The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    So as I plan my entry into building guitars, I periodically just have questions that bug me. This is one of them.

    The L5c models seem apparently to have started off as non-cutaways, and then the cutaway was added, and the design became traditional. The result is that the arch of the top is not tapered to the cutaway, and the guitar top rides higher above the cutaway than at other places. You can see this easily as the binding is thicker at that point.

    My question is... how do builders who want to imitate that style get that gradual swell of the binding in the cutaway right? Is it related to the reinforcing block that the L5c models have in the cutaway that isn't a part of the design of most other archtops featuring a cutaway?

    Forgive my curiosity, but I have always wondered about this.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    I had the same question recently. The answer apparently is that cutaways were afterthoughts. The just cut a big scoop out of a symmetrical top. They filled in the gap with a support block characteristic of some L5's. I've been told it was spruce, but in pictures it looks like mahogany. I didn't even think to look the last time I had a chance to play one.

    FWIW, most archtops have the cutaway carved differently than the bass side blending it down to the rim. I learned from the Benedetto book, and that's how he does it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rlrhett
    I had the same question recently. The answer apparently is that cutaways were afterthoughts. The just cut a big scoop out of a symmetrical top. They filled in the gap with a support block characteristic of some L5's. I've been told it was spruce, but in pictures it looks like mahogany. I didn't even think to look the last time I had a chance to play one.

    FWIW, most archtops have the cutaway carved differently than the bass side blending it down to the rim. I learned from the Benedetto book, and that's how he does it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yes I assumed that was the story. My question was how people who keep to that method do the binding with it's changes in size. It seems a technical challenge.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    If you want to have the same look of tall binding in the cutaway area. You have to have the top plate thicker in that area. The ribs are uniform and flat where they join with the plates and the bottom of the binding follows the top of the ribs. If you want the same look you will need to leave your top plate thicker in this area. When you cut your binding rabbet, you will find out how uniform your plate thickness is at the rim. If the plate is thick at the cutaway, you will have to compensate the depth of your rabbet cut for the binding. I guess you could keep the top carved the same and cut a deeper rabbet but then the rim would appear to be tapered.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Cushman
    If you want to have the same look of tall binding in the cutaway area. You have to have the top plate thicker in that area. The ribs are uniform and flat where they join with the plates and the bottom of the binding follows the top of the ribs. If you want the same look you will need to leave your top plate thicker in this area. When you cut your binding rabbet, you will find out how uniform your plate thickness is at the rim. If the plate is thick at the cutaway, you will have to compensate the depth of your rabbet cut for the binding. I guess you could keep the top carved the same and cut a deeper rabbet but then the rim would appear to be tapered.
    In other words, when I see L5c's with that, I'm looking at some pretty serious hand-work on fitting the binding! I suspect if I ever try to build a 17" L5ces-a-like I will likely have to sacrifice that little element of fidelity to the original on the altar of my poor skills!

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    In other words, when I see L5c's with that, I'm looking at some pretty serious hand-work on fitting the binding! I suspect if I ever try to build a 17" L5ces-a-like I will likely have to sacrifice that little element of fidelity to the original on the altar of my poor skills!
    There is no doubt that to copy that feature would be considerably more difficult to bind than a uniform bind would be. The binding strip could be cut with a wide section for that area. You could do that or be ready to do a lot of scraping. I think after you gain some experience you could successfully copy the look if you wanted to.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Barker and Hollenbeck both used uniform and that would be my choice. D'angelico S can be seen both ways, my 49 NY is uniform in the cutaway. I find both ways look equally fine go with easiest.

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon Mark
    Barker and Hollenbeck both used uniform and that would be my choice. D'angelico S can be seen both ways, my 49 NY is uniform in the cutaway. I find both ways look equally fine go with easiest.
    I've just always adored that L5c swell in the binding in the cutaway. My Heritage Golden Eagle (which was one of the first) had it too. The Aria and Epiphone L5ces copies have it. Don't know why I like the look of it. I know it represents a design compromise-the same top can be used for a cutaway or non-cutaway; and I know theoretically at least it has an impact on tone.

    But still it just looks luxurious to me!

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Curious to visualize this.. anyone have any pics to show the difference?

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sbeishline
    Curious to visualize this.. anyone have any pics to show the difference?
    yes, you could compare L-5C to L-5P.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by sbeishline
    Curious to visualize this.. anyone have any pics to show the difference?
    Here you go. L5c style on the right, notice the swell in the binding depth; and on the left, on an admittedly lower-class instrument, the uniform thickness.
    L5c Cutaway  Binding?-img_5946-jpgL5c Cutaway  Binding?-img_5945-jpg

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Examples of a Heritage cutaway with shaped binding and a Gibson L-7C with Premier-style carving and straight binding.
    Attached Images Attached Images L5c Cutaway  Binding?-cutaway-heritage-se_0874-jpg L5c Cutaway  Binding?-cutaway-gib-l7c_0875-jpg L5c Cutaway  Binding?-cutaway-gib-l7c_0876-jpg 

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Something like that :L5c Cutaway  Binding?-dsc_0038-jpg
    From my sweet Heritage Sweet 16
    And, it's the only feature I don't like on this guitar.
    No prob with the headstock, but this .... !!!!

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    It's funny because I think that's so classy. It's a pretty difficult piece of trim to execute well and they accomplish it. But it really comes down to each one's own preferences. It's definitely part of the Gibson heritage.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    I like that leetle hump on the L-5P, but then I own one.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    I like it when the binding extends around the neck heel. This also adds to the difficulty when fitting the neck to the body.
    Attached Images Attached Images L5c Cutaway  Binding?-p1010017-jpg 
    Last edited by Matt Cushman; 01-31-2017 at 06:56 PM.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Here is the 49 New Yorker carved I assume equal regardless of if guitar was a noncut or cutaway. Binding is even.
    Attached Images Attached Images L5c Cutaway  Binding?-img_0360-jpg 

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Here is something not seen too much either. The binding goes around the neck block. This my Hollenbeck and Barker did it the same. Notice the 4 layers of smaller binding more work for sure.
    Attached Images Attached Images L5c Cutaway  Binding?-img_0364-jpg 

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Binding is clearly where luthiers like to show off a little. I like it.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Matt if this is one or your guitars it really looks nice and I agree much work to line up the "lines."

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon Mark
    Matt if this is one or your guitars it really looks nice and I agree much work to line up the "lines."
    Thanks Mark. That is one of my guitars. It features fiber binding and purfling.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    In other words, when I see L5c's with that, I'm looking at some pretty serious hand-work on fitting the binding! I suspect if I ever try to build a 17" L5ces-a-like I will likely have to sacrifice that little element of fidelity to the original on the altar of my poor skills!
    You're describing and aspect of binding in cutaways that I've always been a big fan of, and drawn to like a magnet. Last year, while ordering an archtop build I emphasized a request for an L5C style binding in the cutaway, complete with photos of its obvious width...the builder tried, but that turned out to be the visual sore spot of the build. Nonetheless, the guitar sounds great...but an L5C cutaway it is not.

    Good luck with your building!