Any Gibson J35 owners out there?

[Despot]

Morning folks.

A few weeks ago I was playing a Gibson J35 in a store (a second hand model that was pretty cheap) and man ... they're great sounding guitars.

I had one a few years back and loved it at first - but I couldn't get over the way that they've inclined the bridge so that the bass side is significantly higher than the treble side (rather than having a level bridge as they do on the J45 or most other models). I ended up sanding down the saddle at an angle, so it compensated for the jacked up bass side, but that ended up lessening the tension over the bass strings on the saddle, which in turn muted the bass - which was effectively muting one of the nicest things about the J35. The guitar went in the Great Trade that led to me snagging my ES345, but I've always wondered what it would have been like with a better bridge.

Has anyone noticed the same issue and/or take steps to address it? I'm seriously tempted to buy that J35 (it was for sale for 50% of it's street price) and putting a bit of cash into it to change the bridge to a level one. I'd like to keep the slightly bass-ier sound (compared to a J45) but to have nicer action on the bass strings.

[sookwinder]

Kevin, is this the sort of variation in the height of each side of the bridge you are talking about ?
This is my 68 B25... all other acoustics from Gibson/Epiphone have each side of the bridge roughly the same thickness. But the B25 is quite distinctly different. Just looking at the adjustable saddle you can sense something is different ... the saddle looks like it is lower on the bass side, but it's actually an optical allusion due to the bass side of the bridge being higher (thicker)

Doesn't affect tonality as far as I can tell ... but then again these 60s acoustics with the adjustable bridges have less proportion of the interface with the body from the wooden bridge than the fixed saddle versions

[sookwinder]

Given that the sanding of the bass of the wooden bridge was a manually performed activity with a common style bridge being used on a vast array of guitars body styles, maybe there are just some out there with a strange bass side rather than it being a "style" for an entire model range.

Note: I have/had in my possession 2 NOS early 60s acoustic guitar bridges.. one rosewood, the other ebony. They are considerably higher (thicker and obviously have a flat bottom surface as they had not been shaped to fit a guitar yet. (one has been fitted now and the second is currently being fitted)

[Despot]

That's exactly it David - your photo above shows the same thing as J35s.

And it wasn't just the J35 I owned (or the one I tried in the store last week) - they're all like that. I've long suspected that Gibson do this on their lower end or budget models as a way of 'hobbling' them if you get what I mean - because if you go into a store and have a thing for a vintage styled Gibson, you can buy a new J35 (script logo/banner with a thick vintage neck profile) for 1300 euro, or pay 2600 euro for a True Vintage J45 (script logo/banner, historic/aged sunburst and yellowed binding etc). I know that when I bought my J35 a big factor was that it was cheap (relatively), but still had that vintage look about it. There's got to be a way for Gibson to make a higher priced model a more attractive option, and if the higher bass side strings (and more playing tension as a result) stands out when you're in the store it might lead you to go for the higher priced model.

Or maybe there's another reason why they do it this way ... I don't know.

I would love to replace the bridge on one with a level bridge (without the higher bass side) just to see whether or not it sounds the same as a factory stock J35 while making it a little easier to play.

[Despot]

Looking at your photo again, I can see that you've done the same thing with your adjustable saddle that I did with the saddle on my old J35 (i.e. lower the bass side to make it playable).

I know you've said that it didn't really have an impact on the sound of your guitar, but the J35 definately lost some bass volume when I did that. To get the action 'level' I had to sand the bass side down quite a lot ... so there was a big drop in break angle across the back of the saddle, but this changed as you went from bass to treble side - so the treble strings were basically unchanged, but the E and A (and to a lessor extent the D) lost a lot of volume.

[sookwinder]

how is this for a theory.... the J35 is a design that lasted a short period (especially when compared to the J45)
Maybe the design, the layout of the construction of the J35 caused there to be a lack of bass when compared to other models... Just hypothesising here ... one way to increase the bass response is to increase the break angle... ie raise the bass side.
When the J45 came out effectively the same as the J35 ... but with 6 years (1938 - 1944) of R&D to work with.

Just a thought ...

[Despot]

Possibly - I've never managed to see a J35 bridge on a vintage model for comparison. The one thing that they usually mention with the J35 design is the design of the X bracing (which is wider/less constricting) provides a more bass focused tone overall, rather than a less bass-y tone. The J45 has narrower X bracing, which gives it that lovely midrange sound.

And don't get me wrong - I love J45s/J50s. I particularly love their sound - there's a reason that it has stayed a classic design. I was thinking of the J35 as a cheaper alternative to a TV J45 (plus - the true vintage J45 has a very modern feeling C shape - i.e. slim - compared to the thick profile J35's proper historic/full C profile ... and that bugs me on a guitar that's supposedly a vintage spec model).

- updated -

So I've just had a look at google images and found a website covering the history of the J35. None of the models (from the first year as the Gibson Trojan in '36 up t the end of the run) had the bass biased/slanted bridge - they have flat bridges. One of them appears to have a slanted bridge, but when you look at it you realist that this is actually damage to the back edge of the bridge instead of a deliberate design.

I'm still going with deliberate hobbling Sookwinder!

[zhivago]

For what it's worth, my '52 J50, which is the evolution of the J35, has a straight bridge. I just checked it

The interesting thing when it comes to J35s was the 4 varieties with different tone bars and scalloped/non-scalloped.

That's the way the old ones came...I wonder what variety of the J35 the new ones are after. My bet is scalloped 2 tone bar, but I am not entirely sure.

[Despot]

Spot on Yannis - it's the two tone bar/scalloped version afaik.

Eh ... things slightly ... progressed last night. I ended up making a deal with a friend for a true vintage J45. I've always liked this particular one, though I'm less happy that Gibson decided to put modern slim profile necks on what is ostensibly a vintage reissue, and I do prefer the J35 neck. But this TV sounds pretty damn good - for whatever reason. I'd rate it up there with the old J50s I've had - or maybe it sounds like how I imagine they sounded new.

Photos later when I pick it up.