Question about Gibson B45 12N?

[Barry Hill]

Hi,

 

There is a local music store selling a Gibson B45 12N.

The tone is AMAZING, but one thing that I thought was odd is that you can only play up to the 12th fret on this guitar.

 

Why did Gibson make guitars with such short necks?

I'm also seeing this on an LG-12 that's been for sale in my area for a while now.

 

Forgive me if this is a dumb question. It's just that I have never seen a guitar neck this short before.

 

Thanks.

[j45nick]

I'm pretty sure the 12-fret neck replaced the 14-fret neck sometime around 1970. The likely reason was structural. A 12-string places a huge bending load on the neck compared to a six-string, and the longer the neck lever (and the heavier the strings used, and the higher the pitch the guitar is tuned to), the greater the bending moment.

 

Gibson 12's have always been a bit problematic. The great early B-45 12's (early to mid 1960's) were generally lightly built, and structurally vulnerable to operator abuse. I'm pretty sure that by the time Gibson went to the 12-fret neck, the guitars were much more heavily built, both for better and for worse. Maybe better for longevity, but usually not so good for tone and volume.

 

Most 12-string players I know are unlikely to venture above the 12th fret. By to time you get that far up, the neck is pretty wide as well.

[zombywoof]

 

Gibson 12's have always been a bit problematic. The great early B-45 12's (early to mid 1960's) were generally lightly built, and structurally vulnerable to operator abuse. I'm pretty sure that by the time Gibson went to the 12-fret neck, the guitars were much more heavily built, both for better and for worse. Maybe better for longevity, but usually not so good for tone and volume.

 

 

 

The first B45-12s had the same bracing as Gibson's 6 string jumbos. Gibson went to the heavier build on the guitar in late 1964. In my opinion the only ones to buy are those made before then.

[j45nick]

The first B45-12s had the same bracing as Gibson's 6 string jumbos. Gibson went to the heavier build on the guitar in late 1964. In my opinion the only ones to buy are those made before then.

 

 

Wouldn't the build have gotten even heavier when they went to the full-blown Norlin characteristics around 1970 or so? I think the B-45 12 was in production through most of the 1970's.

 

And yes, if you could find a good early one in sound structural condition, that would be the best by far. The question is how much playing it would stand up to after almost 60 years. Chances are it's been "overstrung" or "over-tuned" at some point in its life. You would certainly want to go over it pretty thoroughly before taking it on the racetrack.

 

Not sure if we have a perfect timeline on these guitars, as they seemed to go through a lot of changes in the first few years, particularly.

 

Having the same top bracing as a J-45 or early 'bird would be death with all that string tension, whether you had a trap tail or a pin bridge, unless you were smart enough to use lighter strings and tune it down a step. What are the odds of that happening consistently over 50 years of ownership?

 

I suppose if you want a vintage 12, one of the mid-60's Guild battle tanks would be a safer bet, although they've always sounded a bit choked to me compared to an early B-45 12.

[zombywoof]

Wouldn't the build have gotten even heavier when they went to the full-blown Norlin characteristics around 1970 or so? I think the B-45 12 was in production through most of the 1970's.

 

And yes, if you could find a good early one in sound structural condition, that would be the best by far. The question is how much playing it would stand up to after almost 60 years. Chances are it's been "overstrung" or "over-tuned" at some point in its life. You would certainly want to go over it pretty thoroughly before taking it on the racetrack.

 

Not sure if we have a perfect timeline on these guitars, as they seemed to go through a lot of changes in the first few years, particularly.

 

Having the same top bracing as a J-45 or early 'bird would be death with all that string tension, whether you had a trap tail or a pin bridge, unless you were smart enough to use lighter strings and tune it down a step. What are the odds of that happening consistently over 50 years of ownership?

 

 

 

I owned a very early 1963 B45-12N which was in perfect condition. Not even any more bellying than normal. But while I was shopping around, I also looked at a '64 on which the top had sunk. I think that the early guitars with trapeze tailpieces held up better than those with fixed pin bridges. But Gibson used so many different bridge configurations on those guitars through the years it is hard to figure what what was going on in any given year.

 

As Gibson had already added a second X brace alongside the existing one before 1965 I am not sure if they also added the X brace below the bridge in the 1970s. I do assume though that starting in 1968 the X bracing would have gotten heavier as it did in all Gibsons.

 

And yeah, tuning down is pretty much mandatory. I went the Ry Cooder route stringing with heavier gauge strings and tuning down to C#. But one of the reasons 12 string guitars built in the 1920s and 1930s are so highly valued is not a whole lot of them have survived. With my late 1930s Regal 12 string I not only keep it tuned down but had the spruce bridge plate replaced with a maple one. Definitely a survival trumps originality thing.