jt Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Well, there was certainly an evolution in features over those years. Tom, You know more about this than I do. But, my sense is that from about 1930 through about the mid-1950s, Gibsons became more heavily built in response to the changing use of the guitar. As the guitar moved from parlor to stage and folks began using plectrums and sought to get more noise from the things, Gibson (and other makers like Martin and the Larsons) built sturdier guitars. There is, of course, variation from guitar to guitar, but the general trend seems pretty clear. Of course, Gibson has never believed that there can be too much of a good thing. So, those feather weight, circa 1930 Ls eventually turned into Les Pauls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-1854Me Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Tom, You know more about this than I do. But, my sense is that from about 1930 through about the mid-1950s, Gibsons became more heavily built in response to the changing use of the guitar. As the guitar moved from parlor to stage and folks began using plectrums and sought to get more noise from the things, Gibson (and other makers like Martin and the Larsons) built sturdier guitars. There is, of course, variation from guitar to guitar, but the general trend seems pretty clear. Of course, Gibson has never believed that there can be too much of a good thing. So, those feather weight, circa 1930 Ls eventually turned into Les Pauls. A reasonable assessment, John (and Tom) (and others). If I look at my '59 CW, for example, and compare it with late '40s J-45/50s, there are a number of changes that reflect those changes. It bears mentioning that there is not only an evolution of design in structure, say, in terms of elements such as bracing design (height, thickness, material, scalloped vs non), bridge placement, bridge plate size and material, saddle-thru bridges vs drop-in saddle, taper headstock vs uniform thickness; truss-road vs wood insert; top wood, top thickness, etc. Additionally, aesthetic design cues changed, with binding/no binding, logo style, banner, inlaid vs silkscreen logo, crown inlay (post-'55, e.g.). Trying to understand the history of these design elements with the typical 'western' fixation on "needing to know" exact dates and so on can be frustratingly complex with a company like Gibson, but that's part of the fun too! Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Trying to understand the history of these design elements with the typical 'western' fixation on "needing to know" exact dates and so on can be frustratingly complex with a company like Gibson, but that's part of the fun too! Fred, Exactly! Gibson history was/is not linear. That is the fun part. I was speaking about this just today with the director of a museum interested in putting together a Banner Gibson exhibit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I kinda like the S.J. without the neck binding. It's a shame that the folks at Gibson don't know that the S.J. never had neck binding before 1946-47. If they did maybe they wouldn't have made Fuller's 42 and 43 reissues with neck binding. One trip to J.T's website was all they had to do. Ya gotta wonder.... ??? I also rather like the neck without the binding. At least they got this detail right on the Woody Guthrie model which purports to be like a 1945. But as JT will tell you, they probably didn't get the back wood right for a replica of Guthrie's guitar. No problem for me, as I love the sound of mahogany, and despite developing a different preference each time I hear John's comparison of those particular 1943 beauties, the more my ears get attuned to the slope-shouldered sound with mahogany, the more I find that John's own guitar wins - if only by the smallest of margins. I wish I were in a position to compare new with old. Having 3 children is wonderful and totally incompatible with extended journeys in search of guitars. I suspect that the nearest vintage banner to me is sitting in Willi Henkes's shop, and that is a bit far for a day trip. When I played my guitar teacher's 1940s Gibson flat-top in the 1980s, I fell in love with the headstock (non-banner, as I remember), but was really too inexperienced to notice anything about the tone other than that it sounded different from my classical guitar. Shame. I can say that my new guitar really sounds splendid, though. Still, I love the fact that enough of you have the passion and funds to keep the oldies in the hands of players. Good on you Long John Silver. JT, any plans to tour Central Europe beyond Prague? Hungary is nice too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 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. 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 Thanks Tom, for your 'tireless' documentation and videos of these fine old guitars! Tis nice to hear them in a controlled environment and with your fine skills behind them. Very Nice...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Thanks Tom, for your 'tireless' documentation and videos of these fine old guitars! Tis nice to hear them in a controlled environment and with your fine skills behind them. Very Nice...! +1. You do all of us a great favor, Tom. Many thanks. Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 JT, any plans to tour Central Europe beyond Prague? Hungary is nice too. Let's do it! I have a very good friend, and fellow guitar geek, in Budapest. He'll be visiting me in April and I'll certainly arrange to visit him when I'm (relatively) nearby in Prague. So, send me a PM and we'll stay in touch 'til then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 +1. You do all of us a great favor, Tom. Many thanks Plus another 1! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.