Questions about Bozeman "60s J-50 Original" Gibsons

[fazeka]

Hi all,

I bought a new "60s J-50 Original" last week. Lovely guitar! Have some questions for the forum here:

1. I don't see this listed on Gibson's website anymore, did they stop making them? (Mine is a February 2022 build and I've seen at least one with a serial number indicating an early summer build, FWIW.)

2. wrt to the headstock face, it appears it's just black lacquer over the mahogany? I can faintly see some grain when viewed on an angle/in the light just right. If so, is this how they did them back then? I want to think so because my understanding is that J-45s/J-50s were never traditionally marketed as fancy (i.e., no inlays, so no need for an overlay to inlay into...). Just shoot some black lacquer and slap the decal on...

3. How generally accurate are these to early-to-mid '60s builds? I know they're not going to be based on a particular year like the other J-45 builds (e.g., 1942). I'm talking more structural like bracing and neck joint. Do you think Bozeman is using a more "general" approach to building everything other than custom shop guitars? Put another way, is there anything different in the way they build the "60s J-50 Original" from the "50s J-50 Original"? Moreover, is there anything different in the way they build either of the aforementioned compared to, say, the "J-45 50s Faded" (Original Collection), or even the "J-45 Standard" (Modern Collection)? Even further, what are they doing differently now, structurally, than they did in the Henry J. era?

4. My warranty card shows "Gibson Custom". Are the Original Collection instruments made in the Bozeman Custom Shop?

[zombywoof]

As I only have a fleeting acquaintance with this Series, I will leave much of what you have asked to those with more hands-on experience with them than I have.  As to period build accuracy though the neck depth and carve on the new fanged versions is close to an original albeit these guitars have the standard 1.725" Bozeman nut rather than the 1 11/16".   

Bracing, however, is not even in the ballpark.  In 1955 Gibson went with an un-scalloped bracing carve.  This bracing though was very well thought out in that while it added more support but no more mass to the top.  With a few notable exceptions, Bozeman sticks with its standard Ren Ferguson designed scalloped bracing.  Not a good or a bad thing but definitely different.

[Sevendaymelee]

3 hours ago, zombywoof said:

As I only have a fleeting acquaintance with this Series, I will leave much of what you have asked to those with more hands-on experience with them than I have.  As to period build accuracy though the neck depth and carve on the new fanged versions is close to an original albeit these guitars have the standard 1.725" Bozeman nut rather than the 1 11/16".   

Bracing, however, is not even in the ballpark.  In 1955 Gibson went with an un-scalloped bracing carve.  This bracing though was very well thought out in that while it added more support but no more mass to the top.  With a few notable exceptions, Bozeman sticks with its standard Ren Ferguson designed scalloped bracing.  Not a good or a bad thing but definitely different.

That last is what bugs me. 

 

People think scalloped automatically means better, and the makers have subsequently started carving all the braces. But we all know scalloped doesn't equal better.. Different, yes. But not empirically better. And if you're like me, and prefer the non-scalloped tone, what then? lol. It's frustrating.

[fazeka]

4 hours ago, zombywoof said:

As to period build accuracy though the neck depth and carve on the new fanged versions is close to an original albeit these guitars have the standard 1.725" Bozeman nut rather than the 1 11/16".  

Not true. Gibson's website from last year (remember, these don't show up on the current website) show 1.69", essentially 1-11/16 (1.6875) inches.

My actual guitar measures just a c-hair less at 1-43/64 (1.671875) inches. No matter; still plays marvelously. 😁

[Boyd]

16 hours ago, fazeka said:

Hi all,

I bought a new "60s J-50 Original" last week. Lovely guitar! Have some questions for the forum here:

1. I don't see this listed on Gibson's website anymore, did they stop making them? (Mine is a February 2022 build and I've seen at least one with a serial number indicating an early summer build, FWIW.)

2. wrt to the headstock face, it appears it's just black lacquer over the mahogany? I can faintly see some grain when viewed on an angle/in the light just right. If so, is this how they did them back then? I want to think so because my understanding is that J-45s/J-50s were never traditionally marketed as fancy (i.e., no inlays, so no need for an overlay to inlay into...). Just shoot some black lacquer and slap the decal on...

3. How generally accurate are these to early-to-mid '60s builds? I know they're not going to be based on a particular year like the other J-45 builds (e.g., 1942). I'm talking more structural like bracing and neck joint. Do you think Bozeman is using a more "general" approach to building everything other than custom shop guitars? Put another way, is there anything different in the way they build the "60s J-50 Original" from the "50s J-50 Original"? Moreover, is there anything different in the way they build either of the aforementioned compared to, say, the "J-45 50s Faded" (Original Collection), or even the "J-45 Standard" (Modern Collection)? Even further, what are they doing differently now, structurally, than they did in the Henry J. era?

4. My warranty card shows "Gibson Custom". Are the Original Collection instruments made in the Bozeman Custom Shop?

 

I have one of these from 2020 and really like it...

1. Evidently they have been discontinued, didn't realize that myself and it must be pretty recent, but it is no longer on their site.

2. I also have a real 1965 J-50 and think the headstocks are pretty much the same, although the edges are more rounded on the real 1965 guitar. But it's just black paint.

3. There is really no period accuracy at all. This is modern Gibson construction with a "nod" to the original in terms of the ADJ bridge and narrower nut. But the inside the of the original 1965 guitar is completely different and it sounds very different. However, I think the 60's original is different in a good way, I actually like the sound better than the real 1965. I have a 2008 J-50 Modern Classic and it is basically the same as the new 60's original J-50 but without the ADJ bridge.

Although the neck of the 60's original is more narrow at the nut itself, the carve is much fatter so IMO, there's not a whole lot of difference from the 2008 J-50. If I was blindfolded, not sure if I could tell which is which. OTOH, my real 1965 J-50 has the same nut width but the carve is very thin - it's completely different and could easily be identified blindfolded.

4. Don't know, I got a really good deal on a barely-used one and it didn't have a warranty card.

[fazeka]

Thanks Boyd. Appreciate your answers. Enjoy your J-50!

[zombywoof]

18 hours ago, Sevendaymelee said:

That last is what bugs me. 

 

People think scalloped automatically means better, and the makers have subsequently started carving all the braces. But we all know scalloped doesn't equal better.. Different, yes. But not empirically better. And if you're like me, and prefer the non-scalloped tone, what then? lol. It's frustrating.

It does not bug me.  Gibson is in the business of selling guitars and so wants their offerings to appeal to modern ears and modern hands.  When I came of musical age Gibson. Guild, and Martin all sported un-scalloped bracing.   But I never questioned it because I did not know squat about bracing carves and footprints.  It was a revelation when I finally found out you could actually have a guitar set up.  The re-appearance of scalloped bracing though coincides with the rising market in vintage instruments meaning there was money to be made by going in that direction.  

There are builders out there such as Dale Fairbanks who offers takes on Gibsons with a period correct 1930s un-scalloped bracing.  But if you want a Gibson like Jorma played with the Airplane and Hot Tuna you are going to have to go out and buy a 1958 J50.    

[Sevendaymelee]

6 hours ago, zombywoof said:

It does not bug me.  Gibson is in the business of selling guitars and so wants their offerings to appeal to modern ears and modern hands.  When I came of musical age Gibson. Guild, and Martin all sported un-scalloped bracing.   But I never questioned it because I did not know squat about bracing carves and footprints.  It was a revelation when I finally found out you could actually have a guitar set up.  The re-appearance of scalloped bracing though coincides with the rising market in vintage instruments meaning there was money to be made by going in that direction.  

There are builders out there such as Dale Fairbanks who offers takes on Gibsons with a period correct 1930s un-scalloped bracing.  But if you want a Gibson like Jorma played with the Airplane and Hot Tuna you are going to have to go out and buy a 1958 J50.    

Hence why I'm bugged by it. I want that old, less-echo-y, fundamental tone. I have modern, scalloped guitars. They're wonderful to play. But there's so many overtones that trying to do early Dylan or Isakov (late 60's J-50) is neigh impossible. Too much noise. Too much resonance. Not dry enough. Not enough decay imo. So its frustrating. 

[zombywoof]

3 hours ago, Sevendaymelee said:

Hence why I'm bugged by it. I want that old, less-echo-y, fundamental tone. I have modern, scalloped guitars. They're wonderful to play. But there's so many overtones that trying to do early Dylan or Isakov (late 60's J-50) is neigh impossible. Too much noise. Too much resonance. Not dry enough. Not enough decay imo. So its frustrating. 

I think you are being somewhat overly harsh.  The first and only Gibsons I played for 35 or so years dated to 1955 to 1960.  So, I guess the sound and feel of those guitars got imprinted with a force which stuck with me.  My take on them was they had a quicker low-end decay which allowed for the mid and treble fundamentals to come to the front albeit the mids had a middle of the road nasal sound (as best as I can describe it) when played up the board.  

While I have played some Bozeman-made guitars which screamed avoid at all costs, my take on them is Gibson has actually traded in some of the harmonics for more Martin-like precise single note fundamentals.  But when you find a really good say J45 what you are going to hear in the mids when you play up the board is not the late-1950s nasal sound but what comes off almost like a clarinet and which is guaranteed to get me to sit up and take notice.  You will hear that on no Gibson other than one coming out of Bozeman.

Edited October 24, 2022 by zombywoof

[fazeka]

7day, ZW: I can dig what you guys are saying about the '55 - '68 Gibson flattops. I remember about 20 years ago playing an old '63 J-45 from a family friend and enjoying that "dryness". I didn't call it then but that's a good descriptor.

I think one with that kind of bracing and construction would be a nice companion to this newer J-50. I think it could have market potential, albeit in a limited manner.

Wonder if Bozeman's eventual custom shop (to open next year, IIRC) would be open to building that era Gibson...? With the added benefit of having a modern neck carve, not a pencil for a neck. 🙃

Edited October 25, 2022 by fazeka

[zombywoof]

7 hours ago, fazeka said:

7day, ZW: I can dig what you guys are saying about the '55 - '68 Gibson flattops. I remember about 20 years ago playing an old '63 J-45 from a family friend and enjoying that "dryness". I didn't call it then but that's a good descriptor.

I think one with that kind of bracing and construction would be a nice companion to this newer J-50. I think it could have market potential, albeit in a limited manner.

Wonder if Bozeman's eventual custom shop (to open next year, IIRC) would be open to building that era Gibson...? With the added benefit of having a modern neck carve, not a pencil for a neck. 🙃

Basing anything on having had a passing experience with one guitar is not going to get you anywhere.   I started playing them out of financial necessity as back in the day they were simply "used" guitars and so cost less than new ones. By the time I got my 1956 SJ though the price tag had reached something just over $2K which ushered in a period where I had to let something go to acquire something else.  In one long trade sequence I traded the SJ for a 1946 LG2 which then went for a 1957 CF100.  This was then finally thrown in on the deal which landed me my 1932 12 fret L1.  Bingo, we had a winner.  But if I could go back in time and have a talk with myself, I would have said just hold on to the SJ and be patient and wait until you can buy the L1.  To this day I still miss that SJ.     

If you look at the period from just 1950 on though, Kalamazoo was making frequent structural changes which impacted the voice of their instruments many of which revolved around avoiding having guitars sent back for warranty work which was a major drag on the bottom line of any company.  A J45 built in 1955 is going to sound and feel different than one built in 1963 which in turn is going to sound different from one birthed in 1968.  If nothing else Bozeman has got to have set a record for structural consistency.