Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

J-1854Me

All Access
  • Posts

    1,141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J-1854Me

  1. I've seen this on some other examples of new Gibson acoustics. In my opinion, that's just a stupid idea, a poor location for a strap button. I agree with Eminor7, if installed it should go on the treble side of the neck heel, more or less at location #5. Fred
  2. This was a Custom Shop order: Back:
  3. I have a J-200 Elite, and a standard SJ-200. They are difficult to compare, since the standard is sitka/maple and the Elite is red spruce/koa. They're both very nice and good at what they do, both loud and both articulate but they have different sounds. Fred
  4. Your guitar is a J-200Jr that was labelled "J-200M" probably because they hadn't settled on the "J-200Jr" name yet. Officially, the J-200Jr was introduced in possibly late 1991 but more like 1992. They are 16" across the lower bout, so they basically take the J-185 body, put on a maple neck, and dress it up with J-200 appointments like the bridge and the fretboard inlays. They did not have fretboard binding in the original run, which was mostly 1992-96 or so, with the odd little run put out after that. Yours has the white oval label which was used through 1993. The J-200M -- for "Mini" -- is a smaller guitar, measuring around 15" across the lower bout. That one was introduced in the 2000s, and has gone through several iterations over the years. But it is different from what you have. This is my '07 J-200Jr: Hope that helps. Fred
  5. Looks like my '01 too. Madagascar rosewood bridge and fingerboard. It was featured prominently in the ads of the day, showing a nice natural finish SJ-200 with the streaky fingerboard. Mine did not have a pickup in it either. Fred
  6. Don't rely on the serial numbers from that period too heavily. As mentioned, some of those got recycled, and the '66 and '69 SNs notoriously double-used. I spent about a week or so trying to sort out an ES-355 with one of those doubled-up SNs, a few years ago, and eventually as able to get it sorted as a '66. Read up on that aspect a bit more. Fred
  7. It's actually illegal to date a J-50 in most states. Except maybe Alabama and Alaska...... 🙂 Sorry -- someone had to say it! Based on the features and the serial number your guitar comes up as either a '66 or a '69. The transition from round-shouldered to square-shouldered is not necessarily all that clear either. I think all will agree a '70s-era J-45/50 has square-shoulders, but some '68s show up with square and some '69s with round. Here's a round '68 at Gary's https://www.gbase.com/gear/gibson-j-50-1968-2 Here's a square somewhere else: Here's a '67 at Gary's: Your bridge looks a bit more like the later '60s to me than the mid-'60s. Don't forget -- the other "dreadnaught" stablemates in the Gibson line, the SJ and CW, had been square-shouldered since the earlier '60s. Mixing of parts is/was not uncommon in manufacturing of guitars. My inclination is to say '67, but I would not be too dogmatic on that. Fred
  8. Goodness sakes.... A truss rod cover. The TRCs with the wide white border are what was used on the SJ-200s in the 1950s. That's why they have the wide borders on them. I suppose that's why Gibson equipped this "1957 SJ-200" with the wide-white-border TRC. Poorly executed, yes, but the correct look. Below is an example from 1952 Fred 4
  9. Congratulations, Bruce -- I'm glad that you've finally obtained the guitar we've all been reading about in your posts here and on AGF for so long! It looks like a beautiful guitar! Fred
  10. Wow, that is a beauty, Bruce! Fred
  11. Yeah, I've been wondering about this change too, moving from a 12" to a "more comfortable" 16" radius. The rounder geometry of the fingerboard was ALWAYS one of the things I loved about Gibsons; to me they felt so comfortable, like an old pair of jeans. Much as I love Larrivee guitars, for example, one of the things I never could really get was the flat fingerboard. Jean came from a classical player's background and so tended to go for the flatter f-board design element, while Gibson had the tighter 12-ish inch radius. Fred
  12. Just for reference' sake, Jeff, many of the mid-'90s Gospels that I have seen (and I did own a '94 for a while), were not dark-stained at all: they had the (very pleasing!) virtually natural finish mahogany neck, back and sides. So, that, as an anecdotal thing..... 🙂 Fred
  13. My '56 J-185 has a body depth at the butt of 4 and 15/16". Fred
  14. Nice job!! Now I wish you lived down the street.... 🙂 (Glad you didn't do the AM radio-sanitized version....) Fred
  15. Hi, and welcome to the written portion of the Forum! 🙂 For your dilemma, I would suggest that the third guitar is the obvious choice. Sound usually wins, in my book, over aesthetics, except in extreme cases. (That said, the second off-centre burst is pretty goofy though.) The light-coloured wood that was used for the bridge and (to a lesser extent) on the fretboard on example #3 is kind of cool, I think. It reminds me a bit of the gumwood and beanwood that was used on some of the 1940s-era Gibsons for bridges and fingerboards. So I'd recommend "go with the Third J-45". Fred
  16. Dang -- that was very nice, Sal!! Just great! Fred
  17. Wow, Tom -- that sounds like a cool and unusual acquisition! Looking forward to a fuller report in a few weeks! Best, Fred
  18. I had on '07 J-185TV, serialed in early April 2007, and it was a True Vintage for sure. The label, however, just said "J-185". It came with that (ultra-hefty) TV case. Fred
  19. Different models came/come standard with pickup systems starting in different years. I don't know that there's any solid dates associated with this though. "Historic" and "vintage" models are least likely to have pickups, but 'standard' models seem to pretty much all come with them nowadays. My '01 did not have a pickup, but a 2013 model did. So probably somewhere in the mid-00s is when they started putting them in all of whatever was considered "standard" models. That's my uneducated wild guess. Fred
  20. Well, Juan Carlos, I hope you don't shuffle off just because of this stuff. It is virtually impossible to introduce topics (or participate in them) on forums without someone somewhere seeing some different aspect and introducing a sidebar that is "off the main topic". This happens on all forums -- it's just how people are. Just my two cents' worth, but I hope you let this water flow off your back. Fred
  21. I'll agree with what you say here, to an extent. I find it unfortunate that the "regular ol' guitars" are becoming so darned pricey though, that they have to trot out a whole crop of matte finish, "sustainable" wood guitars, with thinner bodies, etc. The J-35s and J-15s of a few years ago are creeping into the price point that the J-45s used to own, the J-45s are now up in the mid-2K or higher area, and hence the G-xx guitars. And my go to, the J-185, is now priced stratospherically high and doesn't even have a nice finish on it. That all said, I continue to wonder why the only 'sustainable' wood that Gibson seems to use is walnut. What's wrong with maple or cherry? Or other woods? Whatevs..... I had a young person and their family over the other day to look at a new inexpensive guitar. After looking at a whole mess of Gibsons, they ended up with two 'entry-level' guitars: a Taylor 114 and a Martin D-1. Fred
  22. In the '50s, there was a percentage of the J-185s that were built using that larger 'batwing' pickguard, although most typically the smaller/trimmer pickguard was used. I also had an '07 TV J-185, and it had the "slightly more correct" smaller 'guard. It's seen on the right in the photo, along with an original '56. Fred
×
×
  • Create New...