Is it a laminate veneer - or a solid spruce top?

[DRS]

OP
What is the make, model, and year of the guitar? That may be a way of figuring this out.

[2bornot2bop]

The way the OP phrased the question indicates he is on the wrong path. To my way of thinking, there is no sonic advantage of *solid* spruce vs a laminate. In fact, a laminate might sound superior. You are looking to see if it is a *hand carved* spruce top vs. a laminate, or pressed or steamed solid top. The easiest thing is to check the ad copy; if it says "solid spruce" rather than "hand carved spruce" that is all you need to know 99% of the time. If it is a real acoustic arch top, it will say hand carved. If not it is not hand carved, and they want you to think it is a great sounding acoustic, they advertise it as solid spruce, because that's how high quality flat tops are described.

I feel inside the F hole to see if I can detect a difference in top thickness, but what would that really tell you? Some carved top models are inferior, and you won't be able to tell that without playing it. Heck, even playing it will fool you, because of the strings, and the lack of another guitar to compare it with. You might fall in love with an L50, but unless you play, say, an L7 with the same strings right after it, you'll never really know.

Short answer: tell us the guitar model, and we will tell you if it is a hand carved guitar, and where it stands in the company's model line.

Wrong path? 2b...what are U doin!? Gulp

Actually, no. The archtop I was considering buying was a knockoff Greco acoustic L5 look alike. The price was right, but in the end I decided better not to tie up funds into a great looking guitar without knowing what it's made of. It sold for $1600, which was a decent price for a rare Japanese only non export archtop. But had I bid on it as well the price no doubt would have easily approached $2k, and I wasn't going there. So, I backed off and allowed some bloke to get a great price on an archtop without running the bid up for him. What a nice guy I am.

Thanks all for their input...some great information here for the future...I'm glad I asked the Q!

here's the archtop:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1988...vip=true&rt=nc

[jasonc]

There is solid, carved. Then there is solid pressed. Then there is laminate. Then there is a top constructed adding a layer of nomex.

Yes.. and then there is ad copy. Like the common practice of calling plastic furniture covering 'bonded leather'. Got over it years ago. Though I still have the twitch from time to time.

What Spook said. I've seen this mentioned a several times now that "solid pressed" is code for laminate and that is just not true. A solid pressed top is just that, a solid piece of spruce that is pressed into shape via steam and pressure. It will not have a lamination. If it did it would be a laminate top. The Vestax made D'Angelico's were made like this. Also, a hand carved top can be a uniform thickness. They aren't generally but they certainly can be.

[PTChristopher2]

Spook,

I deleted earlier posts - they just were not in the free-flowing (so to speak) spirit of this thread.

But:

>>>Simple and it works. Using a reasonably bright LED the spruce is translucent. You can even see grain details with
>>> the light shining through. On a laminate you get nothing.. totally opaque.

You absolutely can find laminate tops that both freely transmit the light, and show a grain on the bottom layer that looks remarkably like the top layer grain.

If there were money in it (or was otherwise worth the objective bother), this can be easily proven.

Best of luck with this.

Chris

[cooltouch]

Back during the 1970s, Ibanez built a pretty wide variety of jazz-style guitars -- some of which are referred to as Lawsuit Models. I owned a 1977 2455NT, which wasn't really a Lawsuit Model, I'm assuming, because it didn't really look like anything in Gibson's line. It most closely resembled an ES-175, but with all the deluxe work and woods you'd find on a higher end model -- spruce top, flamed maple back and sides, gold hardware, 7-ply binding and triple binding on the fingerboard, with block inlays, etc. It was a great playing and sounding guitar as well.

I found it hanging on the racks at a local music store, which was primarily a Gibson shop and which is, in fact, one of the largest Gibson retailers in the US. But I guess they didn't care much about it because it wasn't a Gibson. They had it priced at $600. Well I knew a little bit about the old Ibanezes and as soon as I saw that price tag, I picked it up and didn't let go of it until it was resting inside its case, on the way into my car. I owned the guitar for 10 years, but ironically once I started playing jazz in a rather serious way, I switched over to a classical, for two main reasons -- 1) I like the sound of a classical better than the sound of any electric jazz guitar, and 2) I just felt more comfortable playing a classical, since I'd played one for so many years. So even though I had a very nice sounding jazz guitar, I almost never played it, and in a moment of weakness, I sold it. I got $1200 for it, and the buyer didn't quibble at all because he knew as well as I did what these old Ibanezes typically sold for -- $1500 and up on eBay. This was about five years ago. Nowadays I hear of them breaking into the $2k territory.

Okay, so these old Ibanezes are built very well, but Ibanez definitely cut corners when it came to the woods they used. I suspect mine was a rather typical example. I took a mirror to it one day because I wanted to know about the woods. The f-holes were laminated, so I couldn't tell there about the top. All it took was a glance at the inner surface of the back wood to tell that it was a laminate. As was mentioned earlier, the inner wood was not book-matched, so that really gave it away. The top was a bit harder to tell. I didn't think of shining a light, so I did the grain-matching thing. After a bit of back and forth, I determined to my satisfaction that the top was laminated as well.

The fact that the guitar had all laminate woods no-doubt affected its unamplified volume. It was a fairly quiet guitar, unplugged -- quieter than I would have thought, in fact. But it had a nice tone, even unplugged, which carried forward when amplified. With its Super 70 pickups, it was simply a nice-sounding guitar and had that full presence that is so often looked for in a jazz instrument. So I guess what I'm getting at is, just because a guitar has laminated woods, this doesn't necessarily mean its sound will suffer.

As an addendum, I found that as the years went by, I missed that old Ibanez more and more. But I just simply couldn't afford the price that it and its kin sell for these days, and I haven't been lucky enough to run into a similar deal as I had when I bought it. But! I had started checking out the new jazz guitars that are available these days for not much coin -- most all are built in China, I suspect, and I'm sure they also all use laminated woods. I played the Epiphones and the Godins and the Ibanezes, and kept coming back to the Ibanezes. At the Guitar Center closest to where I live, there's a guy who works there, named Bill Solley. Bill is an excellent jazz player and one day when I was there and plinking around on an Ibanez AF75, he walks up and asks if I need any help. I sez yeah, and handed him the guitar and told him that I'd like to here him play it, so I can here how the guitar sounds when a real jazz player plays it. So Bill proceeded to play that $400 AF75, and I gotta tell ya, he made it sound sweet. I was impressed. One day after that, I went into a Guitar Center that I hadn't visited before and they had an Ibanez AG95 hanging on the racks. I really liked the looks of it, with its Les-Paul-looking single cutaway and its slightly smaller body dimensions as compared to its more common jazz line -- the AF series. This guitar had gold plated hardware and was made from bubinga as well -- top, back, and sides. Bubinga is a highly figured grain, but I'd never heard of building guitars from it. Knowing that the wood had to be entirely laminated -- for a guitar that sold for $699 new, that's one thing you could count on -- I decided to give it a go. First thing I noticed about the guitar was its sound, even unamplified. It's tone had a decided "woody" character about it, and this carried forward to the amplified signal. It was just a very nice sounding guitar. Too bad it wasn't available without the gold hardware, I thought. My body chemistry is such that my sweat eats through the few microns of gold, exposing the dull-looking base metal. I'd just as soon get a guitar with chrome hardware instead, but such wasn't available.

I learned a few days later, as the result of doing a fair amount of internet-research on the subject, that Ibanez had built (but had also discontinued) an AG85 model. It got the less upscale ACH picups (the '95 had the Super 58's), and did not have the gold plating, but instead had chrome (which is what I wanted anyway), but other than those two factors, it was the same as the AG95. I began my search for a used one and found one at a Guitar Center in Kalamazoo Michigan. Shipped to my door, tax included, it cost me about $350 ($299 tag price) with the hard-shell case. Consider that the plain-jane AG75 cost $399 with no hard-shell case included (at least a $100 option), I felt I got a great deal on it. It arrived in absolutely beautiful condition. I really do believe it had scarcely been played at all. No wear, no scratches or dings, anywhere. But anyway, on to the sound. Like the AG95 it had very good volume for a laminated wood guitar when played unplugged and it had that same distinct bubinga sound to it. Amplified, it was (and is) just a dream to play. Whether playing clean or overdriving the amp, the sound is smooth and full. And I gotta say that this is also one of the most comfortable to play guitars I've ever owned. That old 2455NT was a nice-feeling guitar as well, but not as nice as this AG85.

So in conclusion I gotta say that really you need to try the guitar out -- how does it sound unamplified? If it sounds good, it's gonna sound good amplified too. How does it play? The ease with which you can play a guitar also affects the way it sounds. So it should be easy for you to play. Because of these factors, I don't really place much of a premium on a solid-wood big-bodied jazz guitar. Not when I can get an inexpensive one like my AG85 to sound so good.

[Spook410]

Spook,


>>>Simple and it works. Using a reasonably bright LED the spruce is translucent. You can even see grain details with
>>> the light shining through. On a laminate you get nothing.. totally opaque.

You absolutely can find laminate tops that both freely transmit the light, and show a grain on the bottom layer that looks remarkably like the top layer grain.

If there were money in it (or was otherwise worth the objective bother), this can be easily proven.

Best of luck with this.

Chris

You know Chris, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. I shined a 350 lumen light upon the surface of a Washburn J6. It responded by blocking each photon.. each wavelength.. depending of course how you like to view light in simple day to day terms. Darkness. Nada. Zilch. Turning to a blond Yunzhi the light yielded a splendid glow about the source on the opposite side. Warm. Like a candle through alabaster. I felt at one with my guitar and all was right with the world.

So.. again, incomplete results yield a basic misunderstanding of the technologies in play when our tools and insights do not match the complex tasks we face. However, as an engineer, I'm good with this.

[PTChristopher2]

Hi Spook,

Message, including sardonica, definitely received.

For laughs, here is a laminated spruce top. Crappy pic, but the seemingly red image is the reflection off an inspection mirror inside. Nice spruce grain showing where the small led Maglite goes through all 5 layers of laminate.

I only noticed this because I have used such a setup many times. Shining a light (lumens unknown) through the top and looking with a mirror can be a great tool for inspecting cracks and braces.

The pic looks very small in the preview, but I'll post it and see if it works.



Chris

[Spook410]

Hi Spook,

Message, including sardonica, definitely received.


Chris

Smiles.. actually it was not meant to be sardonic. Just fun. I am often enlightened (...) by the insights you share.

[cooltouch]

You know Chris, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. I shined a 350 lumen light upon the surface of a Washburn J6. It responded by blocking each photon.. each wavelength.. depending of course how you like to view light in simple day to day terms. Darkness. Nada. Zilch. Turning to a blond Yunzhi the light yielded a splendid glow about the source on the opposite side. Warm. Like a candle through alabaster. I felt at one with my guitar and all was right with the world.

So.. again, incomplete results yield a basic misunderstanding of the technologies in play when our tools and insights do not match the complex tasks we face. However, as an engineer, I'm good with this.

Take a look at the variables. If the woods are the same, can the sameness be considered a constant and excluded? Perhaps if the same species, I'm thinking. One species may pass more light than another. How about grain lines per inch (or cm, whatever)? These are an indication of density and some would argue they are also indications of sound quality but I believe the jury's still out on this. Would grain lpi affect light transmission? If so, then you can't exclude based on species alone. But can you exclude if the grain lpi are the same or reasonably close, even if different species?

The whole point of producing a laminate is to add strength to the piece of wood, although this is probably not as true in music circles, where cheaper cuts make up the bulk of the piece and the pretty cut makes up just a thin top wafer. So when a top-maker produces a laminate top, is all the grain running in the same direction, or might it be running in different directions they way it's done in plywood? Seems to me that if the grain is running in different directions that this might reduce light transmission. (I'm picturing a photography extinction meter or stacking two polarizers together then rotating them to achieve 100% opaqueness, which may or may not be relevant.) And how about the glue that was used to seal the various plies together with. Might the glue have its own light transmission properties as well?

Ultimately the response at this juncture must be: Insufficient Data.

[GoergeBenson]

Back during the 1970s, Ibanez built a pretty wide variety of jazz-style guitars -- some of which are referred to as Lawsuit Models. I owned a 1977 2455NT, which wasn't really a Lawsuit Model, I'm assuming, because it didn't really look like anything in Gibson's line. It most closely resembled an ES-175, but with all the deluxe work and woods you'd find on a higher end model -- spruce top, flamed maple back and sides, gold hardware, 7-ply binding and triple binding on the fingerboard, with block inlays, etc. It was a great playing and sounding guitar as well.

I found it hanging on the racks at a local music store, which was primarily a Gibson shop and which is, in fact, one of the largest Gibson retailers in the US. But I guess they didn't care much about it because it wasn't a Gibson. They had it priced at $600. Well I knew a little bit about the old Ibanezes and as soon as I saw that price tag, I picked it up and didn't let go of it until it was resting inside its case, on the way into my car. I owned the guitar for 10 years, but ironically once I started playing jazz in a rather serious way, I switched over to a classical, for two main reasons -- 1) I like the sound of a classical better than the sound of any electric jazz guitar, and 2) I just felt more comfortable playing a classical, since I'd played one for so many years. So even though I had a very nice sounding jazz guitar, I almost never played it, and in a moment of weakness, I sold it. I got $1200 for it, and the buyer didn't quibble at all because he knew as well as I did what these old Ibanezes typically sold for -- $1500 and up on eBay. This was about five years ago. Nowadays I hear of them breaking into the $2k territory.

Okay, so these old Ibanezes are built very well, but Ibanez definitely cut corners when it came to the woods they used. I suspect mine was a rather typical example. I took a mirror to it one day because I wanted to know about the woods. The f-holes were laminated, so I couldn't tell there about the top. All it took was a glance at the inner surface of the back wood to tell that it was a laminate. As was mentioned earlier, the inner wood was not book-matched, so that really gave it away. The top was a bit harder to tell. I didn't think of shining a light, so I did the grain-matching thing. After a bit of back and forth, I determined to my satisfaction that the top was laminated as well.

The fact that the guitar had all laminate woods no-doubt affected its unamplified volume. It was a fairly quiet guitar, unplugged -- quieter than I would have thought, in fact. But it had a nice tone, even unplugged, which carried forward when amplified. With its Super 70 pickups, it was simply a nice-sounding guitar and had that full presence that is so often looked for in a jazz instrument. So I guess what I'm getting at is, just because a guitar has laminated woods, this doesn't necessarily mean its sound will suffer.

As an addendum, I found that as the years went by, I missed that old Ibanez more and more. But I just simply couldn't afford the price that it and its kin sell for these days, and I haven't been lucky enough to run into a similar deal as I had when I bought it. But! I had started checking out the new jazz guitars that are available these days for not much coin -- most all are built in China, I suspect, and I'm sure they also all use laminated woods. I played the Epiphones and the Godins and the Ibanezes, and kept coming back to the Ibanezes. At the Guitar Center closest to where I live, there's a guy who works there, named Bill Solley. Bill is an excellent jazz player and one day when I was there and plinking around on an Ibanez AF75, he walks up and asks if I need any help. I sez yeah, and handed him the guitar and told him that I'd like to here him play it, so I can here how the guitar sounds when a real jazz player plays it. So Bill proceeded to play that $400 AF75, and I gotta tell ya, he made it sound sweet. I was impressed. One day after that, I went into a Guitar Center that I hadn't visited before and they had an Ibanez AG95 hanging on the racks. I really liked the looks of it, with its Les-Paul-looking single cutaway and its slightly smaller body dimensions as compared to its more common jazz line -- the AF series. This guitar had gold plated hardware and was made from bubinga as well -- top, back, and sides. Bubinga is a highly figured grain, but I'd never heard of building guitars from it. Knowing that the wood had to be entirely laminated -- for a guitar that sold for $699 new, that's one thing you could count on -- I decided to give it a go. First thing I noticed about the guitar was its sound, even unamplified. It's tone had a decided "woody" character about it, and this carried forward to the amplified signal. It was just a very nice sounding guitar. Too bad it wasn't available without the gold hardware, I thought. My body chemistry is such that my sweat eats through the few microns of gold, exposing the dull-looking base metal. I'd just as soon get a guitar with chrome hardware instead, but such wasn't available.

I learned a few days later, as the result of doing a fair amount of internet-research on the subject, that Ibanez had built (but had also discontinued) an AG85 model. It got the less upscale ACH picups (the '95 had the Super 58's), and did not have the gold plating, but instead had chrome (which is what I wanted anyway), but other than those two factors, it was the same as the AG95. I began my search for a used one and found one at a Guitar Center in Kalamazoo Michigan. Shipped to my door, tax included, it cost me about $350 ($299 tag price) with the hard-shell case. Consider that the plain-jane AG75 cost $399 with no hard-shell case included (at least a $100 option), I felt I got a great deal on it. It arrived in absolutely beautiful condition. I really do believe it had scarcely been played at all. No wear, no scratches or dings, anywhere. But anyway, on to the sound. Like the AG95 it had very good volume for a laminated wood guitar when played unplugged and it had that same distinct bubinga sound to it. Amplified, it was (and is) just a dream to play. Whether playing clean or overdriving the amp, the sound is smooth and full. And I gotta say that this is also one of the most comfortable to play guitars I've ever owned. That old 2455NT was a nice-feeling guitar as well, but not as nice as this AG85.

So in conclusion I gotta say that really you need to try the guitar out -- how does it sound unamplified? If it sounds good, it's gonna sound good amplified too. How does it play? The ease with which you can play a guitar also affects the way it sounds. So it should be easy for you to play. Because of these factors, I don't really place much of a premium on a solid-wood big-bodied jazz guitar. Not when I can get an inexpensive one like my AG85 to sound so good.

I may have totally misread all of that post but here I go!

The 2455 is a laminate guitar, not sure why anyone would think it is a solid one. So in regards to Ibanez cutting corners and using cheaper woods, I don't know how that is relevant, or warranted as a dismissal of the guitar.
The Gibson is was copying was also a laminate guitar made of cheap woods! So in every respect, it was essentially the same.
The 2355 had the laminate spruce and as such, is quite a different guitar to the Es-175 but retains the same shape.

Yes American prices have gone too high for these japanese copies, but get 350,000,000 drooling at the same pool and thats whats going to happen.

Here in the UK the Ibanez you mention 2455 is still running at about £700 ($1,100) so are still very good value, or as I would say, at the right price. The gibson's how ever, are still way over priced ;-).

If you want one, I will certainly get one for you, just PVT message me. No profit my end, you seem to miss one, and they come up pretty often.

Where Ibanez did drop the ball, was with the Fa510 (Johnny Smith) which had a laminate spruce top so thick, you could of used the guitar to do bench press's. It was tonally total dead and the one I had was signed by Sigy' but looked like it had been assembled by a 5 year old.

There is plenty of purposefully played out myths (mostly by sellers on ebay, trying to con you into thinking your getting the real deal). I n reality a singed Ibanez doesn't actually mean anything (unlike what the seller of the recent Greco L5 claimed) and not all Ibanez are genuine faithful copies, as many sellers would like to claim in order to rape your pocket.

The gruel great Ibanez that are worth IMO the $2,000 up price tag are, the Fa-800, the 2470 (the 2460 is a laminate) and some of the other models which then delineate altogether from the 'Copy' tag. Ie the Fa-100 which is a great es-175 'type' but not worth more than $1,000 IMO

[powerwagonjohn]

I know this is kind of an old thread but I wanted to add one observation. On a true carved top or back if you look very closely you can usually see the transition from side grain through the end grain at the ends of the body. at least I have been able to see this on various guitars I have played and or owned.
Thanks John

[cooltouch]

I may have totally misread all of that post but here I go!

The 2455 is a laminate guitar, not sure why anyone would think it is a solid one. So in regards to Ibanez cutting corners and using cheaper woods, I don't know how that is relevant, or warranted as a dismissal of the guitar.
The Gibson is was copying was also a laminate guitar made of cheap woods! So in every respect, it was essentially the same.
The 2355 had the laminate spruce and as such, is quite a different guitar to the Es-175 but retains the same shape.

Given the length of that post of mine, I don't blame you for wondering if you might have misread portions. But I think I pretty clearly stated that the 2455NT is a laminated guitar. I hope I didn't give an impression otherwise. I think I could have worded things better, though. I didn't mean to suggest that Ibanez was using cheaper woods, merely that they had cut corners by using laminates. Undoubtedly, however, the other pieces of wood used in the laminates are not of the same quality as the visible woods are. For example, the back wood I could see through the f holes barely even looked like maple. It certainly didn't have any flame to it.

And I made no comments at all with regard to the ES-175's construction. I've known for years that the ES-175 was a laminate guitar. I owned one briefly back in 1978 or '79, which is when I determined that. I carried out the investigation on my 2455NT shortly after buying it because I simply didn't know whether the woods were solid or not, but I suspected they weren't, based on my experience with the ES-175.

As for the rest of your comment, I find myself to be in complete agreement. And yes, if I ever feel like getting another cool '70s Ibanez jazz instrument, I will definitely be in touch. But I'm pretty happy right now with my AG85.

[jzucker]

The way the OP phrased the question indicates he is on the wrong path. To my way of thinking, there is no sonic advantage of *solid* spruce vs a laminate.

Hmmm...Not sure I agree and there are too many vaguely defined variations of laminate to even make such a conclusion.

There's definitely a difference in tone and volume. You don't have to be a physicist to realize that a solid top will vibrate louder and more freely than one that has several layers of glue running across every part the inner laminate surface.

[jzucker]

be careful, guys here selling ibanez copies of gibsons on ebay will flame you for blasphemous postings like this...

I may have totally misread all of that post but here I go!

The 2455 is a laminate guitar, not sure why anyone would think it is a solid one. So in regards to Ibanez cutting corners and using cheaper woods, I don't know how that is relevant, or warranted as a dismissal of the guitar.
The Gibson is was copying was also a laminate guitar made of cheap woods! So in every respect, it was essentially the same.
The 2355 had the laminate spruce and as such, is quite a different guitar to the Es-175 but retains the same shape.

Yes American prices have gone too high for these japanese copies, but get 350,000,000 drooling at the same pool and thats whats going to happen.

Here in the UK the Ibanez you mention 2455 is still running at about £700 ($1,100) so are still very good value, or as I would say, at the right price. The gibson's how ever, are still way over priced ;-).

If you want one, I will certainly get one for you, just PVT message me. No profit my end, you seem to miss one, and they come up pretty often.

Where Ibanez did drop the ball, was with the Fa510 (Johnny Smith) which had a laminate spruce top so thick, you could of used the guitar to do bench press's. It was tonally total dead and the one I had was signed by Sigy' but looked like it had been assembled by a 5 year old.

There is plenty of purposefully played out myths (mostly by sellers on ebay, trying to con you into thinking your getting the real deal). I n reality a singed Ibanez doesn't actually mean anything (unlike what the seller of the recent Greco L5 claimed) and not all Ibanez are genuine faithful copies, as many sellers would like to claim in order to rape your pocket.

The gruel great Ibanez that are worth IMO the $2,000 up price tag are, the Fa-800, the 2470 (the 2460 is a laminate) and some of the other models which then delineate altogether from the 'Copy' tag. Ie the Fa-100 which is a great es-175 'type' but not worth more than $1,000 IMO

[nopedals]

Hmmm...Not sure I agree and there are too many vaguely defined variations of laminate to even make such a conclusion.

There's definitely a difference in tone and volume. You don't have to be a physicist to realize that a solid top will vibrate louder and more freely than one that has several layers of glue running across every part the inner laminate surface.

When I see a guitar with a pressed solid (not carved) top with a floating pickup, I just think, what's the point? People looking for an acoustic archtop should look for "hand carved" in the advertising copy (if it is not there, it is not an acoustic guitar), and then do their research and/or play it. Otherwise, get a guitar with a routed in pickup.

[PTChristopher2]

Hi nopedals,

If you don't mind, I'd like to give an alternative view in response to your certainly widely-held outlook.

>>> When I see a guitar with a pressed solid (not carved) top with a floating pickup, I just think, what's the point?

There is a whole constellation of acoustic vs. "electric" properties out there. Surely the ability to freely pick any combination that works for a target sound is a good thing.

So sinking a PU into a carved (if a bit chunky) spruce top may seem odd to some, and the ultimate Wes to others.

Floating a PU on even a solidbody may seem odd, but could meet someones particular target sound.

It's all potentially good.

But I see your point that there may be some configurations that may strike one as a disingenuous nod to a tradition that is not actually employed on a given guitar. On the other hand, it might sound great.

>>> look for "hand carved" in the advertising copy (if it is not there, it is not an acoustic guitar)

A carved top is the traditional way to make many instruments. It results in grain runout all over the place (as powerwagonjohn notes indirectly above), but works.

Now imagine if tops were traditionally made by boiling ox urine over an open flame and using the steam to form a top into an arch. We could have a fine continuous-grain top with the stresses relieved to a special extent per the Pee-Master's expert touch.

Then I suppose one might use CNC carving to make a crappy "carved" top with TGP going nutty over this modern outrage that disrespects the Pee-Masters of Cremona and (rather later) SoHo.

I have tried pressed tops that sounded just terrific. Sure, no old-world master at work. I also noted no pee smell.

In my opinion, a pressed top can sound much different from a laminated top with cross-grain layers. But even these cross-grain laminates can contribute greatly to a given guitar's sound, and some may love this sound.

Consider the acoustic properties of some multi-grain direction carbon fiber guitars and the thin cherry laminate of a Godin 5th. It may not meet your target sound, but they sure have acoustic character in my opinion.

Chris

[nopedals]

Play a Godin 5th Avenue, or whatever, and then play a vintage L7, one after another. Then report your findings. All in good fun ;-)

[2bornot2bop]

As to the the original LAMINATE vs. CARVED discussion....I find it very interesting that this 1977 laminate L5 knockoff has binding that's so yellowed, especially since the guitar has a poly finish.

Oh, and Mr. Seller, you must know that an L5 knockoff without a Gibson style headstock, is NOT a "lawsuit guitar."

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1977...item417d74618d

[PTChristopher2]

>>> Play a Godin 5th Avenue, or whatever, and then play a vintage L7, one after another. Then report your findings. All in good fun ;-)

Hi nopedals,

I definitely understand that you specifically deeply value a carved archtop as having unique and superior acoustic response - thus exclusively worthy of the term acoustic.

Other views exist in this regard, both in terms of the guitar itself and in terms of the nature of the preference.

Fortunately all likely configurations of guitar are available to us.

I have found some acoustic archtops remarkably well suited to their original purpose of barking out rhythm - with emphasis on acoustic volume at the attack.

I also find many older acoustic archtops (even those with floaters on there) as a great argument in favor of a wide variety of spruce as being suitable. I particularly am struck by some of the D'Angelico guitars with wavy, very uneven, and widely-spaced grain. They can sound great.

I have noticed players who are new to this sit down with a fine archtop only to wonder at the excessive midrange on some when played acoustically, and the Ovation bowl sound on some when plugged in. Some can sound great, but seeming all need some right hand technique to speak to modern ears.

Anyway,...

It strikes me as somewhat unusual to then exclusively group these traditional bark-rhythm guitars with a modern scooped-and-spacious deeply X-braced archtop carved from super tight-grained wood destined for storage in a dentist's closet. They vary considerably in my opinion. And many pressed or laminated guitars present very pleasant acoustic response.

Calling only these carved tops "acoustic" is great, but leaves out a huge number of options for a player.

In my opinion.

So back to the original view in question, I say mount them floaters on anything you like.

Chris

[GoergeBenson]

Actually I think the lawsuit thing can be taken as guitars manufactured in the time of the lawsuit. Ibanez had already changed to the more Guild headstock before hand anyway (as far as I'm aware) so guitars from 77 would fit into that category.

Still don't get me started on half there BS, people will tell you about there Japanese copies. Most of them are far from faithful reproductions. (Anyway I'm not allowed to say anymore)...

This 2471 though I a very rare guitar. Although the scratch plate and tuners don't look original at all. If the binding has gassed then zoo too would the scratch plate have surely?

Seems like someone found the right parts to replace and trying to get away with saying otherwise. Although I could be wrong.

[GoergeBenson]

Also it now seems that, Guild/Gibson are making their carved tops so thick to avoid warranty, that a good thinner arched top, could be the best options for now.

Although I have never played am arched top that didn't sound a bit well, like cardboard. They just lack tone (IME). The Japanese d'aquisto and d'angelico re-issues are classic examples of this (imo). So un exciting tonally.
Yet my X700 with two pickups sounds fan-bloddy-tastic!

Ok no I've changed my mind, solid carved is always better. Arched just sound thin, trebly and dull (Imo)