1953 Gibson SJ
I bought this 1953 guitar that I paid perhaps a little too much for, but with which I am completely in love, because it has an incredible sound, it sounds almost overdriven-the typical instrument that you can never put down. It has some unusual features, though, like the color of the back and sides, a color that seems to be too light compared to the standard for acoustic Gibsons. Someone told me that it might be an instrument that some worker at Gibson might have requested or built exclusively for himself. My opinion, among others, is that the neck to me seems to have even been replaced, and probably the bridge as well. I wonder if any experts can give me any insight on this, and I thank everyone who can help me.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Views: 256
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joshua Levin-Epstein on
-
Well, I'm no expert, but here's some conjecture: The neck binding is very white, blindingly so unless its the picture. If that isn't the original neck then it was replaced by Gibson near when that guitar was made. I propose the neck is original, was refinished, rebound, re-fretted (just a guess). You don't show the neck joint but I would bet the neck was reset or needs to be. Is there a serial number on the back of the headstock? Is there a label inside?
The tuners are new. They are much too clean. I do like safety posts (like on a fender) but they seems a bit out of place here. I am sure these tuners are much better than the originals.
The bridge looks replaced. I think these had through saddles. My guess is the original bridge got damaged and somebody made a very nice replacement. No one asked, but I prefer the blind slot as shown.
The back might have been refinished. It has a lot more checking than the rest of the instrument. Maybe someone got a little overzealous and needed to recolor the back.
I suggest this guitar had some issues and someone fixed them without boogering the guitar in the process. I'll bet it sounds great.
But what do I know?
-
Permalink Reply by Mark McLean on
-
I'll give 2c, although it might only be worth 1c without actually seeing the guitar.
Firstly, it looks great and I would be pleased to own it if it plays well.
I googled lots of images of this model from around that time and some have through-cut saddles and some have drop-in. So that doesn't tell you that this is a replacement bridge. It looks original in terms of size and shape. One of the photos looks like there might be lacquer on the bridge? If so it suggests an original bridge as Gibson often sprayed them after the bridge was glued on. The finish on the neck looks much newer than the rest of the guitar - maybe resprayed, or it could be a newer neck as Joshua suggested. However, fingerboard wear looks appropriate to age. The tuner buttons look new but the rest of the tuner components are old, or "reliced". No obvious cracks on the body. Looks like a good one!
-
Permalink Reply by Sdan on
-
Thank you all for your opinions and answers.
Yes: It sounds great, like no other acoustic guitar in my life!
I think the neck may have been replaced or otherwise repainted--the tuners are original to me, except of course for the buttons: the bridge appears to be brazilian rosewood, perhaps replaced at the factory. No label inside just the serial number stamped inside the neck mount.
The thing that most surprises me anyway remains the color of the sides, back and neck, which is mahogany somewhat light and should be reddish or very dark, if not even black.ranslated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
-
-
That is the Factory Order Number (FON). The serial number would be on the back of the headstock and/or the label.
-
-
It looks real enough to me. Apparently, stamped serial numbers started in the early 60's. And it is very common for labels to go missing.
As I just said in another post, I would just play the thing. I wouldn't mind having it.
© 2024 Created by Frank Ford.
Powered by
