Any Gibson Tal Farlow Players Here?

[Dutchbopper]

I love my Tal. I always wonder why there are so few TF players out there. Personally, I could not think of a more convincing signature model than this one. Great classic sound. Great looks. What more do you want So, who is playing one here? Post your pics! Or vids!

Regards,

Dick

[hot ford coupe]

Hey Dick. One reason why I've never bought a Tal was I never saw one in a music shop I could try or found one in the usual places I looked. Years ago I read a bit about how Tal designed his and I thought it was a really great design especially with the shorter neck. If I hadn't stopped collecting guitars, the TF would have been one I went after. I stopped collecting when I retired and the funds were less for me so that ended my GAS for a TF. BTW, I really do like the way you sound with that one.

[oldane]

I love my Tal. I always wonder why there are so few TF players out there.

Well, there were not too many made. Anyway, as for sound and feel, I think many 17" laminated guitars modelled after the ES350 (the Tal Farlow is one of them) from many makers is in the same ballpark, but of course they do not have the distinctive Tal Farlow design features (the scroll, the pickguard, the inlays etc.)

To HFC: The Tal Farlow had/has normal 25½" scale. In fact it was identical to - and replaced - the ES350 except for the cosmetics. It was the Byrdland and the ES350T (thinline version of the ES350, used by Chuck Berry among others) which had the short 23½" scale (in the first incarnation of the 350T - the reissues of the 1970s and 1990s had 25½" scale). It's true that Tal Farlow once had a short scale guitar, but that was an ES150 on which he removed the fingerboard, cut off the lowest end of the fingerboard up to the first fret and glued it back in place with the former first fret now at the nut. He then just had to move the bridge closer to the neck and he was ready to go. In a video where he talks about his guitars, he explains that the reason for doing that was not to get a shorter scale but to get better access to higher positions on the non cutaway guitar. When he later got the ES350, which had a cutaway, that issue was solved and he didn't have to resort to surgery. He said that he didn't have any problem with a long scale since he had extraordinary large hands. Being the perpetual tinkerer, he did mod the 350 - he replaced the neck P90 with a CC pickup.

[ronjazz]

It's a very attractive guitar, but the long scale prevented me from getting one, after I had fought with L5s.

[Dutchbopper]

Yes Oldane. Quite right. The Tal has always had the normal 25.5" scale. It is slightly less deep than a 350 though. But only slightly. It's still a full sized archtop.

[hot ford coupe]

Thanks oldane for straightening that out for me. I knew he made some mods on his own guitar but I thought that it carried over to the production TFs.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I'm in the 25.5" scale lovers camp. (L-5 and T-style guitars.) But I'm also getting more partial to smaller bodied archtops, though. There's always the Heritage Sweet 16. Does anyone have a list of archtops with the longer scale? Hofner?

[fws6]

I think there is some confusion in this thread as the tal model indeed was derived from the standard 25-5 es 350 model. But tal himself used a shortscale ( modified 140 ?) while playing with red norvo

[paynow]

I love the TF and I almost always can find one to look at longingly on eBay, the problem being that I can only afford to look.

[Dutchbopper]

No question that the Tal was derived from the 350 with the standard 25.5" scale.

I think there is some confusion in this thread as the tal model indeed was derived from the standard 25-5 es 350 model. But tal himself used a shortscale ( modified 140 ?) while playing with red norvo

[pingu]

one day i'd love to get hold of a tal or an es350
like barneys ....

or even an es300 i'm not too hot up there anyway !
hell i'm not that clever down there either !

nearly bought a Really great Tal cheap , waaaay back ....
when they were hundreds not thousands
wish i had !

[GNAPPI]

It's funny about the Tal Farlow. Don't get me wrong, anything over $3k (US) IS expensive (Tals sell for between $3-4k) but much more expensive guitars seem to be "flying off the shelves" on Feebay :-)

I know that people spend a lot more than the value of a Tal on other guitars but the TF seems to be considered very expensive? The average L5 CES, Super 400, or Byrdland sell quickly on EBAY for substantially more than a Tal.

I've wanted a Tal, L5 or Byrdland since I used to drool looking at them in a little Jazzer's guitar shop one walking flight up in midtown New York in the 60's. BTW, has anyone been there and remember the name of the shop?

Anyway, the planets of the financial cosmos aligned just right for me when I bought my TF a couple of weeks ago, and other than having Angie Jolie as my GF, it's the next best thing!

[Jonathan0996]

I've always been intrigued by the Tals, but I guess I'm getting too old for big, long-scale guitars. Last year I got a Holst with ES-175 specs, except that it's only 2.75" deep. Nice and comfy.

Still, I've gotta admit you make that Tal sing, Dick.

[Patrick2]

OK .. . so, here are my reasons for not being a Gibson Tal fan; first and foremost, the goofy faux scroll (hate it) . . then, there are the up side down finger board inlays . . . then, the rosewood board and the rosewood bridge assy (I'm an ebony fan) . . . then, there's the laminate top and back . .. then, there's the non traditional Gibson pick guard . . . then, there's my displeasure with the location of the pup selector switch . . . then, there's the chrome hardware on an arch top instead of gold.

Other than those very few things . . . . it seems to be a wonderful guitar. Just, not my particular taste.

It's a wonderful guitar . . . but, it's not for me . . . . no disrespect intended.

[GNAPPI]

"It's a wonderful guitar . . . but, it's not for me . . . . no disrespect intended."

None taken... Every one of your points is valid for me too. If the switch were on the cutaway, and the PG were more conventional, if the head and FB inlays were "normal" and if the swirl were like the Gibby mandolins... real I'd for sure like it more, a LOT more but it's how it plays that absolves it of it's sins... kinda like those original horrifically tacky D'Angelico New Yorkers huh? Or would you say you LIKE them? That would be a contradiction no?

I look at this way, I accept the looks of it, kinda sorta like those guys that have spinning hubcaps that they never get to see themselves because they're driving the car :-) I don't see it's sins while I play.

It's what hits my ears, if it had a pic of Betty Boop on it, I'd still love it, but spray paint over her pic!

PS, there are precious few wonderful guitars too few for me to care about visuals keeping me from playing them... and who am "I" to preach? I have a repro D'A EXS-1DH, and it's dog ugly too :-)

[Dutchbopper]

OK .. . so, here are my reasons for not being a Gibson Tal fan; first and foremost, the goofy faux scroll (hate it) . . then, there are the up side down finger board inlays . . . then, the rosewood board and the rosewood bridge assy (I'm an ebony fan) . . . then, there's the laminate top and back . .. then, there's the non traditional Gibson pick guard . . . then, there's my displeasure with the location of the pup selector switch . . . then, there's the chrome hardware on an arch top instead of gold.

Other than those very few things . . . . it seems to be a wonderful guitar. Just, not my particular taste.

It's a wonderful guitar . . . but, it's not for me . . . . no disrespect intended.

That's ok. We are talking esthetics now. But ... Since I noticed you are a Heritage rep ... I always wanted to ask this question to an employee. You don't have problems with the Heritage headstocks?

Like you, no disrespect intended. I am sure Heritage makes wonderful sounding instruments. But I hear this complaint about Heritage (pointy headstocks) by fellow players too. So it's not entirely personal. I really cannot understand why they chose for the pointy headstock. It is so out of place in their mostly classic designs. A pity really and for me personally, a deal breaker.

[Dutchbopper]

The position of the toggle switch on the Tal is such that it is impossible to hit it bij accident. It is lower than the pickguard. Personally I dig the scroll too. I easily find it the most appealing Gibson archtop. But I am sure many will disagree.

I played a 1964 Tal last month. What a guitar. The asking price was 9,500 euros (!!!) But I had my 1998 Tal with me too and, like I said earlier here, it compared really well with the original. Gibson did a good job. But I am not sure they are still making them, are they?

Found these pics on the web of a blonde. Fantastic woods are used on the Tals!

[oldane]

3) I still find it strange that Gibson does not have a model with the Tal specs but a bit toned down design, as I would imagine that would probably appeal to more players (my argument above)

I would love to see a reissue of the ES350 or the plainer ES150 with a cutaway added. However, I don't think there's a big market for 17'' plywood guitars. These days people seems to prefer smaller body sizes and there Gibson has the 175. When I ordered my Painter P-350, Tom said it was a long time since he made one of those. Makers like Holst or Sadowsky also seem to sell more guitars of smaller sizes.

[wintermoon]

"But tal himself used a shortscale ( modified 140 ?) while playing with red norvo"

he only played one briefly for a television show, he normally used an ES-250.
he had the neck taken off and a fret sawed off to make it a shorter scale.

but on the subject of Tal Farlow guitars the only thing that bothers me is the p.u. switch location. the fingerboard w/the upside down J-200 crown inlays is strange though

the snakehead shape of Heritage guitars isn't a bad idea from a functionality aspect as Patrick points out, but the 'points' don't float my boat at all. they could have come up w/something different, likewise w/ the tailpieces which are just copies of Gibson artist series t.p.'s [ala the Tal, Howard Roberts, etc.] which were never very attractive IMO, pretty much an L-7 t.p. w/the cuttout filled in w/ a plaque

[Patrick2]

"But tal himself used a shortscale ( modified 140 ?) while playing with red norvo"

he only played one briefly for a television show, he normally used an ES-250.
he had the neck taken off and a fret sawed off to make it a shorter scale.

Sawing off one fret would not shorten the scale ... it would only shorten the length of the neck

but on the subject of Tal Farlow guitars the only thing that bothers me is the p.u. switch location. the fingerboard w/the upside down J-200 crown inlays is strange though

the snakehead shape of Heritage guitars isn't a bad idea from a functionality aspect as Patrick points out, but the 'points' don't float my boat at all. they could have come up w/something different, likewise w/ the tailpieces which are just copies of Gibson artist series t.p.'s [ala the Tal, Howard Roberts, etc.] they were never very attractive IMO, pretty much an L-7 t.p. w/the cuttout filled in w/ a plaque

I've pushed real hard for Heritage to consider a totally proprietary tail piece for each of their higher end models . . the GE, the SE and the Sweetie. Unfortunately, due to the small quantities produced of each model, there would be insufficient numbers of each model to amortize the costs of something totally proprietary to each model. So doing so would probably add approx $300 cost to those models. But contrast, the Gibson L5, Super 400 and other models were made by the thousands . . . as compared to maybe 100 per year by Heritage.

[wintermoon]

"Sawing off one fret would not shorten the scale ... it would only shorten the length of the neck"

I don't mean he had the last fret on the board removed, he had the length of a fret removed from the neck which he cut down and glued the fingerboard back on.

"the Gibson L5, Super 400 and other models were made by the thousands"

not on a yearly basis, in the 1950s and 1960s maybe 50 or so for each model yearly which increased to about 100-150 by the end of the 1960s. in the 1970s it dropped back to less than 100 per year and even less in the 80's

[Patrick2]

"Sawing off one fret would not shorten the scale ... it would only shorten the length of the neck"

I don't mean he had the last fret on the board removed, he had the length of a fret removed from the neck which he cut down and glued the fingerboard back on.

I figured it might have been something like that . . . but, you had me a bit confused because I know you're far too knowledgeable to not know the difference between a shorter length and a shorter scale length.

"the Gibson L5, Super 400 and other models were made by the thousands"

not on a yearly basis, in the 1950s and 1960s maybe 50 or so for each model yearly which increased to about 100-150 by the end of the 1960s. in the 1970s it dropped back to less than 100 per year and even less in the 80's

That's why I said . . "and other models". Although, "by the thousands" was a statement of hyperbole. lolol But, collectively, Gibson made far more of their arch tops with proprietary tail pieces even back then than Heritage does today. And, the cost for a proprietary design was far less, with Gibson having the tooling to do most of it in house. For a short period, Heritage was able to get Schaller to put that big ass H on their tail piece . . which made it somewhat proprietary. But, I've been in contact with ABM in Germany regarding a custom tail piece for the GEs and the SEs. ABM would only do it in bell brass with a 20K gold plating. Heritage's cost would have exceeded $300 and they would have needed to order 50 at a time of each (the SE and the GE would have had different designs, just as the L5 and the Super 4 do). Heritage understandably chose to pass on that.

[neuroscan]

OK .. . so, here are my reasons for not being a Gibson Tal fan; first and foremost, the goofy faux scroll (hate it) . . then, there are the up side down finger board inlays . . . then, the rosewood board and the rosewood bridge assy (I'm an ebony fan) . . . then, there's the laminate top and back . .. then, there's the non traditional Gibson pick guard . . . then, there's my displeasure with the location of the pup selector switch . . . then, there's the chrome hardware on an arch top instead of gold.

Other than those very few things . . . . it seems to be a wonderful guitar. Just, not my particular taste.

It's a wonderful guitar . . . but, it's not for me . . . . no disrespect intended.

Very funny - I have a Tal pretty much identical to the one Mr Dutchbopper owns, and everything you seem to hate, I like about this guitar! Scroll looks great, so do fingerboard inlays. I prefer rosewood boards over ebony. No problems with laminates (the Tal sounds killer plugged in, fat and mellow, although admittedly not great acoustically). Who cares about the pickup selector location? I have never ever switched to the bridge pickup... I much prefer chrome hardware to gold. Overall, the Tal is pretty much my ideal instrument for a classic guitar sound. Possibly my only complaint is that it's a bit on the heavy side.

M.

[marceff]

Hi you all, I have the chance to get a 2011 Gibson Tal Farlow from a store but I have to give them my Es 175, which sounds perfect now, after having spent some time in setting it up.
I red several good comments about the Tal and I think it would be a step ahead from ES175.
I am just a bit worried about the scale as I don't know how much could influence my playing, having a not very big hand. Also I red that the sound is brighter than ES175, due the length of the scale.
I'd really appreciate to receive some comments from someone who may owns a Tal or just played it.
Thanks

[gggomez]

Is the 175 you? If it is perfect how is another guitar a step ahead? Can some one else tell you if it is you?

Some nice little stories:

Saw a great video of Chuck Berry and they tried to change his amp settings. He went crazy. Do not touch my amp, do not play with my sound. That is me. If you do not like it you do not like me. You can not like me but you can not change me.

I was chatting with Jonathan Kreisberg and some big music shop owner and he was talking about his guitar (an ES175) being on its last legs and that he may need to replace it but it had to be identical. He said it is a really hard guitar to play but it is him he could not have anything else.

Wes Montgomery said he was not a guitar player. Guitar players spend too much time talking about their instruments etc.

Either way, fantastic guitars.