Buying First Vintage Guitar

[agent13]

Hi all. First time poster, long time lurker here. I recently went in our local GC to purchase strings, and decided to check out the acoustic room. They had a 66 J-50ADJ on display that looked interesting, that I asked to play. The guitar sounded great and has now had me considering whether I “needed” another guitar, especially considering I had just purchased a Murphy lab J-45 banner a few months back. I’ve always been interested in picking up a vintage instrument. Though I’m a bit apprehensive given that I’m not an expert and am worried that I may be missing some major flaw, particularly on older guitars.

GC claims this guitar to be a 1966 (tried looking up the serial number myself and my research seems to indicate that it’s from 65-67). The tuners look clean and does not seem original. The adj saddle seems to have been converted to a fixed saddle, not sure if the saddle itself is orginal. No apparent neck cracks/repairs, and the body itself is fairly clean and looks the part of a 50 year old instrument.

I would love some of your general thoughts on the photo:

http://https://www.guitarcenter.com/...urce=4SOS0DRBA

(I took better photos myself but am having trouble uploading it to this post). Any insightful feedback would be much appreciated, as I want to make sure I’m not missing any major red flags, when considering this purchase (as I’ll likely have to move my Avii strat to make room for this).

Thanks much in advance!

[LAPlayer]

Unfortunately. like most GC postings there isn't enough information or photos to determine anything. If the guitar is solid, and sounds like what you want (to me that would mean better than your Banner) it's a good price and you have 45 days to have it checked out thoroughly and decide whether it's a keeper. To me, the draw of a vintage instrument is the sound, tone and vibe it brings into the enjoyment experience. I would compare the '66 and the repro and keep the one I prefer. The new guitar (if you purchased it new) provides the new-guitar warranty and some mojo but the '66 is the real deal and now 58 years old. If you want to message me, and send me your photos, I will post them for you as it's pretty fast/easy.

[SCVJ]

I've got some points to consider that speak to your question, but here's a story 1st.

I bought a J50 ADJ new in 1967 with the $$ I got as High School graduation presents. I asked the shop what was the best guitar I could get for $200. The list price was $195, which is what I paid. (I kept a Gibson price list I got at the time which showed this). Since the shop had to order it in the summer of '67, it was probably built that year, or in '66, so I bet it was identical to the one you're considering.

I took it to a luthier at some point (early 90's?), and he suggested I replace the adjustable bridge, said that most everybody did at some point, so I did that. He said they weren't really stable, and compromised the tone IIRC. I don't think I noticed a difference, though. To finish the story, which you all may or may not find interesting, by the late 90's I had developed GAS, owned a few guitars, wanted a few more, so I sold it at a guitar show. It had a crazed finish, some buckle rash and one major ding. I think I got about $1,200 for it, but not sure I remember correctly. The buyer seemed rather indifferent to the details of it, so I asked him why he was interested in it. He said he bought up guitars and sold them in Japan. He said the buyers didn't care about dings, specs, etc, as long as it said Gibson on the headstock.

The points to consider, in my opinion, are that this period was not considered a good one for Gibson. The necks were quite narrow and thin, which appealed to many, especially those used to electrics. I thought it was easy to play, and I never had it "set up", which I had never heard of at the time. Never took it to a luthier or tech for the 1st 25 years I had it, and it spent a good bit of time under the bed or in the back of the closet.

The finish and pickguard were noticeably thick, which the current wisdom holds to be detrimental to the tone, and wider neck widths are now the norm. But it was a cool looking guitar, everyone seemed to like it when they played it, and I liked how it felt and sounded.

The one you are looking at could be different, and whether it is or not, as others have said, If you like it and the price is right, then you should get it. If the price is right you can sell it later if your tastes change. That's part of the fun for most of us on this forum.

Another point, a similar Martin (a D18) would be much more expensive, and if you like the way the Gibson sounds, feels, and looks, then you're making a good decision!

[TheGITM]

It's a little too beat up for my taste... lots and lots of crazing in the finish and likely mods and replaced parts. There maybe hidden issues that will creep up, and getting work done on down the road may be pricey.

There are many other options I would prefer for $2k in today's market, but if you really want vintage you're options are limited. If you really like it, then you should buy it.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by agent13

Hi all. First time poster, long time lurker here.

Welcome, Agent13!

Originally Posted by agent13

I recently went in our local GC to purchase strings, and decided to check out the acoustic room. They had a 66 J-50ADJ on display that looked interesting, that I asked to play. The guitar sounded great and has now had me considering whether I “needed” another guitar, especially considering I had just purchased a Murphy lab J-45 banner a few months back. I’ve always been interested in picking up a vintage instrument. Though I’m a bit apprehensive given that I’m not an expert and am worried that I may be missing some major flaw, particularly on older guitars.

I wouldn't worry about that. What you see is what you get. Does the inside rattle when you shake it? Are the action and intonation good? Do you see any serious cracks?

Originally Posted by agent13

GC claims this guitar to be a 1966 (tried looking up the serial number myself and my research seems to indicate that it’s from 65-67). The tuners look clean and does not seem original. The adj saddle seems to have been converted to a fixed saddle, not sure if the saddle itself is orginal. No apparent neck cracks/repairs, and the body itself is fairly clean and looks the part of a 50 year old instrument.

Modifications are to be expected in old guitars. They're usually improvements. Only collectors want all-original instruments in very good condition.Most players just like guitars in good playing condition.

Originally Posted by agent13

I would love some of your general thoughts on the photo:

http://https://www.guitarcenter.com/...urce=4SOS0DRBA

The picture isn't opening for me.

Originally Posted by agent13

(I took better photos myself but am having trouble uploading it to this post).

Yeah, it's tricky. Learn how here.

Originally Posted by agent13

Any insightful feedback would be much appreciated, as I want to make sure I’m not missing any major red flags, when considering this purchase (as I’ll likely have to move my Avii strat to make room for this).

Looks like you're doing fine. For me, it would depend on the price. They're asking $2k? Asking prices are a lot higher for ones in good condition. If you decide it's structurally sound and you like funky beaters, it's could be a good choice. If there's a serious problem, you might ask them if they'll fix it for free.

Originally Posted by agent13

Thanks much in advance!

You're welcome in advance!

[Br1ck]

Gibson product of this era is a minefield. Many, many dogs. I was shopping for a J 45 when one day walked into a shop with four 60s J 45s. Two were horrible dead lumps. They all had replaced bridges. A third guitar wasn't horrible, a forth was good. These were all mid 60s. Then across the room was my 65 Texan. Its superiority was instantly apparent. I could not fathom a guitar made in Kalamazoo with the same body could be so much better. I bought it, skinny neck, adjustable bridge, ply bridge plate and all.

Some months later they had a 67 Texan that was deader than a doornail. So caveat emptor. I'd never buy one unplayed like I would pretty much any fifties and earlier. My 65 is very much a unique sound which if I had to bet would please no more than a third of you.

[Monty Christo]

If I was looking for a vintage guitar, I would actually go looking. That is to say, I'd have a model and an approximate age in mind, and would begin actively searching and talking to dealers that specialize in vintage instruments. Whatever happened to show up at my local Guitar Center would probably not be the one I would start my vintage journey with. But that's me.

[tomcstokes59]

Originally Posted by Monty Christo

If I was looking for a vintage guitar, I would actually go looking. That is to say, I'd have a model and an approximate age in mind, and would begin actively searching and talking to dealers that specialize in vintage instruments. Whatever happened to show up at my local Guitar Center would probably not be the one I would start my vintage journey with. But that's me.

I ventured down the vintage road once. I wish I would have known and then heeded the above advice. I bought the 3rd older Gibson I had ever played. It was a ‘56 J45 ADJ that was converted to fix. I wish I had played more and researched even more than that. The guitar was in good condition with a great tone but in the end not really what I thought it was. It was a relatively inexpensive lesson once I sold it. The new owner played it 4 different times before finally committing plus (in his words) many, many others. He loves it. What I learned is that due diligence is imperative when purchasing a vintage instrument.
PS - Mine was a local trade and not a GC purchase.

[Zissou Intern]

I am not a big fan of the Gibsons from that era, and I can't imagine it would play or sound better than your Murphy Lab J45.

Welcome to the forum, and good luck in whatever you decide to do!

[KenL]

If you buy a vintage guitar, you become not only the owner/player, but also the curator/caretaker. They require special care and upkeep.

Kind of like having an old dog. They need extra attention.

[zombywoof]

Even though I had been playing for several years before that Gibson was built, I could not afford a new Gibson slope shoulder jumbo until the very end of the 1960s. Did not get my first Gibson though until a few years later and ended up walking out the door with a 1955-1959 LG2.

The good things about this J50 is that prior to 1968, Gibson continued to go with the same lighter non-scalloped bracing they had used earlier and the build quality remained high. Bad thing, at least based on what it takes to put me in my comfort zone, is the skimpy neck depth and nut width.

As already noted though, GC is not exactly forthcoming when it comes to providing information. But I also gather they will ship the guitar to the store closest to you so you can inspect and try it out before buying. I have only been in a GC once though and that was to buy a 1950s Kay Jumbo. It all worked out fine but I recall when I asked them why they had not bothered to change the strings (you just about needed a tetanus shot to play the thing) they told me it was not their policy to do anything to "vintage" instruments.

[Mr. Paul]

You've played it, you like it, and the price seems right. GC's liberal return policy allows you time to have the guitar inspected for problems. Perhaps a trip back there with your new Gibson to play the two side by side might help you decide one way or the other.

Sounds to me like ideal conditions for considering your first vintage guitar.

[jspe]

It is quite possible that an older vintage guitar will not perform well, and be considered a dog in the local consensus.
It is also quite typical that a good luthier and/or skilled player can work with an older guitar to open up its dead spots, tweak, find and correct flaws, etc., and that the wood might need some activity in the area of hard and punchy playing exercise to bring out its resonance.
My point is...don't immediately discard an old/vintage guitar because it sounds dead. Yes, it may well be a dud, but there's more than a reasonable chance that is because it has been sitting untouched for decades, and it can...and deserves to...be worked and nurtured into a potential tone monster!
Such a process can be time consuming, but can definitely be worth it. Old guitars definitely can fit the sow's ear to silk purse category in the right hands.
The obvious point in my contention here is that in our pursuit of the grail......nothing can beat that sound when it comes to "old" wood...

[zombywoof]

Originally Posted by jspe

It is quite possible that an older vintage guitar will not perform well, and be considered a dog in the local consensus.
It is also quite typical that a good luthier and/or skilled player can work with an older guitar to open up its dead spots, tweak, find and correct flaws, etc., and that the wood might need some activity in the area of hard and punchy playing exercise to bring out its resonance.
My point is...don't immediately discard an old/vintage guitar because it sounds dead. Yes, it may well be a dud, but there's more than a reasonable chance that is because it has been sitting untouched for decades, and it can...and deserves to...be worked and nurtured into a potential tone monster!
Such a process can be time consuming, but can definitely be worth it. Old guitars definitely can fit the sow's ear to silk purse category in the right hands.
The obvious point in my contention here is that in our pursuit of the grail......nothing can beat that sound when it comes to "old" wood...

Probably just my age but I still see a guitar built in 1966 as simply a "used" guitar. While any factory can turn out a dead sounding instrument, what you are not taking into account is that Bozeman offers absolutely nothing which is built as this one was. So, if you are a fan of those non-scalloped braced guitars, you have no choice but to go back into the catalog.

[jamf]

By the way, the guitar center return period for a "vintage" labeled guitar is only 3 days.