j45nick

I could open the photos using windows photo viewer. Based on the factory order number and what I see in the photos, 1951 seems reasonable. Looks to be in very nice shape. I know very little about this series of guitars, however. Tuners are not original.

It was great then, and it's still great.

Let's hope so!

The square-dread SJ (sunburst) and CW (natural) of the mid-60s until the Ren era were mahogany, just like the standard Hummingbird. As far as I can tell, the only obvious things that differentiated the three guitars were the Hummingbird's distinctive pickguard, and the fact that most (but not all) Hummingbirds were cherryburst. Prior to that, the round-shoulder SJ and CW (formerly the SJN or SJ Natural) were essentially blinged-out versions of the J-45 and J-50. There may also have been a difference in scale length on the square dread versions at some point, but others will know better than me on that one.

That guitar is an excellent buy, in what appears to be beautiful condition. It is identified as a 1950, but may well be '47 or early '48, since it has a rectangular bridge and open-back tuners. There was apparently an overlapping of FONs between 1948 and 1950, so you look as much at physical properties as the FON in that period. It that price, in that condition, that one is unlikely to sit in the shop for long. If I wanted another 'hog slope-J from that period, I would jump on it in a heartbeat.

If you've had other guitars, you know the drill. Keep it clean, wipe down with a cotton or microfiber cloth regularly. Change strings carefully, making sure the ball ends are properly seated against the bridgeplate inside. It may be worth taking it to a reputable service tech for an inspection and set-up if it hasn't been played much in years. Keep it in a good hard-shell case when you aren't playing it, especially if you have young kids or pets in the house. This keeps it clean, and in a more stable environment in terms of temperature and humidity changes. Don't store it in direct sunlight, either in or out of the case. Don't store it near a heat source, such as a radiator. Environmental stability is its friend. It is both a family heirloom and a really nice guitar. Play it a lot, and enjoy it. Use common sense in taking care of it, but don't let that get in the way of playing it.

It's a very nice J-50 adj from fairly early in 1961. Both the serial number and the physical characteristics we can see are completely consistent with that. It looks to be in excellent original condition. Don't mess with it in any way. The adj ceramic saddle should give the guitar some real "bite" tonally. You can also swap it out with saddles made of other materials to experiment with tone without impacting in any way on the guitar. Just hang on to that original saddle. Nice guitar! How did you come by it, and how long have you had it?

It is unambiguously a fake, for any number of obvious reasons.

Looks like a really skinny neck, but the headstocks on these are pretty big.

Plus, it says made in Japan on the label. The headstock is Gibson in shape. The body isn't. The string-through bridge looks like it could be used either for steel or nylon strings

Your '42 SJ and my '43 SJ re-issue have the same bridge. In fact, they are dead ringers for each other appearance-wise, except that yours looks like rosewood, and has a cooked top. Mine has 14 years of aging on it, however. I would love to compare those two guitars. Mine is a good'un, and I expect yours is too. Could you comment on the SJ vs the two 'hog J-45s?

We are allowed to be crotchety old men. As my wife says "I'm old, and I can say and do what I want." I have rectangular bridges, belly-up bridges, and belly-down bridges, metal bridges, oddball bridges. None has been a deal-maker or deal-breaker . Might draw the line at a mustache bridge, however. But probably not.

Unfortunately, I don't have a Gibson with one of the current versions of that bridge to measure for comparison to older bridges. I only have two modern Gibson acoustics, and both have vintage-style bridges: one a 1930's rectangle, the other a banner-era SJ belly-down. Interestingly, the proportions of the banner-era belly-down are not identical to the late-60's belly-down used by Gibson for a brief moment in time. I also have one of those, which I removed from a 1968 re-top and replaced with a 1948-style belly-up like the one that was originally on that re-topped J-45. The "original" modern Gibson belly-up bridge (let's say, the bridge that came in on the J-45 in around 1948) is 1" (25.4mm) across the ends of the wings, about 1.44" (36.5 mm) across the belly, and 6" (152 mm) wide. ( I have this bridge in it's original form and a repro replacement bridge done for me a few years ago) I have no idea what the analogous dimensions are on the modern belly-up bridge. Bridge shape and size is pretty far down my list of evaluation criteria, provided the bridge is historically correct. Maybe my bias is towards historical accuracy, rather than pure esthetics.

So Lars, you think the standard modern Gibson bridge as seen on the J-45 and many others--the belly-up bridge--looks wrong? What bridge look is acceptable? Only a rectangular bridge? Only the Martin -style belly-down bridge?

As it says on my Gibson denim jacket: "The world's finest acoustic guitars: Tone, Feel, Appearance" That works for me. Great appearance takes many forms. Any guitar that plays right and feels right looks right to me.

Dan, when you say it is double-X braced, what exactly are you describing? In Gibson history, the double-X bracing is a very specific bracing pattern almost unique to a specific time period.

Yep. I give up on figuring it out. A first-hand inspection might help, but it probably would not answer all the questions. It has too many apparently-contradictory characteristics. It brings the question of why it is a 2 even more into focus.

The serial number seems unambiguous. The SJ/CW went to square shoulder in 1963, as I recall. Occam's razor should apply here.

If you're not in a hurry to own a guitar, you can be as picky as you want, whether it is looks or tone. Didn't we have this same discussion with you a year or so ago?

You would need to see it in person to be sure. The J-50 was clear coat nitro with no dye (I believe), while the cherryburst was a mixture of pigments, primarily red and yellow. The red pigment used for some period in the mid-60s faded to a pale yellow/orange. On the faded ones I've seen, the center of the burst is a bit more yellow than an aged clear coat, and you usually see a slightly darker reddish/orange "corona" around the edges--all that is left of the original cherryburst. The effect can be quite stunning, and Gibson has replicated the faded look in some modern finishes, albeit with (we hope) stable pigments.

I'm with you on this. Faded mid-60s cherryburst J-45, not J-50. It is an awesome look.

It may well be the the "2" designation was because somebody put the wrong pickguard on it. That serial number appears to be clearly 1968. I like it with the standard batwing guard like the one you have. Congratulations, and welcome aboard. I see it has the rosewood adj saddle. You can buy aftermarket tusq and bone adj saddles if you want to experiment with tone. You might also look for one of the original ceramic saddles as well. These are basically drop-in swaps, so you aren't changing anything on the guitar. It's the same thing as experimenting with bridge pin material, but the saddle changes can make a pronounced tonal difference. Em7 here has one of more of these guitars from the same period, and is a serious student of their tone and how to tweak it. He will probably chime in soon. In 1968, Gibson was churning out guitars. It may have been easier for it to get a 2 designation at final inspection than to send it back to the shop for the proper pickguard. Or, they may have been out of the proper pickguard at that point in time. Either way, neither the 2 designation nor pickguard has much if any impact on value on a 50-year-old guitar. It looks to be in beautiful condition.

Congratulations!

And I feel like I've been here before.

You should contact Gibson customer service directly. They do not necessarily constantly monitor this forum to answer questions.