1957 Gibson L-4C (Inlays?)

**Philco** · 10-05-2012, 08:52 PM

For those Gibson experts....

1957 Gibson L-4C

So what's with the inlays all the way to the last fret?

Looks very odd to me.

I've not seen this before, but I'm no expert.

**Philco** · 10-05-2012, 09:30 PM

Oh I see. Well spotted.
You'd think that little detail would rate a mention in the description.
It does make me wary of the instrument......generally.

**Philco** · 10-05-2012, 09:32 PM

RP where did your post go?

**Eddie Lang** · 10-05-2012, 09:33 PM

They switched from 19 to 20 frets in 1957.

Has anyone noticed that the inlays at the first fret are missing?

**Eddie Lang** · 10-05-2012, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Philco

RP where did your post go?

Hey, I saw it too a couple minutes ago. Now it's gone...

**rpguitar** · 10-05-2012, 10:39 PM

I deleted it, because I thought there was an actual extra fret on the guitar - 20 vs. 19 - but then some careful Googling revealed that they all have 20. It's just that the one pictured here has a more complete 21st (unusable) position with the inlay (19th too). I thought it could be a custom order, but clearly that's silly since it's the same number of frets. Everything else looks normal! I dunno. I wouldn't be worried, though. Looks really nice.

**Philco** · 10-05-2012, 10:47 PM

Yeah those L4C don't come up very often and it's a reasonable price.
Very pretty and very light.

But I've heard that the 1950's necks are very chunky....I mean VERY chunky.
What's your experience with 50's neck profiles RP?

I'm not a thin neck fan but I don't want a barge pole.
I've never played a 50's Gibson. (but I am about to land a 61 ES125)

**rpguitar** · 10-05-2012, 11:36 PM

As luck would have it, I own a 1957 ES-175. I think the neck on that guitar is terrific. It's full, a great shape, but not quite as full as my '47 L-5 or the recent '34 L-5 reissue. I may not be a great person to ask, though, only because I tolerate large necks pretty well. Thin ones actually hurt my hand more. I wouldn't let that concern get in your way. I don't think the generalizations are really true about "really chunky" 50s necks. Try a 20s or 30s one on for size! It's all relative.

**Philco** · 10-05-2012, 11:39 PM

Cool. Thanks for the perspective.

**Eddie Lang** · 10-06-2012, 02:03 AM

Hi Philco,

I have a 1953 L-4C N. I think it's got a very nice, comfortable neck. Just like Roger said, full, but smaller than Gibson necks from the previous decades. I also have a 1934 L-4 and the neck is considerably bigger but I find it still very comfortable with its soft Vee profile. Now, Gibson's 1920s necks, those were BIG...

Back to 50s necks, I find their size is closer to many contemporary guitars, including some Gibsons although I admit that I have not played as many recent ones as I have older ones (1950s and before). What was too small in my opinion was the necks on some, but not all, mid-1960s Gibson necks from about 1962 onward. After that, they got a bit larger again but I am not sure exactly when. I am sure others will know.

Now about this 1957 L-4C you linked to: Rest assured: 50s necks will definitely not be a "barge pole".

Like Roger said, they all had 20 frets... in that year... L-4C and ES-175 were pretty similar models (except that the L-4C has a solid top and no inset pickup): they shared the same body size and shape, the same scale length, the same fret board inlays and the same amount of frets, 19 from 1949 until somewhere during 1956 when they had 20. So this guitar is not weird in that respect. The only visible oddity that I can see from the pics, besides the inlays at frets 19 and 21, is the absence of inlays at the first fret...

If you like blonde, they have one at Mandolin Brothers. Of course, the is a premium for the natural finish.

Here is a pic of the one at Mando Bros. next to the one at Archtop.Com.

**Philco** · 10-06-2012, 02:15 AM

Thanks for the detailed info. It's next to impossible to get the opportunity to play one of these 50's L4's in this country.

That natural one is beautiful, as is yours.

I think the price is quite reasonable on that one.

**Eddie Lang** · 10-06-2012, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Philco

Thanks for the detailed info. It's next to impossible to get the opportunity to play one of these 50's L4's in this country.

That natural one is beautiful, as is yours.

I think the price is quite reasonable on that one.

Philco, aren't you in Australia?

I know that Australia is huge, but if this shop is not too far, you may be able to try a circa 1950 L-4C at Jackson's Rare Guitars.

**AlohaJoe** · 10-06-2012, 02:37 AM

The neck of the one at Archtop.com is described as 1 9/16"... unusually slender.

**Philco** · 10-06-2012, 02:38 AM

Yeah it's only 1 hour by air. Well spotted old chap!
I must admit this gentleman prefers blondes and if I was going to drop $4500 I'd spring for the Mandolin Bros L4C in a second.
That one at Jacksons is to expensive. No scratch plate, non original tail piece and no binding in the F holes which means it's either been re finished or perhaps Gibson did a run without the binding.

I've bought too many guitars lately and made a mistake or two. I think I'll lay low for a while and sell the mistakes.

**AlohaJoe** · 10-06-2012, 02:49 AM

As far as I know, the L4c never had bound f-holes, and the tailpiece looks original to me. I do like a nice sunburst but you're right, that blond is a beauty.

**Philco** · 10-06-2012, 03:20 AM

Oh....it's actually a L4C not a 175.

**AlohaJoe** · 10-06-2012, 03:46 AM

You're right, I plugged in the wrong number... thanks, I'll correct my earlier post.

**rpguitar** · 10-06-2012, 07:44 AM

I will say that the one at archtop is a beautiful specimen, already perfectly equipped for electric play using just about the same parts I'd choose myself. I consider that a premium-worthy element of that particular guitar.

About the nut width... I'd have to ask "Really? In 1957?" Give Joe a call or an email and ask him to measure it. He's notorious for copying and pasting write ups and propagating small errors. Neck woods, dimensions, label descriptions; I've seen "oopsies" with all of that and more on his pages. I just think he tries too hard and can't maintain it all sometimes.

**Franz 1997** · 10-06-2012, 01:18 PM

I have a '59 L4C and the archtop.com guitar looks wrong by comparison. Fingerboard inlays are wrong, and 1 9/16th nut width definitely wrong for the era if indeed it is 1 9/16th. The neck is described as ''sleek'' which sounds more like an early 60s neck. Maybe a re-neck, and/or a new and inappropriate fingerboard? Another odd detail is that the trussrod cover appears to have no revealed white edge. Also these guitars came with a white plastic strap button, not metal.

They are great guitars though, and mine at least sounds fatter than my 175.They have spruce tops, but pretty thick ones.

**Eddie Lang** · 10-06-2012, 02:15 PM

In the 1950s, the truss rod cover on the L-4C and the ES-175 did not have a white edge until 1957; in 1958 and 1959, in depends, and I think that they all had it after 1960.

I am not sure that they left the factory with a strap button because I have seen many that did not have them, and on those that had it was not always placed at the same place. That being said, most the the 1950s L-4C and ES-175 that I have seen had a metal strap button.

1-9/16th is definitely wrong. As it has been said above, it could be different things:

It is a mistake
The neck was shaved (I don't like that at all)
The neck was changed (I don't like it either but it is not as bad)
The fingerboard was changed

By the way, the inlays on this guitar are at the same location as on an ES-330.

Philco, I was not suggesting that you buy that one at Jackson's Rare Guitars as much as I saw it as an opportunity to try the neck on one from that vintage if it was within acceptable driving distance.

**Franz 1997** · 10-06-2012, 02:36 PM

Should have looked closer..the ''strap button'' is an endpin jack.

Your point about the ES-330 fingerboard does seem compelling..330 fingerboard fitted with the end cut off? That last inlay falls off the board..

**Eddie Lang** · 10-06-2012, 03:49 PM

Yeah, the inlays are in the same position as an ES-330, but the don't have the same shape... The early ES-330 had dot inlays and by I don't know which year they had block inlays. I have not seen one with the parallelogram inlays like the ES-175 and the L-4C, but that doesn't mean that they never had them.

The ES-330 had 22 frets, BTW.

**Dennis D** · 10-06-2012, 07:59 PM

Those P/U installations, volume and tone knobs and end pin jack sure look like OEM. Maybe that would explain the fret markers, meaning if it was a custom build, they'd automatically use a different fret layout....
On the other hand if they're not OEM, man, whoever did those items aftermarket is really good.
I owned a '60's 175, and currently own an '80's L-4, and I would love to hear that guitar !! I'd sure try to check it out if at all possible.
MHO
Dennis

**Philco** · 10-07-2012, 12:10 AM

The L4C is....in my mind (at this point in time) the perfect jazz box.

It's 16', slightly shorter scale than 25 1/2 and sometimes weighs around 5lb.
Not too much bling and solid spruce. Perfect.

Well............the only trouble in paradise is the lack of pickup.
Of course there's no way I'm going to butcher such a guitar with mounting a pickup.
Perhaps a floater.........but I would really like a Rhythm Chief fitted and I know how hard they are to find these days.

Yes, just like your guitar Mr Lang.
To quote Monty Python.... "you lucky, lucky bastard"

But I have to say that those inlays on the Archtop.com L4C really freak me out. It looks so wrong to me. I would never be comfortable with it.
Childish perhaps but there you have it.