I recently bought, or have on hold, a 1970(?) Gibson J50 Deluxe acoustic (Kalamazoo stamp inside) at a local guitar shop. They had it for $599, but let me have it for $550.
The J50 has had some work done, one owner...and the guy's dad brought it into the store. It's had a neck readjustment, and the head has been repaired from a barely visible crack. It also has two funky looking screws on the bridge. The pearl inlay or tortoise binding is cracking, like literally crumbly, which I've learned is common in this model.
Hence, the price. Still sounds great, looks beautiful if a little rough around the edges (which I love anyway)

I know the early 70s Gibsons are not as collectible, but I don't care about that. For me, it's all about the way it sounds, feels, and looks and yes, the history. (It's got that sweet worn-looking dark wood-grain that only comes with time)
My question is: is this a good deal for what I'm getting?
I'm sure some will tell me I could have paid that much for a brand new Epiphone Hummingbird acoustic, a Yamaha or even the lower priced laminate Martins etc...or I could have found something comparable online with some research.
But I couldn't pass it up. It was there in front of me, and the other vintage Gibson acoustic (a Nashville) displayed next to it had a $2k tag on it. At this price, I had to have it because I doubt I'll ever been in a position to just fork over 2K on a pristine vintage model. Acoustics are my first love.

*I already have my 71/72 Hummingbird, but it needs some work after more than 20 years of playing, environmental scars etc..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-26 01:19 by stupidguy2.

As long as it plays well and you like it, that is all that matters.

As with all older acoustic guitars, including the very best Martins, they can suffer from a variety of ills but have so much potential. A few things I always check. You probably know most of these but I'm just trying to be helpful.

1. Fret wear. Pull the strings aside and look for deep gouges or extreme flattening on the frets, especially in the first position when most of the chording has been done. It can obviously be refretted but it gives you a good idea how much the guitar has been played and if you may have to shell out for the refret.

2. Intonation. Hit the 12 fret harmonics on every string and compare the pitch to a 12th fret fretted note. Is is close? If it's off on more that one string it could be a sign of bigger problems.

3. Straight neck? Look down the neck and see if it looks straight concave of convex. If it is convex or has an unusual bow you may want to make an adjustment and come back the next day and see how well it was corrected.

4. Body to neck joint and bridge to soundboard connections. Is the bridge lifting up at the back end or are there any cracks or gaps in the neck joint attachment? Often times high tension coupled with age and temp swings can cause problems here that require repair.

5. String action at the nut. I fret the 4th fret on each string and look for a tiny, tiny gap between the string and the 1st fret wire (by pushing the string down near the 1st fret) . After many string changes this action can often be too low which requires a nut buildup. If too high the nut can be filed. This is a simple test and having the action set correctly here makes a HUGE difference to the playability of the guitar.

6. Fret every note on every string and listen for buzzes or completely flat notes. If you find some it could be a sign of high frets or a need for a neck adjustment.

The chances of all the things I mentioned being perfect on a 1970 acoustic are pretty small, unless the guitar was maintained and set up really well but these things are important if you want to get a super playable instrument. If you find problems that are fixable you can also use the problems to negotiate the price down.

Finally, besides the most important step of playing it an determining if it speaks to you, I always like to get someone else to play it and stand in front of it to hear how it sounds and projects outward. This may seem weird for some but it is uncanny how some old Martins, for example, sound just OK when playing them but like a dream standing in front. Taylors on the other hand seem to sound great while playing them and less dreamy from the front, in my experience.

Good luck man! I hope it all works out for you. I wouldn't let the repairs scare you off but those screws in the bridge sound like the bridge might have lifted at one time, I'd check the block under the bridge on the inside of the guitar too (with a mirror) to see if the screws might have cracked it. The price is certainly right, almost a bit scary on the low side.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-26 06:34 by Naturalust.

Naturalist did a good job covering all the points you should examine before purchasing this guitar. The price is low enough that should you need a costly repair such as a neck reset, re-fret or bridge replacement you have some room. Even if you do you need to invest in some repairs your will end up with a very nice guitar at a reasonable price. By the way, the two screws on the bridge may be from something called a Bridge Doctor. It's a device that's installed inside the guitar to put tension on the guitar top via the bridge. Pulling the guitar top downwards will flattens any bowing around the bridge which causes high action. It's a common problem with vintage acoustic instruments. You can read about it here. Good luck. [www.jldguitar.net]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-26 06:59 by TornAndFried.

Quote
Naturalust
As with all older acoustic guitars, including the very best Martins, they can suffer from a variety of ills but have so much potential. A few things I always check. You probably know most of these but I'm just trying to be helpful.

1. Fret wear. Pull the strings aside and look for deep gouges or extreme flattening on the frets, especially in the first position when most of the chording has been done. It can obviously be refretted but it gives you a good idea how much the guitar has been played and if you may have to shell out for the refret.

2. Intonation. Hit the 12 fret harmonics on every string and compare the pitch to a 12th fret fretted note. Is is close? If it's off on more that one string it could be a sign of bigger problems.

3. Straight neck? Look down the neck and see if it looks straight concave of convex. If it is convex or has an unusual bow you may want to make an adjustment and come back the next day and see how well it was corrected.

4. Body to neck joint and bridge to soundboard connections. Is the bridge lifting up at the back end or are there any cracks or gaps in the neck joint attachment? Often times high tension coupled with age and temp swings can cause problems here that require repair.

5. String action at the nut. I fret the 4th fret on each string and look for a tiny, tiny gap between the string and the 1st fret wire (by pushing the string down near the 1st fret) . After many string changes this action can often be too low which requires a nut buildup. If too high the nut can be filed. This is a simple test and having the action set correctly here makes a HUGE difference to the playability of the guitar.

6. Fret every note on every string and listen for buzzes or completely flat notes. If you find some it could be a sign of high frets or a need for a neck adjustment.

The chances of all the things I mentioned being perfect on a 1970 acoustic are pretty small, unless the guitar was maintained and set up really well but these things are important if you want to get a super playable instrument. If you find problems that are fixable you can also use the problems to negotiate the price down.

Finally, besides the most important step of playing it an determining if it speaks to you, I always like to get someone else to play it and stand in front of it to hear how it sounds and projects outward. This may seem weird for some but it is uncanny how some old Martins, for example, sound just OK when playing them but like a dream standing in front. Taylors on the other hand seem to sound great while playing them and less dreamy from the front, in my experience.

Good luck man! I hope it all works out for you. I wouldn't let the repairs scare you off but those screws in the bridge sound like the bridge might have lifted at one time, I'd check the block under the bridge on the inside of the guitar too (with a mirror) to see if the screws might have cracked it. The price is certainly right, almost a bit scary on the low side.

Naturalust are you Dan Erlwhine ? Very well said you are a genius and very well spoken .My compliments !

Quote
stupidguy2
I recently bought, or have on hold, a 1970(?) Gibson J50 Deluxe acoustic (Kalamazoo stamp inside) at a local guitar shop. They had it for $599, but let me have it for $550.
The J50 has had some work done, one owner...and the guy's dad brought it into the store. It's had a neck readjustment, and the head has been repaired from a barely visible crack. It also has two funky looking screws on the bridge. The pearl inlay or tortoise binding is cracking, like literally crumbly, which I've learned is common in this model.
Hence, the price. Still sounds great, looks beautiful if a little rough around the edges (which I love anyway)

I know the early 70s Gibsons are not as collectible, but I don't care about that. For me, it's all about the way it sounds, feels, and looks and yes, the history. (It's got that sweet worn-looking dark wood-grain that only comes with time)
My question is: is this a good deal for what I'm getting?
I'm sure some will tell me I could have paid that much for a brand new Epiphone Hummingbird acoustic, a Yamaha or even the lower priced laminate Martins etc...or I could have found something comparable online with some research.
But I couldn't pass it up. It was there in front of me, and the other vintage Gibson acoustic (a Nashville) displayed next to it had a $2k tag on it. At this price, I had to have it because I doubt I'll ever been in a position to just fork over 2K on a pristine vintage model. Acoustics are my first love.

*I already have my 71/72 Hummingbird, but it needs some work after more than 20 years of playing, environmental scars etc..

It probably sounds better than anything else you can buy for that kind of money. So, if you don't anticipate it to break down the very next month and in need of a 1000 dollar repair I certainly would buy it. At least you don't have the worry about the first scar you put on it!

Mathijs

Thanks! Naturalist, you gave me some real homework. I'm not a techie, so I'll do my best. I did do an overview inspection and it's definitely all original. I know what you mean about other people playing your guitar and standing in front. I do that. I used to love to watch and listen to my friend play my old Tele on stage when I wasn't playing. You get a better sense of how it resonates outward.
I will do my best, and I do believe its worth it for what I want it to be.
Plus, it just looks cool.

I have a Gibson J40 of a similar age which I played very hard for many years. It now needs some more work including a neck reset and I retired it a few years ago. It's still a lovely sounding guitar with better tone and volume than the Martin D18 that I bought to replace it. I really must get the old lady fixed up.

These square shouldered Gibsons were looked down on as poor relations of the more expensive models, but are great guitars in their own right and sound fantastic. Hope you enjoy your guitar for many years and so glad you didn't make the mistake of plumping for a newer, prettier, but ultimately inferior guitar like the Epiphone. $550 sounds like a great deal.

Quote
teleblaster
I have a Gibson J40 of a similar age which I played very hard for many years. It now needs some more work including a neck reset and I retired it a few years ago. It's still a lovely sounding guitar with better tone and volume than the Martin D18 that I bought to replace it. I really must get the old lady fixed up.

These square shouldered Gibsons were looked down on as poor relations of the more expensive models, but are great guitars in their own right and sound fantastic. Hope you enjoy your guitar for many years and so glad you didn't make the mistake of plumping for a newer, prettier, but ultimately inferior guitar like the Epiphone. $550 sounds like a great deal.

Awesome! Yeah, the early 70s Gibsons don't get much respect, and because I already have a Hummingbird of a similar age, and loved it (It's my treasure because of the Stones connection, and because its a beautiful guitar), I had planned on just going for it and getting a new Martin D-28. But finances won't allow that right now. I wasn't expecting to buy a second guitar anytime soon, but this one just happened to be there at an affordable price. I admit the new Epiphones look nice, play decently and feel nice, but I know they are inferior...being a player, I see those guitars as 'hobby' guitars, for casual players, or dads that like to play the intro to Long Cool Woman...
I'm a snob.
Question: can you guys explain to me like I'm a five-year old why the early 70s Gibsons are not as coveted? I know there are tech reasons for collectors, but I'm not sure what they mean to me as a player.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-27 19:06 by stupidguy2.

Quote
stupidguy2
Question: can you guys explain to me like I'm a five-year old why the early 70s Gibsons are not as coveted? I know there are tech reasons for collectors, but I'm not sure what they mean to me as a player.

Because they are hit and miss. There are enough duds out there that they have kind of spoiled the soup and prevented them from gaining a coveted position in the market like some other brands, is my best guess.

My suspicion is that they were just a bit overbuilt. Either not enough attention to soundboard bracing and construction or something similar. I've checked out enough of them that were beautiful but just didn't sound that great. This is just my personal opinion as a player and I really don't follow the collector market much so I can't speak from that perspective.

One thing that is so good about more modern acoustics is the prominence of computer aided design and manufacturing. While completely hand made guitars are nice in principle, there are real advantages to having superb control for a mass produced product. There are so many medium priced new acoustics out there that play and sound better that their vintage counterparts. As a player, it is certainly worth checking a few of them out before springing for a vintage acoustic thinking that it must be better just because it is vintage. It is the golden age for guitars! More beautiful sounding instruments available than ever before, a great time to be a guitar player.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
stupidguy2
Question: can you guys explain to me like I'm a five-year old why the early 70s Gibsons are not as coveted? I know there are tech reasons for collectors, but I'm not sure what they mean to me as a player.

Because they are hit and miss. There are enough duds out there that they have kind of spoiled the soup and prevented them from gaining a coveted position in the market like some other brands, is my best guess.

My suspicion is that they were just a bit overbuilt. Either not enough attention to soundboard bracing and construction or something similar. I've checked out enough of them that were beautiful but just didn't sound that great. This is just my personal opinion as a player and I really don't follow the collector market much so I can't speak from that perspective.

One thing that is so good about more modern acoustics is the prominence of computer aided design and manufacturing. While completely hand made guitars are nice in principle, there are real advantages to having superb control for a mass produced product. There are so many medium priced new acoustics out there that play and sound better that their vintage counterparts. As a player, it is certainly worth checking a few of them out before springing for a vintage acoustic thinking that it must be better just because it is vintage. It is the golden age for guitars! More beautiful sounding instruments available than ever before, a great time to be a guitar player.

It's mostly the simple fact that Gibson was trying to earn more money by using lesser quality components (mainly the wood), and by building sturdier instruments that where less sensitive, and hence less warrenties. They did this by making the tops thicker, heavier ladded bracing instead of thin X-bracing, using laminated wood for the necks etc.

Mathijs

You've definitely got to try before you buy. I would avoid eBay "bargains". My J40 is light as a feather and definitely not overbuilt. It's the lightest of all my acoustics (with the possible exception of the Martin 000-15) and has the best tone of the lot.

There seems to have been of lot of chopping and changing of spec with these guitars depending, I presume, on what was available at a good price at the time with different bindings, tuners, finish, etc. My J40 has a pin bridge - like a J45 - unlike nearly all the others I've seen over the years (I bought mine from a friend about 1980). It was a great workhorse guitar for over twenty years, with a sweet tone and a projection that could hold its own when flatpicking with banjos, etc.

A lot of great responses from everyone, very helpful.
I get the vintage-doesn't-always-equal-better thing: my first real electric was a 72 blonde Telecastor Custom with that funky pick-guard, like Keith's.
It was eventually stolen, and my heart was broken because I knew I would never be able to really replace it. Years later, I did replace it. Because I was playing gigs, I went the practical route and bought a used 1990s standard Tele. It wasn't sexy, but it turned out to be a better guitar all around. But with acoustics, I'm more sentimental.

I think the bottom line for me is the emotional pull I get from my instrument. I love the Hummingbird because of its Stones connection, and its beauty and history in music. It feels good. The Hummingbird is also a 70-72 model. I found it in a music store in Houston over 20 years ago. They had just gotten it in, and it was pretty banged up. They fixed it up for me. That guitar has given me years of guitar nerd joy...and envy from other musicians. When I was a younger, I would open the case, and that sunburst and ornate pick-guard would catch everyone's eye immediately. When we were youngr, my friends would play it and would be amazed at how loud and resonant it was compared to their Yamaha and Alvarez guitars. It projects beautifully. Not being a techie, because there was no Internet, I was immune or oblivious to whatever techinical inneficiencies there may be in its construction. I had that Gibson attachment. Yes, its about the name and history. For me, even the lesser Gibson guitars carry that legacy because it is part of a longer history. I look at this way as well, I love vintage acoustic guitars, and my favorite Stones albums are Sticky Fingers and Exile, from 71 and 72. So that's my Gibson period, I guess. I also have a theory: a good musician can play the hell out of anything, and bring it out the best in even the lowliest guitar, whether its a Silvertone or Sigma, my first guitars, which I stupidly gave away.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-28 23:33 by stupidguy2.

*double post



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-01-28 23:30 by stupidguy2.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
stupidguy2
Question: can you guys explain to me like I'm a five-year old why the early 70s Gibsons are not as coveted? I know there are tech reasons for collectors, but I'm not sure what they mean to me as a player.

Because they are hit and miss. There are enough duds out there that they have kind of spoiled the soup and prevented them from gaining a coveted position in the market like some other brands, is my best guess.

My suspicion is that they were just a bit overbuilt. Either not enough attention to soundboard bracing and construction or something similar. I've checked out enough of them that were beautiful but just didn't sound that great. This is just my personal opinion as a player and I really don't follow the collector market much so I can't speak from that perspective.

One thing that is so good about more modern acoustics is the prominence of computer aided design and manufacturing. While completely hand made guitars are nice in principle, there are real advantages to having superb control for a mass produced product. There are so many medium priced new acoustics out there that play and sound better that their vintage counterparts. As a player, it is certainly worth checking a few of them out before springing for a vintage acoustic thinking that it must be better just because it is vintage. It is the golden age for guitars! More beautiful sounding instruments available than ever before, a great time to be a guitar player.

It's mostly the simple fact that Gibson was trying to earn more money by using lesser quality components (mainly the wood), and by building sturdier instruments that where less sensitive, and hence less warrenties. They did this by making the tops thicker, heavier ladded bracing instead of thin X-bracing, using laminated wood for the necks etc.

Mathijs

This is good information from the two above experts.