j45nick

It could be years before you need a neck re-set, so I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it.

Everyone was really on for that one. The foundation of that performance, of course, was McGuinn's version for the Byrds, but it is amazing how such a disparate group of artists fit within the framework so nicely. Neil Young was dialed in. His final solo was superb. He nailed it, and he knew it judging from the big grin on his face when he finished. This was the best of the best honoring the best of the best of the best. Thanks for dredging that one up. Hadn't looked at it in years.

It might have had something to do with that big ol' doobie you lit up before you opened the case.

Same thing is going on here in the US right now.

I had one on one of my boats before I got my carbon fiber boat guitar. The Backpacker was suited for what it was meant to do, and nothing more. Mine is still in perfect shape, in case anyone is interested in one. Just don't expect it to play and sound like a full-size Martin, or a full-size much of anything else for that matter. On the plus side, it got me back into playing guitar after years of not touching one, so it was definitely useful at the time.

Blow some cannabis smoke into the case for an authentic vibe.

That is exactly my point. Today, it is more a curiosity than a sought-after vintage Gibson.

A neck re-set is really a maintenance issue on a vintage guitar, not damage repair like a headstock break. It's more like tuning your car's engine rather than fixing the front end after a collision. One of those is likely to de-value the car. The other isn't. Both can make the car functional again.

They are very similar to a classical neck: about 2" (51mm) wide at the nut, and dead flat with little or no radius. That was part of the FJN's "neither fish nor fowl" character, trying to cover the nylon string and steel string spectrum at the same time to appeal to the broadest array of consumers. Not sure that worked out so well. Some folk group guitarists in the 60s played nylon-strung guitars (PP&M), while others played conventional steel-string guitars. I guess the FJN was trying to appeal to both.

You need to check your math on that one. 4/64" = 1/16".

here ya go, Leonard. Not that hard to find. FJN

From my perspective, the DR Sunbeams are a no-brainer match for a mahogany Gibson slope-J. I have three of them: two 1950 J-45s, and a 1943 SJ re-issue. Since I discovered Sunbeams may 5-6 years ago, that's all I use on those three guitars. They get used on a couple of other guitars as well, but not consistently.

Nothing I see suggests it is anything other than as represented. If it was built for the Japanese market, that might explain the difference in case details. It looks like a gorgeous guitar in beautiful condition.

The bolts in the bridge are a typical Gibson feature. Why is that a bummer? The guitar is truly pristine.

I watched both the videos on the G-45. I agree with some of the criticisms, which have been discussed here with regard to other Gibsons. Most notable to me are issues with the bridgeplate, such as alignment dowels and holes that may actually overlap bridgepin holes. My pet peeve in this regard is the lack of using a caul under the bridgeplate when drilling the pinholes, so that you end up with grain tear-out and damage to the pinholes before the guitar is ever strung. Gibson has always been notorious for glue squeeze-out--"only a Gibson is glued enough"-- but this guy really obsesses about it. I won't comment on the G-45 or others of these lower-priced models, since I'm not a marketing guy, and I don't generally buy lower-end guitars. The plastic sheetrock anchor in the endpin hole for the G-45 was a bridge too far for me, however. Right now I have four Gibson acoustics--two 1950 J-45s, a 1943 SJ re-issue, and a 1937 L-OO Legend, I am satisfied with the workmanship on all, and love the way they play and sound. Your experience may vary.

Jinder, thanks for posting that. It was truly wonderful. I'm amazed every time I hear your voice.

A big belt sander? What could possibly go wrong? There are miniature belt sanders for this type of work, if that's how you want to do it. If I hadn't seen some of this guy's videos before, I would have thought it was a joke. On the plus side, it's a D-15, and looks like probably a modern one. And yes, you do have some control over how the repair is done if you are doing the repair. If the customer wants you to do something you know is wrong for the guitar, you say "I won't do that," and explain why. If he still wants it done, either you say no, or get a written waiver acknowledging that you have advised the customer that the repair is not in the best long-term interest of the guitar. Maybe its ok to do on this particular guitar if it isn't very valuable, but some time in the future, that may come back to bite the guy who did it when the owner blames him for doing something that de-valued his guitar. Remember: you never know what is going to turn into a collectible guitar over time.

I believe that one was a J-200 with major issues. It ended up with a giant bridgeplate as well, of that same wood, which seems to be some sort of very dense, resonant hardwood. In that case, the top under the bridge was pretty well chewed up. Certainly the slope-J models are built with a slight dome to both the top and the back.

The years from 1963 to 1969 or so seemed to cram about three decades or more of musical development into about 7 years. Realistically, maybe it seems that way because I was 16 in 1963, and 22 in 1969. That was a period of meteoric change for society, as well as for me personally. My 22 year old self would probably have been unrecognizable by--and intolerable to-- my 16-year-old self. Smack dab in the middle of that period, I bought a worn 1950 J-45 for $50. That was a personal watershed for me as well, and I still have that guitar.

That's a pretty good summary. The early Beatles stuff really is just pure pop, even though it was pleasant enough. Rubber Soul was a major turning point. I loved the early Stones blues covers, things like Little Red Rooster and Matchbox. Then came "Satisfaction." That was the summer I graduated high school, and it became the anthem of that summer for many of us. Where I live then (Scottsdale, Arizona) there were a whole lot of summer teen dance venues with both live bands and recordings. At least in my mind, the music of the Stones sort of dominated things: hard-driving, slightly nasty, danceable blues as opposed to the Beatles largely pop-style music that was more for listening (and screaming, if you were a teen girl). All in all, however, I just loved music, and loved to dance. Still do. As a friend of mine says, "got ants in my pants, gotta dance."

The inlay on the headstock in my avatar is generally referred to as the flowerpot (or one variation of it). That particular one is adapted from a 1930's mandolin or L-5.

What song are you referencing here? Certainly most of the songs on the Stones' first albums were covers of US blues and R&B songs. For many of us, it was the first time we had heard those songs, and we went back to the original artists based on what we heard from the Stones. I was just a teenager when the Stones and Beatles hit. What a change they made to my taste in popular music! The Stones' first US and UK #1 song was "Satisfaction" in 1965. That is a Jagger/Richards composition. Reviewing the tracks on the Stones first four albums, I don't see anything credited to John/Paul. Remember that the Beatles, too, did covers or songs written by others on their first albums. So did Dylan. The Beatles and Stones are two very different bands. I love both of them.

But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. And cheers to you, my friend, even if those words were written by a couple of guys in a blues cover band.

Well, you can't always get what you want...

Oh man, Bob. That all but breaks my heart. The dreams we had. Things didn't turn out the way we thought they would, but maybe what we actually did is better.