Re-neck?

[customxke]

Thoughts?

Just a moment...

[wintermoon]

I don't think so, the headstock logo, inlays and heel cap look ok, but at the very least the necks been off and not a great reset.
I can't vouch for the finish, it looks old just not sure if it's an old refin, the headstock looks a little too blemish free and it got a post early 60s trc at some point. Hardware is correct though the gold doesn't have the prewar patina, almost looks like it was replated and was worn after the replate. There's a top repair next to the t.p. of course.

[Jimmy blue note]

The neck has been reset, but it looks like it's original albeit having been through a lot of use. Suspiciously absent is a side view that shows the actual height of the strings at the bridge, and whether the bridge saddle is actually sitting flat at a low angle.
I don't know the story of that guitar, but the older pre-war Gibsons had a different geometry, lower breakover and less acute at the neck join. Given that, and the fact that the chin overhang is pretty tight, I'd say at some point the neck pulled out enough to flirt with maybe even touching the top during some seasonal point, if not outright contacting the top itself. This is evidenced by the neck join line. Again, I really want to know if that bridge saddle adjustment is bottomed out.
I had a 1938 L-10 with the same kind of neck/chin arrangement: Not really suited for the modern clearances needed for any modern pickups. The D'Armond was the only thing that worked and it was tight. String height at the bridge was also quite low, so low in fact, that any change in the neck pulling, would bottom out the adjustment. Not a good situation.

For me, I did do major surgery, because it was mine and frankly it was my guitar and I am not interested in the vintage value. I reset the neck with a much more pronounced neck angle which gave me room for a considerably higher action. This was akin to the "modernization" of baroque violins that increased the projection of Strads and imparted a projection that was unimagined when originally built. So I sacrificed "original vintage" condition (the guitar was riddled with cracks and splits and cleats and patches anyway) and in the end, it was a solid player with a sound that came from decades of playing in and a character of wood that is unobtainable today.

The question that you need to face is How far do you go to maintain a vintage (original) condition? How much more could you get out of a playing guitar by changing it in ways that would make it more solid (I don't like the re-set work based on these inadequate photos) but would change the guitar?

Another thing, I've seen a lot of pre-war guitars, and there is such a thing as "TOO" clean. I don't see any finish checking. I see wear, but not excessive. But there're also signs that the guitar has been used; more than the ostensibly pristine finish would belie. Was there a re-finish at some point, or at least a sprayover?
Vintage guys out there, have you ever seen prewar binding in that condition? Not even shrinkage separation at the waist?
Look at that back figure, pretty... but flat sawn and I'm not convinced from the photo that it's a bookmatched back. The blondes from that era I've seen were unmistabably spectacular. I've seen this kind of wood underneath the dark bursts of that era when they were stripped and refinished. I wouldn't pronounce this a refinish but I am suspicious. Birdseye with no flame was the kind of wood they put under a burst back then. Tiny little pockets of discolouration? That may or may not be evidence of dye in the wood beneath the sealer coat... I don't know.

A lotta questions given the photos. A little transparency on history would be reassuring.
In the end, if you're a player, How does it sound and feel? How much is it worth to correct any necessary issues?
If you're a collector, there's a LOT to be suspicious about.
Near a century old and that's a lot of history to claim that a guitar was always as good as this one looks now.

Lucky for me, at that price, I'm not even tempted. It looks pretty, I'll give you that. And it'd cost me a lot more to put a Chagall on my living room wall.
Hell, I'd wind up paying more than that for a friggin BOW for an old violin.
Bargain at half the price...

[customxke]

Shape of the headstock is wrong. Center laminate is too wide. Something is off here.

[deacon Mark]

I agree with Wintermoon mostly but for whatever reason something about this guitar looks off. I cannot say exactly what that is and even what it means but my sense of this is leave this guitar for someone else to buy.

[wintermoon]

Agree something looks off.
That was my initial thought and now in comparing it to headstock pics of this one you can see some differences in headstock shape and inlays.
1939 Gibson Super 400 Pre-War Vintage Archtop Acoustic Guitar Blonde w/ Case | eBay
But as I mentioned that heel cap and Gibson logo look right leading me to think it's the original neck.
As for the neck angle etc, don't forget that Gibson glued necks flush w the top in '39 before going back to elevated boards in '40. This resulted in some '39s needing resets over time as the angle was shallow to begin with. Tops were also carved w 'humps' on either side of the bridge in '39 and some people mistakenly think that flat area where the bridge sits is a result of top sink.
In regards to maple selection you'll see flame maple but Gibson used blister and birdseye whenever possible on prewar Supers as that was that was the rarest most exclusive type available in keeping w the Super's top of the line status.

[Hammertone]

Replaced neck, IMO. Too many things are off - the Cupid's Bow, the headstock shape, the oversized center strip, the stinger. My guess is that the neck had a tragic mishap a very long time ago, and the headstock overlay, tuners, heel cap and whatever else were salvaged and re-used.

Here are some useful comparison pix of a '37 and a couple of '39s (one w/replaced, later tuners - anyone have a set of correct tuners for this guitar?)

[ThatRhythmMan]

It’s a bit difficult to trust much in the description when they call that case original.

I agree with Hammertone that things about the headstock in particular look off.

The binding wouldn’t concern me so much as the binding used by Gibson didn’t really have the issues that other manufacturers had and it’s usually pretty tight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Woody Sound]

Saddle slots look to be cut very deep, at least on the treble side.

[wintermoon]

I played a renecked '31 L-5 w/a reused headstock overlay once and briefly thought that might be the case here but still not sure if they reused the old one or not, though the longer I look at the headstock shape the more it looks off.
If so they probably reused the old heel cap too, I'd bet anything that's the original.

[Hammertone]

If anyone has a photo of a pre-war L-5 or S-400 with the a Cupid's Bow, headstock shape, or center strip remotely similar to that on the guitar under discussion, please post it.

[wintermoon]

agreed, that cupid's bow is way off and highly doubtful would've left the factory like that

[Fear the Reaper]

+1

It’s a bit difficult to trust much in the description when they call that case original.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThatRhythmMan]

agreed, that cupid's bow is way off and highly doubtful would've left the factory like that

The one in question on top and from a 1942 400P below.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThatRhythmMan]

With all respect for your expertise, but isn't that a function of the placement of the floating bridge? That marks the centre of the fingerboard, but many times I've moved the string orientation in relation to the fingerboard, like, for instance, I wanted the high E closer to the side of the neck for faster playing especially with a lower action. I move the bridge so the strings are closer to the edge and off centre (so the string spacing doesn't line up on centre). I've done it the other way too, when I've wanted more solid chording spacing beneath my fingers for chord soloing on a higher action. Both times, the strings are not lined up with the cupid's bow.
It might look funny but as a player, it's what I've needed. That's why I loved the Johnny Smith, it actually had a slightly wider neck and this wasn't an issue.

But that might not be what you're referencing, and if not, my apologies.

It’s the shape of the Cupid’s bow that is off. Look at the photo I posted above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[customxke]

[ThatRhythmMan]

Upper left - 1935
Lower left - 1942
Right - Guitar in listing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wintermoon]

Upper left - 1935
Lower left - 1942
Right - Guitar in listing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well, despite the fact that it's later tuners and trc we know the lower left is Gibson work by the sloppy mounting of said cover

[Dennis D]

It’s the shape of the Cupid’s bow that is off. Look at the photo I posted above.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

\

Sorry - do you mean the indentations on either side of the bow / point aren't as deep on the one in question, as opposed to the '42 shown below ?

' These ol' eyes of mine - '

Thanks

[Archie]

Love the thread.
This is where the JGF really shines.
There’s levels to this place.
When it gets down to this type of stuff, we've reached the top tier of knowledge and it never fails to impress.