-
Hi,
That's pretty much what I did - I bit the bullet - cancelled my retirement plan and bought what I REALLY wanted - a Vintage Gibson - a '34 L4/L-7 (labelled L-4 - with L-7 spec) - which gives me the tone I'd been seeking for some time.
The Loar 700 certainly "looks" like an L-5, and is loud - louder than my Gibson.
A visiting American friend and jazz guitarist played it and was impressed with the power. He suggested that I have someone remove and reset the neck of the Loar to something like a proper angle and notwithstanding the finish problems - then you might have a reasonable guitar - albeit in a nasty gig bag.
If you are happy to buy a new guitar and have an instant neck reset (assuming t can be done) then the Loar might be for you.
Mine has been hanging on the wall since I got the Gibson, and is for sale to anyone who'd like it. It is completely playable but the neck angle to body is very flat and so there is little lowering adjustment possible on the bridge. very flat.
Maybe L-5s were built like that ? What should that neck angle be ?
Andy
-
04-18-2011 04:15 AM
-
I'm not doubting your particular LH700 has a neck issue but it is the first i've read about it, and considering these are highly automated production guitars it seems like others would have the same issue.
Originally Posted by Silly Moustache
I had a similar feeling on my L7C reissue. I came to the conclusion (w/ the community help) that the factory bridge needed to have material removed to get the bridge with enough clearance to lower it. Older guitars that i have seen have much shorter bridges vs. contemporary guitars. If the L7C and Loar are truly reproductions, then a lower neck angle / lower bridge seems to be in line with vintage specs. The bridge is about 2-5mm shorter than my modern archtops.
Isn't your L4 bridge shorter as well?
-
Hi,
I just signed up to say that after reading this thread (and a conversation with the very helpful Rob) I was convinced to take the plunge and order the LH 700. I thought that in turn I'd post my experience for others considering the guitar.
Ordered from Thomann (Euro769 £694) about 2 weeks ago as not available in the UK stores it seems. It arrived around a week ago and I then had it set up by the technicians at CC Music in Glasgow (£45 + Strings).
Initially out the box I was a bit frustrated by the action and buzzing, particularly on the low E. Happy to say that on return from the set-up it is fantastic. No buzzing, great action, very playable. I have none of the issues mentioned in other posts and also the techs at CC Music remarked that they thought it was a great instrument.
My Summary - Better than I'd imagined it would be. The unit I got is great, no complaints. If ordering, I'd advise a good set up by a pro tech.
Hope this helps.
Best
Paul.
-
Good to read that, Paul. I think it is very common these days to expect to have to have a tech set up, even on top-quality guitars. We all like different set ups, so it's nice to get it tweaked to your requirements, and for very little cost.
I wish you and your guitar many years of good music making!
-
Stores that don't do setups are really doing a dis-service to customers, manufacturers and the store itself.
I understand that everyone likes a slightly different setup but new strings and truss rod/action adjustment only takes an hour labor at the most.
-
Paul, I'm glad your experience was better than mine - and yes, as Rob Says, I tend to have a set up done on all my guitars before I'm happy.
Please do me a favour and tell me what the gap is between the tailpiece and the body ? Also if you can look down the body and along the side of the neck can you estimate the neck angle ?
I suppose it is possible that they make them all with a lesser neck angle than one might expect of an old Gibson.
I have to say that whilst my Loar is in perfrctly playable condition, since I went mad and bought my '34 Gibson the Loar just hangs on the wall looking pretty.
Ol' Andy
-
Originally Posted by Silly Moustache
Hi, I’m not sure what measurement you’re after on thetailpiece but..........
The gap between the bottom of the tailpiece (at the middleof the tailpiece between the D and G) is 5mm. The whole tailpiece does lookhigh but I would expect that because of the scale and the body size. It’s gotto get up to the bridge in a shorter space, hence a steeper angle.
Neck angle is a harder to judge visually, particularly asthe shape of the top is throwing me. It’s certainly shallower than other archtopsI’ve played but again I think the shorter scale and body may be at play.
Now, this is total guesswork on my part based on what I knowof the double bass, cello and fiddles I have but I was under the impressionthat neck angle on an instrument with a floating bridge is about creating the correctamount of down force while keeping the instrument stable (particularly theneck). Given that the LH 700 is a 630mm scale with a wide neck and reinforced Vshape (ie a strong stable neck), I wondered if that’s why the neck angle isshallower – maybe there’s less need for a steep angle? Perhaps someone withmore knowledge will know.
Also, I’ve read a lot on various forums about the need forvery heavy strings on archtops to create enough downforce to drive the top. Asyou’ll know, this is only true to a certain extent as too much force and itwill kill the top – prevent it from moving. Could the fact that the small bodymeans a steep angle from the tailpiece to the bridge also mean that too steep aneck angle would then create too much downforce and kill what is already quitea small top? Just a thought but again I’msure someone with more knowledge will know.
Eitherway, it’s all about playability and what you like. Ithink this guitar is very playable and very unusual - the shallow angle wide Vneck is all part of that. The main thingfor me is that it sounds great recorded. I did a basic test last night with anH4N room recorder and it’s exactly what I was after.
Cheers
-
I have never seen a Loar in the flesh, but the old Gibson arhtops from the 1920s and the first half of the 1930s had the necks set deeper so the fretbord rested directly on the top instead of on a neck extension. On my old Gibson L37 from 1934, the neck is set deep that way and the neck angle is quite shallow. In addition the bridge is very low. However, it seems to be compensated partly by the shape of the top, but still the break angle over the bridge is shallower than on my more modern archtops. The top is also thinner. I think that is just how they made archtops back then - more like parlor instruments than orchestra rhythm guitars. The Loar is more or less a copy of the first Loar Gibson L5 from the 1920s.
The evolution in archtop design in the last half of the 1930s had to do with the big band boom and the switch from banjo to guitar. The rhythm guitarists simply demanded more power. Lifting the fretbord up on a neck extension freed the upper part of the top to vibrate, the steeper break angle at the bridge produced a greater downward force on the top (which was often also carved thicker than on earlier instruments) and the body size grew - all this lead to greater volume. These factors are all seen very clearly in the Stromberg Master 400 (introduced in 1940).
Whatever, if the guitar sounds and plays well and is structurally stable, there's nothing to worry abut.
-
Just a footnote...check out all my Loar 700 videos on one page
Plectrum Guitar Rob MacKillop ~ banjos, guitars, lutes and more
I'm entirely happy with the guitar.
-
Seem to be quite a few negative reviews of these guitars, unfortunately.
-
I'm also interested in the Loar guitars. Is neck angle best observed in profile? Does this violin finish Hofner represent a desired neck angle? The Les Paul features a pronounced neck angle? Can we see a Loar in profile?
Last edited by Buster Loaf; 09-18-2011 at 01:39 PM.
-
OK, my wife now thinks I am fully mad instead of half mad but I took a picture of the LH 700 and drew a couple of crude lines in photoshop. If someone has a protractor it should give you a rough idea of angle. It's the work of a fully unqualified scientist but may give you a better idea.
Cheers
Paul.
-
Originally Posted by Paul Hughes
OK, my wife now thinks I am fully mad instead of half mad but I took a picture of the LH 700 and drew a couple of crude lines in photoshop. If someone has a protractor it should give you a rough idea of angle. It's the work of a fully unqualified scientist but may give you a better idea.
Cheers
Paul.
That is about the same neck angle as on my old Gibson L37 from 1934 (which is in good shape, not in need of a neck reset).
Go play it happily. To my eyes it's OK.
-
I think some of the comments comparing this guitar unfavourably to a top-quality Gibson from the 30s is unfair. For a start, it is a copy of an L5 from the 20s, with a modern compensated bridge. But if you want to make a comparison with the top arch tops of the Golden Age, let's compare prices. This is a beautiful guitar at a very low price, has great mojo, and with the right strings sounds wonderful. If it does not have the set up of a modern Epiphone Emperor, that is because it has not been influenced by electric guitar set ups. It is an old-fashioned acoustic archtop, and works perfectly for that repertoire. It's frustrating to read negative comments complaining it isn't something else, something it never set out to be. It's a very fine acoustic archtop.
Last edited by Rob MacKillop; 09-19-2011 at 06:07 AM.
-
+ 1 to Rob MacKillop's post.
I never played a real old gibson L5 but I hear a lot of tones around and I know the one I like and what I don't like.
and the tone of my LH-600 is heaven to me.
even if it hasn't still a professional set up.
As I've already said, I found my best choice with flats (d'addario chromes 011-050) and I'm going to install a Kent Armstrong floating pick up as well...
-
I think Rob's point is a good one, it's and old fashioned guitar by design and excellent value for money. I suppose it's all down to what you want. If you're not into a small bodied, short scale acoustic archtop this won't be for you.
Given the struggle I had to get useful info on whether this guitar was a good option I'll tell my tale in case it resonates with other guitar hunters who have a limited budget. Apologies if it's long winded and self indulgent.
It might be worth starting by saying that personally I was after a rootsy sounding guitar not solely with jazz in mind, more western swing, bluegrass, folk roots sound. I was thinking of the early Arthur "guitar boogie" Smith sound, Dave Rawlings, Hank Williams, Carter Family etc but to play many styles on - including jazz rhythm.
I tried out a lot of new small body flattop acoustic guitars and second hand acoustic archtops. Probably 50 - 60 guitars. Within that I tried many more expensive guitars £1500 - £3000 (including the Gibson Blues King - a notable let down in my opinion), Taylors, Martins etc.
Once I'd decided that acoustic archtop was the route to take I moved onto trying any second hand acoustic archtops I could find. Most under £1000 had poor necks, terrible action and didn't sound great. I didn't try the £3k up type vintage guitars as they were out of budget but I have played them in the past including some really fine instruments at Gruhns on a visit to Nashville, so I have a reasonable idea what you get for that kind of money.
There wasn't much available new that was affordable and good quality. I didn't fancy the Gretsch nor the Godin for many reasons. So the Loar LH 700 looked very attractive, nice top, replica construction and sounded good on youtube (including Rob's videos) but the reviews were poor. After a lot of thought and visiting this forum I eventually took a gamble and it's proved to be a good choice.
For £700 it is a great, great guitar. The best £700 I've spent on an instrument (and I have around 40 instruments). It's way better than any "vintage" in that price bracket. I also think (while not claiming it is the same) there is very little diffrenece between the LH700 and guitars I have tried that are many thousands more expensive. So in terms of value for money, no question for me it's a great deal).
Perhaps a better way to compare it would be to ask what better archtop acoustic can you get for £700 or even £1500?
That's not to deny that some people have clearly had issues. Perhaps teething trouble with early production? There seems to be more people now saying they're happy. I'll be interested to see what others in my area think when these become readily available in UK shops next year and more people have tried them.
Again, apologies for being long winded but I do believe it's a good guitar, great value and hopefully this helps other hunters and adds to the debate.
Cheers
Paul.
-
After reading this thread, I have decided to go for The Loar instead of my first choice, a HÖFNER HCT-J17-SB.
Has anyone bought an LH-650 NA or similar models from thomann.de where I am ordering one soon? As far as I know, the case that is included is a padded one. I was wondering if it was safe to ship with this case, should I ask for a hard case in place of the soft one? Kinda nervous, please advise! Thanks and God bless!
-
I have a lh-600. The case is the nerdiest looking thing ever, with a big "the loar" stitched on the pocket, but it offers good protection, somewhere in between a gig bag and a hard case.
-
You could contact them and ask. I could suspect that they ship it in the box they got it in (that is a box with the padded case inside surrounded by bubble plastic or whatever). I have more than once revieved larger items from them that way. Apart from that, Thoman has a very good return policy. Originally Posted by modsupremo
BTW, IMHO,a hard shell case is a good idea. Though some do it, I wouldn't trust a padded gigbag for a carved archtop.
-
The case offers good protection, and Thomann will pack it well.
-
I've had several guitars-solid-body, archtop, and acoustic-shipped to my house from all over the country, and noneof them came with a hard case. They all arrived safely well packed in rigid cardboard with foam and bubble wrap.
If the one doing the packing knows what he's doing and ships it "fragile" it should be okay.
Of course it would be more secure in a hard case, but that's what insurance is for.
-
Thanks for the info folks! This is my first time to purchase a guitar online and it is really a relief to know that they pack and ship well and the guitars are intact and safe...
Last edited by modsupremo; 01-29-2012 at 12:01 PM.
-
Hi, FWIW I'll tell you about my experience. Firstly Thomanns do not inspect or set up items before shipment. I ordered an LH-700-VSB and hard case as described. I received a damaged, and dirty guitar with manufacturing/finish faults in a gig bag. Originally Posted by modsupremo
I advised Thomanns and spoke to many different people. Non-one seemed to care. I returned it requesting a good condition instrument suitably checked in the advertised hard case. I received another dirty fingerprint/grease covered instrument with less than perfect finish, but just about acceptable. It has a very low neck angle as did the first one, but Thomann could not understand this aspect. It was also sent in another gig bag. At that point I complained again, and received a small credit. The guitar has been cleanded and adjusted by me and is playable but went into the back of the wardrobe and got forgotten - I now play a pre-war Gibson. Thomanns are box shifters - not a genuine music shop or guitar dealer, and you sghoujld not expoect them to be intersted or to understand or care about guitar condition, set up or build quality as one would expect from a proper music dealer. Personally, I will not deal with them again...but I do have an unplayed LH-700 - VSB which I am willing to part with if anyone is interested. I have just pulled it out and checked it over - still in tune ! It is perfectly playable, and louder than my Gibson, quite strident in fact. I don't need it any more though.
Ol' Andy in the UK (andrew@andrewperry.plus.com)
-
I went to the booth containing The Loar at NAMM last week wanting to get a look at an LH-350 and an LH-650. No troll intended, but I was quite disappointed in the instruments, even more so in the distributer. No troll intended, I'm simply reporting my impressions.
My hope was to find something along the lines of an L-4 C but what I saw made little sense. The LH-350 had a very thick neck, think '20s or '30s Gibson, nothing like the more modern versions of the L-4. Several of the people in the booth told me how some customers had the necks shaved and refinished. It would seem to me that if they are aware that the necks are too thick for many people's tastes they could just change the specs for future runs. At first glance the LH-350 looked well finished but the area around the floating pickup mount on the treble side appeared to have been neglected. IMO, it was an omission that could have been corrected with little or no cost. The fact that this example was displayed at NAMM tells me a lot about the distributer.
The lack of an LH-650 at NAMM speaks volumes as well. I find it hard to believe that they would make such an omission at the biggest Music trade show in North America. When I talked to the reps in the booth they were friendly and respectful but I detected a bit of backpedaling when I mentioned my concerns.
I visited the Aria booth also and was much more impressed. The D'Aquisto RI I played was nicely finished, played well and was much louder acoustically than I had expected.
-
Hi,
I've made a similar point before but I think some of the comparisons above are unfair and wiill probably give Modsupremo some unnecessary anxiety.
Synchro - It's not really fair to compare a £400 Loar with a £2500 D'Aquisto. Secondly the neck is intentionally a V neck and thick. It takes getting used to but is in keeping with the vintage Lloyd Loar designs. I like it now I've played it a while. On the point about volume. I played an acoustic set around an LDC on Friday and the others complained the LH700 was too loud. One of the other players took it for a while and I stood at the back - he was right. It was really loud.
Silly Moustache - You've clearly had a terrible experience and yes, Thomann are boxshifters but I'm afraid that suits many of us on a restricted budget. In my experience, everything I've ordered from them has arrived within a week, well packaged, as described - Twice I've needed customer service to do with delivery times ahead of gigs and twice they've been great. For both guitars I bought I took the box to a local music store (who couldn't get me the guitars) and paid £45 for a set up. One was a LH700 and it's great. The luthier also thinks it's great for the money and confirmed the neck angle is just fine as decribed and photographed above. Like you, if I had the budget to buy a pre-war Gibson I wouldn't want a £700 LH700 either - but I don't and for the money the Loars has proved an exceptionally good value substitute.
Anyway, I don't work for Loar or any music company, just an enthusiast with two Loar guitars in my collection that I am happy with and I think they get harshly treated on some fora. I also know a host of other Loar owners/players who are happy and quite aware it is a product at a price - imo a good product at a good price.
If anyone can name a better sounding or better specifictation archtop in the same price bracket as the Loar I'd be surprised and happy to accept the criticism I read. Perhaps that's a thread in itself.
Hope you enjoy the guitar Modsupremo.
Paul.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale