|
|
Joined:
September 2005
Posts: 138
Location: Birmingham, AL | I bought the Balladeer a few days ago and have had the time to spend with it. I'ts in fairly good shape and needed a little TLC to get it playing. I cleaned it up, buffed out the bowl and top, glued and splinted an open top crack, replaced the nut (the original was too low, open strings buzzing) with a Tusq nut, cut down the bridge just a little and lowered the action. It's now very comfortable to play and it totally blows my 1119 Custom Legend off the earth even with light gauge strings. Doesn't need mediums. I had put med. on it and didn't like it.
This thing now sounds every bit as good as my Martin D-18 just a tad brighter.
I still need to take care of a soundhole crack and after talking to JB think I'm going to just do it myself.
I had considered getting the "bowl bend" to reset the action but not right now. It's too good to alter it. I have always wanted a early Ovation and got this one at a very reasonable price.
Edited by clrules 2015-06-26 5:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2012
Posts: 2333
Location: Pueblo West, CO | Kewl!
According to 'The Book' the standard Charlie was measuring his guitars against was the Martin D-45. If yours is anything like #485, which I'm working on for Jay, Charlie knocked it right out of the park. I've never played a D-45, but the 1st Gen Ovations are really nice sounding guitars.
Yes, I know what you mean. I've got a 1719 CL and I'm not overly impressed with the sound. So, when I rebuilt my 1619 CL, I used a forward X-brace pattern and the difference between the A-brace CL and my custom 1619 CL is dramatic.
Dan |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2012
Posts: 1082
Location: Yokohama, Japan | Bravo! Of course, it's a matter of personal taste, but I put TUSQ nuts and saddles on my 1861. IMO, the difference is not huge, but the added depth and sparkle are enough to want to change out all my plastic nuts and saddles... Congratulations! pics? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2005
Posts: 138
Location: Birmingham, AL | Here's a front shot......
I like the Tusq also because it's not too soft and will hold up to wear. The old nut had worn down to where the open strings were buzzing. I plan on replacing the bridge saddle also the one that's in there now is the wrong thickness and leans forward under string tension.
BTW this one is #2486. It has the thicker binding on the top it's just like my CL. But it has the shiny bowl which is really nice don't know why they went with the matte finish.
I bought the Custom Legend new in late 1975 and have always thought it sounded really good been holding on to it for 40 years still like it but this one (to me) sounds much better.
One thing I do like is the much simpler rosette. It has a nice understated look unlike the more common one.
Edited by clrules 2015-06-27 7:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | Actually it was a 1966 D-28 that everything was compared to. I still have that guitar. Jim Rickard had the D-45 and it was used from time to time as a sound comparison but it was this Brazilian D-28 that was the main benchmark. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2012
Posts: 2333
Location: Pueblo West, CO | Gotcha!
I had read in 'The Book' that Rickard's D-45 was the guitar that the engineers had to try to beat and thought that was the standard.
Thanks for the correction.
Still, a Brazilian D-28 is no slouch in terms of good sound. It would be interesting to see how Jay's torrefied-top Balladeer sounds in comparison when I'm done with it. |
|
| |
Loving the 68 Balladeer
