"Gibson" Franken-Tenor?

**mrmando** · May-08-2012, 4:06pm

Unusual instrument on Craigslist:

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/msg/3003473375.html

All-mahogany tenor guitar body with 8 strings and a Gibson logo on a mustache headstock. Did Gibson ever do an all-mahogany tenor? Martin made a ton of them. Could this be a Gibson neck on a Martin body?

**xntric** · May-08-2012, 4:40pm

Gibson made a small-bodied all-mahogany tenor in the 1960s, called the TG-0. Looks like a clever conversion.

**MikeEdgerton** · May-08-2012, 4:59pm

I don't know if it came from the factory with 8 strings or not but they built that model as a tenor and as a 6-string. The standard method of making two on a plate tenor tuners in the early 60's appears to have been to use the mandolin plate and only bore the two outside holes. I converted a few Harmony tenors to 8 strings by simply buying new tuners and drilling two more holes on each side. Another side note. Those Gibson models had bolt on plastic bridges. The original bridge would have been upside down from what that one is, belly up. This wouldn't have been a real hard conversion.

**xntric** · May-08-2012, 5:18pm

The 6-strings had the "reverse belly" bridge, but the tenors had a simple straight bridge with no belly. Add a belly and 4 more peg holes, and voila!

**Ed Goist** · May-08-2012, 5:24pm

This instrument is in Haight Ashbury...Classic!

**MikeEdgerton** · May-08-2012, 5:29pm

In 63 they added the upper belly on the bridge. They were introduced in 60 and discontinued in 1974.

**mrmando** · May-08-2012, 7:07pm

Seller says the stamp number is R7282 25xx (last 2 digits illegible).

**Bernie Daniel** · May-08-2012, 7:32pm

Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton

In 63 they added the upper belly on the bridge. They were introduced in 60 and discontinued in 1974.

Are you sure about that? I have owned two Gibson tenor guitars, 1936 TG-0 and also a 1964 TG-0 (this one was all mahogany, just like that one discussed) and both had just a simple rectangular bridge base -- i.e., no belly.

The only Gibson tenors that I have seen with a belly on the bridge base was the mid-1960's TG-25 (these were often cherry sunburst face with the belly pointing to headstock, some had a pickup too) and the mid-1920's TG-1 which had a narrow belly pointing to the tail piece.

The TG-50's of course had a trapeze arrangement.

Bottomline. I'm pretty sure that is not the original bridge on the Craig's list instrument.

Regardless it is interesting to see this conversion as I once thought of doing just exactly that to my '63 TG-0 but wondered if the neck would stand up. Also I thought the 1 3/16" nut on those things was on the narrow side for an octave.

**Charles E.** · May-08-2012, 8:11pm

Here is what I think of with these....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gibson-Tenor...item27c69b63c7

**Bernie Daniel** · May-08-2012, 9:29pm

Originally Posted by Charles E.

Here is what I think of with these....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gibson-Tenor...item27c69b63c7

Hey that looks almost exactly like my old '64 TG-0!! I wonder if it actually IS?

**MikeEdgerton** · May-08-2012, 10:44pm

Originally Posted by Bernie Daniel

Are you sure about that? I have owned two Gibson tenor guitars, 1936 TG-0 and also a 1964 TG-0 (this one was all mahogany, just like that one discussed) and both had just a simple rectangular bridge base -- i.e., no belly.

The only Gibson tenors that I have seen with a belly on the bridge base was the mid-1960's TG-25 (these were often cherry sunburst face with the belly pointing to headstock, some had a pickup too) and the mid-1920's TG-1 which had a narrow belly pointing to the tail piece.

The TG-50's of course had a trapeze arrangement.

Bottomline. I'm pretty sure that is not the original bridge on the Craig's list instrument.

Regardless it is interesting to see this conversion as I once thought of doing just exactly that to my '63 TG-0 but wondered if the neck would stand up. Also I thought the 1 3/16" nut on those things was on the narrow side for an octave.

I'm pretty sure that 36 TG-0 wasn't an 0, it was probably a 1 or 3. I'm reading this out of the Gibson specs as published by Mr. Gruhn. Your 64 might have been an early 64 model before they made a change, Gibson has never been consistent on model changes. Then again, George Gruhn has been wrong before.

**MikeEdgerton** · May-08-2012, 10:49pm

After searching and finding a 1965 and a 1968 TG-0 I am of the opinion Gruhn has that wrong and I'm wrong about them using a plastic bridge. All of these are wood and straight, no belly. They were just using that plastic abomination on 6 strings.

**Bernie Daniel** · May-09-2012, 6:09am

Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton

I'm pretty sure that 36 TG-0 wasn't an 0, it was probably a 1 or 3. I'm reading this out of the Gibson specs as published by Mr. Gruhn. Your 64 might have been an early 64 model before they made a change, Gibson has never been consistent on model changes. Then again, George Gruhn has been wrong before.

Well I certainly agree that Gibson was inconsistent -- I imagine in a factory with that kind of production volume coupled with custom orders and part supply issues that just about anything is possible.

I think the difference in the TG-0 and the TG-1 in the mid-30's was the only the headstock. Both the "0" and the "1" had binding top and back but the "1" had script "Gibson" in MOP inlay along with the motif that you saw on the tenor banjos of the day. The "0" had plain simple script "Gibson" silk screen.

I still have the '36 (which BTW could a 1935) here is a pic of it -- it was taken by the guy I bought it from -- some mandolin player out in San Fran -- think he said his last name was Grisman or something?

Its a really sweet instrument - but of course it is has a spruce top unlike the one for sale now. Oh and one other thing -- if you look at the pic I posted it does look like a hint of a belly on that bridge base but its an illusion -- it is a simple rectangle in shape -- but maybe that illusion gives rise to the idea it had a belly?

**pfox14** · May-09-2012, 9:34am

Looks like it could be a custom order octave mandolin with a TG-0 body. Don't think it's a conversion to 8-string

**Bernie Daniel** · May-09-2012, 10:02am

Originally Posted by pfox14

Looks like it could be a custom order octave mandolin with a TG-0 body. Don't think it's a conversion to 8-string

Just wondering what makes you think that? One thought that could support that thesis is that the nut looks a bit wider than an typical Gibson tenor?

**MikeEdgerton** · May-09-2012, 11:30am

Gibson seemed enamored with reversing that belly in those years. if they were going to make a custom bridge I would think they would have followed their own design ideals. Who knows.

**mrmando** · May-09-2012, 12:48pm

Paul: Why in the world would a custom-ordered 1960s TG0 have teens/'20s mandolin tuners on it? If it were purpose-built in the '60s as an 8-string, you'd expect it to have Klusons.

**Bernie Daniel** · May-09-2012, 1:51pm

Originally Posted by mrmando

Paul: Why in the world would a custom-ordered 1960s TG0 have teens/'20s mandolin tuners on it? If it were purpose-built in the '60s as an 8-string, you'd expect it to have Klusons.

Good point!

Regardless of how it came to be are you thinking about making a play for it? Its in your "neck of the woods" -- well just a quick trip down the west coast anyway. I was tempted this morning but I already have two octaves -- but they are both f-hole so I could rationalize it that way perhaps.

I'm not a big fan of "hog" guitars but the '64 TG-0 all mahogany tenor that had was a beautiful sounding guitar. That arrangement works better on tenors I think.

**Bernie Daniel** · May-09-2012, 2:05pm

Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton

Gibson seemed enamored with reversing that belly in those years. if they were going to make a custom bridge I would think they would have followed their own design ideals. Who knows.

What is considered reverse? -- belly pointing to tailpiece? I recall someone saying the Martin way was the "proper" way. My '61 Hummingbird had the belly pointing toward the headstock. The discussion I refer to implied one configuration was better then the other.

**Dobe** · May-09-2012, 2:22pm

Wouldn't that Tenor neck width make for a bit narrow chorus spacing ?

**MikeEdgerton** · May-09-2012, 2:58pm

As far as I know Gibson was the only company that ever pointed the belly of the bridge towards the headstock and I can only assume they did it to differentiate their guitars from Martin. I'll leave the pros and cons discussion regarding the orientation of the belly to others. The guitars Gibson built in the 60's all seemed to have the belly up orientation on the bridge. If they made one that was different in those years I don't recall seeing it.

**Charles E.** · May-09-2012, 3:14pm

When I was doing guitar repair a long time ago I had heard that it was a production error, enough guitars in a batch had been done that way so they just left it then adopted it .

**Bernie Daniel** · May-09-2012, 4:10pm

Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton

As far as I know Gibson was the only company that ever pointed the belly of the bridge towards the headstock and I can only assume they did it to differentiate their guitars from Martin. I'll leave the pros and cons discussion regarding the orientation of the belly to others. The guitars Gibson built in the 60's all seemed to have the belly up orientation on the bridge. If they made one that was different in those years I don't recall seeing it.

I think that is right -- I do not recall seeing any Gibson guitars back in the 60's that way. I have three other Gibson guitars that seem to capture the change which must have taken place in the early 1970's? Here are a 1965 J-45, 1973 J-50 and 1992 J-60! Who knows how Gibson decides these things?

**MikeEdgerton** · May-09-2012, 8:54pm

If you go to Google Images and enter Gibson LG-0 you'll see a few thousand LG-0 images. The vast majority have the belly up bridge. The ones that don't were generally repaired to get rid of the plastic bridge they had on them and the majority of those are still belly up and slightly larger to cover the sins of the first bridge. I've replaced a few of those.