squeaky8562 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I found a Gibson Heritage acoustic at a garage sale and bought it for $45. From my research, I can see it's probably worth more than that. I have no clue how much this particular one would be worth given that I don't know the year it was made, and I don't know if anything has been replaced on it or if it's all original. It also has a considerable amount of damage. The side has a crack or two, and the tortoise binding has chipped away in places. The guitar feels amazing, and this is the best sounding acoustic I've ever played (which isn't saying much). What I am asking, I guess, is this: What are the woods this guitar is made of? (I would guess the sides and back are rosewood, whether they are Brazilian or Indian, I know not) What year was it made? It's value? really any information you may have, I would be interested in. serial number on back of headstock: 175681 I have attached pictures below. Thank you all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bayoubengal1954 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I found a Gibson Heritage acoustic at a garage sale and bought it for $45. From my research, I can see it's probably worth more than that. I have no clue how much this particular one would be worth given that I don't know the year it was made, and I don't know if anything has been replaced on it or if it's all original. It also has a considerable amount of damage. The side has a crack or two, and the tortoise binding has chipped away in places. The guitar feels amazing, and this is the best sounding acoustic I've ever played (which isn't saying much). What I am asking, I guess, is this: What are the woods this guitar is made of? (I would guess the sides and back are rosewood, whether they are Brazilian or Indian, I know not) What year was it made? It's value? really any information you may have, I would be interested in. serial number on back of headstock: 175681 I have attached pictures below. Thank you all According to this site:http://www.guitardaterproject.org/gibson.aspx the guitar is dated at "1964 or 1965". As to your other questions I will defer to the experts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimt Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 1965 Heritage introduction specs: 16.25" wide, square shoulder dreadnought, solid rosewood back and sides, ebony bridge with top belly and adjustable ebony saddle, elongated teardrop tortoise pickguard, tortoise binding on top and back, 25.5" scale unbound ebony fingerboard with dot inlays, no peghead ornamentation, decal "gibson" peghead logo, natural finish. 1968 Heritage specs: laminate rosewood back and sides, black pickguard, multiple bound w/b/w top and back, diamond and curlicue peghead inlay. 12 string model available. 1969 Heritage specs: bottom belly bridge. 1970 Heritage specs: non-adjustable bridge saddle. Early 1970's specs: large block fingerboard inlay, large bridge with pointed ends and curlicue inlays. 1975 Heritage specs: black outer body binding. 1982 Heritage discontinued. Ill say 69 to 70 year .. the bridge is the factor here i would think.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullmental Alpinist Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Could we see a picture of the peg head? Nice find and welcome to the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I found a Gibson Heritage acoustic at a garage sale and bought it for $45. From my research, I can see it's probably worth more than that. I imagine she's worth quite a bit more after she's fixed up a bit. $45, haha. Great find. Looks like a nice ebony fretboard. You don't see those these days. The back looks awfully light to be rosewood, which is typically pretty dark. (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Nice find I would say you could make yourself a fairly quick buck if you decided to flip it as is, personally I'd hang onto it and see if it grows on you. I'll also say that it looks like someone attempted to peel (remove) the sound hole label...the overwhelming question (if this were the case) is why? Enquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafy31 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 The back looks awfully light to be rosewood, which is typically pretty dark. (?) The back is very dark seen from inside though... So maybe it is one of the laminated versions ? Top is solid sitka spruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 I gather there is some debate about whether the early Heritage guitars had solid or laminate bodies. No matter what though the guitars with the Braz rosewood bodies generally sell for as much as double what an Indian RW body guitar will go for. Whether you keep it or sell it, at $45 you have a whole lot of wiggle room to pay for any needed repairs and still come out on the winning end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldCowboy Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Properly set up, those babies can be LOUD. Excellent bar guitars/outdoor guitars. Knew the man (recently deceased) who owned the first one that came off the line. I owned the (supposedly) last one for a while until he finally convinced me to sell it to him so he'd have the set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 Having owned an early '70s Heritage Custom with solid IR back & sides, I've always had an interest in this model. From various sources over the years, it should break down like this: 1965 to 1967 had solid Brazilian rosewood back & sides. 1968 to 1970 had laminated rosewood back & sides. 1971 denotes a complete change in the model. Belly-up bridge until 1967. Belly-down bridge '68 to '70. Mustache bridge '71 until end of run. Of course, Gibson being Gibson, anything is possible. Your guitar presents a problem, in that the serial number dates to 1965, but the bridge dates to '68 or later. The light outer color of the back does seemingly contrast sharply with the dark color of the interior, so it may very well be the later laminated version. Some Gibson serial number sequences repeated during the '60s, adding another layer of confusion. Regardless, enjoy your new-to-you guitar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 A Heritage with a $45 price tag ??? Surely the owner thought it was a J 45 JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drathbun Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 It has to be the lighting in the photo that makes the back look so... mahogany! It is obviously rosewood from the look inside. Probably laminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Your guitar presents a problem, in that the serial number dates to 1965, but the bridge dates to '68 or later. The light outer color of the back does seemingly contrast sharply with the dark color of the interior, so it may very well be the later laminated version. Some Gibson serial number sequences repeated during the '60s, adding another layer of confusion. With all due respect, I think the guitar is more likely to be a 1965, and a very early Heritage. The orange oval label(this one is very faded, but is unambiguous) was discontinued sometime in 1969. BUT, after 1964 (nominally), the phrase "union made" was added on the bottom or the orange label, and this one is not a "union made" label. It is true that this serial number was re-used in the early 1970's, and a shot of the back of the headstock would either confirm or eliminate that possibility. However, I have an unambiguous 1968 ES 335 with the "union made" label, so this label is almost certainly earlier than 1968. The only good source I have says the union made label came in in 1964, but as always, things don't happen on January 1 of any year, and I suspect the labels without union made on them would have been used up before the new labels came online. The fact that the outside and inside of the guitar are different colors is not definitive in determining whether the guitar is laminate or solid. This guitar has obviously had a lot of UV exposure--the faded label is one example--so the outside and inside surfaces could well be very different in color. We also know that the color change is probably largely limited to the finish, rather than the underlying wood surface, so the bare rosewood showing on the interior could be a totally different color from the same piece of wood on the outside. It's an interesting guitar with a lot of potential. I wouldn't do anything to it other than a clean-up, plus any essential repairs to make it playable, if those are required. Edit: I was wrong about the location of the "union made" imprint. It was on the side of the label, in a part of the label that is actually missing in this case, so ignore what I said about using that to date the guitar. Not sure that any of the characteristics are definitive, including the bridge. Since this guitar was meant as a direct competitor to Martin, the belly-down (Martin style) bridge could well date from the first year of issue, despite what some sources say. It would still be nice to have a shot of the back of the headstock, to see if it says "made in USA" and has the volute. As far as the wood goes, this grain is so generic and non-descript that it's hard to look at the inside and outside and say whether or not the grain matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerohead Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 1458440494[/url]' post='1753113']I found a Gibson Heritage acoustic at a garage sale and bought it for $45. From my research, I can see it's probably worth more than that. I have no clue how much this particular one would be worth given that I don't know the year it was made, and I don't know if anything has been replaced on it or if it's all original. It also has a considerable amount of damage. The side has a crack or two, and the tortoise binding has chipped away in places. The guitar feels amazing, and this is the best sounding acoustic I've ever played (which isn't saying much). What I am asking, I guess, is this: What are the woods this guitar is made of? (I would guess the sides and back are rosewood, whether they are Brazilian or Indian, I know not) What year was it made? It's value? really any information you may have, I would be interested in. serial number on back of headstock: 175681 I have attached pictures below. Thank you all That pic of the back doesn't even look like the same guitar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mafy31 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Looks a bit like this one below. The thread talks about different colours inside and outside for the back. Could be BRW according to this topic... Don't have the knowledge anyway to add anything to this topic (my feeling is that it is laminate though) but nick will probably solve it out for us http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/reply/1721940/3968-Gibson-Heritage#.VvBfWuLhCUk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fullmental Alpinist Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 http://theunofficial...ge#.VvBfWuLhCUk And if it has celluloid binding you might want to read this from post #9. YIKES! Now our guitars are trying to kill us.... "Nitrocellulose is inherently unstable. It is the same chemical as flash powder. Camphor is added in the manufacturing process to stabilize and plasticize it. But camphor (which gives celluloid its distinctive smell) is volatile. Depending on conditions and the original formula, the camphor will gas out, rendering the celluloid unstable. This can take 20 years or 100, but most celluloid is showing signs when it is 60 or 70 years old. There are several clues that it has gone unstable. It will shrink excessively, cracking and turning amber-colored, and it will smell like vinegar because of the acetic acid that is released. If a guitar is left closed in the case during this process, the steel parts (strings and tuners, primarily) will rust, due to the acid being released into the air. I recently replaced all the binding on a Gretsch guitar that had gone bad. This is a big problem with D'Angelico guitars, and other New york makers who used celluloid from a particular source." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squeaky8562 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Share Posted March 22, 2016 It's an interesting guitar with a lot of potential. I wouldn't do anything to it other than a clean-up, plus any essential repairs to make it playable, if those are required. so then should I not have someone repair the crack in the side? It's about 3-4 inches long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 so then should I not have someone repair the crack in the side? It's about 3-4 inches long. You need to have the guitar evaluated by a qualified guitar repair person or luthier. There's no way we can advise you without a first-hand inspection. Generally, open cracks, where the wood moves independently on either or both sides of the crack, need to be repaired. small surface cracks may or may not need repair. Crack repair is not necessarily a big deal, depending on where the cracks are and how severe they are. It's pretty unusual to have a through crack in a laminate guitar, unless there has been considerable direct impact. Examining a body crack carefully might also tell you whether it is a laminate guitar, or a solid wood guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobouz Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Not sure that any of the characteristics are definitive, including the bridge. Since this guitar was meant as a direct competitor to Martin, the belly-down (Martin style) bridge could well date from the first year of issue, despite what some sources say. Nick, imho the bridge is very significant in this case. I've never seen any stock Gibson before '68 with that particular adjustable-belly-down bridge, including multiple examples of the early Heritage. If this guitar was indeed a first version with a belly-up bridge that had been changed out, there would be evidence of it extending east & west of the bridge, approx in line with the pin holes. Instead, there's not a blemish to be seen in this region. Now, I say this knowing that we are viewing photos, which offers a poor substitute for a guitar in hand - but that bridge makes me seriously suspect that this guitar was not built in 1965, and is not the first version with solid Brazilian rosewood. Do I reserve the right to be wrong? Well of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Nick, imho the bridge is very significant in this case. I've never seen any stock Gibson before '68 with that particular adjustable-belly-down bridge, including multiple examples of the early Heritage. If this guitar was indeed a first version with a belly-up bridge that had been changed out, there would be evidence of it extending east & west of the bridge, approx in line with the pin holes. Instead, there's not a blemish to be seen in this region. Now, I say this knowing that we are viewing photos, which offers a poor substitute for a guitar in hand - but that bridge makes me seriously suspect that this guitar was not built in 1965, and is not the first version with solid Brazilian rosewood. Do I reserve the right to be wrong? Well of course! Except for the serial number issue, I would agree with you. We know it can't be any later than 1969 due to the orange label, but the only pre-1970 years with that serial number appear to be 1964-1965. Of course, we know how unreliable dating by serial number can be. I guess the only thing we can say definitively is that it is pre-1970. The bridge looks absolutely original to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el capitan Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Isn't the bridge the way it is to allow for the pickguard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Isn't the bridge the way it is to allow for the pickguard? Not really. Just imagine a conventional Gibson belly-up bridge with the saddle in the same location (which is required for the same scale length). Not much difference in clearance between the bridge and pickguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Yah - I think the guitar maker would tend to have the pick guard size, shape and placement accommodate the bridge, and not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.