The new ‘60s Original J45…any hand on experience?

[Jinder]

Hi all,

            After a year of struggling with increasingly irritating Carpal Tunnel Syndrome symptoms in my fretting hand, I’ve recently had a breakthrough-when playing my ‘67 J45, skinny neck and all, I have NO CTS symptoms in my left hand whatsoever!

I’ve just finished a 2.5hr show which featured probably the best performance guitar wise I’ve given for the last 18mths. I can feel what I’m doing rather than just pain and burning tingling at last. 
 

The only issue with this is that my ‘67 is too old and valuable for me to want to use it as a gig hack four nights a week. I take it out for the occasional theatre/arts centre gig but otherwise it stays at home for recording etc.

All of this has made me curious about the newish Original ‘60s J45 model. Apparently the neck carve and width is “period correct” and 1.68” at the nut. Has anyone played one? I’d love some real world feedback if at all possible as I’m considering moving some kit on and investing in one as a “daily driver” if the neck profile is kinder to my hands as per my ‘67.

Any thoughts and advice gratefully received!

[fortyearspickn]

I know necks to nothing about necks, and the half dozen profiles that are normally referred to:  C. D. Baseball, etc.    But I'll kick this of by throwing out tout 2 thoughts.  

One, are you sure it was the neck profile of tour '67 that favored your CTS ?   After 18 months - you must have played it before -  same result?   Question is -  maybe something else affected your good fortune.  What did you play the day/night before?   Second -   if you satisfy yourself through scientific deduction   - that it is definitely the neck profile of your '67 J45, maybe you can make a mold and give it to a luthier to carve a neck that is exactly the same.  Obviously not starting with a 4' x 4' hunk of lumber - but an existing neck that is chunkier all round and could be fit on your guitar body of choice.  Maybe you already have an acoustic you love that a luthier could modify the neck on.     Granted, buying a new '' 60s original would be easier - but might not work, and cost more.  G'Luck. 

[Boyd]

5 hours ago, Jinder said:

All of this has made me curious about the newish Original ‘60s J45 model. Apparently the neck carve and width is “period correct” and 1.68” at the nut. Has anyone played one? I’d love some real world feedback if at all possible as I’m considering moving some kit on and investing in one as a “daily driver” if the neck profile is kinder to my hands as per my ‘67.

I've had a 60's Original J-50 (should be the same except the finish) since June 2021 and love it. I also have a real 1965 J-50 ADJ and like it too - but I actually like the new one better (probably because the old one could use some work). Anyway, the necks are completely different so you may be disappointed if you want the same kind of skinny neck as a real 60's J-45. The nut width is "period correct" but the carve is absolutely NOTHING like my real 1965 guitar. If somebody said the carve was "period correct" then I'd question whether they have actually compared them (unless they are talking about a different "period" than mine). I also have a 2008 J-50 (like a J-45 standard) and that neck is much more similar to the 60's original.

I measured the circumference of the necks to compare, since that is what you wrap your hand around. At the nut, the 60's original circumference was about 1/4" less than the 2008 J-50. But at the third fret, the necks were exactly the same from there on up. So, you get a thinner neck right at the top, but it gets fat very quickly as you go up the scale. Anyway, take my word for it, you would never confuse a 60's original neck for a real 1960's neck. At first I was a bit disappointed by that, but I liked the sound and feel so much that I got over it quickly. 

Over the summer the bridge started separating from the body on mine, which I'm not happy with, but the bolts for the ADJ bridge are certainly going to hold it in place so I'm not too worried. This could be my fault for playing it outside and letting it sit on a stand on some very warm, humid sunny days. That's when it happened. 😐

[Jinder]

54 minutes ago, fortyearspickn said:

I know necks to nothing about necks, and the half dozen profiles that are normally referred to:  C. D. Baseball, etc.    But I'll kick this of by throwing out tout 2 thoughts.  

One, are you sure it was the neck profile of tour '67 that favored your CTS ?   After 18 months - you must have played it before -  same result?   Question is -  maybe something else affected your good fortune.  What did you play the day/night before?   Second -   if you satisfy yourself through scientific deduction   - that it is definitely the neck profile of your '67 J45, maybe you can make a mold and give it to a luthier to carve a neck that is exactly the same.  Obviously not starting with a 4' x 4' hunk of lumber - but an existing neck that is chunkier all round and could be fit on your guitar body of choice.  Maybe you already have an acoustic you love that a luthier could modify the neck on.     Granted, buying a new '' 60s original would be easier - but might not work, and cost more.  G'Luck. 

Thanks Forty! All good thoughts. I’ve not taken the ‘67 out for a show since pre-Covid before today. I’ve been using my AJ and SJ200 for live work and my Dove for recording-all 25.5” scale and 1.725” nut width with the standard (ie Bozeman era) neck profile.

Until today, since live work began again circa 18mths ago (with the brief break again for the last lockdown last year) my CTS has grown progressively worse in playing situations to the point that I’m hit with intense tingling and burning sensations and a lack of touch sensitivity in my fretting hand within 15mins or so of picking the guitar up. I find it a bit bizarre that switching to the skinny neck on my ‘67 has made it go away so completely…I’m wondering if it has manifested as an RSI from playing the same neck profiles/scale lengths all the time? 
 

I really need to take advice on it from a physio I think. I just found today’s pain free gig such a joy that I want them all to be like that! CTS has been a problem for me since 2014 and whilst it has been fully diagnosed via nerve conduction tests and I have been trying to convince my doctor that I should have it operated on, the NHS have now changed their policy on carpal trench surgery and will only carry it out if the CTS is so advanced that incipient paralysis is a risk…it’s far too costly a procedure to go private in the UK so I’m stuck with trying to work around it at the moment which is less than ideal to say the least!

[zombywoof]

The thing is what attracts you to the '67 is what causes me to keep them at arm's length - the nut width and neck carve.  So, I do not have a ton of experience with them. The 1 11/16" nut on the 60s original though will be a tad wider than what I suppose is a 1 9/16" nut on your '67.  Wildwood gives the depth of the neck on a 60s Original at the 1st fret in the .81" to '82" area.  That would not be very far off from a 1960s slim taper neck carve.  

Edited September 11, 2022 by zombywoof

[Jinder]

6 minutes ago, Boyd said:

I've had a 60's Original J-50 (should be the same except the finish) since June 2021 and love it. I also have a real 1965 J-50 ADJ and like it too - but I actually like the new one better (probably because the old one could use some work). Anyway, the necks are completely different so you may be disappointed if you want the same kind of skinny neck as a real 60's J-45. The nut width is "period correct" but the carve is absolutely NOTHING like my real 1965 guitar. If somebody said the carve was "period correct" then I'd question whether they have actually compared them (unless they are talking about a different "period" than mine). I also have a 2008 J-50 (like a J-45 standard) and that neck is much more similar to the 60's original.

I measured the circumference of the necks to compare, since that is what you wrap your hand around. At the nut, the 60's original circumference was about 1/4" less than the 2008 J-50. But at the third fret, the necks were exactly the same from there on up. So, you get a thinner neck right at the top, but it gets fat very quickly as you go up the scale. Anyway, take my word for it, you would never confuse a 60's original neck for a real 1960's neck. At first I was a bit disappointed by that, but I liked the sound and feel so much that I got over it quickly. 

Over the summer the bridge started separating from the body on mine, which I'm not happy with, but the bolts for the ADJ bridge are certainly going to hold it in place so I'm not too worried. This could be my fault for playing it outside and letting it sit on a stand on some very warm, humid sunny days. That's when it happened. 😐

Thanks Boyd, really interesting stuff re the necks. I think I need to get one in my hands to feel how different it is to my ‘67. I have played a few ‘60s Gibsons which had massively varied neck carves so I’m not sure what they’ve used as a median basis for the ‘60s Original neck! 
 

How is the sound of the ‘60s Original? I’ve always liked adjustable bridges, despite them being controversial! I converted my ‘67 from Adj to fixed bridge and it made no difference at all to it sonically. Wish I’d left the Adj bridge in there!

[Jinder]

3 minutes ago, zombywoof said:

The thing is what attracts you to the '67 is what causes me to keep them at arm's length - the nut width and neck carve.  So, I do not have a ton of experience with them. The 1 11/16" nut on the 60s original though will be a tad wider than what I suppose is a 1 9/16" nut on your '67.  Wildwood gives the depth of the neck on a 60s Original at the 1st fret in the .81" to '82" area.  That would not be very far off from a 1960s slim taper neck carve.  

Thanks Zomb, that’s very interesting info. I don’t think 1 11/16” would be a problem, the other neck I found very CTS friendly in the past was the 1 11/16” neck on my old D18GE prototype. I could play that for hours with no problems. Sold it during the Covid layoff to pay some bills…should have defaulted on ‘em and kept the guitar in hindsight!!

[zombywoof]

What you might do is to remove the strings on your '67 and slap a set of calipers on the nut and then on the neck at the 1st and 12th fret,  You can then go over to the Wildwood site which is one of the few which provides specs on neck depth and compare yours to the 60s Original J45s they are offering.  While it may come off as a bit anal, obsessive compulsive or whatever, I do this because it gives me some kind of a frame of reference when buying a guitar I have not held in my sweaty little hands before buying.  Although I have only ever purchased one guitar sight unseen, I pretty much figured that this one was going to be the last instrument I would ever spend any real money on, so I wanted to get it right and at least I knew the feel of the neck and the string spacing at the bridge would be well within my comfort zone.  If you are going to get a chance to check out the guitar up close and personal though just skip all of this and have fun.

Edited September 11, 2022 by zombywoof

[Boyd]

11 hours ago, zombywoof said:

While it may come off as a bit anal, obsessive compulsive or whatever

Yeah, it does to me, I would never go to all that trouble. But if it helps you then there's nothing wrong with it.

11 hours ago, Jinder said:

How is the sound of the ‘60s Original? I’ve always liked adjustable bridges, despite them being controversial! I converted my ‘67 from Adj to fixed bridge and it made no difference at all to it sonically. Wish I’d left the Adj bridge in there!

I really like the sound. It is brighter than my 2008 J-50. But I wouldn't try to describe it beyond that, the efforts I see around here to describe the way guitars sound usually strike me as ridiculous.

Regarding the neck, the nut width on the 60's original is the same as my real 1965 J-50. But the carve is totally different. And I mean TOTALLY. The new guitar is much fatter. If I was blindfolded, not sure if I could tell the difference between my 2008 J-50 and the new 60's original J-50. But it would be very easy to tell the difference from the real 1965 J-50.

To summarize, I'd describe the neck on the 60's J-45/J-50 as very similar to a contemporary J-45 Standard, but a bit more narrow at the first and second frets. From the third fret on up, it is basically the same. I like that just fine, but if you are hoping for a much skinnier neck then you may be disappointed. Anybody who says the carve is "period correct" must be comparing it to a different period than my real 1965 J-50.

Yeah, you should really try one in person.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Boyd

[zombywoof]

2 hours ago, Boyd said:

Yeah, it does to me, I would never go to all that trouble. But if it helps you then there's nothing wrong with it.

I really like the sound. It is brighter than my 2008 J-50. But I wouldn't try to describe it beyond that, the efforts I see around here to describe the way guitars sound usually strike me as ridiculous.

Regarding the neck, the nut width on the 60's original is the same as my real 1965 J-50. But the carve is totally different. And I mean TOTALLY. The new guitar is much fatter. If I was blindfolded, not sure if I could tell the difference between my 2008 J-50 and the new 60's original J-50. But it would be very easy to tell the difference between the real 1965 J-50.

To summarize, I'd describe the neck on the 60's J-45/J-50 as very similar to a contemporary J-45 Standard, but a bit more narrow at the first and second frets. From the third fret on up, it is basically the same. I like that just fine, but if you are hoping for a much skinnier neck then you may be disappointed. Anybody who says the carve is "period correct" must be comparing it to a different period than my real 1965 J-50.

Yeah, you should really try one in person.

Not all that much trouble.  I take the measurements whenever I change strings.  But I can tell you without a second's hesitation what nut width, neck carve and string spacing at the bridge I find the comfiest.   Admittedly, though I have also become less flexible in what works best for me over the years because like Jinder I have found certain specs work better for my aging hands than others,  Unlike Jinder, I have simply found I get along better with a fatter neck than a skimpier one.  So, if I was looking at buying one of the Historic Line guitars I would start with the '34 Jumbo simply because of the neck.

When it comes to "period correctness" I would say this is normally not one of Bozeman's strong points.  So, comparing say my '42 J50 to their modern take on a '42 J45 is not going to be the best way of evaluating a guitar I can think of.  Not that Bozeman cannot come out with a dead bang copy of a guitar from a past catalog but rather that they have their own ideas as to what sounds and feels best. Going back to that '34 Jumbo, I know going into it I will be getting guitar which is structurally a very different beast than the originals. No different than the 60s Original J45, the '36 J35 or '57 J200.  But if I asked my Magic 8 Ball how good my chances were of getting a guitar I would love and have a blast playing it would in all likelihood tell me "You can count on it."  So, in the end not a good or a bad thing just different.

Edited September 11, 2022 by zombywoof

[Sgt. Pepper]

15 hours ago, Jinder said:

Thanks Zomb, that’s very interesting info. I don’t think 1 11/16” would be a problem, the other neck I found very CTS friendly in the past was the 1 11/16” neck on my old D18GE prototype. I could play that for hours with no problems. Sold it during the Covid layoff to pay some bills…should have defaulted on ‘em and kept the guitar in hindsight!!

I played one D-18GE, and it was one of the best sounding Martins I ever strummed. It was priced out of my league, so I got a D-18 Std instead.

[Boyd]

Just getting back to basics.... the thread title asked if "anyone had hands on experience" with a new 60's original J-45. I own one and have played it for over a year.  I really like it. AFAIK, nobody else who has responded has personal experience with this guitar, although there have certainly been some interesting off-topic diversions.

The neck on the 60's Original is very similar to a contemporary J-45 Standard but a little smaller at the first and second frets. So I think we could just forget about how big a neck is supposed to be on a real 1960's J-45. If you want a guitar with a much slimmer neck than a modern J-45, you will probably be disappointed by the 60's Original.  

But of course, the only way you'll know if you like it will be to try one.

[zombywoof]

True enough I have never owned either a 60s Original or a J45 Standard.  But I know from the get-go I cannot make peace with the neck carve so there is no money in it.  At the same time evaluating the feel of the neck going by one instrument is not going to tell you the whole story,   Not all say slim taper necks are created equal. They will vary with regard to how much they taper starting where the board meets the neck as well as the depth at the 1st fret and down near the heel.  

This brings me back to the reason I measure necks.  It takes the guesswork and opinions of others about what constitutes a slim, medium or fat neck out of it giving me a shot of evaluating a neck based on my frame of reference.  When I got involved in the long-distance purchase of my used Fairbanks, I knew before I said "let's do it" the neck was a round shoulder C carve with a 1 3/4" nut with a depth of .93" at the 1st fret and 1.25" near the heel.  Pretty much what I would call a mid-century modern Gibson neck carve with a wider nut.  I also knew it would work for me because those specs were very close to the necks a couple of my Harmonys sport.  

Edited September 12, 2022 by zombywoof

[Gasman]

Hey Jinder I have a very new 60's J-45 Original - That I like alot.  I have bounced between Martin and Gibson's forever. This is just my opinion but the good Gibson's acoustics I have owned always seem to be easier on my hands than the Martin's.  My Gibson has the 1 11/16 nut width which is what my older D-28 had - But the Gibson was always easier to play - for me  (not large hands). I had a new Gibson Hummingbird original less than a year ago that I had to sell to catch up on bills - That Guitar played like magic. The only thing to consider on the 60's J-45 is if you like the adjustable bridge.  I like mine some folks don't but for me it gives it a little extra Zing... Ken

Edited September 13, 2022 by Gasman

[Jinder]

16 hours ago, Gasman said:

Hey Jinder I have a very new 60's J-45 Original - That I like alot.  I have bounced between Martin and Gibson's forever. This is just my opinion but the good Gibson's acoustics I have owned always seem to be easier on my hands than the Martin's.  My Gibson has the 1 11/16 nut width which is what my older D-28 had - But the Gibson was always easier to play - for me  (not large hands). I had a new Gibson Hummingbird original less than a year ago that I had to sell to catch up on bills - That Guitar played like magic. The only thing to consider on the 60's J-45 is if you like the adjustable bridge.  I like mine some folks don't but for me it gives it a little extra Zing... Ken

Thanks Ken! That’s good to hear. I’ve never minded an adjustable bridge, have owned a few with them. I converted my ‘67 J45 to a fixed bridge out of curiosity to see how it sounded…made very little difference at all! It sounded great before and great after. I like the adjustability (obviously!) aspect, always handy for switching string gauges and dialling out seasonal action changes. I have several fixed bridge guitars so a little extra adj zing is always welcome!

[rustystrings]

I will put another data point before you - I have been playing the same 2005 J-45 Historic Collection for 15 years now.   One of the things that struck me the moment I took it off the peg at GC was how much the neck felt like my memory of the neck of my long-gone '60 LG-2.  I have since measured the nut width and found it to be 1.704-inches, a whisker wider than the 1.68 they allegedly were spec'ed at, but noticeably narrower than the 1.725 Gibson has specified for several years now.  I'll have to start asking questions about nut width and neck depth whenever I gather data for the J-45 HC database I've been assembling ...

[Gasman]

On 9/13/2022 at 2:51 PM, Jinder said:

Thanks Ken! That’s good to hear. I’ve never minded an adjustable bridge, have owned a few with them. I converted my ‘67 J45 to a fixed bridge out of curiosity to see how it sounded…made very little difference at all! It sounded great before and great after. I like the adjustability (obviously!) aspect, always handy for switching string gauges and dialling out seasonal action changes. I have several fixed bridge guitars so a little extra adj zing is always welcome!

That's Great Jinder. I'm glad you like the Adjustable bridge - They do make the guitar much easier to dial in the action. I saw the original  back in 1968 I was in my local small town Music shop and they had one hanging high on the wall. It was Red with the Gibson white pickguard with  logo - It was really different than any other Acoustic I had ever seen back then.  I wanted to play it badly.  But the shop owner told me I would have to bring my parents in if I wanted to play it... That wasn't going to happen..  So all these years later I finally got the Guitar that totally blew me away in 1968. Ken

[E-minor7]

On 9/16/2022 at 6:07 PM, Gasman said:

That's Great Jinder. I'm glad you like the Adjustable bridge - They do make the guitar much easier to dial in the action.

Huge fan of adjustables here (have 4 rolling) - they offer something unique. We just have to remember the new ones are tusq, not ceramic (or rosewood for that matter).                                                                                        A sonic difference of considerable size'n'scale. And a slightly foggy choice  from Bozeman - apart from the fact the T is stronger and cheaper. 

 

My philosophy is to keep the insert down in top-contact and adjust the t-rod instead. 1 - optimal transmission. 2 - best protection of the precious fragile white clay. 

On 9/16/2022 at 6:07 PM, Gasman said:

 I saw the original  back in 1968 I was in my local small town Music shop and they had one hanging high on the wall. It was Red with the Gibson white pickguard with  logo - It was really different than any other Acoustic I had ever seen back then.  I wanted to play it badly.  But the shop owner told me I would have to bring my parents in if I wanted to play it... That wasn't going to happen..  So all these years later I finally got the Guitar that totally blew me away in 1968. Ken

A happy ending which represented a new beginning. Glad to hear it turned out that way. 

P.S. - Your parents made a mistake, but probably never knew. Eeehhh, like mine did when kept my hair too short for too long.   Mine found out.

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by E-minor7

[Boyd]

7 hours ago, E-minor7 said:

We just have to remember the new ones are tusq, not ceramic (or rosewood for that matter).    A difference of considerable size'n'scale. And a slightly foggy choice  from Bozeman - apart from the fact the T is stronger and cheaper. 

I don't understand the "size and scale" part. The tusq ADJ saddle on my 2020 60's Original J-50 looks to be the same size as the original rosewood saddle on my real 1965 J-50. Have you played a guitar with one of the new tusq ADJ saddles? Mine sounds great, so I don't really care whether it's tusq or something else.

[E-minor7]

34 minutes ago, Boyd said:

I don't understand the "size and scale" part. The tusq ADJ saddle on my 2020 60's Original J-50 looks to be the same size as the original rosewood saddle on my real 1965 J-50. Have you played a guitar with one of the new tusq ADJ saddles? Mine sounds great, so I don't really care whether it's tusq or something else.

I understand the misunderstanding - should have written a sonic difference of. .

Hereby done. Thanx Boyd. 

 

P.S. - Wonder why you don't care  

Edited September 18, 2022 by E-minor7

[Boyd]

My point was that (IMO) the guitar sounds great with the original tusq saddle. So, why should I care what material it's made of? I'm just not one of those people who change the saddle, nut and bridge pins on every guitar I own in search of some elusive sound. 🙂

[E-minor7]

10 hours ago, Boyd said:

My point was that (IMO) the guitar sounds great with the original tusq saddle. So, why should I care what material it's made of? I'm just not one of those people who change the saddle, nut and bridge pins on every guitar I own in search of some elusive sound. 🙂

           👁️ C 

        Have fun

17 hours ago, Boyd said:

 Have you played a guitar with one of the new tusq ADJ saddles? 

And yes, I ordered tusq, , , and everything else 10 years ago when bein' in the scientific craze of the adjustables.

Ceramic   ✫ 

Rosewood

Tusq

All bone

Old vase ivory  ✫ 

Metal w. ordinary sized plast

They typically went into my vintage squares.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Looking back on these pages you will find me as a trailblazer for the old controversial concept. One of the most scorned in the history of acoustic instruments.                                                                                     This was before Bozeman began their serious re-introduction of them. 

Here's my own design created by a luthier - a bone & rose combo meant to dampen the sharp highs on the 1963 SJ. Not in use as it fell into place by itself. 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by E-minor7

[egoidealmusic]

23 hours ago, E-minor7 said:

           👁️ C 

        Have fun

And yes, I ordered tusq, , , and everything else 10 years ago when bein' in the scientific craze of the adjustables.

Ceramic   ✫ 

Rosewood

Tusq

All bone

Old vase ivory  ✫ 

Metal w. ordinary sized plast

They typically went into my vintage squares.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Looking back on these pages you will find me as a trailblazer for the old controversial concept. One of the most scorned in the history of acoustic instruments.                                                                                     This was before Bozeman began their serious re-introduction of them. 

Here's my own design created by a luthier - a bone & rose combo meant to dampen the sharp highs on the 1963 SJ. Not in use as it fell into place by itself. 

 

 

That's a great idea, and much like I have on my 50s J-45 in terms of bridge pins--tusq on the low 3 and ebony on the high 3 to accomplish exactly this.