J-1854Me Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Terry, well, first we have to get Fred to agree to wait until after the book is on the best sellers' list before revealing that sometimes older is not better (in guitars). Well, sheesh.... this could take quite a while then.... Seriously though, that myth was dashed to little bitty pieces for me sometime in the 1990s, when I walked into Elderly Instruments' showroom in Lansing Michigan, and A/B/C'd three Gibson AJs. Two were recent Bozeman-produced ones, while one was an original (mystery) rosewood-Adirondack spruce from somewhere in the late 30s. The original was mousy sounding, while the two recent versions were "great" and "really great". I've had the same experience with lots of other examples, including my own '01 J-185 "sorta-reissue" smoking an original 1951 J-185, tonewise, during a visit to a well-known vintage shop in Minneapolis-St Paul. And -- once again at Elderly's on another visit -- I had the good fortune to play one of those ultrarare OM-45 Deluxes from what? - 1930? or so, and compare it with a Custom Shop replica. The new guitar actually sounded better. Not that EVERY case will turn out that way; in my heart of hearts I know that the old ones should sound better, and -- in all likelihood -- probably will, in most cases (more of that juice, please, John). But there are enough examples, even in my own limited experience, that suggest that "old" does not always translate into "better". And that, I suppose, is a testament to a continued tradition of excellence in guitar building that the folks who have 'taken up the mantle' have managed to produce some pretty excellent stuff, now and again. John, how about if I just sign a "waiver and release" form? Waiting for that Banner Book too, Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 JT, Do you have a Composite Acoustics Cargo, or what? Nick, exactly: a CA Cargo. I can't say enough nice things about it. Indestructible, cheap (watch eBay if you're on the hunt for one), good sounding, and great playing (I had to do some serious filing on the saddle to dial in the intonation, but the saddle was plenty wide enough and high enough to accommodate). Here I am about a week ago on the streets of Barcelona, Spain: I like the Cargo enough that I snagged an OM size cutaway (CA model OX, I think) off of eBay a while back. Again, cheap, great playing, decent sounding, and indestructible. When it's not in a car trunk, this one stays on a guitar stand year round. I use the Cargo for air travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Seriously though, that myth was dashed to little bitty pieces for me sometime in the 1990s Fred, that's one of the things that I really like about this forum: there are a bunch of knowledgeable folks who really like new gibsons. I'm one who tends to romanticize old guitars and it does me good to consider new guitars. John, how about if I just sign a "waiver and release" form? The form is on the way. Sign in blood, in the presence of five religious authorities (take your pick of priests, rabbis, ministers, certified atheists or agnostics), in triplicate, please. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-1854Me Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Nick, exactly: a CA Cargo. I can't say enough nice things about it. Indestructible, cheap (watch eBay if you're on the hunt for one), good sounding, and great playing... I like the Cargo enough that I snagged an OM size cutaway (CA model OX, I think) off of eBay a while back. Again, cheap, great playing, decent sounding, and indestructible. When it's not in a car trunk, this one stays on a guitar stand year round. I use the Cargo for air travel. I picked up this 'Traveling Songwriter' 4 or 5 years ago: It's also designed as a tough, sturdy travel-ready guitar, made with some sort of laminate-composite type top, laminated neck, and a resilient body. Surprise -- it's full-scale (24.75") and plugs in, if you want to annoy the neighbours! I've flown with it in its padded gig bag all over North America, and took it with me overseas to Europe a few years ago. Fits nicely into overhead compartments on all but the smallest of puddle-jumpers. However, probably not in the same price range as your CA though, I'd guess! Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Fred, That does look like a good travel option. The beauty of the Cargo is that it's cheap, small, and virtually indestructible. Use it as a canoe paddle in the afternoon and gig with it that night! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Fred, There was a report on public radio here this afternoon. They did another test of Stradivarious (sp) against several other new violins. The new ones won! I haven't searched, but you could probably find the online story. Probably just my ears when it comes to the old ones! John, sounds like you are near the end on the book. I remember when you started this undertaking. You can borrow any guitars I have if I have any this spring? I'm getting to old for this. I've got to go, I have to call a guy at Guitar Center about all old Gibson archtop. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I use the Cargo for air travel. That's exactly what I'm thinking. I live on airplanes, and there's no way I'm taking one of my "real" guitars. However, my little Martin Backpacker leaves much to be desired (to be polite), and is primarily useful for keeping my calluses in shape. I've been looking for one of those Cargo's for awhile, and particularly for a review by someone who actually uses one. Since I work with big carbon fiber structures professionally, that little jewel will fit right in.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanCarlosVejar Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 love the vintage SJ's posted on here :D . I hope one day i find a lefty ! JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rar Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 That does look like a good travel option. Have you (or Fred or Nick or anyone else for that matter) checked out Lukas Brunner's guitars? Roy Book Binder is a big fan, and I've played a couple of his -- one full-scale and one smaller short-scale model. If I were going to move up from my Traveler Escape (fine for playing in hotel rooms, but otherwise useless) to a real travel guitar, that's probably where I'd go. -- Bob R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Have you (or Fred or Nick or anyone else for that matter) checked out Lukas Brunner's guitars? Roy Book Binder is a big fan, and I've played a couple of his -- one full-scale and one smaller short-scale model. If I were going to move up from my Traveler Escape (fine for playing in hotel rooms, but otherwise useless) to a real travel guitar, that's probably where I'd go. -- Bob R Those Brunner's look nice. The Cargo appeals to me because in carbon fiber it should be virtually indestructable, which is pretty important in my line of work. And as JT says, you can use it as a canoe paddle if you find yourself up s**t creek without a paddle, which I seem to do frequently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotTheSilver Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Wow! A lot of great responses already! Ah, a topic near and dear to my heart and my nearly-finished book! ... I discovered that the post war guitars were built a little more heavily than the wartime guitars (at least the few that I've been able to sample). Whether that's good or bad depends on personal preferences. I like the lightweight version. ... All post mid-1944 Gibsons have Sitka rather than Adirondack tops (until the few, recent custom orders). ... You can peruse my Banner Gibson registry for a bit more information. In addition, here's my video comparison of rosewood and mahogany 1943 SJs: I hope that this helps. John, I was hoping you would chime in on this. A lot of great looking guitars on your site, and a lot of really great, detailed info on these guitars. I can't wait to read your book! Thanks for the comment on the post-war guitars being more heavily built. That is the kind of structural info I was looking for. In my experience, I have preferred more lightly built guitars as the sounds seems to just jump right out of them, as opposed to having to dig harder for it on more heavily built guitars and still not getting the same result. Also, thanks for the detail on the date for Adi/Sitka tops. I actually found this video clip while searching YouTube a couple of nights ago. Both guitars sound great. The mahogany fits my needs better, though I could see having a rosewood one later on also. Thanks! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Have you (or Fred or Nick or anyone else for that matter) checked out Lukas Brunner's guitars? Roy Book Binder is a big fan, and I've played a couple of his -- one full-scale and one smaller short-scale model. If I were going to move up from my Traveler Escape (fine for playing in hotel rooms, but otherwise useless) to a real travel guitar, that's probably where I'd go. -- Bob R Bob, I have checked out the Brunner. It's very cool. Actually, I tried out his harp guitar. The drawbacks to the take apart and folding (Harvey Leach's Voyage Air) guitars are that they do require a bit of assembly and what you gain in short length, you lose in thickness. So, it sort of seems a wash to me. But, the big issue is that they are wooden (though I understand that Brunner has made a prototype in carbon). I'm totally convinced that carbon is the way to go with a travel guitar. The Cargo is a good enough instrument that I've been comfortable gigging with it. Plus, I don't have to fold it up to get it to fit easily on an airplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotTheSilver Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Southern Jumbo, a favorite among many. Just the right amount of bling. Yes you will find a difference in the Banners and the post war guitars, some you mentioned, neck and neck binding. I think the Banner guitars are consistently good sounding, post war guitars not as much. There will be a large difference in cost. The Banner head guitars are not rare so they have been in the hands of many players. They deserve their reputation as find sounding guitars, it is not hype. Thanks a lot, TM. This is the kind of opinions I was looking for. I am sure there are a lot of great sounding examples of both banner and post-war SJs, but it is good to know that there is something to the greater demand for banners rather than just hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Wow! A lot of great responses already! John, I was hoping you would chime in on this. A lot of great looking guitars on your site, and a lot of really great, detailed info on these guitars. I can't wait to read your book! Thanks for the comment on the post-war guitars being more heavily built. That is the kind of structural info I was looking for. In my experience, I have preferred more lightly built guitars as the sounds seems to just jump right out of them, as opposed to having to dig harder for it on more heavily built guitars and still not getting the same result. Also, thanks for the detail on the date for Adi/Sitka tops. I actually found this video clip while searching YouTube a couple of nights ago. Both guitars sound great. The mahogany fits my needs better, though I could see having a rosewood one later on also. Thanks! John John, I'm glad that I could help. The differences between wartime and post war are subtle and no doubt vary from Guitat to guitar. But, I do share Terry's general observation about Banner Gibsons. Let me know if you're ever in the northeastern US. You're welcome to try out my guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbiii Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 My observation is there is an evolution in the sound quality of mahogany SJs and J-45s from 1943 to 1955. The newer the guitar, the fuller, more blended and less clear the sound. You can hear a '43 SJ and a '43, '43, '44, and '52 J-45 compared in this album. Good luck. Let's pick, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotTheSilver Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Let me know if you're ever in the northeastern US. You're welcome to try out my guitars. Thanks, John. I travel a lot for work all over the country (I'm a management consultant), so you never know when I may be in your neck of the woods. Would be great to meet in person and try out some of your guitars. On the issue of old versus new guitars, I have thought about this a lot. I live in Houston, so I usually make it to at least one of the Dallas/Arlington guitar shows each year. A few years ago I played a 1951 Southern Jumbo at the Arlington show that really blew me away. Unfortunately, I did not have the cash at the time to get it. A few months later when I did have the cash, I called up the seller but he had already sold it. The next time I went to Arlington, I spent the day playing as many vintage SJs and J-45s as I could to learn more about them. I also played some new True Vintage and Legend J-45s at the Fuller's booth. While I played some very good vintage guitars that day, I concluded that if I had bought a guitar that day it would have been one of the brand new ones. So I eventually bought a J-45 Legend, which is a great guitar. But that '51 SJ still haunts my dreams! I have to admit that part of my desire for a vintage guitar has to do with the feel and the mojo, in addition to the sound. My plan is to save up the money, then take my time searching for a really great sounding vintage SJ to go along with my J-45 Legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I have to admit that part of my desire for a vintage guitar has to do with the feel and the mojo, in addition to the sound. My plan is to save up the money, then take my time searching for a really great sounding vintage SJ to go along with my J-45 Legend. That sounds like a perfect plan to me! You definitely need one vintage Gibson flat top. Just because...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 You dont think its a bit overkill, vintage SJ and J-45 legend ? Im just asking because Im sort of in a similar boat with the Hummiginbirds, own a 69' but thinking also about a HB-TV. My plan is to save up the money, then take my time searching for a really great sounding vintage SJ to go along with my J-45 Legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 My observation is there is an evolution in the sound quality of mahogany SJs and J-45s from 1943 to 1955. The newer the guitar, the fuller, more blended and less clear the sound. You can hear a '43 SJ and a '43, '43, '44, and '52 J-45 compared in this album. Good luck. Let's pick, -Tom Tom, Do you have any opinion about why this is, i.e. the evolution of their structure or the way they were made? Love those Roy Smecks of yours, by the way! Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotTheSilver Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 You dont think its a bit overkill, vintage SJ and J-45 legend ? Im just asking because Im sort of in a similar boat with the Hummiginbirds, own a 69' but thinking also about a HB-TV. Overkill??? I don't think I understand the concept! After all, this is guitars we are talking about. If one is good, two must be great, three must be stupendous, etc.... Seriously, I don't think it is. Any two guitars are not going to sound exactly the same anyway, and I will get different kinds of enjoyment playing a brand new guitar versus playing a vintage guitar. Plus, I like having guitars I can keep in various tunings, anyway, so if I have to justify it I will use that excuse! I would think playing an HB-TV would be a different experience than playing your 69. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotTheSilver Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 That sounds like a perfect plan to me! You definitely need one vintage Gibson flat top. Just because...... I already have a vintage L-00 which is a really cool guitar, but needs a bit of work before I can really dig into it. Just haven't gotten that done yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotTheSilver Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 My observation is there is an evolution in the sound quality of mahogany SJs and J-45s from 1943 to 1955. The newer the guitar, the fuller, more blended and less clear the sound. You can hear a '43 SJ and a '43, '43, '44, and '52 J-45 compared in this album. Good luck. Let's pick, -Tom Wow, looks like a great site. I will have to dig into this when I get some time and can connect my computer to some decent speakers. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbiii Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Do you have any opinion about why this is, i.e. the evolution of their structure or the way they were made? Hi Red, Well, there was certainly an evolution in features over those years. Also, Gibson never really stuck to a specification very long anyway and the WWII years at Gibson were especially crazy. They made a lot of "floor sweep instrument" where they just made stuff from the parts on hand. This is really visible in their banjos from the WWII period. This all as nothing to do with your with your question, but it does point out that the tonality of the guitars could vary greatly because their macro and micro features could also vary greatly. The other fairly consistent features changes that certainly effected sound were the change during WWII from red spruce to Sitka spruce, the changes in the bridge-bridgeplate geometry (from some small rectangular, to bottom belly, to top belly, to adjustable), the heavier bracing evolution with time, and the use of laminated sides (mid 50s). There is also the ever-present age factor where instruments tend to gain clarity with age. This is all speculation on my part -- I know the features changed and the sound changed, but I cant prove the features were the reasons for the sound changes -- there are just too many variables. Wow, looks like a great site. I will have to dig into this when I get some time and can connect my computer to some decent speakers. I'm glad you find it valuable. Since you are obviously also into smaller guitars too, there is also an album about those. Best, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Hi Red, Well, there was certainly an evolution in features over those years. Also, Gibson never really stuck to a specification very long anyway and the WWII years at Gibson were especially crazy. They made a lot of "floor sweep instrument" where they just made stuff from the parts on hand. This is really visible in their banjos from the WWII period. This all as nothing to do with your with your question, but it does point out that the tonality of the guitars could vary greatly because their macro and micro features could also vary greatly. The other fairly consistent features changes that certainly effected sound were the change during WWII from red spruce to Sitka spruce, the changes in the bridge-bridgeplate geometry (from some small rectangular, to bottom belly, to top belly, to adjustable), the heavier bracing evolution with time, and the use of laminated sides (mid 50s). There is also the ever-present age factor where instruments tend to gain clarity with age. This is all speculation on my part -- I know the features changed and the sound changed, but I cant prove the features were the reasons for the sound changes -- there are just too many variables. Best, -Tom Thanks for the thoughtful answer, Tom! Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite Gibson jumbo in your (INCREDIBLE!) collection, and why? Red 333 Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbiii Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Just out of curiosity, do you have a favorite Gibson jumbo in your (INCREDIBLE!) collection, and why? I like several for different reasons and different types of music. I guess I would say our current "home" genre is bluegrass. For that purpose, we have a much-traveled '35 Jumbo that would be my personal entry in a "best bluegrass guitar ever" contest. We also have three prewar herringbone that have all made grown men weep, but to my ears, the old Jumbo tops them. An interesting fact is how poorly recognized these mid 30's Js are -- most bluegrass players think I am playing a J-45, even thought it looks and sounds nothing like a J-45. It has confused a lot of people Best, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.