E-minor7 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 So maybe your old man was out a decade to early. This could be a 73'er bought in 1974. Prepare for change of Board pseudonym Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Looks like the rosette on my 1974 J-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 The easiest way to solve this is to look inside the guitar to see if there is a second X brace down below the bridge. If there is you will know either the guitar was built after 1970 or possibly is something like a 1969 neck grafted onto another body. Here is what you will find if the body was built in the 1970s. Warning, not for the faint of heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayyj Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 He did say it had been retopped when someone sat on it, so bracing and rosette may be red herrings. On the up side, baring in mind the consensus on double x bracing, it may have been an upgrade! My bet is the guitar was refinished at the time the top was replaced but the luthier choose to sand and clear coat the headstock rather than lose the original decal, and the clear coat hasn't adhered as well as it might. Funny how the memory can play tricks on you - last year someone showed me a picture of myself playing an Ibanez 12 string and I said 'hey, cool guitar, whose was that?'. He gave me a strange look and said 'it was yours'. And at 37 I'm a spring chicken compared to some of you lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 He did say it had been retopped when someone sat on it, so bracing and rosette may be red herrings. But I don't think Gibson made any square shouldered J-50s or J-45s until 1969 or thereabouts. Did they?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 OOps, the squished top went right over my head. Purely hypothetical and assuming Gibson did the repairs but the serial number on the headstock does work for a 1969 guitar so it could have been square shouldered to begin with. While I cannot vouch for it, if the guitar was made in 1963, it is unlikely that Gibson could have converted it to a square shoulder guitar. They might, however, have put the undamaged neck (whether from 1963 or 1969) onto a new body. In terms of just doing repairs, both J45nick and myself can attest to the fact that back in the day Gibson did not "restore" a guitar meaning that they used period correct parts but rather used whatever they currently were using. So if the guitar was re-topped in the 1970s into the 1980s it would have gotten whatever rosette, pickguard and bracing they were installing at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 He did say it had been retopped when someone sat on it, so bracing and rosette may be red herrings. On the up side, baring in mind the consensus on double x bracing, it may have been an upgrade! An upgrade from what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 My final take is that it is a 1969, based on serial number, body shape, lack of neck volute, and no "made in USA" stamp. Body shape is definitively post-1968 for a J-45/50. I would guess that the guitar was re-topped in the 1970's or so, since the rosette style seems consistent with that period. I actually like the overall effect of the guitar, but I've never really cared for the Martin-style pickguard on a Gibson. It just don't seem natural to me...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Another brain fart. The OP noted that the repairs were done by somebody on the east coast. Still possible he grafted the neck onto another body. Just do not see anybody converting a round shoulder guitar to a square shoulder guitar. So again, I would have to go with the guitar starting out life in 1969. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 My final take is that it is a 1969, based on serial number, body shape, lack of neck volute, and no "made in USA" stamp. Body shape is definitively post-1968 for a J-45/50. I would guess that the guitar was re-topped in the 1970's or so, since the rosette style seems consistent with that period. I actually like the overall effect of the guitar, but I've never really cared for the Martin-style pickguard on a Gibson. It just don't seem natural to me...... No more so than Rotomatics. If it was my guitar though, I would just let it be and not sweat the cosmetics. Look at it as everything about the guitar is just part of its history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 If it was my guitar though, I would just let it be and not sweat the cosmetics. Look at it as everything about the guitar is just part of its history. Sort of reminds me of what I said to my wife when she was complaining about the changes in her looks as she ages: "I would just let it be and don't sweat the cosmetics. Just think of it as everything about the way you look is just part of your history." I still can't quite figure out why she punched me after I said that...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Ha, , hehe he. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayyj Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 An upgrade from what? Just that if it started life as a double x braced guitar, depending on the luthier who did the replacement top ìt may sound better with the replacement top than with the double x. Obviously just an opinion - I know guys with square shouldered Gibsons who love them and strongly disagree with me on the subject! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 To the thread-host I say : Yes, it's utterly important for sound, projection and feel whether a guitar is a single or double X-braced. Also crucial for knowing if it's a 1969 or post 70. So if your arm is thin enough, through the sound-hole it goes for a check. This can also be done via a small mirror and a ditto lamp placed right inside the box after the strings are removed. 1 X typically means old-style looser top better freer vibe. 2 X's 1970 and approx. 15 year further, and tighter grip on the top-wood, thus less vibrant body. However - many double-X oldies have become so loose over time that they sound great'n'smooth as they are. No matter what you got a cool veteran there in the room and as you like it, you're one lucky G-player. Enjoy - (and post us a tape with the vintage viber). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You also have to also add the laminate bridge plate to the heavier bracing. On the Double X braced guitars it takes up the entire intersection where the two X's meet. All that stuff under the top makes it very stiff and just sucks up the energy. All our our speculation hinges on whether the guitar started out in 1963 or 1969. If a '63 then I cannot see how it could have been re-topped. If a '69 then it is very possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 All our our speculation hinges on whether the guitar started out in 1963 or 1969. If a '63 then I cannot see how it could have been re-topped. If a '69 then it is very possible. ZW, how can you think it started life as a '63? It is a square-bodied dread with a neck with later characteristics: 17th fret dot marker, etc, etc, etc. The only '63 square dreads would have been 'bird, SJ, and CW, I believe, plus the maple Dove, and nothing here says any of those. I don't believe it could be a later body grafted onto an earlier neck. I can't see Gibson doing that, for sure. If somebody had sent a squashed guitar to Gibson for repair in 1970, the letter would probably have come back saying "we consider this guitar to be beyond repair". What they really meant was "it's cheaper to buy a new guitar than for us to try to fix it". I've received one of those letters from Gibson, and one from Martin, back in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I don't believe it could be a later body grafted onto an earlier neck. And the headstock looks just like my 1974 J-50, which is larger than the 60's headstocks and natural instead of black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 And the headstock looks just like my 1974 J-50, which is larger than the 60's headstocks and natural instead of black. I'm not sure when the larger headstock came along. It may have come in with the switch from round shoulders to square in 1969. You might need to see this one in the flesh to sort out that level of detail. Because this guitar appears to have had a fair amount of work over the years, it's not easy to figure out what characteristics to judge it by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 My question IS....where in the hell is Mr. 1963jay50, in the mix, while we are absolutely obsessing over his "Frankenstein Gibson".... We cannot speak to the un-knowable....or fix the broken without a little help from "he ,who holds the guitar" ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 First off, leave it alone. Second, I doubt it's a '63 because there's no headstock overlay and a J50 in 1963 would have been around $200. Best advice yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 ZW, how can you think it started life as a '63? It is a square-bodied dread with a neck with later characteristics: 17th fret dot marker, etc, etc, etc. The only '63 square dreads would have been 'bird, SJ, and CW, I believe, plus the maple Dove, and nothing here says any of those. I don't believe it could be a later body grafted onto an earlier neck. I can't see Gibson doing that, for sure. If somebody had sent a squashed guitar to Gibson for repair in 1970, the letter would probably have come back saying "we consider this guitar to be beyond repair". What they really meant was "it's cheaper to buy a new guitar than for us to try to fix it". I've received one of those letters from Gibson, and one from Martin, back in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Once we got past the pic of just the headstock, 1969 seemed right for the neck but the top looked more mid-1970s. I do not have a clue if Gibson would have considered re-topping the guitar or not but the OP noted the repairs were done by somebody on the east coast who might have grafted the neck onto another body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963JayFifty Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 hah yeah boys its a frankenstein, it was definitely repaired in the 70's, my grandfather told me the top came in the mail from Tennessee or Memphis, not kalamazoo, he doesn't remember much about the repairs because it took the luthier close to 3 years to repair it on his own time, he did however tell me it used to be a natural top j50, at this point i imagine its possible that the whole neck/fretboard could have been replaced as well, is there any other serial number on the inside of these?i know this was before they put stickers on the inside of it but i haven't taken off the string to take a look inside yet, let me know,also for time of guitar, my grandfather told me he had the guitar before he met my grandmother, they married in 69 , this is as confusing for me as it is for you guys on trying to figure out the true age of the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyd Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 i imagine its possible that the whole neck/fretboard could have been replaced as well So they may have replaced the body and neck? What would be left of the original at all? The tuners certainly don't look like they are original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 this is as confusing for me as it is for you guys on trying to figure out the true age of the body. It may just be one of those mysteries that we can't really solve. But it's fun to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1963JayFifty Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 So they may have replaced the body and neck? What would be left of the original at all? The tuners certainly don't look like they are original. Top of the body was replaced, mahogany back and sides were in tact, it caved in around the soundhole, the neck may have been replaced at that time, this is unknown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.