Steven Smith starts a major repair of an old guitar that might be a vintage Gibson [Pictures] - created 11-22-2011

Smith, Steven - 11/22/2011.23:25:27

I could use some help to identify this guitar and decide if it has any value. This came into my shop this weekend. It's in pretty rough shape. The customer bought it in the 60's from a friend who was headed to Nam and he is willing to spend a fair amount on it to get it playable. I've never seen a Gibson marked like this but I don't know them very well.

-Serial number stamped on lower end of neck block: 2096 21

It is possible the 1 could be an I but I don't think so.

-Mahogany and Spruce 14 fret pinned bridge (showed up with a tailpiece and movable bridge)

-Four ladder braces on back. Tall and about 1/4" wide.

-Top is X-braced with a cloth reinforcement at the X

-Neck is mahogany, 1.7" at the nut, 2" at 10th fret, 19 frets total.

-Scale 24.75"

-Upper bout: 11 1/2"

-Waist: 10 3/4"

-Lower Bout: 16"

-Body Length 20"; Depth tapers from 4 3/4" to 3 3/4".

Headstock, metal nameplate, homemade trussrod cover.

Originally a pinned bridge.

Serial number on neck block. No evidence of a label.

Top is a mess. Here's a shot of the bracing.

The worst of the damage is on the back. Top is also badly warped.

Tuners have been replaced with a set of Kluson Deluxe.

I used to have a Gibson LGO. The metal tag looked so familiar. It is exactly the tag that came off of the cardboard case.

It also once had three on a plate tuners, since swapped for gold Klusons.

Don't know if Gibson ever used three on a plate and I don't remember what was on my long-gone J45.

No name under the tag.

The peghead is tapered and probably about an 1/8" difference between the end and the nut. I'm wondering if the guy that sold this all those years ago doctored it up to convince somebody that it was a Gibson and get more money? Back in the '60s it would have been easy to get away with that.

Hi Steven,

Be that as it may, even if not a Gibson it is an interesting old box, and as they say, has a lot of "Mojo". When you take off the back to repair it you can replace the missing braces on the top. If the neck is still well glued and not tilted too far forward, you can do a quick and dirty reset by trimming the back slightly as is done on cheap guitars. With a new bridge and a quick French polish I would call it done. I wouldn't spend years on it. As it is kind of beat, it will probably never appeal to the collector, but as a player I think it has a few more miles left in it. Cool old guitar!

Some Gibsons did have three on a plate tuners.

And the tapered headstock is consistent with Gibson too, so it still is possible.

I received this guitar wrapped up in a plastic trash bag to evaluate and have not spoken to the owner it since I've looked at it.

Here's where I'm at so far. Looks like it could be an old low-end Gibson (not one of the well know models) or a similar guitar from an unknown maker that was dolled up so people would think it was a Gibson. Either way the name tag came from a Gibson case. The tuners should be three on a plate and the guitar should have a pinned bridge. The guitar condition is very poor so it is not likely to have any collector value. The only reasonable option is do what Clay says and fix it up so it can be a player. I think it is in good enough shape to do that. I'll talk to the owner but I think he has some sentimental attachment and will agree with this. He did mention that if it wasn't worth fixing then I could scrap it. So we'll see. If he doesn't want it then I'll fix it up for a shop guitar.

The first items of business will be to remove the back, clean everything, and fix the top.

As I understand deionized water might be the best thing to use for cleaning? I've never had to deal with one that was as dirty as this one is.

Also, the top is badly warped and I could use some advice on how to repair it, if possible. I'll take some photos that show the damage and post them.

It is (or at least was) no doubt a Gibson, probably 40's, maybe early 50's, I'm guessing a J-35 or J-45. It's a shame what's been done to the poor thing, but there's absolutely no doubt that it's an old Gibson J-something, from before the mid-50's at the latest I'd say.

I'm away from my shop and books right now, but I'll look up what I can about the dimensions and FON when I get back on Saturday. As you said, not that high a collectable value as it is, but it most likely a 40's J-35/45. Certainly not an L-series, and not likely late enough to be a J-50, but certainly a Jumbo.

I have a Kalamazoo which had 3 on a plate tuners and if I remember correctly Gibson made some instruments for Sears(?) or other retailers. I could be wrong here; help me out Gibson historians.

I've been doing more research and what I've found has me leaning towards a late 1940's J45. Maybe a 1949 based on the FON.

1 11/16" baseball-bat type neck - post WWII

17 degree peghead is pre '66

0.070" frets are pre '59

peghead narrows in thickness towards the top - pre '55

FON of 4 letters, followed by 1 or 2 more digits - '42 to '52

Mahogany neck blocks back in after the war - '46 or later

FON in the 2000's - '49

I removed the back yesterday (I'll post a photo when I can get back to the shop) and one thing that doesn't seem to fit is that the side reinforcements are wood instead of fabric.

I've decided to go ahead and do the repair even though I know it won't be cost effective. This is by far the worst guitar I've had in my hands that still shows promise that it could be a decent player. The owner is willing to pay a reasonable amount so at least I won't go in the hole.

Consensus seems to be this is a J45 from around 1949. Anyway, here is a photo with the back off.

Does anyone know where I can get patterns for the tone bars and bridge since both are missing?

http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/topic/1364/Vintage-Gibson-bracing-library?page=1

Thanks Joe! That thread contains a lot of excellent information, I copied a lot of the photos to a reference document. Besides the profile of the tone bars I was able to verify that wood side-reinforcement strips were used on some Gibsons even back to the late 1930's.

Also, I was able to get some J45 plans from StewMac that should provide the information I need to reproduce the bridge.

I'm feeling pretty good about this project.

I've got some time to work this weekend and would like to get started on this one. Figured I'd start with the back. It is in 3 separate pieces plus there are at leas 4 other significant cracks in it.

My question to the repair folks is what glue would you recommend? I would prefer to use hide glue but I'm concerned that the cracks/breaks are years old so there won't be a clean joint. Also, the breaks match up quite well but won't be invisible and there will be some gaps. I plan to refinish this guitar but expect it will still show lots of scars.

If there are gaps in the joints between those pieces then I'd use an epoxy. Maybe I'd bother to tint it a mahogany color too.

Pieces that are separated like that for a long time hardly ever fit together without big gaps and no other glue is much good at gap filling. Once together and clean then use the wood glue of your choice for the bracing and the cracks that are closed.

I'd still try to use hide glue after cleaning the wood with distilled (or deionized) water, if there are not too many large gaps or places that fit poorly. I'd probably use a few cleats too, though I generally try to avoid them if I can get a really solid, near-perfect fit (good luck with that on this one!). If you want to make replica braces for the top, look at the other braces and replicate the taper, and see if you can find a table saw blade of a similar diameter to the one Gibson used to leave those saw marks on the sides of the brace. I don't have one that matches particularly well or cuts quite as roughly, so I struggle with replicating Gibson braces.

I would encourage the hot hide glue also.

It is reversible if you are unhappy with it. It takes finish a lot better than epoxy.

I understand that the edges don't always line up well. One side will warp a little.

You can use a hot clothes iron to flatten the pieces some. Clever taping and clamping will help get the surfaces to mate well. Thin flexible boards on the back of the thin wood, with either clamps or weights from the other side.

The crack will show some dirt. Try to get it as clean as you can.

I agree with placing cleats to strengthen the areas of the breaks.

I frown on epoxy and prefer hide glue myself too but sometimes, it still may be the best way. The final choice is of course up to the repair person. It's just that a joint that old and messed up can be very hard to fit. But there's more than one way to go! I will certainly agree that if the fit and everything else is clean, then hide glue would be the best.

I got the parts cleaned up with warm distilled water but the back potato chipped on me a bit. Makes sense, I just hadn't thought of it so I'll let it dry out a few days before I try to glue it. I needed to make up a new batch of HHG anyway.

I also cleaned the rest of the guitar and closely looked at the top. Since the goal here is to make the guitar playable then I am thinking about just replacing the top since it is in poor shape. The top has at least six holes from old pickup mountings (the replacement pick guard covered one of them) and two of the holes are through the rosette. A piece of wood missing from the top by the fretboard had been repaired with wood putty. When the original pick guard was replaced, a lot of wood was pulled up. There are also several serious cracks along with warping due to the tailpiece. In general it is just beat up and is worse than the back.

Since the back is off the guitar wouldn't it be easier to inject the steam to pull the neck by just drilling a hole into the bottom of the neck block?

Might be easier, but unless you're pretty sure you know where the end of the dovetail is it might be hard to hit the "pocket" with the drill bit. Drilling somewhat diagonally would probably improve your chances, but if you drill too far and start into the tenon it can be hard to get a steam needle into the pocket (rather than in the hole in the heel). Also, those things usually (in my experience) have a rounded mortise with a larger gap in the center, so shooting for center might be helpful.

I would not replace the top. I would patch in spruce as necessary and repair the rosette. The guitar is pretty beat and scarred up everywhere else, and I think a new top would look out of place. The bracing is not generally seen, so aside from not making it too perfect, I wouldn't take any great pains to make it look super authentic. I would try to make it play good and be structurally sound, leaving as much original wood as practicable. But this is how I would approach it, what you do is up to you.

I would be inclined to use hide glue on the back. The glue line might be visible but the overall joint should be sound enough.

I agree that a new top would look out of place but someone sanded it down pretty enthusiastically when it was refinished. I've been thinking about how I could measure the center of the top to see if enough wood is still there and I had an idea this morning. The edges near the rosette have been sanded so much they taper to a point so I can't measure there.

Steven, do you have some magnets? If you take a piece of wood approximately the same thickness as the top and put one magnet on each side you can feel the pull of attraction between the magnets. test feel how much they pull and then do the same thing with your guitar top, especially near the bridge. If the magnets pull stronger they are closer together, indicating thinner top. This won't tell you how thick the top is but you can find out if there is any difference in thickness of your top. Or use a Hacklinger gauge.

If there is noticeable variation in top thickness I would probably replace the top. This tops are trouble in your future.

You can also put a light bulb inside the guitar, and darken the room a bit. The light will shine through the top, and you'll be able to see the thinner spots as more brightly lit.

I do have a selection of magnets and I also have a multi-LED light that I use when working inside the box. Good ideas and I'll try that if I can't get my Rube Goldberg measuring setup to work. I probably won't be back in the shop until Thursday so I'll check the top then and start on the repairs to the back.

Soundboard is about 0.11" at the bridge - thick enough. It is reasonably consistent except right around the rosette.

I looked at that top and fussed with it for about an hour. I'm going to try and keep the original top. Since I need to finish it before I reinstall the back, then if it doesn't work like I want then I can replace it.

Got some questions but I'll post some photos when I get back up to the house.

Got the big pieces glued onto the back. Basically used a method similar to how I join tops and backs. I used HHG. I doubled up on the tape to get a bit more clamping force.

Once the seam was glued and taped then I used some cauls covered with wax paper and most of a maple neck blank to clamp it flat. After 1/2 hour I unclamped, cleaned it up and did the next piece.

Now to my questions for today:

First, the replacement pickguard was glued on with a dark brown and very hard glue (resorcinol?) Hot water (close to boiling) doesn't touch it. Anyone have any recommendations on how I can remove it without going to mechanical means like cutting, scraping, or sanding?

Second, There's a hole in the bass side of the rosette from a pickup screw. I would like to loosen part of the rosette and slide the ends together. Anyone know how to loosen the rosette or should I just take a piece from under the pickguard (where the factory join is) and put it in?

Third, the binding around the top is in ok shape and is loose most of the way around the lower bout. The top needs to be reglued in part and it would be good if I could loosen the binding for a few more inches so it would be easier to glue the top. What's a good way to loosen and remove celluloid binding without breaking it (besides very carefully)?

1. You'll probably have to scrape away the glue, especially if it -is- resorcinol or similar.

2. I like to take a piece of rosette from under the fingerboard extender, but you'll need a piece of matching spruce too. If you're lucky enough to have some old scrap tops around with similar age coloration, that's a good source, but you can also take a piece of this top from somewhere inside (not full thickness, of coarse).

3. "Very carefully" is about all I can say. I usually use a razor blade or very sharp, thin pocket knife blade and work very slowly, being vigilant for slivers of spruce trying to pull away from the top. It is often the top that suffers damage from pulling binding rather than the binding itself.

Got the back put together and it doesn't look too bad.

I'll try out your suggestions on the top.

The back is done. The worst cracks/breaks were reinforced between the braces and missing parts were replaced.

Lookin' good. Are you going to add some "artificial age" to that shockingly white spruce? (Amber aniline works well.)

I was able to get the rosette out of the channel without further damage. The white dot is a spruce plug in one of the pickup holes, the other one got done later. As the photo shows, the rosette shows all the way around the sound hole and I'm about 3/8" short because of the damage from the holes that were drilled through it. Does anyone know of a source for replacement Gibson rosette material. Otherwise I can cobble something together.

Are you going to add some "artificial age" to that shockingly white spruce?

Absolutely, it is a pretty startling contrast. As you can see there were a number of holes in the top so some selective coloring will be in order there as well. I still need to fill in the bridge pin holes. The top will get refinished, it was pretty messed up. I may try a bit of french polish, just don't know yet.

Steve, I just happened on this thread. Although it has been going on for some time, I hope I can offer some constructive input. From the info & photo in post #1: I think Gibson was the only major mfg. to use a 24.75 scale. The (non original) pick guard is definitely a Harmony - from a model H162/165, or one of the various Stellas. The tailpiece & bridge also look like Harmony/Stella items as well. They were probably added when the original Gibson tone bars fell out - not an unusual occurrence. I think you are in the ballpark with the J45/J50 1949 dating. I had a 1948 Gibson SJ (same as J45, but more bling) that I stupidly sold some time ago. It had what looks to be the same rough cut triangular scalloped bracing I see in yours. The SJ had a 'standard' belly bridge (belly facing down), but I think the J45 had a thin rectangular bridge (~ 6" x 1"). In 1950 Gibson started using a reverse belly bridge & 1 7/16 bridge plate. I have read that Gibson started using Sitka Spruce tops in 1945. These tops are said to be both fairly thick & inconsistent. I never measured my '48 SJ, but one well respected luthier measured an SJ & an SJ200 with Sitka tops & came up with .142" & .154" respectively ( he mea. some earlier red spruce tops at .150" & .106") The "Fab Flat-top" book says they used .115" red spruce starting in 1934. Martin "D"s seem to be a consistant .118" (3mm). I would think your .110" is on the thin side of usable for a 16" Jumbo. I have a broken Harmony Sovereign top from the '60s that I could cut an appropriate sound hole patch from, if you need it. How accurate are the measurements & what year are the Stew Mac plans? Several of the various plans I have, or seen, (mostly Martin) are way over built in comparison to the original instruments. I am trying to put together enough information to build a copy of my long gone 1948 SJ. If you are going to take any measurements of the remaining X braces I would love to get a copy of those as & larger copy of your photo of the inside of the top. My '48 SJ originally had 3 on a plate tuners & I was never able to find an numbers on the neck block. There are several helpful interior photos, but no J45 specs, posted in the vintage section of the UMGF sight.

Bob Krueger

Hi Bob, glad you jumped in. I've still got quite a bit more to go before this guitar is done. Interesting info on the pickguard/bridge/tailpiece; makes sense too.

Whoever took the finish off of this guitar sanded down the top quite a bit and it is pretty floppy now. If the area under and around the fretboard extension is any indicator then I believe they sanded about .030" or .040" off of the top; difference was very obvious when I got the neck off. At the moment I am proceeding along a course that keeps the original top intact but won't be able to make a final decision until I get the braces back on. EVERY brace on the top and back except for the popsicle brace was either off, very loose or missing.

I have the X brace off but it is still glued together as a unit. I also have two of the finger braces, both tone bars, the bridge plate, and the popsicle brace. The upper transverse brace is missing. I'll be happy to measure any of the ones I have and provide higher resolution photos for you. I can also photograph them on graph paper and/or with rulers to make them easier to duplicate. It would probably be easier to do this part over email since the photo resolution settings are so low here. Just let me know what you would like to see.

Steve,

It's really too bad about that top. If you ad your .110" to that .030" to .040" that was sanded off you come up with something pretty close to the .142" to .154" That I got from Willi Henkes. I've often heard that the top controls something like 80% of a guitars tone. I have re-braced a number of old '60s Harmony's. I feel the tone has always come out better (read - more open, or vintage) if I was able to keep the original top. It's amazing how a little lack of knowledge can screw up a good instrument. Can you tell if the top is Red/Adi. or Sitka spruce? That would influence my final decision.

The marks on the inside of the top look as though there might have been some water damage along the way. It doesn't surprise me that all the braces are coming loose. There is a really nice photo of a '51 J45 page 61 of the current (fall 2011) Fretboard Journal. It has a reverse belly bridge, but everything else should look like yours once did.

Unfortunately I think the top is Sitka; very wide grain and heavily corrugated. Wouldn't guarantee it though. I have done a fair amount of work on the top, flattened the ripples, fixed the cracks, patched the missing piece, and plugged all the holes but still not sure if there is enough structure there to last very long.

The water damage is pretty significant for a guitar (I've dealt with furniture that was worse). The lower bout appears to have been pretty well soaked at one time. And, although the braces were all loose or off, the tail block though split from the endpin, was very solid.

Bob, got your email and will respond with the measurements and photos you asked for.

One thing I like about this guitar is that the divots on the fretboard up to the 7th fret show that in spite of a hard life, this guitar was played a lot by someone who was probably a player.