j45nick

I generally agree with everything you said. However, there were problems associated with the bridge and bridgeplate well beyond simply re-gluing the bridge. Both the top and bridgeplate appeared to be fractured across the pin holes, which was why there was a hard crease in the top. I've pondered the proper fix for that one, and every solution I came up with suggested at least a slightly larger bridgeplate, but not necessarily the chunk of tree he put in. At the end of the day, the transverse top fracture probably required a somewhat larger bridgeplate, plus probably trying to glue that fracture shut properly after the bridgeplate was replaced. Then maybe completely filling the oversize pin holes in the top with either glued-in spruce (similar to Erlewine's plate repair tool gizmo), or a reinforced epoxy, which might actually produce a better repair. Then maybe filling the saddle slot and chewed-up pin holes in the bridge before re-installing it, then re-drilling the pinholes through completely solid new material. Then lay out and rout a new saddle slot. Any way you look at it, the guitar had significant issues just to stabilize it enough to turn it into a player. Other than that, everything you said was spot-on. Ross Teigen, who works on my guitars, said that most of his repair time is spent un-doing poorly-made previous repairs. That's why he had such an easy time working on my "new" 195 J-45. No one had ever touched it to "fix" anything. I suspect the guy who worked on this J-200 might do a decent job on the new instruments he builds, but that says nothing about his repair abilities. That's a different skill set.

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't be using a gig bag to transport my L-5 or 1937 Super 400 to a gig. I'd want them in their hard cases until I took them out to put them on their stands. I looked real hard at a beautiful one-owner 1937 Super 400 a few years ago, being sold by the son or grandson of the original owner at the Orando guitar show. It was a lot of money, but was fairly priced. There's not a lot of those around.

Exactly! In fairness, the guy turned something unplayable into a usable guitar. But a 1953 J-200 probably deserved better.

That is what it's called. Tongue in cheek, because it is somewhat similar in appearance to mother of pearl, but is actually a "pearloid" plastic material used from the 1930's to the 1950's (or so) for speaker boxes, toilet seat covers, hair brushes, and other decorative items. As well, of course, for over-the-top inlays on instruments, including guitars, banjos, and accordions. I had a student accordion with MOTS inlays when I was a kid. I would play anything with a keyboard, much to the dismay of my mother, who wanted me to stick to piano. Google it. There are lots of good pictures online.

As I said, I'll stick with my guy. I would not let Jerry touch one of my guitars. Having said that, not everyone is as picky as I am.

Great news about Gibson, JT! Now, if you can just convince them to make the remaining old shipping ledgers public, we will know that they really care about the Gibson legacy and Gibson's history.

You're just in a rut, Sal. Play for yourself, what you want, when you want. Learn a new style of playing. Challenge yourself with new material. Go listen to new music somewhere. Maybe take the time to go to a guitar camp, or some music festivals. You're a talented guy. You will find something that makes it all fresh again.

Well, he brought it back to life, but I'll stick with my guy. Don't care much for that pickguard, particularly since it looks like the original went all the way to the soundhole, and this one leaves a big smile of bare wood showing around the soundhole. The painted-on flowers won't last very long in any case. He might benefit from watching Mamie Minch's (Brooklyn Lutherie) video on using lacquer reducer (not lacquer thinner, not acetone) to reduce the appearance of scratches and dings in old finish. I've done it, and it works. Won't help on bare wood, however. Having said that, he turned a pretty sad guitar into a nice player, which was the goal in the first place. The bridgeplate process and repair was worth the time it took to watch both videos.

Completely different tonally compared to a mahogany L-OO. Of course, we don't know what strings are on it, or what pick he is using, but it is tonally striking. Sounds very "old" and trebly. I like it.

It is probably just a dark piece of mahogany. I have old pieces of Cuban and Honduran mahogany that are darker than most rosewoods. The mahogany we see today has to be stained to give it any color. Old-growth mahogany of the type used 75 years ago could be extremely dark. It may well have been an old piece that Gibson had not used before because they thought it was too dark. During the banner era, they used almost anything.

I agree with this. You can't assume everyone here understands the difference between a joke and legitimate advice, particularly if they are new to the forum and don't appreciate the quirks that sometimes emerge.

Walnut is significantly softer than either rosewood or ebony. How it will hold up over time as a fretboard material remains to be seen. As has been mentioned, it is important to rub off excess oil, which is just a magnet for dirt. Most conditioners are non-drying oil. I generally rub them on with a rag, then clean/polish with fine bronze wool (NOT steel wool) wiping across the grain to remove gunk and polish frets, wipe off, wipe on another coat, then wipe that off thoroughly with another clean rag. This can help keep a fretboard like new.

Probably any fretboard conditioner will do. All you are doing is rubbing oil on the surface, then wiping it off. None of it penetrates to any significant degree. It does seem to reduce fretboard dryness, which can be a concern in your environment, since the AC is probably running eight months a year. (I used to live in Scottsdale.)

What amazes me is that equally-skilled luthiers can have significantly different approaches to problem-solving and still come out with workable solutions. That guitar had a lot of problems, most of which seemed to come as by-products of the notorious moustache bridge and its lack of functional structural gluing surface. It was also a real lesson in the potential weakness associated with a lot of holes in a row going through thin pieces of wood. Once any part of the glued-together "sandwich" of bridge, top, and bridgeplate fails, there's big potential trouble ahead.

And he will do a great job of it!