j45nick

No, last year of the slot-through saddle. Went to drop-in saddle the next year. Large pickguard sometime in 1955. I think ADJ became an option around 1956, but not standard until mid-1960's on the 45/50.

Looks like the reason it broke was that the glue holding it to the top failed, at least on the front half of the bridge, so all the string load was applied to the bridge on the forward edges of the pin holes. The bridge needs to come completely off, glued back together properly, old glue needs to be scraped off underside of bridge and top of guitar, and re-glued. If this is a vintage guitar--the bridge style is early 1950's or late 40's--you may want to check the condition of the bridgeplate while the bridge is off. Its the perfect time to plug and re-drill the bridgeplate pin holes if necessary. If it is a clean break with no evidence of having been previously repaired, a repair should be ok provided the bridge is properly re-glued together and re-glued to the top. Your luthier was right to say "no guarantee", but if it's original to a vintage guiter which looks like it might be in nice shape, it is probably worth taking the chance, if your guy is good. This job, plus any necessary repairs to the bridgeplate, would probably run about $250-300 if my guy did it. Replacing rather than repairing would add about $100-150, using BRW.

Apparently, Gibson substituted "gumwood" or rubberwood or something similar for fretboards when rosewood got short during the banner era. I may not have the wood species right. The top on the banner LG looks like mahogany to me, and I've looked at and worked with a lot of mahogany and spruce over the last 50 years. I don't care what the listing says. A lot of people would just assume a sunburst top on a Gibson is spruce.

It all sounds like a plan. And yes, I know what you mean about these guitars.

It might be an acrylic lacquer rather than nitro. Nitro seems to age in a unique manner, which is the primary reason these darken so much over time. You really see it clearly in old Martins vs new ones that are not done with tinted ("aged") lacquer.

The grain of that top looks like mahogany, not spruce. It appears to be a replaced bridge. That also looks it might be one of the gum fretboards, rather than rosewood. Not saying these things are bad, but they may change the way you look at it

Do you think that's the original finish? You say it's satin, and it originally would have been gloss, so that may be a re-finish, or at least an overcoat. If it is, and it's poly rather than nitro, it isn't going to react the way nitro does. It's generally the finish that darkens rather than the wood underneath it. Wood primarily changes color as it oxidises, which is why you can sand an old piece of bare wood and it will look more or less new. Coated wood doesn't really oxidise, but clear nitro darkens as it ages. Most polyurethanes do not.

I agree with you on that, Guth, and just recently replaced strings on three guitars that had been on for about a year. If you are going to compare to nominally-identical guitars for purchase, however, it helps to have identical strings on--which usually has to mean "new" so you can be sure the strings are taken out of the equation as a variable.

Yes, the blank trussrod cover is the proper one. Be aware that the tiny screws they are held on by can shear easily, so tighten with a small screwdriver, and don't over-tighten

There is no one perfect guitar. The sunbursts are all hand-done, and no two are alike. While the appearance of a guitar has always been important to me, it is a distant third to tone and playability. Whether you buy now or later depends on how anxious you are for a new guitar. At this point, it's unknown how the supply of new Gibson acoustics will be impacted over the next six months or so.

In the close-up, it appears to be solid, but it still seems thick, especially compared to the backing cleat that was put in. I had the same reaction you did to cutting out the side, but it looks like it might be a bit crushed. Hard to second-guess the decision without a first-hand inspection. He did a nice job nonetheless.

That looks like it might be a laminated back . It seems thick.

From those dimensions, it appears to be a tapered headstock, which makes is pre-1954. There is about 1/8" of thickness taper in the tapered headstocks, by my measurements. Stewmac appears to only sell the materials, but there are other sites the sell pre-cut pickguards. Here's one: J-45 pickguard This is the right shape and should be dimensionally correct if you want to make it yourself. Otherwise order one of Terrapin's pre-cut ones, with adhesive sheet attached. Check the dimensions on that template against the footprint of the missing pickguard on the top of your guitar to verify the pre-made pickguard is right. Better yet, print out the template (verify the scale), cut it out, and see how well it fits on your guitar. The thin gloss tortoise celluloid is the right material, with a beveled edge. At .028" thick, it is just a tiny bit thicker than the original would have been. The standard radius on the soundhole side of the pre-made pickguard may or may not be exactly correct. I measure the radius on my stock 1950 J-45 as 2.375 from outside to outside of the white soundhole rosette ring, slightly larger than their standard radius, but not very much. That is close enough to correct with sandpaper on the pickguard if it is not exactly right. My guess is that it is pretty close. Since that one brace fell out, you should really have the inside of the guitar inspected to see if the other braces are tight. It is rare that only a single brace is loose, and very common that several are.

As jedzep says, if this guitar has the 1.75" nut, the bridge should be 1" x 6", with 2 3/8" pin spacing. The bridge is not constant thickness. The flat part of the top (as compared to the lower scalloped ends) is 8mm (.315") thick at the center of the low E pin, and 6mm (.236") thick at the center of the high E. If you will PM me with your email address, I can send high-resolution photos. The tricky part will be to get the intonation right with a new bridge, particularly if the one on there now is not original. I would certainly check the intention with the bridge/saddle you have now to figure out where to start with the saddle placement in the new bridge. Replacing a bridge is usually a luthier job for that reason.

Unless you replaced the strings on all three guitars before playing them, so that they all have the same strings of the same age, the tonal differences in your testing don't mean very much. When you do A-B (or in your case, A-B-C) comparisons, you need to reduce the variables to a minimum: same strings of same age, same picks (if used). Even then, slight differences in action adjustment can impact on both tone and playability. Those things are usually easily corrected with a good set-up. If you did put new strings on all, and your report above reflects that, I would probably go with the one that sounds and plays the best as-is, unless the looks of that one really bother you. As far as appearances go, the first guitar, with the wide top grain--which looks more like Adi than Sitka--would be my choice. A 1950 J-45 I bought last year has sapwood in the bridge, which makes it look a little odd, with uneven coloring. The tone however, more than makes up for that slight cosmetic blemish, and now I appreciate it for being unique. The cutest girl in school is not necessarily the one you want to marry.

Is that a tapered thickness bridge, like the one on the L-OO Legend (thicker on the low E side compared to the high E side), or is it constant thickness?

That is the best video on this topic I have ever seen. It should be required viewing for everyone on the Gibson acoustic forum. Thanks for posting that.

From your description, it is an LG-1 which was Gibson's entry-level flat top in 1949 or so. In really good original condition, it would be worth maybe $1200 or so. As it is, not more than a couple of hundred dollars at most. Because of the indignities it has suffered, you don't want to put much money into it, because you won't get it back if you sell it. While missing a back brace is not a good thing, it would probably cost $100-$150 to replace the missing one. If it is missing, there should be a glue line on the inside back of the guitar showing where it went. It would cost a similar amount to repair the headstock, but it could be done fairly easily. Once gain, it probably isn't worth doing, just because of the condition and model of the guitar Keep light (.012-.053) strings on it, and it may be OK for now. A new set of tuners similar to the originals would be about $40 at Stewmac. A reproduction pickguard would be another $40. A trussrod cover is about $10. You can get all those at stewmac.com One way to check the age would be to check the thickness of the headstock, despite the fact that the top has been cut out. Check the thickness of the headstock at the top of the V. It should be either about 1/2" or 9/16" plus. Compare that to the thickness just below the E tuners, and post the numbers.

Here's a more traditional take on the fiddle tune behind the "Randall Collins" variation that Billy Strings is playing on the AJ. This is my Guitar God, Norman Blake, on a slot-head, 12-fret, slope-shouldered, sunburst early D-28 (I think). The battle of the dreadnoughts between the early D-28 variants and the AJ is a wonderful thing to immerse yourself in. Norman Blake

Billy Strings is an amazing talent.

Sounds like a plan, Tom. Looking forward to hearing the beast.

Hi David, welcome. A lot of us here subscribe to Acoustic Guitar. The current issue sits on a music stand in my office.

This is a mystery to me. Every characteristic of that guitar says pre-1955. The FON itself, as best I can tell, is not properly formatted for that period at all. There were 8-prefix numbers in 1958, but those were theoretically on solid-body electrics, as has been pointed out. Plus '58 would have a different pickguard, a different bridge, and almost certainly 20 frets. And the number would have been stamped on the back of the headstock (which is cut off). If the number were 2180 8, it would be a 1949, which would be my guess based on the characteristics. I'm almost wondering if the person stamping didn't have a brainfade. When you set the stamp up (it's a roller-wheel ink stamp) you are looking at the numbers reversed, and it is possible someone just screwed up. It's all I can think. If you can, look inside at the top bracing, using a mirror and flashlight. The primary brace should be a large X, with its apex just below the soundhole and just forward of the bridge. The tops of the "arms" of that X that extend towards the bridge and tail of the guitar should be partially scooped out in the middle , as should the tops of the middle two long soundbars that branch of from one of those X-brace legs. If the top is not X-braced, but has braces that go straight across the top parallel to each other, it is an LG-1. Otherwise it's an LG-2 or LG-3. I suspect it is X-braced because of the centerline back reinforcing strip, but I could be wrong.

Maybe, but it is probably older. It appears to be an LG-3 or stripped-finish LG-2 (headstock appears to have been stripped) with a mangled headstock. The bridge style, with slot-through saddle, plus pickguard shape suggest earlier than 1955. The top has fairly wide grain for Sitka. The tuners are not original, and the headstock has been cut down. LG's seem to have more of a mix of features than other models in that era. Could you please take a photo of the number stamped on the neckblock? These are not always easy to read correctly.

Watched that earlier, and thought it was pretty cool. Song is low-key, and the imagery is.....eerie