j45nick

That neck is probably a bit over-set, but the straightedge really needs to be full-length to properly evaluate. The shorter straight edge shows the impact of the amount of neck relief on the height of the straight edge at the saddle, whereas a longer straightedge bridges the relief. That is a tall saddle, just about as tall as the one on my L-OO Legend. In one photo, it looks like it might tilt forward a bit, as do the pins You might loosen the strings to pull out the saddle and make sure it is sitting flat, full depth, and tightly in the saddle slot. You don't want any slop in the fit with a saddle that tall, as the strings are exerting a lot of leverage on the saddle and bridge. Check that the ball ends of the strings are properly seated on the bridgeplate at the same time. As 62burst says, however, an overset neck is better than underset.

A Legend or JT Kalamazoo Gals Special re-issue of an FON 910 SJ would be really nice. I'd be first in line for that one. With two 1950 J-45's and a Fuller's 1943 SJ re-issue, I've probably got 'hog slope-J's covered for now. A rosewood SJ is another matter altogether, however. Ask Tom Barnwell. Rosewood SJ with terrified adi top and all hide glue construction? Count me in!

Some Legend models had a VOS finish. My L-OO Legend had that finish, and it was marked down by the dealer selling it because he thought the duller visual appearance of the VOS was actually polishing scratches.

I don't know, but if you can get complete specs on the 2016, we may be able to figure it out. I was just looking (online) at the COA from a 2007 J-45 Legend. The title of the cert is "The 1942 J-45 Legend Model", and the wording says it is an exact reproduction of Eldon Whitford's 1942 J-45. The specs say hide glue, etc. This should be the J-45 Legend spec from day one. If the one you are looking at has the COA, check it out to see if it is the same. The only two Legend models that I am aware of are the J-45 and the L-OO, both of which claim to be exact reproductions of specific guitars owned by named individuals. My L-OO Legend came with the COA, which is pretty essential for maintaining the provenance of the guitar when and if the time comes to sell it. That COA identifies the guitar as "The 1937 L-OO Legend Model." An intriguing aside is the fairly limited number of Kalamazoo Gal models made by Gibson in conjunction with John Thomas's project. Those may or may not have specs as authentic as Legend models. I have only seen a few of those on the market, and am not even sure which models were ultimately made.

The danger is when they also start making guitars out of chocolate: An old hippie shows up to do an open mic with a hemp guitar and a chocolate guitar. Sadly, he goes home empty-handed...

That was a lot of fun, essentially using the Byrds arrangement of instrumentation, and with the kids doing a great job. However, stripped of its brilliant final verse ("...take me disappearing through the smoke rings of my mind..."), the song is a hollow shell of itself. Here's perhaps my favorite performance of this Dylan masterpiece, played on the little Martin 0-45 "borrowed" from Joan Baez: Newport 1964

The upside is that when you get it back, it will be good to go.

Sal, It can be fixed. You just needs someone who knows what he/she is doing. Don't give up. Both of my J-45's have a slight hump where the fretboard bends over the body, just because of the neck angle is not parallel to the top. Any competent luthier, or a good tech, should be able to sort this out.

If you follow Sal's link in his original post, and look at his last picture in his UMGF posting, that's exactly what you'll see. It's not that pronounced, but it's there.

Sal, this can be fixed, but you may want to get a good tech to do it. The problem starts with the hump, and is exacerbated by the excess relief. As TomPhx says, there look to be several things going on that may require simultaneous solutions, as fixing just one may exacerbate another. I believe you used to have a guy who was really good work on your guitars. If he's still around, I would get it to him. This is a bit more than just a simple set-up, but shouldn't be a cause for giving up on the guitar unless something else is found.

It looks like a hump in the fretboard where the fretboard meets the body, coupled with a fair amount of neck relief, so that when you play further up the neck, some strings are fretting out on that hump. This calls for someone who really knows what they are doing to correct. I wouldn't second-guess what they might do, but it might start with filing down the frets a bit from 12 up.

What the Blues King sez here..... You can't go wrong with a mahogany J-45. It's the most basic Gibson tone and feel. Try several if possible. Several different neck styles (shape, nut width) have been used in modern times, so if you don't like the first one, keep looking. Be aware that different strings result in dramatically different voices on the J-45, or almost any guitar, so what may be a dud with one type of strings comes alive with another. Enjoy the hunt! And they do work for rock 'n roll. If Buddy Holly were still around, he would vouch for that. But plenty of others who are still with us could say the same thing.

I liked that a lot! I did a freeze-frame and enlarged it, and the guitar is a J-45 Studio.

Interestingly, the "wear" on your new guitar appears to be much less pronounced than the "wear" Martin showed in the original video touting this aging process on the 1937 D-28 AA. In that version of the "wear", there was buckle rash through the finish on the back, and pickwear through the finish around the soundhole in the front. They also talked about artificially creating lacquer checking, etc. There is a significant downside with that degree of wear that really isn't discussed: you cannot readily use most polishes on finishes that are checked or worn through to the bare wood. Virtuoso for one warns against using their cleaner and polishes on checked lacquer surfaces. When those cleaner/polishes dry, even after you have polished them off, the cleaner and polish penetrate the cracks (or the mechanical crazing from pick impacts, etc), leaving a residue that ultimately dries white and is, as they say, virtually impossible to remove. I learned this the hard way on a 1947 L-7 that I owned a few years ago, where I spent countless hours with naphtha-soaked cotton swabs teasing dried polish out of lacquer checks. It may be that Martin has toned down the "aging" process on current versions of the AA guitars, compared to what was originally envisioned. I like the Authentic series Martins a lot. There are much the same philosophically (and practically) as Gibson's Legend series guitars. In the case of the Martin Authentics, most of the original versions of those guitars are priced impossibly out of reach for most of us. The Authentics offer a chance to grab a little bit of the legend at a more rational price.

That is probably the "Authentic Aged" version, which is "pre-worn." I've been looking at the "non-preworn" versions, since I prefer to "age" them myself. For me, it's a choice between one of the modern Authentics (which are Madagascar rather than Brazilian), or an early 50's Brazilian D-28. The modern authentic is a fair amount less on the used market compared to a good vintage one, and is a lot less likely to need a neck re-set...

As it used to say on the outside of the case--and still says on my Gibson denim jacket-- "Tone, Feel, Appearance." When I started college in New England in 1965, most of the guys I knew who played had Martins. Then I spent a year in school in Mississippi in 1966-67, and most of my redneck guitar-playing friends had Gibsons. There was a lot more variety in tone and appearance in the Gibsons. At the end of the day, if there had been a $50 Martin as well as a $50 Gibson on the wall when I walked into that store in Jackson, I'm not sure which would have gone home with me. But there wasn't, and the rest, as they say, is history. Now I can afford both brands, and I have both brands. But I always seem to end up playing a Gibson. Tone, feel, appearance..

I was barely aware of what a J-45 was back then. All I knew for certain is that it said "Gibson" on the headstock. Given that the only guitar I had at that point was a Mexican guitar converted for steel strings, which was barely playable and cost me $5, the J-45 was a miracle. The loose braces did rattle a bit...

I like this a lot. I've always loved the song. What are you running the guitar through (pickup, etc.)? Sounds piezo-y, but in a good way.

I couldn't quite figure out what it was, and had to look it up. Looks like a really nice guitar.

It certainly could be. Pictures might help.

Mark, is that 000-41 new to you? I don't remember you having that one. That's a lovely-sounding guitar (as is the SJ).

I bought my first J-45 in 1966. It was a beat-up 1950 with a rutted fretboard, worn frets, and as I later discovered, several loose braces. It had been gigged nearly to death. As a 19-year-old college student, I couldn't even afford the $50 they wanted, but my older sister loaned the money to me. Still have that puppy more than 50 years later, as well as another one, in much better condition, with a FON just a month or so earlier. I have a thing for early post-WW2 Gibson slope-J's. They feel and sound right. My sister, alas, died about 25 years ago. She was the best sister a guy could ever have.

Generally, string tension on acoustics is going to be substantially higher because they are heavier-gauge strings than you are likely to have on your electrics. This makes them harder to fret. First position barre chords are the hardest because you are very close to the nut, so you are pressing down on a part of the string that doesn't move easily. DR Sunbeams are lower-tension round-core strings, and generally easier to fret and more flexible than hex-core strings. Not sure, but the Rares may be hex core.

I said I am not aware of any, because of the characteristics of Gibsons during the production history of the CW. For sure, some of the square dread CW's from the late 1960's had 1 9/16" nuts, as did other Gibsons in that period. One forum member here went so far as to take the original neck off a narrow-nut CW from about 1967 and graft on a neck with a wider nut. Could there be one with a wider nut out there? Sure, with Gibson, anything is possible. But you may spend a long time looking, and go down many blind alleyways. As you are probably aware, the CW is a just a re-named SJ Natural, with the lasso label. The most famous one is probably Sheryl Crow's 1962 square dread version. They have done modern re-issues of that guitar, but I'm not sure what the nut width on those is.

Not sure you will find that. The original slope-CW's and SJN's from the mid '50's through early 60's (pre-square days) are 1 11/16". Square dread CW's, you need to check them individually, as some from the late 60's could be the narrow nut from that period. Later vintage CW's (70's) probably have same nut width as other Gibson squares, as they were all built on the same platform. The banner Gibson registry shows no SJN's, maybe because the wood used during those years wasn't good enough to do a natural top. I have a modern custom-run SJ (not CW) re-issue with a 1 3/4" nut, so you may well find a modern CW with that nut width. Vintage? Probably not.