j45nick

My dater has 1965 models starting at 250336, which is very close to your guitar's number. The would place your serial number at the very end of December 1964, in all probability. It is entirely possible that Gibson started using narrower necks before January 1, 1965. I have seen necks with a nut width of 1 5/8" on guitars dated to 1964, so Gibson was definitely experimenting with narrower nuts prior to January 1, 1965. It's good to check the nut width on any Gibson acoustic from after around 1960, when Gibson necks started to get skinny in general. It's not like all the characteristics of Gibsons changed at the turn of the new year. They aren't like cars, with distinctive model year characteristics.

The best year for a J-45 is the year you buy one... (down the rabbit hole. I miss OWF.)

That was informative, and I like the guy's work. Doing the conversion that way makes sense in this case, even though the sonic effect is probably not exactly the same as a "complete" conversion, which would be more labor intensive since it requires removing the bridge in order to remove the heavy brass barrel nuts from the top. Ross Teigen did a "complete" conversion on the 1968 adj on my "old" factory re-topped 1950 J-45 almost a decade ago. That was to return the guitar to its original 1950 configuration. The result was very positive, but I might not have done it on a guitar that originally had an adj. I like this guy's thinking. Thanks for posting this.

Them two can pick more notes than the number of ants on a Tennessee anthill. Yes indeed.

My sources have that FON as mid-1950. It should have trapezoid fretboard inlays and a bound fretboard. That model was discontinued in 1956. It's great to have a vintage guitar with a known family history.

To be clear, I prefer a taller saddle, even though the one on my L-OO Legend is pretty extreme compared to most. When I got my "new" 1950 J-45 earlier this year, it was a choice between taking the saddle down quite a bit or having the neck re-set. Ross Teigen (works on my guitars) agreed that a neck re-set was a better solution, and also agreed to over-set the neck very slightly to give a taller-than-original saddle. I'm really happy with the result. Mechanically, a big break angle increases downward pressure on the top and bending moment on the saddle, so you want to be sure everything is up to it, including a perfect fit of the saddle the slot and a flat bottom on the saddle. At the same time, Ross filled the worn pinholes in the bridgeplate, re-drilled and reamed for new un-slotted pins. The use of unslotted pins requires sawing a string slot in the plate/top/bridge sandwich, but he is convinced that's the best way to go. Nothing I hear in this guitar tells me he is wrong. I like taller saddles.

For some of us, it wasn't about making the right choices, but a matter of pure luck. When I look back on some of the things I did when I was young, it's either luck or the grace of God (depending on your perspective) that I didn't end up dead or behind bars. I had friends that suffered both of those fates. There's a lifetime of songs between those two facts.

Toby's dog is not impressed. I am, though.

It can take quite some time to adjust to a new guitar. Play it a lot for a few weeks, and if you are still having problems, take it to a good luthier for a set-up. It may need a little tweaking, but give yourself (and the guitar) some time to adapt to each other.

The LG body plan and proportions are very similar to those of a concert classical guitar. You can use the same case for either type, with a near-perfect fit.

I really like that, BK. It's one of my favorite Dylan songs. The Band's version set the bar pretty high, but yours is a great solo version.

What he says. You are hitting the A with harder and harder force until you get the buzz. It's a self-fulfilling action. It could be that the A string nut slot is a tiny bit deeper than it should be, but that isn't obvious. I can make any string on most of my guitars buzz if I deflect them enough and then release them.

Yeah, that break angle on the right is almost as extreme as the one on my L-OO Legend. But not quite.

If there is still any doubt at all as to what this guitar is, 30 seconds with a tape measure will tell you. The standard LG-series body plan has a width of 14 1/2" (about 368mm) across the lower bout.

Sorry to hear that physical limits are starting to get in the way of things. These mid/late 50's slope-J's (J-45, J-50, SJ, CW) are often great all-around guitars. They tend to be dry and direct, without a lot of sustain but with good projection. Not sure if it's the straight tapered-end bracing (rather than scalloped) that makes them sound different from late 40's/early 50's slope-J's with scalloped bracing, but there is a subtle difference, despite the very strong family resemblance. Here's a good demo from Toby Walker on one that is perfectly suited to his playing style, which I love: 1956 J-50

Sometime around 1960-'61, the necks got thinner in section (not nut width) compared to slightly earlier versions. Zombywoof here has a pretty good grip on the timeline for what he calls the "backless" necks. The electrics, at least the ES series, followed the same pattern, getting thinner in section beginning sometime in 1960. For the ES electrics, 1959 was the last year of the "fat necks", and modern '59 re-issues generally cite the "fat neck" as a selling point. You can recognize the plywood bridgeplates pretty easily, as they are larger, and the edges where visible clearly show multi-ply construction. I have one of them from 1968 in my spare parts box, along with the rosewood adj bridge that went with it. In that case, they were not "production line" parts, but were installed by the Kalamazoo repair shop.

A '63 will still have the 1 11/16" nut, so it is generally more desirable than, say a '65. That one looks to be in beautiful condition, with a very nicely faded cherryburst. The price seems fair to me.

Zombie thread returns from the dead... Leave it out in the sun for a day, let it really heat up, then put it in your freezer. Actually, don't do this, unless you want crazing. But you can't really control this process, so you're on your own if you try it. If you want the patina of age, buy an old guitar. The finish on your new guitar is still curing, and will get more brittle over time all on its own.

Looks like nice work. The photo of the top with the plastic adj removed clearly shows all the holes in the top involved with that bridge/saddle arrangement. Of course, 30 years from now someone may say "I can't believe they removed that original plastic bridge back in 2019. They ruined the guitar." Personally, I think they did the right thing. But that's just me.

My oh my oh my, Tom! I might pick those two 1936 guitars, thank you very much. AJ and D-28, indeed!

Nice way to display your guitars. Do you run positive air pressure in the room to keep the dust down? I could never do that in my office because of air-borne dust, probably due to central AC which is on at least six months of the year. Once every couple of months, I have to vacuum it from top to bottom. The guitars stay nice and clean in their cases, but of course I don't get to look at them, which would be nice. I hope where you live isn't subject to earthquakes, with all those guitars on the wall and hanging on racks. It's probably not a good arrangement for anyone in California or some other states which re subject to tremors.

Indeed. That's a more polite, if less colorful, way to phrase it. My turn of phrase was actually toned down compared to original version from an Australian friend. They know how to offend almost everyone in a single sentence. My apologies for being so crude.

Good question. Maybe because every recording studio in Nashville had a beat-up one sitting around as an "emergency" guitar or one used to set levels. Just guessing, of course. They were, after all, cheap as chips and common as dirt back in the day, and reasonably sturdy. A musician working for next to nothing could still afford one. My original 1950 J-45, which was just over 15 years old when I bought it for $50 in 1966, looked about as used up as a hooker on Saturday morning after "free night" at the brothel. I suspect someone flogged that one daily until they just about wore the poor thing out. She was loose in the braces, worn at the soundhole, rutted in the fretboard, and her frets were chewed down to nothing. The jack hole in her side didn't help much, either. But she was beautiful to me. Workhorse, indeed!

I really like the last song.

1961 J-45 would have a Q-prefix FON ink-stamped on the neck block. This website has some good info. The link below may not work, but you should be able to take the info and find the site guitarhq