Mid 60s sj

[moej45]

What's the deal with these? Obv I know they went o square should t this point bu I see a lot on eBay in the 2500 range. Anyone have one? How are they as players? Not so much concerned about collectability.

[QuestionMark]

IMO, they're great guitars. From a player perspective as well as from a collectible perspective. It basically was reissued as the Sheryl Crowe model if its a SJN or Country Western. The sunburst SJ's are the same except with the sunburst finish.

 

I have a 1972 SJ in natural. Square shoulders. By '72, the SJ lost the neck binding that the earlier ones had and the split parallelograms turned into block parallelograms. Plus, the heavier bracing. But, even the '72 SJ is an awesome guitar. Loud, but mellow. Gets better and better with age. Versatile as a bluegrass strummer or a responsive finger-picking instrument.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

[E-minor7]

The question invites a broader range of answers.

 

First – the square shouldered Southern Jumbo, the sq. sh. Country &Western and the Hummingbird are the same and follow the same pattern of metamorphoses/development/set-backs (call it what you like) up through the decade. In '68/'69 the J-45 joins the company.

 

There's no simple overview, but I'll make a raw sketch :

 

Nut-widths narrow in around 1965 and return to 1-11/16 in '68.

 

The light bracing gets heavier in 1968. There's also a neck angle thing which is hazy for me.

 

They feature adjustable saddle in either ceramic or rosewood all through the journey. The SJ (and only the SJ, I've been told by an expert – correct us if we're wrong) comes with plastic bridges in 1963.

 

All these changes mean different natures and flavors – most of them pretty radical.

 

It's an exiting wilderness to explore and I've made a step or 2. Have a little collection of those guitars in the temple - in fact 3 - but would like to try many more.

 

The '63 SJ seen in my avatar has a replaced bridge in rose (the original was plastic) and for some reason the previous owner decided to make it another adjustable. (This made me experiment with various inserts over time, but that's another thread).

 

The '66 C&W had the top and bracing replaced in the early 80's so being 1 of a kind it can't be used as example here.

 

And then there is the cherryburst '68 SJ - as you understand, with heavier bracing.

 

The '63* is hyper light-weight and sounds best if tuned a whole tone down. In a straight tuning the highs get porous and hollow – almost too vintage, if I may say so. Down in D it's as if it has a double bass living inside the body – I like that (and the guitar) a lot.

 

The '68** is best when strummed or flatpicked - sounds so authentic, of course it does. I also dig fingerpicking this beauty with capo on the 3'd 4'th 5'th fret. So unpretentious and real that it suddenly gets wings.

 

As mentioned it is thrilling territory to cross and I'm sure there are several things for me to learn. Still I know enough to recommend a 1965 Southern Jumbo. But only if you can handle the narrow width. The sound is boomier than the slopes and you might hear more bass and ringing trebs. A round shouldered J-45 or SJ will be more 'tight'.

 

Enjoy your search and please report -

 

 

*rosewood insert with mixed rose/bone saddle

**rosewood insert with ordinary bone saddle. Sometimes I use an old-vase-ivory insert. It makes the voice louder, but a tooth too clear.

[moej45]

Awesome info! I think i'll be picking something up by the end of the year

[j45nick]

Nut-widths narrow in around 1965 and return to 1-11/16 in '68.

 

I would be careful about generalizing on this one. There is no definitive pattern on when nuts got narrower and wider. It is true that 1965 marked a general narrowing of the nuts to 1 9/16" across Gibson's acoustic and electric lines. The electrics generally (there are undoubtedly exceptions) stayed narrow until about 1981, and I suspect many of the acoustic models followed the same pattern.

 

At least with the electrics, it is a common myth, perpetuated by some otherwise-definitive historic websites, that 1968 marked a return to 1 11/16" nut widths. It just isn't true.

 

In late 1968, when Gibson did a lot of work to my 1948 J-45, they narrowed the neck to the then-current standard when they replaced the fretboard and frets. Now that was a shock, I can assure you!

 

With any vintage Gibson from 1965 until the 1980s, I would want a precise measurement of nut width before buying if it matters to you. A lot of people aren't comfortable with the narrow-nut guitars. I've adapted, and have narrow-nut Gibson acoustics and electrics.

 

It might be good to get people with Gibsons of late 60's to late 70's vintage to measure nut widths (don't get clever here) so we can see if we can pin this down a bit better.

[E-minor7]

I would be careful about generalizing on this one. There is no definitive pattern on when nuts got narrower and wider.

Remember we are talking the square shouldered department here. I have never met a 65-66-67 sq. sh. with the 11/16 nut. Neither have I seen any on the web during intense research over the last 15 month (believe I've seen them all - almost). In fact that goes for slopes too. . .

 

There might be exceptions, I'm sure (we know Gibson is famous for unexpected, yet welcome jokers). Please post a picture when you find one -

[j45nick]

Remember we are talking the square shouldered department here. I have never met a 65-66-67 sq. sh. with the 11/16 nut. Neither have I seen any on the web during intense research over the last 15 month (believe I've seen them all - almost). In fact that goes for slopes too. . .

 

There might be exceptions, I'm sure (we know Gibson is famous for unexpected, yet welcome jokers). Please post a picture when you find one -

 

I don't disagree with you on the fact that nuts generally got narrower on all Gibsons around 1965. We're talking electrics, squares, and slopes now: everything.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the Kalamazoo plant was the only show in town in 1965, and every variety of guitar with the Gibson label on it came out that one door. Just because the decision was made to reduce nut width across the product line, that doesn't mean that every guitar from that date had the new neck on it. It's not like each guitar has a neck made especially for it. Components such as necks are generally made in batches, and you wouldn't throw away existing stock just because the decree had come down to change the neck width or profile. You use up existing stock first.

 

In "transition" year guitars, you can assume nothing, and have to evaluate each guitar on a case-by-case basis if you are looking for specific characteristics in a guitar. 1965 is such a year. It is not at all uncommon to find guitars with a mixture of characteristics from different years, particularly during the "boom" years of the late 1960's and early 70's, which also marked the beginning of the Dark Ages of Norlin ownership.

 

The issue is at what point nut widths went back to being wider. I don't believe you can generalize that 1968 was the year, in any case.

 

Input from owners of 1968 through about 1980 guitars would really help us in this regard.

[EuroAussie]

So you mean that before 68's the nutwidths were even more narrow than 11/16 ?

 

If thats the case then its highly unlikely i will be buying futher vintage Gibsons. My 69' CW has a 11/16 nut and i must say its starting to annoy me compared to 1.725 and 1.75 nut widths which I find so much comfortable.

 

Amazing, such a tiny amout but such a difference in feel and playability, at least for me.

 

Remember we are talking the square shouldered department here. I have never met a 65-66-67 sq. sh. with the 11/16 nut. Neither have I seen any on the web during intense research over the last 15 month (believe I've seen them all - almost). In fact that goes for slopes too. . .

 

There might be exceptions, I'm sure (we know Gibson is famous for unexpected, yet welcome jokers). Please post a picture when you find one -

[E-minor7]

So you mean that before 68's the nutwidths were even more narrow than 11/16 ?

There are 9/16's and so called 5/8's. But as said above, the sq. shouldered narrowed in between 1964 and '68. Nick says there are exceptions and I'm sure he's right. F.x. I see a narrow '69 H-bird on the Bay at the moment.

The slopes follow another path I can't X-ray - others might tell. My '59 J-45 must be 1-9/16. Didn't know when I bought it.

[j45nick]

There are 9/16's and so called 5/8's. But as said above, the sq. shouldered narrowed in between 1964 and '68. Nick says there are exceptions and I'm sure he's right. F.x. I see a narrow '69 H-bird on the Bay at the moment.

The slopes follow another path I can't X-ray - others might tell. My '59 J-45 must be 1-9/16. Didn't know when I bought it.

 

A '59 J-45 should still be 1 11/16". Measure it carefully to be sure. To the best of my knowledge, 1 9/16" is as narrow as Gibsons ever got. 1 5/8" (slightly larger than 1 9/16")is not a common size. "Normal" Gibson electrics are 1 11/16", which for most people, is a very nice width. Fingerpickers may prefer 1 3/4". Most classicals, by the way, are right around 2".

 

Remember that this is only at the nut. The narrow-nut guitars are just under 1 13/16" at the 6th fret, and about 2" at the 12th. They are typically about 1/8" narrower at each fret position compared to a "standard" 1 11/16 nut guitar. If the published specs are correct, many acoustic Gibsons are now about 1 23/32" at the nut--just under 1 3/4". It may be that because Americans are getting larger, their hands and fingers are following suit.

 

My guitars run the full gamut from 1 9/16" to 2", and I can adapt to them all with a little adjustment period.

[E-minor7]

A '59 J-45 should still be 1 11/16". Measure it carefully to be sure.

My left hand measures this every time I pick it up. It's more like my '66 C&W and it surprised me when I received it as I thought '59 meant 11/16.

 

 

1 ³⁄₄ (1.75) " = 44.45 mm

 

1 ¹¹⁄₁₆ (1.6875) " = 42.8625 mm

 

1 ⁵⁄₈ (1.625) " = 41.275 mm = 1 ¹⁰⁄₁₆ (1.625) " = 41.275 mm

 

1 ⁹⁄₁₆ (1.5625) " = 39.6875 mm

[j45nick]

My left hand measures this every time I pick it up. It's more like my '66 C&W and it surprised me when I received it as I thought '59 meant 11/16.

 

Your '59 does sound like a bit of an odd duck. Then again, my '48 at 1 9/16" is an odd duck as well, but I know exactly when and where--but God knows why--mine ended up that way. I'm sure Gibson thought they were doing me a favor by "upgrading" my beat-up old guitar to the current specs. Then again, they may just not have had any new boards around that were the old width. I never dreamed what I was getting into when I asked Gibson to replace the worn board and frets in '68.

[E-minor7]

Your '59 does sound like a bit of an odd duck.

 

Regarding shape and identity, mine is exactly the opposite story of yours. It had one owner, who bought it from his cousin who did order it at Kalamazoo by X-mas 1958. Now that's 2 owners, , , but the cousin had bit off more than he could chew and 'the one owner' helped him out in early '59. He kept and played it all his life and I bought it from his children who were kind enough to send private early 60's footage, which for obvious reasons won't be exposed here. Everything about the guitar is original except the adjustable saddle, - it is/was a piece of homemade wood !? And is now replaced by a rosewood insert with ordinary bone saddle. I've shown the sweetheart before. Hereby do it again :

[E-minor7]

, , , but I know exactly when and where--but God knows why--mine ended up that way. I'm sure Gibson thought they were doing me a favor by "upgrading" my beat-up old guitar to the current specs. Then again, they may just not have had any new boards around that were the old width. I never dreamed what I was getting into when I asked Gibson to replace the worn board and frets in '68.

I know your incredible story is a tale of some trauma as well. And I fully understand why you had to get it redone, , , now the lead that ran in your blood all these years should be drained. Might be hard to believe, but you 2 are back !

[frenchie1281734003]

Interesting debate here, if it is of any help, my 62 Epiphone Texan is 1&11/16ths, and my friends 66 Caballero is 1&5/8ths. There are variations, and I don`t know enough about the sq/shouldered models to comment, but here`s what I do know.

 

1) In General the nut width on Kalamazoo guitars got narrower throughout the 60s, but there are exceptions.

 

2) Plastic bridges can be found on mid range Gibson`s and Epiphones during 63/64, but not on all models, and only on some guitars of that model, i.e J-45/50 & Epiphone Texan.

 

3) Plastic bridges can also be found on some lower end models throughout the 60s, such as my friends 65&66 Caballero`s, but again not on every guitar.

 

4) The headstock angle changed from 17 degree to 14 in 1966.

 

Using the Casino as an example of the 65 into 66 spec changes:-

 

A 65 Casino for example would have a 17 degree h/stock angle, Nickel h/ware, Gold knobs, and a foil pickguard "E". Whereas a 66 Casino (In general) would have a 14 degree h/stock angle, a shallower neck to body angle (Decreasing the break angle at the saddle compared to earlier Casino`s), Chrome h/ware, Black knobs and a raised plastic pickguard "E"

 

Steve.

[ksdaddy]

I like mine.

 

My '64

 

It's got the wider neck, 11/16 or whatever, never measured, but it's not the skinnyass neck of the later 60s. Those feel great at first but seem cramped after a few minutes.

 

 

The tonal range and volume of my J200s will blow the SJ right off the map but I've had the SJ for 27 years and it's like slipping on an old leather jacket, it just fits. It would absolutely be the last one to leave if I ever had to give up instruments.

[E-minor7]

I like mine.

I like the looks of that '64 Southern Jumbo every time I see it. Even imitated the brass t.r. cover idea for my Bird.

Is it the original bridge w. an insert or a replacement with ordinary saddle. In case it's the latter - and was done while you had it - how did it affect the sound ?

[ksdaddy]

The original bridge was long gone by the time I bought it so I have no basis for comparison. The bridge had begun lifting sometime in the late 80s so I removed, cleaned, and reglued it. The adj inserts are still in the top. I maybe should have removed them entirely when I had it apart but didn't put much thought into it. I know the intonation was horrible (flat) with the replacement bridge so at some point I filled that slot and shifted it forward slightly.

[retrorod]

That IS a very nice-looking SJ, Scott..