Official Luthiers Forum!

Well, today a Gibson J50 Adjustable bridge acoustic arrived at my house. The guitar belongs to friends of ours. I wasn't home to ask questions when it got here but this is what I see.

There is a 3" long through the top crack about 1/4" in from the waist on both sides of the top. There is another from the soundhole to the bridge alongside the pickguard (about 4" long and through the rosette). The top has caved in about 3/8 of an inch so I suspect some serious brace issues as well. It just looks like the unit will need a new top! Is this guitar worth it? I might do it for practice in any regard but if this is a valuable instrument (I suspect it isn't) then I would hold off for a while. The neck is thin and easy to play. The adjustable bridge looks like it should be replaced. The original 3-on-a-plate tuners have been replaced with single Kluson Deluxe Tuners complete with plastic buttons. The back and sides are Mahongany that has a dark tint to them. THere are numerous "war wounds" on this guitar....usually a sign that people liked to play it!

Oh ya, serial number on headstock, 78006.

Any info on this would be most welcome.

Thanks

Shane

_________________
Canada

Pic?

Shane, I shared a Japanese Classical with similar needs. The value if well repaired was about $400, maybe. The guitar clearly wasn't worth repairing. Good luck in your assessment, Bruce

_________________
http://www.dickeyguitars.com

I doubt it needs a new top. If you were going to make a new top you
might as well put it on a new guitar. If it's worth repairing and you're not
sure if you're up to it than I wouldn't take it in, and refer it to a
trustworthy repair shop.

Is there any other info you can give us? Shape/color of label, does it have
any other numbers or stamps on the headstock, is it pressed or ink
stamp, any other ink stamped numbers on the inside, does it have a
volute? Gibson serial numbers by themselves are pretty worthless.

Have you looked inside yet? If it's a 70's Norlin with double X bracing and
the giant plywood bridge plate than I may change my mind about
retopping - not because it couldn't be repaired but because it wouldn't be
worth repairing if you still had to listen to a top like that (this is where a
vomitting emoticon would be nice).


edit: I guess I would say that if it's a square shoulder J-50 than you could
retop it (or use it as kindling for that matter and it probably wouldn't
upset many people ). If it's a round shoulder J-50 than it should be
professionally repaired and kept relatively original. Replacing the
adjustable bridge is still generally accepted, as the tonal benefit is
typically thought to outweigh the all original vintage aspects.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Anyway,

David, the guitar is not double "x" braced, it looks like two tone bars (Martin Style). The bridgeplate looks maple, the "label" is just a stamp on the inside back strip that says "J50 Adj. Bridge". The upper leg of the X on the bass side is off and is about 5/8" away from the top, allowing for the entire top to concave. There are two cleen through cracks from the sound hole to the bridge as well as the two on the waists. The bridge is bolted on with the outside of the bolts covered by MOP dots.

I have an "Arts and Luthiery" cedar topped guitar that needs a new top so I will do that one first, it is a shop guitar. Any suggestions for matching the yellow of the plastic bindings on the gibson?

Shane

_________________
Canada

Shane, here is some info on the guitar that might help make your decision

J--50 Flattop
Available: 1947 to present
Collectibility Rating: 1940's & 1950's models: C, 1960's models: C-.
Blond version of the J-45. See the J-45 section above for more details on this model. Personally I like the sunburst J-45 look better, but the J-50 is still the same guitar in a natural finish.
1947 J-50 introduction specs:
Natural finish version of J-45. 16" wide, round shoulder dreadnought shape, mahogany back and sides, solid spruce top with scalloped X-bracing, black bridge pins, 2 pearl dots on rectangle bridge, teardrop pickguard shape, single bound top and back, dot fingerboard inlays, gold logo, natural finish.
1950 J-50 specs:
Upper belly bridge (belly towards soundhole), triple bound top.
1955 J-50 specs:
Larger pickguard with point at upper bout. Bracing change to lower non-scaloped braces, an additional 20th fret added to the fingerboard.

1956 J-50 specs:
Adjustable saddle optional.
1961 J-50 specs:
Adjustable saddle standard.
1963 J-50 specs:
Injection molded .075" thick styrene pickguard replaces the older .025" thick celluloid pickguard. Plastic bridge used.
1964 J-50 specs:
rosewood bridge with adjustable saddle.
1968 J-50 specs:
White pickguard with "Gibson" logo, screwed to the top.
1969 J-50 specs:
Square shoulder dreadnought body shape.
J-50 discontinued 1982.

Hope this helps, good luck

Mike

Thanks Mike,
So this guitar has 20 frets, the braces do not look scalloped, it has a tortis type pickguard that does have the point, the bridge is rosewood with the adjustable unit on it. This looks like it makes it pre '68. THe neck is noce and straight and thin and fast. I think it is worth fixing up, especially since I will likely do it for the cost of materials and the beer required while scratching my head thinking about it! I will do the other guitar first though.

Anybody have any neat tips on removing the neck with the fretboard intact (minus a couple of frets I would suppose)? The fretboard is pulling away from the top already so I think it will come pretty easy. I have been looking at the Stew Mac steam needle for a while now, is this a good time to buy it or is there a better way?

Thanks again!

Shane

_________________
Canada

Shane-
Hopefully you will get more expert opinions than mine, but...

I think that repairs like this-(cracks and damage but no missing pieces?) can be done (by experts) without removing the top.
I'd hesitate doing anything too drastic before you get lots of input.

One thing to consider is that your friend could probably sell the guitar 'as is' for quite a lot of money on eBay- it's amazing what folks are paying for 'basket cases'- especially for a 60s Gibson.....
This LG1 went for $460USD with part of the back missing...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=010&sspagen ame=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=200063801316&rd=1&rd=1
Sorry about the long link- search on the item# 200063801316     at eBay for pics.
A J50 would be worth more.
Cheers
John

According to 'Gibsons Fabulous Flattops" book-
78xxx would have been a 1962 number.
John

There is an interesting article/pictorial on John Greven's website that deals with replacing a damaged top.

http://www.grevenguitars.com/GrevenGuitars.html

You can find it under the Extras heading.

It might be helpful  if you do decide to replace the top.

Kevin

I would take a close look under the fretboard, some Gibsons had the top installed over the neck and then the fretboard, making pulling the neck and adventure.

Do not remove the top.
Do not remove the top.
Do not use this guitar to practice.
This is really not a guitar to practice on. I'm guessing it's an early 60s. If
it were a 68 it would have that cheezy Gibson logo with the dot and
curves on the pickguard. Even if it were a 68 it would not be suitable for
practice. Removing a top is almost NEVER an appropriate way to repair
it.
Do not repair this guitar.
Send it to a repair person.
Would you be considering the same options for a '62 D-28?
(did you know Gibsons were better than Martins anyway )
Preservation and restoration good - bastardization bad.

I really don't want to offend, but I do want to emphasize. This feels like I
could be reading someone on a woodworking forum say - "I found this
old Fender guitar at my dads that's been there for 40 or 50 years. It's
okay, but the finish was all cracked and faded with a bunch of scratches
in it. I'm heading out to the garage right now to strip and refinish it with
some paint left over from touching up my Chevy. I'm thinking about
putting humbuckers in too....."


Really, if you're friend wants to have you do it, don't. To any person who
sees what was done it will only serve to damage your reputation. On top
of that you will have destroyed what was probably a good vintage
instrument. If he can't afford to have it properly repaired then I think he
should hold on to it until he can, or sell it. If he says he doesn't care
about vintage value and wants it done anyway, don't do it. He can do
things like that and get away with it. If you want to stay in this trade for
any length of time however, these things will come back to haunt you.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

David,

Do you have an opinion on this?

I am going to PM you. I have been thinking about this more also. You will need to see the pics. The pickguard does have the points. Hey, all kidding aside, your comments are exactly the kind I was hoping to hear! Thanks!

Anyway, thanks all for the input, I do really appreciate it!

Shane

_________________
Canada

[QUOTE=Shane Neifer] David,

Do you have an opinion on this?

[/QUOTE]

I hope you're not insinuating that Gibson being better than Martin is merely
an opinion..   

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

[QUOTE=David Collins] [QUOTE=Shane Neifer] David,

Do you have an opinion on this?

[/QUOTE]

I hope you're not insinuating that Gibson being better than Martin is merely
an opinion..   
[/QUOTE]

I couldn't do that!! I am sure that that fact is indeed FACT! (I am now ducking, for fear of flying detritus!)

Shane

_________________
Canada

Flying Detritus, wow, I thought those were extinct.

_________________
http://www.dickeyguitars.com

[QUOTE=David Collins] Preservation and restoration good - bastardization bad.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, David. I've been saying similar things here for some time, but I'm a rookie, so your opinion is especially valuable. Repair and restoration is always the best option on instruments not made of plywood, and on many that are.

EXCEPT--destroy all bridge bolts!!! Bridge bolts must die!!! Hardware does not belong on a bridge! That being said, David, what would you do with the adjustment mechanism? Leave it? Put in a proper saddle?

Do I have to feel guilty over my Kay reso- vation?

_________________
"It's a Tone Faerie thing"
"Da goal is to sharpen ur wit as well as ye Sgian Dubh"
"Sippin Loch Dhu @Black lake" ,Kirby O...

[QUOTE=K.O.] Do I have to feel guilty over my Kay reso- vation? [/QUOTE]
Heh! My wild guess is, probably not!

[QUOTE=K.O.] Do I have to feel guilty over my Kay reso- vation? [/
QUOTE]

Some things need not be considered sacred...   
David Collins39101.7919444444

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

[QUOTE=CarltonM] EXCEPT--destroy all bridge bolts!!! Bridge bolts
must die!!! Hardware does not belong on a bridge! That being said,
David, what would you do with the adjustment mechanism? Leave it? Put
in a proper saddle?[/QUOTE]

I'm with you on this. Some things offer benefits that are generally
accepted to outweigh the taboo of modifying a vintage instrument. Then
again, who knows what I'll be saying about this in another 30 years.

I generally offer it as an option when doing a bridge repair or reglue, but
don't usually recommend going out of your way to do it unless the
customer really wants that specifically. It's good to do when the bridge is
off so that you can also remove all the heavy brass hardware mounted in
the top and plug the holes.

This is certainly not a hard rule, and opinions may certainly change over
time. Consider Lloyd Loar mandolins with the Virzi Tones. You'll find few
people who would argue that the Virzi Tone plate is anything but a tone
killer, and I bet even most collectors who actually play their instruments
are somewhat relieved if their plate was torn out long before vintage
became an issue. If you had an original Loar with the Virzi still intact
however, it would be unthinkable to even speak of removing it.

Somewhere between a Virzi removal and a new bridge on a 60's Gibson
is a vast grey area in which to make case by case decisions. I'm sure that
no one objected to putting a Badass bridge on their 50's P-Bass in the
mid 70's, and routing out a late 60's strat for a Floyd Rose wasn't a big
deal in the 80's. Of course these are now regretted by those who did that,
and the swapping a Gibson adjustable bridge may follow the same
course. Somehow I don't think it will seem so bad in the future though,
because those original adjustable bridges really suck. The tops
themselves however didn't start to really suck until the 70's, which is why
this one is worth attempting to preserve.
David Collins39101.7905208333

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Thanks again David.

I sent the pics to your e-mail address. I wish I could post them here for all to see but I guess the ghost is still in the machine!

Shane

_________________
Canada

Okay, the pics aren't here, but I thought I would try to keep as much info
that goes around here on the forum for everyone to see anyway.

Although it's rather difficult to get a good feel for exactly what's going on
from the photos, it doesn't look like an easy repair. The guitar overall
appears to be in very good/excellent condition with the exception of the
top, but that can be repaired. How exactly to go about it however, will be
a long series of very subjective judgement calls.

I'm guessing it to be around a '62. George Gruhn has a '63 currently
listed at $3500 in excellent condition, and they are certainly going up in
value so it is worth restoring properly. I would guess by how that one
looked that it may be in the $2700 - $2800 range when restored,
perhaps even a little more.

That dark glue you see on all the braces was an RF cured adhesive that
Gibson was using at the time, and it is rather notorious for crystalizing
and failing, especially in dry environments. I couldn't tell from the photos,
but it probably has a kind of creamy off-white glue squeeze out holding
the kerfing to the sides. They started using this only on the side/kerfing
joint in late '33 (as close as I can determine) and kept using it through the
late 60's. I think it's some type of casein glue.

Although I normally patch or cap worn bridge plates, given the condition
of the plate combined with the warp in the top I would consider a bridge
plate replacement. This (in combination with the bridge being off) can
free up a fair amount of liberty to reform the top during the repair. The
one brace that was extremely loose may be the most visible, but it
wouldn't surprise me if you could get a feeler guage under a few other
ends.

It would really be pages to put out all the options, but if you want to take
this repair on it would certainly be a great learning experience. It could
also be a great liability, because it's not the type of thing I would typically
recommend learning on. Many of the aspects such as bridge plate
removal or trying to reshape a top have a pretty significant learning
curve, and a lot of damage can be (and often is) done on a first attempt.

I guess I would say trust your judgement. If you and your friend agree
that you will be doing the repair, remember the golden rule - First Do No
Harm. Take it slow, step by step, and when the photo uploads are
working again it could be a little easier for folks to help here on the
forum.

On the other hand, when your friend finds out it's value he may decide it
worth while to ship it out somewhere. Again without seeing it up close I
can't say for sure whether I think the top can be entirely brought back to
original, but you would be surprised how much can usually be done
without removing the top or the back.

Talk it over with the owner and bring the photos to the forum when the
uploads are working again. It certainly looks like a good one.David Collins39102.1163541667

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Thanks, David- super info.Very interesting thread!
John

Thanks David, I will heed your advice! Do no harm is indeed a great golden rule!

Would you replace this bridge? Take out all of the metal bits and fill those holes? Would you make a new bridge (looks like EIR) or would you fill the saddle area and re-rout. If the bridge plate is coming out, which I think also it should, it looks like a couple of strings are in the same hole....then it may make sence to deal with the bridge at the same time.

Thanks

ShaneShane Neifer39102.5311689815

_________________
Canada

Yes, the bridge and bridge plate should definitely be off at the same time
to have the best chance to reform the top. I would typically leave them off
while all the other top repairs are being done. When you are pulling both,
I prefer to remove the bridge first, then the bridge plate. I can see
arguments for going the other order as well, but this is what works for
me. And the bridge is Brazilian, although for replacement you can often
find Madagascar rosewood that makes a pretty impeccable match.

And if I were to have the bridge removed I would definitely make a new
one rather than filling the old. It will look better, will be easier to fit to the
reflattened top (I assume the old one is rather warped), and you can leave
the original bridge and it's hardware in a bag in the case for posterity.
Ironically, the J-45 listed just above the J-50 I mentioned on Gruhns site
may be one that I did a year or two ago. There are a few particular
characteristics to it that look very familiar, and I know that the customer
bought and sold through Gruhns anyway.

As to the bridge plate in particular, the wear on the bottom is not my
main motivation for recommending replacement. That could be plugged
or patched quite easily. It's the warping of the top in combination with the
bridge plate wear that would motivate me to replace it. I would also leave
open the option to go slightly oversize, and definitely change the
direction of grain from the original plate. Like I mentioned above though,
this type of job has a lot of grey area and is subject to a lot of judgment
calls (usually based more on experience than intuition) as things come
apart or together.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.