Vital_memento Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Hi, I've been dreaming of getting a gibson j-50 for the longest time. I thought that there was no such thing as fake acoustic gibsons until I did some research today and found they existed. I came across a j-50 on the internet that looks like it's in good condition. I don't have too much money and returning a fake gibson from an internet purchase is probably next to impossible. Anyways, enough of my rambling, here are the pics of the guitar: http://www.vintagecityguitars.com/guitars/fullimage/1100 If you know whether it's fake or not please let me know as soon as you can, cause I need an acoustic guitar for a gig I have coming up pretty soon. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanvillRob Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I'm no expert...but it doesn't look fake to me. Why do you doubt it's authenticity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanfender Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Looks legit to me. The bridge may be a replacement though. However, this is not necessarily unusual for a vintage guitar. What year is it? What are your concerns about the guitar? Does anyone else think this is a replacement bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jannusguy Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 looks like the real deal to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I can only get one of the pics to load. I don't think it's a '66 because of the bridge. A '68 or '69 maybe. But it looks genuine to me as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanvillRob Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I can only get one of the pics to load. I don't think it's a '66 because of the bridge. A '68 or '69 maybe. But it looks genuine to me as well. If anyone has the book handy, the SN is 403309 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vital_memento Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Thanks for all the replies. I don't really have a reason for doubting it's authenticity I'm just not an expert at figuring that out. I'm definitely excited about it now . Does anyone know if it's a replacement bridge, and would that change the j-50's tone in anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J185-4Me Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Looks legitimate, all except for what appears to be a poor replacement bridge. Nice case, too btw. Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I doubt it's a replacement. Just a gut feeling more than anything else. The bridge that's on it came into use sometime in 1967 but it wasn't universal; it was gradual, like most everything Gibson, and there are always, always exceptions to make liars out of us. The serial number dates it to 1966 but like I said, they didn't have that bridge then. 60s Gibson serial numbers are a mess and should never be the main determining factor as to the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanvillRob Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Thanks for all the replies. I don't really have a reason for doubting it's authenticity I'm just not an expert at figuring that out. I'm definitely excited about it now . Does anyone know if it's a replacement bridge' date=' and would that change the j-50's tone in anyway. [/quote'] If the price is right, it looks good to me. Unless the bridge flys off and hits your girlfriend in the eye, I wouldn't give it a second thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vital_memento Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 Thanks for everyone's help and advice. Definitely one of the friendliest and most helpful forums I've been on. @ DanvillRob Hopefully the bridge won't fly off, haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 There is no question that bridge is not original. Too big,no pearl dots, not even sure what bridge they are trying to duplicate. In the late 60s they did an adjustable bridge with a bottom belly, but this is not it. The pickguard is not original. I doubt the top finish is original, looks sanded, no patina, no weather checking. How much is this guitar? Does look a nice 60s era case. I have an original 57 J50 in the buy and sell. Go to my webpage and check it out. If you don't like mine look on gbase. A J50 isn't a difficult guitar to find, but this one is not it. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vital_memento Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share Posted December 8, 2009 @TM everyone else has been saying the guitar is original. Are you sure it's not? How much are you selling your j-50 for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Are you sure it's not? There is no question the bridge is poor replacement as Fred said above. Gibson had at least two bridge designs on the round shouldered J 50s during the 60s, both had adjustable bridges. One was the common belly up design that you see on current Gibson guitars. The other design used briefly in the late 60s is the same adjustable bridge only reversed with the belly down. You don't these too often. These bridges were bolted on hence two pearl dots in line with the bridge pins that concealed the screws. This bridge is a gross sculpture, way to much bulk, too big a foot print. Don't you think the bridge looks a little new and clean in comparison to the rest of the guitar? A 60s J 50, which this is, would have the large pickguard and not a teardrop guard. Gibson didn't use a black teardrop guard at any time I am aware. It is not shaped like a Gibson pickguard. The original large guard would have left a "tan" line when removed and I don't see this. Replaced pickguard, oversized replaced bridge leads me to see a guitar top that has been refinished. The back, sides and neck appear to be original which is not uncommon. They are representing this guitar as original, then they don't know much about Gibson guitars from this era. Do you own search on gbase.com for Gibson J50 and look at the guitars. When you look at enough you will see the non-original parts. It is not a fake, but it is not original. Look at the 67 Cherry Sunburst in the thread I posted here last night. Look at that bridge, that is an original bridge and the most common for this era guitar. I don't like people to buy guitars that are not accurately represented. You did the right thing asking questions here now it is up to you to do what you want with the information. If you want to talk about my guitars you can contact me at my email in the buy and sell post. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Time for me to eat a little crow! In an effort to find a bridge picture to prove my point I found two ebay guitars that show this bridge may in fact be original. I can't post the pics but here our links to two guitars just posted today with similar bridge without the pearl dots. Both of these guitars are square shoulders but the bridges do look the same as the guitar pictured here. The heritage has a black pickguard, I was wrong again. Sorry for my error. I learned something. I need to stay in the 30s! You will have to make up your mind now that doubt has been cast and my credibility questioned, but the two ebay guitar bridges look close enough to the Vintage City guitar that I would now say it does look original. The pickguard though I'm not so sure about. If both of these parts are original that would put this round shoulder in the 68, 69 era sort of a transitional guitar. One thing to ask about if you consider this guitar is the nut width. These late 60s guitars, like my 67 J 45 had a narrower neck, around 1 9/16. Some players can not live with that width others can. Welcome to the world of vintage guitars! In addition, my apologies to the sellers of this guitar, Vintage City, for questioning their knowledge. I have seen their auctions and have even consider buying from them on a couple of guitars. Terry http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Gibson-Acoustic-Guitar-J-50-J50-J-45_W0QQitemZ190356470222QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV?hash=item2c522139ce http://cgi.ebay.com/Gibson-Heritage-Dreadnought-Acoustic-Guitar_W0QQitemZ190356653896QQcmdZViewItemQQptZGuitar?hash=item2c52240748 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 That bridge and pickguard is not original to that guitar. It looks like a 1969 to mid 70's Gibson bridge but definately not original to a 66 J50. Keep shopping, never be in a hurry to spend your money on a guitar, there is always another one just around the corner. If you want a 60's slope shoulder then I recommend you take a look at the 67 J45 TM has for sale here. A very clean example at a fair price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 I am thinking this is some sort of late 60s transitional guitar with the "newer" style bridge and pickguard. I knew they used that bottom belly adjustable I guess I never looked at one long enough to notice it is not a bolt on. My they are massive pieces of work! Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 When it comes to the '68-'70 period, all bets are off. Nothing surprises me anymore. The '69 Heritage I just sold had the same guard and bridge, just with the rosewood saddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 When it comes to the '68-'70 period' date=' all bets are off. Nothing surprises me anymore. The '69 Heritage I just sold had the same guard and bridge, just with the rosewood saddle. [img']http://i45.tinypic.com/2gxrbzs.jpg[/img] Ksdaddy, Is the bridge pictured actually thicker on the bass side (like the non-belly version on the Advanced Jumbo and other reissue pre-1942 guitars), or does the lighting make it look it that way? Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 It really was thicker on the bass side. I can't offer any reason why. That particular guitar seldom saw the light of day and I don't think was ever touched as far as modifications. That's not the only weirdness on that guitar. It had a triangle shaped piece added on to the bridge plate too. I emailed Gruhn and they had never heard of such a thing but everything looked 'factory'. Maybe it was some weird attempt to refine the tone. It didn't work. The bridge plate was already big and thick enough to withstand any strings known. Bracing too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 That's not the only weirdness on that guitar. It had a triangle shaped piece added on to the bridge plate too. I emailed Gruhn and they had never heard of such a thing but everything looked 'factory'. I've seen what I think you're describing: like an extension glued next to the plate, right? Maybe to strengthen (or deaden, depending on your prspective) the wide area of the top top behind the bridge. Thanks for the info on the thicker-on the-bass-side belly bridge. I'd never seen THAT one before. Do you think it's possible someone shaved the treble side so the adjustable bridge mechanism could be lowered even more on the treble side? Gibson history continues to offer up new mysteries for us to ponder. Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ksdaddy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I didn't see (or sense) that it had been shaved. I questioned it in my mind when I bought it but went over it with a loupe once it arrived. No idea why it was done like that. The neck set on this particular guitar was just like the day it left K'zoo and the saddle had to sit quite high, so it doesn't look like the bridge was modified for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.