j45nick

I don't mind a bit of bling, but there is something about the relative simplicity of the 335 that I really find appealing. In particular, I love this model: my Nashville-built '59 Historic, as you mention above. For you acoustic guys, think of it as the electric equivalent of the J-45 Legend.

If you have the choice between a recent-vintage mono 355 and a 335 for the same price, it isn't necessarily an easy decision. It's a matter of how much bling you prefer. For many people (like me) it's hard to beat the simplicity of the ES 335 Dot. I also have an ES 335 with a block neck, but I have to admit a preference for my dot neck '59 Historic. It's also a matter of whether you prefer nickel or gold hardware. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 355, but I personally would not pay a penny extra for the additional bling. Sometimes, you can find a used mono Nashville ES 355 for about the same price as a new Memphis ES 335. That's when I would go for the 355. I think Jim may be onto something with his Clapton reference, although Clapton's ES 335 was a block neck, which is an intermediate stage of "blingdom". Who would you rather play like: Clapton, or Chuck Berry?

Good luck in your search, and welcome aboard! Interesting combination of locations you list with your avatar.......

Much better, in my book.

That's a tough call. Copies from this period don't have any established value, to the best of my knowledge. If you were to try to sell it, you would probably be very lucky to get a couple of hundred bucks for it, and more likely, much less. There may well be esoteric websites that can help you track down the manufacturer, but they were generally pretty good at covering their tracks, since they were trying to copy other manufacturers' products. Look at some of the threads here on vintage Gibsons from all periods, dating back to the 1920's. Generally, high-quality guitars get the best care over time, and it's reflected in their value. Cheaper copies rarely achieve "collectible" status, and only have any value if they have a uniquely good tone or playability. That's something none of us here can evalute for you.

Just because it is probably a copy does not mean it isn't a good guitar. It should also have great personal value to you because of its family history. Keep it, no matter what.

Sorry, I don't recognize that model at all, and I don't believe it is an authentic Gibson. It may well be a post WWII Japanese import copy.

Now that would not be a five-minute conversation!

To the best of my knowledge, the only rosewood J-45 is the modern "J-45 Custom". The traditional J-45 was, is, and shall ever be: mahogany. (some banner war-time maple guitars notwithstanding.)

Whatever you call it, and any way you look at it, that's a gorgeous guitar.

I think the problem is with the "J-45" name. Aside from the unfortunate Norlin excursion into the "one size fits all" square-box era--and a few other oddities, such as the occasional ebony finish--the J-45 has always been a round-shouldered, spruce and mahogany guitar with some form of sunburst top (even the dreaded cherryburst). It's "workingman" heritage seems somehow a bit compromised by rosewood and a lot of fancy abalone. They even re-named the J-45 when it went "au naturale". Not today. This is where I think Martin has got it right: you want your standard 'hog, we got your D-18. You want your standard rosewood, we got your D-28. Want some bling? We got your D-41, D-42, D-45. You can't buy a rosewood D-18 with abalone inlay (at least I don't think you can). You buy a D-18, you pretty much know what it's going to be. Variants like the TV and the Legend are still J-45's, but guitars like the Custom and the Vine are something different to me. Not quite sure what, but different. Thus speaks a guy who "blinged out" his old J-45 some 40 years ago.

From what I've read Orville was certifiably nuts in any case, so maybe it all makes sense......

Amen, brother. Imagine if Martin called the D-28 the "custom rosewood D-18". They'd get laughed out of town.

Yep. Norlin never met a model that didn't benefit by the appending of the term "deLuxe".

There are usually several of these on ebay in the US for around $750-$1000. There's one now with an opening bid set at $750, but no one is stepping up.

When I got divorced more than 25 years ago, my old J-45 was one item that was specifically excluded from the division of joint property. It was one of the few "over my dead body" items. It was mine. All mine.

How quickly we forget our history..... Of course, to most Americans, there was no WW 2 prior to Pearl Harbor. Never mind that most of Europe had been pounded for two years before that!

With all due respect, there's no such thing as a "pre-war J-45". The J-45 wasn't introduced until late 1942, by most sources. There were plenty of pre-war round shoulder jumbo Gibsons, but they weren't J-45's. Chances are you were playing a J-35 if it was a pre-war model.

I have trouble believing that a properly-done rosewood bridge with a fixed bone saddle isn't going to sound better than any plastic bridge. To do it properly you may also need to go to a solid maple bridgeplate, if it now has a plywood one. Gibson did not got to plastic bridges to improve tone. They did it to save money, IMHO. The problem with things that change the guitar tone-wise is that we are frequently so used to the old tone, whether it comes from the guitar, your picks, the strings--or more probably a combination of all of the above--that it can take some time to adjust to the change. If it were me, I would make all the bridge-related changes, but keep the same pick type and string type, so that only one variable comes into play at a time.

That's my reaction as well. The binding should project up over the fret ends, but the fret ends should not be "scalloped" the way they appear to be here, nor should there be any roughness or ridge between the end of the fret and the binding nib, either on the top or the side of the fret end. It should be a simple job to file the binding at the fret ends properly so that there is no hang-up at the edge of the board. It almost looks like someone skipped a step in the detailing. I have zero experience with these Richlite boards, so I can't comment on the fret installation. The fret "cut" into the board is normally just that: a parallel-sided "slice" into the board that is a drive fit for the fret tang. I have no idea if the fret-setting technique is the same on these boards. If I had just bought it, I would at the very least take it to a Gibson service center for evaluation before giving up on it.

Rosewood will go better with the rosewood fretboard, IMHO. You usually match the board and bridge woods.

They actually appeared on J-45's and J-50's for a short time as well. I didn't believe it until Ross Teigen showed me one he was replacing, and I have since seen another. Ross told me he had replaced several on mid-60's J-45's.

If the guitar has a label inside, the label itself should say either "Memphis" or "Nashville" at the bottom. That should be enough to tell you where it was built.

What BigKahune says. We accept and expect lacquer checking in an older guitar (say, 20 years older or more) just because the chances are that it has been exposed to a lot of environmental cycling over the years. In a "younger" guitar it is disappointing, as it implies that the guitar may not have been properly cared for. Lacquer checking is not inevitable, nor will it necessarily be consistent over any instrument. For example, I have a '47 L-7 with fairly extreme checking on the headstock face, but only moderate checking elsewhere. I have a '68 ES 335-12 with no checking at all on the headstock, and only minimal checking on the body. Until last year, my '48 J-45 had a natural nitro top finish that I sprayed in 1970. It had absolutely no crazing after more than 40 years. I personally doubt that this is a manufacturing flaw except in extreme cases of nearly-new instruments that have always been cared for. Of course, it's virtually impossible to guarantee the "always cared for" part, unless you picked up the guitar at the Gibson factory and transported it home in a carefully-controlled environment. Even a single shipping incident of exposure to extreme changes in temperature and/or humidity could start the checking process. The bottom line is that on an older guitar that you otherwise love, you just live with it. If it bothers you on a newer guitar, don't buy it.