Junior vs Junior
Just how does this made-to-look-old new Murphy Lab Junior compare with a real 1957? We take a close look
Most of us have limited access to real vintage pieces, especially models that haven’t been molested. It can be the same for many guitar makers who may base their ’59-alike builds on far-from-vintage instruments, or even use books such as The Beauty Of The ’Burst (Yasuhiko Iwanade) as their guide. When it comes to ageing and relicing, it can be just as difficult: not every artisan working in this area has a real piece to study before they create their ageing. Evaluating authentic ageing, then, can be just as difficult.
The TV Yellow finish of our Murphy Aged ’57 Junior illustrates another typical problem: there’s not one definitive colour. Some are more sand-like, mustard or a brighter, deeper yellow – and even if there were a precise colour, is Gibson (or any ageing artisan) basing the colour on how it would have looked in 1957 or how it would look some 60-odd years on? A carefully cased guitar is going to look very different
The finish of our Murphy Aged ’57 Junior illustrates a problem: there’s not one definitive colour
from one that’s been used and abused, even if they had consecutive serial numbers. And then, of course, whether it’s a finish, a pickup or a neck shape, there’s the “Oh, they were all different back in the day” caveat that can be a great get-out-of-jail-free card for any relicer, or indeed faker.
There’s plenty of truth in that caveat, of course, especially since Gibson, and other makers back in the 50s and 60s, didn’t use the precise computer-assisted machining tools that most use today. Necks, in particular, were hand-finished from more rudimentary machining, and the sort of variances that are out of spec today were commonplace back then.
As Cesar Gueikian explains in our next feature, today Gibson has a large resource of scanned and photographed vintage guitars to draw on – not to mention access to quite a few vintage guitar collections and artistowned instruments – and has even reverseengineered the nitrocellulose recipe that the company used back in the day, which is a subject that could, and often does, fill many pages of debate and discussion. But surely Gibson’s new ’57 Murphy Lab Junior should be pretty darn similar to our original reference, shouldn’t it? Let’s see.
Wood
The fundamental aspect of any solidbody electric guitar is the wood it’s made from, and here we start our comparison with an aspect that’s impossible to evaluate. In 1957, we’re told by numerous sources that the mahogany [2] was pattern-grade Honduran and the fingerboard Brazilian rosewood. Today the former is rare, expensive and endangered; the latter effectively out of trade. Gibson tells us nothing about the mahogany in its spec sheets, although we understand the timber used by the Custom Shop [1] is plantation-grown genuine mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) grown sustainably in Fiji. What we will say is that our new Junior weighs exactly the same as our old one: 3.42kg (7.5lbs). It’s a very encouraging start to our evaluation.
Headstocks
The new Junior [3] is nothing if not well observed. The lacquer cracks across the headstock face of the new guitar are certainly similar to our real ’57, although they appear enhanced. The original’s cracks [4] are more subtle, while the black face paint has sunk into the mahogany (there’s no holly veneer to face the headstock). Along with the marks and grime of 60 years of use, this creates a much more complex façade. The Gibson logo on the original looks slightly raised and is a brighter, more vibrant gold colour. And
is it just us or does the new guitar’s logo look slightly off in terms of positioning? You’ll notice, too, on both old and new how the headstock thickness tapers, going from approximately 15mm at the lower edges by the E string tuners to 14mm at the tip. The new Gibson is a very similar thickness at its base, but it is very slightly thinner, 13mm, at the tip. And despite the new Junior having more simulated wear to its body and neck back, there’s less to the headstock than our original.
Neck Angle
A noticeable and potentially important difference between our two Juniors is the neck angle. Our original Junior [6] has next to zero rake-back and results in a height in front of the wrapover bridge at the G string of bang on 15mm – with pretty much the same setup. The new Junior’s neck is very slightly raked back, resulting in the wrapover sitting higher [5], approximately 17.3mm at the G string. Both dog-ear covers have the same height of 11mm above the guitars’ faces, and as there’s no height adjustment, aside from the polepieces, the new Junior’s pickup sits noticeably further away from the strings. Bearing in mind the measured DCRs (at output) are only very slightly different – our old Junior is 8.09kohms, the new one is 7.89k – the actual difference in power we hear plugged in is possibly due to the fact it’s simply further away from the strings than the original. Adding a simple 2mm shim might well even the playing field.
The exact positioning of the wrapover bridge relative to the neck back in the day would have relied on some basic positioning jigs. So, at the 22nd fret, the top E sits some 7mm in from the fingerboard edge; the
As evocative as the new Murphy Lab Junior is, there’s a lack of simulation of 60 years of grime
low E is closer, at 4mm. On our new Junior, the same dimensions are reversed with 4mm on the treble side and 6mm on the bass. This also affects the alignment of the dot inlays: our original’s dots hug the G string; the new Junior’s sit closer to the D.
Fingerboard edge rounding, or ‘rolling’, has become commonplace even on non-aged/unreliced guitars. It certainly feels better to many than a sharp edge, particularly if you wrap your thumb around the bass side of the fingerboard. In the real world, this rounding wouldn’t be regular and could possibly be more noticeable on the treble side where a player’s rings might have knocked that edge off over the years. You’d imagine there would be more rounding wear in the middle area of the neck than by the nut. That is replicated on the new Gibson: for example, the fingerboard edges by the nut are left sharp. Our original? Well, it’s hard to tell whether Bill Puplett rolled the edges slightly when he refretted it. Either way, it feels broken in and worn but far from overdone, and a little classier than the more original-style simulated wear on the new guitar.
Neck Shape
If that alignment is a noticeable if subtle difference, the actual neck size and shape is much more profound. In terms of width, both necks are very similar: our original ’57 measures 42.96mm just in front of the nut compared with the 42.85mm of the new guitar. At the 12th fret, the old-versus-new dimensions are 57.24mm versus 56.47mm. In terms of depth, our old Junior measures 22.4mm at the 1st fret and 25mm at the 12th; the new neck measures 23mm and 26mm at the same points.
It’s the shaping that’s very different. The old Junior has quite trim shoulders and almost feels slightly V’d in the lower positions – it really is quite like PRS’s original Wide Fat profile. The shoulders are much fuller on the new Junior’s ‘Chunky C’, more baseball bat, if you like. That’s not to say one is better than the other, but they certainly differ. Less noticeable is that lip of the body in the treble cutaway. The old Gibson [8] has a chamfer to the tip; the new Junior is left square [7].
A point about scale length [9]. It would be nice after all these years if Gibson itself came clean with its actual scale length rather than the nominal 24.75 inches (628.65mm). Anyone who has measured the scale lengths on old Gibsons will agree it’s actually a few millimetres shorter. PRS has concluded that it is 24.594 inches (624.6876mm), which is where its 594 model gets its name. Many makers use this or a similar slight reduction; in The Early Years Of The Les Paul Legacy, Robb Lawrence states that the scale is closer to 24 9/16 ths of an inch (623.8875mm).
Now, we can only measure by eye, and from the front face of the nut to the centre of the 12th fret, times two, gives us 24 5/8 ths of an inch (625.475mm) on our old Junior; the new guitar measured in the same fashion is 24 9/16 ths of an inch (bang on 624mm). Obviously, the position of the nut may account for these subtle differences. How accurate was that part of the build back in the day? In theory, the nut could be further away or closer to the 1st fret, which would affect the measurement of a scale length in this manner. The position of the nut plus the height of the string grooves can also affect lower-position intonation. Our Bill Puplett-fettled original Junior is very in tune in its lower positions. With its slightly higher nut grooves, the new Junior is just a few cents sharp.
Hardware
You need to be careful to compare like with like – and many real vintage pieces will have had parts removed and replaced. Our original Junior’s tuners [11], for example, are close repros fitted over two decades ago. Gibson’s new aged versions [10] look older,
their ‘white’ buttons noticeably yellowed. Our top nut was replaced by Bill Puplett with the correct nylon material when the guitar was refretted about the same amount of time ago. In fact, the frets on the new Junior seem bigger (wider and taller) than the ones we remember being replaced. A sensible decision.
Nickel plating ages naturally remarkably quickly, but will only rust once that plating has worn away or been scraped, bashed or nicked. The bass-side bridge stud on our new Junior [12] is heavily rusted and looks rather overdone, not least that the trebleside stud is shiny and pristine. A sweaty player who keeps their palm over the bridge all the way through the set? Well, perhaps…
As we mentioned in our review, the plastic parts on our new Junior are all unaged and sharp-edged, including the truss rod cover. Note, too, how the original’s screws [13] are blackened with rust and oxidisation in virtually every position. The new guitar’s screws, including those polepieces of the P-90, all look too new.
Overall, as nice and evocative as the new Murphy Lab Junior is, there’s just a total lack of simulation of the proposed 60 years worth of grime and dust.
Controls & Circuit
The black ‘top hat’ knobs on our new Junior [14] also look brand-new. The same goes for their pointed position markers, whereas there are noticeable rust flecks on our original [15] and its gold knobs – certainly the tone control knob – has some green (copper?) oxidation around the skirt. Rather oddly, there’s a slight groove around the base of the new Junior’s volume knob as if it’s been worn by constant use. There’s nothing like that on our real ’57.