Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

65 J-50 Luthier Problem


holeshot1982

Recommended Posts

Posted

Imaged attached below

 

So I decided to have my dad's J-50 Adj put back in good playing shape and some upgrades at well..... I had them file/crown the frets, install a bone nut, and take the adj saddle out and replace it with a bone saddle and fill in the area keeping the original bridge. Got it back and while the frets were a lot lower than I would have liked it played great and sounded better than I ever remember... I still had a slight buzz on the "G" string around the 11-13 fret. It bothered (but at the same time it didn't) and since I paid a lot of money for the work that was done I returned it and ask to see if they could work on it a bit more. Bear in mind I wasn't against a complete fret job, the filing/crowning was at their suggestion to save a little....

 

Anyway, their "fix" was to install a taller saddle and put 13's on! This created a whole lot of tension and bowed it at the sound hole.... I was not a very happy customer and in my mind they should have called me prior to doing this "fix" and let me make that call. Anyways, that was last Wednesday and they kept it to correct it. I spoke with him via email Friday about something else and explained my frustrations about it and he said he understood and that they were going to see if they can't fix the tension issue as well as the buzz... I told him I'd be just as happy if it was back the way it was before with the slight buzz......

 

My question for you guys is: Do you think they permanently wrapped the top? And what "fix" could they even do to prevent that from happening at all? This guitar is my most prized item and it was his too. Out of 6 kids I ended up with it do to my love for guitar and I'm the only one out of 6 that learned.

 

https://imgur.com/a/mV0Ci

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

I have a 57 J-50 strung with 13s. I also replaced the Adj contraption with a fixed bridge - planed the fret board and all new frets - and a neck reset. Sounds great and is very robust with the 13s on it.

I would doubt 13s are enough of a tension creator to have pulled up the top on your guitar.

That saddle looks a bit "proud". Did it raise the action beyond comfort? With that high a saddle the geometry of the guitar neck and string tension changes quite a bit, me thinks, and i am having trouble trying to picture what your tech was trying to accomplish. Does he still have the old saddle? I'd slap it back in, put 12s back on it, dial in a bit more neck relief if needed and go from there. Otherwise I think that tall a saddle is going to really put stress on your bridge.

 

The fix for avoiding the G string buzz on the 11th to 13th fret is just don't play up there. The likely cause is that the fret board extension over the body has a wee bit of hump in it that when you play that string that high, it is engaging with frets up on that hump.

Posted

A loose top brace or slipping neck block could cause that sort of thing. . .

 

Another vote here for .13's being unlikely to cause the top to warp like that. How heavy a low E got put on there?

Posted

I started thinking that going up 1 size in strings and a little bit higher on your saddle shouldn't make that big a difference in a relatively short period of time. I looked up Martin SP strings - 12's pull 160 and 13's pull 181 pounds. The amount of twist you get into the top is determined by the pull x the height of the saddle off the top. My guitar is 7/16" (set pretty low) and I can't imagine the taller saddle would be more than 1/16" higher.

So we've get 160 x 7/16 = 70 lb-in vs 181 x 8/16 = 90.5 lb-in. It means they increased the twist on the top by something like 90/70=1.28 or 28%. Its higher but is not double. While I suppose that could have created the bow you are seeing, its still hard to believe it happened quickly (as opposed to a period of months to years).

 

What's the neck like? - usually you get a pronounced bow in the neck a long time before you see a problem with the top.

 

I agree with you that they shouldn't have done it without asking, but are you sure it wasn't already leaning that way before you gave it to them? If you want to know if the top is permanently warped, let the tension off. Tune the strings down by a whole step and see if that has any effect over a couple of days. Its also possible that the guitar is very dry. I think tops of dry guitars tend to sink while the tops of over-humidified guitars usually rise. People experiment with different strings all the time. It just shouldn't cave so quickly.

 

I get how much this guitar means to you. I hope for your sake, there is no permanent damage. Good luck.

Posted

I have a 57 J-50 strung with 13s. I also replaced the Adj contraption with a fixed bridge - planed the fret board and all new frets - and a neck reset. Sounds great and is very robust with the 13s on it.

I would doubt 13s are enough of a tension creator to have pulled up the top on your guitar.

That saddle looks a bit "proud". Did it raise the action beyond comfort? With that high a saddle the geometry of the guitar neck and string tension changes quite a bit, me thinks, and i am having trouble trying to picture what your tech was trying to accomplish. Does he still have the old saddle? I'd slap it back in, put 12s back on it, dial in a bit more neck relief if needed and go from there. Otherwise I think that tall a saddle is going to really put stress on your bridge.

 

The fix for avoiding the G string buzz on the 11th to 13th fret is just don't play up there. The likely cause is that the fret board extension over the body has a wee bit of hump in it that when you play that string that high, it is engaging with frets up on that hump.

 

 

Yes it did raise the action beyond comfort level and I know he does have the old saddle, they are supposed to be putting it back on and putting 12's back on..... And yeah had I known taking it back would have resulted in this crap I never would have, it really wasn't a big deal but I thought paying 30 extra for a "set up" was crazy so it was more of a "I want my money's worth. A buzz is unacceptable" Should have just put my foot in my mouth and been thankful. lol

Posted

I started thinking that going up 1 size in strings and a little bit higher on your saddle shouldn't make that big a difference in a relatively short period of time. I looked up Martin SP strings - 12's pull 160 and 13's pull 181 pounds. The amount of twist you get into the top is determined by the pull x the height of the saddle off the top. My guitar is 7/16" (set pretty low) and I can't imagine the taller saddle would be more than 1/16" higher.

So we've get 160 x 7/16 = 70 lb-in vs 181 x 8/16 = 90.5 lb-in. It means they increased the twist on the top by something like 90/70=1.28 or 28%. Its higher but is not double. While I suppose that could have created the bow you are seeing, its still hard to believe it happened quickly (as opposed to a period of months to years).

 

What's the neck like? - usually you get a pronounced bow in the neck a long time before you see a problem with the top.

 

I agree with you that they shouldn't have done it without asking, but are you sure it wasn't already leaning that way before you gave it to them? If you want to know if the top is permanently warped, let the tension off. Tune the strings down by a whole step and see if that has any effect over a couple of days. Its also possible that the guitar is very dry. I think tops of dry guitars tend to sink while the tops of over-humidified guitars usually rise. People experiment with different strings all the time. It just shouldn't cave so quickly.

 

I get how much this guitar means to you. I hope for your sake, there is no permanent damage. Good luck.

 

 

The neck was still good, no bow or anything. I run it pretty straight on acoustics. And yeah I'm 110% sure it was leaning like that as I found a picture I just happened to take the day I dropped it off and you can see the sound hole from an angle, straight and level. I'm really hoping the saddle height/string combo is what caused it.... I think I'm more nervous about them "trying" something else without telling me.

Posted

It's usually best, in my experience, to take adjustments slowly with an older/vintage guitar. You run the risk of creating more adjustment issues that are harder to track down if too many changes are made at one time. Acoustic instruments function as an organic whole, and one change sometimes leads to the need for another. Be careful to let your guitar 'settle in' before doing too many changes/fixes at one time.

Posted

Don't worry. The way it appears to be going I think they will hone in on fine tuning it for you. It's a learning curve for your luthier too.

Posted

Oh boy, I hate to hear these stories. It sounds like they are working with you, so that is good. With those adjustable bridge conversions you can get into some tricky geometry. Most of the adjustable saddles I see (I have two and see several more per year) are raised up pretty high. Much higher than I would want an 1/8" saddle above the bridge. And very few of the '60's adjustable models I see have had neck resets. That translates in to way over-set necks from the factory. These are the kind of scenarios you run into when you try to turn them into a drop-in saddle set up.

I'm hoping it all works out in the end. I have a love/hate relationship with those skinny neck '60s Gibson's. I usually play catch and release with one every few years.

Posted

Thanks for replying guys, hopefully I'll hear from them soon. Kind of worrying me why it's taking so long. In theory they should have only need to replace the saddle with 1st one they put in and put 12's back on.

Posted

I tend to agree with 62burst that there might be something else coming into play. Just a thought but 1950s and 1960s Gibson bracing did not have a real lap joint at the intersection of the X such as Martin did. One side was continuous and the other just butts up next to it. This creates a weak joint. So something like a brace being lose or even just substantially increasing the tension without a loose brace could serve as a catalyst for top issues supported by an already weak joint. Not sure of the exact years Gibson started and stopped this, but I would first check to see if that the braces are not loose or that the ends of the brace are, in fact, even touching where they intersect which is more probable in guitar built in the 1960s as at mid-decade Gibson did away with the elaborate inspection system put in place in the late 1940s.

Posted

Based on you description, I think you have a loose brace.

 

 

Tom may be onto something here.

 

If it is a loose brace, the x-brace, or part of it, would be the likely culprit. I have one J-45 with a top from the late 60's. The x-brace has a pretty substantial glued-down muslin overlay where the braces cross, so it's hard to tell exactly how they are made. There is also a muslin strip at the end of each of the other braces where they butt against the x-brace. This detail seems to be pretty typical of Gibsons with non-scalloped bracing.

 

My L-OO Legend also has the muslin reinforcement over the x-brace intersection, but not elsewhere, since the top braces are scalloped. My modern 1943 SJ re-issue has the x-braces that are notched to each other, but no muslin reinforcement over the joint.

Posted

Tom may be onto something here.

 

If it is a loose brace, the x-brace, or part of it, would be the likely culprit. I have one J-45 with a top from the late 60's. The x-brace has a pretty substantial glued-down muslin overlay where the braces cross, so it's hard to tell exactly how they are made. There is also a muslin strip at the end of each of the other braces where they butt against the x-brace. This detail seems to be pretty typical of Gibsons with non-scalloped bracing.

 

 

I found a photo of the bracing in a 1960s Gibson J-45. The problems with at least this particular guitar can be clearly seen.

 

63_Gibson_Bracing_2.jpg

 

63_Gibson_Bracing.jpg

Posted

I found a photo of the bracing in a 1960s Gibson J-45. The problems with at least this particular guitar can be clearly seen.

 

63_Gibson_Bracing_2.jpg

 

63_Gibson_Bracing.jpg

 

 

Whoa! That's totally different from the bracing on the top that Gibson put on my '48-'50 J-45 in the Kalamazoo repair shop in 1968. Different brace shapes, these have no muslin reinforcement, and they do not appear to be tapered or shaped in any way.

 

I note also that the guitar in these pictures originally had a plastic bridge. You can tell that by the three indents in the bridgeplate from the washers under the heads of the lag screws that attached the plastic bridge.

Posted

Whoa! That's totally different from the bracing on the top that Gibson put on my '48-'50 J-45 in the Kalamazoo repair shop in 1968. Different brace shapes, these have no muslin reinforcement, and they do not appear to be tapered or shaped in any way.

 

I note also that the guitar in these pictures originally had a plastic bridge. You can tell that by the three indents in the bridgeplate from the washers under the heads of the lag screws that attached the plastic bridge.

 

I am assuming the stiffened muslin, if it had been there, had been removed in the pics. My '42 J-50 has the glued muslin but my '57 CF-100E does not. The top bracing in the J-50 is tall with a very gradual taper. Looks like it was carved with a pen knife. I cannot make the joint out because of all the glued fabric. The bracing in the CF-100 is different than any I have seen in a later 1950s or 1960s Gibson. As best as I can describe it, it is shaped like an octagon with the bottom half removed. But the X intersection is a butt joint or whatever you call it. Again, I do not have a clue as to what year Gibson started and ended this feature.

Posted

Something seems very wonky with the guitar in Zomby's photos.

 

1966 was the last year of the plastic bridge. I just checked the bracing on my '66 Epi Cortez (B-25 clone), which is fully original, including the plastic bridge. The X-braces are cleanly cut and tapered to a point, as are the braces directly behind the bridgeplate. All of these braces have muslin at their junction points.

 

Why would a B-25/Cortez have superior workmanship to a J-45? It seems unlikely. It is generally agreed that after McCarty left in '66, build quality suffered significantly throughout the rest of the decade. But to be a Gibson with a plastic bridge, the guitar in the photos would have to be a '66 or earlier, and the braces shown are far cruder than anything I've come across from that era.

 

Edit: In looking further at the photos, the two braces behind the bridgplate look like they might be original, while the other braces appear to be very sloppy replacements.

Posted

It is generally agreed that after McCarty left in '66, build quality suffered significantly throughout the rest of the decade. .

 

The photos were from the UMGF.

 

Remember though that McCarty was only phoning it in in '65. Arnie Berlin wanted McCarty gone from the day he took over CMI from his father.

Posted

The photos were from the UMGF.

It would have been helpful if the nice folks at UMGF could have shared the true story of that guitar.

 

I'd almost put money on the instrument being damaged, and then replacing the braces became a DIY project for someone.

Posted

OK, so how can I check these braces on mine? The Luthier still has it which does have me a little concerned as it's been over a week now. I emailed this morning for a status update. I guess the longer they have it, the more concerned I am they will try some radical fix and it make it worse...... In the event that it is a brace issue. Is it possible with the proper knowledge luthier that his could be fixed without screwing up the guitar?

 

My thoughts at this point is to immediately send it to Glacier Instruments in Nashville. It might cost me a ton of money and they might have it for 2 months but I'd rather it be done right.

Posted

OK, so how can I check these braces on mine? The Luthier still has it which does have me a little concerned as it's been over a week now. I emailed this morning for a status update. I guess the longer they have it, the more concerned I am they will try some radical fix and it make it worse...... In the event that it is a brace issue. Is it possible with the proper knowledge luthier that his could be fixed without screwing up the guitar?

 

My thoughts at this point is to immediately send it to Glacier Instruments in Nashville. It might cost me a ton of money and they might have it for 2 months but I'd rather it be done right.

 

Brace repair should be within the scope of repairs for anyone competent who represents themselves either as a luthier or as specializing in the repair of acoustic guitars, rather than simply representing themselves as a technician doing basic set-ups such as nut, saddle, fret, and trussrod adjustments.

 

You'll have to decide if the guy working on your guitar meets those criteria. It's easy enough to ask him to check the top for loose or broken braces.

Posted

Brace repair should be within the scope of repairs for anyone competent who represents themselves either as a luthier or as specializing in the repair of acoustic guitars, rather than simply representing themselves as a technician doing basic set-ups such as nut, saddle, fret, and trussrod adjustments.

 

You'll have to decide if the guy working on your guitar meets those criteria. It's easy enough to ask him to check the top for loose or broken braces.

 

We'll see, got a reply saying they were going to do a few "tests" and if all looked good, would call me. I'm real curious what these tests are. As they mentioned the first time they had it "String tension test" they called it.... I'm trying to have faith all be OK

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...