16, 17, 18 Inch - Archtop Size Matters?

[2bornot2bop]

This is a personal taste survey.

I've seen many a nice looking 16" archtop...but the few I've owned, as comfortable as they were, didn't do justice to the entire tone spectrum. And the result of that experience now is I won't consider any archtop beneath 17" because the few I've owned didn't do it for me in the lower midrange and bass end of the spectrum.

That said, are there simply acceptable tone trade offs for some of you with smaller archtops that others among us don't find acceptable? Just curious...

Personally, my ears have been ruined for anything beneath 18"...for the depth of tone is addicting.

[mr. beaumont]

For plugging in, give me the 16"...that's perfect for me, actually...I can adjust the tone on my amp, and in my opinion, nothing is missing in the tone spectrum.

For acoustic playing, big boxes are damn nice...but right now I'm on a flat top kick...

[Jonathan0996]

I recently went from a very sweet sounding 17", 3.25" deep solid top archtop (Washburn J-10 Orleans) to a 16", 2.75" deep laminate (Holst) as my main guitar. I was concerned about losing the bigness and sweetness of the bigger guitar's sound, but I don't miss it. Quality matters too, and the Holst is a better built guitar. For me these are essentially electric guitars, and I think Jeff is right about being able to adjust the tone at the amp.

Moreover, playability and comfort are an important part of the calculus, as is the evenness of the instrument's response across its entire range, and the Holst is the clear winner there.

Bottom line: I don't feel like I've sacrificed anything. Quite the contrary.

[2bornot2bop]

For acoustic playing, big boxes are damn nice...but right now I'm on a flat top kick...

you may want to consider the arched back I listed for sale. it's a cannon. it's goin' on the acoustic forum today too. exceptional carved flattop.

[keith]

I'm in Jonathan's camp on playability. Although tone does entice initially on a guitar, I find I'm going back to what is most comfortable and natural to play and I find my ear will accept the different tone and that it doesn't seem all that different after awhile. If you think of all the different guitars that well known artists play and yet they still sound like themselves. There's probably a happy medium like most things in life and it's certainly helps if the guitar's tone inspires you but the more I play the more I appreciate the ease of playing and also ease of maintaining a guitar over the tone.

[ronjazz]

It's really important to make sure that your guitar fits you, or you run the risk of injury over time, including the dreaded focal dystonia, a neurological condition that can destroy your technique by playing against your physiognomy's best interests. If you are playing a 17" or 18" guitar, I think it's advisable to play it standing, strapped on, so that you don't screw up your right arm and shoulder trying to get your hand over that enormous box. Another possible solution is to sit Van Eps style, so that the guitar is more in front of you, almost like a classical position.

In any event, it is very difficult to get the same acoustic tone out of a 16" instrument, but there is such a myriad of amplification schemes available that it really isn't an issue any more, except philosophically.

[Patrick2]

I'll come down in the same camp I usually do on this one. I believe in the concept of different guitars for different tunes and different moods. The biggest guitar I own is made to the exact spec's of a Super 400 as related to length and width of body. The depth is 1/4" shallower at 3-1/4", instead of the Super 4's 3-1/2 depth. There are time that I just want to play THAT guitar because I want to hear THAT sound, which is particular to THAT guitar. The smallest guitar I own is my very first Golden Eagle. That guitar was built for me back in 1994 . . and for reasons that I'm unsure of, it's dimensions are 16-3/4" wide X 2-3/4" deep X 20-1/4" long. Just a bit off of the standard Golden Eagle's dimensions of 17" X 3" X 20-1/4". A very comfortable and fun guitar to play. However, when I play THAT guitar .. .I do so because I want to hear THAT guitar's particular sound . . . not because of comfort.

The same is true with my other GEs as well as my SEs. The SEs are slightly smaller in height, depth and also in width . . than the Gibson Super 4s. The lower bout on the Super 400 is always 18" dead nuts on. The SEs can vary from 17-3/4" to 17-7/8". I've seen only one SE that measured a perfect 18" at the lower bout.

[GNAPPI]

"That said, are there simply acceptable tone trade offs for some of you with smaller archtops that others among us don't find acceptable? Just curious..."

Hmmm... I have two 17" bodies and they are "mellower" to me across the tone spectrum compared to the smaller bodies, the one exception is my ES-150 even though it has a 16" body it is a bit wider than my 17's and all three have (to me) a large effect on the amplified tone.

Just diddling with the EQ on the amp doesn't have (again to me) the same effect with my 16" body guitars. That said I can't see not playing my smaller guitars there's a lot to offer there.

[Archtop Guy]

You can't beat an 18" for acoustic tone. I'm looking at my 18" D'Angelico ll as I write and I love every part of this guitar except,naturally,the size. I've changed my position of playing to the Van Eps style and still enjoy her but only for a short time. I found myself choosing to play my 17" Triggs NY over the D'A for comfort,sacrificing some tone and slowly found myself picking up my Heritage Johnny Smith for even more comfort and again a little less tone. So,if you want the best acoustic tone it's the 18". If you want an electric sound it's pretty much anything now-a-days.The bottom line is, with the electronic toys and pick ups you can make pretty much every sound you want. Except that beautiful acoustic 18".

[Tom Karol]

Double post - see below.

[Tom Karol]

I can't play 17 and 18-inch guitars or dreadnoughts - I feel like I'm hugging a tree.
My jazzbox is 16" x 2 9/16", and my acoustic is a 000-28. Those, and my Tele, feel comfortable.
I wish my semi-hollow was 15" instead of 16". (It's comfortable standing, but a bit awkward sitting.)
That's not to say that bigger guitars don't sound great, but I'm only 5'8", and they just feel too ... big.

[mr. beaumont]

2bop, you're selling that Eastman? I thought you were gonna hang onto that...I'm sensing a move out so you can move something else in?

Thanks for the tip, but I'm covered with my Taylor 414...love that guitar.

[2bornot2bop]

2bop, you're selling that Eastman? I thought you were gonna hang onto that...I'm sensing a move out so you can move something else in?

Thanks for the tip, but I'm covered with my Taylor 414...love that guitar.

Yep U guessed it...I found another that talked me out of my keeper flattop...she's another 18"...I'm gonna miss the arched back Jumbo, but in reality she wasn't getting any play time...better to move her to someone who can appreciate her...she's really an exceptional all carved flattop!

[Frank67]

I never tried a 18'' .... But 16'' or 17'' doesn't make a big difference in terms of comfort (and conversely, smaller guitars don't feel much more comfortable either). It is more the thickness. Somewhat thinner guitars feel a bit (but not too much) better to me. But I also feel that one is loosing quite a bit of tone. One day I want to try a 18'' box and that might be the limit of what I can possibly handle.

[ecj]

I've become a big believer in the idea of picking the guitar bout size based on your limb length. There was a thread a while back where Hot Ford Coupe and I both posted pics of ourselves playing 17" bout archtops. He almost has to hold his like a cello, whereas mine sits very comfortably under my right arm.

I think everyone should pick a guitar that puts your right hand in good picking positions with your right elbow resting on the bout and the neck appropriately tilted btw 25-35 degrees for good left hand positioning. In my experience people over 6' tall really need a 17" or greater bout or they end up with a lot of tension from not being able to rest their elbow on the guitar. Shorter fellas and many women might need something more like a 335 (I'm thinking of Sheryl Bailey and Pat Martino, who are both very diminutive).

[Flyin' Brian]

I'm anything but diminutive as you can see from my avatar, but I just don't like the feel of anything bigger than a 15" body. No I don't play acoustically and I don't care for the generic "jazz guitar" tone anyway.

My Heritage Sweet 16 is a wall ornament while I play my Heritage Prospect all of the time. If the Prospect were out of the picture for a while, I'll use my Fender Big Apple Strat with 2 humbuckers.

17 or 18? Not in this lifetime.

[teleman3726]

18 inch plus.
I could never go back

[oldane]

I think ones preference for size depends to a degree on the position of the guitar while playing it. I have never played my guitars in an upright vertical postion. When playing electric with single string lines etc., I have the guitar on a strap and tilted about the same way Wee Montgomery had. This tilting has become more pronounced with the years as I have fattened up which makes it impossible to get the guitar in a vertical position because my belly gets in the way. When playing acoustic rhythm, the tilt is even more pronounced like Freddie Green which actually works well for an ergonomic and less cramped strumming with the right hand. I think that the size of the guitar means less when its tilted like that as compared to having it in a vertical position.

As for the shape and size of the guitar, the following affects playing comfort for me:

• Size. I am tall with a long torso and actually find anything less than 17" uncomfortable without a strap. It's especially the size of "the waist" which can be too narrow so the guitar rests so low that I have to bend forward too much to get the left arm in a comfortable playing position. In that respect, my 17" guitars and my one 19" guitar is more comfortable for me. My Gibson 175 doesn't work well without a strap.
• Depth. The deeper the guitar body the less comfortable. My 2½" deep 17" Painter is more comfortable than my 3" deep 17" Bendetto (which is not uncomfortable, though).
• Shape of the body. Apart from the size of my 175, the shape of it also means that it doesn't seem to find rest when I'm sitting with it - I keep correcting its position. One thing is that the waist is too far up the guitar body, so the neck gets shifted too far to the right but there are other things too which I can't precisely pin down. My Gretsch New Yorker, which is also 16" with the same depth as the 175, rests better on my lap due to subtle differencies in body shape. For me, the most comfortable body shape is the "standard 17" Gibson" (which is shared by a lot of makes, among them my Benedetto and my Painter).

Of course, factors such as scale length, fretboard width, fretboard radius, neck profile, pickup choice and pickup positioning has to be factored in too.

I think it's important to stress that there's no "one size fits all". Which guitar size and shape is comfortable depends on ones height, body build, if you are thin or fat etc. But if the guitar doesn't feel comfortable to you, chances are that playing it will be a struggle, no matter how famous the make, how good it sounds or how well it "plays". Frets can easily be dressed, necks adjusted and nuts and bridges replaced, but it's not possible to change the basic size and shape of an archtop without very big surgery - and nobody in his right mind would do that.

All my personal experienes from 45 years of owning guitars went into ordering my Painter P-350 two years ago. I was not concerned with bling with that one - after all, Painter guitars is not about bling - only with getting the best functioning electrical guitar I'd ever had. When ordering it, I spec'd it very detailed, and Tom Painter remarked that it seemed that I knew exactly what I wanted, to which I had to reply "Well, I hope so." Luckily it turned out that I did happen to know and I now have a guitar which fits me like a well worn pair of slippers. The only mods I have made is replacing the gold speed knobs on the pots with black chicken heads and replacing the bridge saddle with a custom compensated saddle made by Irish luthier John Moriaty.

[hot ford coupe]

I've become a big believer in the idea of picking the guitar bout size based on your limb length. There was a thread a while back where Hot Ford Coupe and I both posted pics of ourselves playing 17" bout archtops. He almost has to hold his like a cello, whereas mine sits very comfortably under my right arm.

My problem is less a size problem and more of a left wrist limitation problem. I hold the instrument much more upright because my left wrist won't comfortably turn outward enough to grab the neck with the guitar in the position you suggested. I notice this problem more and more when I go into a music store and try holding the guitars without a strap. This puts the lower bout in a position where the width hardly has any effect at all. It's actually the length of the guitar body that's more significant. Since I rest the guitar bottom rather than its side on my right leg, to accommodate the longer body of an 18" axe, all I need to do is slide the bottom a little further out towards my knee and the instrument is in perfect position. For a 16", I pull it further up my leg and there she be. Hey, maybe I ought to get a cello but I can't get my legs far enough apart.

[dkstott]

my very 1st archtop was the 17" Washburn J-10 Orleans... I really loved the sound from it but my arms got really tired of trying to wrap around that 17 inch body.

Next came an 16" Eastman AR805CE, it too was great, but was not easy to handle while doing couch picking or during practice

I've downsized to the Eastman 15" T-145SX.... it's extremely comfortable, full hollow body.... it's got a thinner sounds to it while unplugged... But WOW, it sounds great plugged in.... it really maintains the acoustic side for sound.

Dave

[gcb]

I am 6'2" tall and along the years got accustomed to 17" guitars.

[Spook410]

2bornot2bob - my friend, IMHO, you are absolutely insane to sell that guitar. I actually started to email you on AGF last night to buy it.. but with an 18" on order and 3 new guitars in the last 18 months, couldn't justify it. Probably kick myself in a month for not following through. Of course I really wanted that Bourgeois to.
------------------------------------------
Back to topic.. there are considerations other than bout width. Depth, thickness of the top, types of wood. That and there is no reason why we shouldn't enjoy what different guitar sizes and construction methods do to the sound. I go back and forth with what I'm playing. When my 18" gets here in late April, I'm going to enjoy all the things it can do that other guitars cannot, but it will not be the only guitar I play.

[Bluedawg]

You aren't helping my gas here

I've been lusting after an 18" for years


Maybe someday

[mikeSF]

ive owned all sizes and specs and if it is for 100% acoustic playing, i like the bigger 17"-18" bodies. If i am playing amplified, I much prefer a 16" as the big bodies sometime get "tubby". That said, I definitely do not ever play 100% unamplified so all that is lost on me.

[shawntp]

I was recently in discussions with Benedetto Guitars and Howard indicated that lately they seem to seeing the most orders coming in for 16" models (Custom 16b/Bravo Elites).