bobouz

-The unfinished F-holes are normal. Many Gibson models get the black treatment on the edge of the F-holes, others are left natural, and some are bound. -The unfinished area of the body under the fingerboard is normal. -The finish cracks at the fret ends are unfortunate, but appear often. -The finish issues around the heel & headstock crown are very common. -The serial number? Who cares! All your concerns appear to be very minor issues, and most are common to Gibson's nitro finishes. Unfortunately, some batches of nitro can be less stable than others, so issues similar to yours are seen frequently, and generally, a dark bodied instrument will more readily show finish cracks. Conversely and most importantly, none of the issues you site are related to structural stability, tone, or playability. Imho, you most likely have a great guitar sitting there, waiting to be played, while you critically focus on non-essential items. If you can't get past that point, it would be best to sell it, as someone else will probably fall head over heels in love with that instrument. Just answering as honestly as possible - since you asked!

On a dual action rod, the center point of it's adjustment is like having your car in neutral - it's essentially doing nothing. Turn clockwise, and it will decrease relief as in any traditional rod until you can turn no further. But turn counterclockwise, and here's where things differ. As you pass through the neutral center-point, you will start to feel the rod's tension increase again (while neck relief is increasing), until the rod will no longer turn (as opposed to the tension continuing to decrease in a single action rod).

The forum says "Gibson Acoustic." It does not say "Gibson Acoustic/Montana." That includes the discussion of Kalamazoo era instruments. You threw out a generalized comment that is wholly incorrect. Your qualified response is no surprise.

Mr Truth, I'm afraid what you have just said is 100% untrue. Consult Gibson catalogs available online, and you will see that Gibson historically has often charged more for a natural finish vs sunburst finish of the same model. This was a very common practice in Kalamazoo, and it continues today with some electric models. At time of purchase, my natural finish 2007 ES-335 carried a $400 upcharge over the sunburst model. Same basic thing with my natural finish 2012 ES-330 VOS. Gibson's rationale being that natural finish instruments of the same model will receive more desirable wood. Just a few examples from a '50s catalog: Super 400N Natural Finish: $675 Super 400 Sunburst Finish: $650 L-5CN Natural Finish: $580 L-5C Sunburst Finish: $565 J-50 Natural Finish: $145 J-45 Sunburst Finish: $135 LG-3 Natural Finish: $115 LG-2 Sunburst Finish: $105 And so on. Many more examples are available from multiple decades.

I mail-ordered one of the first J-15s produced, as I was curious about what walnut would render in a roundshoulder Gibson. The price paid was $1275. For a reason I've never uncovered, it arrived with a Custom Shop logo on the back of the neck/peghead, as well as a thin pickguard, those cute little mini-Grovers, a beautifully bookmatched top, a super sweet neck for my hands, and gobs of tone more in the realm of maple - which is often my preferred tonewood for the fingerpicking style I employ 99% of the time. Before anyone had even played one of these, there was speculation on this board about how well walnut would hold up in use as a fingerboard/bridge material. Now two years down the road, we are being schooled to believe that the backs may implode if you don't monitor your humidity like a banshee. Folks, in the end we all have our own criteria & make our final purchasing decision based on that unique criteria. A good chunk of my key criteria is based on build quality, but another huge chunk is based on playability, my style of play, what my ears hear, overall value, my exposure to different instruments over the past 45+ years, and some other purely emotional stuff. I've got some fairly expensive guitars, and I've also got a very sweet sounding little Epiphone EL-00 that would certainly be considered firewood by some. After owning something in the neighborhood of 150+ instruments, my purchasing criteria has currently resulted in twenty-seven acoustic & electric guitars, and two mandolins, that I find truly satisfying. It so happens that the J-15 noted above has found a place in that group. Two years down the road with no humidity control (not much of an issue here on the north Oregon coast), it retains the qualities I initially found attractive. Hopefully I'll still be around in ten years to see how she & the rest of the clan has held up, but for now I'll simply enjoy the privilege of playing them.

When I became seriously interested in guitar construction back in '70s, one of the common bits of info I ran across was the following: A one-piece mahogany neck is more resistant to twisting when compared to a one-piece maple neck. Therefore, a laminated maple neck is recommended if it is to be utilitzed as the wood of choice in neck construction.

Another vote here for the early part of the last decade. While looking for a Gibson jumbo in 2001, most new ones I ran across were quite good. Ended up with a J100-Xtra, which I still have, and later in the year added a J-150 (eventually traded). Interestingly, the few clunkers were J200s rather than J150s or J100s.

Personally, I've found the tone of jumbo Gibsons to be all over the map, especially given all the variations in materials over the years. Mine has a maple body & mahogany neck, but I've also owned all maple & all mahogany. Now a new combo comes along, so we'll see how this one literally plays out. Therefore, I'd make no assumptions about the tone, but trying it out in person would be fun & educational !

Another old Hopkins fan here. Coffee House Blues is a long time favorite: "She drank black coffee, and it was without a drop of cream."

It does see the light of day at least once a week, and yes, it's a very nice guitar. I've played a few that were just dead as a doornail, but when you find a good one, they're really good!

Jeff - I'd be very surprised if that is the case. Both the B25 & Cortez from '66 should have a 24.75" scale length. Next time I pull out my '66 Cortez, I'll check & report back (have to move seven other instruments to get to it!).

Just an FYI: Based on the serial number, the guitar was manufactured in 1966. The headstock in '62 had a wider shape, while yours is consistent with '66. Also, your guitar has a plastic bridge, so no need to use oil on it. The plastic bridge is likewise consistent with Cortez production in '66 (for treating the rosewood fretboard, Guitar Honey or Fret Doctor are two frequently recommended products). The tuners are not the typically seen three-on-a-plate Klusons, but instead appear to be a design that was commonly imported at the time. I've seen the exact same tuners on another mid-'60s Cortez, so possibly Gibson installed them as original equipment on some instruments, as I do not see any screw holes for the three-on-a-plate on your guitar. I currently have a '66 Cortez, and have previously owned a '64 Cortez, as well as a '65 Gibson B-25 clone, so I'm rather familiar with this particular model. Many of them can have a highly satisfying tone.

Congrats! Mine is a virtually identical 2010 model, but still completely stock except for switching to a black TRC with the E logo. They really are very nicely built, and get rather close to Elitist quality. Of course, the Gibson P94 single-coil pickups make it oh-so-sweet. And personally, I find the golden/orange tint of the natural finish to be quite attractive. As for Nick Valensi, he's the guitarist for a New York band called The Strokes (google for more info), and this model is based on his modified '90s Riviera with P94 pickups. Enjoy!

The last Gibson I've run into with an ebony board was a limited run 2011 ES-335 with P90s. I purchased this guitar new in early 2012, and the serial number indicates that it was made in December of 2011. There probably have been others since then, but to date I haven't come across one.

It's been a low-buck barnstorming tour around the pacific rim since 1970, with of course some notable exceptions like the Terada-made instruments.

As is well documented, Epiphone turned to Korean manufacturers in the early '80s, contracting with Samick, Peerless, Saein, and Unsung for the vast majority of their production. I think the point here is that Korean production has been reduced to a trickle of what it once was. Indonesian production is a relatively new thing, at least from the stand point of Epiphone labeled instruments being imported into the USA.

I looked at one of those a few weeks ago. It's being built by Unsung in Korea, same as my 2010 Nick Valensi Riviera, which also came with Gibson pickups (P94s). So Epiphone still turns to Korean jobbers from time to time, and it generally seems to involve their higher end products.

I believe some are now made in Indonesia.

You asked about the value of your instruments. From the 2012 Vintage Guitar Price Guide: FT 120 > $65 to $75 FT 160 > $175 to $200

Most of Epiphone's acoustic production from the '70s is not high quality, and does not command a significant price on the used market. To be honest, at the time I considered them quite inferior to many other overseas brands. As good as inexpensive guitars are in this day & age (such as Epi's current Indonesia-produced lineup), it would be wise to consider options carefully before spending even a couple hundred bucks on a '70s Epi. This has nothing to do with Japanese quality in general. Even back then, the "Copy Era" instruments manufactured in Japan by companies such as Ibanez were indeed first rate. The capability has been there for a long time. It's just a matter of what price point & segment of the market was being targeted by the distributor.

You too, MP!

You can actually do both, and find it all satisfying.

We do indeed see things differently. I look at Randmo's bridgeplate and unfortunately see a mess. What caught my eye in his original photo in post #5, was the ball to the far right which appears to already be digging deeply into the plate, and of course the string making a bee line for the locator hole, which does not appear to be resting on the plate at all. In his final photos in post #98, the 6th string hole does not appear as damaged as I had thought, but it looks enlarged (as does the 1st string hole), and then there's the significant chip between the 5th and 6th strings (which both generate substantial tension). Additionally, there are numerous chips adjacent to other pin holes. Honestly, the photo of this bridgeplate without strings should make the shop turn it's collective head away in shame. Although there is no structural damage to the instrument at this time, the structural purpose of the bridge plate is compromised when the ball ends do not, or cannot, rest fully on the plate. Every chip in the maple between and around the pin holes, and every poorly seated ball end means the plate has a potential area of weakness that might not ideally distribute string pressure as intended over time. If a crack develops on the plate between the pin holes, or a ball end eventually digs through the maple and is resting directly on the spruce top, serious issues may then develop. It may take many years, but left unchecked, the end result as we know, can be a crack in the top, a crack in the bridge, or a lifting bridge. Also to be considered, is the fact that there is precious little wood south of the pin holes on a Gibson belly-up bridge or straight bridge, as opposed to the larger surface area behind the pin holes on a Martin style belly-down bridge. If the bridgeplate becomes seriously compromised, a very small surface area of the bridge will be taking the brunt of the additional load, increasing the risk of damage before you might stumble upon what's happening. Again, the point here is preventative maintenance. If you can more ideally seat the ball ends, why not do so? If you've got a badly chewed up brdigeplate & no warranty option, why not consider a rather simple measure like the Plate Mate, or a narrow maple or birch overlay? Note that a product like the Plate Mate was developed for a reason - the reason being that this stuff does actually happen. If someone doesn't want to fool around with it, no problem. We all choose where & when to roll the dice.

Sure, the full content of this thread may be a bit much, but here's the bottom line of what's important: > Given the chewed up nature of some of Gibson's bridge plates, as preventative maintenence (to avoid future structural damage) it makes sense to check with a mirror & assure that the ball ends of your strings are properly seated onto good wood. Randmo, a new player with a new Gibson, discovered that he has a fairly compromised bridge plate & a couple of string balls that were already digging into weakened areas. He then did a great job of relocating the ball ends onto areas of the plate that are structurally sound. That pretty much seals the value of this thread in my book. It's absolutely worth looking under the hood of any guitar to know what's going on, but this is especially true if you own a Montana Gibson. Simple as that.

Hmm - that is indeed a horse of a different color. It'll be interesting to see how the threshold for an approved warranty repair plays out.