Isn't this a little overpriced for a (PRE)-Norlin???

[onewilyfool]

I mean...1 9/16" nut, just a player guitar not a collector, no original case....I just don't get it???? I would think this would sell for about half this price!!???

 

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/msg/3820840254.html

[L5Larry]

Have you played it, or heard it?

[ParlourMan]

It's trend based though, to those dipping their toes in the vintage pool it says 'vintage guitar' rather than old guitar. True enough the skinny neck & nut combo are not the favour of the minute compared with late 30s - late 50s models, but such is the vintage market. Folk think they can get crazy sums for them.

 

Thing is, someone might pay it, each to their own, certainly wouldn't be me though.

[onewilyfool]

Have you played it, or heard it?

Larry, my friend has one....I literally CAN'T play it!!! That nut is unbelievably small, at least for my hands...

[bobouz]

Well, first of all this guitar is not a '65. It is a '68 or later as quickly noted by the bridge.

 

Secondly, the Norlin era didn't begin until December 1969, when ECL took over CMI.

 

Thirdly, I didn't see any reference to a 1-9/16" nut in the ad. But regardless, the important scoop on the 1-9/16" nut is that they are not all created equal by a long shot. Some stay skinny all the way up the neck and deserve the moniker of "pencil neck", while others may start out at 1-9/16" at the nut but widen significantly to the point where they can be quite playable in many hands. Bottom line: It might be a missed opportunity to dismiss them without a try.

 

Fourthly, I totally agree that this particular guitar is way overpriced!

[EuroAussie]

I dont get it, its a 65' hence not a Norlin, and who says it has 9/16 nut width, it doesnt state that ?

[bobouz]

I dont get it, its a 65' hence not a Norlin, and who says it has 9/16 nut width, it doesnt state that ?

We posted at the same time - see post #6.

[E-minor7]

Yes, if what we see is the original bridge (and it seems like it), the guitar probably is from 1968.

Most of the squares from the late 60's have 11/16 width, but there are exceptions. Must say it looks like a 5/8 even 9/16 to me.

 

What confuses me is the guard – a '68 is supposed to have screws.

 

But overpriced it is – not least with the replacement tuners.

 

 

 

 

 

Wonder why you called it a Norlin, Wily. In my idea you have a clearer picture of that epoke than that.

[jazzpunk67]

here's a 68 in new orleans right now.

 

http://neworleans.craigslist.org/msg/3804564941.html

 

IT's got the same bridge and screwed on pickguard .

[jazzpunk67]

If you look closely at the photos from the OP link you can see the screws on the pickguard.

 

Everyone I tried with a screwed on pickguard seemed really dull and muted. The pickguards looked much thicker as well.

 

And the pricing was usually under $1800.

[zombywoof]

I dont get it, its a 65' hence not a Norlin, and who says it has 9/16 nut width, it doesnt state that ?

 

 

The 1 9/16" nut started showing up in guitars in 1965 when Gibson acquired new neck machines. The narrow nut went hand in hand with the 14 degree headstock angle.

 

While these do have a thick pickguard I am not sure I have ever seen a Gibson earlier than 1967 with one that was screwed down.

 

The price does seem rather high. As the older guitars go up in value it tends to drag the later ones along with them - the price being driven by, as somebody said, those wanting to dip their hand in the vintage pool, but not having the scratch to buy something from the 1940s or 1950s.

[j45nick]

The guitar is over-priced any way you look at it.

 

As has been mentioned, not all 1 9/16" nut width guitars are created equal. People fixate on this, and it is true that the fretboard is crowded if you are playing in the first position. The further you move up the board, however, the less of an issue it becomes, as the pin spacing at the bridge--except on re-issues replicating very early guitars--is typically 2 1/8" (54mm), no matter what the nut width. This means there is little discernible difference for your right hand (assuming you are right-handed) if you are picking or strumming at the soundhole or near the bridge.

 

A few chords in the first position and the lowest frets, such as a simple G or major barre chords on the fifth string (first-position B chord, for example) require some finger-scrunching and careful attention to left-hand mechanics. I sometimes have a problem muffling the A string on a simple G chord, but I seem to do that no matter what the nut width.

 

I have two narrow-nut Gibsons, and they play completely differently from each other. One is my 1948 J-45, whose neck Gibson "generously" re-carved when they replaced the fretboard in 1968 with the then-popular narrower model. Fortunately, all they did was shave 1/16" (1.5mm) off each side of the neck at the nut, tapering to about half that amount at the body joint. The deep, original, 1948 neck profile is unchanged.

 

My other narrow-nut Gibson is my 1968 ES 335-12, and that has the very shallow neck that was characteristic of that period. You can definitely feel the difference in that neck width and profile, especially when comparing it to the neck profile of my '59 ES 335 Historic, which has what is known as the "fat neck", which is very similar, ironically, to the neck shape of my 1947 L-7, although the ES 335 is narrower at the nut at 1 11/16" (43mm) vs. 1 23/32" (43.6mm). Somewhere in my files I have the actual neck depth offsets for my narrow-nut Gibsons, but depth alone does not tell you how it feels in the hand: you have to consider the entire sectional shape.

 

I have seen a 1 9/16" nut on Gibson acoustics that were represented as 1963 models, but they could have been misidentified. If nut width is a concern for you, you should not buy any Gibson represented as 1963 or later(prior to Bozeman production) without absolute verification of the nut width. You simply cannot generalize about this characteristic with any confidence.

[ParlourMan]

As the older guitars go up in value it tends to drag the later ones along with them - the price being driven by, as somebody said, those wanting to dip their hand in the vintage pool, but not having the scratch to buy something from the 1940s or 1950s.

 

That would be me who said it, it's true though, I can remember back in the early 90's, 60's Fenders were all the thing, to the extent that you could hardly giveaway a 70's Fender, trying to sell one to a music shop was often greeted with a laugh and some lowball offer (by todays standards) because absolutely nobody wanted them... move along a few years and all the 60's stock gone, snapped up and prices still increasing those 70's fenders started to change hands for what was a good bit of money back then, worse now.

 

I remember seeing a few Fender Bronco's from the 70's going for two & tuppence here and there... fast forward to 3-4 years ago and the wee fella from the Arctic Monkeys starts using one... bang, they were then going for 13-1400. crazy business....

[zombywoof]

That would be me who said it, it's true though, I can remember back in the early 90's, 60's Fenders were all the thing, to the extent that you could hardly giveaway a 70's Fender, trying to sell one to a music shop was often greeted with a laugh and some lowball offer (by todays standards) because absolutely nobody wanted them... move along a few years and all the 60's stock gone, snapped up and prices still increasing those 70's fenders started to change hands for what was a good bit of money back then, worse now.

 

 

I was working in a music store in the early 1980s and I had instructions not to buy any late 1960s or 1970s Fenders because they were impossible to sell to anybody but a novice who did not know any better and there were plenty of new guitars the owner would rather move.

[ParlourMan]

I was working in a music store in the early 1980s and I had instructions not to buy any late 1960s or 1970s Fenders because they were impossible to sell to anybody but a novice who did not know any better and there were plenty of new guitars the owner would rather move.

 

Et voila...... Was pretty much the same in Scotland, however, I wish I'd bought a truckload of them now. Where there's muck there's brass.... eventually....

[j45nick]

Where there's muck there's brass.... eventually....

 

 

That's the thinking that eventually leads to hoarding behavior disorder, so be careful!

[ParlourMan]

That's the thinking that eventually leads to hoarding behavior disorder, so be careful!

 

Far too neat to be a collector of such things, Nick, there's nowt I love more than a good bit of tidiness.

[E-minor7]

The 1968 seems to have the longer scale-length - and the 11/16 width.

 

Would be good to get a real neck-view on #1.

 

Impossible due to pic-angles.

 

 

 

[BluesKing777]

I was working in a music store in the early 1980s and I had instructions not to buy any late 1960s or 1970s Fenders because they were impossible to sell to anybody but a novice who did not know any better and there were plenty of new guitars the owner would rather move.

 

Yup!

 

That would be me....

 

I have a 1973 version of this:

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xNbZJw8aEaU/UUvAs7FZ2pI/AAAAAAAAAkc/lEXKrugwFJI/s1600/17672-dolphin-vintage-1975-fender-telecaster-custom-natural-large.jpg

 

Almost unplayable skinny, skinny neck that I ended up using for electric slide with the strings raised as high as they would go - then we had the 'killer' sound through the Seth Lover pickup....

 

So someone would want to buy these now? I was derided like mentioned above and have been mentally scarred since. Why did I buy this one and not the L Series next to it for a few coins more?

 

So I better get the action lowered and on to the Ebay for vast amounts of cash, eh?

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

 

 

Sorry to steal the thread, OWF.

[onewilyfool]

Well.....looks like the "-1" bandito has struck again....lol......I guess EVERY comment I make on line will get -1's now.................does the phrase "get a life" apply here??? Just wondering....lol

[j45nick]

Well.....looks like the "-1" bandito has struck again....lol......I guess EVERY comment I make on line will get -1's now.................does the phrase "get a life" apply here??? Just wondering....lol

 

And just as mysteriously, it vanishes.

 

Clearly, somebody has your number. Probably someone whose doesn't like Sheryl Crow.

[fortyearspickn]

Well.....looks like the "-1" bandito has struck again....lol......I guess EVERY comment I make on line will get -1's now.................does the phrase "get a life" apply here??? Just wondering....lol

 

No worries. OWF. Now that you've registered your concern, the usual suspects will gather and give you a bouquet of +1s, as always. Don't sweat the small stuff.