Vintage Gibson Conversion to L/H

I have a minty '52 Gibson Southern Jumbo. If I was to convert the bridge (recut slot) changed Nut for a L/H conversion. Down professionally of course so as reversing can be done easily in the future.

Question: Would the resultant Tone be noticably changed ? Being braced for R/H

Also when did Gibson start using Sitka Spruce for the tops ? the '52 SJ has one and the usual Brazillian Mahogany B&S , Brazillian Rosewood Board.

Determining when Gibson switched from adirondack to sitka is tricky, and requires guesswork.

According to the "vintage guitar site" http://home.provide.net/~cfh/martin.html (which is really pretty reliable):

"In 1952 or 1953, rumor has it Martin bought a large supply of Engelmann spruce from government surplus. Though Martin preferred Adirondack Red Spruce, it was no longer available after the mid-1940s because all of the large trees had been decimated."

While the statement concerns Martin guitars rather than Gibson, it seems that by the mid-1940s there weren't enough big adi trees around to allow for guitar tops.

In addition, Gibson is reputed to have been less picky (and there's no charge for the pun) and used both wood types since the 1930s.
http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215486

Also, the historical information about Martins is far superior since Martin kept detailed official records, and Martin employees kept unofficial records. In contrast, Gibson records are scant.

I've read a fair amount of Gibson history, including
http://www.amazon.com/Gibsons-Fabulous-Flat-Top-Guitars-Illustrated/dp/0879302976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340038395&sr=8-1&keywords=gibson+flat+top[/url]
and have found that not even the experts are willing to fix the date. My guess is that most Gibbys built after 1944 are likely to be sitka topped. But a guess is just a guess, and sitka is a fine wood, although lots of folks seem to prefer adi.

And yes, if you change the nut and bridge, your '52 SJ would probably sound noticably different if converted from right to left hand, since as you state, the internal bracing would still be right handed. Bracing makes a huge difference.

I've seen a righty-to-lefty nut only conversion, with an adjustable saddle used so to avoid changing the bridge/bridge slot. It's probably been about 30 years since I saw it, and I mention only because it might be worth a google search or discussing with a tech.

Other than replacing the nut and either replacing the bridge or filling in the existing one and reslotting it to accomodate the differently angled saddle it is not a big deal. The tone bars will certainly be out of kilter but based on guitars I have seen converted unless you have dog hearing (or at least a really good ear) you probably will not notice the difference.

Gibson initially used red spruce probably because it grew nearby. In 1943 they went to non-bookmatched Adi spruce tops and then to tops often made of several pieces of Adi spruce ruce. By mid-1944 Gibsons with bookmatched sitka spruce tops began to appear and have been there ever since.

By the way SJs back then were not just J-45s with a bit of bling as they are these days. The ones I have owned and played were made with better wood. Really nice close, even grain top wood and premium quality mahogany. They tend to have a bit tighter or better defined low and upper end.

The early SJs are nice & other than not hazarding a guess about spruce type agree with ZW.

The tone bars will certainly be out of kilter but based on guitars I have seen converted unless you have dog hearing (or at least a really good ear) you probably will not notice the difference.

Bracing makes a difference and the change in sound will most likely be noticable, but zombywoof makes a good point. Based on a few converted Martins I've heard,the conversion to lefty will not make a night and day difference in sound. Paul McCartney supposedly played converted guitars in some of the Beatles songs and the sound was fine. The difference may be more akin to changing to a different brand of strings - noticable, but subtle.

A lefty i've played with has a 55 Country Western that he had the nut and saddle done for LH and it sounds amazing. He almost has a hole through the top where he should have put a PG on :roll:

Thanks Guys , I asked my guitar tech , he said it would be no trouble he'd done dozens of conversions on Vintage Gibsons / Martins and said with the old guitars the tops move as one so the bracing pattern doesn't effect the tone of the guitar to any degree.

Would that be a Brazilian R/W Bridge or Indian ?

Other than replacing the nut and either replacing the bridge or filling in the existing one and reslotting it to accomodate the differently angled saddle it is not a big deal. The tone bars will certainly be out of kilter but based on guitars I have seen converted unless you have dog hearing (or at least a really good ear) you probably will not notice the difference.

Gibson initially used red spruce probably because it grew nearby. In 1943 they went to non-bookmatched Adi spruce tops and then to tops often made of several pieces of Adi spruce ruce. By mid-1944 Gibsons with bookmatched sitka spruce tops began to appear and have been there ever since.

By the way SJs back then were not just J-45s with a bit of bling as they are these days. The ones I have owned and played were made with better wood. Really nice close, even grain top wood and premium quality mahogany. They tend to have a bit tighter or better defined low and upper end.

I think as Gibson made them at the request of their Reps down South they put them together with a bit more selection with tonewood , fit and finish as a slightly up market J-45 at the time. I just love the warmth of tone the old Gibsons get. Martins have their thing going on , but to my ears a Gibson is it.

. I just love the warmth of tone the old Gibsons get. Martins have their thing going on , but to my ears a Gibson is it.

Your preaching to the choir here. I have been playing Gibsons for over 50 years. Started off with a 1930s L-00 back before I knew a good guitar from a can of tuna. My favorite at the moment is a little 1946-1947 LG-2.

What to my ears sets Gibsons apart is their percussive low end and saturated mids.

Your preaching to the choir here. I have been playing Gibsons for over 50 years. Started off with a 1930s L-00 back before I knew a good guitar from a can of tuna. My favorite at the moment is a little 1946-1947 LG-2.

What to my ears sets Gibsons apart is their percussive low end and saturated mids.

Now there's a very oft neglected Tone Demon - LG-2 , LG-3 even LG-1
Just ask John Hyatt.

Am thinking of getting one , such a great smaller bodied guitar put together
right using real Tone Woods !

How do you find the Tone & Playablity ? Better suited to fingerstyle or as
good with a pick ??

I've had a '53 LG-2 for about ten years & it is great with a flatpick. It is a very 'cutting' guitar for ensemble playing, cuts thru mix as well as or more than my same era J-45 or modern AJRI.

I've had a '53 LG-2 for about ten years & it is great with a flatpick. It is a very 'cutting' guitar for ensemble playing, cuts thru mix as well as or more than my same era J-45 or modern AJRI.

Thanks Stubee, Tonally would you say it is in the ballpark of your J-45 even
though it's a smaller bodied guitar. For someone who is just a lounge room
picker would a '50's LG-2 be a good option to shelling out the much higher
$$$ for a similar era J-45 , but still give you a similar tonality to the 45 ?

I have a converted (from rh to lh) taylor 110, sounds better now than when it was righthanded.

I think theres a marketing opportunity here,

1. Buy righty guitars
2. Cinvert them ti leftt
3. Profit!

John Hyatt certainly does sing the praises of the LG-2 as loud as anyone.

The way I look at it the LG-2 is pretty much a mini J-45. Like all Gibsons from that period it has a heck of a percussive low end, saturated mids and fat highs. It is a great cowboy chord banging guitar and a pretty darn good fingerpicker. I ain't saying that it is as loud, rings out as clear or has as tight and defined lower and upper end as my 1960 J-200. All in all, I would say the LG works alot better for Tommy Johnson's "Big Road Blues" than say Jorma's "Water Song."

But my favorite Gibsons remain the Southerner Jumbos from the
1940s and 1950s - both the scallop and non-scalllop braced guitars (which while not having quite the low end of the earlier guitars are real quick and punchy).

Tonally would you say it is in the ballpark of your J-45 even
though it's a smaller bodied guitar. For someone who is just a lounge room
picker would a '50's LG-2 be a good option to shelling out the much higher
$$$ for a similar era J-45 , but still give you a similar tonality to the 45 ?

I think ZW captures it pretty well again. It is somewhat a smaller version of the J-45...but not really. Mine is quite percussive, but the real difference is the 'cut'. I mean that in a good way. The only LG-2 I've played that really really sounded kinda (kinda) like a J-45 was a banner one that was featured in the Fabulous Gibson's book. I think that darned thing was priced at $600 back then but the non-truss rod neck was too big for me.

I did run 13s on my LG-2 for about a year and it was then honestly a little cannon: very loud, very percussive, still cutting, and the equal of about anything I've played for ensemble stuff or really any purpose. I had a bit more top lift on it than I like so finally went back to 12s.

I owned a '46, '56-57 and two '60s SJs and agree with ZW that they are darned nice. All but one were the SB but the one I really shoulda kept was a '65 CW (the SJ's new name for awhile) with the older/wider neck. It is perhaps the only guitar I ever have regretted letting go. A cannon.

I also played a '52 SJ for several days on a business trip years ago in a S. Florida shop and honestly shoulda got that one too. It needed a bit of work but 'had it' in spades. Back then the price was just a pittance compared to even today's market.

LGs are nice but they have gone well up in price the past fifteen years or so. Have fun hunting!

I think ZW captures it pretty well again. It is somewhat a smaller version of the J-45...but not really. Mine is quite percussive, but the real difference is the 'cut'. I mean that in a good way. The only LG-2 I've played that really really sounded kinda (kinda) like a J-45 was a banner one that was featured in the Fabulous Gibson's book. I think that darned thing was priced at $600 back then but the non-truss rod neck was too big for me.

I did run 13s on my LG-2 for about a year and it was then honestly a little cannon: very loud, very percussive, still cutting, and the equal of about anything I've played for ensemble stuff or really any purpose. I had a bit more top lift on it than I like so finally went back to 12s.

I owned a '46, '56-57 and two '60s SJs and agree with ZW that they are darned nice. All but one were the SB but the one I really shoulda kept was a '65 CW (the SJ's new name for awhile) with the older/wider neck. It is perhaps the only guitar I ever have regretted letting go. A cannon.

I also played a '52 SJ for several days on a business trip years ago in a S. Florida shop and honestly shoulda got that one too. It needed a bit of work but 'had it' in spades. Back then the price was just a pittance compared to even today's market.

LGs are nice but they have gone well up in price the past fifteen years or so. Have fun hunting!

Yep, for a nice straight example through a dealer you are looking approx $2500. :sad: Thanks Guys !