jt

Thank you for the very kind words. What a privilege it has been for me to own these things. I have lent them far and wide. Emily Saliers (of the Indigo Girs) had one of my Banner SJs for a year. Jenniffer Nettles (of Sugarland) had the LG-1 for a year. My went-to-WWII SJ spent over a year in a museum. And on and on. I'm a lucky fellow, especially given my personal challenges. OK, off to play that Banner LG-3!

And plays it well, sings it beautifully, and writes a deeply meaningful song. I love mahogany-topped Banners. That guitar is extraordinary and I'm humbled and honored to be able to put it in Mae's hands.

Thanks for the kind words. The necks are nearly identical on all three. A nice, full, rounded C. Not as big as the 1944 necks that didn't have metal trussrods. The LG-2 is the oldest known Banner. It's the second guitar from the first batch of Banners. A young US soldier took it to the Pacific theater during WWII. The LG-3 is my fave of the 3, usually. Also purchased by a young US soldier in 1943, but he left it at home, under a bed. minty. Not a hint of freeware. It's 1 of 130 Banner LG-3s ever shipped. But I also love the LG-1. 1 of 139 of those Banner, X-braced LG-1s ever shipped. As some folks know, I often loan my guitars. The LG-2 has been in the hands of the wonderful Mia Byrne for 6 months, or so. The equally wonderful Mae Valeria has had my LG-1 for a similar amount of time. She's just been named a finalist in NPR's Tiny Desk Contest for her entry that she played on the guitar: So, I'll be playing the LG-3 tonight! 🙂

I'm an LG fanatic! Gibson based the guitar on its classical guitar body, making it the equivalent of a Martin 00-sized guitar.

A beautiful instrument! Congratulations.

I've long wondered about this. When I was in Bozeman touring the factory, I asked this precise question while standing in front of the CNC machine that was cutting necks. My tour guide responded, "We just can't do that." But the CNC could easily have been programmed to taper the headstock. Certainly, it wasn't a question of sufficient wood. The machine spits out necks with non-tapered headstocks. Tapering would simply have involved a bit of programming and the shaving off a bit of wood from the necks the machine was ejecting.

Yet another reason why I question the authenticity of the photo.

The fingerboard is bound in wood. It's possible, I suppose, that Gibson cut the fret slots with a router and didn't cut all the way through to the edges of the fingerboard. But the grain (in a very grainy photo) appears wrong for that. It looks to me like a fingerboard bound in wood. But regardless, that's not fret sprout. The tang on the offending fret has not been cut back so as not to protrude to the edge of the fingerboard. Again, I suspect the photo. It seems nearly impossible that the guitar left the factory like that.

The fret "sprouted" cleanly through the fingerboard binding? I don't think so.

This is pathetic quality control (if the post and pic are legit). A bound fingerboard and someone hammers one fret through the fingerboard binding? Frankly, unbelievable. I would not even consider keeping the guitar.

Thank you, my friend. It has been a fascinating, 4-year journey. There are interesting times ahead of me. I will live every moment to my fullest. And, yeah, I'll play my Gibsons as often as I can.

Thank you for the kind words! That's a cool guitar that you have! One of my Banners has a laminated neck. It's my went-to-WWII SJ:

I've owned a lot of lovely Gibsons. I still do. My current Gibsons include a 1930 Nick Lucas, 5 Banner/WWII-era Gibson, and a 1904 A Mandolin and 1936 A-Century mandolin. A few years ago I sold about a dozen 1920s and 1930s Gibsons (every version of the L-body: L-00, L-0, L-1, L-2, L-Century). I don't miss them. They went to good homes to great people (mainly in Japan). One I sometimes miss? (Which sold to a collector in Japan within minutes of me posting it for sale.) This Robert Johnson-era, 1928 L-1:

Thanks, Dave! It's been a privilege to be your virtual friend.

Oh, my. Thank you for the kind words. Frankly, I feel honored that the OP took the time to post about my book. It still stuns me that folks care enough about the little book that changed my life to discuss it publicly. Of course, I'm pleased that guitar geeks, especially Gibson guitar geeks (I plead guilty to both charges!), have liked my book. But historians, women's history academics, and, most important to me, regular folks who enjoy learning about history have praised my book. Heck, a Spanish website devoted to women in science has done a deep dive into the book: Mujeres con Ciencia Kalamazoo Gals motivated Oxford University Press to commission me to write a "KalamazooGals-ification" of the science and art of the acoustic guitar. In my world, OUP is the pinnacle of publishers. I've nearly completed that manuscript (at about 400 pages of manuscript at this point). Look for The Acoustic Guitar: Inside the World’s Most Popular Musical Instrument (Oxford University Press) in a bookstore near you in, well, probably about a year. Mostly though, because I'm on a 4-year journey with cancer, I've been thinking about my legacy. Finding the Kalamazoo Gals story was one of the luckiest moments of my life. I know that I will have left a positive footprint on this planet, however small. What a privilege. John

Thank you for the kind words and for telling the story of your ex-MIL.

A huge loss to the guitar community. I never met Frank, but spoke with him by phone several times. He was knowledgeable, genuine, and humble. A wonderful human being.

It's always good to hear from my good buddy, Mark Stutman. I have a Nick Lucas of the same vintage. It's a fine as acoustic steel string guitars get.

Or my 1929 Nick Lucas that spent over a half-century in a shed in Tasmania sans case:

Why exclude the LG-3? 🙂 I have the full set: I use phosphor bronze lights on all of them.

Oh, my. I'm confident that luthier has never played a pre-war herringbone. Every one that I've played has had an astonishing bass response. So much so that I found the guitars not useful for my playing.

In my very humble opinion, the bassiest Gibson acoustic is the very rare FON 910 1943 rosewood back and sides SJ. My comparison of a FON 910 1943 rosewood SJ with a FON 2735 1944 mahogany SJ:

If there's a market for aged acoustics, then Gibson should participate. As far as the propriety of abusing a new guitar to make it look old, seems OK to me. The folks who like pristine guitars are not the folks who want a relicked guitar. This gives Gibson the opportunity to serve a portion of the market they have not previously served. I love vintage guitars. No, I don't believe that all vintage guitars are better than modern guitars. I just like the feel of the guitar and the ability to imagine who has played it (I do know for some of my guitars: I own 3 WWII Banner Gibsons bought by US soldiers in 1942 and 1943). If someone wants to pay a talented few folks to make his/her/their guitar look and feel old, why not? I've not played one of these Murphy-ized acoustics. But I suspect I would like it.

Nicely done! Thanks for sharing with us.

Interesting! All I can do is quote my children, who now long into adulthood still proclaim, "When in doubt, bet against dad. He's almost always wrong." 🙂 I suppose that the friction caused by vibrations raises the temperature of the wood and guitar. Thanks so much for posting this.