j45nick

link test imgur j-45

All Gibsons in the 1950's were made in the Parsons Street plant in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Someone else will need to answer the question about lefty guitars in this period. I suspect they were special order. By the way, those late-50's CW's are great guitars.

That is truly a beautiful guitar. The background and history lesson were a big plus. Worth the wait.

You can't see it without cranking the saddle all the way up. It's a slightly curved piece of thin spring steel with the same shape as the footprint of the saddle. It fits into the saddle slot underneath the saddle. Check it out the next time you change the strings. Don't ask what its purpose is/was. None of us seems to know with certainty. It may not even be there in modern versions of this bridge and saddle.

You don't need to loosen the strings, but de-tuning a bit will make it easier to raise/lower the saddle.

Now you've done it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE

Welcome to the forum. I hope you've enjoyed your short time here. We look forward to your continued, valuable contributions to civilized dialogue.

Remember that the "standard" Gibson nut width today is not 1 3/4". It is about 1/32" (.8mm) less than that, for what it's worth, and as long as we are picking at details. The 000-28 EC (Clapton 000-28) neck is, believe, more or less copied from that of Clapton's old 000-45, which would probably date from the 1930's. It is 1 3/4" at the nut, like Martins from that period, and has a noticeable (but slightly softened) V-shape not too dissimilar to that of some 1930's Gibsons. I have both an L-00 Legend and a 000-28 EC. The necks aren't exactly the same, but they are similar. Both have wider than standard string spacing at the bridge: 2 1/4" (57mm) for the Clapton, 2 3/8" (60+ mm) for the L-OO. Someone, somewhere, has made decisions on these details and others, at both Gibson and Martin. Some decisions may be driven by consumer input, some by a desire for "historical accuracy" (whatever that is), others by who knows what? I'm just looking for a comfortable neck that feels right, but I've learned to be adaptable.

You've got it backwards. I was talking about Martin's switch up from 1 11/16" to 1 3/4" just recently. I'll put if more bluntly and less politely. More Americans--and residents of other developed countries, as well-- are fat today than ever before. Fat people tend to have fatter fingers than skinny people. If you've got fat fingers, a 1 3/4" nut is easier to play than a 1 11/16" nut, at least for some folks. Not saying that's why Martin did it after almost 80 years of having the narrower nut (1 11/16") as the standard. It's just a theory, like any other speculation in the absence of verification from Martin as to why the change was made.

Generalities are probably risky. What we see from our discussions here is that the "rules" about when Gibson (or Martin, for that matter) changed from one characteristic to another almost always seem to have exceptions. Until necks became CNC carved, or at least until relatively sophisticated neck-carving machinery was introduced, you might reasonably expect there to be small variations, and we are pretty much (in most cases) talking about small variances. Note that most of the new Martins such as the D-28 standard and 000-28 now have 1 3/4" nut widths. I hate to say but, but at least in the US, people are a lot larger than they used to be. Maybe the wider nut is a reflection of the need to have more room on the fretboard for people.

I'm not to sure about that timeline. As far as I can tell, banner era J-45's (1942-1945) started out with a nut width between 1 3/4" down to just over or about 1 11/16" at the end of the period. By 1946, most seem to have been at 1 11/16" or very slightly over. Between 1947 and early 1965, 1 11/16" was the standard, although the neck sectional shape changed pretty radically from a full rounded C in 1947, getting slightly thinner through the mid/late 1950's. By 1960 the necks were thin in cross section, although most retained the 1 11/16" nut width. Every now and then, you see one from 1963 or so with a slightly narrower nut at about 1 5/8". Sometime in 1965, the nut width was shaved to 1 9/16, and at the same time, the headstock angle relative to the fretboard was flattened from the early standard 17 degrees down to 14 degrees, perhaps to address the added risk of headstock breakage with the narrow, thin neck. As far as I can tell, between sometime in 1965 and 1968 (the last year of the original round-shouldered J-45), the J-45 nut width stayed at 1 9/16", even though it may have been different on square shoulder models at this time. Em7 may have seen some wider ones from this period, but I haven't. I take a small stainless steel metric/English rule with me to guitar shows all the time, and record nut widths in a little notebook. Sellers and dealers think I'm nuts. I know nothing about the nut width of the square-shoulder J-45 (1969-1983 or so), which shared most of the primary characteristics with the numerous other Gibson square dreads of the Norlin era. Em7 knows those models well. Likewise, the re-introduced round-shoulder Nashville-built J-45's (1984) prior to the development of the Bozeman, Montana Gibson Acoustic division are unknown quantities to me. I've never even seen one of those Nashville-built J-45's in the flesh. Others here will know the history of Ren-era (post 1990) J-45 nut widths better than I. That modern neck must have been Ren's idea, and it's a good one. I don't know he settled on it, but the nut width of just under 1.75" is close to ideal for a lot of people. For me, the two late 40's to early 50's Gibson acoustics I've owned have (or had) just about the ideal nut width and neck shape for me. Interestingly, my Nashville-built Custom, Art, and Historic Shop '59 ES 335 Historic has virtually (as far as I can tell) that same nut width and almost that same neck section up as far as the 12th fret. Your experience may vary.

It's amusing how similar that headstock is to the custom headstock we did on my J-45 more than 45 years ago. You can see it in my avatar.

Fuller's Vintage had a history of commissioning special runs from Bozeman. I have a "1943 Southern Jumbo" from a run done in 2006. It has a lot of authentic features, including serial number ink-stamped on the neck block rather than embossed on the headstock, belly-down bridge with slot-through bone saddle, bone nut, centerline black stripe on the back, pseudo-firestripe pickguard, 19-fret neck, five-ply top binding, etc. It's supposed to be an adi top, but looks like sitka to me. The non-authentic features are a bound fretboard, which is a post-war characteristic, and the luthier's choice neck with a 1.78" nut and 2 3/16" pin spacing. I can live with those compromises in authenticity, since sonically it's a great guitar. Fortunately, that guitar does not have a "custom shop" decal on the neck (nor does my L-OO Legend, another limited run guitar that is even more "authentic") , which would sort of compromise the overall effect, even though it is a special limited run. On the electric guitar side, Gibson seems to use the "custom shop" designation on a large percentage of the guitars that come out of Memphis, few of which seem to have anything "custom" about them. The old Nashville "Custom, Art, and Historic" shop, where my '59 ES-335 Historic was built, was probably a closer analog to Bozeman's old custom shop. A few shops like Fuller's (then) and Wildwood (now) have been able to commission and sell unique runs of guitars from Gibson Acoustic. The fact that they may not have the "custom shop" logo on them doesn't bother me at all.

Why are you Canadians so rational, and so nice?

Maybe, but it's equally likely that in the 40% (or so) humidity environment of the Bozeman plant, that was indeed the action height when the guitar was ready to leave the factory. String height is astonishingly sensitive to ambient humidity, and guitars are organic beings.

It never occurred to me that a brand-new guitar would NOT need a set-up. Even when I buy a used guitar, the first thing that happens (well, maybe the second or third) is that it goes off to my guy to be set up the way I like it. He's better at it than I am, even though I'm the guy playing it. Do you drive your new car without adjusting the seat and steering wheel to suit you? It's just that the guitar set-up is a little more complex than pushing the seat button in a car. It still needs to be done, in most cases. That doesn't bother me one bit.

They are definitely out there. Videos like these help you spot them. I judge guitar techs and repair guys by the guitars I see in their shop when I go in, and by recommendations of others I respect. So far, so good.

Pictures would be useful. High-end classical guitars use totally different bracing patterns and construction techniques from those used in a steel-string flat-top. I wonder what the design of this guitar is? The standard classical guitar shape is very close to that of the Gibson LG series of guitars. Gibson is not a name you associate with classical guitars, other than the ones built primarily in the 1960's at the height of the folk craze, when groups like PP&M used nylon-strung guitars. Both Gibson and Martin have built classical-style instruments at various points in time. Sounds like yours may be a one-off. I have a very nice Spanish classical that is cedar-topped with rosewood back and sides. It's a nice wood combination.

I thought that might be the case, but wasn't certain. I contacted ebay during the sale, and reported it as a sale of counterfeit goods. I got an acknowledgement of my contact, but that was it. No response on the substance. So where do you stand now in this process? It seems like you've undertaken a certain amount of risk here, so I assume you have a plan. Did you bid multiple times, or go in and snipe at the last minute to make sure you would win? If you bid multiple times, you may inadvertently have encouraged others to believe the guitar was real, and to continue bidding.

Someone will be (or should be) seriously upset when they realize what they have bought. My guess it will ultimately get returned to the seller, and may show up again in some way, perhaps advertised as a "replica". The serial number, by the way, was clearly visible in the photos, and was in a format never used by any Gibson division.

I saw a piece on e-commerce yesterday that stated that up to 30% of the transactions on ebay, Amazon, and a couple of other platforms I was not familiar with involve counterfeit goods. It is clear that the operators of those platforms have zero incentive to police this, since it would obviously result in a significant reduction in profitability. It's a pretty sad commentary on the times.

And has been mentioned before, the buyer of this guitar is likely to be a bit uneducated about counterfeits. He will get a POS guitar, and will go online and start bashing Gibson for producing junk. That's not good for Gibson, and it's not good for those of us who own Gibson guitars. The seller's attitude seems to be that since it says Gibson on the headstock and Gibson on the label, it's a Gibson J-200. But then he says an authentic J-200 would sell for thousands of dollars, so somebody is getting a bargain. Clueless, amoral idiot.

That makes no sense. The seller, knowingly selling counterfeit goods, makes a lot of money, and the evidence gets destroyed. I find this whole episode discouraging. A seller who seems oblivious to the moral and legal implications of what he is doing, and a commercial platform that seemingly couldn't care less.

Before you look at any characteristics of the guitar, the serial number is 2016015421. Uh.... At least they didn't steal a valid Gibson serial number.

So, here's the reply I got back from the seller, through ebay: New message from: tikerkma0 (18) You are a moroon..it is not a crime to sell a guitar. The guitar is Gibson brand and is a J 200. Authentic Gibson j 200 guitars sell for thousands. This guitar is fairly priced. If you don t like it don t buy it.