I was wondering if anyone on this site has played or owns a Gibson acoustic guitar. I never really considered Gibson due to the quality and comments like " they are great guitars if you can find a good one" that I've seen on AGF LOL!!! And the binding issues of Martin have made me dismiss them also. But I have to say the new Gibson Century series has made me take notice. I love the satin finish, the case, and a short scale at a great price. Anyone have thoughts on Gibson and are these AGF comments true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmD2IXGaPPs

I think that their transition from Kalamazoo to Nashville in the mid '70s was not a particularly easy move for them. Several of the old timers stayed in Michigan and started up the Heritage Guitar Company in the original Gibson factory facilities building electric archtops utilizing much of the old Gibson shop equipment.
Gibson struggled financially after the move.
Then in the mid '80s Henry Juszkiewicz sat in the CEO chair. He was an extremely unpopular CEO and faced widespread criticism for trying to pivot Gibson into a "music lifestyle" consumer electronics company, alienating core guitar purists and facing backlash from both fans and dealers. Prices went up and quality went the other way.
Only one Gibson guitar (1960 LG0) ever had a home here at my place and I was never able to get a good sound from it. No sustain, low volume. Nothing. We parted ways before too long.
Lots of country musicians favor Gibson acoustics, and justified or not, I do make that association with their guitars. Maybe it's the Nashville connection; I don't know. Although as I understand it, all of the acoustic guitars are built in Bozeman, Montana now.

I can't speak to the quality today, since it has been too long since I've played one.

 If I were to buy a factory guitar that wasn't a Larrivee, it would be a Gibson and it isn't even close. They have a sweetness to the sound that calls back to so many old recordings. IMO, the "good one" conversations online are largely one of those things that people like to parrot (and AGF is 90% parroting if I may be so rude). I remember, in the early days of the internet, you'd rarely see that. But, it just grew over time, despite Gibsons actually becoming better in recent years. Yes, they absolutely did have times of QC issues, just as Fender did. They also used some really goofy bridge and bracing designs in the distant past. But, the "good one" concept as a whole is largely overblown in terms of modern US-production guitars. If I waked into a GC and played a J45, as I've done many times, its' probably going to be a great instrument.

 There's just something that Gibson does really well with their instruments that sounds "like music". Again, I think it's the familiarity because we've heard those sounds on so many recordings, be it a J45, a LesPaul, etc. I own 1 acoustic that I inherited, and one LP that I was gifted so I'm not really a Gibson fanboy, but I do respect they make really good sounding instruments.

When I think of Gibson Guitars, the Les Paul electric models are the first thing that comes to mind. On the acoustic side, jumbos, 00s and Gordon Lightfoot's iconic B-45 sunburst 12 string are the ones I think about. I've seen ads for the Century series but have not played one yet but I'd like to give one a try. The problem is I don't have anything I want to sell or trade and my guitar room is getting filled up.

On the Martin front, I played a 000-17 w/mahogany top, back and sides two months ago that was really good and I saw one listed yesterday for $2,150 online at Alamo Music Center. As nice as this guitar was, it wasn't better than my Larrivee all mahogany 00-24 that I got in 2024. The rosewood radial rosette and purfling coupled with the vine headstock inlay on the 24 series has to be seen in person to be fully appreciated. Under the hood, Larrivee also uses Moonwood Spruce for the bracing on the 24 series. 

On the subject of binding and in the interest of full disclosure, the binding was starting to lift in three places at the waist of my 2015 Martin Custom Shop 000 12 fret. I called the authorized Martin Repair Shop that I use, provided them with documentation proving that I am the original owner and the repair was fully covered under the lifetime warranty without question. I like this guitar so much that I would have paid for the repair out of pocket.

The only problem I've ever had with any of my Larrivees in the past 22 years was a defective tuning gear about two years ago on my 2004 Parlor that I replaced immediately.

I like some of the demos I've heard of the J-45. And as a kid I listened to Johnny Smith and Gibson made the Johnny Smith archtop. But like TEH, my guitar closet is just about full LOL. My dealer plays Gibson, but he never answered my question as to why he doesn't carry them. I did tell him this Eastman would be my last because of my closet size. I'd never sell the Larrivee's, but the Eastman is still being reviewed LOL. It is powerful guitar with a nice snap to the notes, but I prefer the clarity of the Larrivee's. I'm thinking the Adi top isn't a priority. Time will tell. Someone on AGF recently said the comments about Gibson weren't true. Every demo of the Gibson Century series has impressed me. I see there is a 1967 LGO on Reverb for $950. And they say it is ladder braced.

I am having problems keeping track of what you are asking/comparing. Perhaps you could clarify if you are or are not interested in a new Gibson, a probably overpriced LGO, or your Larrivees.

Quote from: nctom on July 10, 2026, 04:25:56 PMI am having problems keeping track of what you are asking/comparing. Perhaps you could clarify if you are or are not interested in a new Gibson, a probably overpriced LGO, or your Larrivees.

I was just asking if anyone here plays Gibson and what they thought of them due to some negative comments about them on AGF. I am somewhat interested in the new Century series as it is a short scale 12 fret (which I don't own) and very affordably priced. As a lefty, I've never had an opportunity to play a Gibson. I only mentioned the LGO as it was mentioned in this post and I wasn't aware that Gibson made a ladder braced instrument. Which brings up another question. Did Gibson make non-scalloped braced instruments also? I like Larrivee or I wouldn't have 4 of them.

The good ones do have an undeniable sweetness to the tone. I LOVE the vintage J45's (1940s mostly). Even they vary -- some louder with incredible sustain, while others are more intimate and sweet -- I've enjoyed every one of those I've played.

I just can't say the same for modern J45's, at least the ones in the standard line. I've played many that were not as good as my $400 Eastman. I mean that literally, no hyperbole. I just don't get what people are hearing. Actually, it's not so much a tonal thing, it's that some of them straight up sound dead to me: low volume, feeble response. Blues head that I am, I thought for sure I'd have taken one home by now. But, no, not so much. In fact, I stopped even picking them up when visiting stores. Maybe it's time to start checking them out again.

Then there's the occasional one that seems to have the things I love about a J45 -- a "good one," if you will. So, yeah, in terms of a lack of consistency in sound, I'd agree with the naysayers. The build quality seems to be pretty good though.

I have yet to cross paths with a Century model, but the online response from players seems to be quite positive. Lover of all things 12-frets, I'll definitely keep an eye out for them.

That's the appeal of a lot of Gibsons, both acoustic and electric. That "dead" sound is about what it's NOT doing. There's not the deep rumble, bright edge, or long sustain, and that's important to a lot of players. It's also really useful in recording which is why the J45 is one of the most recorded acoustics of all time. You won't see many people playing them for solo fingerstyle, but in the context of a mix, less can be more. The brief harmonic sparkle that fits right in a certain midrange pocket, it tends to mix a lot better than a guitar that needs a lot of bass cut out and has scooped mids. Not to mention how murky long sustaining guitars can sound as the lack of note separation can cause them to get lost among vocals and other instruments.

 I used to dismiss Gibsons as being inferior because they weren't as resonant, then I realized that's the brilliance. There's a lot of cheap guitars that aren't resonant too, but they don't usually have the sweet, harmonious sound of a Gibson. I don't think there's a right or wrong way when it comes to music, I'm just giving some reasons why Gibsons have been so popular.

 There's an interview with Julian Lage where he describes his new Collings electric and says it's, "it's just dead and beautiful sounding". I thought that was the strangest way to sell a guitar but then it made sense to me. His music is all about expression so he likes guitars that are more dry and brief, but in that brief moment every note sounds beautiful. The guitar isn't getting in his way by adding a lot of it's own personality.

I have never owned a Gibson guitar but always play a J45 or a Jumbo in shops when I can because I like those guitars.  Some of the J45s I've played have been an experience on a whole other level, and some were blah.  But the prices are just too insane for me to even seriously consider one.  I'd not be willing to pay such a price even to have that crazy experience every day when I pick up the guitar.  I also know that feeling would fade anyway, as all feelings do, and in the end it would just be my guitar.  I'm content with my old Larrivee.

Quote from: B0WIE on July 11, 2026, 01:51:07 PMThat's the appeal of a lot of Gibsons, both acoustic and electric. That "dead" sound is about what it's NOT doing. There's not the deep rumble, bright edge, or long sustain, and that's important to a lot of players. It's also really useful in recording which is why the J45 is one of the most recorded acoustics of all time. You won't see many people playing them for solo fingerstyle, but in the context of a mix, less can be more. The brief harmonic sparkle that fits right in a certain midrange pocket, it tends to mix a lot better than a guitar that needs a lot of bass cut out and has scooped mids. Not to mention how murky long sustaining guitars can sound as the lack of note separation can cause them to get lost among vocals and other instruments.

For sure. The same reason people like to record with them is probably the same reason people like to sing with them: they don't get in the way. A hammer, a screw driver, a saw...we need various tools to perform various tasks. Makes good sense.

Perhaps I've been spoiled in the direction I've gone, which as you rightly point out is solo fingerstyle playing. If I'm gonna play acoustic, half of the fun is the response and hepatic feedback the guitar gives to the player. I think I've leaned into that aspect of the guitar quite heavily. In fact, it might be the reason I've gone smaller and smaller in body size. I just bought a 0-12 fret Adi/mahogany guitar yesterday with all the punch and liveliness that I like in a fingerstyle guitar. That physical feedback is addictive.

Also, because of this thread, I played the one brand new J-45 the shop had just gotten in. It was a fantastic guitar. Nice bass and mids and a lovely resonance across all strings. Beautiful sunburst to top it off, literally  :winkin:

Quote from: B0WIE on July 11, 2026, 01:51:07 PMThere's an interview with Julian Lage where he describes his new Collings electric and says it's, "it's just dead and beautiful sounding". I thought that was the strangest way to sell a guitar but then it made sense to me. His music is all about expression so he likes guitars that are more dry and brief, but in that brief moment every note sounds beautiful. The guitar isn't getting in his way by adding a lot of it's own personality.

That is a curious way to describe a guitar's sound. With electrics, I think I get what he's saying. Less is more in that arena, that I certainly understand, but less can also be more in the acoustic arena (as you pointed out above with J45s).

With acoustics, my point would be that "dead" doesn't have to be devoid of all responsiveness. I like some ladder-braced guitars (and some 00-size, X-braced) that lack complexity and overtones. All fundamental and to the point. I've owned some of these guitars, and they sound killer for blues. Maybe they wouldn't record as well as a J-45, but they were still fun to play.

As you say above, it's all about what one is after. I was just trying to point out that I do enjoy certain "dead" sounding guitars. "Lifeless?" No thanks. But I can enjoy a lively, less complex guitar, for sure.   

don't give up on Martin William.  while embarrassing the binding issue has long been resolved and never impacted wood bound guitars.  To my ear, Martin is still the quintessential acoustic sound.

There is no statement from Martin about the binding issue being resolved.  The problem lasted from 2012 to at least 2021.  And since it often takes four or more years for the problem to surface, we may soon know if problems with plastic bound Martins have finally been resolved (or not).

My 2016 Gibson with plastic binding has no issues.

Quote from: Pilgrim on July 15, 2026, 06:20:48 AMThere is no statement from Martin about the binding issue being resolved.  The problem lasted from 2012 to at least 2021.  And since it often takes four or more years for the problem to surface, we may soon know if problems with plastic bound Martins have finally been resolved (or not).

My 2016 Gibson with plastic binding has no issues.

This aligns with what I know of the situation. If they are still using the same adhesive, we can expect more of the same.
Whether or not it has been resolved, their attitude about the whole thing has put many people off, and rightfully so. We're talking about a mature customer base. Refusing to acknowledge an obvious problem was the wrong play.

Standing by my original comment but to each his own

It took playing over 60 Gibson a time far an long ago I played and bought an vintage style advance jumbo from 94.It hand a nice balance from string to string not to much bottom responce.

I own a 64 B15 a student guitar and my first repair all hog great tone and i still use it today.

I kinda lost interest after Gibson's move from Kalamazoo. Some of of the sweetest sounding Gibson and Epiphone acoustics coming out of there had that distinctive voice you heard from artists of that time. Subsequently, after the move many workers stayed to form Heritage Guitars. IMO the sound wasn't the same and the prices slowly spiked and to find a post Kalamazoo Gibson with that distinctive tone you had to audition many to find that special one. These days, at $3K or more for a new one, I'm good with the tone and consistency of my Larrivees. Not to say all Kalamazoo ones were excellent but you had a higher percentage of getting a good one than now. Back in the '80s I had a 1973 Hummingbird which fit that bill but the truss rod was maxed out so in the '90s I traded up to a Martin as there were no decent used Kalamazoo Gibsons available in my area at the time. The only post Kalamazoo  Gibson I really bonded with was uncrob's Advanced Jumbo. We used to play every week and one day he had an offer and sold it. Had I known, I would have offered to buy it. My loss. I go to GC from time to time, and like the Martins there, I find the QC in the tone department lacking for what they are asking. If a used Kalamazoo one crossed my path at a reasonable price I'd consider it, but I wouldn't pay a premium just for the trademark. I hear the Gibson Inspired Epiphone acoustics are pretty nice but my used Gibson Hummingbird at the time was much less than the MSRP of a new Epiphone Inspired Hummingbird is now. Go figure.

My mother owned a 70's Gibson Dove which was very nice (back when I played righty). A great folky singer-songwriter guitar. Lost in a housefire last year, alas.

Quote from: William2 on July 09, 2026, 11:10:00 AMI was wondering if anyone on this site has played or owns a Gibson acoustic guitar. I never really considered Gibson due to the quality and comments like " they are great guitars if you can find a good one" that I've seen on AGF LOL!!! And the binding issues of Martin have made me dismiss them also. But I have to say the new Gibson Century series has made me take notice. I love the satin finish, the case, and a short scale at a great price. Anyone have thoughts on Gibson and are these AGF comments true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmD2IXGaPPs

Great topic and some good replies I will come back and read when I have a little more time.

I have a Gibson Hummingbird that is currently my favourite guitar.  A lot of people say dreadnoughts or the slightly narrower nut width or bridge spacing is not good for fingerstyle but my hands and body learned to adapt where it is a non issue for me.  Gibson has the most distinctive designs in acoustic and electric.

My gripe has always been that they shoehorn the under saddle pickup in all of their guitars.  I changed mine out for a K&K pure.  I was wanting to add an L-00 to my collection but didnt want to have to remove electronics from an expensive brand new guitar...then I saw the century series come out.  No electronics and a hardcase.  NOW we're talkin'!

Everytime gibson tries a new line, all the reviews say the same thing...its always a stripped down version with a softcase designed to give players a USA guitar for less money.  I think the century series they marketed it as a homage or celebration of Gibson design that in my opinion makes it more appealing than cost cutting to get something USA made.

The gibson acoustic sound for me was a bit of an acquired taste because when I was getting into steel string and I'd pick them up in the store, they always seemed to have a mellow or darker, maybe even muted sound, especially compared with a balanced and crisp sound of my Larrivee...after a while I came to appreciate the tone of Gibsons, and of course they are the nicest looking to my eyes.

Quote from: John in Charm City on July 14, 2026, 06:32:49 PMdon't give up on Martin William.  while embarrassing the binding issue has long been resolved and never impacted wood bound guitars.  To my ear, Martin is still the quintessential acoustic sound.

Quote from: John in Charm City on July 15, 2026, 08:38:53 PMStanding by my original comment but to each his own

I've been consistently impressed with their standard line over the last couple years. While I've moved away from dreads for the most part, the newer D-18s I've played have been the most consistent of all the standard models. Excellent guitars for a lot of players. 

Quote from: Sandstorm on July 23, 2026, 06:59:45 AMGreat topic and some good replies I will come back and read when I have a little more time.

I have a Gibson Hummingbird that is currently my favourite guitar.  A lot of people say dreadnoughts or the slightly narrower nut width or bridge spacing is not good for fingerstyle but my hands and body learned to adapt where it is a non issue for me.  Gibson has the most distinctive designs in acoustic and electric.

My gripe has always been that they shoehorn the under saddle pickup in all of their guitars.  I changed mine out for a K&K pure.  I was wanting to add an L-00 to my collection but didnt want to have to remove electronics from an expensive brand new guitar...then I saw the century series come out.  No electronics and a hardcase.  NOW we're talkin'!

Everytime gibson tries a new line, all the reviews say the same thing...its always a stripped down version with a softcase designed to give players a USA guitar for less money.  I think the century series they marketed it as a homage or celebration of Gibson design that in my opinion makes it more appealing than cost cutting to get something USA made.

The gibson acoustic sound for me was a bit of an acquired taste because when I was getting into steel string and I'd pick them up in the store, they always seemed to have a mellow or darker, maybe even muted sound, especially compared with a balanced and crisp sound of my Larrivee...after a while I came to appreciate the tone of Gibsons, and of course they are the nicest looking to my eyes.

I agree with you on the Hummingbird. I love the looks of them. As far as acoustic guitars go, I wish they were offered without pickups that could be added. My dealer plays Gibson and told me the first things he does is take out what Gibson has in there. I think the Century models attract me because there is no electronics, they are all lightly built, and I love the looks of that case that they come in.

 Since I've seen Michael Watts brought up before on this forum, I'll mention an interesting video I saw today. Michael showed off his new guitar, which was a custom 12-fret J45. He's a "modern-dread" player, which is sort of the opposite end of the dread spectrum. I totally get it though. The more confident I get in my playing, the more I appreciate different instruments.

Quote from: B0WIE on July 24, 2026, 11:35:46 PMSince I've seen Michael Watts brought up before on this forum, I'll mention an interesting video I saw today. Michael showed off his new guitar, which was a custom 12-fret J45. He's a "modern-dread" player, which is sort of the opposite end of the dread spectrum. I totally get it though. The more confident I get in my playing, the more I appreciate different instruments.

Those 12-fret J-45s get amazing reviews online. I know a couple die-hard acoustic players who love them -- guys who have gone through A LOT of nice guitars.

Yeah, people rave about that Keb Mo 12 fret model.  I think it also has a shallower body than a standard j-45.

Over the years, I just haven't found the right Gibson to stop me in my tracks. I find it interesting that a lot of guitar manufacturers are now offering satin finish models at a lower price point on some of their more popular models that typically have a gloss finish. Examples include Martin, Gibson and Huss & Dalton just to name a few. Maybe I can find a new generation Gibson or the right older one that will trigger my interest.

I have three gloss finish Martins and one Alvarez as well as four satin finish Larrivee acoustics and a recently acquired Violet Series Furch which has an open pore finish. My personal experience is that the satin/open pore finish highlights the wood grain better and is extremely durable. The finish on my two Vancouver built Larrivees is in better condition than my Nazareth built Martin OM-35 which is two years newer.

I guess it's worth noting that most satin finishes are some type of poly while a gloss Martin is nitro. That satin poly finishb is strong but, it will never look right once it's scratched and there's really no way to make an invisible repair, or anything close to it. Nitro is more susceptible to fine scratches but, some (including myself) would say that's part of the charm as they get a really nice, soft look as they age. And, you can do invisible repairs since nitro melts into itself.

 I will say that the Larrivee aesthetic works really well for the finishes they use. For instance, maple binding looks fantastic under a finish that doesn't yellow. Such a clean look.

Quote from: B0WIE on July 27, 2026, 08:46:43 PMI guess it's worth noting that most satin finishes are some type of poly while a gloss Martin is nitro. That satin poly finishb is strong but, it will never look right once it's scratched and there's really no way to make an invisible repair, or anything close to it. Nitro is more susceptible to fine scratches but, some (including myself) would say that's part of the charm as they get a really nice, soft look as they age. And, you can do invisible repairs since nitro melts into itself.

 I will say that the Larrivee aesthetic works really well for the finishes they use. For instance, maple binding looks fantastic under a finish that doesn't yellow. Such a clean look.

I've seen so many old Gibsons with checked or gatored finishes.
I am really drawn to the look.
The 'relic' thing doesn't do much for me personally, but I guess most people don't find the finish cracks as appealing as I do. If they did, they would build them that way.
Like the wrinkles in an old person's face, it looks seasoned and wise.

Quote from: Queequeg on July 27, 2026, 09:05:27 PMI've seen so many old Gibsons with checked or gatored finishes.
I am really drawn to the look.
The 'relic' thing doesn't do much for me personally, but I guess most people don't find the finish cracks as appealing as I do. If they did, they would build them that way.
Like the wrinkles in an old person's face, it looks seasoned and wise.

I think you're definitely not alone. Though they have ways of checking new nitro, it's not the same as one that's shrunk and gone through the full process. 20 years ago, I was so upset when my LP checked. Now, I'm so happy it did.

Though I just can't appreciate artificial relicing (I don't look down on it, but I would feel awkward buying one) I really like Collings new "antiqued" finish where the nitro and hardware are all lightly brushed. It looks really natural and gives everything a soft glow. So handsome and cozy.

Quote from: B0WIE on July 27, 2026, 10:14:12 PMThough I just can't appreciate artificial relicing

It's the opposite of honest play wear. I'm also not a fan.

But the finish checking is another matter. I think there's a good argument that it might aid/help the guitar in sounding a little more open. My only proof of that is playing similar guitars, where one is artificially checked and the other isn't. I always seem to prefer the checked ones. I'd be open to having a guitar artificially checked, especially if it were a new one built in the vintage style.

Quote from: BlueBowman on July 28, 2026, 10:49:22 AMBut the finish checking is another matter. I think there's a good argument that it might aid/help the guitar in sounding a little more open. My only proof of that is playing similar guitars, where one is artificially checked and the other isn't. I always seem to prefer the checked ones. I'd be open to having a guitar artificially checked, especially if it were a new one built in the vintage style.

This is not directed at you at all, but I recall seeing a video about a certain maker with their checked finishes as selling point for better tone and it triggered me. I really dislike the need for some makers to sprinkle fairy dust to gain an advantage. Cold checking on a new instrument won't have the vibrational impact of a decades old one because the nitro hasn't shrunk to make any actual separation. And, if separations in the top are better, why aren't cracks in the top better? It's all top mass anyway. And, If less finish is better, why not just spray less finish? Or, just make the top thinner?

 I've done cold nitro checking and it is generally something you do very thin, for a few reasons. So, I assume these checked guitars have a very thin finish. I can totally understand hearing a difference in a thin finish vs a normal one. I've done comparisons like that and it's a real thing. But, I was surprised that I actually liked some of the thicker ones better because of what it does for the trebles. I used to assume thinner was better but quickly learned it's a balancing act between bass a treble and thinner is definitely not always better. Balance is everything. On an old factory built guitar, I'm sure a little less mass and tension from a shrunken and checked top is usually a good thing. In a modern setting where builders have an incredible amount of control, the builder can decide specifically how much total top mass they have an how much of it is finish.

 Again, not directed at you at all. I do think you'd hear a difference and I believe it's likely because the cold checked finishes are probably thinner. Just my speculation.

I have to say I really have an urge to explore a Gibson instrument. As a lefty and where I live, I have never actually seen one. I was watching a video today that increased this interest. If I did, I wonder if I should get a standard or something like one of these Century instruments. Would the 12-fret connection change the sound people expect from say a J-45? I really like that L-00 12-fret, however. And is the nitro finish better that a poly finish?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLy9Roo4o0A&t=9s

Quote from: B0WIE on July 28, 2026, 02:52:57 PMThis is not directed at you at all, but I recall seeing a video about a certain maker with their checked finishes as selling point for better tone and it triggered me. I really dislike the need for some makers to sprinkle fairy dust to gain an advantage. Cold checking on a new instrument won't have the vibrational impact of a decades old one because the nitro hasn't shrunk to make any actual separation. And, if separations in the top are better, why aren't cracks in the top better? It's all top mass anyway. And, If less finish is better, why not just spray less finish? Or, just make the top thinner?

You make some really good points.

Yeah, I believe those vintage nitro finishes actually shrink (gas off) over time and do become thinner. I love how the top of even a 20 year old nitro guitar has that "corduroy" look on the top. And when they are checked on older guitars, man, there's a certain quality -- an openness -- that is very appealing.

As for finish mass, I think you're right that it's more a factor than stiffness in nitro, especially for a thin finish. With my above comments, I was thinking more in terms of stiffness than mass, but it seems mass is, indeed, the greater factor. For a heavy finish, checking may be better, but again, as you point out, why not just spray it on thinner? Makes sense.

Also, I try to be aware of this, but we can't discount "hearing with our eyes." Or, in this case, me hearing with my eyes! I'd swear those newer guitars with checked finishes sounded more open. Maybe, maybe not (I do think there's many other factors that come before finish checking, of course). But I guess that's the whole point, to play on our feelings of those beloved vintage guitars.

Quote from: B0WIE on July 28, 2026, 02:52:57 PMI've done cold nitro checking and it is generally something you do very thin, for a few reasons. So, I assume these checked guitars have a very thin finish. I can totally understand hearing a difference in a thin finish vs a normal one. I've done comparisons like that and it's a real thing. But, I was surprised that I actually liked some of the thicker ones better because of what it does for the trebles. I used to assume thinner was better but quickly learned it's a balancing act between bass a treble and thinner is definitely not always better. Balance is everything. On an old factory built guitar, I'm sure a little less mass and tension from a shrunken and checked top is usually a good thing. In a modern setting where builders have an incredible amount of control, the builder can decide specifically how much total top mass they have an how much of it is finish.

 Again, not directed at you at all. I do think you'd hear a difference and I believe it's likely because the cold checked finishes are probably thinner. Just my speculation.

Emboldened with a bullet. I absolutely agree that to get a really great guitar, everything must be balanced.

Did you finish check an acoustic (as opposed to an electric)? I'd love to hear more about that.

Quote from: William2 on July 28, 2026, 05:28:29 PMWould the 12-fret connection change the sound people expect from say a J-45? I really like that L-00 12-fret, however.

For me, yes, the 12-fret versions do sound different. There are exceptions, but as a general rule, I mostly prefer 12-fretters across the board. But I'm not you, so it's best to try to get hands on both 12- and 14-fret examples.

Quote from: William2 on July 28, 2026, 05:28:29 PMAnd is the nitro finish better that a poly finish?

Depends on who is spraying the finish (i.e., which builder). Bowie is probably better positioned to answer this question, but I think poly is both more durable and has more stiffness than nitro (all things equal). Nitro is the traditional finish, but there are some amazing modern builders putting poly to good use. It's more about the thickness or thinness than which finish. From what I've read, every finish has plusses and minuses.

I do love that nitro shrinks over time. I'm not sure the same is true of poly.

Quote from: BlueBowman on July 28, 2026, 10:49:22 AMIt's the opposite of honest play wear. I'm also not a fan.

But the finish checking is another matter. I think there's a good argument that it might aid/help the guitar in sounding a little more open. My only proof of that is playing similar guitars, where one is artificially checked and the other isn't. I always seem to prefer the checked ones. I'd be open to having a guitar artificially checked, especially if it were a new one built in the vintage style.

I've never seen a new guitar with intentional factory checking. We always referred to this as a "gatored" finish, which I suppose is just the colloquial term.

My wife was an antiques dealer/wholesaler for many years and old paint (especially blue) was a prized finish on American Primitive furniture, so there are lots of fakes and phony reproductions on the market. But she can spot them right away.
Con artists would paint them with milk paint and then before they were completed dry, they hit them with a hair dryer to get them to gator, and sell them as authentic 18th or 19th century originals.
Wear, but no visible checking on this piece. But painted blue to look more "authentic".
(https://missmustardseed.com/wp-content/uploads/Secretary-Desk-Collage-1-1.jpg)

Quote from: Queequeg on July 28, 2026, 06:45:50 PMI've never seen a new guitar with intentional factory checking. We always referred to this as a "gatored" finish, which I suppose is just the colloquial term.

Fairbanks, Pre-War, and Atkin all three make new guitars with "gatored" finishes  :winkin: