Dave F Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I stopped by a local GC today. They had a 1957 J50 for $3499. I looked it over and besides maybe a neck reset, I could not see any modifications. No cracks but the guitar has seen plenty of use. It sounded good but was a little difficult to play. The action was high at the 12th fret. The neck had a slight bow that needs to be adjusted out as long as the truss rod works. The bridge looked a little high but hard to tell with the neck bow. I talked a little to the sales person and let him know that I wasn't buying until I did a little research. He said he could go $3200 for it. They have a 72 hour return policy on vintage guitars. I've been looking and can buy these everyday for 1800-2200 but they all have issues like cracks, replaced parts, etc. My thought is if this is all original ( I'm depending on your opinion) and the condition of the finish, maybe it's worth $2800. Let me know your opinions. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 It's mis-identified. With the W prefix, it's a 1955, and an early one at that. It still has a 19-fret board, even thought it has the larger pickguard. Does it have the tapered headstock profile, or it is constant-thickness? At $3200, the price is a tiny bit high, but not far off. It all depends on what's going on with the neck. Does the neck have bow, or back-bow? How much are we talking about in terms of bow? How high is the action at fret 12? You still have a small amount of saddle to play with, but not much. This is one to look at inside with your light and mirror. Should have a really nice neck profile in '55. Nut width is probably 1 11/16". The only thing I don't like about J-50's in this period is that they seem to have used a very light filler stain that is not particularly good-looking on the mahogany. They were even like that brand-new. It lacks the richness of the darker stain used on the J-45 in the same period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motherofpearl Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Just so you know Dave there's a 54 on the Collings and Martin forum for the same price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvguit Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The pickguard has been replaced. I am assuming it is covering two small vertical cracks, one parallel with the fretboard on the treble side and one between the bridge and the soundhole. That looks a lot like my '55 J-50 but yours has the 19 fret board. Here's mine: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The pickguard has been replaced. I am assuming it is covering two small vertical cracks, one parallel with the fretboard on the treble side and one between the bridge and the soundhole. That looks a lot like my '55 J-50 but yours has the 19 fret board. John, I can see why you would say the pickguard has been replaced, given the fit at the rosette. But how can you speculate about cracks in the top? The footprint of the pickguard appears to exactly orginal other than around the rosette. An inspection of the underside of the top should show if there is a crack. It clearly does not run to the bridge, if there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvguit Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 John, I can see why you would say the pickguard has been replaced, given the fit at the rosette. But how can you speculate about cracks in the top? The footprint of the pickguard appears to exactly orginal other than around the rosette. An inspection of the underside of the top should show if there is a crack. It clearly does not run to the bridge, if there is. While I don't know it for sure, I can't find another reason to make the pickguard oversized other than the original shrinking and taking a bit of the top with it. Also, because my '55 has the same crack . My luthier did a great repair and it is almost invisible on mine. An inspection of the underside of the top would reveal all. Also, these 50s Jumbos don't normally need neck sets but mine is getting pretty close. The bridge has been shaved and it is a bit high even then. Sounding familiar? On another note, my J-50 has great tone. Ask Modoc. I bet I would like the tone of this GC J-50 too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave F Posted January 13, 2013 Author Share Posted January 13, 2013 It's mis-identified. With the W prefix, it's a 1955, and an early one at that. It still has a 19-fret board, even thought it has the larger pickguard. Does it have the tapered headstock profile, or it is constant-thickness? At $3200, the price is a tiny bit high, but not far off. It all depends on what's going on with the neck. Does the neck have bow, or back-bow? How much are we talking about in terms of bow? How high is the action at fret 12? You still have a small amount of saddle to play with, but not much. This is one to look at inside with your light and mirror. Should have a really nice neck profile in '55. Nut width is probably 1 11/16". The only thing I don't like about J-50's in this period is that they seem to have used a very light filler stain that is not particularly good-looking on the mahogany. They were even like that brand-new. It lacks the richness of the darker stain used on the J-45 in the same period. The neck had a bow. I held the E string down at the 1st and 12th and the gap at the 6th was about .020" The strings were about .150" high at the 12th When I sighted the top of the frets to the bridge it looked about .06" high, but with the bow it was difficult to be sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The neck had a bow. I held the E string down at the 1st and 12th and the gap at the 6th was about .020" The strings were about .150" high at the 12th When I sighted the top of the frets to the bridge it looked about .06" high, but with the bow it was difficult to be sure That doesn't sound like a huge amount of relief to me, but that should come out with a truss rod adjustment if it's too much for you. I would adjust the truss rod to get the relief you want, and then check the height of the action. It does sound a tiny bit high now. The question is whether you can get them to set it up properly before you buy (assuming they have someone who knows what they are doing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Around this age I see most with an adjustable bridge. Was that just an option at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I don't see any reason why they should not at least adjust the rod for you to try. And for something of that price, they really should be willing to have the action adjusted if it's high by shaving some of the bridge. To me, I don't see much available on that saddle. In the pics, it already looks like the pins are above the bridge by some margin. When you have to lower action, that saddle disappears real fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The non original pickguard would keep me away at that price ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Around this age I see most with an adjustable bridge. Was that just an option at the time? You see very few adjustables on J-45's before the 60's. It was an upgrade option, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Absolutely love the worn look, a ton of mojo. Worth the price just for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Love the looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvguit Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 That is a fine instrument and at that price they should at least change the strings and adjust neck relief to proper specs. Have you tapped the top and back for loose braces? Pre-55 I see lots of loose braces but after '55 I don't. Since this has the 19 fret board it may be more similar to the pre '55s. Another thing I would check (if it were me looking at it) is whether or not the braces are scalloped, mainly the tone bars. Supposedly '55 and later jumbos did not have scalloped bracing (on average). However, my '55 does have scalloped bracing and I would assume that this one does too. The 19 fret board is an interesting feature on this J-50 (meaning it was an early '55). It makes me wonder if the original pickguard was a teardrop. I guess there is no way to tell without taking the pg off which would not be my suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Another thing I would check (if it were me looking at it) is whether or not the braces are scalloped, mainly the tone bars. Supposedly '55 and later jumbos did not have scalloped bracing (on average). However, my '55 does have scalloped bracing and I would assume that this one does too. Thats a good point. When I played a whole heap of 40's and 50's Gibson slopes at Twang Central last week and did the review here I recall the 57' J-45 sounded much less responsive and open compared to the earlier models. Im guessing it wasnt scalloped and you could really tell the difference. I really had to work a lot harder to get a good tone out of that model. Here's it is and I even though the sound quality is poor you can hear the difference between the 43' and 57' models. 57' J-45 43' SJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I am a big fan of 1955-1959 Gibsons. The new style bradcing was well thought out, adding a bit of extra support to the top while not adding any appreciable mass. When looking at old guitars, in the end it pretty much comes down to how much you have to spend. Although an all original instrument in really nice condition is always preferable if you are on a budget and just looking for a good player don't sweat modifications or easy fixes. What you do need to make sure of is that the interior is clean and unmolested and that the finish, particularly on the top, is original. A changed bridge is not a big deal (replacements are usually a bit oversized to cover the tan line) as long as the maple bridge plate is there and has not chewed up or something. And cracks are not a big deal. They are an easy and relatively inexpensive fix. I swear when the guy I use gets done you have to look real hard to even see where the cracks were. Again, while I will alsways prefer a clean, orginal instrument that can be had at a reasonable price, I am also saying do not be afraid of fixer uppers. Years ago I stumbled across a mid-1950s last chance dance Epi flattop. A rare as all get out guitar but not in what I would call the best condition. The pickguard was gone and replaced by a large double screwed down thing, the binding had shrunken and popped off, and the end pin had broken off. As the bridge had been lacquered over I suspected a problem (it was actually starting to split although I could not verify it at the monent). The interior though was all original with no issues. The guy wanted $800 for itbut I managed to snag it for half that. I ended up putting $330 into it. The key is that guitar in nice, unmolested condition sells in the $2600 - $2800 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedzep Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I think I'd put money on the premise about a crack or crack repair concealed under that p'guard. Bet it runs right up to the block which should be looked at for hairline crack. That's how mine ran on my '57 J45. I've never seen one snug up to the neck/fretboard like that. Lack of a shadow from moving it over is a puzzler, though. You guys have made me aware of many a misaligned pickguard in past discussions. I wouldn't give a nickel over $2600 and would require a setup. Good spot on that potential cover-up, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Cracks can be caused by shrinking pickguards so it may not be a case of slapping one on to hide them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 One thing about the PG- crack or no crack, I don't think it's coming off without damage to the finish. And while I don't think it is particilarly ugly, it for sure isn't origonal. That, for sure, should effect price. And concerning the action: I don't pretent to know what the status is concerning needing a neck reset, but by the pics and description, it might be close. Even if it doesn't need one, if it is CLOSE to needing one, that should effect price as well. Specifically, a guitar that can get by without one should not be considered the same value as one that doesn't need one at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I agree with the above. From what you were told about the action, the potential of an inky neck is something you need to look into. Relief, action and intonation are three separate things and a simple truss rod adjustment is not the end all for a perfect setup. But the saddle looks like it has plenty of height to it so you might have enough wiggle room to get the guitar in a more playable state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 The non original pickguard would keep me away at that price ! I'm amused that everyone is focused on this pickguard and what it might mean. The pickguard has three very small deviations from being absolutely correct for 1955: the rosette is covered, rather than being exposed the way we expect it to be (although we have seen plenty of pickguards installed this way: the Hummingbird, for example, and most modern J-45's). The lower inside corner (next to the bridge) is a hard corner rather than having a very slight radius. The outer shape at the edge of the top does not perfectly follow the shape of the top outside edge, although it's very close. The position of the pickguard hard up against the neck above the soundhole, and the position relative to the strings just above the bridge is absolutely correct. People are making all sorts of assumptions about cracks, etc, which I think are baseless assumptions without an inspection. They give you a heads-up to check it out, but nothing more. Pickguards get replaced, and for any number of reasons. My 1948 J-45 has now had four different pickguards of three different designs over its life, and none of the replacements had anything to do with a crack in the top. Pickguards, along with tuners, are the most commonly-changed items on vintage guitars. Generally speaking, they aren't that hard to remove without damaging the top, unless someone has put it on with epoxy or super glue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I'm amused that everyone is focused on this pickguard and what it might mean. The pickguard has three very small deviations from being absolutely correct for 1955: the rosette is covered, rather than being exposed the way we expect it to be (although we have seen plenty of pickguards installed this way: the Hummingbird, for example, and most modern J-45's). The lower inside corner (next to the bridge) is a hard corner rather than having a very slight radius. The outer shape at the edge of the top does not perfectly follow the shape of the top outside edge, although it's very close. The position of the pickguard hard up against the neck above the soundhole, and the position relative to the strings just above the bridge is absolutely correct. People are making all sorts of assumptions about cracks, etc, which I think are baseless assumptions without an inspection. They give you a heads-up to check it out, but nothing more. Pickguards get replaced, and for any number of reasons. My 1948 J-45 has now had four different pickguards of three different designs over its life, and none of the replacements had anything to do with a crack in the top. Pickguards, along with tuners, are the most commonly-changed items on vintage guitars. Generally speaking, they aren't that hard to remove without damaging the top, unless someone has put it on with epoxy or super glue. I kinda agree, but at the same time, I would think it might count. I agree that PG's are replaceable and shouldn't account for much, and they ARE commonly changed. Often, without any damage at all, or if there is damage, it'd often slight. And presonally, I certainly would not personally turn down a good guitar because of the PG. But relative to this particular guitar, it seems the asking price is top dollar. Looking at the condition of the finish, would this PG come off without taking some of the finish? I think that's a good and significant question when the asking price is more of something that is for an "origonal". In a sense, while the finish might truly be origonal, it is in some kind of shape. I don't think there is anything wrong with this guitar, or the PG. It's to me more a matter of price and value. If a guitar is priced a certain way because of history and collectability, it has to meet the standard. If it is priced because of playability and sound, these two prices might not be the same. So, if the guitar is absolutely as good and fine with this PG in every way as far as structure and playing, it doesn't effect anything. We know it's not the origonal PG, so was it made origonal with a small or large one? And if the guitar can not be restored to "origonal", then it should not have an "origonal" price on it. I ain't really a price expert on these guitars, and the pics and price seem like they could be fine. But one thing for sure, the asking price does require answering a lot of questions and checking out certain things, as there is a lot about this guitar that can't be seem or known. And GC ain't eactly known for finding and diclosing such things that aren't obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I ain't really a price expert on these guitars, and the pics and price seem like they could be fine. But one thing for sure, the asking price does require answering a lot of questions and checking out certain things, as there is a lot about this guitar that can't be seem or known. And GC ain't eactly known for finding and diclosing such things that aren't obvious. Agree 100%. I think the guitar is overpriced. If it checks out and sounds good, a price of $2600-$3000 seems more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 The only thing I have to say..."if it matters"....IS....that the pickguard 'replacement or positioning' ....'detracts' from an otherwise decent-looking albeit worn looking ol' Gibson!:unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.