gossmanster

Gibson Starburst anyone? Never seen one but they have a decent reputation. Ren Ferguson design

Same strings on both guitars? Overall it sounds like differences in responsiveness. The Martin is taking more energy to respond, but sounds great once it gets enough. The Gibson the opposite. Size and thickness of the top, string gauge, string type, scale length, height of the bridge (break angle), and general set up could all influence this. You might have your luthier look at the setup. I had a guitar recently that only responded to heavy flatpicking. Saddle and nut adjustment and reduced string gauge transformed it and now it’s balanced.

One caution: you still need to inspect what you buy and verify the condition. I know someone who bought a used guitar from CME and when it arrived it had a long series of undisclosed problems: belly bulge, immediate neck reset required. The saddle had been shaved to avoid the neck reset, but was now the break angle was so low the guitar had very low volume and poor tone. I don’t know if this is common, and still buy from CME, but with caution.

I've never seen bracing like that, but Gibson did some strange things in the 60s and 70s to reinforce their guitars and reduce warranty work. Some examples in this thread: https://umgf.com/vintage-gibson-bracing-library-t1364-s160.html Alternatively, the guitar had some belly bulge and you're seeing the repair work...something like a primitive Bridge Doctor. I hope that isn't how the bridge is attached... All guesswork. I'm curious if the guitar is particularly heavy and how it sounds.

This question made me think and read. Previous discussions that make some good points https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220532 https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=585158 https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=538385 Mostly discussing different models and woods. Most people think all other things bring equal, weight doesn't matter. Some speculation that a light guitar will be more responsive and a heavier guitar might have more bass. The luthiers on those threads don't consider weight as a factor. However, top thickness does matter and effects weight, as does the wood drying out with age. If you really want to go deep, check out https://esomogyi.com/articles/specific-top-thickness-in-the-guitar/ tldr...he likes thinner, lighter tops. But after all the reading, I'm not going to choose my guitars based on weight

I don't think weight so much determines sound as is often a symptom of other factors that contribute to the sound: the heaviness of the bracing, the thickness of the top, the type of wood, the bridge, the water content of the wood. I just played a whole series of used Gibsons and Martins at the local store, and they are all over the map on weight...even the same model vary dramatically on weight, but I can't say all the light ones sounded better or worse. Many of the lightest guitars were really great sounding, but part of that is that they are aged, the wood has dried, and also I happen to like mahogany which is a little lighter than say maple. My understanding is a lot of old Gibsons were very lightly braced and that contributes to the sound...it also contributes to many of them not surviving, so we're listening to those that were the best off the line, or sounded the best and were therefore protected. Collings has tried to reproduce that in their Waterloo line, and I think those guitars sound great, and they are very light. The store also has a 1926 Martin OOO that felt like it was filled with helium. It sounded great, but I think that had more to do with the construction and age of the wood than just the weight.

Most of the options in one photo (wall at Mike and Mike's Guitar Bar in Seattle):

The question is: why do you care what other people think about the look of the bridge? I could understand if you wanted to know about sound or durability, but if you are looking for a vintage acoustic, are you really going to choose based on what people here think looks best?

Visually, it depends on the body style. Belly down on a J, and rectangle on an OO look right to me. I'd love to know the physics behind the sound though.

I watched the other videos where he tore into a Martin, a Taylor, and a PRS, all less expensive than the G45. Judge for yourself, but Gibson is not doing great work for the money…it goes far beyond excess glue

Check these articles about neck angle and consider the future of this guitar https://acousticguitar.com/how-to-fix-neck-angles-on-guitars/ http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Musician/Guitar/Setup/NeckAngle/neckangle.html If you do try an RMA, use a dealer…you’ll have a bad experience doing it yourself

Just watched the original video: He also said the sound was "plastic-y" and called the sound "flat" rather than my "dull", which is a better description.

I've played a few of these, so maybe I just got bad ones...but I was pretty disappointed for the price. I didn't expect them to be as well made as the regular Bozeman output, but I thought the Epiphones (and Guilds) at the same shop felt better. These felt almost plastic-y and the sound was dull. It feels like Gibson is playing on the reputation of Bozeman and their brand rather than making the best guitar for the price.

Funny how Gibson can make the right color for a dealer, but not a customer https://reverb.com/item/45285520-gibson-custom-shop-hummingbird-standard-vintage-cherry-sunburst

I’ve searched for this many times and it appears Gibson regularly changes supplier and type of strings they use at the factory.

Probably great guitars. You can cut prices considerably by choosing different materials and adornments and still make a great playing, sounding guitar. I wonder about them spreading the Bozeman resources even further though.

New article in Acoustic Review about neck angle. It explains why an overset neck can’t be simply reset, but not why the issue developed after I got the instrument home. https://acousticguitar.com/how-to-fix-neck-angles-on-guitars/

All the issues left me resigned to a poor result. Conversely, I would have been happy if I’d got the guitar like I bought originally despite the lengthy process.

I don't have the measurements anymore. I recall it being about half what I had measured originally. One of the folks I talked with said that many customers primarily strum cowboy chords and do not like any buzzing, so they manufacture guitars with a high bridge knowing that it is easier to shave a bridge down for fingerpickers than shim it up for those who like a higher action. Could be the same thinking on neck set.

I do not know. I've never seen anything like it, and all the luthiers indicated it was a manufacturing issue...which is presumably why Gibson RMA'd it.

I did not have a wet guitar. I am very familiar with Seattle humidity (I have many guitars and many friends here with guitars). Because of the temperatures in Seattle, the outside humidity is much higher than the inside humidity usually. I have hygrometers in almost room and in the summer they are in the 45% to 55% range and in the winter they are in the 30% to 40% range (when we have a cold snap it may go down to 25%). Believe me (or believe my skin) we do not have a high humidity problem in Seattle, we have a low humidity problem parts of the year, but even that isn't bad compared to Montana. I have humidifiers in some rooms and I store the guitars in cases with humidipaks. This guitar had a neck angle issue, but the opposite of the usual one. In fact, the luthier told me "Well...the good news is this guitar will never need a neck reset". This article describes the issue best: http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Musician/Guitar/Setup/NeckAngle/neckangle.html If you have a guitar that needs a neck reset when you look down the neck it points at the bottom of the bridge and the relief is super high. This guitar was the opposite...the bridge was already high and the neck pointed above the top of the bridge. To quote the article above: Of course, there is such a thing as a "reverse" neck angle problem, usually a result of poor manufacture or repair. IF the action is way too low, and the saddle is really high, it usually means that the neck angle was set too far "back." I had three luthiers (mine, Guitar Center's, and Gibson's) tell me this was the problem with the Bird.

I have a maple J185 (actually made by John Walker after he left Gibson). Couldn't be more different from my Bird. Crisp, snappy, is true...but I always struggle to describe these things. But its a different body shape, longer neck, etc. Made for different music.

Congrats. I'm curious about the sound. I really like the sound of mahogany and would like to know how these compare. Beautiful too!

They did not mention any other guitars, which is interesting because the Vintage Cherry Dove is as close as you can get the H'bird I had. I want a Hummingbird (my wish would be the original guitar didn't go bad) and I have a maple J185, so it wouldn't have solved my issue, but it would make more sense and been a better gesture.

Just to close this out. They offered me a J45 in cherry and when I asked whether I could wait for Vintage to come back or for a refund: Thanks for getting back to me here at Gibson Brands. Gibson Montana has no plan to bring back the Vintage Cherry finish on a Hummingbird model. The Original Collection Hummingbird model is available in Antique Natural finish, as well as the Heritage Cherry Sunburst finish: https://www.gibson.com/Guitar/ACCFR6729/Hummingbird-Original/Antique-Natural . Warranty options include repair (when possible), or replacement with an instrument, with one of the same or most similar style and of a value comparable to the price of the original instrument. I will simply eat the cost of selling the guitar myself. I am a huge Gibson fanboy, and I hope they right the ship eventually.