Advice on archtop guitar

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Both Lollar and Vintage Vibe make this Charlie Christian-style pickup for Teles, and that is what you see in that video. It seems to be popular -- there are quite a few examples posted on the Tele forum. Those pickup companies also make a more traditionally-sized version (boat anchor huge) for archtops.

[Hoopskidoodle]

DBoth Lollar and Vintage Vibe make this Charlie Christian-style pickup for Teles[/quote]

I wasn't familiar with Vintage Vibe... so that's at least 3 companies making Charlie Christian pickups. Lollar seems to have the most variety--unless I missed something on the other sites--as they have versions for other form factors... plus, unless I was hallucinating when I watched the Youtube video, a dual blade humbucking version for the Tele.

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Those pickup companies also make a more traditionally-sized version (boat anchor huge) for archtops.

Is that the one where the three height/angle adjustment screws stick up through the body halfway down the guitar? I believe that someone makes a guitar called a black beauty (correction: Slaman Black Betty) with one of those already installed.

YouTube Video

As I said before, I've like one on an ES-175 type guitar, i.e. a poor man's Barney Kessel guitar (albeit, I am more partial to the florentine cutaway that Barney was.)

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

There's a video on youtube where Barney talks about how his guitar came together. He has chicken neck knobs from an old radio on it!

[TommyD]

Originally Posted by Hoopskidoodle

They are the same type of pickup, but they are made by a different company. C90s are made by a U.K. company. These pickups are made by Lollar, and they come in Tele (neck & bridge), arch-top and Humbucker size formats.

I wouldn't mind having one in an ES-175 type guitar w/ a single neck pickup. That would be sweet.

That's what my ES 165 has - a single neck PUP. Frankly, I never liked the sound of bridge PUPs on archtops, and I was happy when I got the opportunity to buy one without it. Come to think of it, I never saw any top jazz player who I liked using that bridge PUP!
The guitar is a Gibson Custom Shop ES 175 made to Herb Ellis's specs - an ES 165. I don't know what PUP they put on it but I know Gibson went out of its way to make the guitar sound good. Kinda wish I did know what PUP they installed.
The guitar has a rich, yet sweet sound - but it could be my old Fender Reverb or my Austrian strings. But IMHP, all ES 175s have a great jazz sound.
Tommy/

[Hoopskidoodle]

Originally Posted by TommyD

That's what my ES 165 has - a single neck PUP. Frankly, I never liked the sound of bridge PUPs on archtops

You're preaching to the choir! Ideally I wouldn't have a bridge pickup on any guitar purposed primarily for jazz... but I suppose that it only matters acoustically (as opposed to aesthetically) on arch-top guitars... especially solid ones.

Originally Posted by TommyD

The guitar is a Gibson Custom Shop ES 175 made to Herb Ellis's specs - an ES 165.

That's a nice guitar, but it seems to be a semi-hollow body guitar (all descriptions mention a "maple center block.")

It's also far too expensive for me to set about modding it w/ Charlie Christian pickups. If I go the arch-top route (as opposed to the Tele) I'd probably just forgo the cutaway and buy something nice and cheap, like a (purely acoustic) Godin Fifth Avenue, and take a router to it... and re-radius that 16" neck to something like 10" at the nut and gradually flattening down the neck.

I absolutely adore this guitar (w/ or w/ out the CC pickup.) And, call me a cheapskate but, I $500.00 is much more in line with what I'd be willing to spend on a laminated guitar.

[daveg]

Re Barney Kessel's ES350:

If you check the photographs of his guitar(s) over the years I think that you'll agree that he probably had more than one.

A mysterious third volume/tone control hole keeps appearing and disappearing.

My guess is that when one needed attention the other was brought out for touring etc.

DG

[TommyD]

Quote: "That's a nice guitar, but it seems to be a semi-hollow body guitar (all descriptions mention a "maple center block."
No, No center block. Not semi-hollow. The ES 165 is an ES 175 straight through, but with one pick up instead of two.
T/

[Eddie Lang]

Originally Posted by TommyD

That's what my ES 165 has - a single neck PUP. Frankly, I never liked the sound of bridge PUPs on archtops, and I was happy when I got the opportunity to buy one without it. Come to think of it, I never saw any top jazz player who I liked using that bridge PUP!
The guitar is a Gibson Custom Shop ES 175 made to Herb Ellis's specs - an ES 165. I don't know what PUP they put on it but I know Gibson went out of its way to make the guitar sound good. Kinda wish I did know what PUP they installed.
The guitar has a rich, yet sweet sound - but it could be my old Fender Reverb or my Austrian strings. But IMHP, all ES 175s have a great jazz sound.
Tommy/

The older ES-165 had a Gibson PAF style humbucking pup and the new ones have a Gibson floating humbucking pup. (see pics)

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I'm a "neck pup" only user, too, but I've heard some people say that even just the mass of the bridge pup changes a ES-175, for example, and makes it sound different and feed back less. So you may not use the pup, but it still may make the guitar sound different than a one-pup guitar. Food for thought, anyhowdy.

[doruondun]

Build your own special guitar It's my dream...

[jackmac]

Did look at that option!
Build Your Own Guitar
However as a new comer to Jazz but experienced folk guitar player would be a 00 guitar!
Jack

[AcousticChris]

I also am a flat top refugee (Martin D-35, Taylor 810, etc.). I did pick up a ES-175 (circa 1960) on the way and really like it. Single neck PAF pickup. It sounds the way a jazz guitar should to me.

It has held up remarkably well. I had it re-fretted about 20 years ago. That's it. I assume the reissue models are built to the same high quality standard. A new one should fit your budget.

Perhaps you might agree since we appear to share the same guitar roots.

[jackmac]

Would love a ES 175 but thats almost twice my budget! Just borrowed a Yamaha AEX 1500, thinking about buying it, can anyone advise me about what strings to put on it? Acoustic, electric? Should I use an acoustic or electric Amp?
Jack

[82Benedetto]

No offense, but it's my opinion the type of strings you use on a guitar like the AEX won't really matter. If I'm not mistaken, the entire guitar is laminated, and it's not really sensitive to little nuances like different strings.

That's just my personal opinion, though. It's my own experience that solid wood, hollow guitars respond much more favorably to different strings...for example round, flat, half, and tape wound strings all sound unbelievably different on my nice archies.

I think there needs to be some kind of clarification with things like this...yes, guitars like the AEX and artcores are "hollow" body, but they are essentially made of plywood....you're not going to get responsive acoustic tones from them (which is typically the purpose of purchasing a hollow body) and they aren't constructed like Sadowsky's or higher end laminates that are capable of a nice acoustic tone.

[Meggy]

Originally Posted by 82Benedetto

No offense, but it's my opinion the type of strings you use on a guitar like the AEX won't really matter. If I'm not mistaken, the entire guitar is laminated, and it's not really sensitive to little nuances like different strings.

I might be misunderstanding you, but I just can't agree with this taken at face value. I have a laminated archtop, and you certainly can tell the difference between roundwound and flatwound strings say. I've also perceived clear differences in tone, both amplified and acoustically, between different brands of flatwound string. I don't think that different strings can fairly be described as a "little nuance" - quite a big nuance in my experience, and worth working on a little to get things how you want them. Even if you are a poor lowly laminated guitar owner like me!

[AcousticChris]

Originally Posted by jackmac

Would love a ES 175 but thats almost twice my budget! Just borrowed a Yamaha AEX 1500, thinking about buying it, can anyone advise me about what strings to put on it? Acoustic, electric? Should I use an acoustic or electric Amp?
Jack

Sorry. I didn't realize how much the new ones were. I still thought they were reasonably priced.

[82Benedetto]

Originally Posted by Meggy

I might be misunderstanding you, but I just can't agree with this taken at face value. I have a laminated archtop, and you certainly can tell the difference between roundwound and flatwound strings say. I've also perceived clear differences in tone, both amplified and acoustically, between different brands of flatwound string. I don't think that different strings can fairly be described as a "little nuance" - quite a big nuance in my experience, and worth working on a little to get things how you want them. Even if you are a poor lowly laminated guitar owner like me!

What laminate are you using, because that really hasn't been my experience. I know this offends some people here, but I don't see any use for getting a hollow body unless it's completely carved and fully acoustic (ie, no pickups drilled through that gorgeous top.) If you're going to kill the acoustic tone like that, you might as well get a solid body.

[Meggy]

Originally Posted by 82Benedetto

What laminate are you using, because that really hasn't been my experience. I know this offends some people here, but I don't see any use for getting a hollow body unless it's completely carved and fully acoustic (ie, no pickups drilled through that gorgeous top.) If you're going to kill the acoustic tone like that, you might as well get a solid body.

We'll just have to agree to differ I guess! Not that it matters specifically, but my guitar is an Ibanez Joe Pass model made in 1980 (complete with a hole drilled through the top for the pickup). I don't claim it to be the same as a carved top archtop guitar - clearly it isn't. It does sound noticably different to my solid guitars when amplified to my ears at least. I also might indeed agree with you that there is a certain complexity of tone which can only be achieved with a carved instrument. But perhaps there is at least something to be said for the benefits of a laminate top for amplification purposes?

Anyway, I do at least stick to my view that the string type does make a difference on a laminate top jazz guitar!

[jackmac]

its an interesting discussion, certainly i have went for solid top acoustic guitars, when researching archtops, albeit within my budget and limited knowledge, the solidtop peerless stand out, I can get one of them new for about £500. The same price as the AEX would cost me! The attraction of the aex is that I am a Martin Taylor fan, and as people will know he designed and played, and recorded with this guitar.

[82Benedetto]

Jack, watch the marketing on those peerless guitars.

It's a solid spruce top, but it's not carved and it's not tap tuned. Big difference. Their carved model is about $1000 more.

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by 82Benedetto

What laminate are you using, because that really hasn't been my experience. I know this offends some people here, but I don't see any use for getting a hollow body unless it's completely carved and fully acoustic (ie, no pickups drilled through that gorgeous top.) If you're going to kill the acoustic tone like that, you might as well get a solid body.

I play a laminate hollow body partly because I prefer the physical size of the thing and position of the strings relative to my body over a solid or a semi. I've never been able to get single line notes to "pop" out of the guitar on a semi or a solid. Likewise there seems to be too much chordal sustain on a solid or a semi. I prefer the timbre of a laminate over a carved axe - it's a more bitter/sweet, less refined sound to my ears which I like - just my opinion

[jackmac]

The Loar guitars are about the only hand carved solid top guitars within my budget, which again I dont know much about, certainly in the few days I have had the yamaha the neck feels great to me, my friend who is an experienced guitarist tells me its a steal!

[82Benedetto]

I've been fortunate enough to play the new Loar models. Unfortunately, I wasn't impressed. They weren't even close to being in the same league as the Eastman's. I've no idea what factory makes them (perhaps the same one making the imported Parker archtops) but it didn't feel or sound all that great to me.

You can play jazz on any guitar, but I know for me, there was no going back when I played the nice solid carved archtops

[Meggy]

Originally Posted by Bill C

I play a laminate hollow body partly because I prefer the physical size of the thing and position of the strings relative to my body over a solid or a semi. I've never been able to get single line notes to "pop" out of the guitar on a semi or a solid. Likewise there seems to be too much chordal sustain on a solid or a semi. I prefer the timbre of a laminate over a carved axe - it's a more bitter/sweet, less refined sound to my ears which I like - just my opinion

What I think you are saying is that a laminate hollow body has a certain kind of tone of it's own, i.e. it's own character, which some of us like in its own right. I'm of the same opinion myself - no one is going to tell me that an ES175 sounds the same as a Les Paul amplified!

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by Meggy

What I think you are saying is that a laminate hollow body has a certain kind of tone of it's own, i.e. it's own character, which some of us like in its own right. I'm of the same opinion myself - no one is going to tell me that an ES175 sounds the same as a Les Paul amplified!

yes, I find archtops more comfortable to play and more dynamic in response than semis or solids, and - from the guitars I've played and owned - I tend to prefer the sound of a laminate archtop to a carved archtop - just my preference

[82Benedetto]

Originally Posted by Bill C

yes, I find archtops more comfortable to play and more dynamic in response than semis or solids, and - from the guitars I've played and owned - I tend to prefer the sound of a laminate archtop to a carved archtop - just my preference

No offense, but I think your ears are playing tricks on you. Plywood covered in a plastic, goopy polyurethane finish doesn't breathe. Actually, I'd love for someone to make a "blind" test; record a few different licks with a solid body and a laminate and see who can pick it out. I don't have a laminate, so someone with both would have to do it.

[Eddie Lang]

82B, I have to respectfully disagree with your comments. While it is true that some laminated wood guitars are not very good, you over-generalize and your statement cannot be considered as true. Are you saying that ES-175 and ES-300, to mention only those two, are crap? What about some gypsy jazz guitars, including the very coveted Selmer guitars created by Mario Maccaferri and after his departure from the company? There was a time when laminate was considered better by some because it was stiffer and allowed a lighter build.

In the case of archtops, laminated wood was first used and intended at electric guitars, not acoustic ones. It was found that laminated wood reduced considerably the amount of feedback. Moreover, an electromagnetic pickup picks up the vibrations of the strings and of the body of the guitar, including the top, but not its acoustic properties. It does result in a different tone from a solid wood archtop, but its tone is also just as different from that of a solid body guitar, which produces way more sustain BTW.

I totally agree with Meggy and Bill. Laminated wood guitars offer tone and structural qualities that are in general simply different from a solid wood archtop and solid bodies guitars, not better, not worse, just different. YMMV.

Nowadays, laminated wood is often destined at cheaper guitars, and the quality of the glue used is not always as good as it used to be (yes, this influences tone), but I think it is still safe to say that many new laminated wood guitars offer a very good value and can sound awesome, even better in some cases than some lower end solid wood guitars. Solid carved wood does not guaranty that a guitar will be well conceived and built with good craftsmanship. An overbuilt or poorly built solid wood guitar, carved or shaped, is just not going to sound better than a well built laminated wood guitar. So we have to be wary of axioms.

[82Benedetto]

Originally Posted by Eddie Lang

82B, I have to respectfully disagree with your comments. While it is true that some laminated wood guitars are not very good, you over-generalize and your statement cannot be considered as true. Are you saying that ES-175 and ES-300, to mention only those two, are crap? What about some gypsy jazz guitars, including the very coveted Selmer guitars created by Mario Maccaferri and after his departure from the company? There was a time when laminate was considered better by some because it was stiffer and allowed a lighter build.

In the case of archtops, laminated wood was first used and intended at electric guitars, not acoustic ones. It was found that laminated wood reduced considerably the amount of feedback. Moreover, an electromagnetic pickup picks up the vibrations of the strings and of the body of the guitar, including the top, but not its acoustic properties. It does result in a different tone from a solid wood archtop, but its tone is also just as different from that of a solid body guitar, which produces way more sustain BTW.

I totally agree with Meggy and Bill. Laminated wood guitars offer tone and structural qualities that are in general simply different from a solid wood archtop and solid bodies guitars, not better, not worse, just different. YMMV.

Nowadays, laminated wood is often destined at cheaper guitars, and the quality of the glue used is not always as good as it used to be (yes, this influences tone), but I think it is still safe to say that many new laminated wood guitars offer a very good value and can sound awesome, even better in some cases than some lower end solid wood guitars. Solid carved wood does not guaranty that a guitar will be well conceived and built with good craftsmanship. An overbuilt or poorly built solid wood guitar, carved or shaped, is just not going to sound better than a well built laminated wood guitar. So we have to be wary of axioms.

First and foremost, you can't even compare modern laminates to gypsy style guitars. You're wrong here. The sides were laminated on the Selmers, but the top was always solid spruce and it was bent with a hot iron. The scale length of the guitar was also completely different...you're comparing apples to oranges.

Like I said, I'd love to hear a newer ES-175 recorded next to a solid body, using the same gauge and type of strings. Not much difference to my ears, likely due to the thick polyurethane finish in conjunction with the laminate already gunked up with glue.

And you also have to remember, the nice laminates like the Sadowsky's are made with much more care and attention to detail than the Gibsons, and they are also very, very expensive.

But please, record straight into your computer with the two different types of guitars. I would love to see a controlled experiment and be proved wrong, but I really don't think you're going to hear a huge difference in a blind test. I think it's the placebo effect with those laminates...

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by 82Benedetto

No offense, but I think your ears are playing tricks on you. Plywood covered in a plastic, goopy polyurethane finish doesn't breathe.

Just to clarify, as far as I know the guitars I'm referring to were all nitro finished.

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by 82Benedetto

Like I said, I'd love to hear a newer ES-175 recorded next to a solid body, using the same gauge and type of strings. Not much difference to my ears, likely due to the thick polyurethane finish in conjunction with the laminate already gunked up with glue.

And you also have to remember, the nice laminates like the Sadowsky's are made with much more care and attention to detail than the Gibsons, and they are also very, very expensive.

As far as I know Gibson still use nitro finishes for archtops (as does Sadowsky).

The Sadowsky archtops are similarly priced to a new ES-175D.