Do the words "Jumbo Deluxe" mean anything to you guys?

[tvguit]

I'm just about to jump in the car and to drive to Alexander City to buy this:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/140837257348?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649#ht_483wt_1348

 

Please check page 50 in Fabulous Flat-tops and let me know what you think. It is either a Jumbo Deluxe, messed up J-35 or messed up J-45. Unfortunately it has had a total refin. I talked to the owner and he says that logo is original. What about the numbers on the back of the headstock? What about the ridiculously long heal (non-tapered body)? I'm either about to do something awesome or make a big mistake. Here goes nuthin'!

[j45nick]

That guitar is a mystery. I don't believe it is a jumbo deluxe, as it has a rectangular bridge and wartime-or-later headstock shape. In fact, except for the inlaid script logo, it has almost all the characteristics--including the FON-- of an early J-45. Those characteristics include the headstock shape, pickguard, and bridge.

 

The FON stamped into the back of the peghead could have several explanations. The re-finish looks really good, which might mean it was done by Gibson. In the past, Gibson has done some odd things when they do major work on guitars in-house. My early post-war J-45, for example, had the original FON (3644) stamped on the back of the headstock by Gibson in 1968 when it was in the Kalamazoo repair shop for some major work, which included a new top. When the guitar came back with the number stamped on the headstock, I stared at in in amazement, as it was certainly NOT there when the guitar went in for repairs.

 

I would guess that the pickguard (if original) was removed during the re-finish, as its location is slightly off. That pickguard shape did not come in until around 1942 or so.

 

At the very least, this is probably an early J-45, and with that FON, probably no later than 1948. I can't explain the inlaid logo, if that is what it is. If it were a script decal, I would say the guitar was a 1946-'47 J-45.

 

At around $4K, I would say it could be a very good buy, despite the re-finish, if it looks (and sounds) as good in person as it does in these mediocre photos.

[zombywoof]

The FON stamped into the back of the peghead could have several explanations. The re-finish looks really good, which might mean it was done by Gibson. In the past, Gibson has done some odd things when they do major work on guitars in-house. My early post-war J-45, for example, had the original FON (3644) stamped on the back of the headstock by Gibson in 1968 when it was in the Kalamazoo repair shop for some major work, which included a new top. When the guitar came back with the number stamped on the headstock, I stared at in in amazement, as it was certainly NOT there when the guitar went in for repairs.

 

 

 

My 1960 J-200 has the number stamped in the back of the headstock and I could never figure it out. I think it was George Gruhn though who told me that once upon a time Gibson did that when they "restored" a guitar.

[tvguit]

Well guys, I heard hooves and thought zebra. This was not a jumbo deluxe. I was just a victim of poor photography. Those numbers- social security. That rosewood peghead with pearl inlay- done with the refin. It was good work though. I couldn't really tell until I took the truss rod cover off.

 

What I did find was an early banner J-45 with a refin that sounded REALLY good. Unfortunately it needed a neck reset and a new bridge (shaved down to nothing). I couldn't swing all that. The case was really cool and I did want that.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

that's as good as it gets . it looks really nice ... once you get it please share more photos and a few sound clips .

 

 

 

JC

[j45nick]

Well guys, I heard hooves and thought zebra. This was not a jumbo deluxe. I was just a victim of poor photography. Those numbers- social security. That rosewood peghead with pearl inlay- done with the refin. It was good work though. I couldn't really tell until I took the truss rod cover off.

 

What I did find was an early banner J-45 with a refin that sounded REALLY good. Unfortunately it needed a neck reset and a new bridge (shaved down to nothing). I couldn't swing all that. The case was really cool and I did want that.

 

I'm greatly relieved, in a way, as that inlaid logo was the only real mystery. Everything else said early J-45.

 

How did you decide it is an early banner, since the headstock has been re-finished? Was it just the headstock that had been re-done, or the whole guitar? As a reference, the neck re-set and new bridge should cost around $600.

 

And, by the way, funny things happen to guitars that are owned by the same person for decades, so it's easy to be misled by details that don't fit into the chain of evidence very well.

 

Here, for example is the headstock of my 1948-1950 J-45, which I've owned since 1966. Not exactly "stock", is it?

 

[merseybeat1963]

The strings in that side shot look like a mile off the fingerboard.

[j45nick]

The strings in that side shot look like a mile off the fingerboard.

 

It would be more surprising if a J-45 of this vintage did NOT need a neck re-set, if one has never been done. In the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty small issue. It would take a careful first-hand examination to price the guitar properly, however.

 

Things such as bad brace re-glues, lots of repaired cracks, neck re-sets, etc, are actually pretty easy to price in. The re-finish is the big unknown. It certainly hurts, but how much depends on the quality of the re-fin and the general quality of the guitar.

 

That case is seriously cool, and really caught my eye. The case alone could be worth $400-$800, even in that condition. You don't see those very often.

[tvguit]

The logo, numbers on the headstock, and what looked like an untapered body were the things that really drove me to it. He said it was the original case but it wasn't. The pictures made it look to me that the body was really tall at the heal but it wasn't. Just an illusion I guess. I was kind of peeved that the guy wasn't forthcoming about the headstock overlay and logo. He was a bit of a weird dude and came with all the rough edges that a stereotypical 80 year old southern guy might have (catch my drift?).

 

Nick, that headstock is awesome! too bad not original. I said early banner but it is probably better described as early to mid banner era. The neck was actually the maple/walnut laminate stained really dark. It did have a truss rod though. It also had a fretboard extension (is that the right name?) so I figured the reset would be more difficult (ie more money).

 

The fretboard and bridge looked to be out of the same material but it didn't look particularly like Rosewood. They could have been replaced as well. I don't think it will be a bad buy for someone else but it wasn't for me. I still have a banner in the shop that I haven't even played yet. Hopefully Jason will have it done soon!

 

Mersey- the action was fairly high but wasn't totally unmanageable. It was absolutely divine for fingerstyle blues. DIVINE!

 

According to Modoc- the guy that did the work was probably Mac Mcormick out of Georgia. He apparently was the go to guy until his death. He did a really great job refinishing this one. The finish was really thin and just gorgeous.

 

And the case- clearly for a J-200 (not so clear in the pictures). I made a deal with him for it. He promised me it was the original case but the math didn't ad up. Plus he bought it used so...... how would he know? My 17" kay jumbo fits pretty well in it. But that won't be what I keep in it.

[j45nick]

John, you are obviously a knowledgeable guy, and you have an impressive collection of J-45's. Given what you already have, this one would not have added significantly to your collection. You did the right thing.

 

It's always hard for those of us who are trying to secoind-guess what we see in really mediocre photos. You have demonstrated once again that when it comes to vintage guitars, there is absolutely no substitute for a first-hand inspection. We've all learned a lot from your experience on this one.

 

By the way, I've never see a J-45 in a case like that. I believe it is actually a late-30's style high-end case, which you would be unlikely to find with a war-time J-45. Since it fits a 17" lower bout, it might have been meant for a J-200, or maybe an L-5.

[modoc_333]

John, you are obviously a knowledgeable guy, and you have an impressive collection of J-45's. Given what you already have, this one would not have added significantly to your collection. You did the right thing.

 

It's always hard for those of us who are trying to secoind-guess what we see in really mediocre photos. You have demonstrated once again that when it comes to vintage guitars, there is absolutely no substitute for a first-hand inspection. We've all learned a lot from your experience on this one.

 

By the way, I've never see a J-45 in a case like that. I believe it is actually a late-30's style high-end case, which you would be unlikely to find with a war-time J-45. Since it fits a 17" lower bout, it might have been meant for a J-200, or maybe an L-5.

 

 

you're right on about a John. He knows his stuff and steps cautiously, but he knows when he needs his hands on it too. He and I spent a lot of time on the phone staring at pictures and discussing possibilities. I went to be bed talking to him, and woke up talking to him.... I think we are dating! LOL in the end, we decided he just had to make the drive and find out. He has enough experience that I knew the truth would come out once it was in his hands.

 

and I'm sorry you didn't get another score John. On the other hand, I'm glad.... I won't have to be even MORE jealous of your gear! LOL

[tvguit]

Thanks guys, I appreciate it. And yes Keith, maybe we did overanalyze this one a bit. That was part of the fun though I guess. Somebody will still get a really cool guitar that sounds really good.

 

The case was certainly a curve ball on this one. Part of me knew that it had to be a J-200 or L-5 case but there was that little voice that said "but if this was special, it might have had the upgraded case!" This guy was so funny. He was absolutely certain it was the original case even though it didn't fit (physically and time wise).

 

I'm thinking it was for a J-200 because the back is totally flat on the inside. I have never seen one of these cases in person but I would think that the L-5 cases would be arched on the inside back? Any verification?

[merseybeat1963]

I'm greatly relieved, in a way, as that inlaid logo was the only real mystery. Everything else said early J-45.

 

How did you decide it is an early banner, since the headstock has been re-finished? Was it just the headstock that had been re-done, or the whole guitar? As a reference, the neck re-set and new bridge should cost around $600.

 

And, by the way, funny things happen to guitars that are owned by the same person for decades, so it's easy to be misled by details that don't fit into the chain of evidence very well.

 

Here, for example is the headstock of my 1948-1950 J-45, which I've owned since 1966. Not exactly "stock", is it?

 

 

Beautifull headstock..how did this come about on the usually un adored J45?

Were there more changes on the guitar?

[Lars68]

There is a long thread over at the UMGF about vintage cases, especially for Martins and Gibson. Willi Henkes (of the Banner Registry page) shows several photos of banner Gibsons, especially SJs that originally shipped with archtop cases. So even though the guitar does not fit the case perfectly, it could still be the original case.

 

Lars