Lee M
-
Posts
82 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Lee M
-
-
I know Gibson changed the headstock inlay on the 1994...wasn't aware if they changed the bridge, though. I'm not sure if they changed the pickguard, but I will say that the 1994 one in the photo in the e-bay link at the very beginning of this thread appears to possibly have a slightly larger pickguard than mine does...
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.
-
I have a 1994 Gospel Reissue 100th Anniversay model. The pickguard is a bit non-Gibsonish...
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.
-
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!
-
I guess that's possible, in fact probable. haha Thanks for not just saying I'm old. hahaha.
At 62, I would never call someone else old!
![[biggrin]](//content.invisioncic.com/p286412/emoticons/default_msp_biggrin.gif)
Btw, I know my high frequency hearing now stops at about 11khz and I suspect my sensitivity at lower frequencies is diminished also.
-
my Gibson j100 to me is so what i call earthy sounding-the best sound out of any guitar i ever played. and after owning it 16 years i want it a little bright now. it seems to be getting more and more mellow yet fuller or richer.
After 16 years, it's possible your hearing has deteriorated (a normal aging process), and that the loss of brightness is due to your ears, not the guitar.
-
Looking for potential open mic songs:
Gin Blossoms - Follow you down
The Fray - Over my head
Rod Stewart - Leave Virginia alone
![[biggrin]](http://content.invisioncic.com/p286412/emoticons/default_msp_biggrin.gif)
Tell me about the Gibson Gospel
in Gibson Acoustic
Posted
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.