j45nick

I think you are right. I did a fair bit of that myself, when I was young and stupid. There are definitely some things there that never saw the inside of the Kalamazoo plant, however.

Re the FON stamps: It appears Gibson used at least two different rotary wheel stamps for the FON in this period. I have two J-45s with FONs about 300 apart. On one, the numbers are smaller and a bit more delicate, on the other they are larger and fatter. I had never pulled them out to look at both FONs at the same time before. So much for my powers of observation. Both of those FON stamps are offset to one side of the centerline back strip on the neck block, just like the two FONs posted above

Interesting, since that's one of the rosewood SJs, if it's an SJ. That one also has a very thick heelcap, which I haven't seen, and a bound fretboard, which is a later characteristic. I just looked at a picture I took of the back of the FON 910 rosewood banner SJ now owned by Tom Barnwell. It has no centerline back strip at all. Given the other anomalies on the guitar in this picture above, I wonder whether the marquetry backstrip in this photo is original? Plenty of older SJs have an inlay of dark wood, maybe ebony, on the back centerline, but that marquetry is new to me. It's more of a Martin type of detail. Likewise, the OP's photos show herringbone marquetry inside the back binding, which is definitely a Martin detail.

Good catch! I also just looked inside both of my J-45s from the same period, and there is no back brace in that location. The back braces are actually located more or less in line with the N and S ends of the soundhole.

I would, too. Turn it into an SJN.

Could you provide a link to those photos on guitar hq showing that centerline back strip marquetry and the back binding detail? I can't find them there. In any case, the other details we see are from the late 1940's--bound fretboard, block logo. Both of those say 1948 or later, and they are consistent with that FON. The bridge may be original, but the subtle re-shaping suggests that it may have been taken down to lower the action. When you look at the guitar, check inside for vertical strips of wood (similar in size to popsicle sticks) reinforcing the sides at regular intervals. Those are other specific dating characteristics.

Completely refinished, replaced tuners and pickguard, replaced or modified bridge, all the marquetry on the back (including the herringbone edge binding) is not original. FON says 1948 or 1949. The things I see were probably not done by Gibson. That does not mean Gibson didn't work on it at some time, but when Gibson did extreme things in the repair shop, it usually meant making the guitar more like a new Gibson, rather than these types of mods. Value is driven by condition, playability, and originality. It flunks on originality, and the other two factors are unknowns. Even if it's a great player, it's hard to see it selling for as much as $3k. At most, value would be about half that of the same guitar without all those changes.

It worked, and that's all that matters.

Those may be ok, but I work with big lithium batteries (200+ amp hours) that can't even be shipped by air on anything but freighters. We've also had two dangerous runaway lithium ion battery fires on boats I've worked with. The big ones we use now are charged in a separate, isolated steel shipping container. The FAA doesn't even want small lithium ion batteries in your checked baggage, since a short across the terminal of even a small battery can cause a fire. FYI, here's the current (February 2020) FAA policy on lithium batteries of all types: FAA lithium battery policy These may look like any other small batteries, such as alkalines, and have the same voltage, but they are an entirely different battery chemistry. I simply wouldn't leave them inside a guitar I cared about.

I would not leave lithium batteries inside my guitar or in its case. At least in larger sizes, some types are a known fire hazard.

BK, that's a really nice version of one of my favorite Kinks' songs. This song was so different from most of the Kinks earlier material that it was only Davies' distinctive voice that told you this was really them. Like the Beatles, the Kinks seemed to re-invent themselves with every album. Here's my favorite live version, with Davies playing rhythm on a D-28. He doesn't even try to reach the high notes that are on the studio recording, but the song works without them. Waterloo Sunset live

I like what you've done with this. Has a bit of a Springsteen feel. I might try to come up with a bridge with a more different feel compared to the verses

Go on stewmac.com and check out their fret wire dimensions. I only have one guitar with stainless steel frets, and I'm not crazy about the feel. That is more likely a function of the fret profile than the fret material. Those are fairly skinny frets you have. The original frets on my 1950 J-45 are about 1.84 mm wide, and are considered fairly narrow. The frets on my 1943 SJ re-issue (made in 2010) are 1.94mm wide, and are probably more typical of modern Gibson acoustic frets. I have another modern Gibson acoustic with the "jumbo" 2.35 mm frets Gibson used in the 1960's. Unless you really want to re-fret, you could probably get away with replacing only the worn frets, unless you feel the other frets are already too low. What you need to do is check the general fret heights to see if they are the same heights everywhere. You can use a short steel straight edge (150mm) to do that, as it will take the neck relief out of the equation. If there is a lot of variation in fret heights due to multiple levelings, it may be time to replace them. Inconsistencies in fret height can be a source of the intonation problems you have.

I'd say Townshend "encourages" his guitars in the same way a jockey "encourages" a race horse with a whip. And I mean that in the best possible way. I really admire him.

That is an interesting comparison. One thing about the '69 D-35: it seems a bit choked compared to the Goodall across much of the range, although this choice of a tune (Wildwood flower) isn't necessarily that great as a demonstration tune, since most of the lead is picked on the middle strings . I wonder if the un-scalloped top bracing of the Martin in that period contributes to this, compared to the aggressive scalloping of the Goodall top. At the same time, I remember D-35s when they first came out having this similar issue, which could mean that somehow the three-piece back is the culprit. (I had a friend back in 1969 with a brand-new D-35, and I was a bit disappointed with it compared to a D-28 from just a few years before.) The return to scalloped top bracing--and Ren's modification of it-- has to one reason for the remarkably balanced and projective character of a lot of modern Gibson slope-J models. This probably helps modern Martin dreads as well, of course. The Goodall is certainly a nicely-balanced guitar, and it's tone appeals to me more than that particular D-35. Em7 may have a vintage D-35, and might comment on it. Incidentally, I really like that studio. It's a classic, with wood floors and a highly-reflective brick wall that can be toned with soft hangings if necessary for recordingl It also has the studio-standard Hammond B-3 with Leslie, plus a conventional grand piano

The Historic re-issue ES-335s are generally consistent with the neck profiles of the originals. The neck on my '59 Historic (from the Nashville Custom shop in 2010), is a nice, round C-profile, similar to the acoustic Gibson acoustic necks in the same historical periods. The '64, if historically accurate, will have a slightly thinner version of the same, while the '63 is likely to have a substantially slimmer profile like the early '60s acoustics. Because of some inconsistency in Gibson specs, these may be generalizations with exceptions. I have not played other modern ES-335s, and can't comment on their neck profiles. I would say that the '59 neck is a Goldilocks neck for me, but I prefer a fairly substantial neck.

If you have more than a couple of guitars, and don't have the luxury of spending more than an hour a day playing, there's a good chance that some or most of your guitars will rarely get played. Most people are not going to rotate through guitars just to make sure they get equally played. Sure, I have maybe four or five guitars that haven't been out of the case more than a few times in the last couple of years, and only a couple that get played regularly. But that could change, and my own playing tastes could change, so I don't feel any pressure to unload rarely-played guitars.

It sounds like surface contamination if the adhesive sheet is sticking to the guard but not to the top. Unfortunately, what is causing the problem may have transferred to the adhesive sheet, rendering it less effective. It may be the you need to use some naphtha to clean the surface of the guitar more thoroughly. It is also possible that a previous owner used a polish containing silicone on the top at some point, and this got transferred onto the pickguard area during cleaning. Silicone contamination is very difficult to remove. You might contact Gibson customer service in the US for advice.

This one's for you, ZW: down at the five and dime

Those are harmonics played on the 4-string electric. You can see it in the corner of the close-up shot beginning at about 27 seconds.

I'm just watching on my laptop screen, so I can't be sure, but I thought the one on the right was just a D-28 with a tuner clipped on the headstock.

You might get an appraisal from Gruhn Guitars. Email or call to see what their current policies are. What part of the country are you in? Someone here may be able to point you in the right direction for someone to go over it. You want a vintage specialist to do that for you.

Absolutely freakin' awesome!!! What is that tiny four-string Fender electric guitar? A junior-sized tenor? Never seen one of those before. Other than the Buffalo Springfield original--which virtually introduced a new sub-genre of music to a wide audience, not to mention being the first time most of us had heard of Stephen Stills and Neil Young--this is about the best version I've seen. I can't remember if it was on Ed Sullivan, or some other mainstream network show, where I first saw Buffalo Springfield on US television right after this came out. It was early 1967, and I was home from college briefly, and watched it with my father. He didn't have a clue what it was about, and didn't know his son was about to come home less than a year later with long hair, a beard, and pretty outspokenly anti-war. That was a hard one for my retired Air Force colonel father to accept, and sparked more than a bit of family turmoil for several years. I hadn't owned my original J-45--still have it--more than a few months at that time, and was still pretty much a "traditional" folkie. My horizons expanded shortly thereafter, with a little chemical assistance. To me, this song lit up a fork in the road. Never looked back.

Thanks for that additional info. I'll check the FON format on my two ambiguous 1948-1950 J-45s when I get back to the US early next week. They are 35xx and 36xx FONs. I suspect both are 1950 because of other details, but it would be good to put that one to bed after 50 years of ownership. As you say, it means nothing in terms of collectability, and little in terms of construction details or quality as musical instruments. In the case of the 35xx model, I bought it from the original owner last year, so I know exactly when he bought it. Most details of those two guitars were identical, except for very different sunbursts.

Jim, every time I look at that FON list, I get a headache, specifically, the issue of 1948. Even with Gibson, it doesn't make a lot of sense to go from 1100 to 3700 in one year, which would indicate a huge jump in production compared to 1947, and then drop back down to the 2000's for 1949. That is further complicated by the apparent overlap in the 3000 range between 1948 and 1950. I wonder if 1948 isn't really supposed to be 1100 to 1700, which would suggest a slow increase in production, which would be expected as post-war demand ramped up? It looks like production may have really taken off in 1950 and 1951. Do you have another source for serial numbers/FONs? This is when the lack of published/digitized shipping ledgers is really frustrating. We spend a lot of time trying to reconcile dates based on physical characteristics when FONs are ambiguous, and Gibson would be doing the world a big favor if they published these. Of course, that would be one less thing we could obsess about...