1940 SJ 200 restoration

[JuanCarlosVejar]

guys check this link out . interesting to see the restoration process :

 

http://nashvilleguitarcompany.com/current-renovations/1940-gibson-j-200-rosewood/

 

 

and here is another one on a 000 28 that belong to the original "JC"

 

http://nashvilleguitarcompany.com/restoration-gallery/johnny-cashs-ooo-28/

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[pfox14]

Pretty cool. You don't see a lot of rosewood J-200s from that era. Mostly maple & Mahogany

[Danner]

Wow! That was a substantial project. I bet it sounds great

[Hogeye]

Pretty cool. You don't see a lot of rosewood J-200s from that era. Mostly maple & Mahogany

This is a very early SJ-200. It has the individual string height adjusters on the bridge and it's Brazilian. All of the pre war SJ-200's were rosewood. The first ones were Brazilian. This guitar has a great historical value. I would love to see the finished instrument.

[dchristo]

WOW, that was a major job

[jt]

This is a very early SJ-200. It has the individual string height adjusters on the bridge and it's Brazilian. All of the pre war SJ-200's were rosewood. The first ones were Brazilian. This guitar has a great historical value. I would love to see the finished instrument

 

Well, there was one maple, pre-war SJ-200. As for the rosewood, all we're Indian rosewood. Gibson ceased using Brazilian for backs and sides circa 1936 and the SJ-200s Weren't made until 1938.

[drathbun]

This seems to be the final result of the restoration. It is great they did not try to fix the playing wear. The Braz back and sides are amazing. Fascinating restore!

 

Finished Restoration

[retrorod]

Well, there was one maple, pre-war SJ-200. As for the rosewood, all we're Indian rosewood. Gibson ceased using Brazilian for backs and sides circa 1936 and the SJ-200s Weren't made until 1938.

Very interesting that Gibson stopped using Brazilian that early. I guess Martin quit in '69...?

and OMG....Stunning back on that one!

Rod

[Hogeye]

Well, there was one maple, pre-war SJ-200. As for the rosewood, all we're Indian rosewood. Gibson ceased using Brazilian for backs and sides circa 1936 and the SJ-200s Weren't made until 1938.

The original Ray Whitley that is on display in Nashville is considered to be a Brazilian.This was made in 1937 This is well documented.Gibson speced the guitar in 1994. Ren was given permission by the Whitley family to take the guitar out of the case and spec it out for the reissue. Gibson reissued the Ray Whitley as a Brazilian and they made 37 of them to honor the year they made Ray's.

 

I know of at least one SJ-200 Brazilian that was from 1942/43 that was on consignment at Elderly that is thought to be Brazilian.It's priced at $125K. I played the guitar and I helped the owner locate some of the string adjusters. Everyone that has inspected the guitar including Ren Ferguson says it's Brazilian. The guitar being restored looks to be Brazilian. It's not the typical Indian look for sure. I would like your thoughts on the guitar as I view it as being very significant to the history of the SJ-200.And as you say the pre war SJ-200 was for the most part Indian Rosewood. Just as a footnote. Lots of mysteries out there including the Maple SJ-200. I have never seen it and I certainly don't doubt that it's out there. I would love to see the guitar at some point.

 

There are some interesting points being made by some very respected authors on Gibson so I won't challenge your information. I know of no tests being done on the guitars I mentioned. I as well as others took the word of some respected luthiers.

[rar]

Well, there was one maple, pre-war SJ-200. As for the rosewood, all we're Indian rosewood. Gibson ceased using Brazilian for backs and sides circa 1936 and the SJ-200s Weren't made until 1938.

I've got to say, I'm with Hogeye on this one. I think what the analyses that Willi had done established was that the lovely quartersawn mystery rosewood -- "Is it Brazilian? Is it Amazonian? Is it Indian?" -- that Gibson was using pre-war but after '36 was Indian. However, the backs on this SJ-200 and the one at Elderly look nothing like the back of the one he had tested. I would still wager a modest amount of money at even odds that those two are Brazilian.

 

-- Bob R

[jt]

I've got to say, I'm with Hogeye on this one. I think what the analyses that Willi had done established was that the lovely quartersawn mystery rosewood -- "Is it Brazilian? Is it Amazonian? Is it Indian?" -- that Gibson was using pre-war but after '36 was Indian. However, the backs on this SJ-200 and the one at Elderly look nothing like the back of the one he had tested. I would still wager a modest amount of money at even odds that those two are Brazilian.

 

-- Bob R

 

Yeah, a good point. As with all things Gibson, there are exceptions. At least on AJ has Brazilian back and sides and this SJ-200 looks Brazilian, too. I'd love to see it in person.

 

Chemical testing of woods is time consuming, so I've worked up an alternative. CT-scanners can measure densities eru acurately. So, I've run a series of small pieces of wood -hondurannmanhogany, Cuban hmahogany, Brazilain rosewood, Indian rosewood, madagasca rosewood, ebony, etc -- though the CT-scanner and gotten very good readings on wood densities. So now, I can run a guitar thorugh the machine and not only see through it, but identify teh wood species (to a decent degree of accuracy). It should bew interesting.

[Hogeye]

Yeah, a good point. As with all things Gibson, there are exceptions. At least on AJ has Brazilian back and sides and this SJ-200 looks Brazilian, too. I'd love to see it in person.

 

Chemical testing of woods is time consuming, so I've worked up an alternative. CT-scanners can measure densities eru acurately. So, I've run a series of small pieces of wood -hondurannmanhogany, Cuban hmahogany, Brazilain rosewood, Indian rosewood, madagasca rosewood, ebony, etc -- though the CT-scanner and gotten very good readings on wood densities. So now, I can run a guitar thorugh the machine and not only see through it, but identify teh wood species (to a decent degree of accuracy). It should bew interesting.

That is soooooo cool J.T. I'd love to see some of your data in a book or at least a published article as it would help clear up a bunch of the mystery wood issues out there. I did go to the Elderly website and looked at the photos of the 42/43 they have on consignment and then I compared them to the guitar being restored and they are so similar in appearance that it's amazing. They look to be from the same cut. If I were a bit more curious I would try to find the serial numbers and see how close these two guitars are in relation to each other. They appear to be very similar in cut,color, and grain.

 

I just think at this point I will never say never when it comes to Gibson. They just don't conform to any standard and I love them for it. How dull life would be for us guitar geeks without their goofy quirks. Right now I would say these guitars were from a South American species of Rosewood and not from the Indian Ocean area. Even though I'm an old white guy I can still tap dance a bit.

[rar]

Chemical testing of woods is time consuming, so I've worked up an alternative. CT-scanners can measure densities eru acurately.

Very interesting! Any idea how reliably the species can be distinguished via density? I've read some stuff written by luthiers that suggests variances are significant, maybe even greater than, differences in means. But I've never actually seen any data on distributions beyond means, "maxes", and "mins".

 

-- Bob R

[rar]

... they are so similar in appearance that it's amazing. They look to be from the same cut. ...

I thought the same thing, but chickened out on actually saying so. I wonder whether there's a market for DNA testing of guitars? :)

 

-- Bob R

[jt]

Very interesting! Any idea how reliably the species can be distinguished via density? I've read some stuff written by luthiers that suggests variances are significant, maybe even greater than, differences in means. But I've never actually seen any data on distributions beyond means, "maxes", and "mins".

 

-- Bob R

 

Bob,

 

I don't have data. But, suspect that my process will have a significant margin of error. I can certainly distinguish rosewood from maple from mahogany from spruce. Even Indian rosewood from Brazilian rosewood (I think). But, what of the different varieties of spruce like, say a really stiff piece of European from a relatively flexible piece of Adirondack? So, I need to run a series of tests to get a sufficient sample size to determine whether my results are statistically significant. I just need the time!

[j45nick]

Bob,

 

I don't have data. But, suspect that my process will have a significant margin of error. I can certainly distinguish rosewood from maple from mahogany from spruce. Even Indian rosewood from Brazilian rosewood (I think). But, what of the different varieties of spruce like, say a really stiff piece of European from a relatively flexible piece of Adirondack? So, I need to run a series of tests to get a sufficient sample size to determine whether my results are statistically significant. I just need the time!

 

JT, I think it might take something more than density differences to separate out related species from each other. The density of any piece of wood may be pretty inconsistent throughout that piece of wood, in my experience. A cubic foot of Honduras mahogany, for example, has a nominal density of about 35 lbs/cuft, but can vary substantially both above and below that number. Most of the North American spruces have virtually identical nominal densities, which are identical to those of certain types of cedars. Totally unrelated wood species can have very similar densities as well, such as so-called "Philippine mahogany" and true Honduras mahogany. For a given species, density is usually given as a range, rather than a single number. In any case, an accurate measure of density requires a fairly large sample.

 

There are a bunch of standard methodologies to identify wood species from physical charachteristics, such as cellular structure, etc. but they might require destructive testing in a way that is impractical on a guitar.

 

There must be more to this than meets they eye. Obviously, it is quite easy to differentiate less-dense wood types such as spruces from denser woods such as mahogany, although the visual differences would be more obvious than the density differences. Beyond that, it would seem that absolute identification might require some sort of DNA analysis.

 

I hope there may be some simple methodology that we aren't aware of, and will be very interested to see what you come up with. Keep us in the loop.

[jt]

JT, I think it might take something more than density differences to separate out related species from each other. ...

 

I hope there may be some simple methodology that we aren't aware of, and will be very interested to see what you come up with. Keep us in the loop.

 

Nick,

 

Well, "density" may not be the right word. We're using electron beam tomography, which takes an x-ray every 1/2 mm, first vertically through the guitar (as it passes through the arch containing the mechanism) and then horizontally (as it comes back through). So, we can get 3-D images of the wood's cell structure. It's pretty amazing. But, It's time consuming, taking about an hour to do a guitar. Plus, we need to work on our identifying criteria. We can see that the stuff is different, but we can't tell which spruce is which.

[j45nick]

Nick,

 

Well, "density" may not be the right word. We're using electron beam tomography, which takes an x-ray every 1/2 mm, first vertically through the guitar (as it passes through the arch containing the mechanism) and then horizontally (as it comes back through). So, we can get 3-D images of the wood's cell structure. It's pretty amazing. But, It's time consuming, taking about an hour to do a guitar. Plus, we need to work on our identifying criteria. We can see that the stuff is different, but we can't tell which spruce is which.

 

That makes more sense to me. It's not really density, which is just mass per unit volume. It sounds like a non-destructive way to replicate the old-fashioned method of taking a thin slice of the material and analyzing the cell structure under a microscope. That is cool indeed.

 

I'm sure you've looked at all the standard texts on wood species differentiation, which might provide some guidance. It can be pretty hard to be definitive in species identification without the standard tell-tales like bark and leaf or needle structure to fill in the gaps left by cellular structure, particularly in some of the very closely related species, such as the spruces. You might also consider seeking the assistance of some of the universities that have big agriculture departments, like URI or Penn State, if you haven't done that already.

[jt]

That makes more sense to me. It's not really density, which is just mass per unit volume. It sounds like a non-destructive way to replicate the old-fashioned method of taking a thin slice of the material and analyzing the cell structure under a microscope. That is cool indeed.

 

I'm sure you've looked at all the standard texts on wood species differentiation, which might provide some guidance. It can be pretty hard to be definitive in species identification without the standard tell-tales like bark and leaf or needle structure to fill in the gaps left by cellular structure, particularly in some of the very closely related species, such as the spruces. You might also consider seeking the assistance of some of the universities that have big agriculture departments, like URI or Penn State, if you haven't done that already.

 

Nick,

 

All great points. Thanks!

 

The simple fact is that I've recognized an opportunity and seized it. I've now got way more data than I've had time to analyze. I've got a data base of digital X-rays that includes nearly every instrument in EarlyMartin.Com and EarlyGibson.com. (Best: I've played them all!) I've also CT-scanned many of those instruments. My collaborators and I have published 2 articles in the journal of the American Society of Radiologic Technology. An in-depth piece on our work will appear soon in Fretboard Journal. And, we've got a book in the works. But, I've got a day job, a CD to produce, a couple of books to finish, and a movie to make. So, it's gonna be a while before I sort this stuff out. But, in the meantime, comments like yours are very, very helpful. I've got unparalleled information and I want to make sure that I serve the guitar community as best I can. Input that I've received on this forum has been invaluable.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

Amazing thread.

 

Thank you and lot's of respect to you guys.

[jt]

I'm using the Toshiba Aqulilion 64, which is quite simply the finest CT-scanner on the planet:

 

 

Toshiba has become sufficiently intrigued by my project that its lead software engineers have pledged to tweak the software ( a proprietary package that costs $175,000) to create presets for scanning guitars. For example, when scanning a human, there are presets to produce 3d images of just the vascular, skeletal, or other systems and even for specific organs, like the heart or brain. I'll eventually have presets just for the bracing, body plates, etc. The amount of data that can be obtained is scary. Here, for example, is an image of the computer monitor readout of the neck on my 1943 Banner L-50:

 

[j45nick]

I'm using the Toshiba Aqulilion 64, which is quite simply the finest CT-scanner on the planet:

 

 

Toshiba has become sufficiently intrigued by my project that its lead software engineers have pledged to tweak the software ( a proprietary package that costs $175,000) to create presets for scanning guitars. For example, when scanning a human, there are presets to produce 3d images of just the vascular, skeletal, or other systems and even for specific organs, like the heart or brain. I'll eventually have presets just for the bracing, body plates, etc. The amount of data that can be obtained is scary. Here, for example, is an image of the computer monitor readout of the neck on my 1943 Banner L-50:

 

 

 

JT, for us guitar techno-geeks, this is unbelievably good stuff! I know what you mean about day jobs getting in the way of our hobbies. I have more than a bit of that problem myself.