Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Just removed my orange label


Lars68

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well guys, I got up this morning and the guitar was there and caught my eye. Looks just right, no second thoughts at all. I appears as though my choice to remove the label has stirred up an ever so slight amount of controversy. I spend an equal amount of time on the UMGF, the Martin forum, and when a fellow posted about his removed label a couple of years ago, the consensus was more "way to go". I actually feel even more strongly about the off center home printed look of the Martin labels and lots of the Martin folks tend to agree.

 

In the end I think it comes down to the fact that we are all into this hobby for different reasons. For a lot of people the guitar is only seen as a music making tool and is strictly evaluated based on tone and playability. Others, like me, treasure the guitar as a works of art, and spend lots of time obssesing about small details on various sites on the web. Then there is of course everything in-between. The hard truth is that I'm a terribly poor guitar player who is not good enough to play anywhere besides the confines of my sound proof basement. That fact hasn't stopped me from acquiring a couple of the best guitars out there today. Had I been a better player, the hobby would most likely have taken a different turn.

 

I might be able to illustrate my fascination with the guitar as an object if I show you how I store my 1942 J-45 during the cold season here in Sweden. This is how I keep it visible, within reach, and out of harms way (I have a three year old in the house).

 

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/d0b155c408cbe8e8a99e65a0414f4ef654b4110.jpg

 

I went to great lengths to make it air tight so I could easily keep the humidity up.

 

Lars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lars, you dont need to justify yourself to us mate, if it works for you thats great, good that youre happy.

 

But we also dont have an obligation to agree with you or validate your actions ... ;-)

 

Now that due to this thread it made me think about the topic more I actually quite prefer not having the label on the 43' and 69' Gibsons but like them on the new ones, its all good.

 

Well guys, I got up this morning and the guitar was there and caught my eye. Looks just right, no second thoughts at all. I appears as though my choice to remove the label has stirred up an ever so slight amount of controversy. I spend an equal amount of time on the UMGF, the Martin forum, and when a fellow posted about his removed label a couple of years ago, the consensus was more "way to go". I actually feel even more strongly about the off center home printed look of the Martin labels and lots of the Martin folks tend to agree.

 

In the end I think it comes down to the fact that we are all into this hobby for different reasons. For a lot of people the guitar is only seen as a music making tool and is strictly evaluated based on tone and playability. Others, like me, treasure the guitar as a works of art, and spend lots of time obssesing about small details on various sites on the web. Then there is of course everything in-between. The hard truth is that I'm a terribly poor guitar player who is not good enough to play anywhere besides the confines of my sound proof basement. That fact hasn't stopped me from acquiring a couple of the best guitars out there today. Had I been a better player, the hobby would most likely have taken a different turn.

 

I might be able to illustrate my fascination with the guitar as an object if I show you how I store my 1942 J-45 during the cold season here in Sweden. This is how I keep it visible, within reach, and out of harms way (I have a three year old in the house).

 

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/d0b155c408cbe8e8a99e65a0414f4ef654b4110.jpg

 

I went to great lengths to make it air tight so I could easily keep the humidity up.

 

Lars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well guys, I got up this morning and the guitar was there and caught my eye. Looks just right, no second thoughts at all. I appears as though my choice to remove the label has stirred up an ever so slight amount of controversy. I spend an equal amount of time on the UMGF, the Martin forum, and when a fellow posted about his removed label a couple of years ago, the consensus was more "way to go". I actually feel even more strongly about the off center home printed look of the Martin labels and lots of the Martin folks tend to agree.

 

In the end I think it comes down to the fact that we are all into this hobby for different reasons. For a lot of people the guitar is only seen as a music making tool and is strictly evaluated based on tone and playability. Others, like me, treasure the guitar as a works of art, and spend lots of time obssesing about small details on various sites on the web. Then there is of course everything in-between. The hard truth is that I'm a terribly poor guitar player who is not good enough to play anywhere besides the confines of my sound proof basement. That fact hasn't stopped me from acquiring a couple of the best guitars out there today. Had I been a better player, the hobby would most likely have taken a different turn.

 

I might be able to illustrate my fascination with the guitar as an object if I show you how I store my 1942 J-45 during the cold season here in Sweden. This is how I keep it visible, within reach, and out of harms way (I have a three year old in the house).

 

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/d0b155c408cbe8e8a99e65a0414f4ef654b4110.jpg

 

I went to great lengths to make it air tight so I could easily keep the humidity up.

 

Lars

 

 

The thing is, though, Lars we all appreciate that it's your guitar and your choice. We give you honest opinion, but we can all see your point of view. If it were AGF and they disagreed with you, the controversy would be far greater, I warrant. The good thing here is that everybody tells it as they see it, but usually in a friendly way. It's a bit like going down the pub, but cheaper (at least in the UK, and even more so in Scandinavia).

 

I can imagine that looking after a banner 45 in Sweden is hard work in winter. I think given the heritage value (not to mention monetary value), we recognize the importance of taking quite extreme steps to do so. And I can associate with the problems of guitar curation with 3-year-olds around. My youngest was 3 when I got my SJ. In the UK, I can't keep it quite so well out of her reach as I could in Hungary, but I think that the electric fence and barbed wire are effective deterrents. It's a lucky man who can afford an original banner and a 3-year-old. It's also a brave man who has both in the same space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually enjoy the firmly but friendly stated opinions. That is why I like this forum and why I post here. I am by no means looking for aprroval. I have been set on removing the labels for about two years but just got around to it yesterday.

 

However, it is interesting to note that the attitude here is more pro-labels than over at the Martin forum. There the usual comments when the topic comes up are kind of like:

- "Labels are of the marketing age and the name of the headstock is all I need." I have never seen a post here about removing labels before, and I realize now that it might be more of a Martin thing.

 

I like the naked look of my guitars. Don't get jealous, but I plan to get Sheryl naked tonight... [sneaky]

 

Lars

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Retro, no that one is cool!

 

Here is the worst one I have seen so far (bottom right picture).

 

http://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/item/546-americas-guitar.html

 

Those two hideous labels would be endangered in my presence, for sure.

 

Lars

 

Yuck. A picture of Chris Martin and his family? Schmaltzy. Also a wee bit creepy from a Euro/Brit perspective. It's a bit like saying, 'I know my guitars are a bit crap, but look, I've got a wife and kids'. And as we all know, Martin guitars are not crap.

 

Of course, Coldplay could try the same thing on their next album cover. Chris Martin and family: 'I know our albums are a bit crap, but look, I'm married to Gwyneth Paltrow'. Does he play a Martin D series because he shares the name? I think we should be told.

 

The Orville picture that Rod posts is a bit different - 'I made these instruments and I am serious. Everybody I work with thinks I'm mad, but these are the eyes of a genius'. They should have got Ren Ferguson doing the same thing while he was still there. Can't see pictures of Henry really cutting it in this context. But I don't think Gibson would want to describe its instruments as 'beaters' - world or otherwise - nowadays. 'World besters' perhaps instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it, I could live with a little stamp-sized portrait of Orville Gibson inside the 1953 J-45.

This would be one step too far though - Orvilleheadstock2.jpg

 

How about this one instead?

 

keith-harris-and-orville-orvilles-song-bbc.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

However, it is interesting to note that the attitude here is more pro-labels than over at the Martin forum. There the usual comments when the topic comes up are kind of like:

- "Labels are of the marketing age and the name of the headstock is all I need." I have never seen a post here about removing labels before, and I realize now that it might be more of a Martin thing.

 

Lars

 

 

In a way, labels are redundant on a Martin, and I believe are primarily a modern innovation. Like every reasonably modern (say, the last 100 years or so) Martin I have looked at, my 000-28 has the model name/number and serial number branded on the neck block, so there is no ambiguity as to the model number and year built. (Exceptionally, I had a little rosewood Martin from the late 19th century--about 1865, as best I could date it--whose only ID was "C.F. Martin, New York" branded on the inside backstrip.)

 

Gibson is notorious for inconsistent and sometimes seemingly random numbering, and often no model identification at all unless there is a label.

 

The Gibson label can be a key tool in identifying model and vintage in many cases, and as such, is a more integral part of the guitar than the label on a Martin. As mentioned earlier, the only identification of any type on my 1947 L-7 is the model and serial number on the label.

 

Once a label is removed from a guitar, the guitar's provenance is potentially compromised unless there is also a serial number stamped elsewhere (which there is on every modern Gibson I have seen). In the case of specialty models, the label can convey information that the serial number alone cannot. Without the label, for example, I would know when my Fuller's 1943 SJ was built, but would have no idea what it actually was.

 

I suspect Lars will be able to hold on to the labels he has removed--he is clearly a thoughtful and careful guy--but others might not be quite so disciplined. I have a hard case I bought new in about 1970, but I have no idea what happened to the two keys to the lock that originally came with it. Lord knows what else I've misplaced over the years, things that meant little to me then, but which I'd love to have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labels can also be somewhat confusing. My '63 B45-12 came with a square white label. The only Gibsons that seem to have had consistently come with this label were the early 1960s classical guitars. As mine looks to be an early square shoulder B45s and has a seven ply top binding (not a feature associated with B45-12s) it makes me wonder if the guitar was made with a re-purposed Hummingbird body with the label covering a stamped model designation. Not going to remove the label though so it will just remain one of those sweet Gibson mysteries.

 

28cf612a-d218-4c66-901f-078455cbeecc_zps3a7804ed.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, not many lyric quoters go to heaven.......

 

So from one lyric quoter to another: 'I wish I could fly right up to the sky, but I can't'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lars ,

 

 

 

I understand you totally . When I ordered my lefty Century of Progress I asked them to not put the gibson decal on the back of the headstock .

I also asked them to put an orange label instead of the white elvis costello model label but when the time came they didn't put a label and I kinda like it that way :

 

 

 

DSC_0055_zps7b1a8d7d.jpg

 

DSC_0063_zps9d59f764.jpg

 

DSC_0061_zps86e9a64a.jpg

 

but I like the orange labels =) ... but I certainly don't mind if they forget to put one inside one of my guitars

 

 

 

so you are not alone !

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight, JC. You asked for an orange instead of a white ....and got nothing?

For so much communication media these days, there certainly seems to be a 'disconnect' in what people actually 'process'....

....generally speaking of course. Not just Gibson

 

BTW....gourgeous guitar!

 

Sunburst....my 2nd favorite color after Orange ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...