Ever played a 1939 RI Gibson Super 400 acoustically?

[RudolfR]

I'm in the market for an X-braced acoustic (non-cutaway) S400 but also consider the 1939 Historic Reissue version made from 1993 to 1998. (See picture of a cutaway example).

I'm aware of the specs but have never played one. What's the acoustic quality of these Reissues and how do they sound and play compare to original prewar S400s?

[MisterMitch]

Hi Rudolf,
I'm the current owner of the Super 400 pictured in your post. I may be not able to compare it to a prewar model, but I can tell you that the guitar is loud, in fact just as loud as my Martin om-42. Different tone for sure, less bright. Louder than the 400 CES I had a few years ago.
Check Youtube, you may find vids of Super 400 played acoustically.
Mine came equipped with a Johnny Smith pickup that I find too bright, I'll probably put the original pickguard one of these days, as I play exclusively acoustic.

[fws6]

I always thought gibson went back from x brace to parrallel bracing, with the introduction of the premier / cutaway model in 39 ? So youre saying that they made that nineties reissue 1939 cutaway model with x bracing ? Thats awkward or not ?

(nice guitar BTW )

[RudolfR]

Mistermitch,

Congratulations, beautiful guitar. Please post a videoclip of some acoustic playing on the forum. I'm really curious to hear how they sound. A couple of weeks ago I got a sound sample from a guitar located in Dublin but I was not quite convinced about its depth. It turned out that they'd made an acoustic sound sample with flat wounds rather than Bronze round wounds on it. So if you're stringing it up with Bronze strings for acoustic playing, it would be great to hear how they sound.

[RudolfR]

FWS6,

I think you've got a valid point there. They always advertise those guitars with 'original specs' and I assumed that they were X braced, but of course, 39 was the transitional year in which they turned to parallel bracing and introduced the cutaway. This being said, in 1939 both X and parallel bracing was used.

But I think you're right, thanks for this information! I've checked several add's and indeed the bracing is nowhere mentioned. I guess they must be parallel braced.

[Greentone]

Yes. The evolution of the bracing of the archtops--at least with the 17" guitars--was parallel bracing, then x-bracing, then the resumption of parallel bracing when the premier came out in '39. I think CampusFive owns(ed) examples of both x- and parallel-braced archtops in the 17" Gibson variety. They sound different and essentially fill different niches musically.

I don't know that the 18" S400 was ever x-braced, was it?

It has always sounded noticeably different from the L-5 from which it sprang, IME.

FWIW, I tried to get Danny Gatton interested in the reissue S400, instead of the J-200 reissue that he played in the 90s. It seemed much more suited, to me, to the direction that he was headed in. He thought so, too. He had played one that was at Zavarella's shop in the DC-area. The deal breaker, though, was the price. DG could afford the 200, but not the high-priced S400.

[RudolfR]

Greentone,

Yes they were X-braced from 34-38/9 according to Van Hoose's reference work. And I'm aware of at least two acoustic Super 400's (one 2019 cutaway and one 2009 non cutaway) that were made with X bracing (so they still have the know how).

[Hammertone]

Hi Rudolf,
I'm the current owner of the Super 400 pictured in your post. I may be not able to compare it to a prewar model, but I can tell you that the guitar is loud, in fact just as loud as my Martin om-42. Different tone for sure, less bright. Louder than the 400 CES I had a few years ago.
Check Youtube, you may find vids of Super 400 played acoustically.
Mine came equipped with a Johnny Smith pickup that I find too bright, I'll probably put the original pickguard one of these days, as I play exclusively acoustic.

MisterMitch: That's a lovely guitar, despite the pretty but wildly inaccurate f-holes. For the benefit of the archtop nerds among us, could you:
-measure the scale length of your guitar for us? That would be the length from the end of the nut to the middle of the 12th fret, x2.
-poke a finger or two through the f-hole (bass side is easier) and let us know if the guitar is X-braced or parallel-braced?

I played one of these a couple of years ago at the Twelfth Fret in Toronto and it struck me as a very nice acoustic archtop guitar, but I didn't check the scale or the bracing at the time. It's now in France.

[jads57]

Just played one like it today. It was formsale at Lavonne Music here in Savage ,Mn. 1994 model reissue with a pickup in the bridge . Wow what a sound acoustically without being too bass heavy. Great guitar for sure!

[wintermoon]

FWS6,

I think you've got a valid point there. They always advertise those guitars with 'original specs' and I assumed that they were X braced, but of course, 39 was the transitional year in which they turned to parallel bracing and introduced the cutaway. This being said, in 1939 both X and parallel bracing was used.

But I think you're right, thanks for this information! I've checked several add's and indeed the bracing is nowhere mentioned. I guess they must be parallel braced.

Even though '39 is the transitional year from X back to parallel, I don't believe there are any X braced Super 400 or L5 Premiers. As Frank said, kind of odd that Gibson would make a reissue w/an X.
Not that its necessarily a bad thing, but strange.
Although Gibson does weird stuff like that w reissues pretty frequently.

[Danny W.]

I owned this for a number of years. I thought it was an outstanding guitar, but it's been too long gone for me to answer any specific questions about it.

Danny W.