-
Bailey!
Originally Posted by Cunamara
-
12-10-2025 09:01 PM
-
I heard Jonathan Stout play a couple of my guitars, they'll never sound like that in my hands so moving "up" wouldnt make a difference to me. But...Im retired and havent played out in several years so my needs are different. The difference between "really good" and "great" can be small with one player and huge with another although the cost difference will always be many times higher for "great". As a listener I could care less what guitar a persons playing, Im listening to their playing so from that point of view theres no better. Which guitar do I like Grant Green better on... "the guitar dont play you man, you play the guitar" quote from early teacher
-
Sigh... Originally Posted by mrwoland
5. Vintage carved German archtops (several very different builders in here).
-
I was thinkin Mary Ann and Ginger...on an island Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
I need to throw out another modern archtop that is old world made. Mark Campellone, he makes a guitar as modern as it can be yet as old traditional as the come. He would be among the cream of the crop. My trusty Camp Deluxe has been giving me the joy the past 24 years. I think Mark is capable of doing what a player wants based his input. Mark can make you a guitar that responds acoustically but he can also make a guitar that is more designed for plugging in with less feedback.
I happen to also think his guitars are within reach, which leads me to the next thought. Get one now if you ever wanted once and see one for sale. Believe me he has really but back production and economics say this will raise the price.
-
Yogi Berra.
The object of the game is to win the Series, and Yogi won more than anybody.
-
Bill Russell won 11 chips w/ the Celtics in 13 years Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Does that make him the greatest basketball ball player of all time?
-
It's one metric. According to it, it's Bill Russell and Yogi Berra. Originally Posted by wintermoon
I find it persuasive.
In Yogi's case, he won with different versions of the Yankees. Arguably, it was the Yogi Berra era.
-
Yeah, but back in Yogi's day 90% of the game was half mental.
Somebody had to say it
-
Intersting. I see it differently but that’s not to say one view is right. Originally Posted by mrwoland
The break imo comes with D’Aquisto who diverged from the Gibson and D’Angelico approach. This separation built the foundations of the ‘modern’ movement.
They are after all fundamentally different ways of constructing the artchop.
In a slight twist, I believe that difference hinges on the carving of the plates, with the introduction of the ‘cutaway’. The cutaway has probably allowed for the biggest variances in plate design over any other change. Otherwise the design was a symmetric carve pattern. The asymmetry allowed for differing approaches.
Initially Gibson carved their plates in the modern style (more or less) by graduating the top and back into the cutaway. It was D’Angelico that simply cut into a preexisting symmetric carve pattern and called it a day. This style should not have caught on because it's basically wrong. Gibson however in around 53? Wanted to copy D’Angelico and so changed their carve to a symmetric with cutaway.
I've tried to make a narrative fit around Johnny Smith, who around this time played a D’Angelico, which I think Gibson copied but the time frame doesn’t line up by a year or two. The idea being that Johny Smith is responsible for the Gibson carve pattern as his presence, pushed Gibson into copying his D’Angelico.
Hence why you have the D’Angelico/Gibson way and the D’Aquisto/Benedetto way. symmetry v:s asymmetry.
Again that’s my working theory.
-
Hammer you now they don't count. Take that stuff over to the Tele thread Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
Yes, it's my Wu guitar, a homage to D'Aquisto's Centura. Originally Posted by mrwoland
-
Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
I toured for a couple of years with an Aria D'Aquisto. It was a very nice, reliable guitar, and this is probably even better. Originally Posted by GuyBoden
Yes, it's my Wu guitar, a homage to D'Aquisto's Centura.
-
Originally Posted by j.l
In order to give you a helpful answer I have to know :
- are you looking for a purely acoustic archtop for playing in a group (Jonathan Stout, Mike Munisteri, Whit Smith) or
- a electrified archtop that sounds more like Kenny Burrell, George Benson, Jim Hall etc. ?
- will you string it up with bronze strings, nickel round or flat wound strings ?
I have owned many solid wood high-end Gibson archtops, a Benedetto Fratello (Philly era) and a Borys, all fine instruments but all gone by now. I use lam-tops pretty exclusively now : there is a Borys B-165, a Trenier Jazz Special, an Ibanez GB-15 and my newest acquisition , a '65 Gibson ES-125. The only solid-top archtop left is a '68 Gibson Barney Kessel that is kind of a rare bird since most BK's were built with laminated tops. It does have it's own unique sound and that's why I still keep it around. I have absolutely no need for an acoustic archtop - it would be nice to have for sure but a good one is not cheap... if I'd need a LOUD acoustic guitar I'd look for a Selmer-style model or a resophonic.
-
Oh—while I think some of the tones that players like Rosenwinkel, Hekselman, and Rotem Sivan are getting are very cool, I think I'll almost certainly end up with an acoustically-optimized more vintage-style archtop. Asking less for buying advice, than for field reports (if that makes sense). There's just a huge realm—several huge realms, in fact—of carved archtops that I haven't had a chance to experience yet, but others have! And thanks to all for the responses so far.
-
One thing that I personally find interesting about some of the modern acoustic archtop designs is the freedom that there is to vary the soundhole shape from the standard f. The f shape is known to be near optimum for providing a given transmission while removing the least surface area from the soundboard. The shape evolved in the violin and no successful violins seem to be made with any other shape. The guitar is much more forgiving, presumably because the overall soundboard area is much larger and the target tone is less well defined, so successful designs are possible with almost arbitrary shapes. This allows the soundhole to be used as a visual style element. The non-f holes seem to have originated among the German makers. Some modern makers such as Ken Parker have moved the soundhole from the top to the side, which must make a huge difference to the vibration pattern of the top.
-
Archtop guitars are not violins at all in design. They have no soundpost that connects the back to the top like a violin. The archtop guitar has a solid back that is supposed to stop sound and throw it back out through the top and f holes. Violins are bowed and this changes the picture too in terms of everything. So as Bill Barker once said you don't compare violins with archtop guitars, but they have some similarity's, just not that much to be building guitars based on violin sound principles. Originally Posted by aquin43
This my personal ear but not everyone agrees. I have personally never found an archtop guitar with another sound hole that is not like, an f hole to be as good. I find the sound of the traditionally placed f hole to be by far the best. Played a number of round hole archtops but they have never been better than f holes in sound. I say that too about other makers who have put them in odd places. This is not what many who have these guitars think and hear but it is my ears, and I rely on them first.
When I bought my first D'angelico NY in 1981 the fellow had at his house another D'angelico that had a round hole very rare. This fellow loved the guitar and was never going to part with it. I found the f hole D'angelico much better it terms of sound and focus. I might add this player is a top-notch jazz guitarist of highest caliber. He also happened to like the Django style stuff so maybe the round hole made more sense and impression on his ears. I know one thing for sure I was only 20 years old he was maybe around 30 but could play rings around me any day of the week. He actually lived with Lenny Breau for a while was about the only player who could keep up with him.
-
It seems theres a move toward smaller archtops now so thats another thing to consider, I made a recording of a mix of guitars all solid carved archtops some prewar some modern. These are mine so Im used to the tones. I left the recording level and playing position the same for all and just strummed through a couple standards. Same pick same strings (1 exception). There were a couple surprises, the non cuts sounded predictably like prewars, volume projection etc, the modern single cut had equal volume. The ones that may be more to the O.P.s search were a 2/1/4" x 15" bout that was equally loud and a 15" with lam body and carved top also equally loud. The quietest one was a 13/1/2 x 1/7/8. So heres my take, my faves are my old acoustics but unless I was J Stout I would never try to gig with them due to miking feedback theft etc but I dont play out anymore and those old guitars are solid gold for an old couch player. If I was playing out still the smaller guitars dont have the feedback problems and have all the sound, the smallest dosent have loud acoustic sound but is amazing plugged in. So in that case a "modern" archtop wins but I have a '42 non cut 15" lam body carved top that goes toe to toe with any of them so volume wise its a draw. I really like the old archies sound and feel, but if I was still playing out it would be my 13/1/2 mostly or my 175 for everything else.
I will also take this opportunity for some self promotion, if you want a serious "highend" all carved archtop perfect for gigs and couch the Lombardozzi I have for sale here (at the price of an average import) is the best buy in the world right now...you should jump on it
-
I recently played a custom shop Gibson L4/C. It was a 2008 model I think, not a vintage. I was surprised how light it was and how much it sounded like a Benedetto style archtop. It was brighter and barkier than an Eastman 503 I compared it with. I had a similar experience with a brand new Le Grand once. So, perhaps modern Gibson acoustic archtops (ie non-pickup mounted archtops) are being built more lightly than the vintage ones.
-
Of course the functioning of archtop guitars is not at all like that of violins, particularly in the action of the bridge. However, the ability of the f-hole to achieve a chosen helmholtz resonance with the minimum removal of wood must be the same in any instrument.
The f-hole splits part of the top into three sections in a region where the vibration is greatest. Replacing the two f-holes with a single round hole placed in a stiffer part of the top near the fingrboard end must cause a very different vibration pattern in the top - more like a flat top or the Selmer with the forced arch.
There is a video on YouTube in which Tommy Emmanuel and Martin Taylor are trying out a Ken Parker guitar with the soundhole partly in the top bout and the side. On hearing Martin Taylor play it, Tommy Emmanuel remarks "what's this, a playable Django guitar"Last edited by aquin43; 12-14-2025 at 06:13 AM.
-
1. I don't play any of my guitars on a couch.
2. While I have a single 0-17 with a great neck, it is a bit small to play comfortably without some support.
3. An archtop acoustic (1934 L5) and an electric archtop (say a Heritage GE) are two very different animals. Different uses, different sounds. Both great for what I can get them to do.
4. A 15" thin bodied hollow bodied archtop with a short scale full neck profile (say '59 or so) that is affordable (varying definitions of affordability here) seems to be relatively uncommon. Sadowsky and Eastman come closest with a modern sound
5. And though I don't think I ever could afford one (kind of like the Sadowsky), I do notice that no one seems to mention Collings. Maybe because there are too few jazz players using them?
-
What about the shape of the F holes here are a modern Ted Megas and a modern Ribbecke Originally Posted by deacon Mark
-
The discussion seems to largely revolve around the size, shape and positioning of the f-holes. Traditional and modern archtop guitars have at least 95% in common. Otherwise, we'd be talking of two different instruments. The rest, IMHO, is more aesthetics than acoustics. The need of contemporary luthiers to somehow stand out is understandable. As artisans, they have far less degrees of freedom than e.g. furniture designers, whose creations also have to serve a purpose. Let alone painters, sculptors and other visual artists, who are magnitudes more numerous and unknowingly end up with similar-looking works. Luthiers making traditional classical instruments are primarily challenged by the tonal qualities of their products - the ultimate criterion for a musical instrument. I've been in love with traditional archtops since early teen years and would choose a D'Angelico of any period over a late D'Aquisto, if the opportunity presented itself. Fear not, my wallet and offspring, it won't.
Edit: I of course mean an original D'Angelico, not Vestax or current lookalikes. I don't believe that any modern archtop could somehow sound significantly better than a good classic, at least when new. OTOH, those that sound much worse will never make it to this Forum. Hence my point about aesthetics vs. acoustics.Last edited by Gitterbug; 12-13-2025 at 11:58 AM.
-
You could be correct. Originally Posted by Tal_175
For 20+ years, I had a 1949 Gibson L4C acoustic (no pickup, cutaway), but installed a Lollar McCarty type custom pickguard (The first Lollar sold). A very light, responsive guitar, with a very nice, but not loud, acoustic tone.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos