Almost bought a 1948 SJ today

[j45nick]

Well, this one came down to the wire. I looked at a one-owner (grandfather of seller) SJ today. He had been told it was a '42, which is why I went to look at it. Between the FON, the logo, the bridge, and a few other characteristics, I was pretty easily able to pin it down to 1948, although you know how tricky Gibsons are in this period.

 

Guitar had been Grover'd, and had a few typical structural problems (some loose and split braces, dip in the top in the way of the pickguard, a few bashes and a couple of minor splits, but none in the top), and the saddle had been trimmed down to nothing due to the neck, but the most serious problems were actually cosmetic. The entire guitar had been badly overcoated with clear varnish of some type, right over the finish crazing. The back of the neck had a fair number of serious capo chunks out of it, and there was a strap pin on the neck heel. General play wear was slightly better than average. Also had a "2" stamp on the back of the headstock, which surprised me on an SJ. FON was in the 2000 series.

 

I didn't tune it to pitch, but I have no doubt it would make a good player with a bit of work. Frets and board were in above average condition.

 

Unfortunately, I have more "players" that I need, so I passed, even though the price was reasonable. What's reasonable in this context? $1.6k.

 

I think my wife was relieved, as my guitars are taking over the house, or at least my office.

 

Here was my thinking:

value in very good condition: maybe $4.5k

2nd stamp -20%

overcoat -50%

structural repairs, including neck re-set -$600

 

Am I being too hard on this? It's a pretty interesting exercise. I have a pretty good idea of the repair costs, since I have a couple of vintage Gibsons at the shop right now. The overfinish de-value is a biggie. I collect ES 335s as well, and a refinish or overcoat is an automatic -50% on a vintage piece.

 

It had a skunk stripe back, by the way, and the cheap chipboard case that you got for $10 back then. And it was mahogany, not one of the rare rosewood models, so stop drooling.

[Gilliangirl]

Was it playable as is?

[j45nick]

Was it playable as is?

 

Yes, but the neck had a bit of "wander" in it when sighted. Part of that you could probably get out with the TR, but it really needs a neck set to put it right. The saddle was shaved down to a nub, and the action was just about right at the 12th fret at that point. Bridge plate was solid. Generally structurally sound. It could make a good player with moderate expenditure, but if you're looking for a player, you really need to look at modern J-45's for the same price.

 

Interestingly, you could see the outlines of the individual (not three on a side) Klusons under the Rotomatics. I always thought they used three-a-sides in that period.

 

As a collectible, it has little value due to the over-finish and the chunks out of the neck. Without that, I would have payed the price in a heartbeat.

 

After all, the SJ is "just" a blinged-out J-45.

 

Lots of MOTS.

[zombywoof]

After all, the SJ is "just" a blinged-out J-45.

 

Lots of MOTS.

 

While the statement generally holds true today back in the 1940s and 1950s each model had its own indivdual voice. Far fewer SJs were made than J-45s during the 1940s and 1950s and the majority of SJs I have seen were built with better quality top and body woods. The SJs had tighter, closer and more even grained spruce tops and finer quality mahogany back and sides. The SJs were generally were not as wide open sounding as the J-45s but were tighter and more defined sounding with more pronounced mids.

[j45nick]

While the statement generally holds true today back in the 1940s and 1950s each model had its own indivdual voice. Far fewer SJs were made than J-45s during the 1940s and 1950s and the majority of SJs I have seen were built with better quality top and body woods. The SJs had tighter, closer and more even grained spruce tops and finer quality mahogany back and sides. The SJs were generally were not as wide open sounding as the J-45s but were tighter and more defined sounding with more pronounced mids.

 

 

For everyone's information, the guitar sold for about $1.5k to a guy who pretty much understood what he was getting. I had a standing offer in of $1200, but since the owner was selling it so he and his sister could share the money--which she apparently really needed--I encouraged him to try to get full price, which he almost did. I simply couldn't justify a higher price base on the minimum I would have to put into it to make it a good player. As Ross Teigen told me only half in jest when I dropped off a couple of guitars to him last month, his kids were already through college, so I really didn't have to pay their way if I didn't want to.

 

It was pretty hard to evaluate the wood, since the overcoat had disguised the grain of the back so much. The top and side looked good under the slathered on varnish, but no better than my '48 J 45. I did like the skunk stripe in back. I would also note that the amber center section was much larger than in J-45s of that period, perhaps to show of a better piece of top spruce.

 

As much as anything, I was concnered that the thick overcoat would deaden the sound. The strings were so old that it really wasn't possible to judge the sound, and I didn't tune them all to pitch in any case--just the low and high E's, to check the neck, with moderate tension on the others.

 

The problem with a vintage guitar with a bad overfinish is deciding what, if anything, to do about it. I would love a magic elixir that would strip off the "new" overcoat and leave the original behind, but that's a big ask. Generally, on a vintage piece like this, the surfaces aren't flat enough to attempt to wet-sand off the overcoat, and a chemical stripper would be a huge risk to the original 'burst, which was beautiful.

 

I suspect the topcoat was either polyurethane or an alkyd varnish, and it was actually thick enough to fill the nitro surface crazing which was clearly visible on the top. The top looked to have a much thinner overcoat than the back, but you could see how it was on the bridge and had filled in the pick marks around the soundhole.

 

I hated to pass on it, in part because it had a FON only about 700 away from my J-45.