50's J-45 Original headstock "cracks"

[JuanCarlosVejar]

On 8/7/2021 at 5:38 PM, NotARockstar said:

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. 

If you think this or other kind of flaws are unthinkable on a Martin … you haven’t seen enough Martins .

 

You didn’t mention what store you purchased it from ? It would be interesting to know .

 

The entire reason of buying a guitar in a shop , playing it and going over it in the shop … is an experience that avoids these situations most of the time . 
 

As a guy who has had to custom order left handed Gibsons I can tell you their Quality Control is very good and this is not the norm .

 

JC

[zombywoof]

If I recall Martin did not start adding wings to headstocks until the early-2000s.  And to some it was a sure sign of the decline of western civilization.   I do not have a clue when Gibson began doing it but I would guess from around 1950 on.  I swear though I have seen 1970s J45s with three piece necks and correspondingly five piece headstocks.  

[bobouz]

3 hours ago, JuanCarlosVejar said:

If you think this or other kind of flaws are unthinkable on a Martin … you haven’t seen enough Martins .

JC, you beat me to it.  In this day & age, generalizations re Martin’s perfection are as much of an internet legend as generalizations re Gibson’s flaws.  Would you be okay with the binding or bridge of your guitar popping loose, or needing a neck reset within the first few years of ownership?  If not, then it would probably be wise to purchase something other than a recent Martin.  Do they still make some fine guitars?  Of course, as does Gibson.

As for finish cracks on the wings or elsewhere, remember that environmental changes during shipping, or even just within your home, can be the culprit with nitro finishes (which are not all created equal in formulation).  The lines in the headstock which you at first did not notice, may have originated as the guitar adjusted to the confines of your home.  That’s not to point blame - it just sometimes happens.  Oh & btw, my 1922 Gibson mandolin has visible wing lines while remaining structurally perfect - and it’ll be turning 100 next year!

Finally, I can think of only one guitar I’ve ever purchased new (including Martin’s) that did not need to have the nut reworked by me for a proper setup, and that was my 2015 Gibson J-50..... it’s the rare exception rather than the norm.

So am I saying you should keep the guitar?  Absolutely not.  If you paid full new price & you’re not happy, by all means return it.  Hopefully you’ll get lucky enough to find one that retains the tone you’re enjoying while also aesthetically checking all the boxes.