Expensive Acoustic Guitar Advice...

[PorkyPrimeCut]

I've been watching the acoustic guitar of my dreams (Gibson Hummingbird) on ebay for months now. They're relatively frequent (in the US anyway!!) & seem to sell for £700 - £1200 (not dollars). I've a friend going to L.A in a month & a friend living in L.A so my plan is to buy one on ebay, get it delivered to L.A. & then my friend is willing to bring it back (bless him).

There's lots of "for a player, not a dealer" talk &, as I can't physically hold, examine & play the thing I need to know....

a) What problems are expensive to fix?
b) Were there bad years for Gibsons? I've heard thy went a bit down-hill in the 80's
c) Does a complete re-fin effect the sound quality?
d) Just how bad are cracks in the top? Will it effect the sound in a big way?

There are probably other questions I haven't listed (as usual its getting late). I've played an acoustic for years now but have little experience in quality, vintage acoustics. I wanna treat myself & I've seen & heard a lot of Hummingbird-based songs. I've got to get a good, playable & keepable guitar. I'm not bothered about selling it on so "all original" features aren't necessarilly important!!

Anyway, I'll leave this one hanging & see what tips come in.............. 

[luau]

I'll read with interest too as I'd really like an ES-175 I suppose some of the same stuff applies equally.

[i love sharin foo]

Most of the '70s Gibsons (whether acoustic or electric) aren't regarded too highly. That is subjective of course, but as you said, you won't be able to try before you buy. '60s models would be a better choice, but as I'm sure you have seen, they go for a fair bit more. I think the quality and some other aspects changed during the Norlin era. Refinishes, if done in lacquer or another thin finish shouldn't affect the tone much. If done correctly and in lacquer, it shouldn't affect it at all. Same with any repaired cracks in the top. If they have been repaired properly, stability and tone would be nearly the same as one with no repairs. Watch out for ones in need of a neck reset or any other issues like that which will necessitate a good luthier to sort. Sometimes you will find ones with a repaired headstock...  (it's most common on the electrics though) if done properly, IMO there is no problems with a reglued headstock. They can usually be had for less money and many people say they are stronger than one with an unbroken headstock. I don't about that for sure, but I wouldn't hesitate to buy one with a repaired headstock, providided that it is done properly. That should knock off at least several hundred dollars too.

justin

[serial]

Top cracks can be a non-issue if repaired well.  One of the greatest sounding acoustics I've owned/plaed was a Gibson with a top crack (repaired).  I also played a 50s Martin with a top crack and a wear spot that almost went through the top that sounded like God and the Angels all at once.  Beat to hell, but the sweetest sounding cannon I've ever picked up.

[rabidhamster]

60s models are great, but lots of times, their nice vintagey neck might worn out than one would like.  the necks on them are kind of like a 59 style les paul, only scaled down a little...if you dont have monster hands, this is quite comfortable.  Nothing like the 60s slim taper feel in my experience. 

The 70s models Ive played sounded pretty good, but no better than current production, and they weighed a TON.  The last one I played was seriously heavier than my last strat...which wasnt a feather weight itself.  thats a bit ridiculous.

current production sounds and feels better to me than most '80s-'99s. 

[glimmertwin]

Save yourself some heardache on the older acoustics and pick up one of the newer Bozemon era Gibsons.  I'm not saying older ones are bad, but newer ones are nearly as good(if not better/more consitently made than the true early 60s versions) and worth the money in liu of the price of vintage Gibsons.  I have a Hummingbird(2002ish I think) and I can say with a fair degree of certainty that it can hang with some vintage examples I have played - I wouldn't say they are better in sound quality, but definetly they can be in the ballpark.  I have had mine for 4+years and it sounds better and better the more I play it and I have no doubt that mine will sound as good as the best of the best vintage Hummingbirds in time.  They are basically the same as the early 60s ones except for the nickel tuners and the burst is a little lighter(which I didnt like at first, but now I prefer it to the 60s versions).  I threw a set of Snake Oil Strings on my Hummingbird and I'll be damn if it doesn't sound like Summerteeth era Wilco (and they are known for their vintage gear among other things). 

...a few other notes for you...in the late 60s and early 70s Gibson experimented with their bracing systems on their acoustic guitars - they don't all sound bad, but I think generally speaking the complaint is that those models have very stiff tops that tend to sound muffled and not particuarly articulate....If your looking at vintage models, note that Gibson's Country & Western model(what later became the Sheryl Crow model)  is the exact same as the Hummingbird - only with a natural top....I think they can be had slightly cheaper than a Hummingbird of the same year/condition.

....but seriously, the price on used Bozeman Hummingbirds are really fair considering what a great sounding instrument it is.  The more it's played the better it will sound.  I sit mine next to amps, under the grand piano, etc. to get the frequencies working through the wood to help "bring it along" - I realize this probably hasn't been validated by science, but I do it anyway since it isn't hurting anything....

Good luck! 

[chrisjedijane]

I sit mine next to amps, under the grand piano, etc. to get the frequencies working through the wood to help "bring it along" - I realize this probably hasn't been validated by science, but I do it anyway since it isn't hurting anything....

AFAIK there isn't really any scientific reasoning behind this, but it's a nice notion

I seem to remember reading in a guitar magazine once that Gibson started really overbuilding their acoustics in the 70's. Their reasoning was that if they built the guitars like tanks, then less people would be trying to claim from the warrantly as they would stand up to much more abuse. Apparently this overbuilding really killed the resonance on the guitars.

[PorkyPrimeCut]

So it was the 70's models that were duff?? A guy on Denmark Street said to avoid 80's Gibsons for that reason too. He's usually pretty good with background info.

I think I'm still gonna aim for a 60's model, 1968 ideally.I played one not so long ago & have seen similar ones on ebay. The relicing & the resonance were something else!!! I've probably tried out about 20 different ones now & this one was by far the best.

[chrisjedijane]

the guys on denmark street will tell you a lot of stuff...

I haven't heard anything really about the 80's acoustics, but it's like with 70's fenders - some people will tell you that they're all crap (and some were), but they made some great guitars too and at the end of the day it's all down to your preference.

I have also read that it's best to stay away from the acoustics that have TOM bridges on them.

[glimmertwin]

I think I'm still gonna aim for a 60's model, 1968 ideally.I played one not so long ago & have seen similar ones on ebay. The relicing & the resonance were something else!!! I've probably tried out about 20 different ones now & this one was by far the best.

...it's always going to change guitar by guitar for vintage acoustics.  I have played vintage J-45s of the same year/period that sounded completely different - I even played one that was a complete stinker - just didn't sound good at all.....so it's tough to tell.

[PorkyPrimeCut]

I think I'm still gonna aim for a 60's model, 1968 ideally.I played one not so long ago & have seen similar ones on ebay. The relicing & the resonance were something else!!! I've probably tried out about 20 different ones now & this one was by far the best.

...it's always going to change guitar by guitar for vintage acoustics.  I have played vintage J-45s of the same year/period that sounded completely different - I even played one that was a complete stinker - just didn't sound good at all.....so it's tough to tell.

This is one issue I'm worried about. I know the '68 that I played was perfection but I've not seen one around for a while. The ones I do see are on ebay, and they've all been sold from the US. There's no way I'm gonna buy one without trying it first so that cuts out America completely!! I might trawl the shops again tomorrow. Patience is a tricky business when you get such itchy fingers!!!

[Ursoluno]

My current main acoustic is a Hummingbird reissue.  Don't write off the new ones quite yet.  I love mine.  Granted, I play fingerstyle with a thumbpick and two fingerpicks.  I don't think it sounds quite as good with a standard pick.

Anyway, as my repairman put it "Computers weren't a bad thing when it came to guitar building.  These reissues are great."

Seriously.  You might wanna give one a shot.

[flatfiver]

I have an early '60s Gibson ES-125TC with a repaired headstock - it plays and sounds amazing.  If the repair is done well, it ought to be fine.

I cracked the top of my Martin DX1R acoustic and I think it actually sounds better since the fall (certainly no worse).

In my limited experience, vintage non-solidbody guitars seem to vary greatly from instrument to instrument, moreso than a lot of current production.  I had a choice of two ES-125s when I got mine - the other one  was mediocre at best.  Gibsons from the 70s are generally not held in very high regard, and there seems to be a bit of a love/hate attitude toward the adjustable bridges used on a lot of 60s Gibson acoustics. 

[glimmertwin]

Gibsons from the 70s are generally not held in very high regard, and there seems to be a bit of a love/hate attitude toward the adjustable bridges used on a lot of 60s Gibson acoustics. 

Speaking of...

http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/Luthier ... rdbr1.html

[zhivago]

one thing to avoid are the adjustable bridge Gibsons from the 60s...people don't seem to like them.

an adjustable bridge guitar that has been modded to a standard bridge should be a good deal money-wise, as it's no longer original, so they come cheaper

cracks-wise, it appears that most things are repairable....

as far as the refin question goes, I personaly wouldn't buy a refinished acoustic...but it really depends if the guitar sounds killer


years-wise, anything post-67 isn't regarded as good, but I have no hands on experience.



my fave era is 40s Gibsons...script logos...mmmm.....