1949 SJ at Willies

[duluthdan]

Beyond the rather startling price - wonder what thoughts are based on the pictures. Looks like the saddle is not matching he bridge slot, but this guitar looks uber clean. I like that the neck doesn't crowd the soundhole - and the fretboard looks rather free of divots. Is this the price that a vintage SJ in very good condition is comanding these days?

http://www.williesguitars.com/index.cfm/gibson_acoustics/7/inventory/2/image/1

[j45nick]

That's a gorgeous guitar, but the price........?????

 

For that money, you can buy four new TV SJ's.

 

Remember, the SJ is a blinged-out J-45. You should be able to buy a comparable vintage J-45 for a little over half that amount, and it would need to be a special guitar tonally to justify that price in my book.

 

Clearly, this SJ needs a proper new saddle. On the plus side, the saddle is very high (look at the string break angle), which means there should not be a neck re-set in the near future.

 

Willie's, by the way, is known for extremely high prices on high-quality vintage guitars. Don't know if they actually sell for that amount or not.

[zombywoof]

Willie sure ain't bashful when it comes to prices. He does have a top notch rep though.

 

I would say that while today the SJ is really nothing more than a blinged out J-45 the ones in the 1940s and 1950s were made with better lumber than the J-45. Gibson made far fewer SJs than J-45s. Some of the closest, most even grain you will ever see while the body featured premium quality mahogany. To my ears they have a bit tighter and better defined sound particularly in lower end than the J-45

[BigKahune]

.

Great shape.

 

I see there's no info up yet. Was the neck re-sprayed or buffed? . . . Because it looks great.

 

Maybe just sat in the case for the better part of 60 years.

 

Priced pretty damn high.

 

 

.

[ol fred]

Me, I'm happy to see pricing like that on that beauty. Mine is nine years newer and even with the repairs to the top it's an absolute cannon, the loudest acoustic I have ever heard. I can only imagine the tonal quality of this beautiful old girl. Obviously been refinished but if you are in pursuit of sound rather than looking for a museum piece ZW has nailed it. Pricing ? saw a superb 58 CW (same guitar nat finish) at a London shop for $9200.00 USD

[j45nick]

Willie sure ain't bashful when it comes to prices. He does have a top notch rep though.

 

I would say that while today the SJ is really nothing more than a blinged out J-45 the ones in the 1940s and 1950s were made with better lumber than the J-45. Gibson made far fewer SJs than J-45s. Some of the closest, most even grain you will ever see while the body featured premium quality mahogany. To my ears they have a bit tighter and better defined sound particularly in lower end than the J-45

 

 

It's pretty well recognized that the SJ's got the "pick of the litter" when it came to lumber, but there was so much good mahogany available in the late 1940's and early 1950's that a lot of J-45's ended up with equally great material. But an SJ from this period, on average, is likely to be better, and that's why owning one of these is at the top of my bucket list.

 

This is the back of my 1948-1950 J-45. The photo is purposely washed out a bit so that the grain is a bit more visible than it might otherwise be. As a furniture maker and boatbuilder who has probably snorted a ton of mahogany dust over the years, this type of straight, pure grain and bookmatching is what it's all about with Honduras mahogany. In my book, it doesn't get much better than this.

 

[ParlourMan]

For that money, you can buy four new TV SJ's.

 

That about sums it up for me......

[ol fred]

It's pretty well recognized that the SJ's got the "pick of the litter" when it came to lumber, but there was so much good mahogany available in the late 1940's and early 1950's that a lot of J-45's ended up with equally great material. But an SJ from this period, on average, is likely to be better, and that's why owning one of these is at the top of my bucket list.

 

This is the back of my 1948-1950 J-45. The photo is purposely washed out a bit so that the grain is a bit more visible than it might otherwise be. As a furniture maker and boatbuilder who has probably snorted a ton of mahogany dust over the years, this type of straight, pure grain and bookmatching is what it's all about with Honduras mahogany. In my book, it doesn't get much better than this.

 

Well, if you're gonna show me your backside...turnabout is fair play

 

[chaliapin]

For my ears, new gibsons sound like new guitars (for my taste- not very good) Many of the old ones sound amazing. I must have played 20 pre-1960 j45s and SJs recently when buying my guitar ('46 SJ). SJ's have very different sound to J45, less distinctive perhaps, J-45 is considerably drier, woodier and thuddier, SJ's have a more rounded tone, and more sparkle, more like 'other guitars' I have no doubt that they were voiced differently at the factory at this time. A new Gibson may be a good guitar that you like, but comparing them to the vintage ones made from old stock tree growth that was hundreds of years old is illogical to me. It makes as much sense as saying 'why don't you buy a nice new lowden instead?' Finally, a vintage guitar will appreciate but new ones will rapidly depreciate. I payed similar to that money in the UK for an almost completely original 46 SJ with one crack and very little playwear.

[ParlourMan]

For my ears, new gibsons sound like new guitars (for my taste- not very good) Many of the old ones sound amazing. I must have played 20 pre-1960 j45s and SJs recently when buying my guitar ('46 SJ). SJ's have very different sound to J45, less distinctive perhaps, J-45 is considerably drier, woodier and thuddier, SJ's have a more rounded tone, and more sparkle, more like 'other guitars' I have no doubt that they were voiced differently at the factory at this time. A new Gibson may be a good guitar that you like, but comparing them to the vintage ones made from old stock tree growth that was hundreds of years old is illogical to me. It makes as much sense as saying 'why don't you buy a nice new lowden instead?' Finally, a vintage guitar will appreciate but new ones will rapidly depreciate. I payed similar to that money in the UK for an almost completely original 46 SJ with one crack and very little playwear.

 

 

...and on the otherhand, you have a delicate collectible that you may greatly reduce the value of with any modern modification to enable you to play live with it. Being vintage, even from the 'right' year is no guarantee, some people have bought old treasure, some have just bought old wood. Many vintage junkies have attested to that even on these pages. Like many other guitar related factors, a lot is based on myth and the unquantifiable. Like any other hobby it will have its participants at every price level.

[j45nick]

...and on the otherhand, you have a delicate collectible that you may greatly reduce the value of with any modern modification to enable you to play live with it. Being vintage, even from the 'right' year is no guarantee, some people have bought old treasure, some have just bought old wood. Many vintage junkies have attested to that even on these pages. Like many other guitar related factors, a lot is based on myth and the unquantifiable. Like any other hobby it will have its participants at every price level.

 

 

All true. I can say that, having Gibsons from the 40's, 50's, 60's, and the 21st century. I buy for tone and value, whether it's vintage or modern.

[EuroAussie]

Thats quite intereting about the SJ / J-45 comparisement.

 

They should sound the same as after all we've always been told its all about cosmetics.

 

But my AL SJ does sound quite differetn to a J-45TV, and its precisely as you describe. It is a more rounded, responsive, open tone while the J-45TV's have a dryer, woodier tone. I also heard that when I listened to sound samples on Musicvilla where I heard this when comparing the SJ and J-45 'new vintage'.

 

With the old vs new there is no doubt to me that there is a difference in the tone. You simply will never get that dry, crackly, a little cranky Gibson tone from a new gutiar. My 69'er might have havier bracing then the AL SJ or HB TV but that dry, crackly, grumpy tone she offers is unique in the stable and brings a big smile to my face when i strum her.

 

Which one is better, why theyre all great ... just different !

 

For my ears, new gibsons sound like new guitars (for my taste- not very good) Many of the old ones sound amazing. I must have played 20 pre-1960 j45s and SJs recently when buying my guitar ('46 SJ). SJ's have very different sound to J45, less distinctive perhaps, J-45 is considerably drier, woodier and thuddier, SJ's have a more rounded tone, and more sparkle, more like 'other guitars' I have no doubt that they were voiced differently at the factory at this time. A new Gibson may be a good guitar that you like, but comparing them to the vintage ones made from old stock tree growth that was hundreds of years old is illogical to me. It makes as much sense as saying 'why don't you buy a nice new lowden instead?' Finally, a vintage guitar will appreciate but new ones will rapidly depreciate. I payed similar to that money in the UK for an almost completely original 46 SJ with one crack and very little playwear.

[chaliapin]

all good points, vintage instruments can usually be sold on for reasonable money if you have the time to find a buyer. I would never buy a guitar without playing it as you say, these conversations essentially boil down to 'play it, buy it if you can't go home without it'. I don't know if mods for pickups etc make a massive difference to the price, vintage instruments seems to go for fairly serious money whether refinished, reset, drilled, repaired etc.

[Old Neil]

I guess I am more in the 'it depends on the guitar' camp.

 

There are currently two J-45's (a '47 and a '49) down at my local guitar shop and at a pure tone level I honestly prefer my new(ish) standard J-45! I loved the half baseball bat neck on the '49 but it had been refinished and sounded only OK. Quite mellow - muffled if I was feeling cruel. The '47 sounded better but not blow your socks off good.

 

Although that dry, hollow sound is part of the best vintage guitars, an old guitar is sometimes just an old guitar. A good guitar on the other hand is always a good guitar. I took a while finding my standard J-45 and haven't regretted it.

 

On the other hand, I did once play a '36(?) L-00 that was magically good (out of my financial league however). A similar year one beside it was 'just' very good. Unless you are coming from a collector's viewpoint with a completely different criteria to someone who will be playing it a lot then, yes, others advice here to try before you buy is well taken.