1934 Gibson L-5

[rpguitar]

I am happy to be corrected on the identity of the L-5 headstock inlay, but I'm afraid only an authoritative source will suffice. I don't even know who that might be any more, after so many decades of time have passed. I'm not buying the torch/chalice concept.

The three pronged thing at the top of that inlay is a flower, and the other wisps are leafy tendrils. There is a flared base on the pot that allows it to stand, as vases are required to do. A torch would have a convenient place for it to be held near the base, and that is not present on the L-5 inlay. The vertical lines in the cup are striations in the fluted glass.

[AlainJazz]

Hmm, something i didn't quite understand because some posters are claiming that the old flaming chalice looks much different than the "newer" flower pot. I have both a 70s Byrdland and a '91 L5CES and I don't see any difference between my inlays and the pictures posted here of the old L5s. Did I miss something??

[rpguitar]

There are definitely differences in the inlay complexity over the years, particularly to consolidate inlay pieces that were formerly separate (less labor). It's detailed in Adrian Ingram's "The Gibson L-5" book and can be corroborated with some patient Googling on various online photos.

[kamlapati]

Repeat: does anyone have any references to early Gibson or Loar, or even early third parties, that called it a "flaming chalice?"

[AlainJazz]

Hey rp,

Thanks. I'll have to check out some images on google. To be honest, I never noticed the difference. Interesting.

[AlainJazz]

Cool. You're right. I checked one from the 30s, 50s, and also mine. Indeed they are different. I would almost say that the older ones look almost "hand drawn", like a cartoon. The newer ones are also quite intricate but look more "perfect". Know what I mean?

[Jabberwocky]

I wonder who designed it though. The designer was never given any credit. It has certainly stood the test of time and is one of the nicest inlays extant.

The "flowerpot" moniker came about during the Norlin era, I suspect. That was when I first learnt of the moniker of the inlay, in the mid-70s. It was considerably simplified then, unrecognisable from its original form. But it never sat well with me because it looks like no flower, stylised or not. It really does look more like curlicues of stylised flames and a spark on a torch or chalice. Conjuring is one of my other interests and I love those old theatre posters of the conjurors of that pre-war period (the high point of the conjuring arts, in my estimation). The association with magic of that era is simply too strong and so it is a magical flaming chalice/torch of a strange brew inlay to me. The mid-late 1920s to early-mid 1930s L-5s inlays with their intricacy seem to strengthen that point of view.

[kamlapati]

Maybe this place is old news to everyone but me, but I just found it:

http://www.prewargibsonl-5.com/

[rpguitar]

Yes Kamlapati, I discovered that site recently too, and now Chris should register his beauty there! Mine is serial 86842 in the "Type 2" gallery.

I can't find any early or authoritative references on the web about the flowerpot/torch. There are many more flowerpot references than torch, but there are numerous that refer to it as alternately either with a slash as I just did. I guess it's art ,and ultimately in the eye of the beholder. I just see too many explicit elements of a vase and flowering plant to be capable of interpreting it otherwise.

[wintermoon]

the earlier flowerpot/flame pearl inlay or whatever you want to call it was cut by hand and became progressively simplified [sloppier?] as the years wore on up until the 70's. not sure if they're machine cut now, but they are sharper now than they had been.

over the years, some things that took a lot of time to make [read: costing the company more] got simpler.
look @ the tailpieces of the advanced L-5's and the newly introduced Super 400 in the 30's. those things are works of art in themselves. much more engraving in the early years until the majority of the engraving was eliminated by the 70's.

this applies to other builders as well--the Joseph Schaffner company, who was supplying John D'Angelico w/his stairstep tailpieces made them simpler as time wore on.

[kamlapati]

I can't find any early or authoritative references on the web about the flowerpot/torch. There are many more flowerpot references than torch, but there are numerous that refer to it as alternately either with a slash as I just did. I guess it's art ,and ultimately in the eye of the beholder. I just see too many explicit elements of a vase and flowering plant to be capable of interpreting it otherwise.

It looks like an amaryllis or a lily to me, and has always seemed perfectly in the decorative style of the day that way. Plus, the mandolins of the day had either the flower / torch, or alternately they had a fern. Perhaps the plant kingdom is the unifying theme here?

But you're right: eye of the beholder. I'm letting this go now, until someone declares definitively that it is a torch!

[Daniel Kuryliak]

Obviously, there are different "schools of thought" on the actual meaning of the icon inlay.

I remember from the late 60s as it being referred to a "flaming torch..well maybe it's not based
on the base design.

"Flaming chalice" .. is used more as a religious symbol..I doubt that Gibson would use any symbol
that had any religious connotation..so we are back to some kind of vase with flowers or tendrils (vine?)
coming out of the vase?

[Daniel Kuryliak]

It looks like an amaryllis or a lily to me, and has always seemed perfectly in the decorative style of the day that way. Plus, the mandolins of the day had either the flower / torch, or alternately they had a fern. Perhaps the plant kingdom is the unifying theme here?

But you're right: eye of the beholder. I'm letting this go now, until someone declares definitively that it is a torch!

Some guitar book I have looked at mention a "plant symbol" so if that is the case, then the bottom part
would be an elegant vase to hold a flower or flowers..and yes generically it is a "flowerpot" but lilies don't
have curly leaves like that..(although the leaf on the left side is more of a straight leaf. ) so it definitely
does not represent a lily. Amaryllis .. same thing.

Gibson (used, 1924) Lloyd Loar F-5 Master Model signed March 31, 1924 - Mandolin Brothers, Ltd.

[rpguitar]

Those are pretty cool indeed, Daniel... And while quite broad in their artistic interpretation of a flaming torch, it's interesting that - in contrast to ALL of them - the L-5 inlay has:

- A 3D circular, open top where you would pour the water
- Clearly delineated sections shaped to imitate segments of a glass vase
- A discrete and separate floral shape at the very top representing a flower

I think it's really quite different from all of the flaming torches, but I'll leave it at that since this debate can have no definitive winner!

[Daniel Kuryliak]

Those are pretty cool indeed, Daniel... And while quite broad in their artistic interpretation of a flaming torch, it's interesting that - in contrast to ALL of them - the L-5 inlay has:

- A 3D circular, open top where you would pour the water

<yes, I see that.>

- Clearly delineated sections shaped to imitate segments of a glass vase

<makes sense>

- A discrete and separate floral shape at the very top representing a flower
<makes sense now
that we have thoroughly analyzed this icon>(don't you just hate nitpickers?)

I think it's really quite different from all of the flaming torches, but I'll leave it at that since this debate can have no definitive winner!

Only Lloyd Loar would know for sure...but I still believe that I would call it a " Vase with cut flowers "
than a "flower pot".It's a more elegant description of this iconic symbol for Gibson's mandolins, L5 and the Byrdland.

[Daniel Kuryliak]

nice guitar, but the Johnny Smith was a seperate model from the L-5

Yes, I know that...it somewhere between a L5 and a Super 400. The split diamond icon and the deluxe diagonal
3 piece position markers make it more distinctive from the L5. Johnny and Ted McCarty collaborated on the design.
Another guitar company had made a "Johnny Smith" model and when he played it, he said it was no good. He
was extremely fussy with his guitars. He then approached McCarty and asked Gibson if they could make him
a custom guitar the way he wanted it. MCarty, who was a JS fan told him sure..you tell us what you want and
we will make it for you. (1960). While Johnny had other guitars, the ones he was most fond of was the L5
and a D'Angelico. McCarty and JS took all the measurements from both guitars . McCarty wrote down what
JS wanted and why he wanted it that way. He wanted 22 frets instead of 21. He didn't want a tone control
only volume. He didn't want any switch for the pickup. When the guitar was ready McCarty sent it to him
in Colorado and after he played it on stage for the first time, he phone McCarty and told him that was the
first time he had ever played a new guitar without "breaking it in first". He said it was so perfect, it was
exactly what he wanted. So Gibson sent him a check for $1000 so he would become their official endorser.

[mitch_33]

kamlapti- Thanks for that website, I can't wait to one day own an L5, until then I think a Loar might have to do. No way I can afford an L5 anytime in the near future, unless I win the lottery, in which case, ill buy you all one.

[wintermoon]

Yes, I know that...it somewhere between a L5 and a Super 400. The split diamond icon and the deluxe diagonal
3 piece position markers make it more distinctive from the L5. Johnny and Ted McCarty collaborated on the design.
Another guitar company had made a "Johnny Smith" model and when he played it, he said it was no good. He
was extremely fussy with his guitars. He then approached McCarty and asked Gibson if they could make him
a custom guitar the way he wanted it. MCarty, who was a JS fan told him sure..you tell us what you want and
we will make it for you. (1960). While Johnny had other guitars, the ones he was most fond of was the L5
and a D'Angelico. McCarty and JS took all the measurements from both guitars . McCarty wrote down what
JS wanted and why he wanted it that way. He wanted 22 frets instead of 21. He didn't want a tone control
only volume. He didn't want any switch for the pickup. When the guitar was ready McCarty sent it to him
in Colorado and after he played it on stage for the first time, he phone McCarty and told him that was the
first time he had ever played a new guitar without "breaking it in first". He said it was so perfect, it was
exactly what he wanted. So Gibson sent him a check for $1000 so he would become their official endorser.

the Gibson Johnny Smith was based on his custom D'Angelico Special, a 17" wide cutaway x-braced guitar.
when Smith designed it he specified 20 frets, but Gibson sent him one w/ 22 instead. Smith liked the guitar but told them to take off the 2 extra frets. his old endorsement w/Guild was still in effect when the Gibson model went into production, though he never played the Guild

[Daniel Kuryliak]

I wonder who designed it though. The designer was never given any credit. It has certainly stood the test of time and is one of the nicest inlays extant.

The "flowerpot" moniker came about during the Norlin era, I suspect. That was when I first learnt of the moniker of the inlay, in the mid-70s. It was considerably simplified then, unrecognisable from its original form. But it never sat well with me because it looks like no flower, stylised or not. It really does look more like curlicues of stylised flames and a spark on a torch or chalice. Conjuring is one of my other interests and I love those old theatre posters of the conjurors of that pre-war period (the high point of the conjuring arts, in my estimation). The association with magic of that era is simply too strong and so it is a magical flaming chalice/torch of a strange brew inlay to me. The mid-late 1920s to early-mid 1930s L-5s inlays with their intricacy seem to strengthen that point of view.

In my younger days, when I worked for an Epiphone/Gibson dealer here in Ottawa, we never referred to the MOP inlay on the L5 as a "flower pot"...back then it was called a "torch symbol". Maybe this is one of those unwritten controversies that someone in the the Gibson empire decided to call it a "flower pot" for lack of a better description and now, all online references to it call it a "flower pot"...

Now picture this dear Gibson lovers..how would you look or think of yourself with a "flower pot" on your head(stock)?
This reminds me of that Grand ole Opry character..what was her name?, with the hats with the tags
hanging off them coming on stage and saying."howdy partners" ..LOL.

Gibson literature writers seem to take liberties to interpret things as they see them , and not necessarily what is/ or was historically correct.

ie: fly-on-the-wall at the Gibson custom shop: ..."What would you call that design
in MOP on the headstock of the L5 or Byrdland?..."I dunno..looks like a "flower pot" to me."

It's the same thing with the Epiphone headstock "Vine" with the "morning glory flowers" on it..somebody at Epiphone/Gibson decide to call it "the tree of life"...LOL!

[Daniel Kuryliak]

kamlapti- Thanks for that website, I can't wait to one day own an L5, until then I think a Loar might have to do. No way I can afford an L5 anytime in the near future, unless I win the lottery, in which case, ill buy you all one.

Good plan. Just don't fall for those Chinese/Indonesian fakes on Flea-Bay. I've seen a few of them already and they are looking for suckers that can't tell the difference.
The real L5s, and some of the custom shop offerings, now have theft deterent device (similar to a microchip) placed in a inconspicuous place in the guitar that will reference the SN of the newer
guitars and the dealer, or whomever has the scanner can read .

Here is one of my posts on the Gibson Guitar board /Epiphone lounge. My userid was "carverman"


Speaking of anti-theft devices;
I read at the Gibson site that the new Custom Shop Gibsons now have a "transponder chip" built into them
in an area of the guitar that would be difficult to get at, without practically rendering the guitar useless.

Not sure if they were referring to an actual transponder chip, like they have on expensive cars these days
or more of a pet scan type of micro chip, but it's a good idea. I guess the main issue with these stolen
guitars is finding out what area of the country they end up at, so they can be scanned or tracked.

As someone mentioned, if it's done for pawning for drug money at the local pawnshops, then you might
have a chance, if you have filed a police report and willing to go and search the pawnshops.

I doubt that very many of the stolen guitars would end up being played by the thieves themselves.

[Daniel Kuryliak]

the Gibson Johnny Smith was based on his custom D'Angelico Special, a 17" wide cutaway x-braced guitar.
when Smith designed it he specified 20 frets, but Gibson sent him one w/ 22 instead. Smith liked the guitar but told them to take off the 2 extra frets. his old endorsement w/Guild was still in effect when the Gibson model went into production, though he never played the Guild

Well it's possible. I don't know for sure. I do have the book "Gibson Guitars, Ted McCarty's Golden Era 1948-1966by Gil Hembree. He interviewed Ted McCarty (CEO of Gibson up until 1966 when he resigned) in 1999 (about 2 years before Ted McCarty passed, so maybe Ted's recollection was
a bit foggy in his later years. In the interview with Gil Hembree, Ted McCarty mentioned
about visiting JS at his store in Colorado...
"I had brought with me my instruments to measure his guitars. I wrote down what he wanted,why he
wanted it, and all the rest of it. He wanted 21 frets but we had room for 22 frets, so we put 22 frets on it. Afterwards he said, "I don't want 22 frets, I want 21".. He had no tone control...."

I remember JS and the Guild..what was the story on that?..was that the Guild JS model that
he rejected?...I also believe that whatever the endorsement McCarty had with JS, it either expired or there was some kind of controversy behind his endorsement.

The only JS model that came into our shop was a natural in 1966.
McCarty resigned from Gibson in 1966 and bought out Paul Bigsby. McCarty passed in April 2001.
Johnny Smith was in Colorado up until he passed this year in June.

I would have loved to be that fly on the wall..and listened to what these two men talked about on the design and construction of one of the greatest guitars to come out of Kalamazoo.

[teleman3726]

[QUOTE=rpguitar;376995]Yes Kamlapati, I discovered that site recently too, and now Chris should register his beauty there! Mine is serial 86842 in the "Type 2" gallery.

Thanks, Roger.
Jab pointed out this site during the purchase so I'll enter some info and take some better shots.
Chris

[bluemusic4us]

That really a clean white rug!

The guitar's not bad either.

[Daniel Kuryliak]

Maybe this place is old news to everyone but me, but I just found it:

Home - Gibson L-5

Sorry, but this is just another modern writeup on the L5.

While it may have some historical info, when they mention Bob Benedetto started making them in the 70s it doesn't go back far enough to satisfy me. The Gibson L5 has been around a lot longer than that, so whatever the original artistic intent was of the icon whether a "flaming chalice" or a "flower pot", only the original people that were involved would know and they are no longer around.

Maybe to settle it once and for all..it should be called a "flame lily vase" (Glorisa Superba) instead
of just a "flower pot" of geraniums of what ever..common house plants.

[rpguitar]

Kamlapati was just referring folks to that site because it's cool and relevant to pre-war L5s, not to cite it as an authority in the headstock inlay wars. We really have trodden upon Chris's awesome '34 L-5 NGD thread after all.