j45nick

The tooling certainly exists to build the SJ200 as a cutaway. The SJ200 has the same body plan as Gibson's L-5 and L-7 17" archtops, both of which were built as "premier" models with a Venetian cutaway.

I paid $880 for a new Rolex GMT Master in Bermuda in 1988. It was a treat to myself for having survived a divorce. Same watch now is something like $8000. Back to vintage guitars. tpbiii here has a staggering collection of vintage Martins and Gibsons that he started back around 1970 or so. I believe he started collecting them for their tone, not their value. He may well have the best insight into when the serious market in vintage guitars developed. When I bought my first old J-45 in 1966, it was 16-18 years old, and rode hard and put away wet. I had to borrow the $50 to buy it from my sister. It was cheap because it was "used", and a bit abused. I only wanted it because it was a Gibson, and it was cheap. A couple of months ago, I bought a near-sister to that guitar (just a few weeks older by the FON, but in much better condition than my other one was) for 80 times what I paid for nominally the same guitar 53 years ago. The market has changed.

That's a good question, indeed. Imagine some guys 50 years from now trying to sort out the meaning of the differences in J-45 labels or features on today's J-45 models. I have two 1948-1950 J-45's. The only question is whether they are 1948, 1949, or 1950 J-45's. If we had access to the Gibson shipping ledger, we might know for sure. It doesn't really matter, since a J-45 was just a J-45 in those days. Those guitars are no more than eight years away from the very first J-45, no matter which year they were built. Looking back at the first J-45 from 1950 was like looking "back" at a 2011 model today. I bet a lot of people, if they thought about it at all at the time, would rather have had a new 1950 J-45 than one of those crap guitars built during the war using whatever scraps of wood Gibson had lying around. Not to mention the fact that there were few skilled workers left in Kalamazoo, and they weren't supposed to be building guitars. How our perspective changes over time!

Of course. I was just pulling your leg.

Uh, how about Woody Guthrie (banner SJ, L-OO)? And Buddy Holly (banner J-45)? I suspect there are plenty of other examples, as well. Just because music was made in a specific period doesn't mean the guitar that made it was necessarily from the same period.

For reference, the depth at the 10th fret on my 1950 is 1.02". Ninth fret is where most check this, just because there's a fret marker there. Late 40's/early 50's Gibsons typically have very round necks, so that coupled with the depth, they're a nice handful for many folks.

For reference, the Wildwood Guitars website gives the neck depth at the first and ninth frets on all their acoustic guitars. When you combine that with the nut width, it will at least give you a rough idea of the heft of individual necks. As an example, the neck on my "new" 1950 J-45 is .92" at the first fret, .97" at the ninth fret. The typical new J-45 Standard is .82 at the first, .89 at the ninth. The typical new J-45 Vintage is .88" and .94".

So, I checked the two Gibsons I have with "modern firestripe" factory pickguards. The L-OO Legend does show the adhesive sheet through the lighter areas of the pickguard. The 1943 SJ re-issue pickguard was re-positioned properly by Ross Teigen when he set the guitar up, and shows minimal air entrapment through the pickguard. Installation differences probably explain this, as well as the humidification of the top when the guard is installed.

That was a good article. I was surprised he could clean up that dried glue with water after it had set. One problem with these modern non-celluloid firestripe guards is that they seem to be semi-transparent, especially in the lighter areas. This makes it difficult to get a "clean" installation with adhesive sheet, so that you don't see the pattern of the sheet through the pickguard. Someone here who has installed one of these painted the back of the guard before installing the adhesive sheet, as I recall. This was not a problem with real firestripe celluloid, which seems to be less transparent.

What glue would you use for that application? (Serious question, since you may want to remove it for some reason at some point in the future.)

I thought the J-35 was an exceptional value, given both the construction and the period-correct details. However, with two 1950 J-45's and a 1943 re-issue SJ in the stable, I've probably got the Gibson 'hog slope-J spectrum covered pretty well. I suspect the J-35 was a loss leader for Gibson, and ended up eating into the J-45 standard market in a serious manner, since it was a lot less money for what is essentially the same guitar except for a few cosmetic things.

All his available contact info is on his website: www.guitarsaddles.com Email I have for him may or may not be current: rcolosi@tds.net

I've spent much of my lifetime turning large stacks of endangered tropical hardwoods into a few good things plus large piles of worthless sawdust. Probably won't stop at my age. I understand the sustainable woods approach to guitars, but still prefer the classics: mahogany, spruce, maple, rosewood, and ebony. At least maple is sustainable, and Mr. Taylor is trying to do the same for ebony. It is entirely possible to plantation-grow all these woods, but it takes a very long-term approach that our thirst for instant gratification renders difficult. Teak has been plantation-grown for years. Just call me a threat to the planet.

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.