fortyearspickn

I don't see a problem/danger with having the guitar in a room with music turned up so that it can pick up on the sympathetic vibes. I, too, have found the guitar humming along with some songs. But I do not believe non-musical vibrations can enhance a guitar either tonally or structurally. I can't prove it scientifically - of course. But I am very much in doubt of anything 'Not Musical' working any better than if you put your guitar on top of your drier for 20 or 30 hours. But, as a purist, I would also not hand my brand new Viper (if I had one) over to a teenage boy for a month to have him break it in for me. So, I am completely in agreement with points made like those by Phelonius Ponk - it is not possible to prove the 'tome' improves. Tone is too subjective. And the variables almost impossible to control in a scientific way. That said, it would be interesting to construct a 'blind test' of OWF's theory.

Agree.

Another vote for Elixer Nanoweb 12s. Jx00s don't need cable, but they need a little wire to get that big body vibrating.

My wife often says I remind her of a Young John Denver. Before he learned to play the guitar. Seriously - look it is even capo-ed. That must be one of the "Jaws Of Life" capos. I guess he tuned it down a full step to avoid an industrial accident.

I used Transmission Fluid on a 50 year old LG1 3 years ago - seems to have done the trick. I will let those who inherit my other guitars figure out the answer to this question, but I don't think I've got any others with those inviting little holes.

KSD, we are in an era of changing values. Some immediately look to "blame the victim". Defense attorneys will claim their client (aka the 'criminal') made an unfortunate choice and it was a "crime of opportunity"! The perp "is not a bad person", and some of the responsibility lies with the victim. So, the lines are getting blurred. Eventually, the liberal application of the concept of guilt will open the door for the lawyer of someone this drunk girl could have hit to sue whoever let the keys in the car. Anyway, I've had engines replaced and it was like a makeover. Be sure to get a written guarantee on the work. G'Luck. Jim

Hey Scott, that looks like the twin sister of mine. She wouldn't be from Tucson, would she? Got mine about 4 weeks ago. Sounds as good as it looks. Was helped by several forum members here. Posted that I was looking for a. 3rd Gibson to complement an Sj200 and an H'Bird, and one member came back and suggested this. I think I've gotten blisters under my callouses. Third time it's happened! Welcome Aboard. Jim

Good one Steve.you and that J35 were made for each other. Could be a marketing clip for Bozeman!

.

If I had wanted to be a Proctologist...... Seriously, I originally took the position (and voted) to NOT look in there. But I remembered we had a lighted dental mirror in the bathroom junk drawer - so, suffering my wife's looks of pity, I dug it out, dug my head out of the sand and looked at my 2 week old J45 Custom first. I was initially really unhappy, because the locator hole was closer to the bridge pin holes and rougher than on my other two Gibsons. But, thanks to the ongoing discussion here - Randmo adding to the discussion, and DuluthDan clarifying on June 9th why locator hole placement variability was necessary to make sure intonation was perfect on each guitar in placing the bridge - I feel we've had more, better closure on this issue than when it first came up a few months ago. We can all make our own, better informed, decisions now on whether rough bridge pin holes warrant a trip to a luthier, and whether a locator hole is structurally unsound. Since most seem to have been plugged at the factory - it makes the decision a little easier for those folks. I wish you all who have legitimate issues the best. Jim

Looks very, very similar to J45 Custom (Koa) I got 3 weeks ago. The plugged hole in bridge the same. Angle makes it look closer than it really is. I assume yours is rosewood?

Glue, probably epoxy, from putting a wood plug/dowel into the hole.

After calming down, after seeing my newest Gibsons hole isn't as far away and clean as the 2 older ones and reading DuluthDans explanation, I feel better.Looked more closely at Randmo's picture. It appears to me that the locator hole is in fact plugged and has some glue (epoxy) around it. Also, it appears the the string ball that is off to the side should be able to be placed in the hole straighter and kept in the groove of the pin with more manipulation than might be required for the other five. Since this is not an older guitar where the hole has been mis-sharpen by always putting the string I the wrong position, the hole should be round enough that the string can be coaxed into the right place. It might require placing this string before the others so you have room to work with down there. Unless or until a string actually moves into the locator hole, it is by process of elimination, in the bridge pin hole, right? Random has only been playing for 3 months as I understand it, so may not have changed strings as much as some folks here. No offense intended, of course, we were all newbies at one time or another.

Drc, with all due respect. That is one nice piece of maple. I've seen lots that don't look like that though. Some on kitchen cabinets. And, while I've only drilled a dozen hundred or so holes in wood. I don't think splinters showing up on the nether side are indicative of either a dull drill bit or "a hack job". You can sand off the splinters, or drill from the exposed side, but both are cosmetic approaches which have nothing to do with the integrity of the hole itself. As previously noted here, I have a 2004 and a 2010 with clean bridge plates. My Dec. 2013, not so much. So, I'm not an apologist or fan boy. But the bridge plate wood itself is not in question here, so let's move on, shall we?

vacaMartin, help me understand how posting a picture you know nothing about from another website/forum contributes to the discussion here. Thanks.

Nah, you didn't. I just thought I'd Lighten the mood. if you use a saw, you could install a hinge - and that would make it easier when you change your strings. Seriously - I gave up trying to even post pictures here - so I"m sure you're Light years ahead of me.

Take off the back.

DuluthDan, A picture is worth a hundred words.... but exactly HOW did you do the fix ?

Yes, but poll isn't 'scientific'. The three that don't have the problem could be looking at guitars built 3 or 4 years ago before the change in the manufacturing process occurred. I would venture to say that Gibson is making 100% of their guitars this way now. Either that, or they have different people doing the same process differently - which is even scarier.

My 2004 is perfect as is my 2010. My 2013 looks like the bad one shown in this thread. I'm Very Disappointed in Gibson for letting sub-standard quality ship. I got my 2013 J45 Custom three weeks ago and love it. Now I feel like the teenage boy who finds out his prom date is not a virgin. I am hoping someone from Gibson will step up to the plate and tell us here how to fix this problem. I'm so disgusted, I can't even be bothered being bothered by GuitarLight.

Well put. That's why it's such a gas playing, comparing and arguing which one sounds ""best". Whether arguing with friends here, or with oneself trying to figure out why your Dwight Yoakam Acey Duecey J45 doesn't sound the same as Ray Wiley Hibbard's! Great thread.

HNS, At 10:30 you asked what could have caused he improvement in sound when you pulled the bone saddle you put on and returned the saddle that had been there. At 5:30 you declare tusq is better than bone or ivory... but you admit the fit could have been off on the bone saddle and that you aren't sure what the material is of the saddle you put back in. Plus you put a new set of strings on. So, while I'd agree this was an "experiment", I don't think you can say it was scientific enough to prove tusq sounds better than bone. A true scientific experiment would have to control all the variables and switch out 50 or 60 bone and tush saddles, with the guitar equivalent of taste testers who have a highly developed sense of hearing sitting as judges. As you said YMMV. I believe our ears hear differently so a truly scientific experiment would only prove some people prefer the sound of one, while others prefer the sound of another. The bottom line is, you've fallen in love again with your SongWriter, and that is all that matters. Glad you're going to hold on to it.

Zombie Thread. OP pulled the trigger over 4 years ago.