sbpark

Regardless of when the guitar was made, what materials the guitar is made out of or what the company was going through at any particular period in time, what's most important, as you pointed out already, is how the guitar feels and sounds in YOUR hands. I'd much prefer a guitar that was from one of Gibsons worst periods historically as long as it sounded and felt amazing, over a guitar that came from a supposed high point in the company's history that sounds like garbage.

Opposite of torrification?

That's what you get for polishing your guitar.

Play more. Freak out and worry less.

I've had a slew of J45's, a couple J200's and an AJ. Currently all I own is a D-18, and it's my favorite acoustic. Funny thing about D-18's, they're kind of "generic" sounding, but at the same time have no shortcomings or negatives that all the other guitars I mentioned have had in one way or another. The D-18 does everything those others guitar do all rolled up into one guitar. I play everything from old school country, singer/songwriter stuff, to picking fiddle tunes and going to the occasional Bluegrass jam, and the D-18 does it all. With all that said, I don't really thing you could go wrong with keeping either the AJ or HB. AJ's are monsters, they roar and are LOUD, and they also do really well when fingerpicked, but when using a pick you have to be really aware of your attack and how you play because these are loud guitars. The AJ was a bit much for me when singing and playing at the same time because the AJ ca be a bit overpowering. Not a super complex sound, and ended up not being my first choice when I was also singing.. Id say if you go to a lot of jams or play Bluegrass I'd lean more toward the AJ, but OP doesn't seem to play that type of music, so in this case I'd probably be more inclined to keep the HB. He already has a D-18, so you have the regular-scale, dreadnought thing covered. The HB is a bit mellower, sweeter and shorter scale, so it seems like it would offer a little more variety. The AJ and D18 means you'd have two regular-scale, powerful dreads. The HB and D-18 would mean you had one regular scale and one short scale guitar and one has more power while the other is a little sweeter. More variety. Then, to make it even more complicated, someone suggested a J45. I'd still take the HB in this situation if my other guitar was a D18. Like I said in the beginning of this reply, I've had a slew of J45's and currently have a D18. Speaks for itself right there.

Guy still ended up buying the D35. Apparently he put the Hummingbird up for sale and sold it in four hours and he just left my place with the D35.

I ended up respectfully declining the guys offer. I'd rather just hold out and sell the guitar or wait until someone makes a trade offer on something I'd really like. A newer Hummingbird would be great. I also wouldn't mind just selling the guitar. It really is an incredible D35 with a huge sound, I just love my D18 and always reach for it before reaching for the D35.

Have an '18 D35. He offered the Hummingbird and $600 cash on his end. The D35 is an incredible guitar, I just prefer mahogany back and sides.

I was recently offered a trade for a 1970 Hummingbird. Pics are below. Guitar looks to be in really nice shape. Owner says it's never had any repairs, no cracks, damage, etc. Original case as well. May go check it out, but was wondering if anyone could shed any light on the Hummingbirds from '70-'72. (The SN# is 734639 and comes back as a '70-'72) I know that there are duds and great examples from all eras, but without ever really playing any Gibson acoustics from the 70's, I know many aren't really into these because some had the double-X bracing and suffered in the QC department. Any info on specs or things to look out for would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I've never been a fan of Grovers in J-45's. Consequently, I don't mind them on the Martin D-35. I swapped out the Grovers on my J-45 Standard with some Kluson 3-on-a-plate tuners and never looked back. Just needed some conversion bushings from StewMac and some polish to buff out the "raccoon eyes" left by the Rotomatics. Took me easily under an hour start to finish. Before: After:

For me at least I don't think it has anything to do with the fretboard radius. The reason I do not like flat picking on a J45 is because of the shorter scale length. I prefer the longer scale length of the Advanced Jumbo and Martin dreads. Even with heavier strings the J-45 feels floppy. I like a bit more resistance. a Martin scale length dread of longer scale AJ and some 13's and that's the way to go for flat picking, and for that type of playing my D-18 crushes a J-45.

I bought a 2017 J45 in 2016. There is a 2017 stamp on the back of the headstock and the serial number (that's also on the back of the headstock) dates it a 2016, with matching serial number on the label visible through the sound hole. Gibson is/was releasing the following year's models early, similar to what automobile makers do. I also have a Fender that has a 2017 serial number on the back of the headstock, but the stamp at the heel (on the same neck) says 2018. Go figure.

Every guitar is going to sound different from one to another. Torrification isn't necessarily the deciding factor that determines the sound. It's the complete sum of it's parts and how they all sound when combines together.

The YamahaFG Series has always had a reputation of being a killer value. They're VERY affordable guitars that are made well and are very consistent and sound pretty good. With that said, I don't think they are mind-blowing in how they sound, but they do sound really good, especially for what these can be had for, mores if you buy one used. Pennies on the dollar. I had a Yamaha FG441-S for many years. Bought it brand new around 1997. A few years ago the action started creeping up and couldn't justify a forking out for a neck reset so I just sold it for next to nothing to a guy who bought budget guitars for school music programs. I was really nice guitar.

I had a J45TV with a very light bridge, and it was legit.

You should check out the 000-15M. All mahogany, and if you want a wider fretboard, LA Guitar Sales does a Custom Shop model with a 1 3/4" nut. Seriously awesome fingerpicking guitars and very affordable.

You should also consider tossing in a nice Advanced Jumbo in there!

I own four acoustics...two Gibsons (J45, AJ) and tea Martins (D-18, D-45) My first love was Gibson acoustics, but I am also smitten with my Martins. They all have their own voice and each has it's "thing" it does better than the others. My J45 is growly and sweet at the same time. My AJ is a bluegrass/flatpicking monster and is LOUD. The D45 has this three-dimensional presence, almost like ti has it's own built in reverb, and is killer for both finger picking and singer songwriter stuff. The D-18 is probably the best "all-arounder" of the bunch. I can do everything with this guitar and be happy...flatpicking, fingerpicking, bluegrass, singer-songwriter. It does it all. Very woody and "old school" sounding, if that makes any sense. Old school country, bluegrass and fiddle tunes just beg to be played in the D-18. Yo see a lot of people wanting to compare and agonizing over deciding between J45's and D-18's. To me they're not even close in comparison. Different body shapes,, different scale length, ever so slightly nut width on the Martins (mine are 1 3/4"). I sort of think of the J45 as a small-body guitar in a larger guitar's body and string mine with 12's. D-18's are a flat pickers dream, are monsters with 13's. has a larger body, longer scale neck, overall bigger voice. I've always thought the D-18 is pretty much the Swiss Army knife of acoustic guitars. If you could only have one guitar and play Bluegrass and fiddle tunes in your repertoire it's hard to beat a D-18. The "newer" (post 2012) D-18 Standards when they went to the 1 3/4" nut with, and back to scalloped and forward shifted bracing are pretty darn sweet., If you don't play any Bluegrass or fiddle tunes the J45 is tough to beat. Of course, neither of these are hard, fast rules.

There are many definitions used to determine if a guitar is "vintage", so neither of us is wrong, only a difference of opinion. I'll put it you you this way...just because a guitar meets criteria as "vintage" (use whatever criteria or definition you'd like), doesn't automatically mean it's anything special, desirable or valuable. It can still be defined as vintage and be a worthless p.o.s., and just because you aren't keen to certain guitars made during a certain era doesn't automatically discount them from being defined as vintage. You may not like it, but that doesn't discount it from being something.

Seems a bit excessive to refinish the entire top for a few CA glue drips and dribbles. I'm sure there is a way to fix this to a satisfactory state, and even to the point where you can hardly notice the screw up without having to refinish the guitar. As a previous poster has mentioned, CA glue is used extensively in guitar repair and a skilled repair person should be able to scrape the existing flops down, then do some delicate sanding and finally buffing to get it to a good place. Pictures would really help.

Again, as many have already stated, you can't make blanket conclusions on an entire era/decade/period of guitars based on one example from that time. There will be amazing ones, great ones, good ones and awful ones from every period, new and old, vintage and modern, etc. You're also comparing a 0 size Martin to a 000 size Martin. Only thing in common is the name on the headstock. Would be like comparing a J45 and a LG0 and saying you prefer one over the other thinking it's apples and apples. And jsut because these two guitars in the video look the same/very similar on the outside and both have the "35" in the model name doesn't mean they are even remotely the same or similar under the hood, because they are not.

Looks like Gibson actually acknowledged the issue and remedied it, while Martin, for whatever reason apparently hasn't done a thing about it.

By definition "vintage" usually denotes a guitar greater than 25-30 years old.

Who knows, and if they knew, I'd would think they would have corrected the issue by now. Maybe Martin doesn't see it as an issue. Their neck angles are literally all over the place out of the factory. I had a 2014 000-15M that I bought brand new and after a couple years (like 2.5 years to be exact) the action was so high I ran out of saddle and had nowhere left to go with sanding it down. Took it to an Authorized Martin repair shop and they along with Martin (I was there when the repair person at the shop called Martin and had them on speakerphone so I could hear because he had been dealing with this issue for a while and wanted me other it direct from Martin because he had some very unhappy customers when they refused to warranty a neck reset) acknowledged the issue but would not authorize a neck reset. They instead offered two options, to have Martin send the shop a lower bridge to replace the stock bridge, or have the shop shave down the existing bridge. I opted for the latter (the shop owner also builds gorgeous acoustics so I had no question about his skill and ability) and the guitar came out looking perfect. My only worry was the neck angle would keep settling/moving, so I sold the guitar. I will say this...every "newer" Gibson I've owned (from 2012 to present) have all had basically the same/identical and perfect neck angles from the factory.

Nothing “scary” about it at all. It’s a 40+ year old guitar. The service he had done are basically routine maintenance and par for the course for a guitar that age. A neck reset, refret and gluing loose braces is expected. Like buying an old amp, an old car, etc., expect to put some additional money into it to get it up and running/playable/back to it's former glory. My ‘75 D-28 needed a neck reset, full refret, new pickguard (which was more involved than I thought because the original pickguards were placed over bare wood then the finish applied over it, so they carefully removed what was left of the old, lifting and shrinking guard, filled in the bare spot with lacquer and made it totally flush with the existing surrounding lacquer then applied the new guard) and glued a couple loose back braces. They also “relocated” the saddle about 1/16” because of intonation issues that many from the 70’s Martins have because of the bridges being placed incorrectly. They filled in the old saddle slot and routed a new slot and you could hardly tell after. I was lucky. Many had the bridge a little more out of place and needed the entire bridge scooted. Then a new bone but and saddle all to the tune of $1,200. What is kind of shocking (and scary) about this is Martin didn’t charge him for any of the work, and he's not the original owner,, but if you search there are many “new” Martin owners who are reporting their guitars needing neck resets as soon as a a year to a couple years after purchase! This started happening several years ago and Martins response was to change their warranty to a “Limited” lifetime warranty, specifically stating in the warranty literature that they will no longer cover neck resets. So they’ll reset a neck for free for someone who isnt the original owner on a 40+ year old guitar just because he’s an internet celebrity and owner of a shop that is a Martin dealer, but won’t warranty a guitar that needs a neck reset and had a poor neck angle set from the factory after a year or two to the original owner who shelled out good money. That’s not cool. Don’t get me wrong, I love my Martins but it seems like they have some gross inconsistencies with setting neck angles from the factory these days and it’s been going on for many years now and they still haven’t seemed to correct the issue. There was a several page thread about this recently on the AGF where they discussed this exact issue with new Martins.