bobouz

From a business perspective, Gibson's wait & see approach is no surprise. As long as the instrument's top does not crack, or the bridge does not lift or crack from a compromised bridge plate, Gibson will consider the guitar structurally sound. If structural damage does occur, it will be time to invoke your lifetime warranty - if you are the original purchaser (and happen to live in the USA). Having had a very positive experience with Gibson's warranty department, there is certainly some comfort in that. But aside from an explanation of the rationale for the locator hole (including the fretboard holes) which many of us were already aware of, there is unfortunately no mention of an effort to improve the execution of the construction process in an effort to maintain as structurally sound of a bridgeplate as possible. I would be more impressed if the response was, "Yes, we will look at improving our technique regarding the overall bridgeplate assembly process."

This is an example of what can happen when too much of the bridge plate wood has been compromised. The locator hole and the pin hole being so close together, coupled with splintering of the wood from drilling, has left a gap of weak wood, which the ball of the string unfortunately got lodged into. Relocating the ball to catch the good wood on the opposite side can be done, but as Randmo found, the string will generally want to fall back into the gap. You've got twist the string away from the gap by hand while pulling it up towards the pin to lock it in the new position. Sometimes it can take many attempts to get it ideally re-seated.

Wily, since you referenced my mention of the Plate Mate as a self repair suggestion, I wanted to clarify by saying that my following line (which you also quote) is what I would do first if it were my guitar - explore warranty options, which I assume he has. But each of us will have decisions to make if we have a similar issue, based on our own particular set of circumstances, as in Bram99's case. How much do we feel attached to a particular instrument? Was it purchased slightly used with no warranty? Is the guitar simply stellar in every other way and you're now bonded to it? Is there a local Gibson repair-person you have confidence in? Are you comfortable addressing repair issues yourself? Etc. None of this excuses the fact that there's a problem here & the solution is long overdue - but depending on one's situation, it may be helpful to know that a simple fix, temporary or otherwise, is available. Personally, I would also consider the option of experimenting with a thin secondary plate made out of solid maple or birch. I have also seen small sheets of a strong birch laminate available (Ace hardware) in a variety of thicknesses that might be a worthwhile consideration in this application. Regardless of the route taken, it's a part of the guitar which demands that structural integrity be achieved.

Checking the seating of strings on the bridge plate is a wise preventative measure on every guitar, but Gibson's current manufacturing process makes it crucial. I only find Gibson's process acceptable if it is structurally stable, and clearly some are very questionable. I personally would not accept Randmo's as is, which is why I believe he should pursue his warranty options. Do other manufacturer's do this better? Indeed they do. Ironically, I recently acquired an '05 McCartney 1964 Texan made by Terada in Japan. Not to be confused with the current "inspired by" Epi, the McCartney is an amazingly accurate nitro-finished replica of a '64 Kalamazoo Texan. Of course, I couldn't help but notice, upon my initial string change, the impeccably clean bridge plate work. No locator hole or splinters, just a beautifully thin and pristine piece of maple.

Yes, this was previously discussed at great length, I believe about a year ago. At the time, I mentioned that it's always crucial to check the seating of string ends with a mirror on every guitar to prevent chewing up the bridge plate & eventually digging directly into the spruce top. It's especially important on Montana Gibsons since they use this goofy center locating hole (and sloppy drilling to boot). Clearly nothing has changed in Gibson's manufacturing process. My J-15, dated 1/2/14, has the locator hole close to the pin holes as well, and sure enough, I had to correct string placement upon my initial and immediate first string change to prevent one of the balls from falling towards the locator hole, which is what is occurring with Randmos guitar. The bridge plate on my J-15 is not as splintered as Randmos from drilling & I am comfortable with the string seating, but it will always need to be checked when strings are changed. Every Gibson model using this particularly narrow bridge design (J-15, J-29, J-35, etc) will probably be similar and should be checked. In Randmo's case, a Stewart-MacDonald reinforcement plate ("plate-mate") would be a quick fix, but it wouldn't be needed if the workmanship had been up to par. Pursuing your warranty options would be a worthwhile effort.

Yes, the Riviera, Sheraton, and Dot have 19 frets clear of the body, while most Casinos have 16 frets clear of the body. Note that some Asian Casinos have 17 frets clear, and some late '60s Casinos have 19 frets clear.

My 1990 Tennessean (red, silver pickguard & TRC, no armrest) also has the switch located in the upper bout. 1990 was the initial year for this model. Wonderful guitar!

Best of luck on the project. I have a soft spot for this era, having owned a '72 Heritage Custom for a number of years that I truly enjoyed back in the day. Even with that nasty old double-X bracing, it had a very satisfying tone.

Probably just an economic decision, as every acoustic in the catalog had the same neck construction. This included the J-200, Dove, Heritage, and Hummingbird. Gibson was looking hard to save a buck, but multi-piece maple construction does indeed yield a structurally strong neck.

I have a 1980 Gibson catalog & price list. There appears to be almost no difference between the square shouldered J-40, J-45, & J-50 from this era. All have a spruce top with mahogany back & sides, 3-piece maple neck with 25.5" scale, rosewood fingerboard & bridge, and tortoise batwing pickguard (your pickguard may have been changed to give it a more Martinish appearance). J-40 was available in a natural or walnut finish, J-45 sunburst finish only, J-50 natural finish only. There was also a J-55 with an arched-laminated mahogany back.

As I had strongly suspected, your guitar most likely is from the '70s. I finally got around to checking serial numbers, and your seven digit serial number is a tell-tale sign. Most serial numbers in the '70s were seven digits. Serial numbers in the '60s were six digits (or less), not seven. If you dropped the last digit, your serial number would line up with 1963, and apparently someone did just that in reading your number incorrectly. Epiphones from the '70s were Japanese imports, and do not directly compare to the '60s models manufactured in Kalamazoo by Gibson.

I'm confused by your posts. A Texan made in 1963 would be a FT-79, not an FT-120. Only the Excellente model (which I referenced above) was also known as the FT-120. The Excellente from this period is unmistakeable in it's features. The much more commonly seen FT-120 from the '70s was imported and is a whole different animal. Posting a photo would quickly clear up what you have.

If this is an Excellente FT-120 from '63, it should have cloud inlays, and a large pointed pickguard with an eagle. If yours is different, it might be an import from the '70s and worth considerably less. A good picture or two would pretty quickly confirm what you have.

I've played one J35, and thought it had a very nice tone, even if just a bit brighter than what I prefer. But what impressed me the most was the build quality. First rate all the way. This is a guitar being sold at a price point - nothing low buck about the construction, and as such, a lot of value for the money.

Ah yes, sure would be nice to have EM Shorts nearby!

Picked up a '66 Epi Cortez last year, and was surprised to find the plastic bridge 100% structurally sound, along with the top wood & bridge plate. Not so with a '65 B-25 I bought back around 1980. You just never know with these bridges.

Okay, I definitely get that!

Well, I understand what you're saying when you apply it to a Triumph car (or motorcycle). Still struggling when tying the analogy to a Taylor guitar, as I don't think ownership would reveal a whole lot more where it matters (tone & playability), unless it had, oh maybe a Lucas onboard preamp. Now there's a dark thought!

Ownership is not a factor. Why would anyone buy a guitar they've played & don't like? There are plenty of Taylors out there to be sampled. I've never owned one, but have played many, and can clearly say they do nothing for me. Imho: Overrated > Taylor. Underrated > Guilds from the '70s.

Perhaps the label was applied by Gibson after a warranty repair. And perhaps the DMW code has something to do with "warranty". IMHO, anyone attempting to deceive would not leave the original label exposed. However, a new owner, even in the late '70s, could easily understand the added value of this being a '60s rather than a '70s Gibson. I certainly was already well aware of the 'Norlin Era" stigma in the late '70s. Add in the serial number confusion, and it would be easy for someone to say, or want to say, it's from the '60s.

Ah yes, nothing like a good guitar mystery. Sorry if it's been mentioned & I missed it, but one of the quick tell tale signs is the lack of a dot on the headstock logo's "i". At least through '69, the Super 400 had a dot on the "i" from what I've seen. The Heritage & Dove acoustics I owned from the early '70s also lacked the dot on the "i".

I believe around 2001, Martin's polish was found to have silicone in it. If I remember correctly, it was after they had gone to a new manufacturer. Eventually the problem was discovered & corrected.

RusRob - Always good to welcome another 60+ geezer! Of course, you're just a youngster to some of us. Love the work you did on your LG-X, and I'm sure the guitar appreciates being rescued!

Go online to get inner case dimensions from SKB, TKL, and Gator. FWIW, I believe my old B25 fit well in a case made for a classical guitar.

The various Korean factories employed by Epiphone have all displayed a level of tightly QCed construction - some a bit more so than others at various points in time, but universally Samick, Peerless, Saein, and Unsung have built very fine guitars as they competed for Epi contracts. The common weakness (to varying degrees) was electronics & hardware - an aspect of construction which the Korean factories had no control over. Now it seems as if the equation has flipped to some extent. The strengthening of pickups, switches, tuners, etc, has become apparent, but there have been many posts regarding spotty build quality from Gibson's Chinese factories. And interestingly, this aspect of construction is completely in the hands of Gibson - exactly the stated rationale for pulling out of Korea (of course along with cheaper labor!). We'll just have to wait & see what the future brings, but one thing is for sure: The level of focus on QC will be up to Gibson.