Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Lee M

Members
  • Content Count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Lee M

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. I replaced the stock pins in my 1993 Gospel last year with StewMac's "galalith" pins. Didn't hear any difference but I wanted that black dot. They look much nicer.
  2. You have stated your opinion on the tone of two guitars and assumed the typical non-guitar playing listener would agree. I would opine that 95% of a typical audience is concentrating on the performance and the music and paying no attention whatsoever to the guitar tone. Guitar players may listen for tone, but music lovers listen for the music. If they like the music and the performance, they couldn't care less if it's coming from a $5000 Gibson or a $500 Epiphone. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
  3. I emailed the picture to Bob Colosi. In his opinion, the saddle grooves look like normal "wear and tear" for a 19 year old guitar. I guess I won't do anything about them now since they don't seem to be causing any problems. Thanks for all the replies.
  4. I think the neck angle is ok. A straight edge across the frets is in line with the top of the bridge. The 12th fret action at the low E is 3/32" so I don't anticipate ever needing it lower.
  5. Changed strings on my 1993 Gospel today and took them all off at once, which I don't usually do. I noticed the strings have worn slots into the saddle. Is that a problem? Pulled the saddle out and saw there was a hole in each end of the saddle slot. I bought the guitar used in 1998 but it had no pickup in it and the standard plastic end pin plug so I don't think it ever had a UST in it. Can't imagine Gibson doing that at the factory but who knows.
  6. I have a couple saved bookmarks which are Ebay queries for specific models of specific brands. They are working the same today as they were a week or two or three weeks ago.
  7. Amen! I did Mr Tambourine Man at an open mic a couple weeks ago. I think there were only a handful of people in the place who had ever heard it before! I do think Blood on the Tracks was a great album but even that's 30+ years old. Haven't heard the new one yet.
  8. Wanted to post a picture in natural light so you could see the top and back. Inside or in lower light levels, the contrast is even less than what you see here. What appears to be a discoloration under the bridge was just due to the way the light hit it, there isn't anything there. I should add that at my favorite open mic, this is the only one of my 4 guitars that always elicits a "nice guitar" comment from the host.
  9. The top of my 1993 Gospel is quite dark. I got it in 1998 so I can't remember if it was this dark when I got it. I know it was never really light like a lot of spruce tops. Gibson seems to like sunburst and darker finishes on their tops. Just wondering if the Gospel reissue tops had toner added to the finish or is this color just natural darkening. You can't tell from this picture but the top is almost as dark as the back/sides. It has never been exposed to direct sunlight since I've had it and spends its time in the basement, either in its case or in very low light about 20-22 hrs/day.
  10. I got a discontinued Walden G640 (grand auditorium body, solid spruce top, laminated hog back/sides) on Ebay for $113! It originally sold for $290 but had one small ding in the top, otherwise it was brand new and even came with the warranty because it was sold by a Walden dealer. It sounds as good as the Taylor 114/214 models that I have played at Guitar Center.
  11. Oddly there are only 2 threads over on AGF with a total of about 5 posts. I think they beat it to death when the government first made the seizure.
  12. Pure speculation on my part but I assumed Martin came up with the belly bridge design first and used the bottom belly approach. Gibson, recognizing the superior adhesion properties from the larger surface area, but not wanting to copy Martin (or maybe to avoid patent infringement), just flipped it around. From a structural standpoint, the bottom belly approach makes more sense to me since there is more area glued down behind the saddle to react against the strings as they try to lift up the bridge. I have no data to suggest there are any structural issues with either approach assuming a properly glued bridge. Soundwise, I seriously doubt there is any difference.
  13. Nice job on Classical Gas! Here's a large picture of my 1993. You can see the pickguard is smaller and the curved side of the bridge is on the soundhole side (or backwards as I like to say.) Dove headstock inlay also. Btw, I enjoyed your comments on the Gospel. It's gratifying to hear someone with so many different guitars say the Gospel is one of their favorites.
  14. They apparently changed the pickguard in 1994 from the earlier years. They also reversed the bridge and changed the headstock inlay based on pictures of 1994 models I've seen on Ebay.
  15. I have a 1993 Gospel. It is a very nice sounding guitar. I think the reason they go for relatively cheap prices is that 1) it is not an iconic Gibson model and 2) it wasn't all that expensive to begin with, I think $1000 MSRP. The back is laminated because it is arched and has no braces. I have read that the sides are solid but I'm not sure about that. I bought mine used in 1998 for under $600 so the fact that I could probably sell it for about that much today means I have played it for 14 years for free!
×
×
  • Create New...