j45nick

Labels sometimes go astray, but an ink-stamped neckblock is there to stay... Don't worry about the SJ/J conundrum. Your guitar is known by both names . The "J" and "200" says it all. Just so you know, the J/SJ 200 shares the same body plan (shape in plan view) as Gibson's big 17" "advanced" archtops such as the L-5/L-7 from the mid-1930s on. My L-7 lived in a case designed for the J-200.

I suspect that on the Historics, they are keeping things as close to historically consistent as they can. The "original" version of this guitar would not have had a serial number on the back of the headstock. For example, on the Legend series J-45 and L-OO, the factory order number was ink-stamped on the neck block, like the originals, with no label. I see yours has a label, which is historically correct. Does it also have the serial number ink-stamped on the neck block? (The original probably would not have, so this is just a matter of curiosity.)

Jaymee, Just to give you a bit of perspective: Properly, professionally done, this guitar after the work could be a $4000 guitar. Improperly done, it's nearly worthless. Just keep that in mind.

I can't answer this directly, but.... The only two Gibson flat tops I have where the back strip extends all the way to the tailblock are both Bozeman guitars: an L-OO Legend, and a 1943 SJ re-issue. On both of my 1950 J-45s, the backstrip ends about halfway between the last back brace and the tailblock. On all of them, the fit between the backstrip and the braces is so good that I can't tell if it is a continuous strip, or a series of strips. If the strips are cut and butted to the braces, all of them were cut and fitted perfectly. Likewise, if the braces were notched over them, that was done perfectly as well. On one of my J-45s, the last strip (the one closest to the tailblock) is curling up at the brace end, so it is either a separate piece, or it has fractured at that brace. The only guitar I have with a centerline back "skunk" stripe is the '43 SJ re-issue, and that is completely covered by the backstrip. In that case I think (but cannot be sure) it is a strip of wood, rather than a paint stripe. Note that the grain on the backstrip runs perpendicular to the grain of the back, which it needs to do if it is meant to keep the glue joint between the two halves of the back from cracking. Wood primarily shrinks and expands across the grain, and is very stable along the grain. Having the backstrip grain run perpendicular to the back grain is a good way to keep the back seam tight. There is virtually no gluing surface at the joint of a two-piece back (or top, for that matter) as the back is only about .125" (3mm) thick. It amazes me how well these joints usually hold up. Of course, the backs (and top) are thicker when the two pieces are glued together, which makes is practical to have a contrasting wood centerline inlay done.

The characteristics of the guitar indicate that it is a 1947 or 1948. These include the block logo, which came into use sometime during 1947, as well as the vertical black fabric side stays, which Gibson apparently stopped using sometime during 1948. The photos aren't clear, but in the one that shows the bridge, it almost looks like the shadow of the belly of a belly-up style bridge (along the edge of the bridge closest to the soundhole). That bridge also came into use on the J-45 around 1948. Looking again at the photos, the bridgeplate may well be original--you can see the two bolt holes for the bridge bolts--but it appears to be larger than the ones on my own J-45s from the same period. If you have to remove the neck at some point, check inside the dovetail pocket for a number stamped inside. We recently became aware of another J-45 from exactly the same time period that had a number which appears to be a factory order number stamped inside the dovetail pocket as well as on the neck portion of the dovetail.

The guitar appears to be a 1947 or 1948. You can tell that by the black fabric side stays on the inside. Does it have a FON stamped on the neck block? My first questions are not intended as an insults: Are you a luthier, and if not, are you doing this work yourself? If you are doing it yourself, have you done this type of work before? This is a big job requiring someone with experience in these types of repairs, especially since the guitar has intrinsic value that can be destroyed with the wrong repairs. From what I can see, the bridge and bridgeplate may be replacements. The bridgeplate looks oversize--the original would typically be smaller--as does the bridge, but it would take first-hand inspection to verify. The bridge should be just about 1" by 6". If it were my guitar, I would replace any missing braces or kerfing to match the original. Same with the centerline back seam reinforcement. The centerline back seam has very little gluing surface, and the centerline cleat helps hold things together, particularly if the seam gets local pressure. Obviously, all the removed braces and their associated gluing surfaces on top and back need to be clean before re-gluing. Many luthiers would take this guitar apart to do the work, since the neck may need to come off in any case. It's a nice find, and deserves really good care.

The Wildwood spec '42 J-45 looks like a really nice guitar, and pretty analogous to the J-45 Legend, except that the Wildwood spec has a cooked adi top. All hide glue--everything. I think the Legend has a 1.75" nut, however, while the Wildwood spec has the "modern" nut width. of about 1.725". I wonder if it has cloth side stays, like the Legend models? ZW, what's the string spacing at the bridge on your '42?

That guitar is simply stunning. Looks like a nice spring day down under.

Play it, and enjoy it. If you remove the label, photograph it and post it when possible, for reference. Thatt will give us the opportunity to compare it to a real Gbison label format from the same period. I was a little misleading when I said Gibson does not stamp a date on their guitars. On guitars made since the late 1970s, the date is encoded in the serial number of most guitars, but it is never stamped in the guitar in any other way.

As Zomby notes, Gibson did not (and does not) stamp or write a date of manufacture on the label, or anywhere in or on the guitar. In the early 1970s, US builders could not keep up with the demand for guitars. The country was flooded with low-cost clones and copies, primarily from Asia. Some of these were high-quality instruments, others were not. Some Japanese instrument builder produced high-quality near-clones under their own names. If you got one that plays and sounds good, you are lucky, but I hope you didn't pay much for it, because they generally have little value. By the way, that trend continues today, and Asia is still the source, although typically different parts of Asia compared to their 1970s counterparts.

If you can't post another photo, can you give a detailed description of the label, including every bit of lettering on it, including whether anything on it is handwritten? The position and configuration of the trussrod pocket on your guitar requires a three-screw trussrod cover, since there is no wood between the lower edge of the pocket and the string nut. These three-screw covers were apparently used at some point in the early/mid 1970s, which is outside my period of expertise. From the photos, it isn't even obvious how you could adjust the trussrod. Can you see a trussrod nut inside that pocket? In any case, that does not appear to be a late-60s trussrod and cover arrangement, so a late 60s Gibson-built guitar seems out of the question despite the oval orange label, which says pre-1970. That serial number on the back of the headstock could be 1967, or around 1973. But in 1973, there would have been "made in USA" stamped below it, and the guitar would have a different label. The orange oval label was last used in 1969 or 1970. Apparently, a lot of blank orange oval labels disappeared into the grey market when Gibson stopped using that label and replaced it with either purple/black/white "harlequin" label or the orange/white rectangular label. The exact sequence between those two later labels isn't clear to me, but I believe the orange/white labels preceded the harlequin label. Incidentally, the best way to post photos here is using a hosting service such as Imgur. It would really take a fair number of detailed photos and structural inspections to be perfectly clear what you have here, but who built it might never be resolved.

I suspect that is the original name on the headstock. After all, it also has a Gibson-like label inside, so it was intended to deceive from the day it was built. It would be nice to see a close-up of the label. Faking the label is the easiest job of all.

When Ross Teigen made a new bridge to replace the 1968 adjustable bridge on my first 1950 J-45 (that adj bridge is part of a complicated story), he cut it from a chunk of Brazilian that he had been keeping for years, because it was a near-perfect color match to the dark Brazilian fretboard on that guitar. There's no such thing as a scrap of exotic wood that is too small to save. I have small and large pieces of teak and Honduras mahogany I've lugged with me every time I moved house in the last 25+ years. A few of those pieces have been hanging around for 40 years or more, just waiting for the right project. Every few years I build something out of some of it, always trying to cut things out of the smallest pieces possible, just to save the big pieces for God-knows-what. Every luthier, furniture maker, and boatbuilder I know pretty much does the same thing. Gibson must have had a pretty good stash of Brazilian for all those fretboards. It was probably starting to get pretty rare by the 1960. And as you say, all of the fretboards were cut out of larger pieces of wood.

No, I would rather find someone who would appreciate it. I've seen wealthy people who order treasured old family yachts sunk when they die, several of which were brilliant examples of design and construction that could never be replicated. I've always thought it was selfish to do things like that, unless there was literally no alternative. Granted than one old highly-modified 1950 J-45 wouldn't be much of a loss to the world, but still...

I'm lucky to still have the J-45 that I bought when a sophomore in college, almost 55 years ago. It's hard not to bond to a guitar with those kinds of memories attached to it. I'm starting to worry about what will happen to it when I shuffle off this mortal coil, which I hope is still some years in the future.

Interestingly, the grain on the B&S of Tex's guitar is very similar to that on Tom Barnwell's rosewood (FON 910) Banner Southern Jumbo. Presumably, you could take a small sliver of wood out of the inside somewhere and analyze it if it is a big deal for some reason. I don't know how large a sample is needed for this type of analysis, or whether it's worth the trouble. What I don't understand is that we know Gibson used Brazilian for fretboards and bridges until some point in the late 1960s, so it begs the question of why they wouldn't use it as a body wood until they stopped using it for other things. Of course, Gibson didn't seem to make a lot of rosewood-bodied guitars compared to Martin.

All it has done is chip off a bit of the aged surface of the originally-white plastic binding. If you sand it, you will expose more white beneath the oxidized surface. I would leave it alone. If it really bothers you, take it to a luthier who is capable of making good cosmetic repairs, and don't mess with it yourself. Amateur cosmetic repairs de-value vintage instruments almost every time. In the grand scheme of things, this is much better than if it had left a similar ding in the wood. I'd say you got lucky on this one. It could have been much worse.

That's really interesting, but it poses a dilemma: if you have a Gibson from the late 40's era, with no FON inside, do you remove the neck to see if it's stamped there? Probably not.

It would be nice to have a photo of the whole guitar from the front. This one picture raises more questions than it answers.

For those who don't know, either carbon paper or blue carpenter's chalk are used in fitting complex joints. I use chalk, but carbon paper is used in a similar fashion by a lot of people. You rub chalk on one surface of the joint (or fit a piece of carbon paper to one part), and fit the pieces together. The transfer of carbon or chalk from one part to the other shows where they touch each other. As a general rule you work down the high points of chalk or carbon transfer, re-chalk the parts, and fit them together again, repeating this process ad infinitum to fit a complex joint perfectly. you are finished when the chalk or carbon transfers completely to the part surfaces, or at least as close as is practical. It is time-consuming, but boatbuilders, fine furniture makers, and instrument makers have probably used this method or something similar since Noah first put an edge on a bronze chisel and dug a piece of chalk out of the ground.

Thanks, Dave. FONs have interested me ever since I looked inside my first beat-up old 1950 J-45 more than 50 years ago, and asked myself, "I wonder what those numbers stamped on the neckblock really mean?" (Not that I knew a neckblock from a tailblock back then.) The one-owner all-original 1950 J-45 I bought a year ago has become my number one player. It has a wonderful, articulate voice, and more power than you would normally expect from a slope-J. I got really lucky on that one. No one had ever messed with it, and Ross Teigen had only typical straightforward work to do on it to turn it into a superb player. I trust your own vintage J project is coming along.

Not necessarily. The hard-core vintage Gibson enthusiasts who might have something to add will already be attracted by the reference to a neck re-set on a vintage J-45. You have to be patient for responses here. Not everyone visits the forum on a daily basis, and the issue you are dealing with here is primarily of interest to vintage geeks like me. You could start another more specific thread if you wanted, but it may or may not attract a larger viewer universe.

No, unfortunately. It's a real sore point for vintage Gibson owners and fans like me.

I would be reluctant to buy any Norlin-era Gibson without playing it. Your modern Hummingbird is statistically likely to be a better musical instrument, even if it lacks vintage vibe.

JT might be able to comment on that. I thought I remembered a random number stamped inside one of my Kalamazoo Gibsons. Sure enough, the 1968 top (Gibson re-top) on one of my 1950 J-45s has a number stamped on the inside that has nothing to do with the FON of that guitar, but which is formatted similar to the FON. I've seen that on other Gibsons as well. In the case of the OP's guitar, the only hint might come from finding that particular number in the ledgers, and seeing if it belongs to a 1948 J-45, or any guitar.