I've done my best to capture this in the photo, but it is not easy to take a picture of.Īnd before someone says it: No, it is not the reflection of the string.
It runs straight the full length of the headstock on both sides and is about.
It basically looks like a crack which may or may not be only in the finish. Upon receiving it I got it under a bright shop light and inspected every inch of it and found nothing other than that somebody had played it rather enthusiastically for a few minutes with a pick - I figured maybe at the factory - not something I'm gonna return a guitar over :)Īlas, just a couple of days ago I noticed something that is either new or that I somehow didn't notice before despite putting on new strings - there are very obvious lines where the headstock was glued together as if that process wasn't done well/fully dried before applying the finish. Unfortunately because of where I live I had no choice but to purchase online.
Two weeks ago I received a new 50's Original J-45. This was first published in the December 2013 / January 2014 edition of Cycle magazine.First time Gibson owner here, and new to the forum. The crack in yours is already quite long and would not have to grow much further (if at all) before the next bump could split open the head tube, releasing the fork and dumping you onto the road! A small round hole, drilled at or slightly beyond the visible crack tip, might also help, but will not by itself arrest further growth.ĭo not ride the bikes until the frames have been replaced or reinforced. A tightly-fitting steel ring, pressed over the bottom of the head tube, would relieve stress on this tube and may prevent growth of the crack, which must be marked and closely monitored. They could perhaps be reinforced against complete collapse. It would not be economical to repair these frames. However, you are now rather close to the six year cut off, after which any failure becomes fair wear and tear – even if the goods have been used so little that doesn’t seem very fair! So the best you might expect is a discount on the cost of a new frame, and in that case it’s probably not worth the trouble of going to court. And in so far as the shorter crack in your wife’s frame is consistent with her weighing less than you and/or using the bike a little less often, this would support a contention that the cracks arise from normal use and hence the goods are unfit for purpose. I cannot imagine any plausible abuse that you and your wife might have perpetrated upon your bicycles, so as to cause such cracks in both. For a crack to appear here, one or both of the following must apply: the tube walls are too thin and/or the headset fit was too tight. The location of the crack speaks to me of excessive tensile strain from fitting the headset, additional to the normal strains of riding the bike. And I think these frames are most probably defective. It’s nevertheless worth checking the paperwork that came with those bikes, in case you are entitled to a no-quibble replacement.Įven if they’re out of warranty, the Sale of Goods Act gives the purchaser six years to claim that goods are not fit for purpose due to a manufacturing defect. One generally has to ride a bike a whole lot further than you and your wife are likely to have ridden in only five years before it begins to ‘crack up’.īut aluminium is less resistant to fatigue than steel, so a crack is likely to manifest sooner in that material, which is why alloy frames tend to come with much shorter guarantees, sometimes as short as five years. It arises simply from riding the bicycle: ‘over the rocky roadsteads of this parish’, as Flann O’Brien put it.