-
Hi,
I recently played two 1940's Gibson L5 guitars. A 1947 L5 sunburst and a 1948 L5N, a blonde/natural. The blonde not only sounded much better but also had a very low weight (2.7 kg). The sunburst was noticeable heavier. And it's not the first time that I notice this with 'blonde' guitars.
Did Gibson pick the wood for the blonde ones just for the 'looks' or perhaps also for better sound-quality? Or am I just seeing ghosts here?
I'm still not sure by the way if I like sunburst or blonde better (looks)...haha! What do you think?
-
01-24-2026 01:54 PM
-
What was the first blonde Gibson produced?
Originally Posted by 58dutchie
-
L5? Or Super 400? But why do you ask? Originally Posted by garybaldy
-
Just out of geeky interest! What year would it have been? Originally Posted by 58dutchie
-
Originally Posted by 58dutchie
There are Gibsons w spectacular figure on both blond and sunburst instruments but they typically picked the woods w less flaws, knots, mineral streaks etc for natural finish guitars, weight or sound had nothing to do w it because you'll never really know how a guitar is going to sound until it's built.
-
The first is thought to be the 1935 Super 400 made for Alvino Rey
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I owned a '48 natural, it was pretty heavily built. FWIW, I prefer a nice burst. Originally Posted by 58dutchie
-
Having owned many Blonde and sunburst Gibson guitars over the years, my thought is that the wood choices are better on the Blondes as far as looks go, but sound and weight wise, I see no correlation. I have played some heavy, dead sounding blondes and some lightweight lively sounding sunbursts.
Gibson always has charged more for the blondes, their rationale being that the woods have to be of better quality. Some luthiers charge more for a sunburst as spraying a sunburst is more labor intensive than spraying a blonde.
As far as Gibson jazz guitars go, keep in mind that Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, Kenny Burrell, Herb Ellis, Tal Farlow, Barney Kessel, Jim Hall and Johnny Smith all played Sunburst guitars. If the Blondes were better, I think some or all of those cats would have chosen Blondes.
I own 7 Gibson guitars at present. 4 Blondes, 1 Sunburst, 1 Ebony and 1 Wine red. All are superb guitars.
-
The first mention of a light guitar top that I could find in my catalog collection is from 1923: an L-2 with a “new light amber” finish showing “the natural beauty of the fine straight-grain spruce”. Originally Posted by garybaldy
In the 1928 catalog, the L-5 is listed as having a Cremona brown finish with no options. The 1942 catalog is the first I have with true natural finish guitars. Both the L-5 and the S400 were available burst or blond. I don’t have a catalog between 1937 and 1942, so there may have been blonds in those years too.
Keep in mind that (as Wintermoon often reminds us), Gibson catalogs are notoriously wonky. They often delivered production models that differed from the catalog descriptions.
I haven’t looked in the usual source books yet. I’ll check when I have a chance, unless someone posts the answer before I get to it.
-
For a very long time it was thought blond guitars were introduced in '39 and that's when general production began but in addition to the custom '35 Super TRM posted there have been special orders discovered in the years between then and '39. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
One that immediately comes to mind is a '38 L-5 once belonging to Marty Grosz.
An interesting feature of that guitar was it's extra long 26" scale
-
The weight of a guitar matters for sure but it is not always that a lighter guitar sounds better. It depends on where the weight of the guitar located. If you carve the top heavier it will weight more for sure. However, D'angelico guitars and even Stromberg's in general have larger neck blocks and that is more weight but can actually produce more sound due to anchor effect or top and back.
I am of the opinion that a bigger neck block that is place correctly with relationship to the top is better all the way around. It is somewhat like the argument of the tailpiece and weight, type, and size. In the end when you string up acoustic archtop guitars they present all types of possible outcomes. As to the blonds it depends because sometimes a wild flamey Gibson will be sunburst. Really blonds or burnets are ok equally fun depending on the.................guitar.
-
That gap in my catalog collection is critical! I found a 1939 L-5 and S400 pages in my folder of screen shots of Gibson catalog pages I've found on the web over the years. The only '39 catalog I've found for sale is $150, so I'll live with page by page screenshots I capture when I find them.
Ever since I was a kid, my intention was to have every Gibson catalog over my lifetime. But over the years, I put a lot of money into a complete collection of Road and Track from Vol 1 #1 (although a few of the first year issues are reprints). Since I'm also a lifelong auto racer and restorer, I cherish my automotive library and am very happy to have the R&T collection. Now that my shop and garage are gone (since they were in the house from which we downsized to an apartment), I have no need for the reference library I've built and would rather have guitar catalogs. But my son wants my automotive books and magazines, so I can't sell them.
Fortunately, we have wintermoon and other authorities here who can keep me straight on my knowledge of the past! I really appreciate all of you.
-
Thread Drift: I can't read the text in ^^^that pic, what was a Gibson Vari-Tone in the context of a 1939 L-5 or S-400? Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
(I'm familiar with the Vari-Tone from much later ES-345 and ES-355 guitars, but can't imagine this was the same thing...was it?)
-
Originally Posted by Bob_Ross
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hmm... my blonde Twin Reverb 40th anniversary is my best sounding Twin...
-
Originally Posted by Bob_Ross
-
Talking about catalogs, I own a Super 400 that belonged to a guitarist who is pictured IN the ‘37 Y catalog. Originally Posted by nevershouldhavesoldit
That gap in my catalog collection is critical! I found a 1939 L-5 and S400 pages in my folder of screen shots of Gibson catalog pages I've found on the web over the years. The only '39 catalog I've found for sale is $150, so I'll live with page by page screenshots I capture when I find them.
Ever since I was a kid, my intention was to have every Gibson catalog over my lifetime. But over the years, I put a lot of money into a complete collection of Road and Track from Vol 1 #1 (although a few of the first year issues are reprints). Since I'm also a lifelong auto racer and restorer, I cherish my automotive library and am very happy to have the R&T collection. Now that my shop and garage are gone (since they were in the house from which we downsized to an apartment), I have no need for the reference library I've built and would rather have guitar catalogs. But my son wants my automotive books and magazines, so I can't sell them.
Fortunately, we have wintermoon and other authorities here who can keep me straight on my knowledge of the past! I really appreciate all of you.
-
By the way, did Gibson always use red spruce for the top on the 30s and 40s L5’s? Or was there a switch after the war to Sitka in line with the flattop guitars?
-
The best luthiers get to build the blondies so naturally, if you'd pardon the pun, they sound better.....
-
My late luthier friend told me " yeah that old vari tone on L5's was great if you knew what you were doing but boy oh boy a lot of folks cracked the tops of their guitars playing with them". That's why it was discontinued.
-
I read somewhere that Gibson tail pieces were big and heavy because they used rock maple for the necks and the heavy tail piece would balance out the weight.
Shame they didn't incorporate that thinking on the Les Paul by putting a super 400 tail piece on the headstock.
-
Originally Posted by wintermoon
Look at that horrid thing.
I removed that piece from mine. Now you can see the dent it made. Made no difference in sound.
-
I can't say I'm any kind of authority on what Gibson does or why, but I can comment on observations and practices that are determining factours with luthiers and which definitely were in practice with Gibson esp pre Norlin and with and among the top master builders of Gibson.
The acoustics of an archtop guitar is an alchemy of traditions and physics. The top and back plates of a guitar (the primary vibrational and tuned elements that translate string vibration into air movement) are carved from a solid wedge of wood. If that wedge is oriented ON THE QUARTER, it matches the natural growth of the tree trunk at the strongest cut. This is the way the grain that supports an entire tree that weighs tons and bends and grows true. The quartered cut is the strongest weight to stifness of all cuts. It possesses a distinctive silk figure and the grain lines are visible as straight lines.
Next is the slab cut. These can be cut more plentifully than quartered, often possess remarkable figure and grain lines are wavy. These are the second choice. More plentiful but a lesser weight to stiffness ratio. Cut perpendicular to the quarter. You have to use more wood to get the same amount of stiffness.
Finally is Skew Cut. This is grain that is cut angled from the quarter. You can get really pretty figure but it's also technically the least stiff per weight. You need to build heavier to get the same stiffness (remember floppy is the enemy of efficient sound transmission).
SOOOO, when the pick of the wood goes to the best luthiers, the masters want the quartered grain. Or slab with great figure, but quartered is best because you can work it THINNER because it's stronger and stiffer for a given weight. A master luthier can build a quartered maple back that flirts with being TOO thin (a total disaster) but in a master's hand just right is light, most responsive and best reflects the master's voicing of what makes a good sounding instrument. And bottom line, if you're a master working the filet mignon of the tree, you don't want this masterpiece under coats of coloured lacquer. Clear finish is the ultimate frame for a sculpural and acoustic masterpiece.
Bursts have but not always been the way to cover up flaws, cosmetic blemishes (that annoying pitch pocket that grew within an otherwise flawless billet of wood) and sometimes you can clever these anomolies into the place the F hole goes... and cut it out. But often a coloured finish can work to lessen the impact of a grain inconsistency.
Bursts and colour have also been used to create spectacular and dramatic visual guitars when you don't have the cut that will allow you to make the most efficient acoustic transmitter. You can't build the lightest and most masterfully acoustic voice, but who cares, if it plays beyond the musical ability of the player and looks FANTASTIC. These guitars can be heavier. They will frequently not possess that prized quartered wood.
So, in the end, there is a hierarchy to the wood in a tree, and there is a pecking order to who gets the best. If you are a master and you can carve your guitar to the edge of minimal wood (remove EVERYTHING that's not necessary) you'll wind up with a guitar that is light, sounds great and has nothing that gets in the way of the sound.
Final note, there are great instruments that have spectacularly and masterfully applied bursts. Great lacquer application is an art in itself. But that's another story.
Just my perspective, agree or not. 'only some things I've learned as a luthier, player and lover of the beast.
-
Something like an ES-350 looks best in natural.
L5's can kind of go either way.
Super 400's look better in sunburst.
I cannot explain this.
-
De gustibus … Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos