j45nick

Looks like a solution in search of a problem.

All I know is what I read and the photos I look at. It isn't clear why Gibson went to the "modern" belly-up style that we associate with Gibson. Looking at old photos is tricky, because you never know with certainty if you are looking at the original bridge. As a general rule--but there are exceptions--banner J-45s had rectangular bridges, banner SJs belly-down. The banner registry lists five different bridge styles during the banner era.

The down-belly (Martin style) bridge was the rule on Banner SJs, rather than the exception. Just check out the SJ gallery on the banner website: BannerGibsons.com Woody's SJ also had the wider top binding that was used on some banner SJs.

The Woody Guthrie Southern Jumbo had the exact same neck as this guitar: same inlays, 20-fret neck, no neck binding, Maybe this was a custom J-45 TV with a Woody Guthrie SJ neck. Gibson SJ re-issues have been all over the map. I have a 1943 SJ re-issue that is pretty accurate: slot-through belly-down bridge, 19-fret neck, SJ rosette. I also, however, has a bound fretboard, which is a post-war feature.

The Southern Jumbo is essentially just J-45 with the fancy neck inlay you have. Your guitar is actually a Southern Jumbo True Vintage, which is a good thing.

John, thanks for doing that. It was a real pleasure to watch.

He might say it has the wrong logo on the headstock. 🙂 Seriously, I love the look of that guitar, and the pickguard is a stunner.

Think of it as buying a Prius vs buying a Tesla. Both will get you there. It's a matter of how you want to travel. The LG-2 and the J-45 are different animals from the same family. Play both of them and decide for yourself what's important. You seem to want is to make definitive statements about the differences between the two models, but it's not that simple. It's not about "boom". It's about balance, projection, note separation, and general tonal properties. Different individual examples of each model will have slightly different characteristics. This is why buying vintage guitars , compared to buying modern versions of the same guitar, can be challenging. Depending on how you play, and in what setting, a vintage LG-2 may give you what you are looking for, but it will not be the same as a good vintage J-45.

That does not look like a Gibson factory sunburst to me, and the back also looks like someone used a spray can of some type of finish on the guitar. The pickguard is obviously not original. Without a first-hand inspection, it is difficult to put a price on it. A good re-finish generally depreciates a vintage guitar by at least 1/3, all other things being equal. A mediocre re-finish will depreciate it even more.

Now THAT's what a faded cherryburst should look like!

That looks like a great buy!

Unless it is really professionally done, a refinish leaves open pores in the wood, particularly in mahogany. This is what you see on the back of the headstock of this guitar. Carefully-lighted photos of the back, sides, and top would probably show if this is a refinish or not. If it is a refinish, it is probably a very old refinish. At some point, the original open back tuners were replaced with slightly newer closed-back Klusons of a style that came in in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ZW may have a better idea of the date of the tuners. This is a nice instrument, but only a first-hand inspection inside and out by someone really knowledgeable might pin it down more definitively. JT's assessment is the most rational in the absence of that.

I agree with that assessment.

It is the same guitar, as 62burst said. Top grain matches exactly.

That looks like a higher-end J-45. You have the piece, and it goes back pretty cleanly. If it were mine, I would glue it back in. I might actually have my luthier do it, as it would be like it never happened, and cost me about $100 to fix. If you leave it out, that may prove to be a pick-catcher over time, and lead to more damage that is not so easily fixed.

Guitars like the J-45 and J-50 did not necessarily come standard with cases until relatively recently. Prior to that, cases on lower-end guitars like this were options, with several grades of case to choose from, depending on your budget. Many cases were generic, rather than fitted to the specific model guitar. I paid $10 for a Gibson chipboard case for my first 1950 J-45 when I got it in 1966. It was Gibson-badged. That cheap case unleashed a chain of event that resulted in the J-45 being re-topped by Gibson in 1968. Around 1970, I spent $35 for an un-branded generic hard case for that guitar at a store in Providence, RI. It did not fit it particularly well, but at least it was a hard case. That same guitar now sits in a custom G&G Cali Girl case from a run for Norman's Rare Guitars in LA. I have a lot more tied up in cases for that guitar than I paid for the guitar in 1966.

That was my first reaction, but I suspect what we are looking at is not a decal, but a white painted stenciled logo that has been overcoated with some type of clearcoat that makes the logo look yellow/gold rather than white. The script style is very similar to the slightly later Gibson banner and immediate post-banner logos, but it is not exactly the same. For the original poster, there is no way that clearcoat is original. It is crudely brushed on.

Based on the factory order number, unbound back, logo, and size of sunburst, I would say 1934-35 L-OO It's a shame someone has slathered some kind of clearcoat over everything. I've seen that done before, and it greatly diminishes the value of the guitar. This should have plain three-on-a-square-end-plate open back tuners. Those are easy to find. If it were mine, I would try to figure out what that overcoating was to see if there is any way to remove it without destroying the original finish below. In any case, it is a nice guitar.

I use DR Sunbeams (phosphor bronze on a round core, medium/light) on my mahogany guitars. They can be a little bright for some people when new, but a pick like a medium or heavy Red Bear or Blue Chip tones that down. You will find little consistency in string recommendations here. One person's "shrill" is another's "bright." A .5mm pick is very thin, and will by its nature give a somewhat thinner tone. The Tortex picks I sometimes use are 1.14mm thick. The Red Bear mediums I generally use are 1.25mm thick. (Just checked those with digital calipers.) However, it's the material as much as the thickness that determines tone. Celluloid is quite bright, Tortex a bit less.

My initial reaction to your description and the serial number is 1965. Some guitars from that year seem to have the wider 1 11/16" nut, while some are narrower. There are also non-consecutive serial numbers at times in this period, so it is entirely possible the year could be off slightly, as might be suggested by the wider nut. The serial number should be stamped on the back of the headstock. Welcome, and don't feel alone about being old. There are a lot of geezers here, including me. Post a picture of the guitar if you get a chance.

There are a lot more variables than scale length in this equation. Body volume and distribution of that volume play a role, as do things like bracing characteristics. I don't have a Martin dread, so can only comment on the Gibson slope-J with mahogany back and sides. I have three of those--two vintage and one modern--and each requires its own combination of picking style, strings, and picks, although they share common general tonal characteristics. If your SJ sounds harsh when flatpicking, you may want to consider a different type of pick. If you are using medium celluloid picks, and picking fairly close to the bridge, you can get a fairly harsh, thin tone, depending on the strings you use. If you want to warm up the tone, use a pick such as the Red Bear, which closely mimics the character of tortoise shell picks, or a Blue Chip. I divide my time pretty equally between flat-picking and fingerpicking. Certainly there are big tonal differences there. I chase tone with a combination of strings, picks, and playing style.

Well, there are over 1100 used and vintage Gibson acoustics for sale on Reverb, so I don't know what if anything it means,

Really sweet guitar!

In about 1971, I hand-delivered a mid-19th century Martin "New Yorker"--a small-bodied rosewood guitar marked "CF Martin New York"--to the Nazareth plant. The bird's beak headstock joint had let go, and the rosewood body had dozens of open cracks. I got it back in a heavy plastic bag inside a cardboard box, with a note from Martin that they considered the guitar beyond repair. A young guy in Providence was just starting out in guitar building and restoration. He took the job on, and did a stunning job, fitting dozens of tiny rosewood splices into the convoluted grain of the body. Of course, I then had little idea of what was entailed in a job like that, or how to do it. And of course, I don't know how well it was really done, but it looked great and the guitar played well. I put a small classified ad in the New York Times, and two ladies drove up to Providence from New York, and bought the guitar, I think for about $1200 or $1500, which was a fair amount of money 50 years ago. Anyhow, at that time, people did not necessarily place great value on vintage guitars that needed serious attention, and were not necessarily as concerned about doing a repair or restoration job in a manner that was consistent with the original construction of the guitar as we are today. Gibson was a prime example of that approach back then, as the Zombywoof and I both know. Old guitars were just cheap old guitars, and if you sent it to Kalamazoo for repair, you never knew what you were going to get back. My first 1950 J-45 went back to Gibson in 1968 to re-glue a loose top, and came back looking like a brand-new 1968 J-45, which was not what I had in mind. You still have to pick and choose carefully if you need major work done on a vintage guitar. There are a lot of hacks out there with little idea of what they are doing. Caveat emptor.

Congratulations!