Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Johnt

Centennial 1934 Jumbo

Recommended Posts

Guys I bought one of these from “gay Parie” a couple of years ago.Sitka top , Rosewood elsewhere , detachable pick guard.

 

My question is simple...is this basically same size as a J 45 ?

 

I have J45 but it’s Norlin and doesn’t tell me much

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back I thought I would document my guitars.

I didn't quite finish it but here's my 1994 Centennial 1934 Jumbo at the bottom of the list compared to a few other jumbo bodied Gibsons.

The J45 TV, 53 J50 and AJ Gold are no longer with us.

 

dims%204-30-2017_zpsgd0quxrg.jpg

 

Edited by Dave F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back I thought I would document my guitars.

I didn't quite finish it but here's my 1994 Centennial 1934 Jumbo at the bottom of the list compared to a few other jumbo bodied Gibsons.

The J45 TV, 53 J50 and AJ Gold are no longer with us.

 

dims%204-30-2017_zpsgd0quxrg.jpg

 

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you

Johnt note also how the bridge is the AJ style, rectangular and higher on the bass side. I have #75 and one thing I find interesting is that when my "non-Gibson" friends come over to play this is the one of my five Gibsons they gravitate to.

Edited by J185cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnt note also how the bridge is the AJ style, rectangular and higher on the bass side. I have #75 and one thing I find interesting is that when my "non-Gibson" friends come over to play this is the one of my five Gibsons they gravitate to.

 

Thank you mate

I hadn’t really noticed the bridge. I’ve just packed most of the guitars away as we are moving so I’m not sure what # I have

 

I will take a look later

 

They certainly make a fine playing guitar. Do you have the pickguard fixed?

Mines off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have the original raised pick guard. Removed it for awhile but ended up putting it back on. It makes a good conversation piece if nothing else. Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our Montana connection members brought up the fact that during that time frame, some of the guitars were sprayed on the inside. These Jumbos were. I was surprised when I looked inside.

B7A0CD9C-F4FA-45A2-A6C7-5C73BBED18F5_zps8hhxz2s4.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our Montana connection members brought up the fact that during that time frame, some of the guitars were sprayed on the inside. These Jumbos were. I was surprised when I looked inside.

B7A0CD9C-F4FA-45A2-A6C7-5C73BBED18F5_zps8hhxz2s4.jpg

 

 

Interesting

I will take a look

Wonder if my Centennial SB J200 is sprayed too

 

Both guitars are inaccessible for s few days but I will check

 

Wonder what purpose was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting

I will take a look

Wonder if my Centennial SB J200 is sprayed too

 

Both guitars are inaccessible for s few days but I will check

 

Wonder what purpose was?

 

You have to look at the time frame when this decision was made. There was very little knowledge of how to care for a solid wood guitar and the "humidifier" industry was in it's infancy. This was a problem for Gibson as well as Taylor and Martin. Gibson's GM. was trying to slow down the frequency of warranty repair as it was cutting into the bottom line significantly. He was a good bean counter but knew nothing of guitars and wood. He reasoned that if he could stop the guitars from drying out and cracking he could solve the problem. Against very strong opposition from Ren Ferguson and others he decided to "seal" the tops completely.

 

Ren knew that this would stop the guitars from ageing naturally and affect the tone of the instrument for years to come. The GM won the battle and Gibson started spraying all the inside of the tops before they were attached to the body of the guitar. Knowing this would be a huge sort of "Norlinesk" business decision they decided not to make it public. They just did it.

 

Martin and Taylor knew this was not a viable solution to the problem and they embarked on a policy of educating the public on the problem of humidification. Of course this was the best solution and the buying public, gadget lovers at heart, embraced the problem and started to search out humidifiers for their prized instruments.

 

The production problems with spraying the tops soon made it evident this top sealing was not a viable solution and Gibson soon dropped it with no fanfare. They joined the Martin & Taylor solution of educating the public.

 

The big question is.... Are these sealed guitars compromised in any way? I really don't think so as far as their structure is concerned but.... They will not age naturally and the tone your top produces will sound the same for many years to come. Not a problem as you bought the guitar for how it sounds now.

 

I was the one who reported on this issue a while back as I thought it would be worthy of some frank discussion but I was wrong. No one seemed to care one way or the other.

 

Back in the 90's this forum had some very vocal and informed contributors that knew the construction of acoustic guitars and they would have been happy to voice their educated positions. There were folks like RAR, Space pup, guitarstrumer, Jerry K, J-185 for me, and others to numerous to mention. Most of these folks joined the "Homecoming" and learned what a guitar was all about. Now all this forum is good for is folks playing music on Gibson's competitors guitars. I can only guess this is why so many folks have left this forum for greener pastures. It is what it is.

 

let the discussion begin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to look at the time frame when this decision was made. There was very little knowledge of how to care for a solid wood guitar and the "humidifier" industry was in it's infancy. This was a problem for Gibson as well as Taylor and Martin. Gibson's GM. was trying to slow down the frequency of warranty repair as it was cutting into the bottom line significantly. He was a good bean counter but knew nothing of guitars and wood. He reasoned that if he could stop the guitars from drying out and cracking he could solve the problem. Against very strong opposition from Ren Ferguson and others he decided to "seal" the tops completely.

 

Ren knew that this would stop the guitars from ageing naturally and affect the tone of the instrument for years to come. The GM won the battle and Gibson started spraying all the inside of the tops before they were attached to the body of the guitar. Knowing this would be a huge sort of "Norlinesk" business decision they decided not to make it public. They just did it.

 

Martin and Taylor knew this was not a viable solution to the problem and they embarked on a policy of educating the public on the problem of humidification. Of course this was the best solution and the buying public, gadget lovers at heart, embraced the problem and started to search out humidifiers for their prized instruments.

 

The production problems with spraying the tops soon made it evident this top sealing was not a viable solution and Gibson soon dropped it with no fanfare. They joined the Martin & Taylor solution of educating the public.

 

The big question is.... Are these sealed guitars compromised in any way? I really don't think so as far as their structure is concerned but.... They will not age naturally and the tone your top produces will sound the same for many years to come. Not a problem as you bought the guitar for how it sounds now.

 

I was the one who reported on this issue a while back as I thought it would be worthy of some frank discussion but I was wrong. No one seemed to care one way or the other.

 

Back in the 90's this forum had some very vocal and informed contributors that knew the construction of acoustic guitars and they would have been happy to voice their educated positions. There were folks like RAR, Space pup, guitarstrumer, Jerry K, J-185 for me, and others to numerous to mention. Most of these folks joined the "Homecoming" and learned what a guitar was all about. Now all this forum is good for is folks playing music on Gibson's competitors guitars. I can only guess this is why so many folks have left this forum for greener pastures. It is what it is.

 

let the discussion begin

 

 

Mate, thank you for your insight.

Fascinating.

 

When I can get to my guitars I will take a look at the J200.

 

Yea it’s a shame about the forum it has helped me , as you have yourself, many times since I joined.

 

You told me all about my J200 12 string, which I have just sold ( bloody arthritis!)

 

The “greener pastures” are often littered with rubbish and dogs sh1t in my opinion. The Facebook pages are full of people playing “my take” on classic songs rather than talking about the guitars . Typical example is “Gibson Acoustic Guitars”

 

I’ve quit the 12 string group as I git so sick of a certain player plying his stuff

 

So like others I lurk here from time to time and know that if I have a question, then this is the place for it.

 

So returning from my mini rant......thank you Hogeye😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now all this forum is good for is folks playing music on Gibson's competitors guitars.

 

Now Hogeye you know this is not true. You have an apparently vast knowledge of the history of Gibsons' acoustic production (out of Montana at least) and your input on the subject is welcome and appreciated, but when you drop comments such as this one I can't help but think it's just to stir the pot.........completely out of the context of the thread. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......must be a duck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, I haven't yet had a chance to get out the old dental mirror and check the under side of the top on mine but I am going to assume it too is finished. Got me to thinking, when I first got this guitar I was a little disappointed. To me it sounded really stiff and a little "flat" for a Rosewood guitar. I might have sold it except that it was a gift from my wife so that was not an option. Now I'm glad I didn't. I swear it took about three years but it finally opened and mellowed and now has its own voice. I find this guitar has a very strong yet clear mid range with clear and pleasant treble. The bass is more thumpy than I expect from rosewood still. Just curious how you and Johnt would characterize yours? Wonder how much if any that top contributed to my experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, I haven't yet had a chance to get out the old dental mirror and check the under side of the top on mine but I am going to assume it too is finished. Got me to thinking, when I first got this guitar I was a little disappointed. To me it sounded really stiff and a little "flat" for a Rosewood guitar. I might have sold it except that it was a gift from my wife so that was not an option. Now I'm glad I didn't. I swear it took about three years but it finally opened and mellowed and now has its own voice. I find this guitar has a very strong yet clear mid range with clear and pleasant treble. The bass is more thumpy than I expect from rosewood still. Just curious how you and Johnt would characterize yours? Wonder how much if any that top contributed to my experience?

 

 

Don't draw to many conclusions about the guitar until you have inspected it. If it is indeed sealed don't give it another thought. Keep it humidified and enjoy a wonderful gift from your lady. You are a very lucky guy in many respects.

 

There are a lot of strange little details about the guitars that come up from time to time and when they do I will be happy to contribute any knowledge I have about them. I post here to help keep the record straight. Nothing more.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Hogeye you know this is not true. You have an apparently vast knowledge of the history of Gibsons' acoustic production (out of Montana at least) and your input on the subject is welcome and appreciated, but when you drop comments such as this one I can't help but think it's just to stir the pot.........completely out of the context of the thread. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......must be a duck.

 

Quack!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, I haven't yet had a chance to get out the old dental mirror and check the under side of the top on mine but I am going to assume it too is finished. Got me to thinking, when I first got this guitar I was a little disappointed. To me it sounded really stiff and a little "flat" for a Rosewood guitar. I might have sold it except that it was a gift from my wife so that was not an option. Now I'm glad I didn't. I swear it took about three years but it finally opened and mellowed and now has its own voice. I find this guitar has a very strong yet clear mid range with clear and pleasant treble. The bass is more thumpy than I expect from rosewood still. Just curious how you and Johnt would characterize yours? Wonder how much if any that top contributed to my experience?

When I bought this one used, I thought it sounded like it was full of wet socks. I've heard this before from Gibson RW bodies when the guitar is over humidified.

I kept it in the case for a couple years just opening it to check the humidipaks. After this it sounded great.

I just checked my Century of Progress Centennial from '94. Looks like it was sealed too.

 

D3C56112-04D4-47EC-80F1-4BE87B7A9055_zps0mbry0qe.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...