j45nick Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I don't think this is a factory job. Gibson was pretty sloopy with their application of hide glue but not this bad. The X brace looks like it was chewed out by a hungry beaver and the tone braces are not original, The braces to the side of the X brace are all wonky as well. Definitly not original. The ends are not tapered properly and the wood looks completely different than the X brace. This is a very bad job done after the guitar left the factory. Nothing about it is correct. Someone tried to do this with the top on and they really messed things up. Check the scallop of the non original tone bar with the mess of the X brace. The X brace was done with a dull rock and the tone bar is just a little bit better. Not much, but a bit better. I agree that this looks like a non-factory hack job done with the top on. Nothing really looks right. That glue looks more like Tite-Bond than the hide glue that would have been used in 1942. Looking on the inside of my Gibsons of this vintage, the old hide glue drips are almost black after 60+ years. Nobody gluing up this top on a bench would have left that much glue all over everything. Gibsons may be notorious for glue drips--my '48 J-45 has plenty--but they usually result from gluing the guitar parts together, very often the kerfing, rather than gluing the braces. I've never seen an x-brace cut out that way. It doesn't make sense to me. ZW, we know this guitar must have a story. What is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I agree that this looks like a non-factory hack job done with the top on. Nothing really looks right. That glue looks more like Tite-Bond than the hide glue that would have been used in 1942. Looking on the inside of my Gibsons of this vintage, the old hide glue drips are almost black after 60+ years. Nobody gluing up this top on a bench would have left that much glue all over everything. Gibsons may be notorious for glue drips--my '48 J-45 has plenty--but they usually result from gluing the guitar parts together, very often the kerfing, rather than gluing the braces. I've never seen an x-brace cut out that way. It doesn't make sense to me. ZW, we know this guitar must have a story. What is it? I think that the braces simply came loose and were reglued. you can see the clamp marks in the X braces. Ive seen worse that this (in terms of carving) in the late 1930s. Some vintage Gibson braces look to have been cut by lumberjacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedzep Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Ha! I relate to that statement. My old L0 looks like it was braced by a drunken whittler. Can't blame Gibson because it's a repair/rebrace job...probably actually done by a drunken whittler. Just chimed in to say it still couldn't kill the tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Neil Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 D-28 has standard, straight bracing while the HD-28 has scalloped bracing, also shifted forward Sorry Euroaussie, I have to pick you up on that. The HD-28 is indeed scalloped but NOT forward-shifted in its bracing pattern. That would be the D-28V and its ilk. Regarding the more general question I think Onewileyfool nailed it when he says it comes down to the individual guitar. There are so many variables in working with organic materials made by humans at different times of the year (or week!). To generalize a little though I will say that on a non-scalloped, non-forward-shifted guitar one would find the treble tones to be 'fatter' and the bass to be 'tighter'. While it will project the fundamentals well it will have less 'width' to that projection - almost like a punchy mono versus a spread out stereo field. This is of course a description of a new guitar with these characteristics. The aging and opening process modifies this somewhat. Whether these are 'good' or 'bad' tonal characteristics is subjective and relative to taste and application. Sometimes a punchy mono sound is great. Most of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers sucessful and award-winning album 'Californication' was recorded in mono (with selected stereo parts for dynamic impact) so its not necessarily a minus. Personally, I find that while scalloped, forward-shifted guitars may initially sound impressive they can require a more skillful technique to keep things under control in front of a microphone. The bass can get a little 'woofy' and the trebles overwhelmed in some situations. I also find that while straight-braced, unscalloped guitars can sound a little 'green' and stiff to begin with, I prefer how they age into their tonal signature. All the above is a generalization and true tone is with the player more than the guitar. Witness how many expensive synthesizer workstations turn into cheesy mediocrity in the 'wrong' hands and you see that applies to anything. Summary: throw away the spec sheet: a good guitar in your hands is all you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 To generalize a little though I will say that on a non-scalloped, non-forward-shifted guitar one would find the treble tones to be 'fatter' and the bass to be 'tighter'. While it will project the fundamentals well it will have less 'width' to that projection - almost like a punchy mono versus a spread out stereo field. This is of course a description of a new guitar with these characteristics. The aging and opening process modifies this somewhat. Whether these are 'good' or 'bad' tonal characteristics is subjective and relative to taste and application. Sometimes a punchy mono sound is great. Most of the Red Hot Chilli Peppers sucessful and award-winning album 'Californication' was recorded in mono (with selected stereo parts for dynamic impact) so its not necessarily a minus. Personally, I find that while scalloped, forward-shifted guitars may initially sound impressive they can require a more skillful technique to keep things under control in front of a microphone. The bass can get a little 'woofy' and the trebles overwhelmed in some situations. I also find that while straight-braced, unscalloped guitars can sound a little 'green' and stiff to begin with, I prefer how they age into their tonal signature. The mono/stereo analogy is good in its abstract form. Taking it further to concrete recordings is 1 bridge too far for me. Also you hit the nail clean by claiming an unscalloped guitar opens in another way. Breaking in - among other things - is about getting looser and as the unscalloped guitar is more tight to begin with, the balance-point is somewhere else on the curve forward. With the scalloped there is a chance they might become too 'open'/hollow over time. No matter how old, the 2 concepts will stay apart and never really cross – this is about basic nature – it's soul territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.