50's J-45 Original headstock "cracks"

[NotARockstar]

Hello!

First time Gibson owner here, and new to the forum. Two weeks ago I received a new 50's Original J-45. Unfortunately because of where I live I had no choice but to purchase online. Upon receiving it I got it under a bright shop light and inspected every inch of it and found nothing other than that somebody had played it rather enthusiastically for a few minutes with a pick - I figured maybe at the factory - not something I'm gonna return a guitar over :)

Alas, just a couple of days ago I noticed something that is either new or that I somehow didn't notice before despite putting on new strings - there are very obvious lines where the headstock was glued together as if that process wasn't done well/fully dried before applying the finish.  It basically looks like a crack which may or may not be only in the finish. It runs straight the full length of the headstock on both sides and is about .11" from the tuning peg holes. I've done my best to capture this in the photo, but it is not easy to take a picture of.

And before someone says it: No, it is not the reflection of the string. It's very clear in the right light and you can feel this line with your finger.

To me this clearly and obviously a manufacturer defect whether functional (down the road) or simply aesthetic and I'll be contacting the store I bought from to arrange a return. But should I refund or exchange? I wanted to get some perspective from experienced Gibson folks: Is this just what you get with Gibsons? Is it common? What would you do? Do you think I could expect a better example on an exchange or should I hold out for in-person inspection (I'd have to drive 4-6hrs one way)? Are the infamous Gibson quality control issues true after all?

Aside from a poorly cut nut and some tuning instability the guitar is great and I feel I definitely made the right choice on model (sound I wanted, love the neck). But not a great intro to the brand.

 

[62burst]

Do an internet search for "Gibson headstock wings" - you will most likely find that this is a Gibson thing. Yes, one solid piece of wood could be used, but that would make the guitar more expensive. Yes, polyurethane could be used in place of nitrocellulose lacquer, but your guitar would not sound like a Gibson. The finish is usually pretty heavy on the headstock of contemporary Gibsons. . . the appearance of what you are seeing could be lessened if desired, especially after some time has passed. If you had to.

Getting a photo of the nut and string break at the saddle is  a good thing to do before moving forward with a purchase. If it still bugs you, the nut can eventually be changed.

How does the guitar sound? 

 

[NotARockstar]

Thanks for this! I knew this was the construction method but didn't know what they were called. It helps a lot to get a sense of how prevalent this is.

To be honest, it simply didn't occur to me that a less than perfect finish would be the norm on a $2700 guitar, thus thinking it might indicate a more serious issue. If this were a Martin (also nitro) this type of finish flaw would be unthinkable.

Yeah, I was expecting a more, uh, "organic" construction and don't consider this a bad thing, but was concerned about resale value. If this is "normal" for Gibsons, assuming I can find someone who has also drunk the kool-aid, then that's less of a  problem. Maybe I can market it as deserving a premium for the "genuine Gibson vibe". 

On the less than perfect setup: sure, I can fix the nut and do whatever else it needs and that really doesn't bother me except on principle at this price point.

All this said, yes... it has that thing and that's what matters in the end. There is something in the voicing of this guitar that is pretty magical. I do the singer-songwriter thing and have struggled for years to get my #1 to work well with my singing whereas this J-45 was just instantly right.

Alas, that's not gonna stop me, at least until bonding is complete, from feeling that it doesn't represent particularly good value. It's like spending large $ at a fine restaurant and yeah the food is great but the waiter is condescending and your fork was dirty. 

[egoidealmusic]

I recently had to send back the exact same model for a differnt reason (tuning pegs were pulling out) and had thought I'd notice a similar thing but didn't think too much of it.  Had to send it back to Gibson repair shop and they decided that they were going to replace instead of repair, and one of the things they cited was the fact that the wings were delaminating (it looked EXACTLY like your photo), so I'm wondering if they had a bad batch.  I've been without my guitar for 5+ weeks now as things are on back order, but I'd defintely encourage you to contact customer service as this might be an issue.  I honestly didn't care too much about it as it seemed more cosmetic, but it makes me wonder if the wood used on the necks wasn't fully cured or something.

[RvrDxn]

I have a 50s LG-2 and the line of the wing attachments are visible on the front of the headstock if you angle it a certain way. Not as predominant as in your photo, but they are definitely there. It’s still smooth to the touch and doesn’t appear to be separating. Let’s hope it stays that way.

[Larsongs]

Are J200’s different than SJ200’s? Isn’t one a Jumbo & the other a Super Jumbo? It appears yours is all Solid wood but it’s vague on the one with Walnut Back & Sides?

[Boyd]

Have had a 2020 60's J-50 Original from the same "family" for a couple months now. Never noticed this before, but now that I look closely I can see something similar on my headstock. It is not quite so long or obvious, but it's definitely there. Looking at my 2008 J-50, there is no visible line on the front of the headstock, but the "wings" are quite noticeable on the back because the wood grain is completely different. Interestingly, the wood grain on the "wings" matches quite well on the back of the 2020 headstock so the joint is more noticeable on the front than the back.

I dont know... while this is a bit disappointing, unless it actually starts to separate, it doesn't bother me too much. It is certainly going to be trivial when compared to the damage I do myself! 

[fortyearspickn]

5 hours ago, Larsongs said:

Are J200’s different than SJ200’s? Isn’t one a Jumbo & the other a Super Jumbo? It appears yours is all Solid wood but it’s vague on the one with Walnut Back & Sides?

Lars,  Same-o, Same-o.  Just different names used at different times by different people.   Maybe the "J200" crowd doesn't want to confuse their guits with the SJ  Southern Jumbo. 

NaR -   Sounds like you're not gonna bond with your Dirty Fork.  I'd contact the seller, send them a photo and ask for a replacement if they have one in stock and a refund if not.   EgoIdeal sent his back for a completely different reason - as he noted, and his photo showed, the tuning posts were lifting.  The slightly visible joint on many gibsons (I can only see mine because of the different grains in the 2 pieces of wood) is, I believe, because the final sanding didn't take off enough surface to get the 2 pieces flush.  Nitro won't fill it in, because it slowly sinks in.   I think you're uneven wings is purely cometic, but you might have a higher probability of zero defects when buying on line if you get a Martin or a Taylor. 

 

[fortyearspickn]

As an additional thought,  Gibson sends their acoustics out with the action high, so it's easier to adjust down.  So many get the seller or a local tech to do a set up to fine tune it to your preference.  Not sure whether the 'poorly cut nut' you mentioned in your second comment is cosmetic or the height and the grooves are not acceptable.   You said you were going to contact the store for a replacement or refund.  I'd point out the scratch/pick marks as well and, as I said - ask for a replacement if they have a New In Box one available, and if not, a refund.  Ask if they will set it up for you.  I've gotten mine done when buying online for no add'l charge.   May be you'll be happier with a Martin or a Taylor.   

[zombywoof]

1 hour ago, fortyearspickn said:

Lars,  Same-o, Same-o.  Just different names used at different times by different people.   Maybe the "J200" crowd doesn't want to confuse their guits with the SJ  Southern Jumbo. 

 

 

Gibson officially changed the model designation to J200 shortly after WWII although it continued to be described in catalogs as the Super Jumbo 200..  But the change was probably brought about by not wanting to confuse the guitar with the SJ which, of course, was not available when the SJ-200 model hit the market.

Oddly it is the  SJ name which was changed probably due to popular usage.  The official name of the model was Southerner Jumbo.  It was either Norlin or possibly even Bozeman which officially started going with the shortened model name. 

[zombywoof]

The added cost to a guitar with a one piece neck with no wings  is material waste. That is something Gibson would know about as low production and high scrap cost plagued them until around 1950 when they  re-tooled and re-organized.   

I recall somebody though once responding to a comment that the wings made the guitar look "cheap" by saying yeah but they only make a guitar sound bad when you are not playing it.   If anything the glue joint is stronger than the wood.  

As noted, Gibson did everything they could to make the wings not so noticeable by going with either a thick opaque black lacquer on the headstock or in some cases a veneer.  I always wondered if the "stinger" was not an attempt to better hide the seam on the back of the headstock.   I swear though as I now went and looked at my guitars, if there is a seam on any headstock I cannot see it from the front, top or the back.  Then again, these are older guitars and I do not have a clue when Gibson might have changed how they built them.

 

[Larsongs]

Man, I love those J200’s & SJ200’s!!! Thanks for the GASS!!!

[Boyd]

9 hours ago, Larsongs said:

Are J200’s different than SJ200’s? Isn’t one a Jumbo & the other a Super Jumbo? It appears yours is all Solid wood but it’s vague on the one with Walnut Back & Sides?

I'm having a hard time understanding how the J-200 is relevant to this thread and don't see any pictures of them. Did you mean to respond to another thread? Maybe this one? 

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Boyd

[62burst]

1 hour ago, zombywoof said:

 As noted, Gibson did everything they could to make the wings not so noticeable by going with either a thick opaque black lacquer on the headstock or in some cases a veneer. 

Ok, I just went and looked at a bunch of Gibsons laying around here, and found what looked to be veneers on the headstock (or, as Martin puts it, the "headplate". . . that'll avoid the wings showing through {from the front, anyway} ) on the Hummingbirds, AJ, '200, and even the forgotten stepchild, the WM has a black veneer, albeit in a matte finish. 

Certainly looks like a veneer in this Bozeman factory tour at the 50 second mark:

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by 62burst

[Boyd]

Good catch! Now that I look again at my 2008 J-50, it appears to have a black veneer on the front of the headstock, which explains why I don't see the "wings". Probably also explains why they made no effort to match the wood grain, which is very obvious on the back. My 2020 60's Original J-50 does not have the veneer, which of course is more historically correct for a period re-issue. 

[62burst]

Also-  as EgoIdeal had mentioned, relative to the back orders that Gibson, and many others are struggling to get out the door, it has been mentioned on other threads that guitars may've been rushed out the door to meet production demands. One thing that nitro finishes prefer is patience. If the guitar could only sit long enough to let the finish cure a little bit, then . . . 

Edited August 8, 2021 by 62burst

[gearbasher]

A photo of a 1950 J-50 headstock.

1950 j-50

It appears there was no veneer on them in the 50s. I would guess to keep it close to original, there would be none on the new ones. Hence, the "wings" showing through.

Photo of a new 50s J-45 for sale. Looks like the same thing on the bass side of the headstock.

50s J-45 headstock wildwireguitars.com

Edited August 8, 2021 by gearbasher

[Larsongs]

1 hour ago, Boyd said:

I'm having a hard time understanding how the J-200 is relevant to this thread and don't see any pictures of them. Did you mean to respond to another thread? Maybe this one? 

 

I did mean for it to be in that other Thread… Not intended. Back to your Thread….

[Boyd]

I have a real 1965 J-50 and it does not appear to have any veneer on the front. The headstock edges are somewhat rounded however, and the black coating goes right around so that it appears to have thickness. But it's chipped off in some spots and just looks like the same wood underneath. You cannot see any lines at all from the "wings" on the front. On the back, the grain is very different which makes it pretty obvious.

 

[RBSinTo]

22 hours ago, zombywoof said:

The added cost to a guitar with a one piece neck with no wings  is material waste. That is something Gibson would know about as low production and high scrap cost plagued them until around 1950 when they  re-tooled and re-organized.........

 

 

Zombywoof,

The total width of the two wings amounts to less than 1/4", so while I understand the material waste arguement, knowing that a good glue joint is stronger than the original wood, why not make the necks from even narrower pieces glued together so that after they are fashioned, the seam runs front to back from the center of the headstock down to the point where the neck meets the body?

Even less material waste, no need to glue on snd finish headstock wing joints, and the necks would likely be stronger and less susceptable to any warping.

Just wondering.

RBSinTo

 

 

[fortyearspickn]

Or they could use wood chips and saw dust mixed with epoxy.    

There's nothing structurally wrong with the OP guitar, based on the photo. 

[NotARockstar]

Really appreciate all the responses - this helps me a lot in deciding how to proceed. And have confidence that it's strictly aesthetic. Given that, the only reason to return for me is practical: resale value. In a perfect world I'd go and play 10 examples and pick by ear (not aesthetics, I actually don't care if it's a keeper), but since I can't do that I'd prefer to have a guitar I can pass on at a better price should I find an example of this model that sounds or plays better for me - I can't afford to do otherwise and this was always my plan with this one.

Gearbasher gave me the idea to hunt down photos and sure enough, you do see this in a few, but it's nowhere near as bad.

The nut issue I only mention because come on, really? At this price point you can't cut a nut properly? To be specific: action is fine (will take it down a hair later) - saddle and nut height + truss rod are all decent so in terms of playability it's very close to my preferences with no obvious fret issues. The retailer in question is high volume and would not have made changes but they did inspect it.
It's that the high e slot is not cut cleanly resulting in a plunky sound. b & g are also sticky but some graphite cured that. It's an easy fix - I generally do all my own work.

It's interesting to hear, essentially, "Gibson may not be for you" over a quality control/quality of construction issue. I can see that to live with this brand you have to learn to think about these things differently. I've already determined a J-45 is very much is for me. It plays and sounds like nothing else I own and would pick up another if I end up returning this one.

So again, thanks for the perspective and info. Really helps! At this point I'm inclined to let it slide and pretend it gives the guitar character, but I'm going to contact Gibson support with (better) photos and see what they say.

[Boyd]

17 minutes ago, NotARockstar said:

I can see that to live with this brand you have to learn to think about these things differently.

I would argue that you have to learn NOT to think about these things. Just play the guitar and enjoy it. The hypothetical resale value of my guitars is something that never even crosses my mind. 

[zombywoof]

20 minutes ago, RBSinTo said:

Zombywoof,

The total width of the two wings amounts to less than 1/4", so while I understand the material waste arguement, knowing that a good glue joint is stronger than the original wood, why not make the necks from even narrower pieces glued together so that after they are fashioned, the seam runs front to back from the center of the headstock down to the point where the neck meets the body?

Even less material waste, no need to glue on snd finish headstock wing joints, and the necks would likely be stronger and less susceptable to any warping.

Just wondering.

RBSinTo

 

 

But you are not talking about headstock width alone.  Any additional width  over and above that of a fingerboard is waste which adds up to a lot of scrap when multiplied hundreds and hundreds of times.  And that is a major drag on the bottom line of any company.   You also have to throw in the fact that rough lumber is sold in 1/4" intervals so from the get go it cost more to go with a piece thick enough to include a full headstock.  I have been told the difference in cost is the reason Martin finally went with headstock wings.

But looking at my 1920, 1932 and 1942 Gibsons the headstocks at their widest point are approximately (you cannot use precise and Gibson in the same sentence)  2 3/4" wide.  So a full 1" wider then the fingerboard to which you would have to add maybe another 1/4".  When you get to my wife's 1960 J200  the headstock clocks in at 3 1/2" at its widest point.  Looking at the top edge of the headstock  with a strong light I can now see the wings which have a slightly darker color to them than the rest of the headstock.  The joint, however, is flawless.

[gearbasher]

1 hour ago, NotARockstar said:

 

Gearbasher gave me the idea to hunt down photos and sure enough, you do see this in a few, but it's nowhere near as bad.

 

If I'm correct in assuming  the 50s models were built without a headstock veneer, I think they will all show the small cracks eventually as the nitro cures and temp and humidity get to them. If it really bothers you then my advice is to buy a different model and stay away from the 50s models.

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by gearbasher