j45nick

But you like Rotomatics on a Gibson? That's a Martin thing, since about 1960. Always will be.

It sort of freaks me out when she talks and you realize she's Scottish. What a little powerhouse she is! Just shows how universal the music really is.

Yes, she is. Great performance of a mind-blowing song. How many popular songwriters reference the poet Dante in their lyrics? "The only thing I knew how to do was to keep on keepin' on" is right up there as well. The are so many perfect gems of couplets in those lyrics that it makes your head spin. That is Dylan at his absolute lyrical best. Freakin' genius stuff.

Really, really nice job!

Good catch! You gonna release something else to make room for it, or just let them pile up until the floor caves in? You must have a hundred sitting around by now. So many guitars; so little time!

That top bracing looks very similar to that in my "new" 1950 J-45. Ross Teigen, who works on my guitars, says he spends half his time on repairs undoing previous "repairs." That's why I was pleased to find this particular guitar. It needed some work, but no one had ever touched it. When I decided to buy it, the seller asked if he should have anyone fix anything before shipping--for example, the endpin was broken off, which is common. I told him not to touch anything, not to clean anything, not to let anyone else do anything. The seller was concerned because the guitar looked bad to him. In fact, all it needed cosmetically was a good cleaning, which I gave it before delivering it to the luthier. We sometimes talk about Gibson being sloppy with glue ("only a Gibson is glued enough"), but this particular guitar is surprisingly clean inside.

Yes, basically. Just because you've ordered your dinner doesn't mean you can't look at the menu.

What's the block logo (non-banner) J-45 in the far right of the photo? Bridge looks like it might be a replacement.

Actually, if I still had the cars I had prior about 1972, I could sell those today and buy some really nice guitars. Who knew that the 1968 VW bug I got for college graduation would become a collector's item? Or the 1953 Chevrolet, or the 1958 Chevrolet, or the 1964 Chevrolet Impala with the 327 V-8 I talked my father into buying when I was a senior in high school? And I only put about 200,000 miles on that Bug before getting rid of it for a slightly newer one, so it was just like new. Except for the rust, of course.

Wouldn't we all love to have access to that time machine! You seem to have a surfeit of SJ's in your Gibson stable. But I guess there's no such thing as too many guitars, and you ae the living embodiment of that.

What ZW sez. The only guitar I've ever bought new was a Martin Backpacker, maybe 20 years ago for $168 (just ran across the receipt). I've bought a half dozen other guitars that might as well have been new, as they didn't have a scratch on them. But I didn't pay "new" prices. Other than that, nothing but vintage guitars, although my original 1950 J-45 was only 16 years old when I bought it, which I guess should count as "used" rather than vintage. And it was really, really "used". And as ZW says, it was all I could afford, and I even had to borrow the $50 for that guitar from my sister. Unlike cars--and I've only bought one new car in my life--guitars don't become obsolete, or wear out as long they are cared for. A used guitar is often a perfect substitute for a new guitar, provided a warranty doesn't mean that much to you.

Post deleted. I rose to the troll's bait.

So, just buy a Seagull. Yes, there must be a vast conspiracy between Gibson, Martin and Taylor to keep guitar prices artificially high, since there is no competition from anyone else. Except for all the other companies that build guitars in the US and other countries. It's your money, and your choice of how to spend it when it comes to buying a guitar. There are lots of options. No one is forcing you to buy a Gibson or Martin at these ridiculous prices, and yet...people buy them. Lots of people. If you think they're ripping you off, buy something else. Go figure.

There should be a serial number embossed on the back of the headstock. When you get access to the guitar, either post a photo of that number or just tell us what it is. It will help pin the guitar down by year.

Nice job. That 'bird is glorious!

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'll pass, thanks. It's an interesting guitar, and rare. But you wonder how well those extensive rim repairs were made, among other things. The one that Tom B has is so beautiful that this one pales in comparison.

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".

It's impossible to say without a first-hand inspection. Tpbiii has told you what he paid for his, from the same FON batch. I looked at that same guitar before deciding not to buy it. That guitar was in excellent condition, and has superb rosewood on the back and sides. By all appearances, the one you are looking at might be most reasonably be described as in "fair" condition. Condition drives value in the vintage market.

The FON 910 batch is rare, because they were primarily guitars with rosewood back and sides. A few had rosewood sides, but mahogany backs. It's hard to judge the wood from the pictures in the case of your guitar. Value is greatly driven by condition, and yours has at least one substantial repair to a side, plus a lot of top wear. These will impact on value. At least one other member on this forum has an SJ from this batch (I believe), and it has fairly figured rosewood back and sides, and is in excellent condition. It does not have the skunk stripe. In the banner registry, the FON 910 guitars are listed as 1943. Here's a link to that website: banner Gibsons The best way to determine current value is to get a professional appraisal from Gruhn Guitar in Nashville, which knows this market as well as anyone. edit: sorry, I just duplicated most of the info provided by Tom Barnwell.