Gibson Acoustic Guitars

[BlueBowman]

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.

Standing 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. 

[William2]

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.

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.

[B0WIE]

 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.

[BlueBowman]

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.

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.

[StringPicker6]

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

[teh]

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.

[B0WIE]

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.

[Queequeg]

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.

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.

[B0WIE]

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.

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.

[BlueBowman]

Though 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.

[B0WIE]

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.

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.

[William2]

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

[BlueBowman]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[BlueBowman]

Would 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.

And 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.

[Queequeg]

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.

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".

[BlueBowman]

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.

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