how much would you pay for this Gibson L-5?

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 04:05 PM

Gibson 1991 L5 Natural | Reverb

**Stringswinger** · 04-12-2015, 04:19 PM

If I was in the market, $6500

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Stringswinger

If I was in the market, $6500

you think it'll hold it's value?

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 04:29 PM

i have a chance to get a '78 L5 for $5k. It's got the finish worn off the back of the neck but otherwise very good condition. No figuring on the back and just lightly figured on the neck. Any thoughts on one vs. the other?

**rob taft** · 04-12-2015, 04:43 PM

If your concerned about holding its value or might resell, then I'd go for the 91. Looks in great shape.

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by rob taft

If your concerned about holding its value or might resell, then I'd go for the 91. Looks in great shape.

so you don't think i'd get hurt to bad buying into it at $6500ish?

**Stringswinger** · 04-12-2015, 05:16 PM

I think the 91 will hold its value better than the 78. Gibson Custom shop guitars from the 90's are some of the best ever. 70's Gibsons have a bad rap and usually have inferior woods (little or no figure on the maple on the high end archtops). If you can buy that guitar for 6500, you should be OK. It is probably a better guitar than the 78...

**Greentone** · 04-12-2015, 05:24 PM

I have played many 70s Gibsons that are the cat's a@#. (That's great, by the way.) Of course, the woods are plain, but that was Gibson's deal in the 70s. I agree with the assessment that the 90s archtops are some of the best, on average, that Gibson made. That is, I think the average 90s Gibson archtop is a winner. Mind you, when they were new they went for about $5K for a sunburst and about $6K for a natural in the early 90s. (I'm quoting New Orleans prices...I don't know what they were in the rest of the country. I remember seeing them in shops in New Orleans, at that point. I remember thinking, then, that I thought I could have done a little better in Washington, DC or New York. I don't know if that was true.)

The higher prices today of the new guitars has dragged up the listings of the well maintained second-hand Gibsons. That's just how it works.

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 05:33 PM

thanks everyone for the info. I guess the only issue is how long it takes to sell one of these if you need to cash out. Seems like archtops are getting fewer and fewer...

**rob taft** · 04-12-2015, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

so you don't think i'd get hurt to bad buying into it at $6500ish?

No, I don't think you will in the long run take a beating. But it is in the $$ range where there are less customers so you might have to hang onto it for a while. I was just looking at L5s at Dave's Guitar shop and the price of a new one just continues to climb. When you consider the future of certain material e.g. ebony and the Gibson name, I think you will do OK.

A side benefit to buying from Sam Ash is that if it doesn't suit your fancy. It should be easier versus a private seller. Also you might find Sam Ash easier to work with on price.

**vinnyv1k** · 04-12-2015, 07:25 PM

Jack what happened with that L5 you had on hold at Steve Swan's in Burlingame Ca. ? Looks like he has a couple nice L5's. I am 12 miles from there. If their is one you want me to check out for you I can do it and believe you me, I am more fussy than you probably.....Vinny

**Patrick2** · 04-12-2015, 07:29 PM

Jack: I think you might want to get someone like wintermoon to weigh in on this. Two issue I'd want to check out a little better, if I were buying this guitar. First, the stinger on the back of the head stock is unlike any I've ever seen before . . . very short. Also, the tail piece looks a little . . strange . . to me. I always thought the ebony insert with the L5 notation was limited to a few short years in the early to mid eighties. But, the insert could have been changed out.

It's probably just me . . but, the head stock and the inlaid logo looks a bit off. Could be the camera angle? Hard to tell. The photos suck.

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by vinnyv1k

Jack what happened with that L5 you had on hold at Steve Swan's in Burlingame Ca. ? Looks like he has a couple nice L5's. I am 12 miles from there. If their is one you want me to check out for you I can do it and believe you me, I am more fussy than you probably.....Vinny

It had issues and I returned it.

**rob taft** · 04-12-2015, 07:48 PM

Jack , Here is another 1991 L5

Gibson 1991 L5 Master Built - Norman's Rare Guitars

**denk8** · 04-12-2015, 07:56 PM

As good as the L5 may be, i suggest you inspect and buy in person. You will get the true feel of the guitars dynamics and tone. Also it's history or provenance if it matters and a better deal most likely in person.
I travelled across the border and had to endure US Customs the purpose of my visit. It was well worth the effort for my L5 Hutch. I also met a fine musician and owner of the guitar.

**riovine** · 04-12-2015, 08:47 PM

FYI, this is a lot like my old L5, which was from the same production period. It was a 1990 burst, bought it new in Dallas for 4k. It was a great guitar, flawless & played like a dream. Also FYI, it had the same ebony tailpiece insert with the MoP L5 inset. I know that was not the typical L5 tailpiece, and they only did it for a few years before going back to the all metal tailpiece. I think the ebony one looked rather nice, although not the "classic" L5 tailpiece, if that matters to you. I don't think you'll be disappointed as long as you get a decent try out return policy.

**Jim Soloway** · 04-12-2015, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Greentone

I have played many 70s Gibsons that are the cat's a@#. (That's great, by the way.) Of course, the woods are plain, but that was Gibson's deal in the 70s. I agree with the assessment that the 90s archtops are some of the best, on average, that Gibson made. That is, I think the average 90s Gibson archtop is a winner. Mind you, when they were new they went for about $5K for a sunburst and about $6K for a natural in the early 90s. (I'm quoting New Orleans prices...I don't know what they were in the rest of the country. I remember seeing them in shops in New Orleans, at that point. I remember thinking, then, that I thought I could have done a little better in Washington, DC or New York. I don't know if that was true.)

The higher prices today of the new guitars has dragged up the listings of the well maintained second-hand Gibsons. That's just how it works.

Just as a point of interest, the worst guitar that I ever owned (and by a large margin) was an early 90's ES165.

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by rob taft

Jack , Here is another 1991 L5

Gibson 1991 L5 Master Built - Norman's Rare Guitars

Thanks, it appears to have identical appointments to the blonde one I am looking at.

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by Jim Soloway

Just as a point of interest, the worst guitar that I ever owned (and by a large margin) was an early 90's ES165.

I guess the quality varies too much on gibsons. I had an '88 165 and it was great though the quality of the finishing was bad. When they polished the guitar they partially wore off the binding on the cutaway.

My '89 175 is fantastic though.

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by denk8

As good as the L5 may be, i suggest you inspect and buy in person. You will get the true feel of the guitars dynamics and tone. Also it's history or provenance if it matters and a better deal most likely in person.
I travelled across the border and had to endure US Customs the purpose of my visit. It was well worth the effort for my L5 Hutch. I also met a fine musician and owner of the guitar.

I don't really care about it's history. I just want it to be made well and sound good. Sam Ash has a 30 day unconditional money back guarantee and if I return it, I can just drive 5 miles to the local sam ash to return so it seems pretty painless.

The bigger question for me is whether an L5 really works for my style? I'm thinking it may not. I've owned 3 L5s though and every one was fabulous.

**jads57** · 04-12-2015, 08:57 PM

"It had issues and I returned it."

Jack we all have issues! LOL!

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by jads57

"It had issues and I returned it."

Jack we all have issues! LOL!

I didn't say *I* had issues!

**vintagelove** · 04-12-2015, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

https://reverb.com/item/343569-gibson-1991-l5-natural

IMO, I think you would be better off going with the natural finish if you may resell it someday. I know I am funny about colors on guitars, what can I say.... I am a sucker for wood.

I know you don't want to lose money on a sale, but even if the economy takes a bad turn, I can imagine that going for less than $5k.

Also, being a lefty, I am so freaking jealous watching folks arguing about L5's vs ES175 vs etc.... I would give a kidney for either of those guitars... Unfortunately, that would leave me with no kidneys... But seriously, I have had a chunk of change set aside, and I can't even find a guitar I want to buy.

Remember how lucky you are to have 1000's of guitars available.

**jzucker** · 04-12-2015, 10:53 PM

i know of a shop with an early '60s Barney Kessel. I'm considering one of those as an alternative to the L5. Truth be told, I think it's a better sounding instrument even with a laminated maple top. It just sounds perfect. I suspect a $5k barney kessel is a lot harder to sell than an L5.

Sam Ash also has a cherry sunburst L5 for the same price as the natural and I think the woods are even prettier!