Mojorule Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Was just hanging five on the web, and came across this odd item. Not exactly in your usual Craigslist or Ebay listing, but with some details which in other contexts might yield a cry of 'fake!'. An 'absent banner logo'? How about the present 1930s (or earlier?) MOP 'The Gibson' inlay? In the immortal words of Marvin Gaye: 'What's going on?' JT, this is surely one for your book: a banner Gibson with no banner and no script logo. Were truss rods common on '44 SJs? The Gabson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I am not jt, but several red flags go off in my head over the headstock detail and dating of the guitar! I say '47 or earlier(unbound neck,bottom-belly bridge) I say the peghead had damage and was stripped of its banner(possibly) decals and someone added the earlier pearl inlay logo at some point....erroneousely.. Jus' gessin'..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Weird! That bridge has been replaced (look where the saddle is) and I can't quite figure those marks on the top. I suspect that it is a wartime SJ, but would need to know the factory order number (or its absence, indicating circa 1946). That script logo isn't original (or quite right). Yes, 1944 marked the return of the truss rod (absent for much of 19430. Thanks for flagging this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That one is just strange. Of course, this comes from a guy who has a late 40's J-45 with an L-5 style headstock. But I know when where that happened. We clearly don't have the whole story here. As JT points out, I don't know what those marks on the top are. I've never seen anything quite like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That guitar shop has been on my computer 'favs' list for a while, and I have noticed odd guitars there before. Perhaps in motoring industry terms, a 'chop shop' out the back of the shop, or somebody with said 'chop shop' at home unloading their items at the legit shop above? BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotTheSilver Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 The markings on the top, isn't that called bear claw? Don't see it much on Gibsons, but you do see it on other acoustics from time to time. If that is what it is, you very rarely see that much of it on a guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Retrod, We must have been typing at the same time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I am not jt, but several red flags go off in my head over the headstock detail and dating of the guitar! I say '47 or earlier(unbound neck,bottom-belly bridge) I say the peghead had damage and was stripped of its banner(possibly) decals and someone added the earlier pearl inlay logo at some point....erroneousely.. Jus' gessin'..? That's a pretty rational guess in my book, since everything else about the neck says mid/late 40's. Whoever put those tuners on should be shot. It's one thing to replace a set of tuners (however poorly they are chosen). It's another thing altogether to make a complete hash of it. It ain't rocket science to do it right. JT could probably compare the script logo details with "The Gibson" logos that he knows to be original to see how good a copy it is. After all, we know what happens when a weird owner gets it in his head to do something strange with a late-40s slope headstock detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimt Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Looks like a Custom ordered Guitar.. Nice Bearclaw Top and Peg head script inlay.. The saddle looks like its off quite abit though.. Bridge change.. Tuner Change.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 17, 2012 Author Share Posted January 17, 2012 Looks like a Custom ordered Guitar.. Nice Bearclaw Top and Peg head script inlay.. The saddle looks like its off quite abit though.. Bridge change.. Tuner Change.. Did they do custom orders in '44? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 This guitar looks very suspicious to me. There are several things that are NOT quite right. I say a replica and NOT a real Gibson. Gibson stopped using "The Gibson" logo around 1931-32 long before the SJ was introduced. I don't think it was custom ordered either. Stay away from this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 This guitar looks very suspicious to me. There are several things that are NOT quite right. I say a replica and NOT a real Gibson. Gibson stopped using "The Gibson" logo around 1931-32 long before the SJ was introduced. I don't think it was custom ordered either. Stay away from this one. This would definitely require a first-hand inspection. As JT points out, the bridge has definitely been changed (and an odd one it is, with the saddle pushed way forward and not compensated at all). It's a bit odd, but I suspect if it didn't have this headstock logo, few would question it. If it has a FON, that would clear some of it up, at least. How the seller could say it's a '44 without some provenance is beyond me, given the changes made. There may be a perfectly rational explanation for what we see, but it's up to the seller to provide it if they want top dollar for the guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 This would definitely require a first-hand inspection. As JT points out, the bridge has definitely been changed (and an odd one it is, with the saddle pushed way forward and not compensated at all). It's a bit odd, but I suspect if it didn't have this headstock logo, few would question it. If it has a FON, that would clear some of it up, at least. How the seller could say it's a '44 without some provenance is beyond me, given the changes made. There may be a perfectly rational explanation for what we see, but it's up to the seller to provide it if they want top dollar for the guitar. I totally agree with you and about inspecting a guitar like this first hand, but the fact remains that it's prbably not playable "as is" with that wacky bridge. The intonation must be way out. The body's shape doesn't look right either. Would love to know if the guitar has a FON, because I bet it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I totally agree with you and about inspecting a guitar like this first hand, but the fact remains that it's prbably not playable "as is" with that wacky bridge. The intonation must be way out. The body's shape doesn't look right either. Would love to know if the guitar has a FON, because I bet it doesn't. Interestingly, in the vintage Gibson sub-forum, a poster showed photos of what he says is a 1947 J-50 with a rectangular bridge and the modern block logo. He says it has no FON. I thought that by 1947 every J-45/J-50 would have had a FON. As I understood it, war-time guitars may or may not have a FON. There's nothing to suggest that his guitar is not legitimate. I was just surprised at the lack of a FON by then. Most sources list 1947 as the introductory year for the J-50, but it isn't clear exactly when the block logo replaced the script (talking here about "Gibson" rather than "The Gibson"). I don't know if the earliest J-50's had a script logo. That would be a rare bird, indeed. I'm sure JT could elaborate on that one, as it makes it more difficult to date guitars if you have to do it by characteristics alone. I think I see what you mean about the body shape. The point of inflection at the waist seems very sharp--almost not a fair curve. It may be the angle at which the photo is taken, but I agree that it looks a bit odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Paul, What do you think is going on with the top of that guitar? as we know, Gibson did not use spruce with bearclaw. The thing looks like one of those 1950s Regal laminated tops. I'll email the seller and ask a couple of questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Weird! That bridge has been replaced (look where the saddle is) and I can't quite figure those marks on the top. I suspect that it is a wartime SJ, but would need to know the factory order number (or its absence, indicating circa 1946). That script logo isn't original (or quite right). Yes, 1944 marked the return of the truss rod (absent for much of 19430. Thanks for flagging this one! It was the 'not quite right' as well as unoriginal that I was thinking about when I gave a name to my link, John. I'm even more ignorant about pre-banner logos than banner ones, but the G looked overdone to me. I was so tired when I posted that the bridge and bearclaw marks passed me by, and I didn't see anything wrong with the shape, but now I do. Just so much oddity going on, and nary a word about it other than the lack of a banner - as if the decal had just fallen off and everything else was original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 This guitar looks very suspicious to me. There are several things that are NOT quite right. I say a replica and NOT a real Gibson. Gibson stopped using "The Gibson" logo around 1931-32 long before the SJ was introduced. I don't think it was custom ordered either. Stay away from this one. Much as I'd love to be, I'm not in the market for an original banner or other vintage guitar. Just was browsing and stumbled on this one. Then did a doubletake. Interesting what you deduce from the weirdo saddle/bridge arrangement, and I have to say I have difficulty imagining how it works. But more interesting is their assertion that it's a superb player up and down the neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 This would definitely require a first-hand inspection. As JT points out, the bridge has definitely been changed (and an odd one it is, with the saddle pushed way forward and not compensated at all). It's a bit odd, but I suspect if it didn't have this headstock logo, few would question it. If it has a FON, that would clear some of it up, at least. How the seller could say it's a '44 without some provenance is beyond me, given the changes made. There may be a perfectly rational explanation for what we see, but it's up to the seller to provide it if they want top dollar for the guitar. Lack of any provenance, or given that their page is mainly intended to whet your appetite, at least of a back story explaining the obvious anomalies, was one of the things that made me post this case in the first place, Nick. They're so blasé about it all: it's obviously a '44, and to those of you who actually know what one is, it's just missing its banner. Who cares how it came to lose the banner. It's a '44 after all - it's old and stuff happens. Besides, it plays so well. Who cares if it's lost its banner. Did we mention that it's a '44? You should read their description of the J45TV that they're selling. Not far off the mark overall, but the use of the term 'reissue' is a bit misleading, given the caveat that is forever being repeated here about the 'True Vintage' moniker. And since when were they hard to come by? I can find them in stock at three different well-known European and UK internet sellers. Which rather troubles the use of the past tense when they describe production numbers of the model. Still, this item shows that they do know a banner from a spanner. Maybe the banner from the '44 decided to fly across to the TV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 I totally agree with you and about inspecting a guitar like this first hand, but the fact remains that it's prbably not playable "as is" with that wacky bridge. The intonation must be way out. The body's shape doesn't look right either. Would love to know if the guitar has a FON, because I bet it doesn't. If they were serious and it had an FON, they would surely tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Interestingly, in the vintage Gibson sub-forum, a poster showed photos of what he says is a 1947 J-50 with a rectangular bridge and the modern block logo. He says it has no FON. I thought that by 1947 every J-45/J-50 would have had a FON. As I understood it, war-time guitars may or may not have a FON. There's nothing to suggest that his guitar is not legitimate. I was just surprised at the lack of a FON by then. Most sources list 1947 as the introductory year for the J-50, but it isn't clear exactly when the block logo replaced the script (talking here about "Gibson" rather than "The Gibson"). I don't know if the earliest J-50's had a script logo. That would be a rare bird, indeed. I'm sure JT could elaborate on that one, as it makes it more difficult to date guitars if you have to do it by characteristics alone. I think I see what you mean about the body shape. The point of inflection at the waist seems very sharp--almost not a fair curve. It may be the angle at which the photo is taken, but I agree that it looks a bit odd. You pinpoint what is wrong with the body shape well here. I'd missed that detail, but now can't get it out of my head. Aside from that, the proportions seem about right, but there's a definite kink right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Paul, What do you think is going on with the top of that guitar? as we know, Gibson did not use spruce with bearclaw. The thing looks like one of those 1950s Regal laminated tops. I'll email the seller and ask a couple of questions. Good luck. They're a well-known and I believe reputable shop in Denmark Street, and they pride themselves on their famous clientele as well as on their address. This example rather took me aback. I at least assumed that they might know something about the basics of the banner era. Perhaps they know electrics rather better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Wouldn't be the first bag of trash sold on Denmark street as the 'real' thing...... I was sold a 1962 Les Paul on Denmark street in the very early 90's, now that would suggest it was SG shaped, it wasn't, it was a traditional LP shape, and actually from late 64 early 65 with some non-original features. Not that I can complain, I still made 3 times what I paid for it when it was sold in 2000, but there's clearly a few down there who arent on top of their game... or just blatant crooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimt Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ill retract what I said about it being a Custom Shop Possibility... The more I look at it the more it looks like a Pile of different guitars mixed into one.. the body shape is wierd.. ,I cant see inside the sound hole for even giving a accessment. Lack of info ,, is a Big Red Flag on this Guitar.. So i would say its a Fake.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 Wouldn't be the first bag of trash sold on Denmark street as the 'real' thing...... I was sold a 1962 Les Paul on Denmark street in the very early 90's, now that would suggest it was SG shaped, it wasn't, it was a traditional LP shape, and actually from late 64 early 65 with some non-original features. Not that I can complain, I still made 3 times what I paid for it when it was sold in 2000, but there's clearly a few down there who arent on top of their game... or just blatant crooks. But I thought they didn't reintroduce the traditional-shape LP till 68 or 69? I thought there was this big hiatus from 1960 till 1968/9. Only ever window shopped in Denmark Street - and got a quote on my Epiphone Casino. At the time I was outraged at the low offer. Now I'd be lucky to get that much, even with inflation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Orion Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Denmark St, where every salesman's band is 'on the verge of making it' and the guitars are almost as bad as the service... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.