Part one

[Martin 1940D28]

Guess like many others in this area, I succumbed to the great "Gibson's Fabulous Flattops". Got mine as soon as it came out. I always loved Gibson, the ES guys, still have my original. Anyhow, after getting all worked up about Montana, my local dealer whom I'd been dealing with since I was 14 years old let me know they "were at my beck and call". In late 1996, I ordered a "Custom" Gibson "acoustic". Just to keep me going, they had a brand new J 45 delivered that day. I'd had a Heritage" bought in the late '60s and a Deluxe SJ in about 1972. They did their job. This new J 44 had the "most gorgeous" sunburst I'd seen in quite a while. I bought it and have been playing it ever since. It has the block letters with a Banner beneath it, a pick guard that covers most of the "rosette", according to the "book" a geometry X brace of 98%, as Martin had, instead of the usual Gibson 102%. I've read how folks have mentioned that they sound as they were stuffed with socks. Should you compare it with my 1944 Gibson J 45, yeh, I'd agree to this. This Montana J 45, has a wonderful tone, and no sound hole wear, as the '44 J 45 has. I enjoy the "sock filled" sound it has, as compared to the Martin scalloped sound of late. This J 45 sounds like no other J 45 I'd ever played! After all these years, I find I've been drinking vinegar, and not sweet cider!

[j45nick]

The "stuffed full of socks" reference is generally made to the choked tone of many of the double-X-braced Gibsons (like your SJ Deluxe, and maybe your Heritage) from the Norlin years. I've never heard it applied to modern Bozeman-built flat tops.

 

Your 1944 J-45 should have a dry, old mid-range heavy sound, but I've never hear one of that vintage that had the "stuffed full of socks" sound.

 

Modern Gibson, in my experience as an owner and player, are among the most consistently good-sounding guitars they've ever built, and I own Gibsons from the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, as well as several higher-end Bozeman built models.

 

But you gotta love the Gibson tone to really appreciate them. And I do love it!

[zombywoof]

I still cannot figure out what you are trying to say. As J45nick pointed out you are obviously confused as to what period Gibsons are described as sounding like like they are stuffed with t-shirts or in your case socks. I do assume that when you are talking about a "geometry X brace" of 98% compared to 102% you mean the angle of the X brace in degrees. According to my repair guy, the angle of the X brace in my '42 J-50 is around 100 degrees. I believe the Martin dreads clocked in at 94 degrees.

[mike m]

The late 60's Heritage would not have the double x-brace of the Norlin era. They and the J-45/J-50 from 1968-1970 were actually the last Gibson square shoulder dreadnoughts before the Norlin design accoustics came out in 1971. The Heritage has solid rosewood back and sides, the J-45/J-50

has solid mahogany back and sides. Even though these guitars have the adjustable saddle that a lot of people don't care for they are nicely made

good sounding instruments. 25.5 in. scale, 1.72 nut, nice neck, they have a belly down bridge, and tortise pickguards. They don't have the large plywood bridgeplates that the Norlin designs did, they have smaller solid bridgeplates.

m

 

 

[E-minor7]

Regarding socks, Kalamazoo started to put approx. 25 pairs in per guitar as soon as 1968 - only to fill the boxes up from 1970 and a good decade forward.

 

To many players relief a number of those fell out again during the many years up till now.

 

To this day however, no one has ever seen a single sock - but the sonic-memo of them lingers on like some sort of opposite echo. .

 

 

 

[MissouriPicker]

Yes, the socks. Speaking of which-------There is a thread over on The AGF from someone who just recently toured the Bozeman factory and took a good number of pictures. Pretty much all the people who read the thread were impressed with the personal craftsmanship that goes into making a Gibson guitar. These are not cookie-cutter guitars. The legendary Sock Room is not shown and that will no doubt fuel the legend....Meanwhile, Gibson will continue with all the other real legends.

 

Here's the link http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=402216

[stein]

So basically, what I am to understand, is if I want that GIBSON sound, that tone, all I have to do is stuff it with socks?

 

AWESOME!

 

Could that work on a MARTIN 000-18? How many socks would it take, say, for a Hummingbird tone? J-45?

[Kaiser Bill]

Thanks for the link to the slide show of the Bozeman plant. Nice to actually see where my J200 came from.

[zombywoof]

The late 60's Heritage would not have the double x-brace of the Norlin era. They and the J-45/J-50 from 1968-1970 were actually the last Gibson square shoulder dreadnoughts before the Norlin design accoustics came out in 1971.

 

 

CMI (Gibson's parent company) was purchased by ECL, which would change its name to Norlin shortly thereafter, towards the end of 1969.

 

While Gibson did not adopt the now infamous Double X bracing until 1971, they did go to a heavier top bracing in 1968. It got even heavier in 1969. So they were going down that road before Norlin entered the picture. Even if the guitar does not have the Double X bracing it certainly has a heavier bracing than found in any Gibson made from 1955 to 1967. While you can still find a good sounding one it just gets a lot harder as the 1960s ends.

[MissouriPicker]

Soy-ten-ly, Kaiser Bill. I enjoy seeing those pics too. I've believed for a long time that Gibsons are very different from other brands and they're even different from one Gibson guitar to the next of the same model. For me, these pictures strengthen that belief.......My only problem with the pics is that they don't show the "Sock Room." Something that has been a legend for decades MUST exist.

[Jesse_Dylan]

I can understand people thinking a Gibson sounds stuffed with socks if they are used to the sound of a Martin, which will take the paint of your walls, or the sound of a Taylor, which will drive you to madness eventually. (I kid--I really like Martins a lot, and Taylors have a sort of woody tone and many fans.)

 

For me, the deeper sound of a Gibson is a welcome relief, and I don't think the resonance can be matched. It does not tear the paint off my walls, but when I sneeze, my sneeze echoes in my Hummingbird, and I smile. I can't get over how wonderful it sounds. It is not in your face, and it is not sparkly treble-heavy (thank gosh).

 

Give me socks any day. Best socks I ever done weared, too.

[Martin 1940D28]

Boy, I should proof read my comments more closely. They even confuse me. My 1944 Banner J 45 has an X angle top brace of 102 degrees. It is a fabulous sounding guitar. My 1996 J 45 Montana Gibson was redesigned at its re introduction, with an X angle top brace of 98 degrees, similar to the Martin "D" models. The 1996 J 45 has a completely different tone than the 1944 J 45. It has been said, to me, that the Montana J 45 sounds as if it were stuffed with socks as compared to the 1944 Banner J 45. I do agree with this to a point. However, the geometry of the Montana J 45 was not meant to sound the same as the "wider" braced earlier tops. I've kept and played the 1996 J 45 now for 19 years, so I must like and enjoy it. I agree the late '60s and beyond leave a bit to be desired. They had quality materials used in their builds, and are not as bad as reputation has them. My Heritage and SJ Deluxe have been gone now about 40 years. The brace angles Gibson used in the 1930s were 3 variations, I'm talking the "J"s. Gibson as of late, seems to use the same geometry on all their J models as in one size fits all. Don't get me wrong, I love Gibsons. I realize nothing new will ever sound as great as an original pre war or war time, or even beyond into the late 1950s Gibsons.

I hope I've been able to get my little point across without having it taken as an insult to Gibsons.

[bobouz]

The late 60's Heritage would not have the double x-brace of the Norlin era. They and the J-45/J-50 from 1968-1970 were actually the last Gibson square shoulder dreadnoughts before the Norlin design accoustics came out in 1971. The Heritage has solid rosewood back and sides, the J-45/J-50

has solid mahogany back and sides. Even though these guitars have the adjustable saddle that a lot of people don't care for they are nicely made

good sounding instruments. 25.5 in. scale, 1.72 nut, nice neck, they have a belly down bridge, and tortise pickguards. They don't have the large plywood bridgeplates that the Norlin designs did, they have smaller solid bridgeplates.

m

 

 

Actually, the Heritage model had solid Brazilian back & side for only the first few years of production. It then switched to laminated Brazilian in the last few years before the Norlin redesign, which sported solid East Indian rosewood in the "Heritage Custom" model of the early '70s.

 

Because the Heritage pictured above has a belly-down bridge, it is from '68 or beyond, and should have laminated Brazilian back & sides. with standard X-bracing as mentioned. Some of these can sound great. In fact, some of the double-X braced Norlins can sound great, too, as did a Heritage Custom I used to own back in the day.

[Mafy31]

I still cannot figure out what you are trying to say.

 

Thought it was because i'm french and my english is prolly not good enough, however i'm glad i'm not the only one.

[Mafy31]

Boy, I should proof read my comments more closely. They even confuse me. My 1944 Banner J 45 has an X angle top brace of 102 degrees. It is a fabulous sounding guitar. My 1996 J 45 Montana Gibson was redesigned at its re introduction, with an X angle top brace of 98 degrees, similar to the Martin "D" models. The 1996 J 45 has a completely different tone than the 1944 J 45. It has been said, to me, that the Montana J 45 sounds as if it were stuffed with socks as compared to the 1944 Banner J 45. I do agree with this to a point. However, the geometry of the Montana J 45 was not meant to sound the same as the "wider" braced earlier tops. I've kept and played the 1996 J 45 now for 19 years, so I must like and enjoy it. I agree the late '60s and beyond leave a bit to be desired. They had quality materials used in their builds, and are not as bad as reputation has them. My Heritage and SJ Deluxe have been gone now about 40 years. The brace angles Gibson used in the 1930s were 3 variations, I'm talking the "J"s. Gibson as of late, seems to use the same geometry on all their J models as in one size fits all. Don't get me wrong, I love Gibsons. I realize nothing new will ever sound as great as an original pre war or war time, or even beyond into the late 1950s Gibsons.

I hope I've been able to get my little point across without having it taken as an insult to Gibsons.

 

Ok it seems clearer now.

But finally what you mean is that an old guitar sounds better than a newer one, which is rather known.

However what do you compare ? Projection, tone? Playstyle?

 

It is probably difficult on a single example to conclude that all guitar made post-war are below what has been made before. I for one dont know really about this, but i doubt it, since usually technical features improve with time, the only "better" thing to me could be wood / lacker ageing (appart from downgrading specs like Norlin did somewhat). For instance take saddles, at this time many were made of plastic (Martin) because it was new and cool at this time, nowadays it's tusq or bone and plastic on high end instrument would be just a non sense...

[Jesse_Dylan]

Boy, I should proof read my comments more closely. They even confuse me. My 1944 Banner J 45 has an X angle top brace of 102 degrees. It is a fabulous sounding guitar. My 1996 J 45 Montana Gibson was redesigned at its re introduction, with an X angle top brace of 98 degrees, similar to the Martin "D" models. The 1996 J 45 has a completely different tone than the 1944 J 45. It has been said, to me, that the Montana J 45 sounds as if it were stuffed with socks as compared to the 1944 Banner J 45. I do agree with this to a point. However, the geometry of the Montana J 45 was not meant to sound the same as the "wider" braced earlier tops. I've kept and played the 1996 J 45 now for 19 years, so I must like and enjoy it. I agree the late '60s and beyond leave a bit to be desired. They had quality materials used in their builds, and are not as bad as reputation has them. My Heritage and SJ Deluxe have been gone now about 40 years. The brace angles Gibson used in the 1930s were 3 variations, I'm talking the "J"s. Gibson as of late, seems to use the same geometry on all their J models as in one size fits all. Don't get me wrong, I love Gibsons. I realize nothing new will ever sound as great as an original pre war or war time, or even beyond into the late 1950s Gibsons.

I hope I've been able to get my little point across without having it taken as an insult to Gibsons.

 

I did think maybe you were being misunderstood, which is sort of why I said what I said, as I felt you and I were of the same opinion that we kind of get the "socks" thing, but we like it!

 

Another thing comes to mind, some stuff I've heard about modern vs. vintage tone. Modern is more "top-driven," think Taylor... vintage is more a whole-body thing, which makes me think of my Hummingbird, deep and resonant. Whole-body resonance, too, instead of just a big-bass oomph.

[Jesse_Dylan]

For instance take saddles, at this time many were made of plastic (Martin) because it was new and cool at this time, nowadays it's tusq or bone and plastic on high end instrument would be just a non sense...

 

Yeah, for sure. Plastic was a big deal back then. And we're still using plastic most of the time as binding. "man-made ivory" ("ivoroid" "pearloid" etc) was cool at one point. :)

 

Another example is tuners. Those big Grover closed-back tuners everyone hates now--when those came out, they were considered a massive advance, a step forward. People took their vintage open-back tuners off and replaced them with the Grovers. Now people are taking the Grovers back off and replacing them with recreations of the old open-back style.