j45nick

You should talk to the folks at Music Villa about it. That's an unusual finish which may behave differently. There's probably no way to "fix" it other than a refinish, but Music Villa may know if there has been a problem with that particular color, or if it is something related to the environment the guitar is stored in. If it is an opaque white guitar, there is a whole lot of pigment in that finish.

Fair enough.

Bridgeplate replacement can be major surgery, and often ends up tearing out a lot of grain on the underside of the top when you remove the old one. Stewmac sells a clever device for repair of bridgeplates using fitted wood plugs (that's an over-simplified description), which looks like one good solution. The guy who works on my guitars replaced a late-1960's laminated plate on one of my guitars with a solid maple one a few years ago, but he was also replacing the bridge at the same time. The pieces of the old laminated plate show just what a difficult job its removal was. Last year, he repaired the original plate on a completely original 1950 J-45 for me. It had a fair amount of grain tear-out around the pin holes. Instead of replacing the bridgeplate he filled the damaged areas of the plate with a tinted and filled epoxy mixture, then re-drilled and reamed the pin holes. He converted the bridge for use with unslotted pins, which gives a better opportunity for properly seating the ball ends of the strings. All in all, it was a worthwhile approach, a bit less traumatic for the guitar, and it still has all the original components except for pins, saddle, and tuner buttons. I would do it that way again in a heartbeat.

No, in the current video which raised the topic of what he is playing. I haven't seen the BBC show.

The Gibson he is playing there is probably a B-25, and someone(Neil?) conflated B-25 and J-45. There's plenty of folks who think every Gibson is a J-45, and every Martin is D-28.

I hate to tell Neil this, but if someone sold him that guitar as a J-45, I think he's been had.

Good question with no definitive answer that I can find. According to the Titebond website, their original aliphatic resin wood glue has been in use "for more than 60 years", which implies that it at least dates to 1960. But the question is "when did Gibson start using it?" I haven't identified anything even remotely definitive on this. Gibson production took off during the folk boom of the 1960s, according to Fabulous Flat Tops, and there were serious backlogs in orders by the late 1960s. In 1969, ECL (later known as Norlin) bought the company, and the corporate culture changed, with focus shifting to high productivity. With absolute nothing to back this up, a reasonable guess would be that the shift to aliphatic resin glue happened sometime during the Norlin era, since aliphatic resin glue is more forgiving and less labor-intensive to use than traditional hide glue. There is nothing inherently wrong with Titebond. I have used original Titebond for non-marine purposes (since it isn't waterproof) such as household and furniture projects in the past, as well as Titebond Premium (crosslinked PVA). I now use Titebond Ultimate (proprietary polymer) for those same purposes, and sometimes for non-critical marine purposes. Furnituremakers who are not purists using traditional materials very often use one of these Titebond glues. Titebond also makes a urea-modified liquid hide glue, which they claim is particularly suited for "antique repair and the repair of musical instruments." I have not used this, and the guy who works on my guitars turns up his nose at it. I hope someone here can actually answer your question. Forgive my diversion from it.

You may want to look at bit more closely at the body shape. That may be his 1941 000-45, but the pickguard looks different from better pictures I've seen. The video is such low resolution that it's hard to tell for sure, however.

Either a pre-1947 J-45, with a naturally-aged 70-year-old top, back, and sides, or something that may or may not exist: a new J-45 Legend. The hard one of those characteristics to find is all hide glue construction. Many recent models have hide glue for the top bracing, and of course, the neck joint, but all hide glue is harder to come by. In the current line-up the Custom Historic 1942 J-45 Banner comes the closest, but that is not all hide glue construction: top braces and neck joint only. I assume when you say script logo, you are not discriminating between banner script logo and non-banner script logo, as you would be cutting your selection even finer.

I'm trying, BK, I'm trying.

Buc, you really do this really nicely. This may be almost everyone's favorite Hartford song. Most people think of the great Glen Campbell recording, but there is a wonderful solo version of this with just Hartford on the banjo, clog dancing to keep time. What a songwriter he was!

Made in mid-March, 2010. It sounds like a "J-45 Natural", which most of us call a J-50, which was the historical designation for the natural-topped J-45.

Take care of yourself, Sal. You're too near the center of things for comfort.

Really nice, Sal. Prine certainly can write songs about alienation, can't he?

They said every one is a Yellow Sun record from Nashville, and up north ain't nobody buys 'em. And I said, "but I will." Hang in there, but if you need to liquidate, let us know. Someone here will hold up a hand and say "I'll buy them."

This is good. That's the Way the World Goes 'Round

The AJ you bought in 2013 was a direct copy of one of Gary Burnette's guitars. There is an archived thread here about that model, or you can search for it online. I don't know if yours is a two-tonebar guitar or a three-tonebar guitar. Tom Barnwell said back then that Gary's guitar was probably a prototype AJ, since it had two tonebars, while the production run of AJs in 1936 had three tonebars. Tom owns at least one of those original three-tonebar AJs from the 1936 production run. Your 2013 AJ was basically the equivalent of Legend-series Gibsons, including the J-45 and L-OO Legend models. Several of us here have those. Those were built before top torrefaction, which is a great addition on the Historic Series models, even if they punt on some historical details. All the AJs have theoretically been copies of Gary's AJ, but construction details have not all been period-correct. All in all, those new ones look like nice models with decent specs and OK prices.

The floating brace was certainly in use in 1968. When Gibson re-topped my first J-45 in 1968, they installed the floating brace with the adjustable bridge support screw. I thought it was something they left in by accident, and removed all except the vertical supports glued to the sides when it came back in late 1968. Ross Teigen removed those in 2010 as part of the guitar's million-mile tune-up. I still have the old pieces in my spare parts box, along with the adjustable bridge and plywood bridgeplate he removed at the same time. This was a time when Gibson was clearly more concerned with reducing warranty repairs than they were with producing quality musical instruments.

The missing fretboard inlays should be fairly straightforward to replace, if you don't still have them.

That serial number says 1969. The orange label should say "union made" on it. Don't be in a hurry to "restore" it. It may be just fine. More pictures might help. The label should tell you if it is anything other than a standard J-200

Like a tall filing cabinet fell over on them, maybe. The damage is so similar on the two that it's hard to think of this as a coincidence.

Fair is better than critical by any measure. Let's hope it's true National treasures are in short supply these days.

Anyone who has been producing music for over 50 years isn't going to appeal to everyone, all the time. Heck, a third generation is being introduced to Dylan's music. We all have our favorites, for sure. Thematically and stylistically, this new song is a throwback, even if the performance itself is not. I can appreciate that.

Sorry to hear this. John has had a lot of health problems in recent years, and is one of the most vulnerable.

Despite the obvious musical differences, this new song has a lot in common with much of his best work from early years--obtuse references, surreal imagery, leaving you almost exhausted at the end. Much like the best poetry of the beat generation. Oh man, I'm getting old...