j45nick

You would think that, but it's Gibson, isn't it?

Play it, and see if you like it. The thread you posted summarizes the questions and issues around Gibsons from this period pretty well.

I've never heard of that either, but that number would line up with a 1948 FON. I don't know what the assembly sequence was then, but maybe the neck dovetail and neckblock were rough-fitted together before the body was put together, and the number helped keep the components identified with each other during construction. I have seen random numbers stamped inside Gibsons in a number of places over the years.

Tom, That 'Bird is perfect in that small-group setting.

That serial number should be between 1973 and 1975. That same serial number could have been from 1965, but the guitar would have a different label and different physical characteristics. The prices strikes me as fairly high for an ES 335 from this period, but I am not up to date on 1970s ES 335 prices.

The first-generation 'Birds I've heard were pretty special. I think I've only played one, but there are really good videos online. Norm's (I think) had a first- or second-year 'Bird that was in freaky good condition a couple of years ago, and it was pretty amazing all-around. The combination of light top bracing and light back bracing is unusual in a square dread, but I think it helps give some early 'Birds that ethereal quality that later ones rarely have.

Ironically, by the time the first Hummingbird was built some 60 years ago, Gibson had stopped scalloping top braces. A 'Bird with scalloped top bracing is pretty much a modern phenomenon.

To be clear, Gibson has used hide glue for the top bracing on True Vintage (TV) series guitars and others for a number of years, in addition to using it universally for dovetail neck joints to make them practical to disassemble if required for a neck re-set. There are plenty of workers there who are familiar with the use of of hide glue. Maybe the OP's top was braced at 4:30 pm on Friday afternoon before a holiday, but it is not representative of the Gibson workmanship I have seen on any of the modern Gibsons I own.

That appears to be a 1976 Hummingbird. The "Hummingbird", "Made in USA", and the 00 serial number prefix is actually a decal, but the six-digit number after the 00 should be stamped. The 2 should also be stamped (embossed), as Twang Gang says. The 00 prefix indicates 1976. Everything on the back of the headstock, is correct, and relatively unambiguous for that period. It's otherwise hard to tell a lot about the guitar just from those photos.

That's pretty interesting. I wasn't buying guitars back then, and already had my old J-45. Didn't have the money even if I had wanted to buy.

Details such as the way the fretboard binding is done look authentic. Others will have to comment on the electronics. Tuners, headstock, serial number format all ok.

Was there a case with this guitar? It's almost like it got put into a shed and leaned against a wall, and someone accidentally or on purpose dumped some oily hydrocarbon in/on it. I can't imagine there is anything that can be done for this one. It almost looks like a tideline, like the guitar was standing on the lower bout in a puddle of oil, or someone poured something inside. Does it have any distinctive smell? The owner may know exactly what happened, but doesn't want to admit it. A low-viscosity hydrocarbon would soak completely through the wood, and it would be impossible to get it out, something like a gasoline/oil mix, or used engine oil.

Really nice! Hadn't heard the song before, but it's a good match for your voice. It's good to have you back.

Not sure Earle is right about laminated back and sides on "old Gibsons." Certainly some were during the banner era, and others during the mid/late 1950s. Up until about 1948, many Gibson flat tops had interior vertical sidestays of glue-saturated cloth, which I assume were there to reduce the chance of cracking of solid sides. Those were replaced with wooden "popsicle stick" sidestays (at least on the two 1950 J-45s I have) after that. John Shults of True Vintage Guitar told me Gibson started using laminated sides on flat tops again after about 1953, but I haven't been able to verify this, except for large-body jumbos like the J-200. If a guitar has a tapered endpin going thought the tailblock, you can remove the endpin and examine the side structure inside the pin hole with a magnifying glass, which will tell you if sides are laminated or solid. You probably can't judge that if you have a screw-type endpin. Be aware that old plastic endpins have the awkward characteristic of breaking off if they are tightly wedged in and you try to twist them out. They can be tapped out from the inside with a punch or block of wood, but this requires removing the strings. (First-hand experience speaking here. I'm very good at learning things the hard way.) The 1950 J-45 Earle plays is interesting. I'd love to know the FON. My 1950 J-45 FON 3644 had a 'burst very similar to Earle's when I bought it in 1966. The 1950 J-45 FON 3358 I bought last year has a totally different 'burst, with a top that is dark overall with very subtle gradations in color, rather than the sharp transition seen in Earle's guitar. That dark top is my favorite 'burst of any guitar I've owned. As Earle says, the 1950 J-45s I've owned and played have had great tone. My FON 3358 has a lot of top dome compared to many guitars, and luthier Ross Teigen, who did the work on it, says that's why it projects so well. He says that is also a characteristic of many of the best 1930's Martin dreads. As ZW says, you don't listen to Earle for his guitar playing, but for his lyrics and singing. As Em7 says, Earle is certainly passionate about guitars.

The action can change a lot with variations in humidity, depending on where you live. If there is a radical difference in humidity over the course of the year, some people keep "winter" saddles and "summer" saddles on hand to accommodate changes without constant neck adjustments.

Nice. Right at the end of '47, or early '48. Does it have a rectangular bridge, or belly-up? I vaguely remember you discussing it sometime in the past, but can't remember the details.

Since your goal here appears to be to trash everything Gibson, maybe this isn't the forum for you. Why did you even buy a Gibson, since you think that only one in a hundred is a "fine sounding instrument"? It makes no sense at all that you would even consider one. Judging from the photos you provided, the glue issues with your AJ are real, and you had every right to return it. The photos you show of the J-45, however, do not show similar issues on anything like the same scale, so it's hard to justify your criticism without further evidence. Others here have inspected their instruments and found no issues on the scale of those in your AJ. Are you located in the US, or another country? There are not a lot of dealers that have multiple Historics of any model in stock. You've made your point, and it's clear that Gibsons are not the guitars for you. Maybe you should just move on and find guitars that better meet your expectations.

Measure the width of the fretwire with a digital caliper, then go on Stewmac.com and read the specs of the various fretwire they carry. Ignore the height you have, as the frets, if original, have probably been dressed a number of times. Fretwire is not easy to measure accurately on the guitar, but the Stewmac medium/medium appears to be fairly close to the original frets on one of my 1950 J-45s. It also appears to be close to the modern factory frets on my SJ. The other 1950 J-45 I have has late-60s low jumbo frets, which are more like electric guitar frets. They are easy to play if you do a lot of slides, but don't really seem right for the guitar. What's the FON on your '48?

I can't see what you're concerned about on the inside of the J-45. It is normal for there to be some squeeze-out when gluing parts together, and I see nothing earth-shattering there. The top (and back) braces have a fairly small footprint, and depend on a small glue fillet on the side to increase gluing surface, especially when you are working with hide glue. How do you come to have pictures of the interior of this J-45 '42 Historic, by the way? I thought you had bought an AJ.

"Only a Gibson is glued enough." That's a lot of excess glue. Since the bracing is glued with the top upside-down on the bench, I don't understand why it couldn't have been cleaned up. None of my Gibsons, modern or vintage, look anything like that inside. I would be disappointed, but if it still sounded great, I might have kept it. But I haven't seen the whole thing, inside and out.

Welcome back. A good J-45 will do that to you.

That makes sense. Gibson seems to have switched to 2 1/8" (54 mm) sometime in the 1940's, I believe. Individual models may have carried on with previous wider string spacing, It pays to get exact measurements on older guitars if this is an issue for you.

I sold this guitar a year or so ago, so strings are an open question you might want to pose in the "strings" thread in this forum. It is certainly a significant issue for archtops.

It's your guitar, do what you want. No one is going to think it is a vintage instrument, and it isn't like you are re-branding it as something other than a Gibson. I don't see any ethical issue at all. It may slightly decrease the value or reduce its market appeal when you go to sell it.

I went back and double-checked the headstock logo. Yours is slightly different from mine, which is on a slant rather than horizontal. Mine is still the script logo, which changed to the block logo on the L-7 later in 1947, judging from several L-7s I looked at when searching to buy one. Mine can be dated definitively to about May/June 1947 because of the early A-prefix serial number. Your logo may mean the guitar is a little earlier than mine. The label in mine is ink-stamped L-7, GUITAR, and A-235 on the lines that are blank on your label. It is possible earlier labels might have been hand-written rather than stamped, and the ink or pencil may have faded. The oval label itself goes back well before 1947, contrary to my earlier statement. I assume you've measured the width of the guitar across the lower bout to verify that it is a 17" (432 mm) body width. The perspective on your photo makes the guitar look a bit narrower.