ksdaddy

Gibson did make a very inexpensive model in the very early 70s called the JGO. Think of it as a square shouldered version of the LGO. I'm sure they went through changes and inconsistencies and were built largely based on what was available. The few that I've seen have had pinless bridges and no back binding but that was only 2 or 3. Is it possible that "JGO" was accidentally written down as "J60" on the bill of sale? Here's a few googled JG0 pics:

By request, here's a place to introduce yourself to the Gibson acoustic forum members....

Not at the moment, but I had a 1960 125TDC back in '85 and around 2003 I briefly owned a '57 125TD. Come to think of it, I owned a 120 for a while in the late 80s, which wasn't a lot different. Be very mindful of the neck set. They weren't all that rugged and many need resets. Beware if the action is on the high side and the bridge is all the way down. Look before you swipe the card.

According to the serial number, a girl named Linda installed the tuners and she had tuna salad for lunch that day. She professes to be a country fan but her secret passion is early 80s New Romantic music. I can tell all this by the serial number.

Since you've had yours so long with no issues, I doubt you'll have any trouble. As to the distortion in the top... hard to say. I wouldn't get too worried. I have a '58 Gibson classical and the top looks like an old 45 rpm record that sat in a hot car. If you don't have any braces that are loose, don't sweat it. My only sage advice when shopping for a MK applies basically to any 70s Gibson. Not bashing them, just pointing out what I've encountered: 1. Twisted necks. Sight down it like a gun barrel. Some guitars do have a slight twist, even the best of them. But some 70s Gibsons are much worse than others. I don't know of any fix. 2. Make darn sure the truss rod works. Guitar 101 I know, but I've seen more than one snapped 70s rod. 3. Neck set (Guitar 101 again). Neck sets on 70s Gibsons are more complex due to the weird extra dovetail tounge under the fingerboard extension. The reset is the same, but removing the neck is horrendous (so I'm told). 4. Ebay language: "Minor crack in top along fingerboard". Look closely at the top where the 14th fret is.... see a dip there? Also look at the soundhole rosette. See any distortion by the crack? Danger. The top has cracked alongside the fingerboard extension and the neck is shifting forward. I've fixed them but I won't let you watch. I have to be part chiropractor. This seems to be a 70s thing but I recently did some work on a '57 LG-1. I think every brace had popped loose. There was also a crack on the treble side of the fingerboard where the pickguard had shrunk. The crack went all the way from the sound hole to the binding. I glued and cleated it without issue but if it had gone another year it could have done some serious damage. 30 years ago we could walk into a music store with the luxury of browsing a half dozen old Gibsons or more and we could turn our noses up if an old J45 had Grovers rammed into it or if it had a half dozen repaired cracks. We don't have that luxury now. We find a 50s J45 in any condition and it's a good day. Well, we haven't quite reached that point with the Mark Series. There are plenty of MK35s marked "2nd" with missing pickguards and as of right now we CAN turn our noses up. I haven't gotten mine yet; I want a blonde MK53. It'll happen, it's just not on the front burner. If I were to find a clean original one that passes the "70s Lookout!" checklist, I'd probably whip out the Visa.

Funny thing about archtops, the audience can hear you but you can't hear Jack Squat. The sound is very directional. Don't worry, someone would be happy to give that L-48 a good home. I'll send you my shipping address if you like.

My guess is 1954. Z-1952 Y-1953 X-1954 W-1955 V-1956 U-1957 T-1958 S-1959 R-1960 I think those are the only years this applies to and some models may have used a different method. I know many of the electrics used a number as a prefix.... 5 XXXX would be 1955, 6 XXXX would be '56. Don't take my word as gospel though. If you held a gun to my head I would say 1954, Factory Order Number 9036 (number doesn't mean much other than a batch number) and 25 means it was the 25th one in that batch (usually a total of 40). It probably has 19 frets, right?

Since 1977 the first and fifth digit will tell you the year. Just punch in your number here: http://www.guitardaterproject.org/gibson.aspx

Some Epis have 'Gibson' on the truss rod cover. Maybe that's what's being mentioned in the ad.

It's an inexpensive Epiphone made in China in 2000. It's only related to Gibson because Gibson owns the Epiphone name and applies that name to guitars imported from Asia.

I'd never turn my nose up at a guitar just because of lacquer checking. It's a natural aging thing. It's not consistent or predictable, it just "is". I'd never even use that as a bargaining tool. It doesn't detract from the market value in my eyes.

Pepsi tastes like battery acid. Coke tastes like sweet battery acid. I liked either/or back when they had glass bottles and used real sugar.

I don't know the answer to that question. You win. You're smarter than me. Now excuse me, I'm a bit peckish for some library paste.

Never mess with the truss rod unless you know it needs tweaking. It's to set neck relief and any changes in the action is secondary.

I've had a bunch of classicals over the years. I currently have four. A plywood Seresta made by Giannini, a strange heavily inlaid Vietnamese gutar from the 60s, a 1997 La Patrie Collection, and a 1958 Gibson C-6. It's harder to compare and contrast classicals than it is for modern steel strings. Compare an Esteban to a J-45 and the difference is immediate and obvious. There is less of a difference with classicals. And if you think it's difficult to decide on strings on a steel string, woo-hoo! Try swapping nylons! It can take a few weeks for them to break in and develop their real voice and I'm typically left wondering if they really sound better or worse than the last set. The La Patrie is probably the 'textbook' best sounding of the bunch. It's Indian Rosewood and QC is top notch. The basses are deep and each note is clear. The Gibson has 51 years under its belt and it's Brazilian Rosewood. It's thicker sounding and more 'in your face'. Still, like the C-0 and C-L I've owned, I think they're a little overbuilt. Makes them tough as a boiled owl but they just aren't that great as far as classicals go. The C-6 was their Cadillac at the time. I believe mine was the 31st C-6 ever built. Even though the La Patrie is likely the best of my four, and very high in the La Patrie pecking order, La Patries aren't considered all that hot by the classical elite. They're good as far as inexpensive (somewhat) mass produced factory instruments. I think the Collection retails around $800 and can be boughy any day of the week for under $500. I lucked out on ebay and got mine for $160. I guess my advice to anyone toying with the idea of a classical is this: If you're just thinking of picking one up to noodle on and you'd also like to add a Gibson to the herd, and you can find a C-0 or C-1 for under $300, by all means grab one. If you're thinking about picking up a classical and actually pursuing it as a style, your money will be better spent elsewhere. One minor point/footnote: Scale length seems to be an even more dramatic difference tone-wise. Some classicals have scale lengths approaching 26" and, all other things being equal, they will sound much better. Anything less than 25" and they tend to sound like toys.

Yabbut... even if it's TRUE, that is defined by cork sniffing string types that 'think' they hear something different. If they were real musicians they could squeeze tunes out of a $60 Palatino from China.

There are some string people who claim a violin's eventual 'matured' tone will be directly influenced by the level of musical competency and content played on it. They claim if one new violin is played by a novice or hack, and another is played by someone more proficient, there will be a noticeable difference in the tone in years to come. Having dealt with 'string types' I'm quite skeptical.... you think you guys are superstitious about things like bone bridge pins.... hah! Ain't nuthin' compared to the way some fiddlers act. I've also heard about leaving a guitar in front of a stereo speaker. No idea if it has any effect. My only addition is to suggest that in order to get the top vibrating, wouldn't it be best to have music played in the same general frequency range as the guitar? It would seem like it would then 'limber up' the top when those frequencies are present and maybe be more responsive when induced by the vibrating string. I know they have a fundamental frequency. I guess that's what you'd call it. Pick up any acoustic and put your face close to the sound hole. Begin humming an B or C note, then slowly lower the pitch down several notes.... think of the descending sound you'd make imitating a bomb being dropped. You're now humming directly into the sound hole. You will hit an A or G note and all of a sudden the guitar will come alive and the volume of your (reflected) humming will nearly double in volume. I have no idea what all of that means, but violin makers, archtop builders, people setting up banjos, they all use that info to fine tune their instruments.

And make sure you have your nitro pills handy when they tell you the price. Hoo-ahhhh! You want Cadillac, they gonna GIVE you Cadillac, but you gonna PAY for Cadillac too!