Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Hogeye

All Access
  • Posts

    1,030
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Hogeye

  1. Just a last minute heads up for the folks. The "Gibson Homecoming" is this week-end.  Several regulars are not going to make it this year for various reasons but one, Dave from Salt Lake , Came up last week-end to check in with old friends and go to Music Villa's anniversary party. It was great to have breakfast with him again. Dave always brings his Kopp guitars up so that Kevin can make adjustments and check them out.

    The Music Villa anniversary party was a very nice event. A bit bitter sweet as my long time pal Larry Barnwell announced his retirement from Martin Guitar. Larry will spend his retirement here in Bozeman and St. George.

     

    Kevin Kopp stopped by with his new dog Wriggley. She's a wire hair Griffon and as funny as only a puppy can be. Kevin just shipped his newest batch of guitars so there are going to be some lucky folks enjoying them soon.  Duluthdan won't be able to come up this year. We won't miss him so much but we will miss Powder. Ha....Travel safe Dan. Hope to see ya soon.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  2. It is Gibson's model numbers that give all that detail. However, it is almost useless to the customer or even retailers. It is a code for the company to lay out all the features of a particular model. Gibson doesn't even have any internal consistency with them. Here is the model number for a new J45 Standard:

     

    AC4518VSNH

     

    I'm guessing...

     

    AC = Acoustic

    45 = Model

    18 = you got me... "style"?

    VS = Vintage Sunburst

    N = nickle tuners?

    H = hard shell case?

     

    And I used to sell these and I still couldn't figure them out.

     

    NH= Nickle Hardware. The case is separate and the designation for the J-45's cases is C-192

  3. Never met a Mossman I didn't like. While on a trip to Denver I met Scott Baxendale. Scott was a protégé of Stuart Mossman's. He had a guitar at Harry Tuft's store that was the best guitar I had ever heard. It had all of Mossman's guitars wrapped up in a single instrument. I tried to buy it but he wouldn't sell it.

     

     

    Fast forward many years and Stuart Mossman came to Bozeman. He stayed for a couple of weeks. I had dinner and lunch with him on several occasions and he was a true gentleman.

     

    Henry hired him as a consultant and after several weeks he told Henry that the Bozeman plant was the best it could possibly be and needed no changes. He thought the Montana guitars were the best they had ever been and even rivaled his production. High praise indeed.

     

    I'm happy to see that Mossman has not been relegated to the dust bin of history. They are out there and they are all great guitars.

  4. New to the board, so hello everybody.

     

    I've recently acquired a Gibson classical guitar and am trying to learn more about it than I already know. Hoping someone here can help or give suggestions on how to figure out some things about it. Like, how rare is it? It's value?

     

    The guitar doesn't have a serial number and does not appear to be part of a Gibson line of classicals. (In other words, it's not a C-0 or C-1, etc.)

     

    It appears to be made of master grade Brazilian wood.

     

    The label inside the guitar reports it was made in January 1998, and reads: Master Built, Master Grade Concert Guitar. Made in Bozeman.

     

    And it has the signatures of 5 Gibson luthiers, Valerie Bolitho, Ren Ferguson, Kevin Kopp, Michael Bakeburg (or Bakeberg) and one name I can't quite make out. Perhaps Philip Seymour?

     

    There's nothing terribly fancy (inlays, hardware) about the guitar. But the excellent build and quality of the wood is very apparent.

     

    Anyways, I'm wondering if the Bozeman shop in 1998-99 had room for side projects that the luthiers would undertake. Could this have been made to order for a buyer?

     

    Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

     

    The name you were having trouble with is Phil Sagama.

  5. Thanks for the replies, all!

     

    Hogeye, you really know how to make someone's day. That's some deep intel. Gold mine. Thanks much!! I will PM you if I can figure out how...

     

    There is some very interesting history going on with the classical guitars. Gibson/Montana was actually a Ramirez distributor for several years way back in the beginning. They were unsuccessful in the endeavor as they were more interested in selling their own brand. The Ramirez deal went from 1990 to 1993. This was the same time frame that Christopher Parkening was presenting his Masters Class at the Montana State University here in Bozeman.

     

    The Roger Miller connection came after he passed and his family was asked by Gibson to endorse a very limited run of classical guitars in his memory. I have a couple of sound hole labels and interestingly enough several of the round sound hole cut-outs from the very first of these guitars. There wasn't a lot of interest in the guitars and most of them went to his family and folks from his record label.

     

    If any of them come up on the market I would love to know about it. So.....Your mission should you choose accept it would be to make a post of it on the forum and maybe I will see it.

    • Like 1
  6. The guitar you have is a real treasure. Back in the day Gibson had a marketing director that was a classical guitar player. Christopher Parkening was teaching at the University here in Bozeman and the marketing guy thought he could have Gibson build a guitar for him and make Gibson a force in the Classical Guitar field.

     

    Well Gibson didn't do their homework. Parkening had a sweetheart deal with an importer called Sherry Brenner. They were the exclusive importer of Ramirez classical guitars. Well... Gibson bought a Ramirez and brought it into the Custom Shop and they reverse engineered it and built a prototype. Of course Parkening would not jeopardize his arrangement with Sherry Brenner or his endorsement arrangement with Ramirez so he wouldn't even visit the plant to look at the prototype let alone play it. That didn't stop the marketing guy as he was determined to make Gibson the classical guitar giant.

     

    Of course the project was doomed to failure from the start. Gibson was not the darling of the classical guitar set and they would never consider playing a Gibson. The prototype was a masterpiece of building and rivaled the Ramirez in every detail. The plan was to go ahead without the Parkening endorsement. A short run of maybe 5 or 10 guitars were run and you have one of these guitars.

     

    No one was interested in a Gibson Classical and the dealers laughed when given the opportunity to buy one. The guitars were built from top quality Brazilian rosewood and they sound every bit as good as a Ramirez. Kevin Kopp was in charge of the project and he and his team did a brilliant job building them. They were exact copy of the Ramirez guitar and every bit it's equal. Gibson's General Manager finally came to his senses and stopped the whole project.

     

    Gibson did make a short run of very nice classical guitars for a very popular entertainer, Roger Miller, when he passed but that never got any traction either.

     

    It would be nice if you could post some photos or maybe even a short sound clip. I would be interested in buying the guitar as it is a very cool piece of Gibson history.

     

    As a side note Mike Bakeberg did a lot of the body building for the Custom Shop and my Brazilian Rosewood Ray Whitley body was built by Mike as well. It's very cool to have a guitar signed by him as he was very instrumental in the Custom Shop builds but never recognized for his accomplishments.

  7. Hi damnyankee,

     

    Could you give details on how the pickguards are currently made?

     

    Thanks,

    Dan

     

    Most but not all are made offshore from a mysterious rubbery kind if of sound deadening material I call "Flubber". They are painted on the bottom of the material. This keeps the paint from rubbing off while playing with a pick.

     

    Gibson does use several different types of material for the pickguards depending on the model and price. It's true that Gibson uses some molded and top engraved material for some J-200's and Hummingbirds. These are replications of the way they originally were made. The "Flubber" is just a mess and should be avoided at all costs.

    • Haha 1
  8. It's the day after Christmas and I just finished snow blowing the sidewalk. It has warmed up to + 6.

     

     

    I will put a wrench into the bridge thickness if you don't mind. It's important to remember the J-200 has a top radius of 28'. The bridge has the bottom shaped to the 28 foot radius so it fits perfectly to the top. All of the bridges are close to the spec you mentioned but most are adjusted for the neck set so they can vary a bunch. Don't go for a standard thickness as there really is none. Fit the bridge to the guitar for the top radius AND the neck set. Then dial in the action with the saddle.

     

    Good luck with your project and don't be too big of a stickler for details as Gibson certainly isn't.

     

    I wouldn't try to machine the Flubber material from the back as it is a very rubbery material and it probably wouldn't work very well. If you use a celluloid material be sure to go slow and not generate too much heat. The celluloid is very flammable and you may have a problem. The folks in Montana always bring an old pickguard camping and just shave off a few slivers to get the camp fire started.

     

    If you get frustrated and want to go the original way rest assured that the hand engraving can, and is, a ton of fun and there isn't much you can do to screw it up. Just follow the lines and you and your pickguard will be fine. The celluloid has no grain so it's pretty easy to engrave.

     

    If you try to engrave celluloid from the back remember the color swirls thru all of the material so it would be difficult to see any engraving or paint from the front. Just a passing thought. Good luck and please keep us informed. We are interested.

    • Sad 1
  9. Thank you both for your inputs about how these pickguards are (or might have been) made. When you say that the pickguards were hand engraved, how was that done? I assume the engraving was done from the rear of the pickguard? Was the pickguard a two-layer item, with a solid color (Tortoise?) on the rear, and a clear layer on the front? Then the engraver would cut through the back layer just enough to form the 'flowers and vines' pattern, but not penetrate the clear front layer? Finally, the engraver would fill in the engraved cuts with the desired paint color? Or did they engrave the back layer from the top side, then carefully fill in the engraving with paint, then attach the clear layer on top of that (somehow)?

     

    I'm hoping to duplicate this method using my CNC machine, using a two-layer pickguard (solid/clear) and machining it from the rear. But the big thing that is holding me up right now is the two-layer pickguard material, with a solid color on the back and clear on the front. Any idea where I can get this material? Or can I attach two separate pickguard layers together using adhesive pickguard tape (not my preference!) or use some sort of chemical or solvent that would provide a good bond (without any air bubbles or other visible flaws)?

     

    Thanks, Dan

     

    Hi Dan,

     

    The original pickguards were one piece of celluloid. The engraving was done on the top of the pickguard with a hand held graver. All done by hand. Then the color was applied. This was a time consuming endeavor and the pickguards were priced out at a dealer net of $150.00. $300.00 retail for replacements. It took a lot of time and skill to make these bad boys and thus the high price.

     

    All you wanted to know was the process and then the can of worms was opened. There has been a lot of speculation about the whole process. I'm to blame for this as I coined the term "Flubber" for the new material being used and am responsible for all the contention. I apologize to all concerned. I just think that if you replace a $150.00 pickguard with a .25 cent pickguard the price should be adjusted.

     

    The celluloid is readily available from any number of suppliers ( Stewart MacDonald) and the process should be rather simple with todays computers. Send us a photo of the completed project. Just for the record you would probably find the hand engraving process a lot of fun. Celluloid is highly flammable so be careful machining the stuff on a CNC.

    • Confused 1
  10. The last post was an interesting theory.

    The original Montana pickguards were actually made from celluloid sourced from Italy. These blocks of celluloid were sliced into sheets in New York and shipped to Bozeman. The sheets were cut up into the pickguard shapes and the J-200's were hand engraved into the design you see today. This engraving was then hand painted. This was expensive and very labor intensive and to speed the process the pickguard's design was later heat stamped into the celluloid.

     

    The new "flubber" guards are no longer celluloid but some silly rubber/sound deadening stuff manufactured in Asia. Lots of controversy over the new material.

    • Confused 1
  11. Go back to your dealer and request that he contact Gibson and have them refer you to the nearest authorized repair facility. Do not put any kind of glue on it. You have a lifetime warranty and letting an unauthorized person work on you guitar will only void the warranty. Ask the repair facility to replace the flubber guard with a celluloid guard and you will hear your guitar as it was intended to sound for the first time. They should do this at no charge.

  12. I had a guitar do that. One corner of the pick guard came up off the adhesive backing.

     

    Mask surrounding area. Moving quickly, I put a very, very small drop of crazy glue on a business card, glue side up slid it under the lift, lightly pressed down on the card while pulling out the card, quickly cleaned up. held it down for a few seconds.

     

    This may be the worst advice I've ever seen posted here. Crazy glue? Good grief.....

  13. Thank you for your entertaining and amusing rebuttal and proving once again that you know everything there is to know about Gibson acoustics even though you were wrong in your earlier statements. It appears you believe everyone else on the forum is a moron (well at least the ones who question your knowledge or prove you wrong). You put me, bobouz and rct in our place for sure. We are mere mortals and bow to your superior knowledge God of Gibson acoustics. I imagine when you visit Gibson Montana you put the employees in their place too and tell them that they know nothing about being a guitar maker compared to yourself.

     

    Btw, since my last post the back of my J-15 collapsed when a particle of dust landed on it. Turns out it was inferior wood after all [laugh]

     

    Good one Cody. You sure told me.... This thread has served it's purpose and it's time for us to move along.

  14. Bobouz, here are even more examples from the 1957 Gibson catalogue showing flat-top naturals costing more than sunburst. There will be many more examples in the other catalogues show here too. These can be found by scrolling down the page in the link http://vintage.catalogs.free.fr/Index.htm

     

    J-185......$225

    J-185N.....$240

     

    J-200.....$370

    J-200N....$385

     

    Yes, Mr Truth was totally incorrect. It proves that even people with a God complex can be wrong [laugh]

     

    I understand that you don't know you are posting on a Gibson/Montana forum and a thread about Gibson acoustic guitars. Gibson /Montana has never had a price difference for sunburst guitars.

     

    I thought I was a troll. Now I've become Mr. Truth? You can't handle the truth. pitiful.

  15. Summing up. The J15 is an inexpensive guitar in comparison to other Gibsons. Agreed? There has to be a way this was achieved. Agreed? We seem to agree that the wood was sourced in the USA, making it cheaper. The neck seems to be constructed well, three piece like many top end guitars with quarter sawn timber. The top is spruce, it seems to me that it is not the finest spruce out there but it is quarter sawn too. The bracing is reasonable but it does not look like quarter sawn timber to me, I'm open to opinions that differ here. The kerfing looks like mahogany. The back is not quarter sawn, it's just solid walnut. The finish on the guitar is minimal. No stains . No fancy inlays. No sunburst. The tuners are about the cheapest reasonable tuners on the market. Nut and saddle also cheapest reasonable. So we are left with a guitar hat is made at probably the lowest outlay possible. I don't know if it makes much profit for Gibson. It could be a loss leader to encourage players to use Gibsons and maybe move up to higher priced guitars. At this point I think I need to point out that a lot of Gibsons do seem to be very expensive for what you get above and beyond the ordinary. But then so are Martins. Anyway, as I was saying we end up with a guitar made from the cheapest components out there, well sort of. IMHO it sounds fine and plays well. Now that back! Well any guitar back for that matter. Backs, as I see it, do not take as much strain and stress as the rest of a guitar. They are braced generally more heavily than tops as they do not have to vibrate/flex like a top. Necks and tops take all the stress as does the bridge. Let's look at complaints regarding, "my guitar is breaking up, twisting, lifting, bowing", etc. How many times have we read in these pages, "the back of my guitar has collapsed". I can't think of an instance. So if Gibson were thinking of saving money all round on the J15 which bit would they take the greatest risk on? You got it in one!

     

    You have a well thought out case and made it well. Except for the part that you wrote about guitar backs. You obviously don't know what you don't know.

     

    Lets take a guitar and stand it on its butt. The top of the peghead is North and the butt is South then the left and right sides are East and West. If you use Quarter sawn wood you will notice that the grain will travel North and South in the top,back and sides. There is a reason for this.

     

    The back is one of the most important structural components of a guitar. The back takes the tension of the strings. That is the reason for the massive neck block and the tail block. The back uses huge braces to hold the back in place. It's important the grain run North and South in the back. That is the direction of the strain on the back. When the back is slab-cut some of the grain can run East and West. That will weaken the back and can cause it to stretch. When a back stretches it can be the end of the guitar. 70% of all neck resets are due to the back stretching. If you lose a back brace it needs to be replaced immediately.

     

    There are several examples of stretched and failing backs on this forum.

     

    One guy wants to know why his guitar is failing as the top has cracks on either side of the fretboard. He had pictures. The answer is simple. The back is stretching and it is pulling the neck block off the back causing the neck block to move forward into the sound hole. This is quite common. J.T. recognized it. No one else did.

     

    There is a photo of a guy's guitar with a split rib. Same problem. The back is stretching. It is putting pressure on the rib and it is splitting. The old builders recognized this problem and solved it by placing wood stays across the ribs. This held them together. Then they changed the process to cloth stays to cut costs. Now they have eliminated the stays. All these cost cutting steps leave the guitar vulnerable to failure.

     

    Most of the failure is associated with humidity problems and the stretching guitar back syndrome is a real guitar killer.

     

    Your theory about the top and bridge taking all of the strain is not correct. Of course there is tension on them but the bulk of the strain is on the back. and any quick perusal of a guitar building book will tell you this. You can educate yourself and then maybe we will get some correct information on this forum. I have any number of good reference books that you can buy. Just PM me and I will be glad to send you a list.

     

    I don't have any problem with the folks here that like J-15's but they need to be mindful that some folks looking to buy a guitar may be expecting a better construction for their money. They should be told the truth.

     

    This post is from a troll. This troll tells the truth. Some of you can't handle the truth.

  16. If you go to the major guitar makers, and I've been to the one in CA and the one in PA but not our hosts but I know they are similar in overall operations, you will see that a pile of blanks for anything is just that, a pile of blanks. If the supplier brings them a pallet of tops they are pretty much what Gibson agreed to buy. They can get right on up to the painting process before they even know what they are painting, and there can be an audible called as they are setting up to spray. The top on that sunburst guitar was easily one production meeting away from being on a natural guitar.

     

    It also can't be that all top blemishes are out on the dark edges as most sunbursts leave a good amount of surface grain showing through the center, lightest color. Trees and blank makers don't work like that.

     

    Both finishes are hand done, as they are at all of the big makers. While a sunburst requires a specific set of skills that I really wanted to watch but was not allowed to at Fedner, a clear coat requires the same attention. I did get to see some paint work at CFMartin, but that was 15 years ago and while it is still done by hand today the waterfall paint booths and stuff of the modern age are somewhat different and only add to the cost.

     

    The real actual cost determinant will be the labor, not the top.

     

    Guitar costs and guitar prices are about as far apart as they can get. Natural guitars cost more because quite frankly most guitar players in the price ranges you are talking about really don't want to plunk down 3 or 4k on another sunburst guitar. I know if I was buying a 175 or L-whatever I wouldn't settle for sunburst.

     

    Just some observations, but mostly just want to say that in most consumer goods, and especially guitars, the correlation between what you pay for it and what it cost to make is not what you think it is.

     

    rct

     

     

    There is so much here that I don't know where to start. Your first paragraph. All guitar makers buy their wood in pallets. Yes. What you obviously don't know is that they buy the pallets according to grade. AAA-AA-A- and fire wood. The wood grade is priced accordingly. Gibson knows exactly what they are building before they start. They build to order. If a person wants a sunburst guitar they order it and then that is what Gibson builds. Nothing in the first paragraph is correct.

     

    If you want to come to Bozeman for the Homecoming you can see the sunburst process. You can go into the spray booth and watch the guy spray and you can even try your hand at it. Several on this forum have tried their hand at spraying the Gibson sunburst. One of the guys was actually pretty good at it.

     

    When you state that the cost of a guitar is the labor not the material couldn't be farther from the truth. The cost of the materials is everything. Just go the the Gibson spec pages and look at the difference between guitars with AAA tops as opposed to the guitars with A tops.

     

    You really get off the rails when you say that natural guitars cost more. Good grief. That is just not correct.

     

    Here are the facts. Gibson has never charged more or less for sunburst guitars. Never. EVER. A sunburst Gibson J-15 costs the same as a natural J-15. Period. end of discussion.

     

    The sunburst finish is amazingly labor intensive. It take two weeks longer to get thru a separate spray booth. The guitars have to be color sealed and then they have to mask off some areas of the guitar then they need to spray the color. Then they need to rest again and then skilled workers need to scrape the color off the binding and the inlays in the headstock. This is a very time consuming and labor intensive process then after all of that work they go into the lacquer booth and get finished just like a natural guitar. All of this work and Gibson/Montana doesn't have any upcharge for it. Never has. It begs the question. Have you ever looked at a price list?

     

    You say these are just some of your observations but it's perfectly obvious that you have never observed the Gibson process.

     

    There are any number of websites that show the Gibson process. You need to take a look at them before you try to tell us your observations. better yet you are always welcome to come to Bozeman and attend the Homecoming. Then your observations may be a little more accurate.

  17. Mr Hogeye, even you have to admit this is some pretty attractive firewoodIMG_20160119_173837691.jpg

     

     

    This is a great looking guitar. The wood is amazing and as I said it would make a wonderful coffee table.

     

    Anyone that knows me knows that I'm a wood junky. I have over 20 pallets of scrap wood that I have purchased from Gibson rather than see it end up in the landfill. Most of it is flat sawn high figured wood. I got it because it's beautiful and Gibson threw it out because it would make bad guitars. I carve decoys out of it and make coffee tables as well as turn bowls with it.

     

    I have no issue with the looks. I am just responding to all of the folks that think this is the way to build a guitar when it clearly is not. If you own a J-15 then you should defend your purchase. It is a reflection of your good or questionable judgment.

     

    It's Ok for folks to attack me personally. I just think that the debate should be confined to the facts. Am I a jerk? Hell yes.... I just write the truth and those with opposing opinions have every right to express theirs.

     

    I have no argument with the guy that wants to urinate on his guitar. He bought it and he knows best how it should serve him. Me? I would play it. But that's just me. So all you guys that have the urge to urinate have at it.

     

    There is a guy posting here that thinks run-out is a problem. It isn't except to him. It's his opinion and even though it flies in the face of every luthiers opinion I respect his right to express his opinion. This has been debated here for many years and I will not attack him personally. It's simple he's just wrong.

     

    We have all learned a bunch from this thread. I knew exactly what would happen when I wrote what I did. I was hoping that a few others here would share their opinions on flat sawn wood. Maybe I was expecting to much.

     

    Not to be controversial but I would humidify my guitar and not by urinating on it. Maybe we could get some of your expert opinions on this unique way of taking care of your guitar. Just in case you didn't know....20% humidity is a sure way to destroy your purchase. Flat sawn or otherwise.

     

    I guess you folks told me.I guess I am a troll but this troll speaks the truth.

  18. If a player loves a certain instrument such as a J-15 and feels it's their favourite, then to that person the guitar is equally as good as a J-45 if not better.

     

    Some cheap guitars play and sound great. You don't need a high end instrument to sound great. I play a lot of jazz with Gibson archtops and your comments remind me of some of the traditional jazz idiots who claim laminated guitars are garbage and solid is the only way to go. What a load of rubbish! That's why many of the greats used laminated ES 175's and similar models. I have a solid wood L5CES and also a laminated ES-5 & ES-175 and neither is better or worse, they are just different, similar to your J-15 vs. J-45 argument.

     

    Hogeye, I wonder how good of a player you are? Some people posting comments about instruments being 'inferior' tend to not be very good players to begin with and seem more concerned with every little detail of an instrument's build yet can barely play themselves. If you can only play 3 chords and have done for years, it doesn't matter what guitar you play as you are never going to be Segovia! I studied music for 7 years and own my high end Dove and L-5, but also have a number of cheaper instruments such as an Epi Broadway, an Epi AJ200e and even an Epi LP Special. They all play and sound just fine to me and I love them all expensive or cheap! I recently did a wedding gig with my Epiphone ES-175 as I didn't want to take my Gibson 175 and it went well. Which proves at the end of the day... who cares?

     

    Besides, J-45's are clearly crummy instruments because they don't cost as much as J-200's and therefore have cheaper construction methods and materials used. Nonsense! J-200's suck because they don't cost as much as Martin D-45's! Nonsense...and so it keeps going. I better start saving for a Gibson Citation at £15,000 plus, because obviously that's the only guitar a real player should use!

     

     

    So now that logic and knowledge have failed you feel the need to attack me personally? Pitiful.

  19. I've had My J-15 for almost two years. I haven't properly humidified it(I really should) The humidity in my house is 20%. It hasn't fallen apart and it shows absolutely no indication of not being properly humidified. A couple of times I banged it with my heavy brass belt buckle, Not a ding on it. The walnut used is fine quality. You mentioned the tuners? What's wrong with them? They're well made and do what they're supposed to do which is accurately tune the guitar. You seem hooked on "more expensive better" "less expensive bad, inferior" people tend to do that to make themselves feel about their own stuff. I bought the J-15 because it sounded better to me that the other guitars in the shop that I played, including other Gibson's. I once owned a Martin cherry SWD which was a fantastic guitar. Is cherry an "inferior wood"? Saying that a J15 is an entry level guitar is incorrect and getting caught up in "this is the only way to cut wood" seems silly. And the price point is due to to curent supply and sustainability.

     

    All this great advice from a guy that doesn't even take the time to properly care for his guitar. Hmmmm?

  20. One of the major uses of walnut is gun stocks. Now I could be wrong but wouldn't gun makers want to use a reliable timber that is not going to fall apart? All I read about walnut is that it is a durable timber and the reason it is inexpensive is because the trees are cropped for generations then replaced.

     

     

     

    I didn't make my self to clear when posting about the wood. The wood itself is just fine it's the way they cut the wood that is the problem. When you use smaller dimension wood to achieve the proper dimensions for a guitar back from the smaller less expensive logs they need to be flat sawn. This is not as good a cut as quarter sawn. Quarter sawing uses a lot bigger log and that makes it more expensive.

     

    Everyone that knows anything about guitar construction will tell you this. As to gun stocks: Yes they are made from walnut. English Walnut. Not the species that Gibson is using on the J-15. English Walnut is a far superior wood and the gunstocks are never flat sawn they are always- ALWAYS quarter sawn. I'm surprised that someone from England doesn't know this.

     

    In another thread there was a reference to Martin making a $12,000.00 guitar from Walnut. Well the answer is quite simple the use English Walnut and they quarter saw it. This is more expensive wood and the quarter saw cut also adds to the expense.

     

    They call it a J-15 because it is 2/3 the quality of a J-45. If it was 1/2 as good it would be a J-22.5 wouldn't it.

     

    In another thread someone asked what Ren thought of the guitar. These are but a few of his observations.

     

    The J-15 is a passable entry level instrument. The price point is achieved by cutting some important corners. That is just fine with me. My problem is that some folks here are calling the guitar a Cadillac of guitars and as good or better than a J-45. It clearly is not. I stated some of the reasons. I guess that would qualify me as a troll. Honest information is not treated kindly here. Did I mention the J-15 has a great neck?

  21. Here's the link to the Taylor Youtube vid about maple

     

    And here's the walnut one

     

    In fact there is a whole series of these about other woods

     

    So J15 owners - quit fretting [crying] - as if you were??

     

    Cool videos from Taylor. Not the case with Gibson. The wood lots Gibson uses flat saw the very small upper tops of the trees as they can get wider cuts out of the smaller trunks and branches. This wood is traditionally relegated to the fire wood pile as it's too small to quarter saw.

     

    I am just posting this info as you folks are so happy with your guitars that you may be influencing folks to buy something they might not be qualified to make an enlightened decision on. These are budget guitars and when someone calls them Cadillac's it just silly. There are folks that think their guitars have the same specifications as a J-45. They don't. There are folks posting here saying their guitars are better than J-45's. They aren't. They are entry level guitars made of low grade cuts of wood. The tuners are suspect and they use the flubber pickguard.

     

    I think they are great guitars for what they are intended but we need to keep the rhetoric in check.

     

    No one buys a guitar thinking it isn't the best in the world. I get that. It's just simply not the case. They are budget guitars. They just might be the finest budget guitars on the planet. So enjoy your budget J-15. Keep it humidified or you will see it fall apart in short order.

     

    To get back to the original post... The neck is the only good part on the guitar.

  22. I think I'll liven up the discussion just a bit. The three piece neck is far superior to a one piece neck and the 5 piece is the holy grail. You shouldn't worry about the neck of your J-15. However... The back is a mess. It's totally flat sawn on every photo that I've see of all J-15 guitars. Anyone that knows anything about guitars and wood will tell you that flat sawn wood looks great on a coffee table but is not the first choice for guitars. Gibson chose to go with the cheapest wood available and then went for the cheapest cut of that wood. This is just about one step above firewood. With all the photos showing the back of all the J-15's posted on this forum all have flat sawn backs. This suggests a conscious effort to bring you the very least quality of wood.

     

     

     

    There have been many threads here by respected knowledgeable folks that will tell you the danger of flat sawn wood. Yes it is pretty and I love the look but would never own such a guitar. Quarter sawn is the only wood to choose for back, sides, and top.

     

    Let the real discussion begin...

×
×
  • Create New...