Fuller's New ACoustic Line

[JuanCarlosVejar]

I once spoke to Ren Ferguson about the seemily inaccurate "reissues" and why they do not correspond to the original specs. He told me Gibson doesn't own any of the original guitars from the eras in which they are making reissues. SAY WHAT??!! For example, he told me the scale length on the 90s Robert Johnson L-1 reissue is 25" instead of 24 1/4" because George Gruhn told them that what it should be. He did say they got some vintage J-200s, which gave them a chance to copy the specs exactly for the Super Jumbo reissues, but did not indicate that the Jumbos, AJs, SJs, etc. where copied from the originals. This would certainly explain the pickguard problems. What a shame.

 

that is correct , they search for vintage models in collections and do the guitars based on the ones they find.

I thnk they try to locate 2 or 3 of each model and then pick the best one and run tests and do x rays on it.

so maybe the Sj's they located have the guard covering the inner rossete.

 

JC

[pfox14]

that is correct , they search for vintage models in collections and do the guitars based on the ones they find.

I thnk they try to locate 2 or 3 of each model and then pick the best one and run tests and do x rays on it.

so maybe the Sj's they located have the guard covering the inner rossete.

 

JC

 

Have you ever seen a vintage SJ with a guard like that? I haven't.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Have you ever seen a vintage SJ with a guard like that? I haven't.

 

Well it was placed by a human being , so maybe on the particular model they studied it was missplaced.

I'm not making excusses for the mistake or inaccuaracy . but you're right anyway it's wrong and they should fix it !.

 

JC

[Rambler]

that is correct , they search for vintage models in collections and do the guitars based on the ones they find.

 

For a fact, they used Gary Brunette's '35 AJ prototype as the basis for their reiusse. No problem there. Oth, the specs of vintage models has been documented (Gib Fab Flats and other sources), so the lack of info by itself does not explain some of the historical anomalies (SJ-tv, long scale L00s and Ls etc, the new AJ pro).

[Guth]

Them "young bucks" puttin' these guitars togather in Bozeman, got no knowledge of historical accuracy! They need to get"edumacated".....Dat's Right...

 

Or at a minimum they could at least give a crap about the details going into an instrument that they're building. That's assuming that they feel they're building a product of more personal value than say a can opener for example. Take the J-45 models, historical accuracy aside, when you see the pickguards placed they way they have, it simply appears that they don't really care about aesthetics. At least their sunbursts are still top notch.

[onewilyfool]

If Fullers is re-creating a vintage piece.....well, maybe Fuller's should provide Gibson with a real vintage guitar of that year and have Gibson re-create it exactly?? I mean, Fuller's IS a vintage guitar dealer. That would remove a lot of these in-accuracies and make it a true reproduction and not just a marketing ploy???!!!

[retrorod]

I once spoke to Ren Ferguson about the seemily inaccurate "reissues" and why they do not correspond to the original specs. He told me Gibson doesn't own any of the original guitars from the eras in which they are making reissues. SAY WHAT??!! For example, he told me the scale length on the 90s Robert Johnson L-1 reissue is 25" instead of 24 1/4" because George Gruhn told them that what it should be. He did say they got some vintage J-200s, which gave them a chance to copy the specs exactly for the Super Jumbo reissues, but did not indicate that the Jumbos, AJs, SJs, etc. where copied from the originals. This would certainly explain the pickguard problems. What a shame.

That is very lame...Especially with all the reference books published as well as the internet pictures available.

WOW !

And yes, the pickguard on the SJ really does bug me!

[GotTheSilver]

Re the pick guards, I was recently at Fullers and played two of the recent L-00s that Ren built the tops for. One had the pick guard over the rosette, the other did not. Same model, different pick guard placement.

 

Did anyone realize that both the 1942 and1943 SJs had neck binding? Vintage SJs of this era did not have neck binding.

 

 

I mean, Fuller's IS a vintage guitar dealer.

 

Not really. They started out as one, but decided it was not a good business when vintage prices started to rise and everyone wanted top dollar for crappy guitars they wanted to sell to Fullers. Today, they usually have at most 5 "vintage" guitars in the stoe at a time. Really more like old crappy guitars than vintage.

 

Still, I may have to stop in and play these new guitars. I live in Houston and have been dying for a nice SJ with a fire stripe pick guard and an Adirondack top. Unfortunately, I don't have any funds right now!

[fp]

Have they actually changed the soundhole radius on these "modern" pickguards (making the pickguards wider), or are they simply moving them up higher on the guitar?

 

Good question, I don't know for sure. That could be the case with the teardrop SJ's guard.

I'm kinda a pickguard weenie and if a guard looks out of place I usually notice it.

The ones I re-trimmed, looked to me to be positioned correctly but that the radius was such that some guard needed to be trimmed back to the proper rosette position !

[EuroAussie]

I agree with the others, these guys really need to get a better mike.

 

When that bloke was strumming them I thoght they all sounded god awful thin, but then redeemed themselves somewhat when fingerpicked.

[Hogeye]

that is correct , they search for vintage models in collections and do the guitars based on the ones they find.

I thnk they try to locate 2 or 3 of each model and then pick the best one and run tests and do x rays on it.

so maybe the Sj's they located have the guard covering the inner rossete.

 

JC

It's amazing how people just sort of make the history of Gibson up as they go along. Gibson has NEVER x-rayed a guitar. They do locate guitars and they do examine them and the do make the pickguard the proper size.

 

If anyone here new anything about Gibson they would know that Gibson never thought that anyone would ever be interested in the specifications of their pickguards. They were placed on the guitar on a whim. There was never any specification as to where the pickguard should be placed. No one here should think that it was critical to Gibson where the pickguard was placed. They are all over the place. In the interest of Historical accuracy Gibson Montana does put them in the exact spot of the guitar they are copying. Another guitar of a similar year could have the pickguard in another location. All Montana can do is make it the correct size and shape.

[retrorod]

It's amazing how people just sort of make the history of Gibson up as they go along. Gibson has NEVER x-rayed a guitar. They do locate guitars and they do examine them and the do make the pickguard the proper size.

 

If anyone here new anything about Gibson they would know that Gibson never thought that anyone would ever be interested in the specifications of their pickguards. They were placed on the guitar on a whim. There was never any specification as to where the pickguard should be placed. No one here should think that it was critical to Gibson where the pickguard was placed. They are all over the place. In the interest of Historical accuracy Gibson Montana does put them in the exact spot of the guitar they are copying. Another guitar of a similar year could have the pickguard in another location. All Montana can do is make it the correct size and shape.

I respectfully disagree with much of what you just said, Hogeye. I know enough about Gibson that I KNOW there were no pickguards placed on a guitar(back in the day) like the one on that Fuller's SJ! That really looks shitty. I mean ,it covered the whole soundhole inlays...Jeeesh!

Where is the pride these days???????

Besides, enough modern day historians of Gibson have x-rayed and dissected the'old classics' that they should be able to copy one perfectly.....except for the nice 'old growth' premium wood that was used back in the day, that can't be found now!

[Guth]

All Montana can do is make it the correct size and shape.

 

Actually they can't even do that right on a number of models, such as the J-45s. If they wanted to place the pickguard closer to the soundhole, they could at least shape the inner circumference of the pickguard to match up with the inner circumference of the rosette rings. Instead, they take a guard that has clearly been designed to be placed next to a rosette ring of a larger diameter. So they could either place the pickguard appropriately or they could slightly change the design of the guard based on where they want to place it these days. A very simple change to make, if only someone at Gibson cared enough to do so.

[j45nick]

Actually they can't even do that right on a number of models, such as the J-45s. If they wanted to place the pickguard closer to the soundhole, they could at least shape the inner circumference of the pickguard to match up with the inner circumference of the rosette rings. Instead, they take a guard that has clearly been designed to be placed next to a rosette ring of a larger diameter. So they could either place the pickguard appropriately or they could slightly change the design of the guard based on where they want to place it these days. A very simple change to make, if only someone at Gibson cared enough to do so.

The J-45 is actually a good example to use. To the best of my knowledge, all J-45's of the "historical" eras that are nominally replicated in any of the modern J-45's--that is, those with a teardrop pickguard--have the pickguard just touching the bottom (outside)of the inner rosette ring. To get this in a modern J-45, you have to buy a Legend or Custom (abalone rosette, which they don't cover with the pickguard). On all the other J-45 models, the rosette is covered, which just looks wrong to me. Why put on a rosette, and cover it up?

 

The other models are less consistent. I went through all the "historical" photos in "...Fabulous Flat-Tops...", and came away slightly chastened about the variety of pickguard positions on the various (Super)Jumbo models, for example. Some historical guitars, Like the Everly Brothers' own guitars, had the lower pick guard hard up against the soundhole. But those were also custom guitars originally, so I assume the guard placement and design were specified by Don and Phil.

 

I personally think that at least for the J-45--whose tear-drop pickguard has historically been positioned one way--they should replicate that. For the other models (not including the historical SJ's with teardrops, which I believe followed the J-45 model in terms of placement), Gibson rightly has a bit more latitude.

[rar]

Gibson has NEVER x-rayed a guitar.

 

I must say, I can't see how an X-ray would be useful to Ren, in his professional capacity, although the resulting pictures surely do look nice. He doesn't need X-rays to check out bracing or plate thickness -- he has a Hacklinger thickness gauge, a very cool tool IMHO!, for that -- or anything else that is useful to him, as far as I can see. Gibson builds guitars the way they build guitars, and the sort of things X-rays are good for (basically, revealing hidden structure) don't seem terribly relevant to current Gibson production.

 

-- Bob R

[j45nick]

I must say, I can't see how an X-ray would be useful to Ren, in his professional capacity, although the resulting pictures surely do look nice. He doesn't need X-rays to check out bracing or plate thickness -- he has a Hacklinger thickness gauge, a very cool tool IMHO!, for that -- or anything else that is useful to him, as far as I can see. Gibson builds guitars the way they build guitars, and the sort of things X-rays are good for (basically, revealing hidden structure) don't seem terribly relevant to current Gibson production.

 

-- Bob R

 

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. And you don't need an X-ray to know where the pickguard goes."

 

(NN, with apologies to Robert Zimmerman)

[blindboygrunt]

lol @ 'NN'

[retrorod]

lol @ 'NN'

The NN funny eluded me!..Please enlighten me...I think

[JuanCarlosVejar]

I'm not making anything up ... If you guys wanna bash me it's ok I don't mind . but just so you know

here is what an email asking for info on the J45 legend from Fuller's said :

 

The guitar went through both X-ray and CAT scans to accurately determine the bracing patterns and wood thickness. The glue and finish were chemically analyzed. To make a long story short, Gibson learned everything about that guitar. The result? The Gibson Legend Series 1942 J-45 Acoustic Guitar.

 

 

and I think if that was in the email it's true .

sorry if you feel let down but I didn't make anything up .

If Fuller's says so I would like to believe it's true :P

 

JC

 

here is more on the subject from an article in premiere guitar :

 

Ferguson, on the other hand, took LeRoy Parnell’s 1930s L-00 to a chiropractic office to have an X-ray taken of its bracings so he could understand just what made it so special of a guitar

[rar]

here is what an email asking for info on the J45 legend from Fuller's said :

 

The guitar went through both X-ray and CAT scans to accurately determine the bracing patterns and wood thickness. ...

 

I don't think anyone meant to criticize you in particular. What would seem to be reliable sources -- including Gibson -- spread plenty of misinformation about Gibsons.

 

The Legends might be an exception to the "no X-rays" rule -- though, if Hogeye says no guitars have been X-rayed, I would believe him over Fuller's -- but those are exceptions in lots of ways. (For example, they're the only two models that duplicate a vintage bracing pattern; all others are Ren-original patterns, suggested by the originals but not identical.) On the Legends, but only on the Legends AFAICS, hidden structural details are indeed relevant.

 

Saying "Gibson doesn't X-ray vintage guitars in order to get information for use in modern production models" is then one of those typical generalizations about Gibson: true, except possibly in a small number of cases where they did something different, just because they're Gibson.

 

-- Bob R

[JuanCarlosVejar]

I don't think anyone meant to criticize you in particular. What would seem to be reliable sources -- including Gibson -- spread plenty of misinformation about Gibsons.

 

The Legends might be an exception to the "no X-rays" rule -- though, if Hogeye says no guitars have been X-rayed, I would believe him over Fuller's -- but those are exceptions in lots of ways. (For example, they're the only two models that duplicate a vintage bracing pattern; all others are Ren-original patterns, suggested by the originals but not identical.) On the Legends, but only on the Legends AFAICS, hidden structural details are indeed relevant.

 

Saying "Gibson doesn't X-ray vintage guitars in order to get information for use in modern production models" is then one of those typical generalizations about Gibson: true, except possibly in a small number of cases where they did something different, just because they're Gibson.

 

-- Bob R

 

But I wasn't making anything up ...

and if something is published in a magazine then I guess it's reliable , from what I gather they interviewed Ren and I don't think he would lie about gatting a guitar x rayed . so my point is I didn't make anything up .

[j45nick]

The NN funny eluded me!..Please enlighten me...I think

 

Sorry, Rod. For some reason the line from "Subterranean Homesick Blues" came to me, echoing the irony of X-raying a guitar to fully understand its bracing pattern, while failing to use your eyes to understand where the pickguard on a J-45 (or your old SJ) belongs on the top of the guitar.

 

Just trying to inject a little levity into our sometimes heated discussions on the minutiae of Gibson guitars. Or maybe it's a residual effect from the 60's. My mind takes funny leaps at times.

 

-Nick (NN)

[Hogeye]

Sorry, Rod. For some reason the line from "Subterranean Homesick Blues" came to me, echoing the irony of X-raying a guitar to fully understand its bracing pattern, while failing to use your eyes to understand where the pickguard on a J-45 (or your old SJ) belongs on the top of the guitar.

 

Just trying to inject a little levity into our sometimes heated discussions on the minutiae of Gibson guitars. Or maybe it's a residual effect from the 60's. My mind takes funny leaps at times.

 

-Nick (NN)

Thanks for the levity Nick. It is welcomed. Too much about nothing. The pickguard thing has been going on for years and if all a person can complain about is where his pickguard is positioned then life is indeed good. I can remember when the pickguards fell off. That is someting to worry about. One person actually takes the pickguard off his Gibson, changes the size of the soundhole cutout and puts it back on. If Gibson changed the size of the pickguard they would be wrong in doing so. The pickguard should be historically correct and we as consumers just need to, and I quote an old Gibson employee, "Shut up and play the damn thing". You can actually order your guitar with the pickguard in the case and you can put it on yourself. Gibson is very understanding.

 

The real problem with the Fuller reissue Southerner Jumbo is the binding on the neck. All of the experts on the discussion have missed this except for one and no one here is upset about such a big gaff???? Take your pickguard off and place it where you want... Don't try that with neck binding.

[Guth]

It's amazing how people just sort of make the history of Gibson up as they go along.

 

snip

 

In the interest of Historical accuracy Gibson Montana does put them in the exact spot of the guitar they are copying. Another guitar of a similar year could have the pickguard in another location. All Montana can do is make it the correct size and shape.

 

Speaking of making up history, I would be interested to see if anyone could find photos showing a pre-Bozeman J-45, or any other model sporting the teardrop pickguard where the guard is placed so that it does not align with the circumference of the rosette ring it is setting next to, as they do today. Flipping through "Gibson's Fabulous Flat-Top Guitars" book, I could find no such examples.

 

The pickguard should be historically correct and we as consumers just need to, and I quote an old Gibson employee, "Shut up and play the damn thing". You can actually order your guitar with the pickguard in the case and you can put it on yourself. Gibson is very understanding.

 

I do get the whole "just play the damn thing" mentality. However, when when it comes to J-45s, apparently Gibson Montana can only be bothered to get it right for someone who is willing to shell out $5K+ for a Legend series guitar. Somehow the sub $5K models don't qualify for that level of attention to detail. Having them leave the pickguard in the case might be a more attractive option if they gave a discount for doing so, leaving it for the new owner to apply it in the correct position, unlike the guys at the factory.

 

If I had a good joke to insert here at this point, it would probably be most appropriate, but I don't so I guess I'll just go play my J-45 for a while, misplaced pickguard and all. Fortunately I don't see the pickguard while I'm playing the guitar.

[j45nick]

Speaking of making up history, I would be interested to see if anyone could find photos showing a pre-Bozeman J-45, or any other model sporting the teardrop pickguard where the guard is placed so that it does not align with the circumference of the rosette ring it is setting next to, as they do today. Flipping through "Gibson's Fabulous Flat-Top Guitars" book, I could find no such examples.

 

I agree, and that was the point of my earlier post about this. For the J-45, there does not seem to be any ambiguity about where the teardrop pickguard belongs. I don't think I've seen Martin change the pickguard location on the modern D-18 or D-28. You would think that on what is perhaps their most iconic model, Gibson could do the same.

 

It's a matter of aesthtics as much as anything else. The light ring of the rosette defines the visual shape of the soundhole, and it simply looks wrong to my eye to cover it on the J-45.

 

But that's just me.

 

-J45 Nick