j45nick

Frame houses where they haven't paid much attention to sound isolation and insulation can be like a big drum, especially multi-story building with open stairwells. The walls pretty effectively "breathe" when they reflect sound waves, just like your guitar body. Studded walls are just framed with two-pin-end columns that vibrate in the middle in most cases. There's a reason we used to take our guitars into the dorm stairwells to play in college. Lots of hard surfaces to yield natural reverb. In high-end yachts that always have vibrating machinery running--such as pumps and generators--you start by isolating that vibration from the main structure with the type of mounts you use, and work out from there, including de-coupling other sources of vibration and sound from structures that enable transmission. We use a lot of high-density foam with de-coupling layers of very dense material--lead in the past, high-density composites more commonly now. There's a whole segment of the marine industry dedicated to this stuff. In conventional structures where sound attenuation is a concern, you often use a similar de-coupling process, but you rarely see that in home construction except at the very high end. If you're lucky, you get fiberglass insulation in the bathroom walls, but rarely in the spaces between floors. This is all both art and science. Long ago in a galaxy far, far away, the group I worked with had a short-lived contract with Mercury Records. I was pretty awestruck the first time I went into their midtown Manhattan studios. For all the sophistication of the studio's isolation components--including a lot of movable screens and booths, since they had to accommodate everything from solo artists to groups with big brass sections (these were the days of Chicago Transit Authority and Blood, Sweat, and Tears)--they also had a huge pile of what were for all practical purposes just moving blankets, which could be draped over anything and everything. It was a fascinating experience for a guy who never did anything more sophisticated than engineering live concerts with a primitive home-made board in venues ranging from small rooms to noisy brick-walled clubs in the Village, with the occasional college gym or auditorium thrown in. It wasn't always an easy job. I used to get a lot of nasty glares from the chick lead singer/piano player, who was a classically-trained opera singer and pianist who was, shall we say, picky about how she sounded. She was good, though. I really admire PB for taking on this project. Don't forget to play your guitars, however.

Sal, that really is good! Are you just direct mic'ing the guitar, or is there pickup output in the mix? The guitar sounds like a good recording instrument. Love the mando and voiceover.

Gorgeous guitar, stunning sound. That guy's pick attack is perfect for this guitar. You really need to drive that big old box. I was glad to see him remove that denim jacket with all those metal buttons before playing this. So, why do we think this guitar was a second? I'm guessing that big light grain streak in the fretboard near and over the body. Nothing else is obvious

I could never have given up that closet space. I would have changed out the closet doors to solid doors, and insulated on the outside face of the doors. It might also have required a removable soft cover you could put over the doors when necessary for recording. This was a challenging project, and I admire your persistence.

Nice job! Now, don't move a damn thing!

Every vintage guitar I've bought needed this type of fretboard detailing. Every single one of them. I had a one-owner 1947 L-7 which was owned by a musician who was a chain smoker and apparently was a bit lax in keeping his guitar clean. I put a whole weekend into detailing the frets and board, which was caked with 50+ years of nicotine residue. It looked like a totally different guitar when I finished. If your guitars all have clean fretboards and frets, careful maintenance will help keep them that way. Playing your guitar wears frets and fretboards, and no matter how clean your hands are, gunk builds up over time, especially if you go a long time between string changes and opportunities for fret/board maintenance. I've come to appreciate ebony as a fretboard material because it is much harder than rosewood. However, if you're a vintage Gibson fan (as I am), you just learn how to take care of rosewood boards to maximize longevity.

There is a video on Stewmac about how to remove pressed-in grommets without damaging the face of the headstock. It can be tricky. The have links to a whole bunch of in-house repair/maintenance videos.

Don't fill the hole all the way, these are tiny holes, and tiny screws. Yo can probably put one small drop of superglue in the hole and accomplish the same thing without the toothpick, but don't put much in. Do not fill the hole. Wait until it dries before installing the screw. Do not force the screw. You can easily shear the screw or break wood off around the hole. If necessary take a tiny (1/16" or smaller) drill bit to open the hole slightly after filling by either method.

After going on their website, I just ordered some Fret Doctor. The oil I have been using for years contains petroleum distillates.

I never use steel wool on a guitar fretboard. It sheds small steel particles that can and will rust eventually. You may think you're getting them all off, but you probably aren't. You can buy bronze wool at any decent hardware store or marine supply outlet. It does the same job, and doesn't rust. It also isn't magnetic, so it won't mess with your pickups. You can also use a fine Scotchbrite pad. For removing well-stuck gunk along the edges of frets, not much beats a single-edge razor blade, used parallel to the wood grain as a scraper. I use the same technique a bit more aggressively to minimize developing divots. Yes, you are taking the fretboard down slightly when you do this, but you are taking it down evenly if you are careful and change the blade angle very slightly as you work across the board. For simply removing gunk, you aren't taking down the board at all with this technique.

I had a 1968 ES 335-12. With the 1 9/16" nut, they were not a lot of fun to play as a 12 unless you only want to strum them. Apparently, a fair percentage of them were converted to six-strings. You could string them as a six, but the string spacing is off slightly if you do. Same thing goes at the saddles and the original trapeze tail. Proper conversion is significant surgery: cut down and re-shape the long, heavy headstock, cut a new nut, replace the saddles, and either replace the trap tail with a six trap tail, or convert to a stop bar tailpiece. Mine was virtually un-played when I got it, and I didn't play it much, either. It's the only guitar I've ever lost money on when I sold it. Gibson did a modern re-issue ES 335-12 a few years ago. It had a wider neck, and I suspect is a lot easier to play. For me, an electric 12 was just a passing fancy. I almost never play my '59 Historic ES 335, either. Just an acoustic guy with rock n' roll dreams at heart, I guess...

It appears to be all-original, and as others have said here, I would not pay more than $250, even if we can see everything that is wrong with it. The checking in the finish is normal for a guitar of that age. The plastic bridge is original, but was not one of Gibson's best ideas. It is not playable until that bridge is replaced, and if you get it, you should de-tune it to relieve stress on the top. The bridge is normally a structural component of the top, but this one is doing nothing, and string tension will only make matters worse. If you get it, it needs to go to someone who know what he/she is doing, and set a budget for repairs. Let us know what part of the country you are in, and we may be able to point you to a suitable repair person. The problem is that the same repair pretty much costs the same thing on a $250 guitar as it does on a $2500 guitar, so you can easily get upside down on repairs to a cheaper guitar. Having said that, it looks like a nice example of a late 1950's or so LG1

BK, is she a cattle dog?

That pickguard looks about a full 1/8" thick.

I have been guilty of that one, big time. On the plus side, I did discover that with careful masking, stripping, scraping, and sanding, followed by the application of clear lacquer, you can turn a J-45 with a 1968 cherryburst finish into a passable facsimile of a J-50. And by reversing that process 35 years later, and with the help of a talented luthier (rather than the 23-year-old doofus who has now owned said guitar for more than 50 years), you can turn that "J-50" back into a reasonable facsimile of the sunburst J-45 it began life as back in 1950.

What KS daddy says. The value has been compromised already, and restoring something approximating the original finish will not bring that value back. Enjoy it just the way it is. It's still a nice guitar.

After some research, there is a flattening agent that can be added to clear nitrocellulose lacquer to reduce gloss. This agent may slightly reduce the transparency of the finish. It that is the case, overcoating with a gloss clear lacquer may or may not produce exactly the effect you may be after. The bottom line: if you want a high-gloss finish, buy a new guitar with a gloss finish. You can certainly increase the gloss of a satin nitrocellulose finish by buffing or overcoating with clear gloss, but it may not yield results that are exactly the same as starting from a gloss finish.

All Gibson "flat tops" have a slight arch to the top, and usually to the back as well. On the top, it is more of a dome than an arch, as it arches both transversely and longitudinally, with the bridge generally as the high point. The actual amount of dome or arch varies from guitar to guitar.

That factory order number (FON, analogous to a serial number) indicates 1950. The post-war LG-1 was introduced in 1947 as the lowest-priced Gibson flat top model in the LG line to bring Gibsons to a new consumer market. It was touted as a student model, but has developed its own following over the years. From the picture, yours appears to be in very nice shape.

The serial numbers of two modern Gibsons should not be the same as each other. The serial number is an individual identifier. Some COA certs and labels seem to have the model and serial number printed, and others are hand-written, without obvious rhyme or reason. Those COA's appear to be hand-signed as well. Legend-series guitars such as the L-OO and J-45 would not typically have a label inside the guitar, as they are exact reproductions of guitars that would not originally have had labels.. The serial number should be ink-stamped on the neck block inside the guitar. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the guitars, we might be able to help you if you could post some photos. By the way, these COA's are a totally different format from the one that came with my 1937 L-00 Legend. That COA has errors in that it talks about "1940s building techniques" and a "custom 1940s redline case", which are curious properties for an instrument replicating a 1937 guitar. Just some of the little quirks that come with owning Gibsons.

some more info on the difference: bronze strings

A nitro finish achieves highest gloss through buffing/polishing. Spraying a completed guitar requires a lot of careful masking. Provided the satin finish is perfectly clean, with no surface contaminants, there's no obvious reason you can't spray nitro-on-nitro. The solvents in the new nitro actually activate the underlying nitro surface so that the two coats bond, as I understand it. That's why you can "melt out" some scratches on vintage guitars using lacquer reducer as a solvent. What I don't know is if there are any additives in the satin nitro finish that are used to keep it consistently dull, as is done with polyurethane finishes. If so, those might interfere with getting to where you want to get. In any case, you'll probably still need to buff the guitar after the overcoats to achieve the best results. Building up more coats allows you to buff more effectively without cutting through the finish, but buffing is not risk-free. It's shockingly easy to cut through a nitro finish, according to the guy who works on my guitars. I've had him buff out scratches on some new guitars, and he always warns me that I own those scratches, and the results are not guaranteed. When he says he can't go any further because he might cut through the finish, I believe him.

It's a vision in MOTS, but an iconic variant of the L-series 1930's guitars. No abalone or oysters died in the making of that fretboard. I didn't know anything about Richard Hawley before seeing this, but I like his attitude, his playing, and his voice

BK, who doesn't want "several"? You, of all people, should understand that. At least you're not spending your hard-earned Pacific Pesos on cigarettes, whiskey, and women since you got the urge for more guitars. How's the guitar fund coming, after your latest additions?

Thanks, JC. That finish looks very much like the VOS on my L-OO Legend when I got it. I very carefully went after it with Virtuoso, both the cleaner and polish, by hand, and basically got it to the point of about a 95% gloss on the top, close to 100% on the back and sides thanks to the tight grain of the mahogany. It was surprisingly easy to do, and it does look better to my eye. Others may prefer the straight VOS. It was probably safer to do with Virtuoso rather than abrasive buffing, since Virtuoso claims to work by chemical reaction rather than mechanical abrasion. There appear to be buffing swirls and orange peel on some of these Historics, but it's one of those things you can only evaluate first-hand. I assume the are using EIR for all the rosewood bits. The Legends used Madagascar for rosewood parts--fretboard and bridge. It's a gorgeous wood, but does add to cost. Those Adi tops look really, really fine on all of these Historics. It looks like they are using a proper tapered bridge on the AJ. There are nice details in these guitars. I want several...