A purely aesthetic/ethical question....

[bobouz]

Whether it's a new or vintage piece, I like to stick to reversible mods, unless there's a structural reason to be more invasive.

[Lars68]

But, what’s wrong with putting an old logo on a particular guitar just because it looks good?

 

In my opinion, what's wrong with it is that the Banner looked good to Gibson, but the correct logo would have looked even better to the majority of their customers. Of course, a few of those customers wouldn't have cared one way or the other, but to them the correct logo would most likely have been just as good. Very, very few would have been upset with the correct logo and looked for ways to have it changed to a Banner logo. So why not try to please as many customers as possible? This is my gripe with Gibson in the recent past, they didn't have the ability to anticipate the customers reactions to the choices they made. I bet there are modern J-35 owners, who knew nothing about this logo business, but they bought the guitar because they liked it. Later they got interested in the history of the model, did some research, found out about the logo and got annoyed at the inconsistency. Why risk it, when a period correct logo would have pleased most, if not all, of the customers? If you make these kinds of mistakes throughout a full product range, over a period of many years, I bet you would end up losing a substantial chunk of revenue from lost sales.

 

Personally, I think all Gibson logos look good, but they look their absolute best when placed on the appropriate guitar model. I wouldn't like the Banner logo on a Les Paul...

 

Lars

 

By the way, I would have preferred a narrow bridge, on the current J-45 Vintage, or a different logo...

[dhanners623]

You guys raise some excellent points. Much to mull.

 

I'm not sure this guitar will ever be part of the vintage/original market; I screwed that up when I had the pickguard removed and slapped on a lefty. And removed the original tuners. I can no doubt live with the headstock as it is.

 

I am, however, seriously considering de-electrifying the guitar. I'm moving back to the U.S. next month, and the places I'll be playing will be better equipped to mic an acoustic guitar. Here in Kuwait, you pretty much need a pickup because nine out of 10 soundguys have no clue how to mic an acoustic guitar.

[Dave F]

A few years ago I purchased a 1982 HD28 Custom built BRW, German spruce top built to the pre war specs. After a few years I hated the beefy neck, the bar frets and non adjustable truss rod. I know that adjusting the neck could be performed by compression with varying fret wire thickness. I had to modify it or get rid of it. After talking my luthier in to my request, he replaced the fret board with standard frets and added an adjustable rod and shaved the neck down. Now it’s one of my favorites. Look at some of the most famous guitars in the world and many of them have been altered.

I wouldn’t be concerned about a decal. Go for it.

[zombywoof]

 

I find it impossible to fathom that Gibson would intentionally incorporate details that were historically incorrect with the goal of making sure these cannot be passed off as vintage guitars. Anyone who cannot tell a J-45 Legend from a 1940's banner J-45 has no business investing in vintage guitars. You can just start with the fact that the serial number protocols are entirely different, and move on from there. Thirty seconds with a loupe examining finishes will tell you which one is 70 years old.

 

 

I bought an L-OO Legend because I wanted the characteristics of the 1930's original, but without all of the problems that most of the vintage ones I looked at came with. Granted, because I bought it used, Gibson didn't make a dime on it. But they also wouldn't have made anything if I had bought a 1937 L-OO instead of a used Legend.

 

Maybe I'm the exception, but I like "modern" guitars with vintage specs. I own a combination of "real" vintage Gibsons and very good modern re-issues, and I like both.

 

I agree that not incorporating vintage features in a guitar has nothing to do with making it easy to differentiate new from old. It is a marketing and cost decision. Gibson "reissues" tend to be strong on cosmetics but weak on structure. If you want a Gibson with bracing anything other than their standard carve and footprints such as the Legend guitars or that Special Run 1959 J45 they came out with a while back you will have to pony up some serious cash.

 

I do get the attraction of buying "new vintage." I came within a hair of buying one of the LE '59 J45's and still second guess myself for not jumping on it when I had the chance. Sweetwater is only a couple of hours away so I could have easily tried one out. But one of the reasons I was pushed past the point of no return on that '32 L1 was that no respectable guitar builder in their right mind would attempt to recreate it or any of the early 1930s Advanced L body guitars.

Edited May 17, 2019 by zombywoof

[QuestionMark]

 

I am, however, seriously considering de-electrifying the guitar. I'm moving back to the U.S. next month, and the places I'll be playing will be better equipped to mic an acoustic guitar. Here in Kuwait, you pretty much need a pickup because nine out of 10 soundguys have no clue how to mic an acoustic guitar.

 

You might want to wait until you’re back in the US before removing any pickup equipment. I am noticing more and more that sound people here are growingly forgetting how to mic an acoustic guitar with so many players now having pickups in their guitars. And, on those rare occasions when I now too occasionally go acoustic, sound men give me a very puzzled look. On most gigs I go with a pickup and bring my own sound system. Tonight, I am guest performing at my synagogue and am choosing to go acoustic at it, without my own sound system to boot. It’s a small room so I am trusting the sound person. Last time I went acoustic anywhere without my sound system, I could barely hear my own guitar over the room noise, despite my requests to the sound guy to turn up my guitar mic’s volume. Plus, there was no monitor. But, I am taking the risk of being acoustic, tonight.

 

QM aka “Jazzman” Jeff

Edited May 17, 2019 by QuestionMark

[j45nick]

A few years ago I purchased a 1982 HD28 Custom built BRW, German spruce top built to the pre war specs. After a few years I hated the beefy neck, the bar frets and non adjustable truss rod. I know that adjusting the neck could be performed by compression with varying fret wire thickness. I had to modify it or get rid of it. After talking my luthier in to my request, he replaced the fret board with standard frets and added an adjustable rod and shaved the neck down. Now it’s one of my favorites. Look at some of the most famous guitars in the world and many of them have been altered.

I wouldn’t be concerned about a decal. Go for it.

 

 

Think of the enlarged soundhole on Clarence White's D-28. That probably didn't hurt the value. Sometimes, modifications are just part of a guitar's history.

 

At the same time, I recently bought my "new" 1950 J-45 largely because it was a one-owner guitar that had never been modified or repaired in any way. The only non-original items when I got it were the bridge pins and the strings, and the strings dated to the late 1950's. I did replace the shrunken tuner buttons with Antique Acoustics repros, and the pins and busted-off endpin with Antique Acoustics black repros. The guitar got a new bone saddle after the neck re-set. I even kept the nylon nut.

 

But I will eventually get Bob Colosi to make me a set of the darkest bone pins he can to get close to the original black plastic pins, but in bone.

[MissouriPicker]

The handful of J35s I've heard  all sounded pretty-darn-good.  I have no idea in regards to any particular logo being on the headstock.  The only bad news I've heard regarding J35s is that Gibson has stopped making them (at least for now).