j45nick

Really informative. Thanks, JCV.

Zombywoof will know the history on this. I believe his wife has a J-200 from the late 1950's or so. It is definitely true that the J-200 and other models have had laminated B&S at some point or points in the past.

Gibson had a bad habit of not being perfectly clear or perfectly consistent with their serial number and FON systems until 1979, when I believe the format became what it is today. Over the years, there have been several periods where these numbers were either out of sequence, of totally different formats, or even duplicated. Lower-end models like the LG-1, and even some we identify as higher-end (like the J-45) did not get real serial numbers until much later in the game than your guitar. Dating your guitar wouldn't be murky at all except for the oddly-formatted Factory Order Number. The 2128 is the FON, and that indicates either 1948 or 1949, but probably 1949. The 35 should be the rack number, or the place in the batch of guitars designated by FON 2128. The normal format for the number would be 2128 35. Note that there is a space between the two sets of numbers. For example, my 1948-1950 J-45 has the FON 3644 8, so it was the 8th guitar within the FON 3644 batch of guitars. I actually ran into guitar number 10 in that batch a couple of years ago. All the key characteristics of your guitar place it in the 1948-1951 timeframe: 19-fret neck, small pickguard, block logo, and tapered headstock. The "block" logo says 1948 or later. The tapered headstock says 1951 or earlier. Ignoring the 35, the 2128 says 1948-1949. And yes, numbers could be out of sequence in that period. These oddities aren't news to those of us who have owned and played vintage Gibsons for decades. I'm celebrating 50 years of owning my 1948-'50 J-45 this year. It was only 16-18 years old when I got it, and it's nearly 70 years old today. Come to think of it, so is its owner.

That's a real oddity. A picture of the front of the guitar would be helpful. I assume that it has LG 1 stamped on the inside back centerline, since you have identified the model. My first thought was that the batch and rack number had somehow been reversed, but that could only work if the first two digits are 35 rather than 85, since the rack number is usually 40 or less. I have never seen a picture of the actual type of ink stamp that Gibson used, which could help to determine if this is a plausible theory. I have a J-45 from the same general late-40's period, and it has a 3 as part of the FON. Although that 3 can be more clearly read, I can also see how your first number could be 3 rather than 8, just from examining the shape of the 3 in the FON of my J-45, and knowing how it can be blurred when there is too much ink on the stamp. My FON also has an 8 in it, and that is quite blurred. I'm going out on a limb, and based on your description of the guitar, and my bizarre theory, say that this is a 1948-1949 model. If the headstock is tapered in thickness (when viewed from the side), with a thickness of about 12.5mm at the extreme top of the headstock, and about 17 mm at the E string posts, that would confirm the age, if not the theory about the odd-ball Factory Order Number. Edit: I see your photo now. How about one showing the face of the headstock? I'm going with 1948-1949.

What jedzep says. He'll figure out exactly what's going on, if he knows what he's doing.

It really depends on the guitar. I've had three bridges and four different saddles on my '48-'50 J-45. The original was the standard belly-up bridge with slot-through saddle. Unfortunately, we didn't pay much attention to those things back in the 1960's, so I don't know if the saddle was bone or plastic. That guitar (even though it was only 20 years old back then), had that dry, old sound and note separation you expect of a J-45. When Gibson re-topped the guitar in 1968, they put in the then-standard belly-down bridge with rosewood adjustable saddle, and the big laminated bridgeplate that was standard at the time. The guitar became relatively dull and muted to my ear, but I don't know how much was the bridge/saddle with all its heavy hardware, and how much was due to the new top with its un-scalloped bracing. A couple of years later, maybe 1971, I put a bone insert into the rosewood saddle. This is what that looked like (photo taken after that bridge was removed a few years ago): The guitar brightened somewhat after that, although it was still a bit too mellow for me. Five years ago, Ross Teigen replicated the original belly-up slot-through bridge, and made a bone saddle for it: The tonal change was pretty dramatic: better note separation and presence while still retaining good balance, a crisper tone across the board. Of course, there are many variables that aren't accounted for here: aging (both of the guitar and my hearing), scalloped vs un-scalloped bracing, different string choices, new maple bridgeplate. But on my vintage J-45, the original-style fixed bone saddle gave me much more of that distinctive J-45 character than the adjustable rosewood saddle ever did, even after modifying it with a bone insert. Your experience may vary.

Now you're just messin' with my head. I think I need a drink. Or maybe a little smoke. Or both. Nah, I think I'll just go play guitar. After I have a drink and a smoke.

Don't worry, splake. A lot of us are in exactly the same place you are, and it doesn't stop us from enjoying playing.

That's been my experience as well, and it varies by model. I've seen the very narrow nut as early as 1963, even though the wider 1 11/16" nut may have been the nominal standard until 1965. I always take a small steel pocket rule with me (6"/150mm) when I go to look at vintage guitars.

It is of limited value, since the characteristics of the guitar are not consistent with early 1968, or at least not any early 1968 I've ever seen. As I said, those serial number daters are not always accurate, particularly in the late 1960's to early 1970's. Early 1968 is highly unlikely.

Check out a modern Gibson J-45 or Hummingbird from the late-90's on. You can probably snag any number of those with a $1500 budget. A decent vintage J-45 pre-1960 will set you back in the $4-$5k range, more for older and/or better condition. You might find a late 50's (round) to early 60's (square) Country Western (basically a fancy J-45 or a slightly simpler hummingbird) for $3.5k with luck. But buying vintage is tricky, and it's easy to get burned if you don't have either a reputable dealer or a fair amount of knowledge.

In this case, the year of manufacture is pretty irrelevant. Whether this guitar was made in 1968, '69,'70, or 1971, it's the physical characteristics of the guitar that drive the value, rather than the year of manufacture. We generally think of 1969 as being the year of introduction of the square-dread J-45, but that doesn't mean that some were not built in 1968. It also doesn't mean that the serial numbers started at 900001 on January 1 of 1968, either, so don't read too much into the timeline of the guitar on the basis of where it might seem to fit in that year's nominal serial number sequence. Even the best serial number daters struggle with Gibsons in the late 1960's and early 1970's, so we often date guitars by their features, rather than their serial numbers. The J-45 in this period does not have a particularly good reputation, but there are obviously good ones out there. At this time, however, their price is driven by the general reputation of their siblings, which is not that good. Few would be so presumptuous as to predict future values of guitars. We've all been surprised that guitars we have dismissed as second-tier have become expensive, desirable collectibles. I would call this an "early square-shoulder J-45", rather than try to pin down the year precisely. The physical characteristics of this one seem to say between 1969-1971. Current value? probably less than $2000, depending on condition. Future value? Who knows, but don't buy this one with any expectation of increase. One problem is that in this price/value range, you can buy a near-new Bozeman-built traditional J-45, or if you want a square dread, a near-new Hummingbird. Either of those options is likely to be a better musical instrument than its Norlin-era predecessor. If you want a vintage J-45 in this price range, you can often buy 1965-1968 round-should J-45's for the same money. Since a guitar that is narrow at the nut doesn't bother you, that's where I might look as an introduction to vintage Gibson large-body guitars on a budget.

The old L-O will probably vibrate so much it will explode the Tonerite.

I believe Em7 here is one who experiments a lot with old, "dead" strings. He may even artificially age them, and somewhere along the way, I seem to recalls him boiling them in some witches brew. But then, I believe he sold his soul to the devil some time ago to be able to play and sing the way he does.... I've had mixed experience doing this. I experimented a bit last year, and left some Sunbeams on a couple of guitars (my 1948 J-45 with the 1968 top, and my Fuller's 1943 SJ re-issue) for about six months. The old J-45 got funkier and funkier over time. It has sort of a classic old Gibsonesque tone anyway, with a thunky low end and fairly brash high end without a lot of sustain. That got more pronounced over time, to where you felt like you were listening to some old pre hi-fi recording. The SJ maintained it's more modern scalloped-brace sustain and clarity, although the clarity deteriorated over time. It was an interesting experiment, and depending on what you are playing, can be good or bad. If you like old-time stuff (think David Rawlings on his Epi archtop) it can give you a very different and appealing tonal quality. If you like "pretty", fuggidaboutit.

Yes, every now and then.

Can't tell you how many times I've watched that particular Tiny Desk concert, but it's one of my favorites. When you tune down one of those deep-bodied Smecks, the sound is nothing short of awesome. Headroom for days. Of course, Jackson could make almost anything sound special. I've never played one of those, but I have some concerns about how that extra amount of depth impacts playability, if you play seated like I do these days. Even with a standard-depth J-body, the circulation in my right arm starts to get cut off after awhile, and my arm goes numb. Probably should start playing standing up again to get that box our from under my upper arm.

Sweet stuff!

No, I wasn't suggesting you were saying it was a Smith. It always looked pure Gibson to me. Even the headstock inlay was the same as on my 1968 Gibson 12-string. I figured either Gibson built it, or someone took a Gibson 12 and grafted a new neck in Gibson style onto it. Interesting guitar, but the song you would get most practice playing would be the one called "Tuning".

Interesting, since that one has a pin bridge rather than a trap tail as on the one John Denver is holding. It struck me in seeing the picture of Denver's guitar that this really was a Gibson, since the body and headstock details are pure late-60's (or early 70's) Gibson This guitar just confirms it. None of the Smith guitars have this body style or apparent construction details.

I can vouch for the fact that G and G builds a great case. The one below is part of a small run of repro Cali Girl J-45 cases they made for Norman's Rare Guitars a few years ago. Unlike the covering used on the TKL Cali Girl cases, this one is pretty much a dead ringer for the original material, inside and out. The case is built like a tank, but weighs a ton. I really like it, even though it's a very tight fit for my slightly oversize (compared to a modern J-45) 1948-1950 J-45. My modern SJ slips right in, but this case is reserved for the old girl.

I thought you could dye the streaked ebony to mimic the all-black stuff. In fact, I thought they had been doing that for years.

Not safe on most plastics used on guitars, including bindings, "pearloid" inlays. Not sure if it would hurt natural (abalone, MOP). Alcohol will also "cloud" celluloid, but it seems to return to normal. Learned that one the hard way. Paint strippers in general will also harm plastics of this type.

I assume you are talking about the Epiphone Elvis, and not Buddy Holly's J-45 that John Thomas is holding. I think I would take Buddy's J-45 over Elvis's J-200 replica any day.

Some details are different, as ZW says. Brace carve, fabric side stays, all-hide glue. The L-OO Legend is very much like a brand-new 1937 L-OO in virtually every way (but Madagascar instead of Brazilian). In genral, I just think the L-OO is a sweet guitar. It's the right size for sitting around and playing, and responds well to bare fingers, fingerpicks, or flatpick. Not a particularly great strummer, but I've got other guitars for that if I wanted. Not a big, shimmery voice with booming bass. Articulate and personal. A great guitar for the porch swing (if I had one), or a small space.......like a parlor.

No, mine is an L-OO Legend, not a TV. Mostly the same materials, but slightly different construction and finish details. The TV is a great value, for much less money than the Legend. Sound seems very, very similar, even though this recording setup is not that good. Tony Blackbeard has a better recording setup, and I'd love do see him review this TV, if he hasn't done it. Rambler is right. If you want to get the best out of this little box, it needs a bit firmer attack.