My Secret Sword

[E-minor7]

Think I spoke of this at some point, must have – the only time I was tricked on the Bay.

 

Well, the ad said 64 and I believed it. The guy – Mr. D. - was friendly and serious, besides that an old mandolin seller. I checked his website - it was closing down, but had been fine – well, I realized he was closing down.

 

The ad also said the top had been replaced in the first 80's after a crash about 10 years earlier. Mr. D. told that he did work at Gibson in the first 80's ! ! ! , where a colleague helped him replace the damaged top. It was now scalloped by this genuine Gibson luthier, who'd done the job with nothing but Gibson materials. Oh yeah, to me that sounded excellent. Another detail was the sound-hole – in order to serve the new new design, it was moved slightly backwards.

 

The guitar looked cool, was affordable and that plus the thought of hand-scalloped bracing made me push the button. How unique, how exiting. . .

 

2 weeks, the guitar arrived. First thing I saw was the nut-width. It was a 1-9/16. Uaakkk, I had asked him about this and the answer was 1-11/16. The next thing was the neck angle – it was clearly straighter than a 1964. Something began to whisper 1966. Then I strummed a chord, , , and one more, , , the guitar sounded fantastic. Warmer than candle light, softer than drippin' honey, bass. It had what I call deep projection and carried all those years without sonic loses – (such as the somewhat overdry hollowness I struggle with from certain notes on the '63 SJ). A dilemma rose right in front of me. What to do. . . .

 

The beginning of the serial-number was almost impossible the read – could be a 4, he claimed 2. Had to introduce him to the overall series of facts - He dug in a foxhole and maintained the 2. I told him I didn't consider him a con-man and that I liked the guitar, but couldn't play it. Though still responding, he stayed defensive in his pit. 2 or 3 mails went over the sea – both ways. So strange, , , at the same time I liked and was annoyed by this vintage chap. And I liked his f****** Country & Western. . .

 

Then suggested I'd take the guitar to a luthier to have the nut replaced and let him pay the bill. "I have no money," he answered. Well he just got mine !

 

Anyway I brought the Gibson to a new found 'doctor' and made him cut a nut in water-buffalo-horn. It would provide better sustain, he claimed. Why not try it out. . .

 

The result was good. He widened the space between the strings to a max. which actually allowed me to play close to normal (apart from the fact that I tune half a step down, which makes the strings looser and therefor increases the risk of falling off the board). Had to forget about Mister D. , , , and learn to handle the 9/16. Still do and make progress. I can manage now, but what a fight it all was. Worth it, , , guess so. A neck replacement – not sure I dare it.

 

Have a look – check the metal tuners, the beautiful hog sides, the w-buffalo nut, , , and the custom made guard. And then - - - isn't it a bit strange with those 3 rings round the hole. Not very Gibson as far as I know – was he a con-man after all. . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[j45nick]

Strange things can happen to guitars when they get repaired, and Gibson itself was one of the worst at one time. I won't bore you with the details, as I've shared them before here, but my 1948 J-45 went back to Gibson in 1968 for a top re-glue and a re-fret, and came back looking like a brand-new 1968 cherry-burst J-45.

 

Seeing is believing.

[BluesKing777]

Anything is possible from those years from Gibson, but 1-9/16 is no good for fingerpicking - supposed to be good for strumming rock guitarists just finding their acoustic dream?

 

Do you think it was made from spare parts at the mando shop?

 

Have you seen th C&W in Black Snake Moan movie - it took me a long while to find out what it was.

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

P.S. Waiting for an eBay package at the moment. Yikes! I asked the width at the nut - he said 1-3/4.

[BigKahune]

.

That's quite the story. And pretty tough to take. Looks like there's been some monkey business going on. The bridge doesn't look right (should be adj), the soundhole inlays don't look right (should be two rings), the nut should be 1-11/16, but the neck looks right, but not original turners and wrong TRC. Strange.

 

As long as you're happy. B)

[j45nick]

Anything is possible from those years from Gibson, but 1-9/16 is no good for fingerpicking -supposed to good for strumming rock guitarists just finding their acoustic dream?

 

Do you think it was made from spare parts at the mando shop?

 

Have you seen th C&W in Black Snake Moan movie - it took me a long while to find out what it was.

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

P.S. waiting for an eBay package at the moment. Yikes! i asked the width at the nut - he said 1-3/4.

 

1 9/16" is too narrow for good fingerpicking for me, but it flat-picks well when you get used to it. Squeeze them fingers in tight, however!

 

My 000-28 EC at 1 3/4" feels like a runway in comparison, and my Prisloe classical at 50mm is as wide as the Grand Canyon!

 

I have one ES 335 at 1 11/16", which as Goldielocks says, is just about right for everything.

[E-minor7]

Do you think it was made from spare parts at the mando shop?

 

Have you seen th C&W in Black Snake Moan movie - it took me a long while to find out what it was.

 

P.S. waiting for an eBay package at the moment. Yikes! i asked the width at the nut - he said 1-3/4.

I want to believe this guy – he wasn't a crook (and I like the tale). But if the top was made at the Gibson plant, which he stated, why the 3 rings. Maybe he pulled up a lie to make this creature stay a real G. Btw, the craftsmanship is superb.

Haven't seen the Black Snake Moan you talk about ?

 

Good luck with your package -

 

 

 

 

[E-minor7]

.

That's quite the story. And pretty tough to take. Looks like there's been some monkey business going on. The bridge doesn't look right (should be adj), the soundhole inlays don't look right (should be two rings), the nut should be 1-11/16, but the neck looks right, but not original turners and wrong TRC. Strange.

 

As long as you're happy. B)

 

 

Oh yeps - As mentioned the whole top'n'bridge is replaced. I consider this a '66 which makes the nut right. Have seen 1 other C&W from this year with metal-button tuners – I'm not really sure (they're old). The t.r. shield is absolutely a replacement. The basic guitar definitely a Gibson. A stranger – still strangely welcome. . .

 

[BluesKing777]

 

Haven't seen the Black Snake Moan you talk about ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Black Snake Moan' with Samuel Jackson as the blues guitarist done wrong and redeemed by saving the girl who takes her shirt off just as Sam is playing his Gibson C&W - takes a dedicated Gibson lover to ignore little girlie to study the Gibson. Soundtrack is fabulous.

 

BluesKing777.

[E-minor7]

'Black Snake Moan' with Samuel Jackson as the blues guitarist done wrong and redeemed by saving the girl who takes her shirt off just as Sam is playing his Gibson C&W - takes a dedicated Gibson lover to ignore little girlie to study the Gibson. Soundtrack is fabulous.

 

BluesKing777.

Ouh yes !?!? She takes her shirt off to the sound of a Gibson. . . Reminds me of something from my youth. I'll immediately begin searching for this clip. . .

[j45nick]

I want to believe this guy – he wasn't a crook ([/size][/font]and I like the tale). But if the top was made at the Gibson plant, which he stated, why the 3 rings. Maybe he pulled up a lie to make this creature stay a real G. Btw, the craftsmanship is superb.

 

The top could have been made for any square Gibson. Are there any that have come with three-ring rosettes? Ever?

 

I'm only saying it could be true based on my '48 J-45 coming back from Gibson with a new top (different rosette, different color, etc.), an adjustable bridge, a 20-fret board, and a neck thinned down to 1 9/16" at the nut, as was the 1968 style. It's the original neck, as it has a tapered headstock, but it took me a long time to figure it all out. If it hadn't still had the old lower-bout pickup wire hole, the tapered headstock, and the original FON, I would have thought they had given me a new guitar.

 

Anything is possible.

[E-minor7]

Strange things can happen to guitars when they get repaired, and Gibson itself was one of the worst at one time. I won't bore you with the details, as I've shared them before here, but my 1948 J-45 went back to Gibson in 1968 for a top re-glue and a re-fret, and came back looking like a brand-new 1968 cherry-burst J-45.

 

Seeing is believing.

 

 

I know and fully understand you are somewhat traumatized by the late60's operation on your J-45. Monstrous. Remember you wrote about it here some months ago – Good ! (It made an impression). Don't restrain. Let it out, again and again and again -

It's finally on its way to normal isn't it. . .

[BluesKing777]

Ouh yes !?!? She takes her shirt off to the sound of a Gibson. . . Reminds me of something from my youth. I'll immediately begin searching for this clip. . .

 

 

Here is a trailer for the movie minus the Gibson C&W and minus the (Christina Ricci) girl bit (good for the forum though).

It has the bird song- you will have to hire the movie to see the Gibson acoustic:

 

 

P.S. Sorry to hijack your thread, but in the full movie Sam Jackson appears to playing that song on a C&W (not the 'Taylor thingy music' mentioned in other threads), which has lead many a Gibson lover (including me) down the trail of the eBay looking for said guitar, and probably getting your old mando guy to stay in business after all! Closest new Gibson is the Sheryl Crow in case anyone else is frothing at the mouth...

[j45nick]

It's finally on its way to normal isn't it. . .

 

Yes. I hope so. We'll see. Still waiting. Still hoping. The board will still be narrow, and I'm keeping the F-4 MOP headstock inlay and ivory/ebony binding on the headstock and funky fingerboard inlays, all dating from a year of living dangerously in 1970. At least my own body didn't get any odd tattoos then. And I have few lingering side effect from everything else I did......but I wasn't alone in that.

[E-minor7]

Yes. I hope so. We'll see. Still waiting. Still hoping. The board will still be narrow, and I'm keeping the F-4 MOP headstock inlay and ivory/ebony binding on the headstock and funky fingerboard inlays, all dating from a year of living dangerously in 1970. At least my own body didn't get any odd tattoos then. And I have few lingering side effect from everything else I did......but I wasn't alone in that.

Guess it could be considered an item psychedelia in its own right. A totem of turbulent times.

 

We should be allowed to see pictures of the different stages when it returns -

[passthej45]

Anything is possible from those years from Gibson, but 1-9/16 is no good for fingerpicking - supposed to be good for strumming rock guitarists just finding their acoustic dream?

 

Do you think it was made from spare parts at the mando shop?

 

Have you seen th C&W in Black Snake Moan movie - it took me a long while to find out what it was.

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

P.S. Waiting for an eBay package at the moment. Yikes! I asked the width at the nut - he said 1-3/4.

 

Seemed to be focusing mostly on Christina Ricci during Black Snake Moan...

[TommyK]

Not to pile on, but is that truss rod cover OEM, Gibson? Two screws, yes, but not the usual tulip/bell shape.

[E-minor7]

Not to pile on, but is that truss rod cover OEM, Gibson? Two screws, yes, but not the usual tulip/bell shape.

 

No, it looks larger - pile away. . . .

That's what the thread is about.

 

 

[j45nick]

No, it looks larger - pile away. . . .

That's what the thread is about.

The TRC is wrong, but that's a 30-second changeout that could have happened at any time. Spend a couple of bucks, and Bob's your uncle.

[E-minor7]

The TRC is wrong, but that's a 30-second changeout that could have happened at any time. Spend a couple of bucks, and Bob's your uncle.

Thank you Nick, I know – Listen folks : These modification isn't a problem, they are a series of facts. Only prob. here is the nut-width. Even consider bidding on the Gospel neck seen on the Bay right now, but I'm nervous it'll loose tone. It's so together -

 

 

 

 

[j45nick]

Thank you Nick, I know – Listen folks : These modification isn't a problem, they are a series of facts. Only prob. here is the nut-width. Even consider bidding on the Gospel neck seen on the Bay right now, but I'm nervous it'll loose tone. It's so together -

 

That's completely fair. I don't know if you can set a specific cut-off date for neck widths, however. On the ES 335, the switch to 1 9/16" theoretically happened sometime during 1965--the same year as the switch from stop-tail to trap-tail-- but it is impossible to assign an exact date. Most have narrow necks, but some--presumably earlier in the year--still had the 1 11/16" nut. There's little doubt that the changes in the acoustic department at the same factory occurred on a similarly random basis.

 

If you look at the way guitars are built in a factory environment, you generally have a bunch of pre-made parts to use up before starting on the new ones. Nobody had a clue back then that a pickup with a PAF sticker might be worth 10 times as much as the exact same pickup made the next day with a patent number sticker. And the guy who installed the electronics in 1964 just made a huge difference in the value of your guitar 50 years later, depending on which pickups he grabbed out of the box.

 

Transitional years are very, very tricky to buy sight unseen, whether it's an acoustic or an electric. A guitar that is clearly not completely original is even more tricky. It's deeply troubling if the guy told you the nut width was 1 11/16", and it's really 1 9/16". Yeah, you can make a mistake, but there are an awful lot of "mistakes" in the way this guitar was described.

 

One thing you can do is not only request that the nut be measured, but ask for a photograph of a steel rule positioned next to the nut (I send a photograph of what I want to see for guidance), so you can judge for yourself.

[E-minor7]

Transitional years are very, very tricky to buy sight unseen, whether it's an acoustic or an electric. A guitar that is clearly not completely original is even more tricky. It's deeply troubling if the guy told you the nut width was 1 11/16", and it's really 1 9/16". Yeah, you can make a mistake, but there are an awful lot of "mistakes" in the way this guitar was described.

 

 

Yep, you are right. Mister D. might have done his best to sell, still he came across half dubious. With the 3 rings I'm not sure I can believe the Gibson employee story, but I do believe he saw the 4 as 2 – meaning '64 instead of '66. Oboy, let the old geezer sail.

 

Appendix -

The former guitarist in my band, still a full-time high-end pro, visited me for the first time in 3 or 4 years tonite. Lots to talk about – 6-strings naturally one of them.

I had lined several acoustics up as a show room exhibition - about 7 or 8. Among them the '63 SJ, the '68 SJ, the '59 J-45, the '10 J-45 and the notorious '66 C&W. Guess what he picked before we started to jam - without knowing a thing - - - Yes, the C&W !

 

He - a '65 J-45 owner himself - found it outstanding and kept playing the guitar all evening. Though his fingers sometimes fell off, he fell in love - even wanted to buy this unoriginal original. Gives you a fair picture of how good the 'Frankenstein' sounds. He told me his luthier had widened his '64 Fender Jaguar with stripes of wood on both sides of the board/neck and that it worked fine. ?!? . . . Never heard that one before. Don't think I'll do it, but I intend to follow him to this luthier and let the 'doc' have a look.

Know for sure I won't sell the Country & Western.

[j45nick]

Gives you a fair picture of how good the 'Frankenstein' sounds. He told me his luthier had widened his '64 Fender Jaguar with stripes of wood on both sides of the board/neck and that it worked fine. ?!? . . . Never heard that one before. Don't think I'll do it, but I intend to follow him to this luthier and let the 'doc' have a look.

 

Widening the board may not be a simple solution, as the whole profile of the neck is driven by the board width. In addition, the bridge pin spacing is a bit wider on the guitars with the wider nuts. And you shouldn't really slot the saddle (like an electric) to force the strings a bit wider at the bridge. The strings should float on the saddle, according to Ross. The board proportions are pretty constant on the guitars no matter what the nut width. That is, the width of the board at the 12th fret on the narrow-nut guitars is still about 1/8" narrower than the 12th-fet width of the 1 11/16" nut guitars.

 

My '48 J-45 is a bit of a Frankenstein as well, with a new top put on by Gibson in 1968. Ross Teigen is now pulling out the additional internal weight and structure associated with the 1968 adjustable bridge (as well as replicating the orginal early belly-up bridge) and is actually thinning the top somewhat, as the late 60's tops are quite thick. This all requires a great leap of faith on my part, as the guitar already sounded really good.

[E-minor7]

My '48 J-45 is a bit of a Frankenstein as well, with a new top put on by Gibson in 1968. Ross Teigen is now pulling out the additional internal weight and structure associated wirh the 1968 adjustable bridge (as well as replicating the orginal early belly-up bridge) and is actually thinning the top somewhat, as the late 60's tops are quite thick. This all requires a great leap of faith on my part, as the guitar already sounded really good.

 

I seriously look forward to see/hear about your 45 after surgery. Especially thinning the top sounds fascinating*, , , and not as hazardous as fiddling with the braces f.x. (which I've heard incarnated folksingers did in the 60's). But I understand your anxiety – acoustical balance is fragile.

 

*To be honest, my '68 SJ could need to drop some dust -

 

 

[retrorod]

Yep, you are right. Mister D. might have done his best to sell, still he came across half dubious. With the 3 rings I'm not sure I can believe the Gibson employee story, but I do believe he saw the 4 as 2 – meaning '64 instead of '66. Oboy, let the old geezer sail.

 

Appendix -

The former guitarist in my band, still a full-time high-end pro, visited me for the first time in 3 or 4 years tonite. Lots to talk about – 6-strings naturally one of them.

I had lined several acoustics up as a show room exhibition - about 7 or 8. Among them the '63 SJ, the '68 SJ, the '59 J-45, the '10 J-45 and the notorious '66 C&W. Guess what he picked before we started to jam - without knowing a thing - - - Yes, the C&W !

 

He - a '65 J-45 owner himself - found it outstanding and kept playing the guitar all evening. Though his fingers sometimes fell off, he fell in love - even wanted to buy this unoriginal original. Gives you a fair picture of how good the 'Frankenstein' sounds. He told me his luthier had widened his '64 Fender Jaguar with stripes of wood on both sides of the board/neck and that it worked fine. ?!? . . . Never heard that one before. Don't think I'll do it, but I intend to follow him to this luthier and let the 'doc' have a look.

Know for sure I won't sell the Country & Western.

 

I think the 3 rings look correct for early 70,s - Norlin-era Gibson as referenced by my 1972 J100... Rod

http://[/url

[E-minor7]

Arhhh ! The Forum never sleeps. A great detail there. Suddenly 3 rings.

 

Thinking about it, Gibson naturally had to make that move too. To refresh things a bit they kinda celebrated or marked the new decade by laying an extra ring. Just checked a Norlin Dove and 45 on the local eBay – 3 rings as well.

 

Where does it leave my C&W. Well, according to the seller, the '66 guitar was crushed in the early 70's, but not repaired until 10 years later. First thought is that the colleague/Gibson employee behind the job used what was in stock. But, , , we gotta remember he re-braced and re-patterned the top and therefor moved the soundhole backwards. This is a custom-made piece of spruce or cedar. So my new guess is that he chose the 3 rings because they were common in the period/70's – simply to update the guitar a little. He must have laid them himself.

 

Thanks for your alertness retro -