jedzep Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 The headstock shape? The (ugly) double pickguard. What's your assessment and theoretical high bid? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1949-Gibson-J-50-J-45-Acoustic-Guitar-/371520287141?hash=item568055b1a5:g:3gkAAOSwCQNWeGbK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I'll play. My vote would have this one struggling to match the value of a nice contemporary J-50. Cracks, mods, fretboard and bridge plate wear reduce serviceability, and absence of logo reduces the G-beater status factor. Described honestly enough by a seller who has lived with the guitar & all of it's idiosyncrasies. Could be a viable distraction for the "right" kind of person who might otherwise be readying to purchase a late model J-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I'm a bit mystified on the untampered headstock if it's a 1949. FON does suggest 1949, but I'm not sure how definitive the FON numbering is in this period. I thought 1951 was the year they went to the untampered headstock. I might take a flyer on it if the price is right--say, less than $2k, but I'd really want to look at it first, since it's a bit rode hard and put away wet. Still probably needs some repairs, and you need to get rid of those pickguards. Logo and tuners are easy to replace. Looks like it is getting towards re-fret time too, and a board plane. Maybe $1200-1500 at absolute most in its current condition. It's definitely a player, rather than a collectible, and it depends on how it plays and sounds. Necks in that period are really nice, even with the 1 11/16" nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliasphobias Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Yup, I would want to play it first because it is definitely a player. Three things that bother me: 1) '49 should have had the tapered headstock. I don't guess it matters much in that condition, just sayin'. 2) "don't worry the cracks have been fixed". I would worry - the top center seam looks open. 3) I always figure what is underneath an oversized/double pickguard is worse than the offending item. As Nick said logo and tuners child play. I would be in at $1000 or under (not that I will be). G'luck if you decide to jump in jedzep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedzep Posted December 31, 2015 Author Share Posted December 31, 2015 I've had nothing but semi-dumb luck buying old guitars on Ebay or otherwise sight unseen. I'm not looking to break that streak. An old J45 is on my wish list down the path, though, but I still have trouble with the reality that I'll have to let go of my L0 to pull it off. Good point about what those p'guards may be hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I believe that while the tapered headstock is phased out on electrics in early 1952 it is still found on acoustics as late as 1954 although I gather its use in these years was not consistent. Cracks have never scared me so I would not worry a whole lot about what the pickguards made be hiding. The comment about the "medium" action could indicate a neck rest is in the guitar's future so that should be taken into consideration. It all depends on what you mean by medium and how much wiggle room you have the saddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Well, if you enjoy playing Guitar CSI, Gibson is a good place to scratch that itch. Another possibility on the non-tapered neck may be that the seller and those who have inspected the guitar may have read the neck stamp incorrectly; what is being reported as a "5" in the 3rd of his batch number (2859) looks more like an 8. Not critical, but an error such as this allows for the possibility that the first alphanumeric is not a "2" at all, but rather a "Z", which would make it a 1952, and help explain the non-tapered neck. This only works if the last number of the neck stamp was not seen at all. This number could be a "9", and it's barely visible thru the clarified glue run, and the goo used to attach a once-present battery for the now-removed electricals: The double pickguard was popular with some back then. Here's a nice looking double tort guard on a '47/'48 J-45 currently on eBay: Any real or perceived effect of the double p/g on tone seems moot at this point, but it does double your chances for the dreaded pickguard crack, from which the above guitar did not escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 The double pickguard was popular with some back then. They were very popular during the early and mid-1960s. It just seemed so folkie and hence the Gibson F-25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Well, if you enjoy playing Guitar CSI, Gibson is a good place to scratch that itch. Another possibility on the non-tapered neck may be that the seller and those who have inspected the guitar may have read the neck stamp incorrectly; what is being reported as a "5" in the 3rd of his batch number (2859) looks more like an 8. Not critical, but allows for the possibility that the first alphanumeric is not a "2" at all, but rather a "Z", which would make it a 1952, and help explain the non-tapered neck. This only works if the last number of the neck stamp was not seen at all. This number could be a "9", and it's barely visible thru the clarified glue run, and the goo used to attach a once-present battery for the now-removed electricals: The double pickguard was popular with some back then. Here's a nice looking double tort guard on a '47/'48 J-45 currently on eBay: Any real or perceived effect of the double p/g on tone seems moot at this point, but it does double your chances for the dreaded pickguard crack, from which the above guitar did not escape. Good analysis, and logical conclusions that might be verified with a close first-hand examination. Of particular interest would be a close look at the FON. In the subject guitar, there is a big gap between the digit to the left of the vertical glue run, and the two-digit rack number. Looking at my own J-45 from 1948-1950 (ambiguous FON, and physical characteristics pretty much identical in the period), the analogous gap between the batch/rack numbers is the equivalent of only one digit in width. They must have used an ink stamp with rotating wheels in this period, and the gap in the numbers may be the blank position on the rotating dial, or maybe just a blank wheel to create a gap in the stamp. In this period, they seem to have shifted to a fully-printed FON, rather than a hand-written rack number in red pencil as seems to have been done earlier. The FON in mine is printed perfectly clearly, with maybe a little too much ink on the stamp. But it's easy to read, and unambiguous, especially since Gibson also stamped it on the back of the headstock when I sent the guitar back to the factory for repairs in 1968. Apparently, they did that whenever a guitar came in for repairs during that period. I would say that without a tapered headstock, this has to be 1952 or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave F Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Here's a '53 and '51 marking for reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
62burst Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Well, thanks Nick for considering the possibility, and to Dave, for the neck block stamp of that '53, illustrating perfect Gibson inconsistency, right down to the spacing of digits in the f.o.n.; that second "1" really seems to be floating all by itself. Like Nick, I was also looking for some sort of uniform distance between the batch number and the 1 or 2 digit number within that batch. It does raise the question of just how were these stampings made (?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.