Gee, a Gibson with a headstock break - now there's a shocker.......
Might I posit a couple of queries?1) What's with the half-circles on the bridge wings? Are those breaks?2) Is the headplate present? If not, someone in the builders' subforum on mylespaul.com could no doubt point at a source for one, logo 7 all.
Peter
The little semicircles you see on the bridge wings are relief carvings, Coz... (I wondered the same thing for a minute..., like maybe it got clamped too hard in a reglue, and crushed the wood) then I noticed similar carvings up the center of the back of the neck. And I was like...
what the heck were they doing?! Is the truss rod dorked or something? See, my mind was engaged at deciphering what repair this was part of. It isn't a repair at all... just someone's idea of artistic flair. Go figure. The question now is what to do about it? There are a couple options, and of course I haven't decided on anything. I could easily inlay some rosewood chips into the bridge wings and flush them up. It would almost be invisible if I grain match well enough. The neck is another foxhunt altogether. The carving isn't very deep. 50's Gibson necks are pretty chunky... so I could feasibly reshape the neck and lose those carvings into sawdust. Everything about that idea irritates me. I love the big chunky neck on my '51 LG-2. So I could try to inlay a thin 'skunk stripe' of mahogany in it, and finish over it. The finish on these guitars is so dark I doubt it'd be noticed if it was seen. Or... I could just accept that this guitar was somebody's object of imagination, and leave both as-is.
Regarding the headplate; I don't believe it had one. Study these pictures of the headstock face on my LG-2, especially around the edges where it's been scuffed up. I think they just shot the face black, and silkscreened a gold logo on them by the time these guitars rolled out. If I'm right, both of them predate Les Paul by a short few months. I have a couple logos that are close to this gold block letter one... (they were for 1950's Gibson banjos of course) I haven't checked yet to see if they are scaled the same, but I bet they are.
For sure, I will likely avail myself of some Gibson folks for a few pointers. Particularly on finish. It'd be easy to copy my LG-2, but I'm not sure that's the thing to do. J-bodies kinda' had their own shtick.
That is some project! I have a couple questions in response to "it has little to no value as a collectors guitar anymore, but it's a guitar player's dream."
1 - what makes this guitar a guitar player's dream?
2 - and (if you don't want to address this question that's completely understandable) given that it has no value as a collector's guitar anymore, will the shop still be able to sell it at a profit with what they will have in it after they've paid you for all that labor?
Well, those are both good questions Dave.
A Gibson J-45 is kind of an American Classic. It's one of those guitars the guitar players used to seek out. As time has marched on though, the old ones that survived intact are so expensive now that everyday players have a hard time affording them. It becomes a major investment finding a vintage J-45 in original condition. Even more expensive when you are looking for one in the pre-1946 years. This guitar, once repaired, will no longer be in original condition, as that was destroyed long ago. It will however be a very nice playable guitar, and truly a vintage instrument. A player who doesn't mind that it's a rebuilt guitar, and not one in original condition is going to love it. I know I sure would.
Ken didn't tell me what he put into the husk here, and I didn't ask, but I'd guess not much. This will be one of those projects where I work on it when I have time. How much they can sell it for really has a lot to do with how good of a job I do at restoring it. I'm highly motivated to do well anyway, but also, I just love old guitars. If I didn't already have a vintage reissue J-35 and the little sister to this very guitar I'd be scheming now.
