Historic Southern Jumbo Fail?

[Dave F]

4 hours ago, BigKahune said:

 

Did anyone watch the video Slimt posted? 
“Probably a custom order”.

I agree with Slimt - seems Gibson decided to reissue a 42 SoJo based on a custom order guitar.

Pretty much fits Gibson’s M.O.  😎
 

.

 

I had a  Centennial '34 Jumbo that was based off a custom.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040816181144/http://www.gibson.com/acoustics/1994/1934_Jumbo.html

[fortyearspickn]

2 hours ago, Lars68 said:

On a serious note, this kinds of thing could potentially kill Gibson's reputation fast.  That particular guitar should be replaced by Gibson right away so that it never reaches a customer.  

I don't think it is the wrong guitar. Everything apart from the neck is consistent with the specs for the custom shop SJ: the rosewood (evident in the close-ups), the belly-down bridge, the rosette, the through saddle, the VOS finish, the Banner headstock, and the white button tuners. No, Gibson put the wrong neck on this guitar, no doubt in my mind at least.

Lars

 

All this from a video ?   Wow.    

[BluesKing777]

 

Oh well, it is just a guitar...don’t keep it if is not right.

Lucky they don’t make airbags or such important items. Do they? 😅

I have been keeping my eye out for the new models to get delivered here to try ...something. Online sales only shop here just got 9 boxes from Gibson  acoustic. Wahoo, we think, the new LG2s could be in a box they showed on Facebook....

Nope...all older models.....4 J45 Standards, yep, four. 1 SJ200 standard. 2 G45s. The others were pre-orders for customers. But you know, 4 J45 Standards! Where are the Banner reissues and Original series and ....and....? I want a brand new LG2 with the fat neck!

Back in my box and I will go play my boring old ones! 

BluesKing777.

 

[zombywoof]

The thing about build screwups is they are going to either make you mad or endear the guitar to you more.   I tend to go with the latter.  But is also hard not to notice that the neck on the "59" LG-2 still has 20 frets.  I recall that a while back somebody here was comparing the bodies of an original 1950s LG2 to one of the Bozeman versions of the LG2 and came to the conclusion the upper bout on the newer guitar was a tad narrower than the Kalamazoo-made instrument.  

Getting back to the '42 SJ though, it looks to me that the J45 neck does not have a truss rod which would explain the reference to the fat neck.  To me that would imply the neck was fashioned after 1942.  This is one of those instances when rather than solving a mystery it only brings up more questions.  Perhaps it was simply a screwup.  Or maybe  Gibson had an order for a J45 and having no bodies ready to go slapped the neck on a leftover SJ body.  Who in 1942 or 1943 was going to even know they got a guitar with the neck from one model grafted onto another.  These things were brand spanking new models at the time.   But this is one of the reasons I think I am attracted to Gibsons.  Flaws et al just seem so  make them so "human" 

[olie]

1 hour ago, zombywoof said:

The thing about build screwups is they are going to either make you mad or endear the guitar to you more.   I tend to go with the latter.  But is also hard not to notice that the neck on the "59" LG-2 still has 20 frets.  I recall that a while back somebody here was comparing the bodies of an original 1950s LG2 to one of the Bozeman versions of the LG2 and came to the conclusion the upper bout on the newer guitar was a tad narrower than the Kalamazoo-made instrument.  

Getting back to the '42 SJ though, it looks to me that the J45 neck does not have a truss rod which would explain the reference to the fat neck.  To me that would imply the neck was fashioned after 1942.  This is one of those instances when rather than solving a mystery it only brings up more questions.  Perhaps it was simply a screwup.  Or maybe  Gibson had an order for a J45 and having no bodies ready to go slapped the neck on a leftover SJ body.  Who in 1942 or 1943 was going to even know they got a guitar with the neck from one model grafted onto another.  These things were brand spanking new models at the time.   But this is one of the reasons I think I am attracted to Gibsons.  Flaws et al just seem so  make them so "human" 

This makes as much sense as anything else mentioned . There seemed to be a lot of flying by the seat of their pants back then, so the tradition continues.

[Sgt. Pepper]

All the stuff King Henry did and one video about some wrong or faulty specs and that is gonna sink Gibson Acoustic, I don't think so.

[slimt]

9 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

All the stuff King Henry did and one video about some wrong or faulty specs and that is gonna sink Gibson Acoustic, I don't think so.

Agreed.   After all its Gibson. I havent seen to many historic models correct to the originals.  Not that it matters much 

[fortyearspickn]

44 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

All the stuff King Henry did and one video about some wrong or faulty specs and that is gonna sink Gibson Acoustic, I don't think so.

Yep.  I stopped sniffing corks when I realized they were making them out of rubber and styrofoam.  Now, I just drink the wine. 

[Lars68]

I agree that Gibsons has always been a little quirky with the details on their historical reissue type guitars. I think that is perfectly fine, as long as the customers know In advance what they are getting.  In other words, if you order a guitar online, it will show up on your doorstep with the same specs as the corresponding guitar on Gibson’s homepage.  No problem.

I believe it’s crucial in the internet age for customers to be able to trust the official published specs for each guitar model. What if you bought the guitar in the video and the top was sitka instead of adi, or the neck had different dimension compared to the specs. 

My point is that mistakes happen, but if they happen too often, a company’s reputation and eventually sales will suffer.
 

Lars

 

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Lars68

[RBSinTo]

2 hours ago, Lars68 said:

I agree that Gibsons has always been a little quirky with the details on their historical reissue type guitars. I think that is perfectly fine, as long as the customers know In advance what they are getting.  In other words, if you order a guitar online, it will show up on your doorstep with the same specs as the corresponding guitar on Gibson’s homepage.  No problem.

I believe it’s crucial in the internet age for customers to be able to trust the official published specs for each guitar model. What if you bought the guitar in the video and the top was sitka instead of adi, or the neck had different dimension compared to the specs. 

My point is that mistakes happen, but if they happen too often, a company’s reputation and eventually sales will suffer.
 

Lars

 

 

I'm really more inclined to believe that the company's reputation will suffer if their guitars are poorly made and finished, and most important, are acoustically inferior. A re-issue of a vintage guitar is just that, a re-issue, and not an original. If having identical specs is the most important reason for the purchase, then buying an original and not an re-issue should be one's aim. 

RBSinTo

[Lars68]

29 minutes ago, RBSinTo said:

I'm really more inclined to believe that the company's reputation will suffer if their guitars are poorly made and finished, and most important, are acoustically inferior. A re-issue of a vintage guitar is just that, a re-issue, and not an original. If having identical specs is the most important reason for the purchase, then buying an original and not an re-issue should be one's aim. 

RBSinTo

You are missing my point, I believe. I’m not talking about the reissue having identical specs to the original it is based on. I’m referring to the importance for the reissue to be true to the specs Gibson has currently marketed and listed on their webpage for this particular guitar model. This SJ reissue with the wrong neck (as compared to Gibson's currently listed specs) would be the exact equivalent of someone ordering a new Les Paul guitar, opening the case to find a guitar with dot inlays on the neck. How many of those would it take before word got around on all the electric guitar forums?

Lars

Edited August 15, 2020 by Lars68

[bobouz]

Totally agree with Lars on this.  Gibson can make a guitar any way they want, but advertised specs need to match the actual product sold.

Beyond that, they have and will continue to play loosely with what essentially boils down to marketing tools & terms such as:  reissue, limited edition, custom shop, special run, luthier’s choice, signature model, and so on.

 

[MissouriPicker]

I've been lost for the last few/several years on what Gibson is doing with its lineup.  I'm pretty much a purist----Birds are mahogany, AJs are rosewood, J200s are maple, J45s are mahogany, etc.  I understand the occassional hybrid model, but often Gibson strays far from what I consider its traditional path.  Today we has literally dozens of variations of each model.  Many I wouldn't even consider buying at a great price.  My AJ is Koa and shortscale.  To me it's not a traditional AJ.  BUT, it is one hell of a guitar.  Yes, I still prefer the traditional models, BUT AGAIN, lots of these hybrids/mongrels/mutts are awesome guitars.  I wish Gibson would give them a different name, but I understand the marketing side of it.  

This particular guitar in the OP's video is a real beast.  For myself, I wouldn't care if it had 19 or 20 frets.  To be honest about it, I don't think i've ever paid much attention to if a guitar was long scale or short scale.  i just kind of went by how it felt to play and how i like the sound.  I wouldn't care if this guitar in the video was supposed to be a copy from 1946 or 1938, etc.  It still sounds great...........  Besides, no one watching me perform has a clue (aside from folks like us) about what Gibson or Martin are trying to do with every variation in their models.  While I'm still drawn to the traditional models, my AJ (or whatever it really is) has convinced me that the variations can be real killers.  My guitar buying technique is a lot like my playing:  pretty basic.  If I like it and can afford it, I buy it  I'll find out all the details about it later on in here.😀

[BluesKing777]

 

Well it could be your lucky day! 😡

Gibson have a new acoustic model called the Gibson Lucky Dip. (English word for ‘luck of the draw’).

 

BluesKing777.

 

 

[zombywoof]

My take on it that Gibson is not in the business  of attempting to duplicate Old School Gibson Tone.  Ren, while capturing the characteristic Gibson voice,  put a good dose of his own personality into the guitars built under his stewardship just as every Gibson chief engineer before him had done   

[RBSinTo]

The complaints in this thread sound similar to those commonly expressed about Chinese knock-offs of various western brands of instruments: the differences between what was promised, and what was received.

And please, before anyone here gets their knickers in a twist, my observation was not meant to infer any secret connection between Gibson and the Asian counterfeit factories.

RBSinTo

 

[slimt]

44 minutes ago, zombywoof said:

My take on it that Gibson is not in the business  of attempting to duplicate Old School Gibson Tone.  Ren, while capturing the characteristic Gibson voice,  put a good dose of his own personality into the guitars built under his stewardship just as every Gibson chief engineer before him had done   

I agree.   I think he did a great job doing it as well.  

[Barstowsongs]

Not to beat a dead horse but it seems like there are two very different conversations going on here.  One concerns the choices that Gibson makes when releasing a guitar.  I fully agree that Gibson can choose to do whatever they want to do, even when designing a "historic" guitar.  Put rosewood on a Southern Jumbo if you think there's a market for it (I love it).  The second conversation is whether Gibson chose to put a "non-traditional" neck on this particular Southern Jumbo or whether this was a total screw up.

I'm inclined to believe it was a screw up.  Gibson just did quite the marketing push at NAMM and with their top-tier dealers on the historic lineup and the Southern Jumbo was often front and center.  This is a specific guitar they just released.  Sure, there's a small chance that someone from the shop in the youtube video specifically ordered one of these guitars with a different neck but that seems highly unlikely.  

It's crazy that guitar made it out the door.

 

[BluesKing777]

 

Quality control out to lunch?

Quality control people have real vintage Gibson acoustics they want to sell? So they are steering people towards buying old! 😁

For example, the brand new reissue 1942 Banner LG2 lists for $4299:

https://www.gibson.com/Guitar/ACCMH3461/1942-Banner-LG-2/Vintage-Sunburst

And here are some mainly reasonable priced 'real' various 1940s Gibson LG2s on Reverb.com at the moment:

https://reverb.com/marketplace?query=Gibson LG2&decades=194

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

 

[Dave F]

46 minutes ago, BluesKing777 said:

 

.....

For example, the brand new reissue 1942 Banner LG2 lists for $4299:

https://www.gibson.com/Guitar/ACCMH3461/1942-Banner-LG-2/Vintage-Sunburst

And here are some mainly reasonable priced 'real' various 1940s Gibson LG2s on Reverb.com at the moment:

https://reverb.com/marketplace?query=Gibson LG2&decades=194

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

 

List is $4,899.00, MAP is $4299 Street price is $2940 which isn't that bad compared to the vintage Banners.

Most of those "Banner" LG's on Reverb are through the roof ($3999, $8989, $4995, $4419, $7989, $5895,  $2995). If you get one at the right price they're worth it and they'll hold their value. The problem is finding one at the right price without any expensive issues or previous repairs that will devalue it. The used market has been a slippery slope for me. Evaluating condition, cost of repairs, effect of repairs to value and then gambling on if you like it when fixed up. Here's a few I've done and there were many more plus another two more in-progress not shown. The newer ones have not been such a gamble. If you get them for the right price you can usually break even after a few years. I have one of the new SJ's on order.

I'm happy with the '42 LG1 I picked up . I didn't have to put much into it.

 

But  I wasn't happy with the '42 J-45  which I put a few bucks in and then moved on

 

I'm currently evaluating a '52 J-45 I recently traded for

 

[BluesKing777]

 

Nice, but you missed my point, Dave!

If I was going to take a 'lucky dip' on a new LG2 Banner reissue at list of $4,299, I may as well go for the 'lucky dip' of a vintage model LG2... I have taken vintage guitars to my luthier to straighten out lots of times and they come back great usually. Sending back a guitar to Gibson on warranty because they made it wobbly is a whole other kettle of fish.....years of angst maybe....especially here in Australia.

It is a moot point anyway because CITES makes hard to useless to buy/import a Banner here and there are no new models in the country as yet - cannot import new acoustics - can only buy through a dealer here now thanks to international politics.

 

BluesKing777.

 

 

[Barstowsongs]

So, after much debate I finally brought home a new Historic Southern Jumbo today.  Imagine my surprise when I opened the case to find this:

[slimt]

7 hours ago, Barstowsongs said:

So, after much debate I finally brought home a new Historic Southern Jumbo today.  Imagine my surprise when I opened the case to find this:

I think it looks good.  But is that what you wanted?