90s Gibson L-5 CES vs. 70s L-5 CES

**FourOnSix** · 01-30-2015, 04:53 PM

I'm evaluating a '97 blonde L-5 CES and am leaning heavily toward purchasing it. I'm a little surprised at how much more refined it seems than my early 70's blonde L-5 CES. (I can't pinpoint the exact year. I understand the serial numbers got a little mixed up during that timeframe.) Can't post photos at the moment, as I am not anywhere near either of these fine instruments.

I've bonded with my L-5 big time, and it always gets gasps from onlookers. I'll be sad to let it go, if that's the way I go. As mentioned, the '97 seems a more refined instrument, particularly in the finish thickness department. My 70s has a super flamey neck, a plain flatsawn back and a wooden bridge. The 70s has a relatively plain neck, a spectacularly flamed back, and a TOM. I have to admit, I do have reservations about the TOM.

Any comments, insightful or otherwise, would be appreciate.

Cheers.

**wintermoon** · 01-30-2015, 05:14 PM

I wouldn't let the finish or degree of figured wood sway me.

which one plays/sounds better?

**FourOnSix** · 01-30-2015, 05:27 PM

I've only had a chance to play the '97 for a half hour, and acoustically only, so far. Acoustically, the '97 may have a slight edge, except there's a bit of sympathetic buzz (if I'm properly describing it) when you play close intervals (mostly thirds) on the lower strings. Playabilitywise, I think the '97 has 13s, whereas I'm used to 12s, so there's that, although overall the neck seems quite friendly.

The true test will be when I put it through an amp.

**Bluedawg** · 01-30-2015, 06:00 PM

Gibson's archtops have been exceptional since the early 90s IMHO ....

It would still be hard for me let go of my Norlin era L5, though, if I had bonded with it ..

Anyway to keep both ... or at least keep both for a while until you know which one is your number 1?

**Danny W.** · 01-30-2015, 07:40 PM

I had no problem replacing a bunch of Norlin-era L-5's with '90's versions--the newer guitars were far better.

Danny W.

**rpguitar** · 01-30-2015, 08:28 PM

I have a '99 CES and a '75 L-5C. So it's not a direct comparison, but in any case:

The 70s model has a slimmer neck and much lighter weight. It plays great now, but it did have factory problems that were rectified by a repair person (fingerboard truing irregularities). The '99 is pretty much perfect out of the proverbial box; of course the box is 15 years old now but it's still stock.

The '99 has a fancy, tightly flamed back and nice wavy sides. The '75 is the era's typical silky but plain maple. They both have quality finishes and both are equipped with ebony saddles.

I guess I have nothing to say really, because they are both great guitars, but I figured I'd reply since I own one from each of the eras you referenced. I do get the sense that the '99 is a higher quality guitar as-built, though.

**FourOnSix** · 01-30-2015, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Danny W.

I had no problem replacing a bunch of Norlin-era L-5's with '90's versions--the newer guitars were far better.

Danny W.

I think I'm with Danny W. I can't really afford to keep both, nor is there room in my practice room. I'm headed home now to compare them through an amp. I'll keep whichever performs better. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be the '97. At least I hope so, as she is stunning to look at!

**Patrick2** · 01-30-2015, 11:11 PM

The red flag for me in your post is your comment . . "I've bonded with my L-5 big time, and it always gets gasps from onlookers. I'll be sad to let it go, if that's the way I go".

I see either of two possibilities here; either you haven't really bonded with your '70s L5 quite as much as you think you may have. Or, if you let her go to buy the '97 . . you're going to regret it.

I'd caution you not to be seduced by the "spectacularly flamed back" of the '97. I'd also be interested in how you seem so certain that this is a Norlin era guitar . . and whether or not you're letting all the negative perceptions of the Norlin era of Gibson affect your decision to switch yours out for an L5 of a different era. While it's true that CMI took over in 1969, "the Norlin era" wasn't a real (detrimental) factor until around '73 - '74. Based upon your description of the guitar, it probably is from the Norlin era. But, so what? If it's a great L5CES . . it doesn't much matter what year it was made in.

I too like the L5CES' from the '90s better than those from most other eras. But, if I'd "bonded big time" with a good one from the '70s . . I'd not be looking any further.

**FourOnSix** · 01-30-2015, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick2

The red flag for me in your post is your comment . . "I've bonded with my L-5 big time, and it always gets gasps from onlookers. I'll be sad to let it go, if that's the way I go".

I see either of two possibilities here; either you haven't really bonded with your '70s L5 quite as much as you think you may have. Or, if you let her go to buy the '97 . . you're going to regret it.

I'd caution you not to be seduced by the "spectacularly flamed back" of the '97. I'd also be interested in how you seem so certain that this is a Norlin era guitar . . and whether or not you're letting all the negative perceptions of the Norlin era of Gibson affect your decision to switch yours out for an L5 of a different era. While it's true that CMI took over in 1969, "the Norlin era" wasn't a real (detrimental) factor until around '73 - '74. Based upon your description of the guitar, it probably is from the Norlin era. But, so what? If it's a great L5CES . . it doesn't much matter what year it was made in.

I too like the L5CES' from the '90s better than those from most other eras. But, if I'd "bonded big time" with a good one from the '70s . . I'd not be looking any further.

"Bonded big time" might have been a bit of hyperbole on my part. I recognize that it defies the worst stereotypes of Norlin era Gibson, i.e., it's a professional grade instrument and not a piece of junk. That, and it's the only L-5 CES I've ever owned; in fact, it's the only archtop with set in pickups I've ever owned. As such, I've enjoyed it and have had some great playing sessions with it. But I'm also open to the fact that there could be something better out there, and this '97 could be it. We shall see. Believe me, I won't do the deal unless I have no hesitation. Fortunately (or unfortunately, maybe), the seller told me to take as much time as I need to evaluate it.

**FourOnSix** · 01-30-2015, 11:53 PM

And thanks for the replies, guys. I've never properly introduced myself. I've been a member for a while and post every blue moon, without fail. But I'm a lover of archtops and a sometimes inspired player, so why the heck not. Looking forward to adding my 2 cents to other discussions.

And I'll try to post pictures of both guitars. But be warned, I've been know to procrastinate for the fun of it.

**Patrick2** · 01-31-2015, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by FourOnSix

"Bonded big time" might have been a bit of hyperbole on my part. I recognize that it defies the worst stereotypes of Norlin era Gibson, i.e., it's a professional grade instrument and not a piece of junk. That, and it's the only L-5 CES I've ever owned; in fact, it's the only archtop with set in pickups I've ever owned. As such, I've enjoyed it and have had some great playing sessions with it. But I'm also open to the fact that there could be something better out there, and this '97 could be it. We shall see. Believe me, I won't do the deal unless I have no hesitation. Fortunately (or unfortunately, maybe), the seller told me to take as much time as I need to evaluate it.

Well then . . that's a horse of a different color. Now it sounds to me like you'll very easily bond with something that you admire even more than your blond '70s L5CES. That'll help you forget that blond beauty in a short period of time and never look back. Now you're left with a decision that only you can make. Good luck with you decision making. Having to choose between two great guitars is not an easy task.

**stringmaster** · 02-01-2015, 02:52 PM

I know the Norlin era tends to get a bad rap, but I've wondered if that more a result of some of the more standard line production, vs the high end carved archtops--Wouldn't those be built in small numbers and not necessarily subject to the criticism that other Gibson get regarding quality of materials and construction (not funky design)?

**rpguitar** · 02-02-2015, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by stringmaster

I know the Norlin era tends to get a bad rap, but I've wondered if that more a result of some of the more standard line production, vs the high end carved archtops...

That's right. Carved archtops never suffered gross inattention to quality or the worst attributes of the Norlin era. At most, specs changed in ways that traditionalists did not like, such as low value pots, neck volutes, wide/flat frets etc. A random L-5 or S400 from the time period of 1970-1984 is very likely to be an excellent instrument.

**Jimmy Mack** · 02-02-2015, 09:17 PM

My 1981 Norlin era L5 CES is an excellent instrument. I like the volute, when I even notice it's there.

**Danny W.** · 02-02-2015, 11:18 PM

As someone who has expressed my negative views about Norlin-era guitars more than once, let me point out that it's because I have owned a goodly number of them. My complaints aren't that they are necessarily bad guitars, but that they suffer in comparison to guitars Gibson built afterwards or before. All of the ones I owned were good players and sounded fine or I wouldn't have bought them, but most suffered from flaws that don't exist of any of my current guitars, except perhaps the one Norlin I still own.

Super 400 back:

The thin, dark line on this Super V, at the lower edge to the left of the guitar stand is a top split that is factory original--the finish goes over it.

This was one of my favorite L-5s back then, but they could have selected clearer wood for the back:

This L-5C sounded okay, but had a needless volute, bent bracket instead of threaded rod, and the ugliest sunburst ever. Back was plain as could be, too:

Long-scale ES-350T was a great idea, but has volute, and look at that wood!

I could post many more, but I'll spare you :-)

Danny W.

**Bluedawg** · 02-03-2015, 02:15 AM

Yup ... the 70s archtops definitely tended toward the plain side ....

All of the flame top Les Pauls and PRS guitars in the 80s and 90s helped influence the recent archtop wood choices IMHO

**oldwoodak** · 02-03-2015, 11:57 AM

90s Gibson L-5 CES vs. 70s L-5 CES-img_0038_2-jpg

90s Gibson L-5 CES vs. 70s L-5 CES-img_0039_2-jpg

90s Gibson L-5 CES vs. 70s L-5 CES-img_0040_2-jpg

Here's my early 70's L-5.
Some blotchiness to the sunburst near the controls but I can see that when I'm playing. Spectacular otherwise. Only have played a 2000 WesMo so can't comment on the 1990's. Jazzy tone for days as you can imagine from this one.

**FourOnSix** · 02-03-2015, 09:32 PM

I bought the '97 and will be putting the '70-'71 up for sale. I'll post pictures of both soon.

The '70-'71 is a very fine guitar, but as I said in the OP, the '97 is more refined. It more closely resembles something you would expect to come from an individual luthier's workshop.

**Bluedawg** · 02-04-2015, 12:45 AM

Congrats ....

I picked up a recent blonde L5CES a few years ago and I'm loving mine

Liked it so much ... I sold some guitars and picked up a sunburst L5WES the next year.

I have a hard time letting guitars go .... LOL .. so I would try to keep the 70s L5 ...

Good Luck with the sale

**FourOnSix** · 02-04-2015, 04:51 PM

90s Gibson L-5 CES vs. 70s L-5 CES-img_1462-jpg

90s Gibson L-5 CES vs. 70s L-5 CES-img_1463-jpg

90s Gibson L-5 CES vs. 70s L-5 CES-img_1473-jpg

Here it is.

I bought it from local dealer Steve Swan, linked here: Archtop Guitars for Sale - Steve Swan Guitars - San Francisco Bay Area. As you can see, the consignor wasn't exactly giving it away. I negotiated a slightly lower price, but I didn't push. The owner is an 80 year old jazz guitar enthusiast who is liquidating his collection of pretty much pristine instruments. As such, I think he deserves to get a good price. I believe all the other instruments listed here are available.

**Beanctr** · 02-04-2015, 05:21 PM

Thats a really nice guitar, that guy had some collection,

Rick

**rpguitar** · 02-05-2015, 08:52 PM

90s Gibson L-5 CES vs. 70s L-5 CES-image-jpg

Nice! Here's my '99. Good company...

**FourOnSix** · 02-05-2015, 09:51 PM

Beautiful!

I wish I could get mine to intonate well with the bridge on straight like yours.

**rpguitar** · 02-05-2015, 11:36 PM

You might have to flip a saddle or two, but it should intonate with the bridge straight. The tune-o-matic I have for this L-5CES will drop in place without moving the bridge from where it is right now.

**jads57** · 02-10-2015, 09:22 PM

From what Peter Wagoner (long time Gibson Dealer) explained to me was that the luthiers at that time (70's) felt that the plainer woods usually produced a better tone. He had a particularly great sounding Johnnny Smith from that era!