-
Groyniad,You said, "wondering if anyone has any experience of old L7s....40s - 50sa) just in generalb) with pickup".I own and play a '44 L7. It would be hard to overstate how nice it is, both acoustically, and with the Jason Lollar Gold Foil Single Coil pickup, played through a comparable era vintage design tube amp. I know that the tone is exceptional, because I get that comment from other seriously great and respected jazz guitar players with whom I've had sessions. So, it's not just me offering a biased opinion, it's fact based on a fair sample size.Generally, it has a rich and deep throated tone that respects a player's range of styles, from gentle finger-style to agressive chomping of 4 by 4 rhythms and picking elaborate melodic or other improvised lines. It's very responsive. I have some really nice archtops, and this one stands out in a crowd. The floating pickup was added after owning the guitar for several years, so I had ample time to play without it. It opens a lot of doors to playing opportunities that I otherwise wouldn't have. After doing it, I asked myself why did I wait so long? The only answer was that I had convinced myself, incorrectly, that I was always going to play it acoustically. Now, I can do both, and, at the same time! I say this because people listening say that they can hear both the acoustics and the amp tones simultaneously. It's awesome! So, in summary, it's a fricking beautiful guitar, with all of it's bumps and nicks, and it has some serious mojo and good karma, such that when you play it, it feels really good. I love it. Please don't ask me how I keep it from falling out of the chair (the pic attachment function on this forum is a pain and always rotates them).?
Steve
Last edited by skykomishone; 10-13-2019 at 01:11 PM.
-
03-05-2019 04:45 PM
-
I must also say that I bought it in rough shape, and it needed a neck reset and fret job. I had the neck shaped a bit while it was off. The early ones have baseball bats for necks, and I had taken the average of my Campellone, Trenier Excel, and Heritage Eagle measurements for thickness and shape and made it that way. I'm glad I did. It plays like a dream. It had also been obviously played a huge amount, because the lacquer was totally worn off of the back of the neck to bare wood. That is a dead giveaway to a guitar that someone really loved to play in a previous life.
-
I have a '47.
-
I have a non-cut 1947 L7 and I love it. It sounds as good or better than most of my other acoustic archtops. Lots of volume too. I have a vintage De’Armond pickup for it, but it is not currently on the guitar. My father had a late 1950’s L7C with a McCarty fingerrest pickup for many years. It was also excellent, and held its own with his acoustic L5. I think these are the best value in jazz guitars of all.
Originally Posted by Groyniad
Keith
Last edited by floatingpickup; 03-06-2019 at 10:49 PM.
-
When did Gibson stop making them? I'm not familiar with the model at all and a quick peek at Reverb found quite a few but all pretty old.
Thanks for the L7 GAS ha ha.
-
Gibson halted production of the L7 in 1972, along with other sub-L-5 archtops. However, Gibson resurrected the L7 later on in its Bozeman, MT, project and made the fully acoustic L-7C until recently.
So, an initial production run of 40 years, plus a Bozeman run of about 20-25 years.
-
Bozeman L-7C: 2003 - 2012.
I doubt they made more than a handful in 2003.
It's possible that a few were assembled after 2012, but I haven't been able to find any.
I have partial production info around here somewhere.
They only made a few hundred of these in that period.
I just got one for a friend who is a pro player and was knocked out by mine.
It came from one of our lovely members, as did mine, a few years back.
Time to chase down Ren Ferguson and ask...
Mandatory pix (both from 2004):
-
Ever since I tried a modern L-5 a while ago, I've been looking for a cheaper L-5 alternative. There is a 1946 non-cutaway L-7 with a floating pickup at a local store that I'll visit this weekend. I don't have a lot of experience with L-5's or L-7's. Since this one is built as a primarily acoustic guitar and has a floating pickup, I doubt it'll have the Wes thing. How does a 1946 L-7 compare to modern L-5. Can it get somewhat close?
-
A 1946 L-7 is a completely different beast to a modern L-5 CES or L-5 Wes. While the top is carved on the latter two, they are intended as electric guitars.
The L-7 you describe was built as a true acoustic guitar. It will probably sound fantastic with a DeArmond on it, but if you’re looking to sound like classic Wes, you will probably not be happy with it. It will also be more prone to feedback when amplified.
-
To a *modern* L-5? I'd compare it to a L-5 of similar vintage, I think. I'd wager yesterday's L-7 is probably built better than a lot of today's stuff.
I can't really speak of comparing, more just what I've read. I did a fair bit of reading before I hit the Add To Cart button to pick up this little gem;
She's a '48. I added the DeArmond 1100 RI, wired into Schattens and a jack mounted under the tort pickguard (I also added that), and the L-5 truss rod cover.
The jist of what I read was they're pretty reasonably comparable to the L-5 (again, of the same vintage), not unlike comparing a Les Paul Studio to a Les Paul Standard.
B.
PS...If I ever get some free time this lifetime, I'll be posting a NGD thread....
-
Yeah, that's my expectation as well. However, the reason I asked is, I remember trying a vintage L-7 a while ago. I was surprised how heavily built it was. Although it was essentially an acoustic guitar, it was nothing like modern luthier made acoustics archtops, which tend to be very light and lively. That one was thick and not lively. It had a floating pickup which sounded a lot more electric than you would expect from an acoustic guitar. Originally Posted by ThatRhythmMan
-
As already stated above if you want an Acoustic Archtop that's a lighter build than an L-7 would be a good choice. Remember though the older guitars of this era had fairly thin frets as well as older tuners.
For me I prefer a heavier built instrument even if it's an Acoustic Archtop. There is a midrange quality missing in the lighter builds as well as feedback issues.
My suggestion is get a used Mark Campellone guitar which is probably what you are looking for. More consistent build,great L-7 style instruments.
-
Here's my 2 L-7's. The blonde is a '52. It came with a McCarty p/u but I removed it. I think the best suggestion here so far is to compare a '50's L-7 to a '50's L-5, not a modern day L-5.. Modern day L-5's and Wesmo's are heavy & built with thick tops (( non-feedback, I guess )), and have very little acoustic volume - -including the Custom Shop acoustics. My '52 was basically unplayed and the setup I finally arrived at took a while. That scale and those frets made me arrive at 12-52's, and 13's didn't push any more volume out of it. Some people change out those skinny frets, but I can get around them now.
But as someone said, the surface pickup will feed back, at some volume, but at low volume will sound ok. I really like the fact that this '52 is light as a feather, and makes for comfortable playing. But the response is sort of non-bass, but you do get everything else. Mids and highs show up pretty well.
But all in all I agree with the Campellone suggestion - a lot. Once you get to that magic $3000. for that guitar * or more * ( and you probably will ) -assuming you find a good one - -a big assumption - then you still have to put a pickup on it. And then yes it'll feed back if you ever have to crank it up.
Good luck. Just my 2 cents worth. Hope it helps.
-
Let me preface my comments by saying that I am referring to the L-5 as an acoustic archtop, not the CES or other versions with (a) mounted pickup(s).
As I recall, the L-7 was the “affordable” version of the L-5. I am wont to use automotive analogues, so think of the L-7 as a Chevrolet and the L-5 as a Cadillac. The L-7 was a carved top guitar with a spruce top, maple back and sides, constructed in the same manner/to similar specs as the L-5. The woods were typically not as “high end” as you would find in an L-5 (still excellent quality, though). The fingerboard was rosewood (vs. ebony), the position markers were double slash marks (vs. blocks), and overall had less ornamentation (e.g., unbound f-holes, trapeze tail piece, etc.). In was the “working person’s” L-5...for someone who wanted the performance of an L-5 at a lower price point. They are great instruments.
A lot of great players used L-7s, including George Barnes (shown in period ads from Gibson) and Doug Raney.
Regarding the oft-mentioned feedback issues of amplified acoustic archtops, place your amp to your left near the headstock; virtually, if not entirely, eliminates the problem, regardless of volume. Johnny Smith told me this when I was fortunate to meet him at the time he still had his store; he hated seeing archtops with taped over or stuffed f-holes because it affected the tone of the guitars.
Regards,
John Galich
-
It is very possible that an L7 of any vintage made in the 30's thru 50;s will sound better even than an equivallent L5 of that era. The L7 is simply a less dressy guitar but carved and capable of equal sound. If I might make an analogy, there are very nice looking ladies but maybe by the time you remove all the make-up and dress up they are in fact no better looking than a plain Jane, and might not be anywhere near as attractive, in the end.
Some of the finest guitars I have heard are L7's from these glory years. To me they are the real killers in terms of playing, sound and vibe for the money. The problem as we all know is the archtop market is way over to the buyer side. I also think that at the price point of about $3000 you can starting looking for guitars that might "look better." At the $4000 mark you have a wide variety of archtops to go to and an L7 might just seem to be a "plain Jane." I have said it before...…..be careful of those plain Jane's they sometime really know what to do.
-
Oh, and I might add that a D'angelico Style A or B in the 1980's was a ho-hum guitar respected but nobody was falling all over them...……..wow do I wish I had a stash of 6 or 8 to play today.
-
I had the opportunity to play a late-forties L 7 several years ago at Matt Umanov's (sigh). This sample had a beautifully figured, very dark-stained back and sides. I think the woods were inferior to nothing. The acoustic tone was heavenly - an understatement actually. I could even forgive the v-shaped neck, which has been a deal-breaker in many other cases. But the only role I could figure out for this beauty was big-band comping, Freddie Green style, and those roles are few and far between in my little country. Shipping 'cross the pond isn't without risks, and, frankly, I just couldn't justify the money. A classic the girl you didn't get case.
-
While an L-5 and L-7 are pretty similar, an ebony fingerboard will contribute to a slightly different tone than a rosewood one will. That said, there are great L-7's and mediocre L-5's. I know this from experience. Judge each guitar on it's own merits. Yes, a similar 'vibe" can be had with either model, or an L-10 or L-12.
-
Mark Campellone guitar used,especially a 17" Standard is what will absolutely make you happy!
-
Agreed. I always figured that the marginal differences between an ebony and rosewood board, and an additional 1/2 pound of metal, was offset by the additional plastic shit and sea creature secretions. To me, it's a wash. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Last edited by Hammertone; 12-15-2023 at 04:02 PM.
-
Yeah, I wish. Used Campellone's are quite a rarity in Toronto. Also most Campellone's seem to have floating pickups. Those models are probably more lightly built then L-5 CES's. So I'm not sure they would come much closer to electric L-5's than L-7's. Originally Posted by jads57
One thing puzzles me though. I get why L-5's are double the price of ES175's (solid carved spruce, an inch wider body, premium appointments). But why the hell Super 400's are double the price of L-5's????
-
BrianB,
That's a gorgeous L7. With the DeArmond in place you have a tremendous jazz guitar.
IME, (and to echo what has been said above) you have to play the instrument. Some L7s are exceptional; some L5s are exceptional. Some of each are uninspiring. On average, both the L5 and L7 are wonderful instruments to play just about any kind of music on.
The L7, of course, never became the sturdy, electric instrument that the L5-CES did. That's a horse of a different color.
-
Even though they're 'constructed the same' the vast majority of vintage acoustic L-5's I've played sounded better than the vast majority of L-7's I've played. I haven't played many L-5C's made in the last 40 yrs though.
Of course there's exceptions but in general they just seem to have a fatter tone.
There must be some magic dust in L-5's.
-
Question, because I'm uninformed: how does fingerboard material contribute to the tone? I get how body materials (spruce, maple, mahogany, etc.) would; same with bridge materials (ebony vs. rosewood) because they interact with the top. It probably has something to do with the density of the wood, but what am I missing? Originally Posted by Stringswinger
John Galich
-
I haven't played vintage L-5's, because they're just too cost prohibitive for me, but yes I'd bet they have a fatter acoustic tone and maybe more volume than a vintage L-7. Originally Posted by wintermoon
But my '37 L-7 sounds much better w/ more volume * to me * than my '52 L-7. ( x vs parallel bracing ). And also sounds better than the recent Custom shop L-5 acoustics I played up at Dave's a few years ago.
I just don't think there's any magic dust at all in recent L-5 acoustics - -ok, maybe there is, but they're so quiet you can't hear it.
Just MHO
Reply With Quote
Knaggs Chena A
Today, 06:19 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos