Hannu
-
Posts
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hannu
-
-
I have read this thread with much interest and would agree with JimR that the guitar is not 60's.
However I can't make out if there is a volute or not...does not look as if there is one. What does that tell us ito dating it ? Surely early 70's at the latest ? But then there is the absence of the varitone hole in the tailpiece which dates it (from Jim's post) to 1975 and later. Surely one would expect to see a volute then ?
But all in all, I love Hannu's S400,refin'ed or not....I think it's a stunning looking axe.....and I bet it sounds great !
Kleinman, thank your for interest! There is no volute, and, no hole in the tailpiece. Tailpiece was on it 1988 when I bought it, but the pickguard was made for it and added to it 2013. At some point I will have the pots numbers read, which may give some clues to the year of origin.
Yes, the guitar sounds and plays great. It keeps its truss rod settings and tune, the action is low without rattles. The sound is big, bright and loud with roundwounds, sweet like honey dripping out of a jar with Pyramid flatwounds.
Hannu
-
Did you check the string spacing at the nut? Perhaps the previous owner had the nut cut for a narrow string spacing 25 years ago and hence the bass E string does not line up with the pole piece now. Since your Super 400CES is from the 70s, it wouldn't originally be fitted with the narrow spaced neck humbucker because those would have gone out by the Norlin era.
As long as you did not pay a vintage 1964 price for the Super 400CES in the belief that it was a 1964, I think you did well. $2000 in 1988 dollars translates into $3441.22 2012 dollars. That is a great price for a Super 400CES of any era.
There is some question about the originality of its finish. How about that? You got yourself a player so play it and enjoy it. And if you do intend to sell it down the road, worry about it then.
Your guitar looks great. Norlin era never did bother me where archtops are concerned. I think the Gibson archtop department always made great archtops or maybe my standard of acceptance is lower than others. They weren't the money-spinners in the Norlin era so the archies were left alone, pretty much.
Your axe looks great.
Jabberwocky;
I checked the nuts and bridges, mine comes with two bridges, wooden and tune-o-matic. The spacing is different enough that the E-string would line up differently. Also, I looked at pics of several 70's models, they seem to have the same normal width neck humbucker. So that is not an issue any more.
I spoke again with Joe Agnello, who installed the new pickguard and cleaned the guitar. He said there is no sign at all that the guitar would have been refinished. But if that was the case, it would have happened in its early years, most likely by Gibson.
My experience of the Norlin era was not to make too many conclusions out of generalizations. Out of the 7 Gibson guitars that I have owned, the best three of them were Norlin Gibsons. I did not find my two 60's Gibsons all that special at all. For somebody else, would have been different story.
Now it is time to stop the paranoid investigation and use the guitar for what it does best. However, at some point, if the pots become more crackly, we have somebody lined up to take it apart, check the pot codes and pickups. But for now, who cares.
I am considering of posting a picture of myself on the forum. Maybe somebody will point out that I am 10 years younger than my label says. :-)
Thanks again for all your help,
Hannu
-
Sorry, I posted twice ...
-
Obviously this guitar cannot be put back to a "historically correct" state, but it should be at least "functionally correct" where all the parts are Gibson and counted for.
This way I can document it myself so that there is no misunderstanding in the future of what it is.
Now, if anybody there has a 70's or younger Super 400 CES or any of the L5's, information about the neck pickup would be appreciated.
Hannu
I have more information about the pots. They appear just about identical to Gibson part SKU:PPAT059 "Historic Potentiometer" which have no code on the bottom, but on the side of the cylinder. I cannot see the code, but at least this indicates that the pots are Gibson (CTS). These pots are for sale today:
store.gibson.com/historic-potentiometer
Hannu
-
Hannu, the term "PAF" refers to the "patent applied for" (early) version of Gibson's humbuckers. The "patent applied for" designation was gone by the mid-1960s, so your guitar would never have had PAF pickups. At any rate, the pickup info you posted is interesting. Where did you find it?
Jim;
The link is above your post by Jabberwocky. What maybe coming out of this is that regardless of what generation of an electric Super 400 we are talking about, the neck pickup should be one of the "narrow pole" ones. If the pickups should be changed, then it will next to impossible to find the correct neck pickup, since Gibson does not sell parts for Super 400's, new or old. The spec for the 2013 Super 400 just say "Classic 57" which are for sale, but there is no "narrow" option of it.
However, from the playing functionality point of view, it makes no difference. The wider (standard) humbucker works perfectly balanced, including the bottom E string, which is most affected.
Obviously this guitar cannot be put back to a "historically correct" state, but it should be at least "functionally correct" where all the parts are Gibson and counted for.
This way I can document it myself so that there is no misunderstanding in the future of what it is.
Now, if anybody there has a 70's or younger Super 400 CES or any of the L5's, information about the neck pickup would be appreciated.
Hannu
-
This of course casts a shadow of doubt on the pickups. Do Gibson pickups of that era have serials or any code that we should be looking for?
Hannu
I am already finding another concern. I have always wondered why the neck pickup screws do not line up with the strings. The low E string screw is not under the string at all.
Now I find that the Gibson archtop neck pickups are not the regular PAF's but a narrower version of it.
Jazz Guitar PAF Versions.
The hollowbody jazz guitars often used a slightly different PAF in the neck position
which had different (narrower) string spacing, where the bridge position jazz PAF was identical
to the neck & bridge PAF in say a Les Paul Standard.
The models that used this narrow spacing neck PAF was the Byrdland, ES-350T, L-5CE, S-400CE
and some Barney Kessel models.
The distance on a narrow PAF from center to center of the two "E" adjustable poles is 1 13/16",
compared to 1 15/16" on the "normal" spaced PAF pickup. Also since most of these models had
gold plated parts, the narrow spaced PAFs would be gold plated (except on some Barney Kessels).
If the pickup cover is removed from a narrow spaced PAF pickup, the "normal" pole position
tooling marks can be seen on the narrow spaced PAF pickup.
My neck PAF is not one of the narrow ones. This combined with the failed attempt to find any codes on the pots makes me wonder if any of the electronic parts are original, or even Gibsons.
It will take some time now to get this confirmed, I will take the guitar to the shop and have the harness pulled out.
Again, thanks to Jim whose hawk eyes got us to look into this guitar little more in detail. I am just lucky that I had no intention of selling or trading this guitar getting myself potentially into big trouble.
Hannu
-
I managed to get a better look inside, cleaned the bottoms of the pots, and also looked at hundreds of pics of CTS pots used in Gibsons and Fenders. I can see the bridge volume pot bottom quite well, there is absolutely no codes, stamps, labels on it. It does not look like a CTS pot. The others same thing, nothing on the bottom.
I removed the knobs, and the shafts look like plain steel rather than bronze or brass which I see in many of the CTS pots.
Now, the next step is to the technician to pull out all electronics, and see what we can conclude then.
This of course casts a shadow of doubt on the pickups. Do Gibson pickups of that era have serials or any code that we should be looking for?
Hannu
-
The pot codes are usually on the bottom of the pot cans (some, but not many, are on the side). You can view this area with a dental type "inspection" mirror (available at any hardware or auto parts store) through the treble side f-hole. You will also need to have a small "penlight" type flashlight. Stick the mirror in the f-hole and shine the flashlight into the mirror to reflect the light (and view) up toward the bottom of the cans.
Let us know!
Thanks Larry,
I got the inspection mirror, however, it was too large to go in there. I cut most of the mirror blade off, and got it in. I could see the bottoms of the pots, but cannot make out any numbers, though there is something on the surface that looks like 5. The pots are mat gray, and maybe dust covered so the numbers don't show. They look very old. My Spying Device broke down, a piece of mirror got stuck inside, but at least I got it out.
I will regroup and come up with a new device, but it could be that the thing to do is to have my repair guy pull out the harness, look at the whole thing.
In the meanwhile, to summarize a little, is this about where we are:
- the guitar is 1970's Norlin era because it has a Norlin tag, shape, "made in usa" etc.
- the possible years by the serial numbers are -73,74 and -75
- lack of of volute points to 1973
Hannu
-
According to Van Hoose the Volute was added in '74/'75 until around 1980 so that gives a small clue?
DG
Dave;
That is a good point, there is no volute. The neck tapers smoothly to the headstock, I looked at pics of Gibsons with volute, this does not look like that.
Larry, where are the pot codes, could you see them by inserting a small mirror through the f-holes or do you have to take everything apart?
Hannu
-
Perhaps it was just the differing photo quality that caused me to wonder about a refinned top, Hannu. If you're able to take better photos, that might help to clarify, but from your description, it sounds like there was no refin.
A couple of points:
1. The serial numbering system at Gibson was quite messed up back in those days. They re-used numbers, so a number that is correct for 1964 was also correct for 1973 or whenever it was re-used. The difference in this case is that yours has an orange label, which would ordinarily suggest that the number was put on the guitar in 1964. Since that's clearly not the case here, the question becomes why your guitar has an orange label when the numbers in and on your guitar apparently indicate a 1973-75 date.
2. Binding can age very differently on two guitars from the same year. In this case, your guitar was apparently used for years by a professional player, so the guitar was probably exposed to more "trauma" (sunlight, cigarette smoke, etc etc), which could have caused it to yellow faster than your Les Paul (or some other guitar from the same year that was more "sheltered").
Confirming that the lower label is a Norlin label. I was able to lift the loose end of the orange label and see the corner of the Norlin label. The orange label is almost ready to fall off, only attached on one side. Also, I researched the serial numbers again from two sources, both show the 200 000 being used -64 and reused -73. There is an explanation for this in one of the old documents. Even though new serial ranges were issued, some people at the Kalamazoo factory continued to use the 60's six digit numbers for no other reason that's what they had been doing for a long time. This happened again 1977-78 when a number of random 60's serials were used again.
1973 would make sense. The guitar would have been 15 years old at the time when I laid my hands on it. So to me at that time it was old enough to look, feel and sound old, more so than a 10 year old guitar, which I think I would have noticed. The refinish does not look likely, or, if it was done, maybe the whole body was refinished. I looked at it with a powerful magnifying glass in all places. The color of the darker part of the burst is absolutely identical. The way how the nitro finish joins the bindings is identical on top, sides and bottom.
Still weird, why would anybody try to "age" a guitar by 9-10 years by adding an older style label in such a clumsy way. To deceive, would you first removed the Norlin label, the glue the orange one in there properly. Even if it was a hasty job, it would have been easy to drop the larger orange label to cover all of the Norlin label ?
I am thinking now about how to get the orange label out of there without damaging the Norlin label. If that was gone, the guitar would be the way it should have been all along, a 1973 Norlin era Super 400 CES.
I will have more pictures, the upload feature of the forum tells me that I have used my 500k to upload. I'll figure out how to embed the pics to the HTML like others seem to be doing.
Hannu
-
Hannu, here is a 1975 model that was sold by Elderly Instruments: http://www.elderly.com/vintage/items/40U-4483.htm
Note how closely the rear view of this example resembles the your guitar:
... and note how the top finish in particular matches the color of the back, while yours looks different:
You can also see what the original vol/tone knobs looked like, as well as the pickguard (I like your new one better anyway). I think it is possible that the top was refinished on your guitar. One possibility is that the old pickguard decomposed (this is a common thing, where they break down chemically and release a nasty gas that can cause oxidation of metal plating) and damaged the original finish of your guitar. It might also explain some of the oxidation on metal parts that you described earlier.
I took yet another look at the finish of the top and back. In my earlier pics they look different because one pic is taken with flash, the other under natural light. Looking at it now I could not tell any difference other than the top is spruce, the back maple. The guitar above appears to have near white bindings, whereas mine were aged yellowish already in 1988. At that time I had a 15 year old Les Paul (1972) and the S-400 looked older than the Les Paul already then. The top looked like it had years of playing on it, very fine hairline pick marks by the hundreds on the lower side. If it was refinished, it must have been done really well, the color and detail in the "burst" is consistent from the back to the back binding, the side, to the top binding, then the top itself. Maybe the refinish was done very early, which would also explain the "shade" that was under the bridge.
And of course it does not help that I kept the guitar for 25 years in a sunny room, with the back looking into a dark corner ...
Of all Gibson guitars that I have had, 2 LP's, 2 SG's, one ES, all of them 60's and 70's models, this one felt the oldest and most played already then. Of course, that is just a players "feel" kind of thing.
So, the puzzle continues ... It would be nice to get the story of this guitar figured out. I don't plan ever to sell it, but would be nice to pass it to the next generation with clear identity.
I tried to research for the Gibson label codes, maybe decoding the DMW would explain something.
The mysteries remain: why a 1964 serial number in headstock and label? Why a Norlin 70's label under the orange label?
Let's look at it from the sellers point of view worst case scenario. You have a broken 1977 S-400. You fix it in order to sell it as a 1964, figure out the serial numbers, have a luthier change the veneer of the back of the headstock, forge the serial of the headstock, obtain somehow an orange label, forge it, and glue it on top of the 70's Norlin label. Then use some chemical to age the bindings, make it look more worn. Then take it to be sold as a '64 and ask $2000. Huge risk, the shop is a large music store, they could have had somebody expert to inspect it right away, and called the police.
Yet, the person could have brought it in as it was, with its original Norlin labels and serials, maybe a document of repairs if any were done. Still could have asked $2000 for it. All solid carved top Gibsons, S-400's and L5's were much more expensive than that -88, new or used.
I'll take some new photos, this time with a better camera, maybe outside if we get a cloudy day.
Thanks for your help again,
Hannu
-
I'm thinking that considering the label wasn't used nafariously, that if it wasn't, the REAL seriel number would have been tranfered from the old label to the new one.
Still wondering how and why the label got here- an attepmt to get more money making a 70's into a 60's? Or, was the guitar restored/fixed/worked on at some point? I can see either possibility.
One thing I have a little trouble with, is that as EASY as it might have been to get an orange label to make a guitar that seems like a legitimate '64, who would be STUPID enough to leave the old label underneath visible? That would practically give it away.
On the other hand, if there is a legitimate reason to "re-label" it, be from fading numbers, or torn label, or whatever, what would be the "proper" way to do it in, say, '88? Perhaps a re-fin made it nessesary to preserve the seriel#?
I just guessing, of corse, but what it LOOKS like to me is a label stuck on top of another label not to hide, but to preserve info.
The plot thickens ... First, the serial number stamped in the headstock is same as the one on the red label. Also, it is definately stamped into the wood so it would have been difficult to modify with the "made in USA". The red (orange) label has become loose on the sides. The square label is also loose. This square label does not look like any kind of printing paper, it is brown, about the same color as the interior of the guitar. It just comes to mind that it is a piece of a dehumidifying bag that fell in there from the guitar case, or something that used when the guitar was cleaned. I don't remember seing it before, and I have looked in there many times over the years.
The red (orange?) label does not look photocopied, it definately looks printed. The notes are made with what looks like two different pens or pencils.
If the identity was forged, it would have done a lot of work for not much gain. The original owner who brought the guitar to the shop to be sold on consignment, wanted fair price because he had retired from the band, and the guitar had served him well. That's what the salesman told me. He wanted $2000 for it, which I believe wasn't much at a time when collectibles were very expensive. I walked by the store minutes after it was brought in, saw the people hang a Super 400 up on the vintage row of guitars. I went in and bought it after a 5 minute test, they said it was the shortest lived inventory they ever had. It was an easy decision for me, the guitar spoke for itself when it plugged into that Fender Twin.
I will try to come with an instrument to see if I can pull out that piece of paper out of there, maybe that will reveal something.
Hannu
-
Hannu, thanks for providing the extra photos. I hope this won't shock or disappoint you too much (it's still a nice guitar), but your Super 400 was not made in 1964. The previous owner misled you and/or the store you bought it from. I actually knew the moment I saw your initial photo that the guitar was made later, but I wanted to see a few things (headstock, label, etc) more clearly.
Jim,
Thank you for your expertise, this is no shock at all, I value the guitar more as a playing instrument rather than for its vintage origin. Amazing the things you pointed out, I would never have discovered the differences.
I think the dating may have gone wrong because it was done by the serial number. The guitar was sold to me 1988 on consignment by a reputable Toronto music store, and I don't believe that the original owner made any claim about its vintage.
All that was known about the original owner that he had "played it for a very long time as a guitarist of a Toronto based big band". The guitar looked rather old in 1988, but of course 13 years or so would be enough for the bindings start getting yellowish etc.
The store checked the serial from a Gibson book, and came up with 1964. Later on I got a Gibson book myself, and also found the serial dating it back to 1964, no other check has ever been done.
What is the deal with the serial number (205810)? Can it not be used to date any Gibson at all? And if not, is there any other way to accurately find the year?
In your opinion, are we now somewhere around 1973-1975?
Hannu
-
Hannu, there are several things about your guitar that puzzle me. I'd like to help you if possible, and I think I can offer some info, but I would really need to see more photos. Can you please post photos of:
the headstock, close up
the back of the neck and headstock
the label
Any additional photos would be great. It's a beautiful guitar, so I hope you won't mind showing it off with more photos. :)
Jim, the camera I am using is not very good for this type of work, the flash keeps flashing and the colors go wrong. Also, the close ups are wide angle, which distorts proportions. I should actually get use of a manual SLR camera and document this guitar better.
Here are more shots:
-
Some forum members may remember when I posted part one of this topic about half a year ago, fall 2012. Now, after waiting for the replacement pickguard, my 1964 Super 400 CES is in wonderful shape.
The only thing wrong with this guitar that I bought in 1988 was the missing pickguard, but I was also worried about fret wear, worn tuners and some clouding of the nitro finish.
The Gibson Repairs department in Nashville referred me to Tony Dudzik, who makes pickguards for these old Gibsons. We decided to go for the 1964-1965 spec pickguard, though it is possible that this guitar may have had the "marble" style one. We had the pattern of the pickguard available, but it does not help much since all Super 400's are slightly different. My pickups are 2 mm futher apart than those of previous S400 that had a pickguard made. We send a mock-up pickguard a few times between Ohio and Ontario but eventually got the holes etc. to match.
Everything else was easier than I thought. The crackling pots started working better and better as I started to use them even if not needed. Much of the "wear" that I was worried about turned out to be dirt or oxidization of the hardware. The guitar was cleaned professionally by Joe Agnello of Georgina Music, he also attached the pickguard with its hardware.
When I got this guitar 25 years ago, I used Martin Guitar Polish very generously and that was a big mistake. The guitar had layers of guitar polish which had become softer over the years, then got transferred to the fretboard and elsewhere and petrified to a hard layer. The frets looked much more worn than they actually were, the tuners started working fine after the cleaning. Now the ebony of the fretboard is ebony again, and there is no scalloping between the frets. The tuners are fine. The gold plating of the tailpiece is almost 100%, the pickups have some wear. The Kluson tuners have lost most of their plating, or, they are brass and have faded.
I asked for advice from several sources before I had anything done to the guitar, and the general advice was to do as little as possible, let the guitar show its age, don't try to hide the fact that the pickguard is new ( which is very hard to tell by the way).
So, we did nothing to the electronics, pickups. We tried if the truss rod still turns, but didn't make any changes to the setup. This guitar seems to always hold its neck straight and action low and clear for 0.011 or 0.0.12 stings. I have Pyramid 0.011 flatwounds on it, also tried with D'Addario Round Wound .012's. Both worked well, the rounds give a loud majestic sound, almost like an old Martin flattop. The Pyramid Flats sound a little more quiet, elegant and jazzy. I now have two amps for the guitar, my old Roland JC-120 which also was reconditioned, and a brand new Wholetone WT-80, which with its 15 inch speaker seems to be the first amp that really produces the lower register of the guitar.
Thank you for all on this forum who gave me good advice!
Hannu
Which era Gibsons are considered "vintage" nowadays?
in Vintage Corner
Posted
What is considered a "vintage" Gibson guitar these days? I remember reading on this forum many years ago, that a vintage Gibson is only a so called pre-Norlin guitar, built before 1969.
Certainly, guitars made before 1969 fetch higher prices, though maybe only for being more "collectible" than guitars otherwise almost as old, similar design, similar quality, sometimes better.
Those businesses and individual who actually sell old guitars, don't seem to care, you see a lot of much newer Gibsons advertised as "vintage", all the way to 1990's.