-
I am looking at an L-5 and the bridge is up off the top looks pretty high, measures 27mm treble and 28mm bass to the underside of the strings
Is that normal for an L-5 wes and does anyone have a spec or experience or an actual measurement from a Gibson archtop
Thanks guys and happy holidays
-
12-21-2012 02:16 PM
-
My L-5 shows about 22mm and 23mm for those measurements, and my Super 400 is a hair more but close. I'm putting the end of the ruler on the soundboard immediately in front of the bridge, and measuring to the bottom of the strings. I am sure that there's going to be some variation among individual guitars, with slightly different neck clearance and action heights - don't you think?
-
Is it a TOM bridge? Or has it been replaced with an ebony bridge/saddle?
Originally Posted by bigbox
-
It looks like the factory bridge a TOM. It sounds good plugged in, and yes variation due to maybe the neck being higher off the the top I guess.
I just thought maybe the top is sagging or wanted to make sure because it just looks high- alot of the threads on the studs exposed.
-
Maybe the action is just high? Although I'm assuming you'd catch that. I'd think it quite unlikely for a top on a newish Wes to sag, especially with the pickups in there and the heavy bracing. 5mm difference between my '47 with much, much less clearance over the top at the end of the fingerboard than the Wes - seems reasonable. I can't fit a pickup other than the DeArmonds or a KA 2D on my '47, so the difference makes sense to me.
-
Top sag is easy enough to see by looking across the top from either side of the body. If the guitar is at a store (you said you're looking at it?) it is quite possible that the store is dry, the top may be drying out (especially if the guitar is hangin on a wall and elevated above the half way to ceiling height . . where all the dry air is) and sagging a little. Rehumidification usually brings if right back up to norm, if that's the case.
Other than that, if the action is relatively low and you still have too many threads on the post showing . . . might be best to have it checked out before you buy it. I've got a 2010 L5 Wes. It had a TOM. I replaced it with an ebony saddle. But, before I replaced it, I noticed that the amount of post showing was not at all excessive.
-
I've had a couple of L5s over the years, and the bridge height was about 25 cm on both with v low action. There was a lot of thread showing on those...but it's normal for many Gibson arch tops.
On a few more recent 90s L5s, there's the reverse problem - too-shallow neck angle and bridge that won't go low enough. Some threads are a good thing!
-
I bought a 64 es125 last year and was pretty nervous afterwards. The bridge seemed VERY high but the action was good. I was worried about the top collapsing. After asking around I found no signs of a collapse and the concensus was it a question of the neck angle being off when it was built.
-
Thanks guys for all the input
The action is medium I'd say 5.5/64 bass 5/64 treble.
It's at my house Patrick I bought it.
Maybe it's a little dry- I could see that
1998 Wes L-5
I did notice the bridge is far from the pickup and the top curves lower that way
I measured the scale length at 25.75
-
My Wes, and every other L5 I've owned was 25.5. Try measuring from the front edge of the nut (facing the fretboard) to the 12th fret. See if it measures 12.875 or 12-7/8. If not, chances are your bridge base is incorrectly positioned and your intonation is way off. But, that wouldn't affect top sag or saddle height. Originally Posted by bigbox
At 5/64 on both sides, action is a little high on the treble side. It's usually starts at 3/64 treble and 5/64 bass.
-
Easy fix.
I had the same problem with an L-5WES I once owned.
I replaced the bridge base with a much deeper bridge base so that there was significantly less exposed thread. Dead easy - the new bridge base needed to be shaped to fit the top, and the post spacing is standard for all Gibson archtops.
This is well worth doing for two reasons:
- the guitar will sound way better and
- one significantly lessens the risk of the two threaded posts being bent.
-
I have noticed that modern L5's have higher bridges than some older (1960's) L5's. I have a 1966 L5CES with a lower bridge, where the saddle is only slightly up from the bridge base. I have a 1990's Wes L5 and the saddle is much higher due to the neck sitting higher in the pocket, and the pronounced curve of the top which slopes down before the bridge. I checked every photo of a newer L5 I could find online, and they all had the higher bridge with a large gap between base and saddle. I believe that is the way the modern Gibsons are made. I measured my Benedetto's bridge height, and it was very similar to the Wes L5 height. The difference is that the Benedetto has a deep wooden saddle that barely needs to be raised from the bridge base. Therefore no gap is visible.
Last edited by Bebop Tom; 12-21-2012 at 06:39 PM.
-
To confirm the proper scale length, always measure from nut to 12th fret (which is a static distance; i.e. you can't move it like you can do to a bridge). Double that measurement to get the scale length. Put the bridge so that the center of it is at that exact distance from the nut edge (where the string first touches it), then tweak intonation at the two E strings til it's as close as it can be.
-
+1 Bebop Tom
my 60s L-5's and Super 400's have shallow neck angles, but most modern ones I have seen have a tall bridge. there was a period in the 90's where they were inconsistent, some high, some low.
-
I've got an L5 CES that I bought new from Benny Cintioli's shop in Philly back in '94. I put a deep ebony saddle on it about a week after I took it home. Same with my Wes. I had the ebony saddle on it the day I got it from Guitar Brat, TX. So, I really can't remember how high the TOM sat up on the base. Originally Posted by wintermoon
The other thing the OP should look for is the base height/thickness. Sometimes when fitting the base to the arch, too much wood is sanded off, making the base very thin. The only way to compensate for that is to crank those thumb wheels and raise the saddle, thereby exposing excessive post threads.
-
small world Patrick! Benny's is where I bought my '69 L-5CES in about '92. That guitar has been on thousands of gigs since and never let me down to this day.
matter of fact I bought 2 brand new blonde L-5's that year from him for about 4.5k for the pair which was low even then. I had just found out that Gibson was increasing their prices by 35% later that year. Wound up flipping them both that year for a nice chunk of ching....
-
Yes I did notice that the bridge base looks pretty thin like alot was sanded from the bottom to fit it to the top.
I measured from the 12th to the low e saddle, but the intonation is dead on I did the setup myself.
The action is higher, I guess I like it that way.
I couldn't imagine this guitar sounding better, but if a thicker base makes it sound better it might be worth replacing.
The tone of the instrument is better than the other L-5's I tried.
I tried 2 super V's both 79's and a 50's acoustic L-5 with a Johnny Smith pickup and a signature L-5 and an L-5 ces.
When I played this one I loved it instantly, but noticed while changing the strings and setting it up that the thumbwheels were way up.
-
Sounds like "honey, i love you, now change." You're obsessing about something that doesn't actually matter, so just leave it alone and accept it as how it's meant to be.
-
HA! Small world indeed. I was with Benny just 2 weeks ago. He's a Heritage dealer now. The first time I visited him, probably around 1993, he said to me; "here, play this guitar. You're going to take it home with you." I chuckled at his strong Italian accent and the attempt at salesmanship. However, the guitar he put in my hands was a brand new, Westerly built Guild Artist Award. Damned if he wasn't right. LOLOL That guitar went home with me that day. I foolishly traded it back to him, with some cash for the L5CES. That was a great guitar! Gotta get me another one of those. Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
Originally Posted by Patrick2
yep, at the 12th fret 3/64" on the first string and 4 to 5/64" on the sixth string (between the top of the fret and bottom of the string), with the truss rod set so that the neck is flat & straight.
i believe that most people measure this with open strings, while some others do this with the string depressed at the first fret (which leaves the action a bit higher. i'm not sure why this method is preferred by some).
My recent Gibson archtop purchase had the measurements hand-written in the inspection sheet from The Custom Shop "Crimson Team"
that came in the case, and my Guild/Benedetto JSA from 2003 had the specs in writing from Benedetto's web site. (although the Guilds were to be set higher than the JSA and all the Benedetto flagship models).
That's nice and low, and a demanding standard for a guitar strung with 12-53s.
So if a Le Grand and a Citation can accomodate this standard it seems to me that a current L5 should accomodate this standard too. I can't speak for the entire history of this iconic model though.
Cheers.
-
I guess the 3/64 & 5/64 is an important place to start, for a tech who's doing a general set up. But, as a rule of thumb adjustment by the player who's adjusting his own action . . . I just don't get it.?.? Most, if not all necks and fretboards are different. With each of my guitars, if the action ever feels too high . . . I lower it and retune the guitar. If it's fretting out or buzzing, I try to find out where . . . then, I'll raise the action temporarily, until I can get the guitar to one of my techs to correct the issue. I like my fretboard as straight as a rifle shot . . . no relief what so ever. Sometimes, I'll find I can really bring the action way down without any fret buzz or fretting out . . . but, the sound will be thinner than I want. That happens especially on the treble side of the board. So. I'll just raise it a bit . . until I'm pleased with the way it plays and the way it sounds.
Similarly with nut slots. Why bother to measure with a gauge. A simple test holding your second finger on each string (individually) at the third fret, then using your first finger to press that string down on the second fret should tell you all you need to know.
-
Patrick - can you please explain that last part? I'm not sure that I get it, but then I don't know much about nut slots - except perhaps the following?: Originally Posted by Patrick2
strings 6-5-4 should each have the slots cut deep enough to house 66% of the string, and the slots for strings 3-2-1 should be cut so that the strings are flush with the top of the nut, or is that only for strings 1 & 2?)
-
[Patrick] >>> Similarly with nut slots. Why bother to measure with a gauge. A simple test holding your second finger on each string (individually) at the third fret, then using your first finger to press that string down on the second fret should tell you all you need to know.
Absolutely. And if you used a gauge, what exactly would you measure anyway?
If you measure the clearance above the first fret, you are not measuring the nut slot height. You are measuring the nut slot height, bridge height, and neck relief in some completely unknown combination - providing absolutely no useful info whatsoever.
Chris
-
Yeah . . it was my bad on the use of the term slots. I did mean clearance above the first fret, as PTChris pointed out. I understand the slot cuts exactly as you do. However, the very few times that I have taken a file to my nuts Originally Posted by fumblefingers
I was also careful to angle to very end of the slot in the same direction as the string breaks . . left or right. Not sure if that's correct or not . . . that's why I've got Ronaldo.
But, it's terms like "66% of the string" that really cause me discomfort. Who the hell is gonna measure for 66% of the string. Why not just write the directions as "a little more than half of the string shouild sit within the slot"??
-
or, "about two thirds".
Reply With Quote
The Moon Song, Johnny Mandell
Today, 05:51 AM in The Songs