Founded by Steve Stallings. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum is an independent Internet forum which is not in any manner related to or affiliated with C. F. Martin & Co., (The Martin Guitar Company) Nazareth, PA. The statements and opinions expressed in the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum are solely those of the individuals posting the same and are not those of C.F. Martin & Co., The Martin Guitar Company, the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, its administrators, moderators, agents and other voluntary staff, its supporters, financial or otherwise, or its members, guests or other contributors. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum does not sponsor or endorse any product or service referred to, submitted or suggested by any member, guest or contributor to the Forum. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum and its voluntary staff shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever to any person or organization with respect to any matter posted by any individual on the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, for the deletion of any such matter, for the content thereof, or for the banning, suspension or other sanctioning of any user from this Forum, or for the denial of an application to become a member of this Forum. The content and accuracy of any post are solely the responsibility of the member making the post. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum shall further not be responsible for references or links to other Internet sites or links contained on other Internet sites to the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum or to the UMGF, or for the contents thereof. This specifically includes the CafePress Store for UMGF Memorabilia, which is not owned, operated or controlled by the UMGF but by Cafepress.com, an independent organization which markets, sells and ships the items contained in the CafePress Store and retains the proceeds therefrom. The sole function of the UMGF with respect thereto is to provide a link for the convenience of its members. By using, browsing or consulting this Forum, you consent to the foregoing terms as well as to the guidelines set forth in the Forum Guidelines and Feedback section and the general terms of use of Yuku. The exclusive venue for proceedings against the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, its members, trustees, officers or Administrators is the Superior Court, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, and any such proceeding shall be governed by New Jersey law. No damages or monetary awards of any nature, including attorneys fees or punitive damages may be assessed against the UMGF, its members, trustees, officers or Administrators under any circumstances whatsoever.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 cfhcfh |
Rosewood SJ weird |
Lead | |
|
(06/07/09 7:51 PM) |
Lots of weird stuff on this one. FON is 80?7H. I can't quite tell.
Also note the peghead logo, not banner. skunk stripe top. Early model with the "H" suffix FON. 
Last Edited By: cfhcfh 06/07/09 8:57 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
John Thomas |
|||
|
(06/07/09 8:30 PM) |
What an interesting guitar, Clay! Thanks for posting about it.
That 1930s logo on the 1940s peghead shape really is fascinating. We've got a J-45 with 1930s logo in our registry: 
I take it that the fingerboard binding is not original? Can you tell? So, ... can Willi and I include it in our Transitional Registry?
.... John
www.johnthomasguitar.com Please visit www.bannergibsons.com to see what Willi and I are doing! |
||
|
WRAWLINS |
|||
|
(06/07/09 8:37 PM) |
This is the oddball example featured on the GuitarHQ.com website... pretty guitar
|
||
|
bfisher690 |
|||
|
(06/07/09 9:51 PM) |
As a Gibson freak, that just might be the grail. I love it. Looks like no truss rod, too!
b |
||
|
BHguitars |
|||
|
(06/08/09 12:28 AM) |
That's what we've been waiting for - not as weird as it might look in the first second but not very really familiar. Some pre #910 SJs were listed at
the ledgers but actually this is the first one showing up. Some similar features like #907 J-45s including a RKRW neck. The back strip looks unique to me. The
bound fretboard might need close inspection to tell if it is original or not.
Looking forward for your email, Clay ... Willi |
||
|
jscio |
|||
|
(06/08/09 5:34 AM) |
Looks like a nice old Gibby.
|
||
 MikeHalloran |
|||
|
(06/08/09 5:44 AM) |
bfisher690 wrote: Don't assume that. It could have the trus rod that is adjustable from the heel only during a neck reset.
Mike Halloran
'49 00-28G, '03 000C-16SGTNE, '03 000-15S, Backpacker Mandolin, '60s Style 0 uke, '67 D12-35, '75 D-35S, Cowboy X, Cowboy II (I think that's all the Martins) Many Guilds, Gibsons and Goyas |
||
|
cfhcfh |
|||
|
(06/08/09 5:51 AM) |
on the fingerboard... it was beat to freaking hell when i got the guitar, and handed to me in a bag. (this guitar was in terrible shape when i received it.)
so there was a choice, either make a new fingerboard (no binding), or use the original fingerboard and add binding (because due to damage or because it did
originally have binding, it wasn't wide enough to not have binding.) There was also a question as to whether the original fingerboard did have binding or
not. The width seemed to indicate it did, but again due to the damage, it was hard to tell 100% for sure. we went this route and used binding, because again,
the width seemed to indicate it did. though looking back on it, maybe that wasn't the right thing to do, i'm not sure. the good news is, if i wanted
to go back to no binding with a new fingerboard, it's not that big of a deal to do it. at least as it sits, the original fingerboard is on the guitar.
sometimes you have to make decisions when you get things "in bags", and you never really know if they were the right decision until it's all
done.
Last Edited By: cfhcfh
06/08/09 8:04 AM.
Edited 3 times.
|
||
|
Primitive Wood |
|||
|
(06/08/09 7:23 AM) |
Very interesting neck binding, I too have a Rosewood SJ that has a bound neck, mine however is from the 910 batch. I suspect that Gibson put it on at a later
date if and when the guitar came in for repairs, but who the heck knows. It would be interesting to compare notes, such as the actual width of the binding and
what are the dot fret markers made out of? Do the frets actually extend over on to the binding? Do you have a super-close up photos of the end of the fret
where it meets the binding?
Great guitar and fantastic find! Ken |
||
|
cfhcfh |
|||
|
(06/08/09 8:02 AM) |
the side dots are dark tortoise. the frets do not go over the binding, but come to it, and the binding has "nibs" that cover the fret ends. but it
was refretted, so that info really doesn't count for much.
|
||
|
David Collins |
|||
|
(06/08/09 12:22 PM) |
There are a certainly a lot of confusing signs from that guitar. What do you think the chances are of the fingerboard having been replaced by Gibson, perhaps
in the late 40's (looks like it does have MOP inlays)? Seems not to be a terribly unlikely warranty repair, given the lack of an adjustable rod.
I'd love to have a chance to measure the fret spacing on that guitar. I've been working on a database of "fretboard fingerprints" lately, and there are certainly changes in their intentional placement, as well as various tooling errors that seem to be quite consistent over various periods. There was certainly a significant change around 1947, which would be immediately apparent if I were to measure it out. This is a fairly new tool of mine, and there are still some significant gaps in the data, but even from what I have so far it can be very telling.
"Shut up 'n play yer guitar" - Zappa
|
||
|
photorc |
|||
|
(06/08/09 2:36 PM) |
David, what year does your FBF database start? Are there measurements we can do at home and give you that would be helpful to you and/or in dating our guitars?
Robert |
||
|
BHguitars |
|||
|
(06/08/09 3:31 PM) |
Seems not to be a terribly unlikely warranty repair, given the lack of an adjustable rod.David, The fretboard might have been replaced but the neck looks original as I mentioned before. It's obvious a left over RKRW neck which were used at other period J-45s (907 batch) as well. These necks didn't have a truss rod. So nothing unexpected here. What do you think the chances are of the fingerboard having been replaced by Gibson, perhaps in the late 40's (looks like it does have MOP inlays)?The material of the parallelogram inlays will tell at once what period the fretbaord was made. This would be the first feature to check out. MOP was replaced by pearloid in (probably late) 1946 before they switched over to bound fingerboards in 1947. What fretboards / FONs does your database cover? Banner FONs? I would be curious to learn more but my observation is that even in one batch the fret position / scale can differ from guitar to guitar. Willi
Last Edited By: BHguitars
06/08/09 3:35 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
plaintop |
|||
|
(06/08/09 3:36 PM) |
The pearloid inlays and neck binding would expalin the fingerboard is later.
The neck and body seem oddly paired. I don't think the face of the headstock looks original in those pics. Do you have a before picture?
Last Edited By: plaintop
06/08/09 3:39 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
littlewingsn |
|||
|
(06/08/09 3:51 PM) |
What year did Gibson make the switch from pearl to pearloid ? 46?
It is tough to tell in the pics but those look like pearl |
||
|
David Collins |
|||
|
(06/08/09 4:40 PM) |
Willi, I thought they switched first to the bound board, and followed shortly after with pearloid inlays. If this was true, and they were indeed pearl inlays,
it would seem temptingly convenient to place them in that brief window. You certainly have more expertise in this focused era than myself, so I'd certainly
defer to you for the final answer. I may be wrong, but I just wanted to double check.
As to the fretboard database, the project is still in it's infancy. I've only been recording measurements for a few months, and Gibson has not yet received much priority treatment. There certainly are some eras where I've found sporadic, random inconsistencies, while others show very consistently repeated anomalies. For this particular instrument and with the data so far, I could only say with certainty whether the board was slotted before or after a very significant 1947(ish) change in fret spacing. I do hope to be able to narrow these "fingerprints" down as the database continues to grow. Photorc, I wish I could accept more help, but to be useful the measurements required need be much more precise than most can offer. It will be a while, but eventually I hope to make the formulas, methods, and database publicly available. For now though, I'm going to have to keep it relatively closed until I have more time to gather and evaluate the data. I certainly appreciate the offer though.
"Shut up 'n play yer guitar" - Zappa
|
||
|
plaintop |
|||
|
(06/08/09 5:12 PM) |
Pearloid or more commonly known as celluloid inlays appeared before neck binding on '47 SJs:
|
||
|
plaintop |
|||
|
(06/08/09 5:15 PM) |
I always heard that Gibson got the "the block" of celluloid from Italy after the war.
|
||
|
cfhcfh |
|||
|
(06/08/09 5:15 PM) |
The fingerboard inlays are mother of pearl. they are not pearloid.
i talked to the repair guy and he says the fingerboard binding is original to this guitar. There's no way the original fingerboard would work on that neck without binding. |
||
|
littlewingsn |
|||
|
(06/08/09 5:32 PM) |
Are those tuners riveted? It is hard to tell in the pics , but they look like it . If they are wouldn't that be odd for an "H" guitar
|
||
|
Primitive Wood |
|||
|
(06/10/09 5:20 PM) |
The inlay on my Rosewood SJ bound fingerboard is also (the) Mother of (all) Pearl with the tortise dots.
What do ya say Willie?, do we have two rare SJ's that both had the board replaced or might this be two unusual guitars that had bound necks from the start???? Ken
Last Edited By: Primitive Wood
06/10/09 5:25 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
