j45nick

To the best of my knowledge, the only rosewood J-45 is the modern "J-45 Custom". The traditional J-45 was, is, and shall ever be: mahogany. (some banner war-time maple guitars notwithstanding.)

Whatever you call it, and any way you look at it, that's a gorgeous guitar.

I think the problem is with the "J-45" name. Aside from the unfortunate Norlin excursion into the "one size fits all" square-box era--and a few other oddities, such as the occasional ebony finish--the J-45 has always been a round-shouldered, spruce and mahogany guitar with some form of sunburst top (even the dreaded cherryburst). It's "workingman" heritage seems somehow a bit compromised by rosewood and a lot of fancy abalone. They even re-named the J-45 when it went "au naturale". Not today. This is where I think Martin has got it right: you want your standard 'hog, we got your D-18. You want your standard rosewood, we got your D-28. Want some bling? We got your D-41, D-42, D-45. You can't buy a rosewood D-18 with abalone inlay (at least I don't think you can). You buy a D-18, you pretty much know what it's going to be. Variants like the TV and the Legend are still J-45's, but guitars like the Custom and the Vine are something different to me. Not quite sure what, but different. Thus speaks a guy who "blinged out" his old J-45 some 40 years ago.

From what I've read Orville was certifiably nuts in any case, so maybe it all makes sense......

Amen, brother. Imagine if Martin called the D-28 the "custom rosewood D-18". They'd get laughed out of town.

Yep. Norlin never met a model that didn't benefit by the appending of the term "deLuxe".

There are usually several of these on ebay in the US for around $750-$1000. There's one now with an opening bid set at $750, but no one is stepping up.

When I got divorced more than 25 years ago, my old J-45 was one item that was specifically excluded from the division of joint property. It was one of the few "over my dead body" items. It was mine. All mine.

How quickly we forget our history..... Of course, to most Americans, there was no WW 2 prior to Pearl Harbor. Never mind that most of Europe had been pounded for two years before that!

With all due respect, there's no such thing as a "pre-war J-45". The J-45 wasn't introduced until late 1942, by most sources. There were plenty of pre-war round shoulder jumbo Gibsons, but they weren't J-45's. Chances are you were playing a J-35 if it was a pre-war model.

I have trouble believing that a properly-done rosewood bridge with a fixed bone saddle isn't going to sound better than any plastic bridge. To do it properly you may also need to go to a solid maple bridgeplate, if it now has a plywood one. Gibson did not got to plastic bridges to improve tone. They did it to save money, IMHO. The problem with things that change the guitar tone-wise is that we are frequently so used to the old tone, whether it comes from the guitar, your picks, the strings--or more probably a combination of all of the above--that it can take some time to adjust to the change. If it were me, I would make all the bridge-related changes, but keep the same pick type and string type, so that only one variable comes into play at a time.

That's my reaction as well. The binding should project up over the fret ends, but the fret ends should not be "scalloped" the way they appear to be here, nor should there be any roughness or ridge between the end of the fret and the binding nib, either on the top or the side of the fret end. It should be a simple job to file the binding at the fret ends properly so that there is no hang-up at the edge of the board. It almost looks like someone skipped a step in the detailing. I have zero experience with these Richlite boards, so I can't comment on the fret installation. The fret "cut" into the board is normally just that: a parallel-sided "slice" into the board that is a drive fit for the fret tang. I have no idea if the fret-setting technique is the same on these boards. If I had just bought it, I would at the very least take it to a Gibson service center for evaluation before giving up on it.

Rosewood will go better with the rosewood fretboard, IMHO. You usually match the board and bridge woods.

They actually appeared on J-45's and J-50's for a short time as well. I didn't believe it until Ross Teigen showed me one he was replacing, and I have since seen another. Ross told me he had replaced several on mid-60's J-45's.

If the guitar has a label inside, the label itself should say either "Memphis" or "Nashville" at the bottom. That should be enough to tell you where it was built.

What BigKahune says. We accept and expect lacquer checking in an older guitar (say, 20 years older or more) just because the chances are that it has been exposed to a lot of environmental cycling over the years. In a "younger" guitar it is disappointing, as it implies that the guitar may not have been properly cared for. Lacquer checking is not inevitable, nor will it necessarily be consistent over any instrument. For example, I have a '47 L-7 with fairly extreme checking on the headstock face, but only moderate checking elsewhere. I have a '68 ES 335-12 with no checking at all on the headstock, and only minimal checking on the body. Until last year, my '48 J-45 had a natural nitro top finish that I sprayed in 1970. It had absolutely no crazing after more than 40 years. I personally doubt that this is a manufacturing flaw except in extreme cases of nearly-new instruments that have always been cared for. Of course, it's virtually impossible to guarantee the "always cared for" part, unless you picked up the guitar at the Gibson factory and transported it home in a carefully-controlled environment. Even a single shipping incident of exposure to extreme changes in temperature and/or humidity could start the checking process. The bottom line is that on an older guitar that you otherwise love, you just live with it. If it bothers you on a newer guitar, don't buy it.

You can also buy very slightly over-sized belly bridges specifically designed for retrofits that would not otherwise perfectly cover the original footprint. Stewmac has them in Martin belly-down pattern, for example, but I'm sure other luthier supply houses have other versions. A lot of the Gibson wood adjustable bridges are belly-down, by the way, although I note this plastic one is belly-up.

Essentially, four lag screws (with washers against the bridge plate) come up through the bridge plate and the top, and tap into the recesses in the underside of the bridge. If the bridge is intact, but simply distorted or pulling up, you might be able to re-torques the lag screws by reaching inside the soundhole with a small ratchet wrench and socket. (I think we've had this discussion here before: it's coming back like a bad dream that repeats itself) If the threaded recesses in the bridge are stripped or split, you could try filling them with epoxy, re-drilling slightly undersize holes, and re-tapping using the threads on the lags as taps. This can be done with the bridge off the guitar to make it simpler You could even replace the old lags with new stainless ones, if they are corroded or the threads have deteriorated. If it were me, however, I'd simply replace the plastic POS with a new rosewood and bone bridge and saddle. Cost should be no more than about $100, if the bridge plate is sound. No J-50 should have to wear a plastic brdige. It just ain't right!

Actually, my luthier (Ross Teigen) told me he had replaced several plastic bridges on J's. It blew me away, as I thought that was just an LG/B feature. Gibson strikes again.......

Ponty, that's been a pretty standard Gibson bridge installation detail for decades, and it makes a lot of sense, because it allows for precise bridge alignment without complicated jigs. Oh yeah, and it helps hold the bridge on if the glue joint fails.

It's a guitar for sale on ebay. I haven't yet figured out to reach through cyberspace to inspect inside the guitar with a mirror. But I'm trying.......

I don't have a postable file showing the label, but it is a conventional orange label with a standard serial number. On the "model" line, the label simply says "Early J-45". The general specifications would seem to roughly correspond to those of a late 40's/early 50's model, except for the 20-fret board and 1 3/4" nut. I also suspect it does not have a tapered headstock profile, but you know how casually Gibson seems to throw J-45 features together without regard to any specific historical accuracy. Don't know about the bracing configuration, as it is not specified.

Is it really a 1 3/4" nut?