j45nick

Eventually, if you're like most of us who love vintage guitars, you will have a list of guitars that fall into the category of "the one that got away." This may be the first for you, but it probably won't be the last. Welcome to the club.

That's even better. It's called a Cali Girl case: brown on the outside, pink on the inside. I'm really sorry you missed that guitar.

It looks quite good in the photos, including the bridge. Some bridges, but not all, have the pins a little further away from the straight edge of the bridge. For reference, to be correct, that bridge would be 6" wide, and the bridge "wings" would be 1" across the ends. Often replacement bridges are slightly oversize to cover flaws. The guitar almost looks too good to be true. It also has a very desirable case, which might have been bright yellow/gold on the inside. Sorry you lost it. What kind of money did they want for it?

It's not just the dimensions: it's the shape and execution. You can do something of exactly the right dimensions that is completely wrong. A picture of the top of the guitar would help on the bridge. The bridgeplate is a more complex problem that requires inspection rather than dimensions in any case. For example, is there grain tear-out on the bridgeplate at the pin holes, overly enlarged pin holes, etc? Generally, it is better to save a damaged bridgeplate than replace it, but repairing a damaged one is a job for professionals. Bridge replacement almost always requires professional attention. These can be key to playability, and the can impact significantly on value if not properly done. Proper replacement of bridge and bridgeplate generally runs $500+, and can easily knock that amount off the value--or more--if poorly done.

Pictures would be helpful. A properly-replaced bridge and/or bridgeplate will have relatively little impact on the value of this guitar. "Properly" means that the bridge is period-correct, and the bridgeplate is of correct materials and dimensions, unless there is some compelling reason to do something different. Some of these might have had adjustable-saddle bridges, and it would not be uncommon for those to be replaced or modified with a fixed saddle. Once again, it depends on how well it is done. These are nice guitars, but they are not yet priced ridiculously high. A reputable dealer might list a guitar like this in the $5-6 k range at the high end, but that would mean a guitar that really is in "excellent" shape. Good ones you often see around $4-5 k or so, depending on how good they really are. Person-to-person prices will be quite a bit lower--by at least 20%-- unless the guitar really is pristine. If it is as-is, where-is, with no right of return, the price should be lower still, since you may be buying a pig in a poke unless you have a really good understanding of what you are looking at. Most of these I've played have been really nice, with a neck that is still a good handful, and the straight-braced, balanced voice that is typical of all the mahogany Gibson slope-J guitars of the mid-1950s. They can be great all-around guitars.

Jimmy is a heck of a lot younger than the original Statlers. I've had a love/hate relationship with the Statlers for about 50 years. Like many people my age, my introduction to them was the hit single "Flowers on the Wall" in 1966 (Jimmy Fortune was only 11 years old then, so he's not responsible for that one.) In 1966, I was into the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, and every kind of folk music under the sun. The Statler Brothers didn't fit for me then, as much as I love Gospel harmony. I can appreciate them more today.

That guy can sing.

Billy is so good, he's bad. I love it when he and Molly T play together, too. Sara Watkins ain't bad on the fiddle either. (I miss Nickel Creek)

Really nice, Sal. Guitar and voice both in good form tonight. Take care of yourself up there. You're at the center of it all right now.

1930 or 1931 L-0, by both the FON and the characteristics. Not a Nick Lucas. Nice guitar, however, and it looks to be in very nice shape.

Tasty, BK!

It certainly doesn't look tapered. Realistically, it's probably pretty far down on the list of important historic details, since it isn't something you stare at like a bridge, a pickguard, or the number of frets I have a 1943 SJ re-issue from a few years ago that is reasonably accurate--19 frets, belly-down bridge, slot-through saddle--but it has an un-tapered headstock, and a bound fretboard. Unless you are selling something as an absolute historic re-creation, I suppose you can fudge some details. You want historically accurate, buy (or order) a Legend. Or buy a vintage guitar.

This pretty much sums it up for me: John Prine

How can you cry and laugh at the same time? We will miss that wit!

A great one is gone. Thank the universe we had him for 73 years, and we will have his music forever.

I'm only going by the FON, since I don't know the history of that model. The characteristics you describe are typical of Gibson flat tops in the late 1930's up to the beginning of the banner era, as far as I can tell. Others here have far better knowledge of the history of individual models than I do.

Probably 1940 vintage Gibson

I doubt if there are many or any out there available for immediate purchase. They have been pre-ordered through dealers, and a number of people here have done that, with estimates of 3-4 month delivery, I believe. The was before the stuff hit the fan, of course, so who knows what it might be now? Does anyone know if Gibson Bozeman is actually building guitars right now? Music Villa is the dealer closest to the Gibson plant.

The Banner Gibson registry lists several "transition" J-35s and L-0/00s--"transition" meaning overlapping the earliest banner guitars in production sequence in 1942. However, all those J-35 and L-0 versions have the pre-war white stenciled logo, not the banner logo. Interestingly, there is also one J-45 (no FON) listed with the pre-war, white stenciled logo.

Yes, it is. You wonder if there is anyone there with a real awareness of Gibson history. How can they get most things right on a guitar, and other things glaringly wrong? But they do, every single day, it seems.

Spider John Koerner strikes again....

Those could be really good value at that price, depending on the condition and nut width.

It may just be the distortion of a wide angle lens, or there may have been damage to the neck block during construction. It looks like a vertical saw cut at the bottom left corner of the neck block, and maybe a chunk of the corner of the block missing at that corner. that may well just have been something that happened during construction. On one of the top braces of my "new" 1950 J45, part of the top of one brace split off, probably while it was being scalloped, and they just glued it back in place. Out of sight, out of mind.

In 1964, you would still have three-on-a-plate closed-back Klusons in any case. This is truly an odd one, particularly if the number on the back to the headstock bears no relation at all to the FON inside. When my original J-45 was at Gibson for work in 1968, they stamped the 1950 FON from the neckblock on the back of the headstock, and the new fretboard they installed was a 20-fret board. I don't know at what point in production back in 1964 a neck acquired a serial number. Was it before it was mated to a body, so that the serial number actually "belonged" to the neck? If so, maybe they just grabbed a replacement neck that already had a serial number. Most curious, for sure. Like ZW, I could not access the photos, so thanks to 62burst for posting them. Any chance he could post the photo of the FON inside? It's a lovely J-50, by the way.

Usually, the warranty excludes finish problems, but yours seem to have developed unusually early. I would follow up with Music Villa again, with new pictures. They will also want to know how the environment the guitar has been kept in since you got it, so have a clear answer on that.