bobouz
-
Posts
3,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by bobouz
-
-
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!
-
2 hours ago, zombywoof said:
The double line "Gibson Deluxe" tuners alone indicate no earlier than 1969.
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!
-
On 4/2/2021 at 8:38 AM, DrColg8 said:
I'm going to clean it up as is before deciding whether to retouch the finish. But the sound... the sound us surely there. Now I have to find a replacement pickguard
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!
-
2 hours ago, j45nick said:
It is also a six-digit number beginning in 0, which is 1967, so I don't know which it is.
Gibson Serial Numbers, Feb 1961 to 1970.
-
-
All models, stamped in back top of peghead. No "MADE IN USA" stamp below serial number! Note many serial numbers are duplicated from 1963-1969. In these cases, to figure out which is the exact year for a guitar, see the General Specs section for more details. ALSO note: It is easy to confuse 5 digit and 6 digit serial numbers from this era, and hence get the wrong year for a guitar. That is, 55555 is not the same number as 555555 (but when reading the number off the back of a Gibson peghead, these two numbers do look very similar!)
Range Year ----- ---- 0100 to 42440 1961 42441 to 61180 1962 61450 to 64222 1963 64240 to 71040 1964 71041 to 96600 1962, a few from 1963/1964 96601 to 99999 1963 000001 to 099999 1967 (all 6 digit numbers starting with "0" are 1967) 100000 to 106099 1963 or 1967 106100 to 106899 1963 109000 to 109999 1963 or 1967 110000 to 111549 1963 111550 to 115799 1963 or 1967
-
All models, stamped in back top of peghead. No "MADE IN USA" stamp below serial number! Note many serial numbers are duplicated from 1963-1969. In these cases, to figure out which is the exact year for a guitar, see the General Specs section for more details. ALSO note: It is easy to confuse 5 digit and 6 digit serial numbers from this era, and hence get the wrong year for a guitar. That is, 55555 is not the same number as 555555 (but when reading the number off the back of a Gibson peghead, these two numbers do look very similar!)
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!
-
15 hours ago, Chartist said:
I believe that “made in the USA-no” means that it is not supposed to be released in the US market. Still made in Montana.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, stein said:
Don't take this to the bank: I honestly don't recall what bridge is correct for the '63 or '67 someone said earlier.
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!
-
9 hours ago, Al Pike said:
Japanese made, I believe these were off my ‘76 Guild D40.
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!
-
1 hour ago, j45nick said:
Anyone seen those tuners before?
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, DonL said:
This is the only pic I could make that fits the limit for images here. It hopefully has enough info to be useful.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, thegreatgumbino said:
Just a heads up, I tried replacing the gold tulip buttons on my Grover Rotomatic Keystone 102 tuners with the "pearl" Hipshot buttons to try to recreate the green tulips without changing tuners. Seemed like a no brainer for $20. It didn't work out for me. The Hipshot screws are longer than the stock screws to accomodate the longer Hipshot buttons. For whatever reason, this change creates an issue where the black part of the sealed Grover tuner is forced out of the tuner when turned past a certain point, at which time the purchase length of the tuner shaft changes and there isn't enough for the Hipshot button to grab. This results in the Hipshot button twisting around the tuner shaft without adjusting the tuner. Also, if you use gold tuners, the Hipshot buttons only come with chrome screws, which isn't a deal breaker, but it did take a minute to get used to.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
Point out which of my posts in this thread I call the guitar a piece of crap. None cause I didn't.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
Like I said it will be for sale at GC next week and all of you that were in the "I would keep it" camp, put your money where your mouth is and if you don't have one and want one, buy that one. Just ask the OP what store he got it from and ask for that specific one.
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.”
-
2
-
1
-
-
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.
-
8 hours ago, zombywoof said:
I can understand where Gibson may well have believed an ADJ saddle bridge could do everything for a flattop it did for an archtop while adding convenience. And I can see where they may have thought an oversized laminate bridge plate was preferable to going to an an overall heavier build to support that bridge. But what engineering problem a hollow plastic bridge attached to the guitar by large screws could have solved is beyond me leaving the only benefit being cost cutting.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The plastic bridge first appears on the LG-0 in 1962.
1963 is the closest year to the serial number given.
Any Tips for my recently inherited vintage B-25?
in Gibson Acoustic
Posted
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).