Gibson original jumbo question?

[yuth_pu_rx]

Dear all,

 

I would like to ask you guys about my gibson original jumbo. My guitar was made in 2003 which you can see pics and serial number (03073xxx). How is it differece from gibson prewar jumbo 2008 version? One thing that I notice is tapered body while prewar model is uniform depth. Are there anything else?

 

sbo แทงบอลออนไลน์

 

 

Thanks in advanced,

[JohnnyReb]

So your asking what's the difference between yours and a 2008 model? Probably nothing other than a name change for marketing. The standard Advanced Jumbo has had a few different labels put on it but always the same guitar.i suspect that's probably the same situation with a OJ

[j45nick]

So your asking what's the difference between yours and a 2008 model? Probably nothing other than a name change for marketing. The standard Advanced Jumbo has had a few different labels put on it but always the same guitar.i suspect that's probably the same situation with a OJ

 

 

This is an OJ (hog/short), rather than an AJ (rosewood/long). I'm not sure what the differences between different early jumbo models are, other than the tapered body, as he points out. The "real" early jumbo's evolved in a number of details after being introduced in the early 1930's. Tom Barnwell here has several stunning examples of early jumbo's.

 

In any case, that 2003 OJ is one gorgeous guitar.

[JohnnyReb]

We'll I was just using the AJ as an example of how Gibson changes names around for marketing reasons. Using things like reissue and historic collection ect ect when the guitar is the same thing. My 2010 just says advanced jumbo in the tag. A few years ago I think they were refered to as a AJ reissue. Same guitar

 

In this case with the OPs original jumbo, I'm assuming he is referring to the difference between his 2003 and a 2008 model. I guess the 2008 he is referring to is labeled prewar jumbo or something. If there both OJ's then there's prob no difference. Probably just another example of Gibsons confusing way of changing names up on things

[yuth_pu_rx]

thank you for comments. I have searched and found that 2008 model (pre war OJ model)was uniform depth while my 2003, tapped. I am not sure about both of them in term of sound characters differences. Anyone has both please share your experiences.

[tpbiii]

This is an OJ (hog/short), rather than an AJ (rosewood/long). I'm not sure what the differences between different early jumbo models are, other than the tapered body, as he points out. The "real" early jumbo's evolved in a number of details after being introduced in the early 1930's. Tom Barnwell here has several stunning examples of early jumbo's.

 

In any case, that 2003 OJ is one gorgeous guitar.

 

I should begin by saying I don't really know much about 2000s Jumbos -- as an old obsessive curmudgeon, my focus is 70+ years ago when these guitars were introduced.

 

I do believe you need to study each model separately as to features -- independent of age. If you study Gibson history, then you find that the most consistent feature of Gibson with regard to features is their inconsistently -- the saying is "with Gibson, never say never."

 

Also the way Gibson has named their new guitars makes it very difficult to talk about the old guitars. You can't call a 1935 Jumbo an "original Jumbo" or a "true vintage Jumbo" because those are all names of modern guitars. You have to say stuff like "an actual real old original Jumbo actually from 1935."

 

That having been said, some of the best large flattop guitars ever designed or built were Gibsons from the 1930s. Here is a quick history.

 

The first "jumbo" body style from Gibson came from their Hawaiian models -- the Roy Smeck Stage Deluxe (mahogany) and Roy Smeck Radio Grande (rosewood). Here are two from 1936 and 1935.

 

 

 

All of these I have seen are two tone bar guitars, and they were 12-frets with flush frets and huge necks. They make fine conversions for sure, but it takes a fair amount of work.

 

 

 

 

Martin introduced the first 14-fret guitar (OMs) in 1929, and followed with the 14-fret dreads in 1934. Gibson also introduced the Jumbo in 1934 -- a short scale, 14-fret with a Smeck body and three tone bars. Here is a 1935 Jumbo with a 1935 RSRG.

 

 

By 1936, things were getting desperate because of the depression, and Gibson introduced two new flattops -- the Jumbo35 (J-35) and the Advanced Jumbo (AJ). The initial working name for the Jumbo35 was the Trojan, and 39 were shipped under that name in late 1936. Here is the article about finding the Trojans. The Jumbo was dropped in 1936.

 

Here is a 1936 AJ and 1936 Trojan -- actually this Trojan is the very one found in the ledger and documented in the article.

 

 

 

The Trojans were basically structurally identical to the Jumbo, but with less trim. The AJ was an entirely new body shape, with much more taper, less overall depth and a longer scale. Ours are both 3 tone bar guitars. The 3-tone bar feature on the AJ is super rare -- only a couple are documented -- but relatively less rare on the J-35s. Within a year, the J-35s were also switched to the AJ "advanced" style bodies, and two tone bars were mostly used on those from the late 30s.

 

 

 

The next major model change came at the start of WWII in 1942 when the AJ and J-35 were phased out and replaced with the J-45 and the SJ. There were a few RW SJs made in 1942, but then mahogany became the the common wood for both. Both used the AJ body shape with a short scale.

 

Here is the bracing on a 1942 SJ.

 

 

 

The mid 30s Jumbos are pretty rare, so they are not as widely known and appreciated as they should be. The AJ has made major inroads in the bluegrass world, and is considered by many (including me) to be about as good as the old D-28 Martins from the same period.

 

Here are all or ours together all from 1935 and 1936. That may be the picture Nick is talking about.

 

 

 

I hope this adds some to the discussion -- I know it is a bit off track, but related I think.

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

[Martin 1940D28]

by by ah

[jannusguy2]

Been trying to find information on the "Original Jumbo copies" for a while, with not much luck. Thanks to tpbiii for his pictures and info, without it I would be still in left field. All I've been able to find, is that as far as Gibson and much of Martin reissues are concerned, about one size fits all. All we seem to have is, "marketing genius", as by the number of fish taking it "hook, line and sinker", and being content with what has been fed to them. Until these folks wake up, that's all we'll have coming to us, just what they feed us! Another rant. Martin 1940D28

 

Here's one for a purist such as yourself. Only 25K! A great chance for you to put your money where your mouth is.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/330726458084?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

 

I wonder how many of us suckers with re-issues regret our decisions to buy them.

[Martin 1940D28]

by

[jannusguy2]

Gosh, I thought no one read my posts. Jannusguy2 asked, "I wonder how many of us suckers with reissues regret our decisions to buy them". Guess my only answer to that could be "only those trying to sell them". Martin 1940D28

And there you have it !Let's see, I also have a Roy Smeck reissue, an '09 00018 Marquis and a J200 TV. Guess I'm a major dumb ***. Just lapping up the crap they're tossing out there. It's a disgrace what they get away with. Darn near bait & switch!

[fp]

Yuth, that looks like the 03 OJ I used to own. Sold it to a member here Suburude some time back.

Like yours mine had the Custom Shop label, had the three on a plate tuners and had tapered sides like a J45 has.

[yuth_pu_rx]

This is mine.

 

 

credit for krispood and peuang Armchair

[tpbiii]

And there you have it !Let's see, I also have a Roy Smeck reissue, an '09 00018 Marquis and a J200 TV. Guess I'm a major dumb ***. Just lapping up the crap they're tossing out there. It's a disgrace what they get away with. Darn near bait & switch!

 

Well there is a broad view that today we are living in a golden era of North American acoustic guitar -- that alone is almost a miracle. It is widely believed that Gibson is building some of the best instruments they have ever built -- reason enough to buy them.

 

So why are so many guitar makers copying 70-80 year old instruments -- and why are people buying them?

 

Of course, the 40 year old love affair with old instruments started with a drop off in quality in the 1970s. But there was something else. It has long been well know that instrument tone improves with age. I was a doubter myself, but after 40+ years of trying trying to disprove it and failing, I am now willing to accept it as a working assumption. But the perception of tone is subjective, and people can learn to like nearly anything -- so not everyone agrees on what sounds best. I addition, modern guitars can equal or beat old guitars in nearly every dimension -- balance, power, sustain, tonality and certainly playability. But one property -- generally called claity -- only develops with age.

 

What is going on here is the resonances of acoustic instruments stabilize with age, and their Qs increase. The reason that the old instruments first got noticed is because this has a functional effect -- the guitars become more audible in a complex music environment. The science here is well understood -- the effect is explained by the same critical band tone masking effect that was used to invent stuff like mp3 audio compression.

 

The first place this had a big effect was in the bluegrass community in the 60s and 70s. Bluegrass was very popular throughout greater Appalachia, and as the guitar became a more popular lead instrument, the guitar players shared a common set of goals and a common (acoustic string band) context -- and they all could hear it, and went after the old Martin dreads. This functional effect is less widely appreciated in the broader acoustic community where audibility in loud acoustic band environments is less of an issue -- there it is more of a beauty contest and tastes vary.

 

If you look at the history of the vintage market -- here is analysis of pricing information over the past 80 years. I used the MSRPs, the VG price guide, and the US inflation index to measure the real increase in value of various instruments after inflation. What it shows is basically this. Since about 1970, and continuing up until 2011 (date of the data), well cared for modern instruments just about keep up with inflation. So you basically haven't made money, but you haven't lost much either. For instruments before 1970, even after inflation correction, dramatically increases in value have occured. For example, a 1936 AJ after inflation correction is worth 52 times its new value -- pretty damn good.

 

So of you use history as a model, you find that quality modern instruments approximately holds their value -- that ain't bad but don't expect them to appreciate. If you love the old instruments either because of of their sound or function, it is going to cost you more -- sometimes much more -- but historically they have also been great investments.

 

The future may be different, and we are not buying anymore -- but as investment in the pasts, we have done very well. But it was dumb luck -- it may not work at all in the future.

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

[jannusguy2]

Thank you for your erudite and patient observations, Tom. I concur with what you have said here. My regard for your knowledge and my awe of your collection knows no bounds. On the other hand my contempt for someone who dismisses current/recent product coming from Gibson and Martin as somehow inferior and dishonest is also boundless. I began my journey into the acquisition of better acoustic guitars 5 or 6 years ago. I have no regrets. My little collection has included guitars from the early 1900's thru 2012. I have found value and enjoyment in all of them. I have purchased reissues and enjoyed them without reservation. I believe we are in a golden age of guitar manufacture with both Martin and Gibson and I'm happy to have examples of both.

I always enjoy your pictures and videos! All the best to you!

 

Rob

[Streetglide]

Just found this old thread. I had a 2003 Original Jumbo in Tokyo circa 2005. There were two variations sold there: Mine had thin, tallish braces like an old Gibson, very petite and they even had saw marks on them. The others had bracing virtually identical to the then AJs. My guitar had a crude sound, not a lot of volume and blah tone. My then wife presented me with that guitar but unfortunately it got lost during the great recession -- house payments. I'd like to find an '03 OJ for sentimental reasons if anyone has one for sale.

[Dave F]

 

I have one of the 1994 Centennial 1934 Jumbo.

 

I don't know how accurately they copied ( like the legend series) the sample part they had

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20040816181144/http://www.gibson.com:80/acoustics/1994/1934_Jumbo.html

 

but when I measured the Jumbo it looks close to the AJ.

 

Others can chime in but I think I would give the AJ consideration.

 

 

 

 

[j45nick]

 

 

 

What caught my eye on this was chart was that your 1953 J-50 is deeper and wider than other J-45 versions in your collection. My 1948-'50 J-45 is wider than normal in the lower bout (almost 16 1/4"), but pretty much standard depth. I've often wondered if some (or all) of this wasn't the result of wood instability with the uncontrolled humidity of the Kalamazoo plant. I'm not quite sure how that would work, given the fact that you've got a whole lot of pieces held together in different orientations by a bunch of glue.

 

Variations in body depth for the same nominal box could be a result of this as well, or they could just be the result of a bit too much (or too little) hand pressure on the assembled rims against the big thickness sanders.

 

There was, and is, a lot of hand work in a Gibson that can lead to small dimensional variances. That's sort of cool.

[OldCowboy]

Considering a lot of the cookie cutter obsession that exists today, it's incredibly cool.

[Dave in SLC]

Tom's reply did not include the actual 'posted images,' just that text. Was this true for others, or just on my computer?

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 

PS I have one of the '03 Jumbos, and one of the 1934 Jumbos from the series marketed through the 5-star dealers; Music Villa in Bozeman in my case. Both great guitars, but the '34 has something extra in its sound, and a fatter, more vintage neck. It was also more expensive!

[j45nick]

Tom's reply did not include the actual 'posted images,' just that text. Was this true for others, or just on my computer?

 

Thanks,

 

Dave

 

PS I have one of the '03 Jumbos, and one of the 1934 Jumbos from the series marketed through the 5-star dealers; Music Villa in Bozeman in my case. Both great guitars, but the '34 has something extra in its sound, and a fatter, more vintage neck. It was also more expensive!

 

 

They aren't there for me either. Even without them, that was a pretty interesting thread.

[Dave F]

They aren't there for me either. Even without them, that was a pretty interesting thread.

 

This is a very old thread that got revived so the links are probably broken.

[tpbiii]

I fixed my links.