Summer NAMM 2013

[JuanCarlosVejar]

check it out folks :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[CAMELEYE]

Interesting. Not as pretty as a Crowe though.

I wonder how this Jumbo compares to the Original Jumbo Custom that's been available through Fuller's for some time now.

[Pickax]

Nice Axe!

[rar]

Interesting. Not as pretty as a Crowe though.

I wonder how this Jumbo compares to the Original Jumbo Custom that's been available through Fuller's for some time now.

This one is supposed to be a copy of a (I'm going to insert "purported" here because of the neck binding -- I don't know the FON) '34 that belongs to Gary Burnette. Previous OJ's were more like Jumbo-inspired guitars: they were intended to capture the essence of the original Jumbo, not be an accurate reproduction of one.

 

The prototype at the Homecoming was really nice. Dave in SLC took it home and may have more to say about it by now.

 

-- Bob R

[JuanCarlosVejar]

This one is supposed to be a copy of a (I'm going to insert "purported" here because of the neck binding -- I don't know the FON) '34 that belongs to Gary Burnette. Previous OJ's were more like Jumbo-inspired guitars: they were intended to capture the essence of the original Jumbo, not be an accurate reproduction of one.

 

The prototype at the Homecoming was really nice. Dave in SLC took it home and may have more to say about it by now.

 

-- Bob R

 

 

Bob ,

 

I take it this : http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Acoustic-Instruments/Round-Shoulder/Gibson-Acoustic/Advanced-Jumbo-Red-Spruce.aspx

 

is the copy of Gary's 1935 Prototype Advanced Jumbo ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[jt]

I'm in Nashville now for my book tour and will vist NAMM tomorrow and report back.

 

Here's a low-fi clip of me playing the Jumbo prototype at the Homecoming. A very nice guitar.

[tpbiii]

Conventional wisdom is that the only feature difference between the '34 and '35 Jumbos was the neck binding on the '35. We have a '35 (A FON), and it has neck binding. All else is conjecture.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[rar]

Conventional wisdom is that the only feature difference between the '34 and '35 Jumbos was the neck binding on the '35. We have a '35 (A FON), and it has neck binding. All else is conjecture.

Gary has called conventional wisdom into question, and Gibson is going along with him. I believe that the current conventional wisdom is that Jumbo production continued into 1936 and the change to a bound neck was made partway through 1935. BTW, my Jumbo has an unbound neck and, according to its FON and Joe Spann's book, it's a fairly early 1935. (I take it as given that Joe's book pretty much defines current conventional wisdom as far as dating is concerned.) Anyway, I asked Gibson about why they're calling it a '34, and the answer was that Gary says his is a '34 and, even if conventional wisdom is essentially correct, there is no reason why Gibson couldn't have built one with a bound neck in '34, so there's no reason to doubt Gary's claim. I asked why Gary thought it was a '34, and they had no idea. That pretty effectively ended the conversation. :)

 

-- Bob R

[tpbiii]

Gary has called conventional wisdom into question, and Gibson is going along with him. I believe that the current conventional wisdom is that Jumbo production continued into 1936 and the change to a bound neck was made partway through 1935. BTW, my Jumbo has an unbound neck and, according to its FON and Joe Spann's book, it's a fairly early 1935. (I take it as given that Joe's book pretty much defines current conventional wisdom as far as dating is concerned.) Anyway, I asked Gibson about why they're calling it a '34, and the answer was that Gary says his is a '34 and, even if conventional wisdom is essentially correct, there is no reason why Gibson couldn't have built one with a bound neck in '34, so there's no reason to doubt Gary's claim. I asked why Gary thought it was a '34, and they had no idea. That pretty effectively ended the conversation. :)

 

-- Bob R

 

Well, you seem to be violently agreeing with me. Gary was actually involved in our acquisition of our '35 Jumbo -- we have bought several guitars from him over the years.

 

I have talked to Joe Spann (and Willi Henkes) about the year designations from 1935 to 1942 (A=1935, B=1936, ... H=1942) and they believe these are pretty much the best markers we have for year of manufacture. Because batches do spread across year boundaries and sometime there are delays in completions, there is always some ambiguity at the edges. Also, Gibson is famous for being inconsistent -- there often seems to be exceptions, so never say never. But there is also always the average features of the majority of guitars -- those of course are the ones covered by conventional wisdom.

 

I have also talked to Gary about his reasoning about guitar dating and materials. Now I have the greatest personal regard for Gary -- he is honest, easy to deal with and a man of very high character. But that does not mean I totally agree with his approach to dating and materials. Point in fact is the question of whether his prototype AJ is Brazilian RW or not. I have seen and played that guitar, and we have three Gibson RW guitars from that period -- '35 RSRG, '36 AJ, and '43 SJ (the last one we bought from Gary). It is quite obvious to me that all of those guitars are made of the same type of RW, and it is also quite obvious to me that it is the same wood used on the SJ-200 that Willi Henkes had tested -- it came back East Indian Rosewood. I also talked to Gary about his reasoning that led to the BRW conclusion. He was reasoning based on Gibson marketing boilerplate from the period. That is not a bad approach, but obviously not perfect -- in fact that is how we did it before science got involved -- but on balance I think the Henkes results are the most credible.

 

By the way, I am not sure which guitar Gary would have used as a Jumbo model -- I am well aware of his 34-35 AJ prototype of course and all the facts line up on that one. It had a bound fingerboard, but all AJs did -- it was always a high end guitar. Of course a "A" designation marks the guitar as 1935 -- the lack of an "A" designation really tells you nothing for sure since apparently it sometimes got left off.

 

All the guitars in this picture have either an "A" or "B" designation. The Jumbo and the RSRG are 1935 and the AJ is 1936 -- all with bound fingerboard. I think all AJs, including the prototype, had this feature. The Trojan and the RSSD are both 1936 -- the Trojan has the same non cosmetic features as the Jumbo it replace. This, I guess as "lesser models" had no fingerboard binding.

 

 

Thanks for bringing this up -- it is great when this forum can be a place to exchange this kind of data.

 

All the best,

 

-Tom

[guitarjtb]

This is not a Jumbo, but it demonstrates the confusion in features and dating for this time period with Gibson. This J-35 top came off a guitar with the "B" designation on the neck block. However, the bracing pattern as well as the size of the braces, is much different than conventional wisdom dictates for Gibson flat tops from 1936. Only 2 tone bars. All the braces are very thin, much like the bracing found in the 1931 L-1 that I recently restored. The tone bars from the J-35 are definitely original. They are not shown in the picture, but I still have them.

 

My link

[tpbiii]

This is not a Jumbo, but it demonstrates the confusion in features and dating for this time period with Gibson. This J-35 top came off a guitar with the "B" designation on the neck block. However, the bracing pattern as well as the size of the braces, is much different than conventional wisdom dictates for Gibson flat tops from 1936. Only 2 tone bars. All the braces are very thin, much like the bracing found in the 1931 L-1 that I recently restored. The tone bars from the J-35 are definitely original. They are not shown in the picture, but I still have them.

 

My link

 

The bridgeplate does not look right either. Here is picture from inside the Trojan (1936 J-35) shown above.

 

 

There was a comparison of a bunch of these early (36-37) J-35s on the UMGF moderated by Mark S. from Folkways. There were differences, but not as different as yours.

 

One idea is that it was not a B but a D. I had a guitar that was mislabeled for years because of a light stamp and the grain of the wood that made the D into a B. That might make a lot of sense here.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[Red 333]

1934 Jumbo Reissue at Sweetwater

 

Red 333

[guitarjtb]

The bridgeplate does not look right either. Here is picture from inside the Trojan (1936 J-35) shown above.

 

 

There was a comparison of a bunch of these early (36-37) J-35s on the UMGF moderated by Mark S. from Folkways. There were differences, but not as different as yours.

 

One idea is that it was not a B but a D. I had a guitar that was mislabeled for years because of a light stamp and the grain of the wood that made the D into a B. That might make a lot of sense here.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

 

The bridge plate does not appear to be original. Here are some pictures of a TB from the questionable '36 J-35, one from a 1939 J-35, and one from a 1940's J-45.

 

 

[tvguit]

(looks for the "guy eating popcorn" emoticon, can't find it)

 

Good thread!

[mountainpicker]

It appeared to have the tapered headstock (at 3:07 in the video) but what really puzzled me was the placement of the two pearl dots on the bridge. They are located between the pins and the saddle (most pics of old models have them outboard of the E string pins). How close to the original design is that? I can't find a picture of a '34 that has that (except a Smeck) and in light of what happened to duluthdan's guitar with a hole overlapping with a bridge pin hole, as viewed from inside the guitar, it makes me wonder. Pretty nice looking guitar even though and overall.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

It appeared to have the tapered headstock (at 3:07 in the video) but what really puzzled me was the placement of the two pearl dots on the bridge. They are located between the pins and the saddle (most pics of old models have them outboard of the E string pins). How close to the original design is that? I can't find a picture of a '34 that has that (except a Smeck) and in light of what happened to duluthdan's guitar with a hole overlapping with a bridge pin hole, as viewed from inside the guitar, it makes me wonder. Pretty nice looking guitar even though and overall.

MP ,

 

it appears there was at least one 1934 Jumbo with thedots located between the pins and the saddle :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[JuanCarlosVejar]

I'm in Nashville now for my book tour and will vist NAMM tomorrow and report back.

 

Here's a low-fi clip of me playing the Jumbo prototype at the Homecoming. A very nice guitar.

 

John ,

 

thanks that was beautiful =) !

 

was that the only prototype you played or was there something more ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[jt]

John ,

 

thanks that was beautiful =) !

 

was that the only prototype you played or was there something more ?

Thanks, JC!

 

That was the prototype at the Homecoming. Saturday at NAMM I played the one in the video. A very nice guitar!

 

Alas, no Banner reissues at NAMM

[Dave in SLC]

This one is supposed to be a copy of a (I'm going to insert "purported" here because of the neck binding -- I don't know the FON) '34 that belongs to Gary Burnette. Previous OJ's were more like Jumbo-inspired guitars: they were intended to capture the essence of the original Jumbo, not be an accurate reproduction of one.

 

The prototype at the Homecoming was really nice. Dave in SLC took it home and may have more to say about it by now.

 

-- Bob R

 

Hi everyone,

 

Yes, I love my '34 Jumbo repro!

 

I have one of those '03 Original Jumbo repros, and have always enjoyed playing it for oldtime backup guitar. When I purchased the '34 I was thinking of selling it once I got home with the '34, but have decided to keep both of them for now. They both sound really good, but a bit different. The '34 has a bit 'fuller' or 'richer' sound than the '03 OJ, and the larger neck profile on the '34 is more comfortable in my hand.

 

I wish I could describe differences in sound better!

 

Dave