-
Just thinking out loud, but ... I've been doing a lot of playing unplugged these days and finding that I'm enjoying it a lot more than I have in the past. And as long as I seem to be completely revamping my gear and sound right now it occurred to me that perhaps I should consider an arch top acoustic. It might be especially nice for teaching. I don't think I'm willing to play a larger guitar yet though so my question is whether there is such a thing as 16" arch top acoustic that is a) worth playing and b) is not hideously expensive? Any thoughts?
Last edited by Jim Soloway; 12-01-2013 at 02:38 PM.
-
12-01-2013 02:33 PM
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
My 1949 Gibson L4C is a totally carved solid top Acoustic Archtop, they were built with no pickups, a great guitar and a very good price. I'm playing 7 string only at the moment, but I'm not selling.
Like this:
http://www.vintageandrare.com/uploads/products/37218/1329200/original.jpg
-
It's funny Jim, I've had a very similar path to you concerning solo performance, teaching, and my choice of guitar...going from a solid body to a a semi to a set pickup archtop, and now I'm doing most of my playing on a Taylor flattop and a Godin nylon string. For acoustic playing, I prefer these to an archtop, for my style, which has some things in common with yours.
for some reason, Acoustic archives really change the way I play...everything comes out more "old fashioned." This probably has something to do with the fact that, at this point, I can't afford a nicer acoustic archtop that sounds good played softly as well.
-
I like the 16" Eastmans and Loars, and they're reasonably priced. The 3 inch (or so) depth makes them more comfortable to hold than your usual flattop IMO. But there are some pretty nice ones in the "hideously expensive" range too, like pretty much any of the great one-man shops.
-
Jim: A strange question coming from someone as knowledgeable as your self. I'm wondering if there's more to the question? Something we're missing? There's no doubt that you're aware that any arch top without an inset pup is considered to be an acoustic arch top . . even if it has a floating pup. There's also no doubt that there are quite a few 16" arch tops without inset pups . . some with floaters and some totally devoid of any electronics.
I sold an absolutely gorgeous H575, X braced carved solid maple top with a floating pup to a forumite here. Heritage also makes their standard Sweet 16 with a floating pup.
I've had 3 fully acoustic arch tops custom made for me. A 17" and an 18" Unity, built by Aaron Cowles. With each of them, I had two pick guards made. One had the pup and wiring as well as pick guard mounted tone and volume controls. The other was just a pick guard with no cut out for a pup. The wiring was terminated on each end with a small pin jack so I can easily remove on pick guard and put on the other. The most recent Super/Golden Eagle that I just had made a few months ago has the same configuration. Here's a photo of the 18" Unity;
Last edited by Patrick2; 12-02-2013 at 11:15 AM.
-
Like Jabberwocky suggested, it's hard to do better in that price range than an Eastman. I've played many and they were all decent.
There's been a lot of criticism about cosmetic flaws on The Loar but I think that most people agree that they sound good. I've never played one myself.
A cheaper option that's been getting some love around here is the Godin 5th Ave, but I have one and I don't like it all that much. The sound never pleased me. I keep it to leave at work or to bring where I would never bring a good guitar that I cherish.
I don't have the impression that you'd be interested in vintage, but if you would, 1930s to about war time L-4 (round hole or ƒ holes -- but NOT the 1920s oval hole) certainly sound good and they are comfortable to play, without breaking the bank. (Some are advertised north of $4,000, but with patience you may find one under $2,000 -- and even around $1,500 for a "well-loved" one in decent playing condition.) Pre-war L-50 (but after around 1935 when they went to 16") can be found between $1,000 and $1,600. Another good choice of vintage 16" quality archtop (and even cheaper than an L-4) would be an Epiphone Broadway or Triumph from before 1937 (when they became larger) or a Blackstone (after 1937) or a Spartan (rarer).
-
I'm as confused as Patrick. The granddaddy of all archtops was 16": The L5. Most "everyman" archtop from Harmony and Kay were 16" as were all the brands made by them (Sherwood, Montgomery Ward, Silvertone, Kraftsman, et al). In addition to Gibson's own 16" L5 they also made Recording Kings at a lower price until 1940 (then Kay started making them).
As for presently made, there are quite a few, and not a single bad one in the bunch (I've played many). They have all been mentioned but:
- Loars are very nice and all 16" (the prices have gone up 30% in the last 2 years, and haven't seen anyone complain about flaws lately). Handcarved.
- Eastmans are lovely if you want x-bracing (thanks Jabber for the rep!). The 804/904 is 16" oval hole. The 605/805/905 is 16" f-hole. Handcarved.
- Gretsch makes an awesome 16" archtop called the G100. It is laminate but sounds very nice for the price. Comes in cutaway or non cutaway.
- Godin makes the 5th Avenue in about 1,000 varieties. The G100 is a better sounding and playing guitar (IMO). Laminate.
- Most luthiers making acoustic archtops have a 16" archtop: Andersen, Zimnicki, Collings, Dave Stewart, Campellone, etc. with most being their version of the original L5.
They are all worth playing and affordable (exclude the last bullet for "affordable"). If you wanted a classic Gibson 20's sound with a ton of volume the Loar is the one to pick. They also have cutaway versions (still carved) but I've never played one. 16" is a great size because you get a ton of punch and volume and it is very comfortable to play. Often you get more clarity than you might with a 17".Last edited by spiral; 12-01-2013 at 04:20 PM.
-
Hi Patrick Originally Posted by Patrick2
It's really a question of both size and voice. So many of the archtops I see with a floaters are over 16" and most of the 16"s with floaters that I've seen seem to have quite modest acoustic voice. I was giving a lesson last night and my student had a 17". I was playing my Ibanez. We were doing the lesson acoustically and I struck by how nice it would have been to be playing a guitar with a louder and more pleasing acoustic voice. I realize that guitars with floaters are essentially acoustic instruments but I would also assume that there are some trade offs in the voicing to accommodate the fact that they are also meant to be plugged in, especially in the smaller archtops. I was also remembering the evening I spent with Ted Greene many years ago. we both played unplugged and he was playing an old Epiphone and sounded wonderful. So I'm thinking of a guitar that would be entirely optimized to play acoustically with no consideration for its electric voice at all but I still don't think I'm willing to adapt to a larger body. It would never be used to gig and may never be used to record. Just to play and teach.
And if this is was a rambling answer, as I said at the beginning, I'm really just thinking aloud but it's nice to able to do that in a group with this much knowledge and this many ideas.
-
Jim,
Obviously, with a custom instrument commisioned by a skilled archtop luthier, a 16" archtop with a full acoustic voice is achievable. When I had my 16" Comins Classic commisioned, I asked Bill to create an instrument designed for both acoustic playing and for low volume electric playing. Bill also observed my playing and noted my light touch. Bill in turn selected a stiff Carpathian Spruce top set, tuned the top thickness and x-bracing to be a bit thinner than normal. He felt that it was important to maintain a 3" depth at the rim. I chose a 25" scale (my preference, I know you like shorter scaled guitars). The result is exactly what I was seeking. The downside is an instrument that is sensitive to feedback at higher volumes. Being that I play solo and home 90% of the time, this is not an issue.
Good Luck,
Bob
-
I don't think an archtop is a good choice for a soft acoustic playing style. An acoustic archtop is meant to be played pretty hard and "bark". Oddly enough, I think a good 12-fret small bodied guitar is best suited to that style of playing, think Collins, Santa Cruz, or if on a budget, I really like the Recording King
Collings 000 Series | 12-Fret Acoustic Guitars
All Hail the OO-Skye! | Santa Cruz Guitar Company
Of course, YMMV
-
Keep in mind that you can go even smaller than 16" if you compensate with a deeper body. I have a McKerrihan 15" x 3.75" depth acoustic oval-hole archtop and it is an acoustic beast, but is a bit of an odd duck with its cedar top. I know Steve Andersen experimented with a smaller-but-deeper guitar once upon a time when he built a small run of 15" x 4" oval hole archtops (archtop.com has a link to one in the "previously sold" section). I can tell you that my little 15" has a bigger sound than modern 17" f-hole archtops, no contest. The observations I draw from this are that (a) body depth is very important and (b) oval hole archtops do indeed sound different than f-hole archtops.
-
Sure it is. The acoustic archtop is meant to have a "hard" midrange presence to allow it to be heard in an ensemble, playing chords with a pick. If you're trying to be heard, you hit hard as well. See Freddie Green. An archtop can also be a good voice in a bluegrass group because the midrange emphasis can allow it to "poke through" the banjo and mandolin whereas a flattop with its more scooped voice can be lost. Likewise in a swing ensemble, an archtop can give that necessary rhythm punch that a flattop just doesn't have. Originally Posted by Patrick2
However, if you play just a flattop and an archtop as a duo, you'll almost always perceive the flattop as being louder and sweeter toned. A good gypsy guitar will trounce them both in a group setting however. I've played lots of jams with gypsy, archtop and flattop guitars, and the gypsy will always come out on top, followed by the archtop and finally the flattop at the back. Though it's true I've played jams with Eric Skye and his Santa Cruz keeps up with the gypsy's just fine, so there's variation to be had as in all things
The loudest acoustic guitar I know of is a biscuit cone resonator. Loud but toneless, like a garbage can
-
I thick it bears repeating that one of my conditions was "b) is not hideously expensive?". I realize the an L5 or a custom built guitar could get me there but not for the sort of price I'm thinking of.
-
Careful, DG. There are a few of us here who definitely don't need the tutorial and who strongly disagree with the acoustic archtop stereotypes. Originally Posted by D.G.
-
If you're set on an archtop, I can only echo the Eastman recommendation. I have a non-cutaway 905 (solid spruce top, solid maple back and sides) which is quite nice. I string it with bronze strings and the volume is only a little less than my gypsy guitar. From the player's position it has a sort of "nasal" quality to the sound that you don't hear out front. I also find that you have to play it at an angle so your belly does not contact the back of the guitar. The arched back seems to aid in bass production and volume, unlike a laminated back (i.e. my gypsy guitar.) I really like it as a rhythm guitar but find it a bit lacking as a lead guitar. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
You can always find a deal on a luthier-built guitar if you are patient and wait for the right one to come along. I was just suggesting you keep your eyes open for something with a deeper body and possibly with an oval hole. You can find good buys on electric-ish instruments and they will sound pretty good with an upgraded pickup, if using good strings, a good amp, etc, but with a purely acoustic instrument I really think it's best to be patient and find something stellar...because you're not going to be able tweak much after the fact. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
You want a really good deal though? There is a used F-hole laminate archtop down at Long & McQuade on Main St. for $200. Surprisingly punchy. It's in their used room. I can't recall the brand name. Surely good enough for teaching.
-
It's a shame an Epiphone Triumph's size won't work for you. I played my first Triumph yesterday and was floored by its acoustic voice. My luthier suggested Triumphs are affordable and some of the bigger voiced archtops anywhere. At any rate, I was impressed with the guitar, which had been restored.
-
Jim,
To see what potential a 16" acoustic archtop under $7500 COULD have, you might want to take a trip to Seattle and talk to Steve Andersen. He's built some terrific 16" artchtops. I know you said nothing prohibitively expensive or custom made. But having the range of parameters that illustrates what the extremes are is not bad data... just saying.
I know you've played Ken Parker's, not sure you've played his 16", though. He and Steve are my two favorite acoustic archtop builders. They manage to get tone that others don't seem to even consider.
Finally, Steve's Little Archie guitars are AMAZING acoustic archtops. And they are only 14" across the lower bout.
Sorry to sound like an ad for Steve and Ken - but it's hard not to...
Bob
-
I think I really need to put this into perspective. My budget is a lot together than some of you might think and most of what I have is going into a new guitar build for much more serious purposes. Jabberwocky pretty much nailed the price range I was thinking about in the first response with a used Eastman AR605 non-cut for just under $700.
-
It's out of the budget, but I bought a 16" acoustic arch top from one of the members here. A Solomon Imperial.
It's fantastic. In fact, "a good choice for a soft acoustic playing style." Without a doubt. It has some flat top qualities, too. Not just "mid range punch".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPhy6-qVVAI
-
An old smaller bodied Epiphone could also be the guitar you're looking for. The Blackstone is another model that might be up your alley.
The Zenith pictured above is listed at the Guitar Exchange for $1500.
-
That would have greatly simplified my original answer. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
- If you want something a little more harmonically rich like a flattop get a used Eastman. ($1200 new, $500-$800 used)
- If you want loud bark / chunk / 20's Gibson sound, get a used Loar. Ideally you should get the 700 for the nicer fretboard but the 600 or 300 would scratch the itch. (LH300 $580 new, $400-500 used)
Check out the dozens of Rob MacKillop videos on YouTube with his Loar. Both Eastmans and Loars are lovely instruments. Good luck with whatever you get.
-
Prussin Music has Eastman guitars in stock - might be worth a visit.
-
Thanks to everyone for all the input. I really do appreciate it. And just for the record, while I do have a wealth of experience, like much of my existence, my knowledge runs deep but not really very wide. I have been playing guitar for 51 years and almost all of it has been spent plugged into an amplifier. I doubt that 5% of my playing in those years has been unamplified and even less than that over the last 25 years. I am basically an obsessive compulsive who finds tremendous satisfaction in a singleness of purpose. It works well for me but it does leave some glaring omissions in my knowledge base. I now find myself making some very big changes in my choice of tools and much of what I've learned over recent decades is of little help in my decision making process. Happily, and with a lot of help, most of those decisions seem to be working out rather well so far. So once again, my thanks to all. (And Patrick, a very special thanks again for your help. I'll give you the full progress report in the next couple days, but I'm very excited).
Last edited by Jim Soloway; 12-02-2013 at 01:09 AM.
-
Jim, this isn't about a guitar as much as about a player who can coax an amazing sound out of an Archtop. He's a good friend. I have produced his trio records as well as a duo record with Gene Bertoncini. His name is Steve Greene and he's worth getting to know for his deep knowledge of the tone a player can find in an acoustic instrument.
http://stevegreene.com
bob
Reply With Quote
The Moon Song, Johnny Mandell
Today, 05:51 AM in The Songs