Lee M Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I know Gibson changed the headstock inlay on the 1994...wasn't aware if they changed the bridge, though. I'm not sure if they changed the pickguard, but I will say that the 1994 one in the photo in the e-bay link at the very beginning of this thread appears to possibly have a slightly larger pickguard than mine does... Nice job on Classical Gas! Here's a large picture of my 1993. You can see the pickguard is smaller and the curved side of the bridge is on the soundhole side (or backwards as I like to say.) Dove headstock inlay also. Btw, I enjoyed your comments on the Gospel. It's gratifying to hear someone with so many different guitars say the Gospel is one of their favorites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Interesting...you're right, they changed the bridge between the two years from what is cmmonly referred to as a top belly bridge (facing the soundhole) to a bottom belly bridge (facing away from the soundhole.) Didn't notice that one before. FYI, Gibson has variated using the top belly and the bottom belly bridge design over the years on a number of model year designs. Not really sure what the difference in placement, if any, results in. I always took it to be kinda like the way cars in the 60s would change some minor detail between model years. If someone can chime in on any potential structural or tonal changes with either a top or bottom belly bridge design being use (or is it just a cosmetic thing) it'll be interesting to learn or speculate on. Also, if there is any actual difference with a square shaped non-bellied bridge when it is used, as some models and model years of different guitars have. QM aka Jazzman Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee M Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Not really sure what the difference in placement, if any, results in. I always took it to be kinda like the way cars in the 60s would change some minor detail between model years. Pure speculation on my part but I assumed Martin came up with the belly bridge design first and used the bottom belly approach. Gibson, recognizing the superior adhesion properties from the larger surface area, but not wanting to copy Martin (or maybe to avoid patent infringement), just flipped it around. From a structural standpoint, the bottom belly approach makes more sense to me since there is more area glued down behind the saddle to react against the strings as they try to lift up the bridge. I have no data to suggest there are any structural issues with either approach assuming a properly glued bridge. Soundwise, I seriously doubt there is any difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitar Joe Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 I don,t know anything about the newer reissue Dove .Some of the older ones made in the seventies with maple back and sides sounded great. My friend had one and it always impressed me.I was playing a very good Martin D35 at the time and that is what I was comparing it with. If its laminated and it sounds good who cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maikan Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Hi everybody, I recently did a lot of researches to know a bit more about the 1995 Gibson Gospel I just bought (here in Canada). I mostly found that... a lot of messy and false informations are written. So, yesterday, I wrote to Gibson Talk 2 Us platform, asking if the '90s Gospel reissues have solid mahogany or laminated back and sides. I had an answer 12 hours later! Here's: "Hello Hubert, They have solid mahogany back and sides. The 70s version is laminated. Best, Jordan Hall Gibson Customer Service" So, the search is over. The Gospel reissues are all solid wood guitars! Keep on playin'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Hello Hubert, , , ▲ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Hi everybody, I recently did a lot of researches to know a bit more about the 1995 Gibson Gospel I just bought (here in Canada). I mostly found that... a lot of messy and false informations are written. So, yesterday, I wrote to Gibson Talk 2 Us platform, asking if the '90s Gospel reissues have solid mahogany or laminated back and sides. I had an answer 12 hours later! Here's: "Hello Hubert, They have solid mahogany back and sides. The 70s version is laminated. Best, Jordan Hall Gibson Customer Service" So, the search is over. The Gospel reissues are all solid wood guitars! Keep on playin'! You are getting fake info, though it may be well intended. The book, Gibson's Fabulous Flat Tops as well as the annual Vintage Guitar Guide and Gruhn's Guide to Vintage Guitars documents the back of the reissue is laminated as was the original. The difference being the original had a maple arched lam back while the reissue has a mahogany arched lam back. The lack of any bracings on the inside of the arched back further demonstrates its laminated on the arched back as does the lower price of either when it was new. There is no way Gibson could sell a carved piece of solid wood in the shape of an arched back and sell it for the price it was sold at new. They legendary story is Gibson had an oversupply of laminated arched backs sitting around in Nashville for the ES175 and decided they could put them to use on the Gospel. Might be a true story or a legendary myth... I have a 1994 Gospel. It has an arched lam back and others I've seen do, too. Sounds great with it! The Fab Flattop book says it makes a good sound chamber! BTW, all 3 books also say the sides are also laminated. You might want to write Jordan back with the 3 source book names and correct info so he can properly respond on Gospels for the next inquiry he gets. Hope this helps. QM aka Jazzman Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maikan Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Sorry but I tend to believe someone who answers for the company that three non official books. Like you said it's not bad intentions, but why Gibson would lie to me...? I wrote back to Jordan asking proof. I'll let you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-1854Me Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Sorry to burst your bubble, but Hubert in Customer Service is wrong. Perhaps he's in Nashville. All the Gospels made in Bozeman were spec'd with laminated sides to accommodate the arched back, and the sides were whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maikan Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Well, ladies in gentlemen, my bubble did burst. I called directly to Gibson and the guy did few researches for me. He came to the conclusion it is probably laminated but he has an information that some of the reissues have a solid back. But mine, a 1995 model, has probably a laminated back. He told me, maybe he felt my disappointment, that he doesn't understand this fight between solid or laminated back. For him, there's no difference in sound. Anyway, I like my guitar so... Sorry if I seemed pretentious yesterday; that was not my goal. It was enthousiasm! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Well, ladies in gentlemen, my bubble did burst. I called directly to Gibson and the guy did few researches for me. He came to the conclusion it is probably laminated but he has an information that some of the reissues have a solid back. But mine, a 1995 model, has probably a laminated back. He told me, maybe he felt my disappointment, that he doesn't understand this fight between solid or laminated back. For him, there's no difference in sound. Anyway, I like my guitar so... Sorry if I seemed pretentious yesterday; that was not my goal. It was enthousiasm! No prob! No worries! Forum expertise rules! As does the pursuit of learning more about Gibson guitars. Here BTW is some additional documentation for future reference in case this topic comes up, again. Attached are photos in this post and the next few posts of Gospel Reissue research pages (you need to click on them to enlarge them) from Gruhn's Guide to Vintage Guitars, a 2012 VG Guide, the Gibson's Fabulous Flat-Tops Book, and the inside of my guitar. Gruhn's and the VG Guide refer to the Gospel Reissue backs as laminated. The Fab Flat-tops Book calls them multi-ply (same thing as laminated.) You'll note the inside of my Gospel Reissue has no bracing for the laminated arched back. Multi-posts are necessary as the site keeps telling me I can only load one photo at a time due to size restrictions. Hope the photos are clear. No guarantees. Click on them to enlarge them. QM aka Jazzman Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 No prob! No worries! Forum expertise rules! As does the pursuit of learning more about Gibson guitars. Here BTW is some additional documentation for future reference in case this topic comes up, again. Attached are photos in this post and the next few posts of Gospel Reissue research pages (you need to click on them to enlarge them) from Gruhn's Guide to Vintage Guitars, a 2012 VG Guide, the Gibson's Fabulous Flat-Tops Book, and the inside of my guitar. Gruhn's and the VG Guide refer to the Gospel Reissue backs as laminated. The Fab Flat-tops Book calls them multi-ply (same thing as laminated.) You'll note the inside of my Gospel Reissue has no bracing for the laminated arched back. Multi-posts are necessary as the site keeps telling me I can only load one photo at a time due to size restrictions. Hope the photos are clear. No guarantees. Click on them to enlarge them. QM aka Jazzman Jeff Here's another Gospel Reissue research photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Here's another Gospel Reissue research photo. And, here is yet another research photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuestionMark Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 And, here is yet another research photo. The forum won't let me add the last photo of the inside of my Gospel Reissue. Says the photo is too big. Oh well. Sorry. Hope the other research I attached is helpful to put this one to rest. QM aka Jazzman Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamin James Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Ok... All you Gospel haters lol. The 93 reissue is 20 times better than any $300 epi that I’ve ever played also more durable than any guitar I’ve ever owned. Sounds great, Plays great. Sure its not as fancy as some others but my Gospel will hold its on against any acoustic. Ive played mine for over 25 years and I speak from experience. I think theres one too many assumptions on this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave F Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.