New Guitar Day: Gibson J-29 (formerly "Anybody want to guess my NGD" blah blah blah)

[Larry Mal]

That's a great guess... I suppose you are referring to one of these and not an actually "Only a Gibson is good enough" Southern Jumbo from back in the day.

I didn't know that those were rosewood. But no, it seems like that one has the more traditional bracing and not the "advanced" bracing.

This "1936 J-35" has the advanced bracing, though, but it's mahogany bodied so that wouldn't be what I got today.

I do have a J-35, not as expensive as that of course and not a strict vintage reissue. Still has the mahogany and the advanced bracing, though.

If anyone would like to see the difference between the bracings, as well as hear them, this video does both and it's kind of interesting- he shows the bracing around 2:45.

So, last hint, I guess: when that video above was made, they made the J-45, which had the standard bracing, and the J-15, which is walnut and has the standard bracing. I have both of those. They also made that J-35 with the advanced bracing, I've had one for years and it's a good guitar.

But there was also a fourth kind of weird one. Now the collection is complete in my mind.

[Embenny]

Well, if you have a J-15, J-35 and J-45, is there such a thing as J-25? It seems to be the missing link numerically.

I admit that this has now ventured way outside my wheelhouse. Gibson acoustics remain a blind spot for me.

[DesmondWafers]

First thing I though of was j29. Dunno if that fits the criteria of "jumbo", I guess it's technically a jumbo but not really.

[Larry Mal]

We'll call that close enough, Mike- here's the J-29:











So, it's a rosewood bodied Jumbo, with the forward shifted bracing that they used to use in the early days, and primarily is known now from the Advanced Jumbo ("advanced", or forward shifted, bracing).

I already have that bracing in my J-35, like I mention, and it's also in that J-60 that I love so much, which is a very big bodied rosewood long scale dreadnaught. Otherwise Gibson tends to use the bracing you see in the video above, where it's a little tighter across the lower bout and thicker besides.

What it seems to do is make a guitar very loud, to start with... this J-29 might be the loudest acoustic I've ever owned. It's got great dynamic range to it, but it's also very easy to just make it burst out with a loudness that will take some time getting used to with recording. You could pretty quickly blow out a small diaphragm condenser with it.

With my J-35, this bracing resulted in a very bright guitar that takes a little knowledge to avoid getting harshness from. I always described that J-35 as "you hear the string and not the wood", which leads to a guitar that does one thing very well- I'm talking about that with CincinattiHarry in another thread. It does it so well that I plan to keep it, and it records very well, also.

This J-29 is probably much more versatile, it's got that majestic and crystalline rosewood thing going on, growling bass, chiming highs. Frankly an all around winner. No idea why these guitars didn't take off better than they did, then again, they are kind of plain looking.

That being said, it came with some issues for a "new old stock" guitar. I will probably keep it, since I got a good price on it and the issues are somewhat cosmetic and easy enough to fix. But I'm going to force them to pay for what a luthier would cost to fix it, however. They are being nice enough, but it really isn't what they indicated it was when I bought it (I might have to eat some crown on the death of guitar stores thread).

In case you are curious, there is a crack in the bridge:



I can probably fix that. Perhaps more worryingly, whatever this is:



Which I don't quite understand, it was a split of some kind at some point, but you can't feel it with your finger underneath the soundboard and it didn't crack the finish on top that I can tell.

None of this means I won't keep the guitar, it's fine. But you can imagine it's a little annoying to buy something "new old stock" and then have to immediately sink money into repairing it. So I won't.

[DesmondWafers]

Got it just in time! Also congrats, the collection is now complete.

[Larry Mal]

First thing I though of was j29. Dunno if that fits the criteria of "jumbo", I guess it's technically a jumbo but not really.

Hey buddy! I was wondering where you have been.

It's a Jumbo- that's what the J stands for, after all. Gibson later came up with the SJ-200, or the "Super Jumbo", and of course they and everybody else confused the shit out of the world calling those jumbos down the road. Like, I have a cut down version of that called the J-100 so why is that not a "Super Jumbo" 100 I have no idea.

But the Gibson slope shoulder design is not quite a dreadnaught, though. It looks pretty close but the bracing is different, the slope shoulders of course, and it has a wider lower bout than a dreadnaught does.

These things all blur over the years and Taylor refers to their new Grand Pacifics as "slope shoulder dreadnaughts" but a J guitar is still a Jumbo, I'd say.

[Scout]

The split in the bridge is worrisome, can’t tell if it’s along the grain or not but may be difficult to clamp and glue properly. The second picture shows where the rosette joined? Or is the top split?

[Embenny]

Where did the "29" designation come from?? They threw out the naming convention!

It looks like a nice guitar. As you know, 99% of what matters in an Acoustic is what's going on under the hood and it sounds like this one has plenty of redeeming qualities.

That crack at the top joint under the fretboard is a bit weird. Not worrisome at all, IMO, since it has the fingerboard glued right there - you couldn't have a more definitive cleat (the method used to stabilize cracks in the top) than that, and the soundhole prevents it from spreading in the other direction, of course.

That bridge crack looks like it could be structurally relevant from the angle of that photo, if it extends under the saddle. I'd probably take the saddle out, wick some wood glue into it and clamp it. I've done some minor crack repair on acoustics before so let me know if you want any tips, it's something straightforward you can do whenever it comes time to change strings.

If you got a good deal on it, I'd be inclined to keep it, but only if you're ready to stabilize that bridge crack. That seems like something that could worsen with time if not dealt with. It sounds like the guitar itself complements your other Gibsons nicely, though.

[Larry Mal]

The split in the bridge is worrisome, can’t tell if it’s along the grain or not but may be difficult to clamp and glue properly. The second picture shows where the rosette joined? Or is the top split?

The soundhole thing I can't figure out- it's a common place for a split, but I don't feel anything. And I can't imagine how there would be nothing to feel. Almost like someone might have had it repaired, although there's no cleat or anything under the top. I don't really know what happened there.

The bridge is pretty clear. There is a slight gap between the saddle and the bridge slot, enough that the pull of the strings led to that. You can feel that with your finger.

I don't think it would be much to repair. But I'm not paying for it. These are things that should have been noticed and acknowledged.

[Embenny]

Did it come from an actual dealer? Because, in that case, it should absolutely be covered by warranty.

[Larry Mal]

Where did the "29" designation come from?? They threw out the naming convention!

It looks like a nice guitar. As you know, 99% of what matters in an Acoustic is what's going on under the hood and it sounds like this one has plenty of redeeming qualities.

That crack at the top joint under the fretboard is a bit weird. Not worrisome at all, IMO, since it has the fingerboard glued right there - you couldn't have a more definitive cleat (the method used to stabilize cracks in the top) than that, and the soundhole prevents it from spreading in the other direction, of course.

That bridge crack looks like it could be structurally relevant from the angle of that photo, if it extends under the saddle. I'd probably take the saddle out, wick some wood glue into it and clamp it. I've done some minor crack repair on acoustics before so let me know if you want any tips, it's something straightforward you can do whenever it comes time to change strings.

If you got a good deal on it, I'd be inclined to keep it, but only if you're ready to stabilize that bridge crack. That seems like something that could worsen with time if not dealt with. It sounds like the guitar itself complements your other Gibsons nicely, though.

There is some speculation that they named it to be one more than the Martin D-28... that would be really stupid, though, since the two guitars are not at all similar or direct competitors in my mind. If I wanted a Martin D-28 I would not be considering this as an alternative and vice versa.

I have been considering how I would get glue into a crack like this, and looking at some syringes for it, but they seem like they would all be too big. I'd be happy to take any advice you have about that.

Alternately, I could just have a luthier do it, which might be best, since I'm going to offer to keep it if the repairs are paid for and I might need to be able to produce an invoice.

If they just offer me some money back, though, I'll take it and maybe do that myself.

I'll need to, since I plan to do my usual stuff, pull the electronics (garbage), put in a bone saddle and move to .13s. The additional tension from the higher gauge strings not to mention needing to get the saddle in there tightly could make this problem get worse very quickly.

[Larry Mal]

Did it come from an actual dealer? Because, in that case, it should absolutely be covered by warranty.

That's my other objection- where is the warranty stuff? They say they have it, why wasn't it in there?

I am skeptical to think that Gibson would repair this under warranty for a few reasons, one, this is a 2013 guitar so while technically I should be the warranty owner regardless, it makes me feel it might be a hassle.

Secondly, most warranties don't handle things that break due to negligence, and I can really guess from this that this guitar was not properly humidified in the seven years I am told it was hanging in a guitar store.

That being said, though, for what I paid for it I would have bought it anyway had I known about these issues. I am kind of just making a bigger issue of it since I did not pay for it being aware of these issues and don't consider them to be my responsibility for that reason.

[Embenny]

The nice thing about wood glue is that it wipes clean with a wet rag. You don't necessarily need a syringe or anything fancy, you just need a thin enough glue to be able to get it in there. Depending on the size of the crack, you can often just use a toothpick to apply the glue in there and let it seep downward for a few minutes. Then, wipe the excess with a damp rag, clamp it, and wipe the excess that squeezes out when you clamp it with a wet rag again until it's clean. If a bit squeezes out when you clamp, you can be confident that it got into the crack properly.

Good old fashioned, slow-drying wood glue is used all the time in luthiery because it's so forgiving, and flexible once it dries, which is desirable in a vibrating instrument. Epoxies, cyanoacrylates - all that stuff is much harder to work with, and is often more brittle when it cures.

[Larry Mal]

Got it- I was thinking I might just need to use my fingers to rub it in. I have a decent clamp and I have wood glue. I wonder if I would want to sand the top of the bridge flat again, though. I guess the little ridge there wouldn't hurt anything, if it's still there after the repair.

There's very little chance I send it back. I already ordered a rosewood truss rod cover from China, so I'm already into it $6.50.

[Embenny]

Yeah, rubbing it in might be necessary, depends how wide you can spread it with gentle pressure, but it should join together cleanly, I don't see a reason why you'd have a pronounced ridge there afterward.