Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

baby's back home


dchristo

Recommended Posts

I picked two old guitars up at a flee market for $50 just a little over thirty years ago...I didnt have much money, but they said gibson on the headstock, so I thought they were a bargin

 

well, after thirty years of very little play and finances a lot better than they were back then, I decided to have them fixed and refinished

 

I got this one back in time for Christmas, its a 1933 L 00....I think it looks great, and it plays and sounds even better...the other one is a 1937 L 50, and it should be finished in a month or so

 

when I get a video camera, I will post a video to show the sound

the pics are not the best, but as good as I can do till I get a new camera

 

IMG_2197.jpg

 

IMG_2196.jpg

 

IMG_2195.jpg

 

IMG_2194.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks guys, the guitar would play, but was in poor condition...the neck needed reset, bridge was lifting and a little crack on the side

 

the guy that done the work was Chris Bozung of CB Guitars My link he's a hell of a nice guy, does beautiful work and at a great price

 

he also builds his own guitars, they are the loudest guitars Ive ever played and have a gibson sound

 

 

anyway thanks for the replys,

I just stuck the guitar out in front of the old storage building that I built a few years ago

 

here's what it looked like before

 

IMG_2117.jpg

 

IMG_2114.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, totally cool. Those little guys are really rare, and the Gibson version is X-braced.

 

We have a couple of little guys from that period -- an L-00 3/4 like yours and a Kalamazoo Sport Model 3/4. Here is a picture:

 

Zoos.jpg

 

threeforths.jpg

 

They both have original finishes, so refinishing is not a option. The L-00 3/4 has no unaddressed problems, but the the little Zoo is away for work. Because of the X-bracing, the L-00 3/4 has a much fuller, more resonant sound.

 

Here is a recording of ours. I am very interested to hear how yours sounds -- ours is the only one I have heard.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I picked two old guitars up at a flee market for $50 just a little over thirty years ago...I didnt have much money, but they said gibson on the headstock, so I thought they were a bargin

 

well, after thirty years of very little play and finances a lot better than they were back then, I decided to have them fixed and refinished

 

I got this one back in time for Christmas, its a 1933 L 00....I think it looks great, and it plays and sounds even better...the other one is a 1937 L 50, and it should be finished in a month or so

 

when I get a video camera, I will post a video to show the sound

the pics are not the best, but as good as I can do till I get a new camera

 

IMG_2197.jpg

 

IMG_2196.jpg

 

IMG_2195.jpg

 

IMG_2194.jpg

 

Pretty...Pretty [thumbup]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My baby is going to the shop next month for a new nut and bridge, haven't decided if I want a new finish yet. The original was completely gone when she came to me.

 

5620351157_f0197db632_s.jpg

IMG_0232 by Rescue Canyon Man, on Flickr

Fred, what do you mean when you say "the original was completly gone when she came to me"? Was the original finish stripped, damaged, or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice job.....I know purists don't like refinishing vintage guitars, BUT I really like the job you did!! Ready for another 80 years!!!

Wily,

Given how little appeared to be left of the original top finish, I can understand why he went for a complete re-finish, as much as we cringe about it in most cases. I really find it interesting that this is from the period when Gibson glued the pickguards straight onto the bare wood of the top. This strikes me as a really bad idea due to the difference in expansion rates between the wood and celluloid.

 

Maybe JT could chime in on when the change was made so that guards were applied over the finish.

 

The look of a guard applied over the finish is quite different from one applied to the bare wood, as the celluloid guards were somewhat translucent. They also have that nasty habit of disintegrating over time, sometimes with harmful results to the guitar. Usually, at least on the ones I've seen, they tend to curl up at the edges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick, nothing prettier than a well done burst, but she was born a CW not a SJ. That would be kind of like winding up with a transgendered git. Not for me [scared]

 

In that case, go for your life. But if you go for a 'burst finish, you'd better find an artist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick, nothing prettier than a well done burst, but she was born a CW not a SJ. That would be kind of like winding up with a transgendered git. Not for me [scared]

You are absolutely correct. No cross-dressing gender confusion allowed here, although I will at some point post pictures of my '48 J-45 in her J-50 disguise, which she wore from 1970 to 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice job.....I know purists don't like refinishing vintage guitars, BUT I really like the job you did!! Ready for another 80 years!!

 

When we own and maintain old guitars, which we do a lot, if we want to be monetarily responsible, we have to combine our own desires with the prevailing market standards, however stupid. Obviously, the finishes on the two babies I showed above are clearly worn and effected, but it would reduce their market value drastically if their finishes were restored. I would personally prefer to restore them, but I don't really care that much -- sound is our thing.

 

We have restored a couple that were already a total loss from an originality perspective -- a '33 0-18 Martin that has been stripped and painted with a spray can and a '31 L-2 Gibson that was in pieces in a box and was covered with some kind of gooey sticky finish.

 

Both are now great guitars, but I am occasionally accused of being a guitar vivisectionist.

 

1931L-2a.jpg1931L-2b.jpg

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, thats a beauty . If I decide to put a new finish on mine I hope that I can find someone who does the same quality work in Northern CA

 

When we own and maintain old guitars, which we do a lot, if we want to be monetarily responsible, we have to combine our own desires with the prevailing market standards, however stupid. Obviously, the finishes on the two babies I showed above are clearly worn and effected, but it would reduce their market value drastically if their finishes wee restored. I would personally prefer to restore them, but I don't really care that much -- sound is our thing.

 

We have restored a couple that were already a total loss from an originality perspective -- a '33 0-18 Martin that has been stripped and painted with a spray can and a '31 L-2 Gibson that was in pieces in a box and was covered with some kind of gooey sticky finish.

 

Both are now great guitars, but I am occasionally accused of being a guitar vivisectionist.

 

1931L-2a.jpg1931L-2b.jpg

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...