j45nick

You can't always do what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you can do what you need (apologies for taking liberty with your lyrics, Mick and Keef) Mick doing what needs to be done

Sorry, but that link takes me to an entire page on Reverb, so I'm not sure which of the guitars on that page you are referencing.

If you're talking about the "Heritage Cherry" from Fuller's, it is probably one of their custom runs, which they periodically commission from Gibson. "Cherry" may seem misleading, but that look is intended to reflect the look of one of Gibson's early cherrybusts after a couple of years of UV exposure. The red dye Gibson used for a few years in the early/mid 1960's was very unstable, and the original cherry color eventually faded out to look much like you see in the photo, with little or no obvious trace of red. Sometimes these are called an "iced tea" burst. It is a bit confusing, since "Heritage cherry" with regard to Gibson electric models such as the ES-335 is typically, but not always, a bright red color. My '59 ES-335 re-issue from the Nashville Historic shop is called Heritage Cherry, and it's bright red.

That brown case with the round lower bout and exaggerated waist looks right for the SJ-200. It is also the case that is used with Gibson's 17" archtops, such as the L-5 and L-7. The 17" SJ and 17" archtops have the same body plan, but the sides are a bit deeper on the SJ, I believe. However, the total body depth is very similar because guitars like the L-5 and L-7 have carved tops and backs with a pronounced arch, to that the total body volume is similar. All of these are long-scale. A case for an SJ-200 and a 17" Gibson archtop will be the same, and a traditional case used for these would have a round lower bout and a pinched waist. The case I bought for my 1947 L-7 was a black one by TKL, with a burgundy velour lining. It looked like the pinch-waist brown case in your photo, except for the color, of course.

The redline case basically replicates the looks and style of a case that was built from the 1930's up to sometime after WW2, I believe. That is the case that came with my L-OO Legend, and it is also a case that was with a 1948 L-7 that I negotiated for at one point. Gibson has used a variety of different cases over the decades. Until modern times, lower-end guitars were priced with no case. Cases were an option that started out with a $10 chip board case, and went up from there. There is not necessarily a single "historically correct" case for a lot of models. The dealer is probably right about the case for a 1957 SJ 200, since the redline case was probably not made at that point in time. The great thing is that no matter what case a guitar comes with, you can have a case built that is more historically accurate if you aren't happy with what comes with the guitar. These guys will build whatever you want, and the price is not ridiculous. Cedar Creek cases

The lack of a serial number of some type is an anomaly, but the guitar is identifiable by its characteristics, so it is not a great concern. "Restore" is not a word I would use, since that implies returning something to as-new condition. What you want to do is repair it to make playable and protect its structural integrity, while maintaining the look the displays the guitar's 60+ years of history. A good luthier can do that. You just have to tell him/her what you want out of the guitar. With vintage guitars, even ones that are not of great value, maintaining as much of the original fabric and finish as possible is key. You could make it look like a new guitar, but what would be the point? You can go out and buy a brand new one, but 60-year-old ones in great playing condition are harder to come by. I hope you kept the original tuners. Ninety-nine times out of 100 those can be returned to perfect working condition. The most common problem is deteriorating tuner buttons, but identical new replacements buttons are readily available. Bringing old tuners back to life is a hobby of mine.

A sunburst finish may not really be for you. These are hand-done, and by definition will not necessarily be perfectly symmetrical. If this is such an issue, you might want to consider buying a J-50 rather than a J-45. Either that, or just keep looking for that holy grail of perfect aesthetics and great tone, realizing you may be passing up a lot of great guitars because they do not meet a certain standard of visual perfection. A guitar is primarily a musical instrument you play, not something you stare at. You're the only one who can decide this.

The "vintage" top bracing is similar to the top bracing on my un-molested 1950 J-45. On that one, the number 1 brace forward of the soundhole is essentially the same dimension as one of the tone bars would have been before being scalloped. The bridgeplate, however, is at least 25% narrower and maybe slightly closer to the soundhole. The end of the bridgeplate isn't even clipped by the tone bar. It also has muslin glued over the X-brace joint, as does the same joint on the 1968 top pf my other 1950 J-45, even though the brace sectional profiles are different on that one. It's a fascinating variable.

While this may be true, because this is a significant structural repair, it may be better to seek out a guitar repair person, who will have a better understanding of the loads the repair will need to withstand.

You will got a lot of suggestions on those, each different, depending on the tonal qualities and playing characteristics you are after. I happened to use DR Sunbeam PB lights on all my Gibson flat tops right now. I like their mix of warmth over time, sparkle when new, and reasonably long life You will get a lot of recommendations. Buy a few of those, and change the strings maybe once a month until you find something you really like. Strings are the best way to change the tonal qualities of most guitars, including the J-45.

You did really well. That's a nice guitar. What strings have you put on it, and how does it sound compared to what you were expecting?

With those tuners, it's definitely not a "standard". That was a really good buy. Congratulations.

Does it a label inside? If so, what color is the label and what does it say? Looks nice, by the way.

Here are numbers from my two 1950 J-45s, probably made a month or two apart. Both would be the "early 50's U-shape", with a caveat on FON 3644-8. 3358-5 1st fret depth : .92 9th fret depth: .97 nut width: 1.70 3644-8 1st fret depth: .91 9th fret depth: 1.00 nut width: 1.58 (note: Gibson put a new fretboard on this in 1968, and narrowed the original neck slightly to suit the then-popular narrow nut and narrower fretboard. They left the full neck depth and sectional shape intact, except for a slight softening of the transition between the shaved sides and the round back. As a result, the profile of the two necks is quite similar in shape, even though the neck of 3644 is now narrower. I have owned 3644 since 1966. It was and is my original Gibson.) neck width at 9th fret: 3358: 2.01 3644: 1.93 pin spacing: 3358: 2.19 3644: 2.125 I have several modern Gibsons with "specialty" necks . One is an L-OO Legend with the late 1930's V-neck and 1.75+ nut, another is a 1943 SJ re-issue with the wider, flatter Luthier's Choice neck, 1.78 at the nut. I have had other late 1940's Gibsons whose neck profiles and nut widths were very similar to those on my unmodified 1950 J-45 (3358). These are my favorite Gibson neck shapes, although the 1937 V-neck is surprisingly comfortable for extended playing. I've also got a Martin 000-28 EC with a 1.75 nut and softened V-shape which is reasonably comfortable, but it also has that flatter 16" Martin fretboard radius which is not as comfortable to me as the Gibson 12" radius. Also have a few others which are outliers in terms of necks, and which don't get played that much. All in all, you adapt to what you have. When I started playing, we paid no attention to nut width, neck shape, or any of the other things we tend to obsess about now. But that was then...

The nut width is not directly related to the neck profile. You can (and Gibson does) have several different neck profiles with the same nut width. 1.725 seems to be the modern Gibson standard, except for some vintage-style guitars with 1.75" nut width.

Without a factory order number or serial number, it's pretty impossible to pin down the exact year, but it may not matter that much. Neck profile probably got thinner starting around 1961. Early profiles were typical of mid-50's slope-J's: nice full handful. Nut width will be 1 11/16" throughout the period. The ones of these I've played have been very nice guitars. The CW was previously known as the SJN, as you probably know. Those tuners may not be original. The ones I've looked at had individual closed-back Klusons with white oval plastic buttons, just like a Southern Jumbo from the same period. To my eye, the guitar looks really nice as-is: original except for the holes for the tone/volume knobs. If those bother you, a good luthier can plug them so that they are almost invisible, while leaving the original finish on the rest of the top intact. Does it have a jackhole on the treble side of the lower bout to go with the holes for the tone/volume pots? Looks like maybe a couple of top cracks between the bridge and the tailblock. I see honest playwear, but nothing off-putting.

There is nothing ink-stamped on the neck block inside the guitar?

Here is a link to the proper replacement tuner buttons: tuner buttons We don't know if a repair will work on this bridge, because we aren't looking at it. We're only speculating about the break, and how well the undamaged portion of the bridge is still attached. What you can say generally is that a structural glue repair between two wood surfaces depends on wood-to-wood contact with all old adhesive removed. Some glues have gap-filling properties, others do not, but that is not the only limit. This bridge was almost certainly originally glued on with hide glue. Hide glue gets brittle with age, and tends to flake when a glue joint fails, leaving residue on both of the gluing surfaces. Injecting a synthetic glue into a joint that was originally a hide glue joint is still limited by the remaining strength of the hide glue, since the new glue is primarily sticking to the old glue, not to the wood. We don't know if this failure is brand-new, or if it is an old one that has already had an unsuccessful repair. If it has failed before and has previously been repaired, that changes the equation. If you've ever had brace repairs done on a vintage Gibson--and who hasn't?--you know how these joints can fail, and how important it is to use the right techniques and materials to ensure a successful repair. This isn't like a headstock repair, where you are dealing from the start with a wood-to-wood joint that is not glue-contaminated unless there has been a previous repair of the same break. If the repair guy knows what he is doing, and there has been no previous attempt at repair, he can probably make a successful job of it, and he will be able to determine the proper technique. We are always talking here about how a glued joint can be as strong as the original wood, and that is true. But it depends completely on following established methods, and using the right materials. Luthiers have been dealing with repairs of this type forever. However, the repair guy is correct in not offering a warranty.

The most accurate replacement tuner buttons are made by Antique Acoustics. I'm pretty sure Elderly Instruments sells them. I put a set on the tuners of the 1950 J-45 I go last year, as the originals had shrunken and were starting to crumble. While the old bridge is on, you need to check the neck angle.

There are other differences, such as the tapered headstock and slot-through saddle. I believe scalloped braces (yours are scalloped) stopped sometime in 1954 or '55. Sometime in '55, they went to the larger pickguard and 20-fret board. I'm not sure of the end date for the tapered headstock, but it was around 1953. There are probably guitars in this period that have a mixture of these features.

You have the right attitude on this. I don't see anything there that can't be fixed, and the guitar looks to be in nice condition. Feel free to PM me if you want any more input. I have a couple of 1950 j-45's, and the post-banner slope-J's up to 1953 are a particular interest. A good luthier will want to turn it into the best possible player. A good restoration specialist will want to turn it into the best possible player, while keeping it it as original as possible.

That depends on which part is actually loose from the top: the main part of the bridge, or the part below the pin holes. Once you do a half-way repair like that, if it fails again, you throw away the bridge, since the failure point is glue-contaminated. Unless you can remove the old glue, the glue you work into the joint will have minimal holding power, and you may be back to square one. You need a clean wood-to-wood joint if it is going to successfully bear any load. It appears to be a '53 J-50--although the OP hasn't given us the FON--so originality has inherent value if it can be maintained. A sloppy repair, however, is worse than a proper replacement bridge.

There is a fair amount of grain tear-out and wear around and between the pinholes, but I've seen a lot worse. What you want to see when the guitar is strung up is all those string ball ends bearing on the bridgeplate rather than pulling into the holes in the plate. If the pins are a good fit in the holes, this is a lot easier to achieve. It looks fairly similar to the plate on the 1950 J-45 I bought last year. The guy who works on my guitars (Ross Teigen) likes to save original bridgeplates, so he used a filled, tinted epoxy to fill the holes and tear-out, then re-drilled the holes and reamed them to the proper taper for a good pin fit. That can be done anytime, whether or not the bridge is on, and I would only consider having it done by someone who has done it before, since you can make a mess of things pretty easily. You do not need to replace this bridgeplate. With no strings installed, the pins should seat firmly in the holes with little or no movement. If yours don't do that, get some new pins. Bob Colosi's website tell you how to measure for pins. Those originally would have been what he calls size 1T or 2A. The 2A is slightly fatter at the top, which can be good in worn pin holes. He also has 2A Authentics, which are slightly fatter still. If your pins fit well at both the top of the bridge and the bridgeplate, the are the right size. If they don't, they aren't. Measure them with a digital caliper if you have one, just to be sure. Post a picture of the front of the guitar when/if you can. The inside looks nice.

There would be bolts in 1953. They are tiny, and only carry load if the glue joint fails. The modern Gibson I have has the dots, but no bolts. The bolts are handy for alignment, but that's really about it. There's plenty of gluing surface on the underside of the bridge to carry the load if it is glued properly.

This cannot be done properly without completely removing the bridge. If he doesn't do that, it's a waste of time and money. If the bridge is properly glued to the top, all the shear load is taken on the full gluing surface of the underside of the bridge. The little bolts do nothing.