Leonard McCoy

I don't think a fretboard would be considered a spare part. Gibson only provide hardware parts. Your only option might be to turn to third parties (in which case it's doubtful the replacement will be a fit in any way, shape, or form "out of the box") or have a luthier make one for you (a costly enterprise). But who knows, perhaps there's someone out there offering Epiphone-ready fretboards? I would reconsider buying a guitar without a fretboard...

Don't use steelwool for God's sake! If you're not well versed in wet-sanding, stay away from it. It's also unclear how many layers of nitro are really left, so sanding away layers might be counterproductive since the scratches could be too deep in. I would turn the guitar over to a luthier to see what can be done in terms of the sides. I wouldn't do any further DIY experimenting on it (as done by the previous owner), since it would likely devalue the guitar even more. At a certain point it's nonrepairable and would require refinishing which is a tedious, fickle high-dollar job not many can do right. Micromesh (from StewMac for instance) might be your best option but I would best leave it to a professional well versed with Gibson nitrocellulose lacquer and equipped with, and being able to operate, a good buffing wheel as well.

The first photo barely show a hairline reflecting back. Inspecting the guitar under blacklight will fully reveal its history including any hard-to-spot repairs and defects.

It's the old Gibson bar stool that's always been available anywhere else.

Lemon oil eats into nitro finishes like wolves into herds of lambs. Don't be reckless with a high-dollar guitar. Instead, take a clean, dry soft rag and rub one of the smaller affected spots lightly in either a straight or circular pattern. Ever so slighty dampen the rag next with warm water or saliva and repeat the process. Finally, if that didn't help, take a new dry rag and use a Gibson guitar polish or cleaner (specifically made for nitrocellulose finishes containing a light abrasive also) and massage the spot in the same manner. If the above didn't yield the desired results, I recommend handing the guitar over to a luthier or Gibson themselves asking for advice on how to proceed from here on out. Using very fine micromeshes (from Stewmac for instance) to polish-rub the stains out, which likely only sit atop the surface, would probably do the trick if all else fails, but I'd consult with a professional first. From looking at the photos, I'm not clear where the affected spots are actually located at.

If the solvent got in touch with the nitrocellulose lacquer of the guitar, then permanent damage has been dealt, since the solvent reacted with the lacquer permanently. An expert luthier on Gibson nitrocellulose finishes (or Gibson themselves) may know how touch up the affected spot in the finish, but it's not looking good. If bad comes to worse, the whole guitar would require refinishing. Pictures of the affected spots would help evaluate how bad the problem is. We would also need to know what chemicals the contact cleaner is made out of.

Well, if the heel is slanted, which is not normal of course, it begs the question whether the neck has been set at an angle as well resulting in a twist, hence my stressing that point. There could be various other reasons as to why the heel is as slanted as it is. If it doesn't impede playability or bother you in terms of cosmetics, it's all good and well, I guess.

In the first photo, not so much in the second one, it looks like the heel is slightly at an angle to the body. I trust it's no optical illusion? Does the fretboard perfectly meet the body at the bass side? Any irregularities there? The second photo is inconclusive as to whether or not the neck is twisted and, if so, by how much. While looking down the neck, see if it's twisted toward either the bass or treble side. You can take the two sharp points where the headstock goes over into the neck as reference points. Further, I refer you to Dan Erlewine's "How to Make Your Electric Guitar Play Great" for proper instructions and how-tos. A slight twist is usually nothing to worry about, but too much twist can affect playability and is something I would definetely shy away from when buying a guitar. A luthier or professional guitar technician might provide you with a proper hands-on evaluation.

The pictures are too small to tell. But even then, it's probably hard to tell by looking at those pictures alone. It doesn't hurt to have a professional check her out at hand, now does it?

Did you already try and ask Gibson directly? What do you need the information for? It could be that each bridge's height is different in that they were slightly sanded down during assembly in order to match the neck perfectly and in order to avoid having to modify the saddle in any way. That's at least how Godin Guitars do it.

1. It will make a difference if you really believe. 2. Be sure to use fossilized whale penis. It's much better for the sound.

Don't leave the capo on. The rubberized material can affect a more fragile finish (nitro & Co) if left in place for too long. Apart from that, get a G7th.

There is always capital in the vintage and used guitar market so whether it's prime time to sell is more up to you and your circumstances than anything else. She doesn't look like a '42 J-45 to me but good luck anyway!

When I read how your luthier wanted to tackle the problem, I thought that he perhaps devised a new, clever way to remove the truss rod easily, but hearing the bad news that was cleary not the case. I have no idea why your luthier thought Gibson were inserting truss rods through the heels after the fact. This must have no longer be the case (or even never) since at least the new dawn of Bozeman making acoustics, that is since Ren Ferguson took over and revived the acoustics department. In the many Gibson factory tour videos new and old available on the Internet you also never see the truss rod being inserted in post-production like this. Perhaps in vintage Gibsons he had observed it being done like this? Who knows.

Gibson aren't particularly known for making great classical guitars (their forte lies everywhere else, though), hence there's little to no conversation about them here.

Pass. It may be old but it's not a vintage guitar. From a collector's standpoint (I'm not a collector), Gibson guitars from the seventies have virtually no value or collectible appeal. This example here has nothing in common with the original Jumbo 55 model from the forties. Its materials and production quality are substandard, its appointments bare bones—that's the seventies for you in terms of guitar manufacturing by the conglomerates. It's already badly in the market for a neck reset. The saddle has been sanded down to the bare mininmum (there's hardly any saddle material left; the strings are almost touching the bridge) to make the action somewhat playable. The shrinking pickguard put so much stress on the soundboard that it ripped it right apart. The back looks mighty warped but that could just be a weird photo angle. You're only in the market for a bad purchase. Don't go window shopping for preowned guitars with little to no knowledge. Instead, go read up on what to look out for when buying second-hand guitars in general (these are the bare basics you need to know), then read up on vintage guitars and specifically on the models you are interested in, which is a wide field requiring lots of experience and/or good advisors. Dan Erlewine's books are a good starting point. Good luck!

Trying something else...

I really like Gibson's Les Paul and J200 strings (silk ball ends) which I have been using for long now. But no more. I doubt their take on coated strings is bad at all, but it's a hell of a limited choice compared to the breadth of strings for all kinds of different guitars and purposes they had been offering until now. Goodbye, my friend...

Pics?

It helps to post pictures of the actual guitar...

It seems they bid farewell to their more diverse string lineup. We now have three kind of strings available, one for acoustic, two for electric. The acoustic strings are all coated... Coated Phosphor Bronze Acoustic Guitar Strings Thinly coated for longer lasting tone Ultra soft feel Developed and tested by Gibson Master Luthiers Ultra-Light Gauge: .011 .015 .022 .032 .042 .052 Light Gauge: .012 .016 .024 .032 .042 .053 Medium Gauge: .013 .017 .026 .035 .045 .056 These strings, developed by our master luthiers, are loved by fans and artists around the world and adorn every acoustic guitar built in our Bozeman, MT facility. With high frequency clarirty and long lasting performance, they are the best sounding strings for your acoustic guitar. https://www.gibson.com/Gear/Factory-Spec-Strings/SAG-CPB#

Apologies for reviving an older thread. I have also observed that each of my Gibson guitars—regardless of whether it be an electric or acoustic, custom shop or from the standard lineup—shows more relief on the bass side than on the treble side when doing a relief check. The variance lies within a thousandth of an inch, mind you. This could either have to do with how Gibson necks are assembled, that is that the dove tail neck is carved and fitted by hand, and that the neck is ever so slightly tilted to the bass side (by design?) or that there is some asymmetrical radius to the fretboard itself or its frets that I don't know about. In the end, it has no impact on playability or setup of course, for the variance is so miniscule; it's just a curiosity, I guess.

Think back, something touched or was left on that spot for a longer period of time or that spot got exposed to the sun or other stuff.

Pics would help.