220volt Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 So the deal is no go for now. I offered couple of hundred less because bridge is not original, case is not original and another early 1965 in even better condition actually sold on eBay for $2050. http://www.ebay.com/itm/GIBSON-ACOUSTIC-GUITAR-1965-COUNTRY-WESTERN-MODEL-/321997295435?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEDWX%3AIT&nma=true&si=ziN76and6uQ84A66TFmpuDXTuT8%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc So he did not want to budge so I asked him how much lower can he go and he hasn't responded. Oh well, I'll consider it lost for now. I might post in classifieds if someone has early 1965. Thanks for all of your advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 220Volt, Just a heads up about the case with this guitar. It's what was common for 60's Martin dreadnoughts. It's an easy sell at $250 -$350 ! Now the one that sold for $2050 has that black paint on both sides of the neck heel on the body. I've seen that before and I believe this is done to hide some kind of cosmetic damage. Often due to the laminated sides on these being sanded through the top layer of veneer. Yes Gibson did use laminated sides on some models in the 60's ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 220Volt, Just a heads up about the case with this guitar. It's what was common for 60's Martin dreadnoughts. It's an easy sell at $250 -$350 ! Now the one that sold for $2050 has that black paint on both sides of the neck heel on the body. I've seen that before and I believe this is done to hide some kind of cosmetic damage. Often due to the laminated sides on these being sanded through the top layer of veneer. Yes Gibson did use laminated sides on some models in the 60's ! Wow, did not know that. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 So the seller got back to me today and did not want to go as low as I asked but pretty much we settled in the middle, so I bought it. They are shipping it on Monday :) Sound clips and photos coming. Actually, what I will probably do is make a video comparing my heavily modded early 1970 D-28 and this Gibby. Should be very interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 Hey good for you man, I can't wait to hear what you think of it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 They are shipping it on Monday :) Glad it happened - so exciting. Look forward to the report and video. The way it'll counterpoint the 28 is such a trip. Your thoughts will be appreciated. The CW may seem fragile in comparison. It'll have weak sides not found in the Mart. Once you get over that, the real values of the old Gibson will unfold its soul. I'll begin to shine. My 5 Yen anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 14, 2016 Author Share Posted February 14, 2016 Thanks. So I guess there is no way to find which month in 1965 this guitar was made? Several sources I found indeed date this early 1965, but it would be awesome if I could find a month too. But I know it might be impossible for all pre 1977 Gibson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 Gibby has finally arrived today. Cleaned and restrung. Sound truly wonderful, Has that dry vintage Americana sound I was really looking for to compliment my D-28. It sounds surprising good with both the thick and medium picks. Where as my D-28 likes thicker picks. I will try to get video comparison between D28 and Gibson soon. In the meantime I want to replace tuners and save the original ones. Does anyone know if these will be direct fit? It says Country Western 1956-1964. Mine is early 1965, but for the life of me I cannot find anything post 1964. http://www.wdmusic.com/3_on_side_kluson_nickel_plastic.html Here's photo of my tuners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Gibby has finally arrived today. Cleaned and restrung. Sound truly wonderful, Just great - so pleased to hear the sound'n'feel is there. CONGRATULATIONS Regarding the tuners I'm almost positive - can't say for certain. Really look forward to the video. Be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullmental Alpinist Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Oh, Man! No video of you during the unboxing??? Well, we'll have to live without it. But we do want pictures and sound files. Congratulations on your new guitar. And may you bond well with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 Just great - so pleased to hear the sound'n'feel is there. CONGRATULATIONS Regarding the tuners I'm almost positive - can't say for certain. Really look forward to the video. Be happy Great. Thanks. I'll order those and see what happens. I will fit them one way or the other :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 Oh, Man! No video of you during the unboxing??? Well, we'll have to live without it. But we do want pictures and sound files. Congratulations on your new guitar. And may you bond well with each other. haha, no video but I did sent these to my wife at work :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Great. Thanks. I'll order those and see what happens. I will fit them one way or the other :) What's wrong with the tuners on the guitar now, and why would you replace them? The new ones you are looking at seem prtty close to correct, but what you may find is that the new stringpost bushings have a slightly larger OD, which would require reaming the holes in the headstock. However, if the old/new stringpost diameters are the same, you can just leave the original bushings in place in the headstock, and use them. As a general rule, avoid irreversible modifications to the guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Thanks. So I guess there is no way to find which month in 1965 this guitar was made? Several sources I found indeed date this early 1965, but it would be awesome if I could find a month too. But I know it might be impossible for all pre 1977 Gibson Yes those tuners will fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 What's wrong with the tuners on the guitar now, and why would you replace them? The new ones you are looking at seem prtty close to correct, but what you may find is that the new stringpost bushings have a slightly larger OD, which would require reaming the holes in the headstock. However, if the old/new stringpost diameters are the same, you can just leave the original bushings in place in the headstock, and use them. As a general rule, avoid irreversible modifications to the guitar. Nothing wrong per se, but I can't do 12:1 gear ratio. If I need to ream holes I'll probably won't do it then. I reamed holes on my martin but that thing is modified to the hilt anyway so it did not matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Nothing wrong per se, but I can't do 12:1 gear ratio. If I need to ream holes I'll probably won't do it then. I reamed holes on my martin but that thing is modified to the hilt anyway so it did not matter. From the specs, the stringpost diameter on the new tuners should be identical to the originals, so you could just leave the original bushings in place in the headstock, Some of these replacement tuners have shorter stringposts than the originals, but that usually does not cause a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 From the specs, the stringpost diameter on the new tuners should be identical to the originals, so you could just leave the original bushings in place in the headstock, Some of these replacement tuners have shorter stringposts than the originals, but that usually does not cause a problem. That's great to know. I actually like shorter stringposts, because it makes the string break angle from the nut to the post higher. Lot of lutheirs think that contributes to the tone. Especially that wizard Dan Lashborook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 That's great to know. I actually like shorter stringposts, because it makes the string break angle from the nut to the post higher. Lot of lutheirs think that contributes to the tone. Especially that wizard Dan Lashborook With a longer stringpost, you can simply leave enough slack in the string to wind the turns all the way down to the headstock bushing. You end up with the same break angle as with a shorter post, and just another couple of windings on the longer post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 With a longer stringpost, you can simply leave enough slack in the string to wind the turns all the way down to the headstock bushing. You end up with the same break angle as with a shorter post, and just another couple of windings on the longer post. Ahh, so the hole in the post is at the same height so it doesn't change the break angle. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
220volt Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 The CW may seem fragile in comparison. It'll have weak sides not found in the Mart. [/size][/font] ha, as soon as I picked up CW form its case I immediately remembered this post. CW does seem like an eggshell compared to my Martin which is like a tank. However, when I tap the CW's top, it resonates much better and deeper than my Martin. And it has more woof than Martin believe it or not. Martin is bit louder and more metallic (not harsh or annoying, but good metallic) sounding and cuts through lot better. Definitely two different beasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Ahh, so the hole in the post is at the same height so it doesn't change the break angle. Gotcha. With the shorter post, the hole will be lower(closer to the face of the headstock). The break angle is determined by the height on the post where the string exits the lowest turn and heads towards the nut. not the height on the stringpost where the hole is. The shorter stringposts make this easier, but you can get the same effect with more string windings on the post. It just takes a little bit more time winding strings when you change them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldCowboy Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 A discussion of near battle-like proportions carried on years ago between those of us who believed/still believe that multiple string post windings are an asset to tone and those who believed/still believe the opposite. Keep an eye open to how different folks string their guitars and you'll identify the preference immediately. Everyone seemed to have their rationales, some of which even made sense. The more acute break over the nut slot always seemed one of the most sensible to me. In any event, vintage CW Gibsons are among the best out there. Congratulations and enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.