j45nick

It looks exactly like my 1947 L-7, except for the non-original tuners and possibly a replaced pickguard. Originally, there were no screws through the top of the guard. There were thin celluloid blocks glued to the underside of the guard, and the fastenings went through those into the side of the neck and the body bracket. It's a shame there is no serial number on the label, which would nail down the date.

OK, I had lost the longer post I did earlier that had the metric measurements Measurements at bridge are center of pinhole to center of pinhole (center of low E to center of high E) SJ re-issue is 55.5 mm L-OO Legend is 60.3 mm If you want to do it yourself, the conversion formula is decimal inches x 25.4= mm. Conversely, mm divided by 25.4 = decimal inches. If you want to convert that to fractions, you're on your own, although 1 3/4"= 1.75"=44.5 mm.

SJ string spacing at bridge is only about about 2.19", as opposed to the wide 2.375" of the L-OO Legend.

I know. No offense taken in any case.

Fair enough. I actually have two modern Gibson acoustics: the L-00 Legend, and a 1943 SJ re-issue that was done for Fuller's Vintage Guitars as part of a limited run. In both cases, I spent several years looking for good vintage examples of these guitars before buying the modern versions. That SJ is probably pretty analogous to the modern J-45s structurally, even though it differs in a lot of details, including neck, string spacing, bridge design, cosmetics, etc, etc, etc. It is a remarkably good guitar, and I will probably keep it until I find a vintage version that blows it out of the water. I'm not holding my breath.

There are a lot of variables that result in subtle differences. What is not discussed is that even nominally-identical strings may sound different depending on how long they have been on the guitar. All of those J-45s sound similar, and differences are probably the result of a combination of things, including slight differences in wood, sanding during construction, set-up, etc.. Suppose you had a set of identical triplets. How identical would you expect them to be? I suspect that at different points in time, you might prefer one or another of those J-45s. If you want absolute consistency, maybe a completely machine-made guitar is the answer. In my experience, you find a lot more differences in the same models after they have some age on them. When they are new, they are very similar.

The sapwood of Brazilian rosewood is often near-white. When rosewood was plentiful, that piece might not have been used for a fretboard, but at the end of ww2, Gibson was probably using whatever was on hand. Some of the banner guitars had red gum fretboards, but the ones I have seen with red gum fretboards are pretty uniform in color. On modern guitars built using Brazilian, there is often a lot of wild grain and white sapwood. The mahogany top reinforces the idea of using what was on hand at the time to build the guitar, but that's part of the charm of Gibsons from this period. I like this guitar a lot. If it were mine, I'd be sorely tempted to go back to the original bridge configuration and tuners. Other than that, it looks pretty original and is not beat up, even if it may need significant structural repairs that we can't see in the photos.

Sounds like you did exactly the correct repair. With a drilled-through tapered endpin hole, it is pretty common for the hole to get worn over time, requiring some form of shimming. I've actually used a wrap of paper to fill the void in the past, but what you have done is a better, more permanent solution.

For example, the white oval labels start in early 1947. Photos of the guitar and a close-up of the headstock will help quite a bit.

Looking at that top again, it looks more and more like mahogany. The areas where the finish is worn off around the soundhole would normally be near-white if it were spruce, and the worn areas on this top appear to be darker. The grain, including the striping, looks very much like mahogany. Looking at the Banner registry, several J-45s are listed as having mahogany tops in virtually every banner year, so this could very well be a left-over top, particularly if the guitar is late1945 or early 1946. The replacement bridge is much later--drop-in saddle rather than slot-through--and this belly-down style of bridge would totally cover the footprint of the original rectangular bridge, which would be roughly1" (25.4mm) by 6" (152mm). Do not let anyone touch this guitar except someone with a lot of experience with vintage Gibsons. They could easily do more harm than good, both technically and in terms of value.

I'm not sure, and I could be wrong on what was used in 1946.

Ignore some of the more light-hearted responses here. Folks mean well, but until you have spent time on the forum, some responses may be a bit off-putting. By that logo, conventional wisdom says 1946. As has been pointed out, the tuners are non-original Grover Sta-Tite, which are common replacement for the originals. The bridge is definitely a replacement, and is not period-correct. Nothing shown in the pictures is an obvious major issue, but the guitar would require proper inspection by a repair person knowledgeable about vintage Gibsons. The top interests me, as the wood grain looks more like mahogany than spruce. Mahogany was sometimes used for tops during WW2, but I have not seen it on a post-war guitar. It may just be the lighting that makes it look like mahogany. The rosette around the soundhole is atypical of a J-45 from this period, which would more typically be a simpler white/black/white combination. The fancier one on this guitar is more typical of the fancier Southern Jumbo, but Gibson was probably using up a lot of war-period material when this guitar was built. The sapwood in the fretboard also suggests they were using up remnants of wood. You do not "restore" a guitar like this, as much of the vintage character would be lost. You repair it as necessary to make it playable and to ensure longevity. The value can only be determined after the cost of repairs is known. It is a very nice guitar, in any case,

That headstock side flare seems excessive for a '67 roundshoulder J-50. Got a picture of the whole guitar, from the front?

I'm just guessing here, but all the tuner buttons are lined up horizontally. Maybe it's to put a bit of tension on the posts to keep the buttons in that orientation, so the headstock sits flat on the headstock rest. Really curious about what they are doing. I hope it is something as simple as a bridge re-glue. I would be really reluctant to go to a fixed bridge/saddle on a vintage 'bird in what appears to be remarkable condition, even though I am not normally a fan of the ADJ. It does seem right on a 'bird of this vintage, in this condition.

That's and ADJ bridge that has been removed. The guitar looks to be in stunning condition.

Pretty amazing really, both the instrument and the playing. Changing strings must be a challenge, much less keeping it in tune. And I thought keeping my classical guitar in tune was a challenge.....

Nope. Assuming you bought it used, there is no way to know if that was something someone did at the factory, or later. Welcome aboard, and congratulations on your new J-45.

Couldn't find that exact instrument, but there have been an amazing variety of interpretations of the mandocello over the years, and that's almost certainly what this instrument is.

That was my guess, since it has 8 strings. I'll look for a recording.

Tom, what the heck is that odd instrument on the left of the poster? There must be quite a story behind that one.

That is the same logo configuration that was on my 1947 L-7. Mine had a white oval label with A-prefix serial number (visible inside the bass-side F-hole). That label came in during April of 1947, the best I can tell. Guitars prior to that probably would have a factory number (FON) ink-stamped on the inside back, which should be visible through one of the F-holes if you look closely with a small flashlight. If there is no factory order number, look for evidence of a lost label, such as an oval glue pattern on the inside back. The inside of the guitar is probably clear-coated rather than bare wood. The original tuners, if you don't have them, would be individual closed-back single-ring Klusons with plastic keystone buttons. Those are still readily available in modern repro versions. One interesting detail is that there appears to be a screw hole for a finger rest (pickguard) bracket on the bass rim, near the waist. That is typically seen on the opposite rim on a right-handed guitar. It is possible the guitar was set up as a lefty at some point in its life. In any case, as Jim says, this appears to be an L-7 from no later than 1947. By 1948, this would have had the modern block logo instead of the script logo. If you an find an FON inside, we can pin it down more closely. If you need a case for it, any case fitting a J-200 or other 17" Gibson flat-top should fit, since these archtops have the same body shape as the J-200. The L-7 is probably slightly thinner, but because of the carved top and carved back, it takes up the same room in the case as a thicker-bodied flat top.

Jack Johnson's guitar looks like a nice mid-50s J-45. Looks like some cool ukeleles hanging on the wall behind him. Great song, too.

That pickguard is...... ugly. Looks like a five-year-old created it. (no offense to five-year-olds intended.) The guitar itself is interesting, but not my cup o' tea. Hmmm, long-scale, square-dread, rosewood? Where have I heard those specs before?

That riddle stands in stark contrast to the questions you usually pose, in a matter of speaking.

You'll get used to it. One of the few guitars I own today that I saw or played before buying was my original beat-up 1950 J-45, which I bought for $50 off the wall of a music store in Jackson, Mississippi, in 1966. It didn't sound or play so great--loose braces buzzing, fretboard like a mile of bad road--but it was a J-45, and I was smitten. We do a lot of things in life without knowing what the outcome will be. It's part of the adventure.