacement, if repairs were done without removing the original back from the guitar: Speaking of the back, the figuring of the grain threw these eyes off the trail; this shot of the interior shows such a dark color that maple would rarely exhibit if unfinished: Maybe just a very nice slab of mahogany after all. Good detecting. The back still throws me off a bit, since it looks like it might be a single piece, with grain that would not normally be used. This could suggest war-time wood shortages. Certainly details like fabric side stays probably say no later than 1949, and I'm still leaning towards earlier. Neck shape could be an indicator, but no definitive, as the early post-war guitars still have fairly substantial necks--some of the best, in my opinion, but it's just the way they fit my hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.