Vintage Gretsch Guitars

72 Gent w/Real Large F-Holes

1

NFI.

And the thing is that this is actually a 6122, not the subsequent 7670 version that had real small f-holes. Serial #1 2167 which is January of '72 if I'm reading it right. Like the '71, no mute but still with the backpad. Pretty sure the f-holes are factory or somebody went to a lot of work to add them correctly. Sloppy badge. Cool case. Love double-cuts with large f-holes.

2

This is one elegant looking machine!

3

Interesting Brooklyn to Booneville transition example. Adjustamatic bridge, no back access probaly due to the lack of a mute as OP has mentioned. Looks like a very clean case!

4

Very interesting, here’s my old 1972 Gent, made later in 72....smaller F holes, pickups are different, no back pad and no nameplate...that was a great Guitar

5

Truly a handsome looking Gent! Couple of small things to note, the poor quality of the headstock nameplate attachment as lx points out. I don't mind the larger f-holes at all as they're the same size as the ones on my '98 6120 Blue burst, although the body shapes are different. Mine is a single cut and this the double cut. The top of the f-holes on both are at the same position relative to the waist but I wonder if they'd look okay located slightly lower for the wider bout....just a thought.

The bridge base is the same one that came on my Super Chet, the bridge too, but it's the base to take note off. You'll notice the bridge sits quite high above the top of the base to achieve the needed height. These bases weren't made properly in that the center span area is overly thin, causing the outboard ends of the feet to bow upward lessening the contact area on the top. This allows the base to skate on the top and as I said requires the bridge to be raised almost to the top of the posts for string clearance on the fretboard. Toxo kindly fixed mine by seamlessly gluing another piece of ebony to the top of the base to strengthen the weak center span and reduce the too great a space between the bridge and base.

Haven't seen those decorative snowflakes on the base before. Don't know if they're to cover screw holes pinning the base to the top or merely decorative.

These bridges BTW, do NOT have to be angled for intonation. Line it up parallel to the pup and use the very generous seat adjustment screws for intonation. This guitar has the seats all in a row and then the bridge assembly angled. ???? This is how you intonate a bar bridge, not an AOM! I'd ask the owner what does he think the A stands for in AOM.

Price seems about right to me for a guitar from this era that doesn't have binding rot issues. You'll note that this guitar has the features of the as yet unchanged to Baldwin features, that being the pickguard shape, blackfaced Filters and the truss rod changed to the Burn's Box (no truss rod cover on the headstock). The change occurred between this Jan built model and my June '72 SC which has all the changes.

6

NFI.

And the thing is that this is actually a 6122, not the subsequent 7670 version that had real small f-holes. Serial #1 2167 which is January of '72 if I'm reading it right. Like the '71, no mute but still with the backpad. Pretty sure the f-holes are factory or somebody went to a lot of work to add them correctly. Sloppy badge. Cool case. Love double-cuts with large f-holes.

– lx

71s had mutes up until around March-April 1971. BTW, that headstock badge is absolutely horrible. It doesn't even look like the lettering was put on straight, nevermind where the rivets ended up.

7

Windsordave you are correct about the placement of the "f"holes. When the guitars were first being built in Booneville, as this guitar was, there were many examples of the "f" holes being slightly north of where they are supposed to be placed. There is one brochure from 1972 that shows a Viking with the same misplacement. The correct placement of the "f' holes is not just aesthetic but also supposed to be practical in that the bridge is supposed to line up between the "inward points" of each "f" hole

8

Thanks Ewk for reminding us of that little known fact of the early F-hole misplacement. When you mentioned it I remembered a brief mention of it here awhile back. I didn't think of it when I made mention of it above but the early mention of it must have triggered the memory subliminally.

Looking across the room at my SC, I see that my bridge lines up precisely with the 'inward points" as you call them (mid-point point of the inward side of the f-holes).....and my SC f-holes are the smaller size that came along with the rest of the Baldwin appointments in early '72.

Still wondering if the bridge on this one has been pinned? The decoration makes me lean in that direction.

9

There was also a blonde country club of the same vintage on ebay and posted here that had the exact same placement(and type) of F-holes

10

Windsordave you are correct about the placement of the "f"holes. When the guitars were first being built in Booneville, as this guitar was, there were many examples of the "f" holes being slightly north of where they are supposed to be placed. There is one brochure from 1972 that shows a Viking with the same misplacement. The correct placement of the "f' holes is not just aesthetic but also supposed to be practical in that the bridge is supposed to line up between the "inward points" of each "f" hole

– ewkewk

Funny you mention the points of the f-holes as bridge-placement guides. I remember changing the the strings for the first time on my old '56 6120: I cleaned the old gal, set the bridge down and tightened the new strings. And I knew that the bridge placement was important to keeping it in tune (no concept of intonation) but I couldn't figure out exactly where. Luckily, I had one of Duane Eddy's albums out and set it just like his (slightly askew of the points). Worked perfectly with no problems. Good thing I didn't have one of those pix of Eddie Cochran where the art director set the bridge all catty-wumpuss.


Register Sign in to join the conversation