I found my acoustic dream guitar. 65 Dove content

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Folks,

Check out this amazing sounding 1965 Dove:

 

As much as I respect the prewar Martin dreads ... This Dove is a maple lovers dream as far as dreads go.

 

 

I had a big grin on my face the whole time this guy was playing.

 

 

 

 

JC

Edited December 3, 2019 by JuanCarlosVejar

[j45nick]

That is a great-sounding Dove!

What's interesting is that it's a '65, but that looks very much like the wider 1 11/16" nut width neck, whereas you usually think of 1965 as having the narrower  1 9/16" nut. Maybe it was early in 1965.

Not a fan of the tune-o-matic on an acoustic, but it doesn't seem to hurt anything here.

[ratherbwalkn]

The look on your face after the first strum told the story,     Nice guitar enjoy it! Use it well!

IMHO I would go with K&K !

Edited December 3, 2019 by ratherbwalkn

[E-minor7]

This is the ultimate tribute to the tune-o-matic concept.

The sound of this beauty represents the quintessential clear'iron'-nylon-soft-dry-wood blend, which came/come from these old creatures - and the J-200s. 

Btw. no one yet has told us why Bozeman chose to feature the t-o-m  on the maple guitars only.  Where they considered over-mellow. . 

What a joyous film - one can feel the excitement oozing from the screen -  and see/hear why it happens.

Hope to receive more footage from the happy owner - he should be a member here.

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by E-minor7

[MorrisrownSal]

He is so happy! Dove Sounds so mellow. I have heard EA on this forum describe Hummingbirds as "syrupy" ... and I kinda got the reference. Well after this video I really got the reference. The dove sounds smooth and syrupy. SO much more so than one I tried in 2012 at Matt Umanovs.

 

He really noodles a lot towards the end... 7:50ish on.  good stuff.

This kid is a young musician with a nice attitude and I think his guitar sounds great.  Wish I could roll back time. Go Get Em Matthew.

[62burst]

Really.

The video captures the joy of the ngd. Happy for him.  A perfect match. Some wonderful sounds, as well.

 

Thanks for the find and share, Juan Carlos.

[SirNed]

Cool video. Glad to see his enthusiasm and the joy he's getting out of it already. 

[Holiday Hoser]

Reminds me of the joy the first time I strummed my '64 Hummingbird. Broken in just like I like 'em!

[EuroAussie]

yeah, really fab sounding Dove .. what i like about it is that it has that great balance of long sustain on the bass notes, mainly comign from the old wood tone ...and fast decay on the higher strings ... it really sounds like two guitars in one, which i think is a hallmark of any really good sounding Gibson acoustic.

oh yeah, and the guys face and mood was exactly the same when i bouht my old '69 Country Western from Matt Umanov, many moons ago ... pure bliss

Edited December 4, 2019 by EuroAussie

[Jinder]

Wow, that's the grail...stunning. 

Back in 2006 I played a '60s RI Dove at Rudy's in Manhattan. I was an absolute fool not to buy it, it's haunted me ever since. Sounded just like this one, but with less miles on it. 

[Holiday Hoser]

Notice the Nudie Suit sticker on the headstock?

[Cabarone]

Kid, you've got every right and reason to be as happy as you are...nothin' like a Dove...congrats!

[bobouz]

On ‎12‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 11:50 AM, j45nick said:

What's interesting is that it's a '65, but that looks very much like the wider 1 11/16" nut width neck, whereas you usually think of 1965 as having the narrower  1 9/16" nut. Maybe it was early in 1965.

 

Yes indeed.  I had a '65 B-25 with the wider 1-11/16" nut & early '60s neck profile.  It was one of the most comfortable necks I'd ever played, and I kept that one for over twenty years.  Don't know at what point in 1965 the switch came to a 1-9/16" nut & narrower profile, but there certainly were a number of Gibsons produced in '65 before the change occurred.

Interestingly, last month I purchased a 2006 "Early '60s LG-1 Limited Edition" (twenty made for the USA), with the added twist of X-bracing.  This little thing totally nails the neck profile & overall feel of my old B-25, more so than any other Montana Gibson I've owned or played (and that's quite a few).  I think one of the major factors that contributes to matching that '60s feel is the use of jumbo frets, which to date I haven't seen on another Montana instrument.

Re the Dove in the video, it's certainly a great example of how some of Gibson's seemingly goofy ideas (a TOM bridge borrowed from the world of electrics) could result in a guitar with such compelling tone.  Gotta love it!  

[zombywoof]

6 hours ago, bobouz said:

 

Yes indeed.  I had a '65 B-25 with the wider 1-11/16" nut & early '60s neck profile.  It was one of the most comfortable necks I'd ever played, and I kept that one for over twenty years.  Don't know at what point in 1965 the switch came to a 1-9/16" nut & narrower profile, but there certainly were a number of Gibsons produced in '65 before the change occurred.

 

Interesting as my experience has been the skimpiest neck carves  were on 1960-1962 Gibsons.  They got a bit beefier in '63 (although nowhere near as the 1950s neck carves)  but then got slammed with the narrow nut sometime in 1965.  Then again, it is just an impression.

 

[zombywoof]

I recall being told that the early Doves were lighter built to compensate for the heavier tune-o-matic bridge.  I also recall being told you had to keep an eye on the top which could warp.  At the time it made me wonder if Gibson went the same route with the J-200 in 1961 but then quickly thought better of it and added that nasty floating brace screwed into the center of the X brace.  Has anybody else heard this about those early Doves?

[Jinder]

32 minutes ago, zombywoof said:

I recall being told that the early Doves were lighter built to compensate for the heavier tune-o-matic bridge.  I also recall being told you had to keep an eye on the top which could warp.  At the time it made me wonder if Gibson went the same route with the J-200 in 1961 but then quickly thought better of it and added that nasty floating brace screwed into the center of the X brace.  Has anybody else heard this about those early Doves?

 

I've not heard about it on the Doves, but a songwriting partner of mine had a '61 SJ200 with a TOM bridge, that had some serious belly and bridge roll and had had a neck reset to deal with it, but was a fabulous sounding instrument. He didnt keep it long, but he has always been an inveterate chopper of guitars.

[bobouz]

1 hour ago, zombywoof said:

Interesting as my experience has been the skimpiest neck carves  were on 1960-1962 Gibsons.  They got a bit beefier in '63 (although nowhere near as the 1950s neck carves)  but then got slammed with the narrow nut sometime in 1965.  Then again, it is just an impression.

 

 

It's surprising how many variations you come across, compared to the conventional generalizations.  A couple of weeks ago I was in the big city & had a chance to play a '56 CF-100E, and a '51 LG-2 (birth year guitar!).  Surprisingly, both had narrow neck profiles - much narrower than what I would have expected, based on other '50s Gibsons I've had in-hand.

I'm guessing that the generalizations we typically ascribe to, which are certainly based on valid experiences, were a bit more of a moving target.  I suspect that Gibson's world of electric guitar necks encroached on acoustic construction in a more random & experimental manner than we would expect, and also that "student guitar" considerations came & went from time to time with narrower neck profiles on entry level models.

One of the more interesting variations I've found is with the often & rightfully maligned 1-9/16" necks from the mid to late '60s.  I have two of these from 1966 - one acoustic & one electric.  Both have the same neck profile, with a considerable amount of depth.  The ample amount of depth renders them quite playable for someone like me who likes narrower profiles.  But then I've also come across a number of others with significantly smaller neck profiles - especially on Casinos & ES-330s, where the lack of depth coupled with the narrow nut width renders then virtually unplayable.

And note that even back in 1922 with the advent of the adjustable truss rod, Gibson significantly narrowed the neck profile on many of their mandolins.  I guess they just liked to tinker!     

[zombywoof]

5 hours ago, bobouz said:

 

It's surprising how many variations you come across, compared to the conventional generalizations.  A couple of weeks ago I was in the big city & had a chance to play a '56 CF-100E, and a '51 LG-2 (birth year guitar!).  Surprisingly, both had narrow neck profiles - much narrower than what I would have expected, based on other '50s Gibsons I've had in-hand.

 

So you and I are the same age. 

Ain't it the truth about 1950s necks though.  The neck was the main reason I traded away my '57 CF-100E.  Much slimmer than I expected.  I just crossed my fingers that we would learn to coexist.  But then I recently  played a 1959 CF-100 (the last year they were built) and the neck was noticeably heftier.

Edited December 7, 2019 by zombywoof

[j45nick]

1 hour ago, bobouz said:

 

I

One of the more interesting variations I've found is with the often & rightfully maligned 1-9/16" necks from the mid to late '60s.  I have two of these from 1966 - one acoustic & one electric.  Both have the same neck profile, with a considerable amount of depth.  The ample amount of depth renders them quite playable for someone like me who likes narrower profiles.  But then I've also come across a number of others with significantly smaller neck profiles - especially on Casinos & ES-330s, where the lack of depth coupled with the narrow nut width renders then virtually unplayable.

And note that even back in 1922 with the advent of the adjustable truss rod, Gibson significantly narrowed the neck profile on many of their mandolins.  I guess they just liked to tinker!     

I've had two Gibsons with the 1 9/16" nut width. One was a 1968 ES 335 12-string.  That one not only had the narrow nut, but it had just about the shallowest Gibson neck I have ever played.  I couldn't figure out why that heavy extended 12-string headstock hadn't ever broken off. Ultimately, it felt more like playing a mandolin than a guitar. I eventually let it go, even through it as a beautiful, great-sounding guitar in near-perfect condition. Maybe no one could figure out how to play it.

The other is an outlier, and can scarcely be compared with most narrow-nut Gibsons.

It's my original 1948-'50 J-45, which I've had since 1966. When that guitar went to Gibson for repairs in 1968, I asked for a new fretboard, since the old one was badly rutted up through the first five frets or so.

This was a big mistake, although I had no way of knowing what would happen.

Along with re-topping the guitar (rather than re-gluing the old top), Gibson decided when replacing the fretboard to narrow the neck to 1 9/16" at the nut.  Fortunately, they did this without touching the original neck depth. The neck retains much of that wonderful feel of late-40's to early 50's Gibson acoustic necks, even though the nut width really is only 1.5625". By comparison, my "new" (and completely original except for tuner buttons, saddle, endpin, and bridgepins, which I have replaced) 1950 J-45 has a nut width of 1.70" , or just over 1 11/16", on a very similar neck profile with the same depth  as the other J-45.

The "old" (narrowed neck) J-45 also came back from Gibson with those late-60's low-profile jumbo frets, which make it play more like an electric than an acoustic.

You can switch between those two guitars without a lot of adaptation, although you are acutely aware that things are quite a bit tighter until you get well up the neck on the one with the narrow nut. 

I suspect that "old" J-45 is a guitar you would enjoy, since you prefer a narrower nut.

 

[BluesKing777]

 

Skinny anti fingerpicker stuff, Nick!

Play before you buy, wow. (Me).

So how did we arrive at the current 1.725” nut? Why not 1 3/4”? What was the thinking from presumably Ren and mates?

I can fingerpick a 1.725 fairly cleanly and carefully but only for ....The Sound, if you know what I mean. But not after playing my ‘perfect, custom ordered and built’ Cargill neck, a real breeze with just the right amount of real estate. I gave him the specs of an OM neck I like but this one is more ‘rounded’. I could get him to make me a Dove or J45 shape body with a fat neck...but it won’t sound like a Gibson - it will sound like a Cargill!

Getting back to the Dove - my recently bought 2005 Dove sounds nothing like the one on the video above! But I bought it after playing it fingerstyle and it is bright and clear, not too bassy but ‘full’ and with a fairly spacious bound neck.....

 

BluesKing777.

 

 

[zombywoof]

3 hours ago, j45nick said:

That one not only had the narrow nut, but it had just about the shallowest Gibson neck I have ever played.  I couldn't figure out why that heavy extended 12-string headstock hadn't ever broken off. Ultimately, it felt more like playing a mandolin than a guitar. I eventually let it go, even through it as a beautiful, great-sounding guitar in near-perfect condition. Maybe no one could figure out how to play it.

The other is an outlier, and can scarcely be compared with most narrow-nut Gibsons.

It's my original 1948-'50 J-45, which I've had since 1966. When that guitar went to Gibson for repairs in 1968, I asked for a new fretboard, since the old one was badly rutted up through the first five frets or so.

This was a big mistake, although I had no way of knowing what would happen.

Along with re-topping the guitar (rather than re-gluing the old top), Gibson decided when replacing the fretboard to narrow the neck to 1 9/16" at the nut.  Fortunately, they did this without touching the original neck depth. The neck retains much of that wonderful feel of late-40's to early 50's Gibson acoustic necks, even though the nut width really is only 1.5625". By comparison, my "new" (and completely original except for tuner buttons, saddle, endpin, and bridgepins, which I have replaced) 1950 J-45 has a nut width of 1.70" , or just over 1 11/16", on a very similar neck profile with the same depth  as the other J-45.

The "old" (narrowed neck) J-45 also came back from Gibson with those late-60's low-profile jumbo frets, which make it play more like an electric than an acoustic.

You can switch between those two guitars without a lot of adaptation, although you are acutely aware that things are quite a bit tighter until you get well up the neck on the one with the narrow nut. 

 

 

You have got to be talking about the B25-12.  My B45-12 has a 2" nut albeit with a neck with a similar carve to the Folksinger which I also still find a bit shallow.  Baby ain't got no back..    But that humongous headstock still looks precariously placed.

As you and I both have found out, sending a guitar to Gibson for repairs was not the best move on the planet.  Not that the repairs were not done well but if they replaced anything they used current stock parts not what had originally been on the guitar.  Then again, Martin used to overspray every guitar they got in the shop so it went home looking nice and shiny.

[j45nick]

11 minutes ago, zombywoof said:

You have got to be talking about the B25-12.  My B45-12 has a 2" nut albeit with a neck with a similar carve to the Folksinger which I also still find a bit shallow.  Baby ain't got no back..    But that humongous headstock still looks precariously placed.

As you and I both have found out, sending a guitar to Gibson for repairs was not the best move on the planet.  Not that the repairs were not done well but if they replaced anything they used current stock parts not what had originally been on the guitar.  Then again, Martin used to overspray every guitar they got in the shop so it went home looking nice and shiny.

We learned the hard way about sending guitars to Gibson or Martin for repairs in the 60's and 70's. I dropped off an 1870's 28 series parlor guitar in Nazareth in 1971 for repairs, and they sent it back as "beyond repair." Instead, a talented local luthier took it on, and did a beautiful job on it.

My 12 string was an ES 335 electric. It was an ungainly creature, but beautiful. The headstock was massively long. It fit perfectly into an Epiphone 335 clone (not sure what that model is) case, since the Epiphone also has a long headstock. That's the only guitar I've ever sold that I actually lost money on.

[bobouz]

7 hours ago, zombywoof said:

So you and I are the same age. 

 

Getting older & wiser - I hope!

Edit - Knew it was time to retire when I was always the oldest staff in the room 😂

Edited December 7, 2019 by bobouz

[E-minor7]

1 hour ago, bobouz said:

Edit - Knew it was time to retire when I was always the oldest staff in the room 😂

Don't give any from the old Board-guard any good ideas. We need vintage knowledge on these pages like a good song needs bass - and luckily we have it.

But where's fx Old Cowboy, , , and blindboygrunt (I believe he was the eldest member ever).

 

 

 

 

Djust kiddin' bbg - only tryin' to wake you up. . 

[j45nick]

9 hours ago, bobouz said:

 

Getting older & wiser - I hope!

Edit - Knew it was time to retire when I was always the oldest staff in the room 😂

I work for two different organizations, each employing 100-200 people. Between those two groups, there is one person older than me that I am aware of. He's the head of global marketing for one organization.  But the money behind that group also comes from another another guy a few years older (and a lot richer) than me.

What is this "retirement" of which you speak? Tell me more. It sounds promising...