bobouz

By enlarging the photo provided by the OP, it clearly says ”Kluson Deluxe” on the tuner housings that aren’t partially faded (1st & 2nd string tuners on the lower left).

Welcome Gary, and so cool that you’re able to play again - it can truly be a great & relaxing diversion from all the day to day stuff!

Actually ZWF, those are Kluson Deluxe double-line tuners in the photo, which go back further. They are original to both my ‘66 ES-125T and ‘66 Epi Cortez FT-45n. The bridge in this case is what easily verifies the 1969 model year. 1968 had a rosewood belly-up adjustable bridge & “boob” batwing pickguard. 1967 had the same with no boob, and then we get back to 1966 with the plastic belly-up adjustable bridge. Of course, we know there can always be some overlap on those dates!

Like others here, I've owned a number of Martins & have had a soft spot for them since crossing paths with a little 1970 00-18. Purchased it in 1980, and twenty-one years later when it needed a neck reset, traded it in towards a new custom rosewood Martin dread, which I still have. Also revisited my Martin small-body lust by picking up a nice 000-16 made in 2000 (striped ebony board & bridge - pre micarta & richlite). But overall, the truth is that Gibsons work much better for me than Martins, so the Martins rarely get played. It starts with my fingerstyle of play, in which I'm after quick decaying notes. Generally, the assorted maple jumbo-shaped bodies tend to work quite well for this, but I can also find it in Gibson's dry & punchy J-45/J50 roundshoulder bodies (I have one in mahogany & one with rosewood). Then there are a couple of key playability factors: Gibson's common use of 12" radius fingerboards vs Martin's 16" radius, and Gibson's frequent use of short-scale fingerboards in a wide variety of body sizes. So I could very easily do without my Martins, but the Gibsons aren't going anywhere!

Welcome, and congrats on acquiring the B-25. This particular one is actually from 1969. Gibson reused some serial numbers, and this sequence appeared in both 1966 & 1969. Your rosewood belly-down bridge is from the ‘69 version. I’ve owned three of these from the ‘60s (still have a ‘66) & have a few thoughts: - If you’re happy with the tone, using extra-light strings is fine & provides a degree of structural safety due to their lower level of tension. I currently use D’Addario PB extra-lights on my ‘66. - Swapping out the rosewood saddle for one made of bone, Tusq, or the original ceramic from the ‘60s, will typically lead to a richer & more resonant tone. The rosewood saddle often tends to have somewhat of a muting effect. That said, it’s not a one-size-fits-all proposition, and some folks prefer the rosewood saddle. - There are direct replacements available for the “three-on-a-plate” Kluson tuners. Those branded as Klusons are now made in Korea, and in my experience, can often be a bit mediocre in operation. Gotoh also makes a direct replacement & they might be better, and Stewart-McDonald sells good quality replacements as well. I wouldn’t bother with other off-brand tuners, which most likely will not be very well made. Enjoy your new-to-you guitar!

Guilds were my guitar of choice in the ‘70s, and I currently own three of them from that era (‘73 F-30R, ‘74 F-40, & ‘76 G-37), along with three other Westerly-made Guilds. Often built like a tank in areas like the neck & end block - but not the tops, which remained thin and resonant. There’s a bunch of good ones out there, and they often can sound somewhat like a piano trying to navigate it’s way through the soundhole of a guitar. Cordoba now owns the Guild brand & their Guild website sells a pickguard that comes pretty close to the actual ‘70s version. There also are a number of folks out there who specialize in pickguards, such as Terrapin Guitars. Have lots of fun with your new-to-you Guild!

Indeed Nick, you are correct! I use Gruhn’s 2nd guide, and he’s got it in there, but I missed it within his sequencing. 1-9/16” nut width for sure, as you originally stated.

Nick, 092316 is essentially a five digit number that references to a timeframe between 1962 and 1964. Nut width should be 1-11/16”. Tricky stuff sometimes! Edit: See below - My info is incorrect & Nick’s got it right - it’s a valid six digit number!

If you look at the edit portion of the answer given above by "modoc_333" (back in 2015), you will see the correct answer. At the time, he worked for a Gibson dealer (and perhaps still does). His information would be accurate, as it came from Gibson.

Welcome Steven - I have a 2012 J-185 with a Fishman Elipse Aura soundhole pickup. It’s a rather massive thing, mounted on the left side of the soundhole. Regardless of the extra baggage, this guitar has sounded full & rich since day one. J-185s tend to be that way - they either sound really good or they don’t, and you typically will know it immediately. Every guitar I’ve ever owned that I hoped would open up never did to any significant extent. I’d like to be hopeful here, but I think you’d be better served by real world experience. My guess is that what you’re hearing from the instrument now will not change dramatically. You want a guitar that makes you swoon right out of the gate. The J-185 example you have seems far from that ideal, so minimal tweaks will probably not be enough to bridge the gap. By all means experiment with strings, because it’s super easy & they can make a big difference. But if that doesn’t result in anything that moves the needle more than a little bit, return the guitar if you have that option, and look for another. It may take time, but a good one is well worth the hunt, and they do exist. Out of the thirty guitars I own, my J-185 would be the one to remain with me on that proverbial desert island.

Haven’t played one, Sal, but the Indonesian factory Gibson’s been using to build acoustic Epiphones is capable of building a very nice guitar. Their inexpensive solid-top Pro series Hummingbird, Dove, & EL-00 represents a commendable value, with impressive price-point build quality. This guitar should be more of the same - but crancked up a notch.

If it's from '63, it would have originally had either a rosewood or plastic belly-up adjustable bridge. If it's from '67, it would've originally come with a rosewood belly-up adjustable bridge. Note that if it were made in '67, the neck would have been 1-9/16" at the nut, which is the quick & easy way to distinguish the wider-necked '63 from a '67. Also, if the top were original (which it does not appear to be), a bridgeplate inspection would show obvious evidence of holes for the adjustable bridge hardware - okay, unless a new bridgeplate was fashioned & covered up all the holes!

Yes, the tuners were made by Gotoh in Japan. The set on my '76 Guild G-37 still works great! Edit - Btw Al, assuming you still have that set, thought you might like to know that there's a fellow on the internet who sells them for $150, or $200 with the bushings!

During the ‘70s, they were standard issue on the Guild D-35, D-40, & G-37. Those three models were frequently seen in stores, and there may have been a few other models that used them. I have a 1976 G-37 with these tuners.

Your serial number’s sequence was used in 1963, and again in 1967 - which was not unusual for Gibson in the ‘60s. From what can be seen thus far, the headstock & back bracing appear to be correct for the era. But the top does not, and the fingerboard of a CW/SJ should have parallelogram inlays - so perhaps the guitar received both a new top and fingerboard at some point in time.

Don, from this rather limited view, there's not much about the guitar that looks like a Gibson. We'll need detailed pics of the headstock (front & back), shots of the body, and whatever views of the interior that you can manage. Given the one photo, there's nothing about the top that looks like a Gibson. The tuners are a type that were seen on certain Guild models in the '70s, but were never standard issue on a Gibson (of course tuners can be changed). The two screw truss rod cover is a good sign, but that's not enough to determine anything conclusively at this point.

Hmm, I’ve changed out quite a few Grover buttons for Hipshots on both regular & mini rotomatics without issues - but one time (pearl tulips to minis) the supplied screws weren’t long enough & I managed to find what I needed at the hardware store. Sorry it didn’t work out for you.

Look for the 18:1 Grovers. Packaging is almost identical, but notes the ratio specifically. Also, there’s a vast assortment of Hipshot buttons available that will fit Grovers - so you can go with larger or smaller buttons.

That was just a generalization, but you did seem pretty darn upset in your initial post. As for keeping a slightly damaged new guitar - again, I’d be after some form of compensation for sure. But I absolutely can & have seen scenarios where I want THAT guitar, so then you set about trying to finalize a deal that works for everyone. Hopefully for the OP, his replacement guitar will be as good or better than the first one. If nothing else, he’ll have gained an additional reference point regarding J-45s.

Not understanding your need to once again issue a snarky response. We all get it - this obviously isn’t rocket science, but each guitar still needs to be considered on it’s own merits. If I walked into that GC and the guitar in question was stellar & I wanted it based on my individual criteria, I’d be negotiating the price down given the flaw. It’s essentially a floor model with slight damage & I imagine a fair number of folks would take that approach - if they wanted that particular instrument. We don't know who the seller was or even it they noticed the flaw - apparently even the OP didn’t notice it until later. Now that everyone’s on the same page, they’re working it out & hopefully to the satisfaction of all. It clearly seems to bug the heck out of you that Gibson fanboys like me don’t jump on the “What a piece of crap!” bandwagon & first look at all the alternatives. Try to get over it because that’s pretty much how people respond on any brand-specific forum. Wish I had a buck for every possible reason given over on UMGF for the neck-reset & popped-binding posts that occur on a very regular basis in the tech-info section. Most recently, the owner of a recent D-28 1937-Authentic posted that his binding was separating from the body, and he’d emailed Martin three times with no response. The poster went on to question Martin’s quality, lifetime warranty, & customer service. They’ve now seen so much of this on UMGF, that two people replied seemingly with a shrug that “it must be due to covid.”

Bought a J-50 new in 2001 because I loved the tone, but couldn’t get used to it’s wider neck width. Conversely, my 2002 J-45 Rosewood has a slim early ‘60s profile, which is what I prefer. I’ve played and/or owned quite a few Montana acoustics built between 2000 & 2004, and there truly is no rhyme or reason to their neck profiles. More were on the slightly chunky side to be to my liking, so I really noticed it when one was slimmer. For another example, the same scenario occurred with a 2000 J-100xtra & 2001 J-150 (both with unbound fingerboards). The J-100 has a significantly slimmer profile, and it’s the one that’s stayed with me. Fast forward to my 2015 J-50 custom shop model, and it seems to be right in the middle when compared to those examples from the early 2000s.

Yes, Gibson has been installing them recently in position #5 on new acoustics. I prefer to not have one on there at all, but on a Gibson or Guild’s flat wide heel, position #4 would be the one I’d go with.

Absolutely. The adjustable plastic version can provide a uniquely satisfying tone without compromising structural stability, while imho, the non-adjustable version has no redeeming qualities whatsoever!

Guitars are not cookie cutter, and value is in the eyes, ears, and hands of the beholder - with each of us having our own unique criteria. For those of you whose criteria in considering a new instrument requires visual perfection, there's a high probability that you someday will or have passed on a instrument that is, imho, significantly superior where it counts - tone and/or playability. If a guitar sounds & feels like a keeper, but has a visual flaw and I want to keep it, I've already stated that I would - and in fact have - asked for a 15% discount and received it. I've played way way way more guitars that did nothing for me, compared to the few that make me weak in the knees with their tone, or feel perfect in hand. I paid $400 more for my 2012 natural finish ES-330 VOS compared to the going price of all the sunburst & red ones I played. $400 was the markup for the natural finish version at that time. After playing a bunch of them, I immediately knew that particular guitar would end all my 330 lust, vintage or new. To this day, it remains my most treasured electric. Was I thrilled to shell out $400 more for the natural finish version? Of course not, but it was the right guitar & I fortunately had the opportunity to buy it. Same with my 2002 J-45 Rosewood. Even though there are a bazillion J-45s out there, and it feels like I've played a million of them, this one guitar has a tone that appeals to me like no other example I've ever come across, and it also just happens to have the neck profile I prefer. This guitar too will never leave my side. So flip the equation on it's head. Would you be satisfied paying, let's say, $2500 or more for a dime-a-dozen mediocre but visually perfect example? Not me. Those are the ones I pass on every time. Of course if you don't play enough of them, you'll have a limited frame of reference & can remain in blissful ignorance. Put your trophy-wife on a guitar stand & stare at her all day. The examples of any model that register at the high end of the bell curve are far & few between. They don't come along often, but when they do, you want to be smart enough to realize it.

The plastic bridge first appears on the LG-0 in 1962. 1963 is the closest year to the serial number given.