j45nick

Check everything in sight. I love a mystery of any type. The last batwings ( I had a 1968) were quite thick, but I don't know what type of plastic they were. They felt completely different than celluloid, but the thickness may have been part of it. Speaking of pickguards, below is a link to Terrapin Guitars. You can download (free) scaled PDF files of a huge variety of pickguards from any number of guitar manufacturers, electric and acoustic. Terrapin pickguards There were apparently two different batwing guards. One is listed in the Terrapin PDF files as j45/j50 style, the other the J-100 style. When you compare them at the same scale, they are quite different, even though genetically similar. Curiously, the J-45 teardrop pickguard is not named as such, but instead says "modeled after the J-45". (It is designated as the UA-47 acoustic style pickguard, in the Terrapin PDF files, rather than named as a trademarked Gibson pattern.)

Hard to tell definitively from the photo, but a couple of things to note: The fretboard extension in the OP's guitar is cut shorter beyond the 20th fret, making it look like it's pushed further down the body. The difference in the saddle location in belly-up vs belly-down bridges "pushes" the front of the belly-down bridge closer to the pickguard. Plus, of course, the front of the bridge isn't cut away in the area where the pickguard will lie like it is wiht the "conventional" Gibson bridge. The scale of the two photos is slightly different: the guitar on the right is in a slightly larger scale compared to the one on the left. The location of the back braces may be different in the two guitars, but it's hard to see from these photos. A very slight difference in photo angle makes the apparent location of the braces shift pretty quickly. ( just checked that by looking down at one of my guitars and shifting my POV slightly.) It may just be an optical illusion from scale differences, but the lower "round" corner on the pickguard looks fatter in the right-hand photo.

Good point on soundhole diameter. I went back and checked on my three slope- Js: 1950 J-45, 1950 J-45 with 1968 factory re-top, modern Bozeman 1943 SJ re-issue. All soundholes are 4" diameter.

My guess is that the bridge is placed properly, but the soundhole is closer to the bridge (further from the front of the body). This would push the pickguard towards the bridge if if the pickguard lines up the rosette, which is why the pickguard is notched slightly at the bridge.

Interesting points. I have one Gibson with a top and fretboard of similar vintage as the OP's (1968 in my case). It has the standard soundhole rosette of that period (like the OP's and Boyd's), and the end of the fretboard extension (20-fret board) actually intersects the inner (wider)) rosette ring, more similar to Boyd's than the OP's guitar. I measured the soundhole location relative the to the front of the body (just behind the 14th fret), and found that at the closest point, the front of the soundhole, the soundhole is 3.75" from the front of the body. I have another guitar with a similar rosette, but that's a bound 19-fret neck (an SJ). The soundhole on that one is 3.625" ( 3 5/8") from the front of the body. The soundhole on my other 1950 J-45 is 3.75" ( 3 3/4") from the front. If the OP would measure the soundhole location on his guitar, I bet it is more than 3.75" from the front, which could probably explain the unusual pickguard situation at the bridge on the OP's guitar: the soundhole may be in a different location. Don't ask me why.

It's really hard to know. I've looked at a couple off videos of that model that sound OK, but the thinner body could make a significant difference in the volume, balance, and projection of the guitar compared to a guitar like a J-45. One thing I noticed is that the guitars in those videos have tall saddles, which may explain the high action on yours. A good setup could sort that out, and will also impact on the tone. Another thing to consider is how things like ambient humidity and string age impact on tonal properties. In my experience, high humidity increases action height and makes the sound more muddy,, and low humidity does the opposite. Chances are that the guitar needs a proper setup for your playing style, for starters. But it's hard to know if that will be enough to fix the things that concern you.

heh, heh, heh.....

If it's a round-shoulder, it should be short-scale.

My dater says 1970-1972. I am not an expert on 'birds from this period. If it is a 'bird, the pickguard appears to have been replaced. If the pickguard is original, it may well be an SJ rather than a 'bird. They are pretty much the same guitar, other than the pickguard. Others here will no more than I do about early 70s Gibsons.

I think the pickguard is notched around the bridge. That bridge is a bit funky: no dots. The '68 belly-down bridge I have has dots and screws. This one also has a funky transition from the narrow ends to the belly section, which I've seen later in this period. That leads me to think 1969, rather than earlier. That might also be consistent with the etched truss rod cover, which I've seen on early square J-series guitars. A 1 9/16" nut could be anytime in this period. The last round-bodies certainly had that narrow nut, This might be one of the last round-shoulder J-series guitars just before the Norlin era.

Hard to tell. It could be shaved down, but it could just be the lighting and the angle. The dots over the bridge screws are intact, so it probably hasn't been shaved down much unless someone has gone to the trouble to replace them. Those bridges are just 6mm thick, and 2.5mm thick at the end of the wings. My first thought was that the bridge was oversize, but that isn't easy to judge from a photo. The fact that it is an adj with a filled slot means it is probably original.

That says all we need to know. Some of us here are Gibson-obsessed, and the photos mean a lot to us.

Probably somewhere between 1965 and 1969. There appears to be a fair amount of serial number duplication and overlap in this period. The details of the guitar could fit anywhere in this period. The engraved truss rod cover could have been installed later, since those are often and easily replaced. As J-1854 says, the last round-shoulder Js were made sometime in 1969, but probably overlapped some square-dread versions. Note that the pickguard had to be notched to fit around the belly-up bridge (Martin-style). I'm not sure what years they used that bridge, but I have one that came off a 1968 top. If you can, carefully measure the nut width (just below the bottom of the trussrod cover at the end of the fretboard). it will be either 1 9/16" (39.7 mm), 1 5/8" (41.3 mm), or 1 11/16" (42.9 mm). This won't be definitive, but may be helpful. It looks to be in really nice condition, and is a wonderful heirloom as well as a very nice guitar. It's good to see a one-owner guitar that has stayed in the family for more than 50 years. And welcome to the family.

Yes, only a first-hand inspection by someone knowledgeable would be definitive, but you can decide whether this is "beyond a reasonable doubt" or just "the preponderance of evidence." There is probably not much of a market for a fake 1965 J-45. Most fake Gibson acoustics are pretty easy to spot, because almost no fakes get all the details correct. If this is a fake, someone went to a lot of trouble and knew enough to age a period-correct set of Kluson tuners to look 55 years old, use the proper fretwire and rosette material for the period, choose a correct serial number for the year, fill the adjustable saddle mechanism slot in the bridge with a rosewood insert to allow a fixed saddle (a fairly common modification of Gibsons from this period), and replicate a period-correct mid-60s faded cherryburst from a period where Gibson is known to have used unstable red dye that sometimes faded exactly like this. All to create a guitar worth a couple of thousand bucks, which they created from a ..... (fill in the blank)? Do you see something in the pictures that suggests it is not a 1965 J-45? Anything? Most luthiers I knew would not have enough obsession with the details of Gibson J-45s built between 1943 and 1969 to know the details of those guitars for almost every year in that period. There are plenty of folks here that do. Having said that, any advice you get here is worth exactly what you paid for it.

The pictures tell the story. Serial number, tuners, neck details, body details, frets, rosette style --everything except the pickguards-- are consistent with a 1965 J-45.

Welcome! Nothing without a picture, however.

BK, if you slowed the Rev's tune down about a third, you'd have it about right. What's the hurry?

Welcome! If this is your first guitar, have you changed the strings yet, or do you still have the strings it came with? Was this a new guitar, or pre-owned? The reason I ask this is that tuning problems can be the result of improperly installed strings, rather than the tuners themselves. If it is a new guitar with factory-installed strings, they are probably installed correctly. If someone has changed the strings, an inspection of the way the strings wrap around the stringposts can tell you if this is done correctly. You also need to be sure the ball ends of the strings are correctly seated against the bridgeplate inside the guitar, which is best verified with an inspection mirror until you get a feel for this process. After more than 50 years of changing strings, I still check the ball ends with a mirror every time I change strings, just to be sure. The tuning problem could also be the result of strings binding in the nut, particularly if your tuning issue is related only to a couple of strings, rather than every string across the board. The tuners are the first things people think of when they have tuning issues, but they may or may not be the source of your problem. Fortyears makes a good point about humidity changes, which have a dramatic impact on tuning stability. If your guitar is in an open environment--on a stand or hanging on a wall--every change in humidity will change the tuning. If it is not in a climate-controlled environment, there will be constant changes in tuning, particularly if you heat a house in winter, or cool it in summer.

Or better yet, use no pickup at all. I have only one acoustic with a pickup--a carbon fiber Composite Acoustics Cargo. It you don't play out in a situation where you cannot direct-mic your guitar, why would you need a pickup? How many buyers of "stage-ready" acoustics actually use them that way?

For one thing, there were precious few '59 re-issues from the Nashville custom shop. I spent more than a year looking before finding the right one: a pristine '59 Historic ES 335 in cherry red. These were built by the Nashville custom, art, and historic shop. All of the Historics came from that shop, to the best of my knowledge. You can recognize them in part by their different serial number formats and labels compared to Memphis guitars, unless that has changed. Ironically, mine is a bit of a unicorn, since it isn't clear if any red ES 335s were built in 1959. I went looking for a Nashville-built guitar after input from Charlie Gelber, who runs (or ran) a website and blog on vintage ES 335s. He felt the Nashville-built guitars were better from construction quality and authenticity perspectives, but I have no way of verifying that. In any case, mine is a gorgeous guitar in detail, playability, and tone. The rosewood fretboard is black as ebony, the fret ends are properly done, the binding is aged, every detail seems right. You will probably pay a premium price if you can find one. You're the only one who can decide if that premium is worth it.

There are plenty of repro PAFs out there, starting with these, which may be the ones on my '59 Historic ES-335. (Note that they may be out of stock right now.) repro PAF humbuckers

BK, whether it's the L body shape or the LG shape, the small-body Gibsons are perfect for fingerpicking. As you say, the new ones just need some age. I've been playing my three 'hog slope J's almost exclusively for the last year--#1 1950 J-45 tuned down a half step, #2 1950 J-45 in standard tuning, 1943 SJ re-issue in open D. It helps to have three so that you can leave them in different tunings depending on what you want to play. Every now and then, however, I hear a muffled voice coming from a redline case in the corner. It's the L-OO Legend, saying "play me, play me, play me." And I'm always amazed at what a crisp, dry tone it has. I got out a plastic thumbpick and nickel fingerpicks last night, something I haven't done in years. Even with long-dead strings, the Legend sings its little old heart out.

Sal, I didn't know you are really Brian Wilson. I'm going to steal this version.

That sounds delicious!

Until recently, I would have said the number was unrelated to a serial number because of its location in the dovetail. However, we recently had a guitar with the same issue as yours, and it was ultimately determined that the number in the neckblock dovetail was a serial number or factory order number. In your case, the number 2772 could probably date the guitar to fairly early in 1961, which is consistent with what we see. The nut width would have been 1 11/16", but the neck cross-sectional shape (depth) would be thinner than the same measurement on the same guitar from the late 1950's, which would otherwise look pretty identical. If it is a 1961, I would expect the neck depth at the first fret (ignoring the fret itself) is about .85" or less, but I haven't' looked at enough guitars from this period to say that is a hard rule.