j45nick

The irony is that if Gibson wants to do "historic" re-issues of any of its guitars, we have plenty of forum members who have original versions of those guitars, and play them every day. It reminds me of when they were going to do historic re-issues of some of JT's Kalamazoo Gals guitars, and how that project got caught up in internal wranglings. Accurate "historic" information is right here, and freely available in the form of playable artifacts. It's not locked away in a vault or sitting in a closet somewhere (like many of the shipping ledgers may be).

Great-looking guitar, and welcome aboard. Someone here will eventually fill in the details of that model for you. The tune-o-matic was "borrowed" from Gibson electrics for the Dove sometime in the 1960's, during the time when Gibson was already using bridges with adjustable-height saddles. The tune-o-matic, with its built-in intonation adjustment, was a logical extension of the concept. It is certainly an unusual saddle arrangement for an acoustic, and I'm not sure how long the experiment lasted. Someone here will know.

Buc is left-handed...

Spoiled, ain'tcha Mark?

side of the upper bout, taped on.

Well, it ain't you, unless you're looking in the mirror.

Tom, can't wait to hear the J-55. Does that have a tapered body, or constant-depth?

In fairness, BK, I bet your 2002 J-50 is 1.72". The difference in 1.72" versus 1.75" is 43.69 mm versus 44.45 mm. That's a tiny amount if you pull out a scale and look at it objectively. If your J-50 is supposed to be a 1950's model, the original would have been 1 11/16" at the nut (42.86 mm). Yes, I know it can make some difference, but just pretend you're on a desert island and can't always always get what you want. I bet you'd adapt just fine, even if you're grumbling every step of the way. Those of us who listen to your great playing would never know how hard you're struggling with that narrow nut.😐 By the way, I agree with you on 1.75" being really nice. I have three with that: '43 SJ re-issue, L-OO Legend, and 000-28 EC. (plus my carbon fiber travel guitar is 1.75" , but we're not counting that type. Or my classical with a 2" nut.)

And a bound fretboard. My Fuller's '43 SJ at least has a 19-fret board, but it does have a bound fretboard. Someone at Gibson just decided the bound fretboard looked better, even though it came out a decade later. 20 frets, on the other hand, is just wrong on any banner replica. How hard can it really be to terminate the board right at the 20th fret position? You can correct that at the assembly phase in 10 seconds on a bandsaw, and slap a piece of binding across the bottom of the fretboard if that suits you.

And consider buying recent used model if you want to save money.

What are you using for strings?

It's hard to evaluate the condition of the frets from that one shot, or even the height of the action. Since the nut may have been replaced, it's also possible that the nut slots could be a bit shallow. Likewise, there may be enough saddle left to take it down a bit. You do not want the thin the height of the bridge itself, which some people due to postpone a neck re-set. Saddles, on the other hand, are easy to replace, and sanding them down is normal practice if necessary to lower the action. All of these things work together to determine the playability.

Thank you for telling us what we should do. I feel much better now.

Maybe it's because enough of us "fanboys" here have looked at enough Gibsons over the decades to understand exactly what to look for in identifying guitars that may not be what they are represented to be. If someone has concerns about their guitar, we will try to help them if possible. We have certainly identified plenty of fakes here, including recently. Gibsons are widely copied, often using what appear to be correct serial number formats and labels. Not everyone has the luxury of looking at a guitar in person before buying it.

With the tapered headstock, and if the bridge is original, probably 1952 or maybe '53. The date is non-critical, as the general specs of the J-45 in this period are pretty much the same. I don't know where you live in the world, but if you want to make the guitar truly playable, someone knowledgeable needs to go over it at and see what it will take to make it right. The cosmetics are irrelevant, but at some point the back needs some finish on it to protect the wood. Don't do anything rash at this stage, however. It's lasted this long, and isn't likely to get any worse overnight. Whatever you do, don't be tempted to do anything to any original finish. If you want, message me and I'll send you my email address, and you can send pictures. I'm happy to help you any way I can.

Photos are problematic unless you use an outside hosting service. If you want to message me or send an email, do so, and I'll send you my email address and look at your pictures. If the neckblock has been replaced, there would be no factory order number. I should be able to tell from photos what is original. If the headstock is untapered, it will have a constant thickness of around 9/16" +.

Look on the neckblock inside the guitar. There should at least be traces of a factory order number in this period. It is definitely no later than 1954 in any case. The tapered headstock went out in either 1952 or 1953, I believe. The tapered headstock should be about 5/8" thick just below the E tuners, and just over 1/2" thick at the top. The bridge looks original. Drop-in saddle replaced slot-through in about 1953. The finish has obviously been stripped off the back, but the top finish looks original. Can't see the tuners to be sure. Nut has probably been replaced. Ditto the pickguard, although the shape is correct. Pickguard material would have been dark tortoise celluloid, not black. The guitar actually looks pretty decent. It should go to a vintage specialist luthier/repair person for repair evaluation. Typical issues with a J-45 of this vintage will be loose back/top braces and the need of a neck re-set. Bridgeplates are often chewed up as well, but these can usually be repaired rather than replaced. J-45s from this general period can be really good guitars, but they usually need some love. ( have two 1950 J-45s, one of which I have owned since 1966.) Feel free to message me with any questions. J-45s from this period are a bit of an obsession for me.

That J-50 is pretty typical of late-50s slope-J sound, although it gets a little thin capo'd up that far. Compare that to Buc's modern 'bird capo'd up another two frets (but tuned down a half). Still a great singer/songwriter's instrument, any way you look at it. She ain't being gentle on it. Nice song, nice performance.

Buc, that really is superb, both vocally and instrumentally. It's amazing how well that 'bird holds up capo'd that far up the neck.

That's a strange model. Sort of a gold-plated Model A Ford: you could do it, but the original was just fine.

How cool that is!

If this pandemic doesn't tempt you to drink more than normal, nothing will. I have definitely yielded to temptation.

In case you missed it live, here are four old geezers live yesterday. Once again, Charlie Watts has redefined drumming. Nice bit of Hummingbird goodness as well: You get what you need...

That's not consistent for either model, as far as I can tell. My SJ, for example, has the belly-down (Martin style) bridge that was common in the Banner era, so the pin and saddle placement relative to the bridge edges is somewhat different from the "standard" belly-up J-45 bridge for the same scale length. There are slight differences in distance from pin centers to back edge of saddle between the guitars, but it really is not significant. Break angle of the strings over the saddle might create differences, but that is more the result of differences in neck angle and saddle height than it is of pin and saddle placement.

Whatever works. My hand isn't quite as steady as it was when I was younger!