Vintage Gibson Acoustic Experts Look here>

[Jonk]

Vintage Gibson J45 Refinished Autograph Johnny Paycheck - eBay (item 270282544975 end time Oct-07-08 12:25:35 PDT)

Does this look like a legitimate J-45? The autographs are sort of a turn off for me, but . . .

Anyhow, there is the J 45 stamp on the inside. My J 50 has the same stamp. It's strange that someone would strip a sunburst J 45 to make it look like a J 50, or maybe it was just a blond J 45?

Anyway, the pickguard would seem to date it to the 50's or earlier.

No serial number is a bummer, but if the story is legit, who knows.

But my main question is, does it look like it's for real?

???

[kafka]

I wouldn't waste my time on a guitar like that. There's a reason some guitars are sold on eBay and not locally. It's been abused. It looks bad in the pictures, and I'm sure it's worse up close. It's probably legit, but after the abuse it's seen, it almost doesn't matter.

[allencollins]

That gtr is a piece of crap. It's virtually impossible to get even a brand new acoustic
to intonate and tune 100%. No way that gtr could ever be production quality.
Not with a broken head stock and body damage no way.

I would buy it to smash it though. That would be cool.

[adathead 53]

I agree with kafka. There is no return policy listed, which basically means it's not returnable. And it does look to be in very poor condition. It's already gone higher than I would risk on it and it hasn't hit the reserve yet. Any reputable vintage guitar dealer is gonna allow for an approval period and some kind of terms for return/refund. Just my 2 cents.

Larry

[Jonk]

Guys, a 50's Gibson J 50 in good shape goes for around $2500

The one really bad thing with this guitar is that it has a bad refinish job. He has sent me a pic down the neck and it looks relatively straight. I'm looking for sound here. If I wanted a perfect guitar I'd buy a new one.

Anyway, for the price, for a J 45/ J 50 it appears to be a good deal. Do you guys see better deals for J series dreadnoughts?

[adathead 53]

Actually, if you can get a good 50's J50 for $2500, that's great. I paid $2200 for a 1964 and that was several hundred less than most dealers were advertising. I agree sound and playability are the things that matter. I could care less about cosmetics (although autographs are a definite turn off). What I did see in studying the photos of this particular guitar were several very poorly repaired cracks, a broken peghead that had been repaired (probably explains the missing face plate), the pickguard shows signs of being replaced as does the bridge (also very poorly). I just can't see investing anything substantial in something that appears to have so many issues if there is no return policy listed. I noticed the seller is in St. Joe, MI which is about 35 miles from me. If he relists it I might see if I can arrange to go have a look at it. If I do I'll get back to you. And don't worry-I won't try to buy it cause my funds are way too limited right now.

Larry

[kafka]

Don't know where the price on this one will go. It looks used, but not abused. True, it has the original adjustable bridge, but I consider that to be a plus over somebody's DIY replacement bridge, which afflicts a lot of `60s J45s. If I were going to buy a beater J45 without playing it first (which I'd never do), I'd probably look at this one first.

VINTAGE 1965 GIBSON J-45ADJ J45ADJ J-45 J45 DREADNOUGHT - eBay (item 230298466188 end time Oct-15-08 17:30:00 PDT)

[Jonk]

Yeah, that was the other one that I was looking at. Thanks for linking it! Doh.

No case for shipping with this one, but if the price was right I'd suppose I could get the seller to buy one.

[Jonk]

Thanks for the info adathead. Very helpful. I'm curious where you saw signs of a broken peghead. It looks to be a horrible finish for sure, but I don't see the crack in the peghead.

[adathead 53]

Well, in the photo of the back of the peghead I noticed a line that didn't look quite right (on the bass side). May or may not have been a crack there at one time-just looked that way to me.

[allencollins]

no used vintage gtr except in rare cases is usable in the studio. They are all gonna have fret issues or saddle issues.

You can get an old acoustic studio quality for sure but be prepared to drop three or four hundred to get the frets dressed or even replaced, a new nut and a saddle . A compensated setup is gonna cost $200 alone. If you don't really care about intonation buy that gtr but it will never play properly you can pretty much bet on it.

It boggles my mind when folks buy gtrs with fretwear and other problems. A guitar with fret wear and other issues can not be properly intonated. It's just impossible. 99% of the gtrs that have been 'refinished' have a cracked headstock or some other issue someone wanted covered up. Trust me. Why take the chance. 'Overspray' is the luthier codeword for scam. 'Refinsished' is the code word for 'caveat emptor'. Despite what anyone tells you it's very hard for a broken neck to every play perfectly without releveling the fretboard and other major fixes.

I've been refinishing gtrs for 20+ years. You can hide any cosmetic defect with a little nitro some compound and some creative thinking. That headstock looks 'Oversprayed' to me. It's like old les Pauls from the 70's If you say your headstock has never been broken your a liar or the guitar has been 'Refinsished'

caveat emptor

[Jonk]

Okay, look, I'm ready to heed advice that this particular guitar may have a bunch of problems.

But to say that vintage guitars generally aren't usable in the studio is ridiculous . I'm not looking to make a ****ing Dave Mathews record. I despise the sound of Taylors, Breedloves, and Huss and Daltons.' Sure, they're just wonderful concerning intonation, but they weigh about 40 pounds a piece and they sound like Christian Rock. I have no use for a beautiful Brazilian Rosewood log with a 2 inch thick top. Forget it. Vintage guitars sound better and no expert is going to make me believe that guitars being made now are better than the old ones. I've played hundreds and hundreds of guitars in my life, and I have a pretty good idea of what I want. I'll put up with a lot of faults for a nice light, explosive, woody sounding instrument.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by Jonk

Okay, look, I'm ready to heed advice that this particular guitar may have a bunch of problems.

But to say that vintage guitars generally aren't usable in the studio is ridiculous . I'm not looking to make a ****ing Dave Mathews record. I despise the sound of Taylors, Breedloves, and Huss and Daltons.' Sure, they're just wonderful concerning intonation, but they weigh about 40 pounds a piece and they sound like Christian Rock. I have no use for a beautiful Brazilian Rosewood log with a 2 inch thick top. Forget it. Vintage guitars sound better and no expert is going to make me believe that guitars being made now are better than the old ones. I've played hundreds and hundreds of guitars in my life, and I have a pretty good idea of what I want. I'll put up with a lot of faults for a nice light, explosive, woody sounding instrument.

I'm just telling you the facts. 70's Gibson gtrs are not very sought after by real collectors even if in mint cond. But any vintage gtr on ebay is suspect. It's your money not mine I could care less what you buy. I'm just telling you from my experience that most used gtrs at any age have problems. If you don't care what it sounds like then just save the money and buy a $100 chinese gtr? Seriously? Are you after the Gibson name? 70's Gibsons are about as good as a chinese gtrs minus the lead paint. Well maybe not that bad. But they certainly are not o nthe Level of a 70's guild , Taylor or Martin.

Why do vintage gtrs sound better? hmmm. They are almost all dreadnoughts made out of spruce and mahogany?
ahh yes that's why......

Go play a new dreadnought made of mahogany or even maple with a spruce top. instant vintage..............
Most new guitars suck because they have smaller bodies and are mostly rosewood bodies which sound honky.
Also they are carved out for electronics.

A Dreadnaught is the key to a vintage sound. Even the rosewood dreadnaughts sound ok vintage or new.
The new fangled smaller body guitars don't push enough air and they sound thin. I know most folks buy them
but that doesn't mean they don't suck.

[kafka]

Personally, I just have no time or money for guitars with issues. And trust me, a guitar that seems only tolerable at first will go unused for years, and will be hard to unload.

People abuse their guitars. Sometimes they break them, and they go to great lengths to hide the faults. Others do just absolutely weird, inexplicable stuff to them. Ever play an otherwise mint Martin where someone decided to shave down the braces themselves? There's a J45 on eBay now where the top was cut for a humbucker. Check it out. It happens.

I played a `53 Epiphone Deluxe Cutaway with a couple of DiMarzio's Super II's in it just this past week. It was totally a homemade job, complete with extra knobs, extra holes and massive brass pickup rings. The only thing that could possibly have made this abuse more complete is if they'd figured out how to install a ProCo Rat in it. I love old Epiphones. Late at night, I have fantasies about pre-Gibson Epiphones. This one, however, did not call to me.

People get it in their heads that they're going to "upgrade" the original design, and then they have that "oh, s**t" moment because the weekend at the college didn't turn out like they'd planned, and then they have to pass it on to the next sucker to avoid being confronted by their own stupidity every time they look at it. I wouldn't waste a minute on a guitar I couldn't inspect first, unless it had a no-questions-asked return policy, and even then, I probably wouldn't bother.