Gibson Custom Crimson Division?

[QAman]

Roger brings out a very valid point about the weight of these L5's , Wes Mo's etc. I have owned many vintage archtop guitars begininng with a 1935 DAngelico thru pre and post war Gibsons , Epis, real DAquistos and Monteleones etc.

In my opinion, the earlier Gibsons and Epiphone guitars tend to be much lighter and louder in general, and more suited to an Orchestra style setting as opposed to chord melody. In general , I find the older instruments to be somewhat brighter overall and have less of a deep warm sustaining bass response then the heavier modern equivalents. Of course the Dangelicos seem to have it all .

As for the heavier new Gibson L5's , they are quieter but they all seem to posses a very even balance and wonderful sustain ...due in part to the brass TOM bridge and the weight. Initally, I found them to be dissapointing in the volume department, but soon realized the benefit of having amazing sustain and beautiful balance .....which actually enables the notes to sustain longer resulting in smoother transitioning during chord melody arrangements.
I actually purchased one of these L5's last month and its opened up soooo much I just love it. I also own a Gibson Legrand from 1998 Jim Hutchins period and its just slightly lighter ( .5 lbs) and its amazing - with slightly more volume ....and thick rich creamy tone with endless sustain.
It all boils down to what satisfies your senses - but eventually the new Gibsons will be the old Gibsons and the comparisons will continue.

[rpguitar]

I would agree with most of the comments about acoustic Gibsons that are older vs. newer, with the major caveat that "older" describes what... at least 50 years worth of guitars?

So "older" is a major generalization.

In my experience so far, I see 20s-30s, 40s-50s, and 60s-80s as rough periods in terms of consistent Gibson acoustic archtop character. I haven't played tons and tons of guitars from all of these eras, but I have played or owned samples from all decades in the range.

The first two decades are unique instruments that can do it all - rhythm, chord melody, non-jazz styles; they are acoustic guitars first and foremost rather than jazz guitars. The guitars that most fall into the oft-cited rhythm section category are the 40s-50s models. They are definitely less versatile, but they do adapt well to floating pickups for bop or other non-solo styles.

The 60s and onward show a development that I think reflects a few things: The decline of swing band music; the influence of makers such as the two D'As; and the eventual addition of the Johnny Smith model to the line-up. Guitars from this long period have a good chance of being warmer, sweeter, more modern and well-rounded guitars.

As for the current models, I haven't played or even seen one, but they sound like another chapter of appreciating acoustic archtops has begun at Gibson, and it's great to see.

[Greentone]

Holy crap! We are living in a second renaissance of the archtop guitar age. Fumblefingers: that Citation exudes quilted maple elegance! Wow!

The Gibsons I have seen coming out of the Crimson line are too beautiful for words. (They demand clips!)

[Jabberwocky]

After seeing the gold pup cover, gold finger tailpiece and gold tuners, my Heritage Johnny Smith told me it wants to be a LeGrande. I will order an ebony finger rest with the rose on it. But do you think changing the black hardware to gold is tacky?

The hinged flap is different from the ABM Fingers tailpiece used on the LeGrande. The screw-mount and endpin holes are spaced differently, Joe. You may want to check it out unless you can get the black tailpiece goldplated.

But I'd keep it black as Johnny Smith intended.

[Jabberwocky]

... they sound like another chapter of appreciating acoustic archtops has begun at Gibson, and it's great to see.

I always felt that different eras have different voices. No one era is better than another. Different palette of voices that one uses to paint one's sonic canvas. Ouch. That was a clumsy run of metaphors.

[Groyniad]

i put the new after-market metal t-o-m back on my crimson L5 today after putting the original back on for the last month or so. i was wrong to take the new one off and put the original back on. A wonderful guitar just got more wonderful. It cleans up the harmonics - takes away 'pings' from the unwound 'b' and 'e' strings - and improves warmth and sustain.

but the guitar was crazy-good before. i'm loving it acoustically - the feel of depth and power and solidity is gorgeous. and it responds so beautifully to amplification.

i certainly prefer the LOOK of these crimson L-5s to any other era I know of. the flame is tight but subtle - almost looks like european maple on the back with its silky sheen.

[Dennis D]

I would agree with most of the comments about acoustic Gibsons that are older vs. newer, with the major caveat that "older" describes what... at least 50 years worth of guitars?

So "older" is a major generalization.

In my experience so far, I see 20s-30s, 40s-50s, and 60s-80s as rough periods in terms of consistent Gibson acoustic archtop character. I haven't played tons and tons of guitars from all of these eras, but I have played or owned samples from all decades in the range.

The first two decades are unique instruments that can do it all - rhythm, chord melody, non-jazz styles; they are acoustic guitars first and foremost rather than jazz guitars. The guitars that most fall into the oft-cited rhythm section category are the 40s-50s models. They are definitely less versatile, but they do adapt well to floating pickups for bop or other non-solo styles.

The 60s and onward show a development that I think reflects a few things: The decline of swing band music; the influence of makers such as the two D'As; and the eventual addition of the Johnny Smith model to the line-up. Guitars from this long period have a good chance of being warmer, sweeter, more modern and well-rounded guitars.

As for the current models, I haven't played or even seen one, but they sound like another chapter of appreciating acoustic archtops has begun at Gibson, and it's great to see.

That description of the ' era's ' could be the answer I need. My trouble is - - I've been spoiled by my ( acoustic ) x-braced '36 L-7. It'll do whatever I want at any position, w/ no dead spots. And the bass absolutely booms !
Bottom line -- if that were a cutaway, I'd be set.
Then, I buy a '52 L-7 - -also acoustic, but parallel braced - and it fights for bottom end response.

So, I'm at the point where I'm concluding that maybe that '30's L-7 is too tough an act to follow, and that's all there is to it.

Man I love that guitar !

[Greentone]

'30s picture window inlay L7 archtop is one heck of a rhythm machine. My vintage collector buddy has one that sounds/plays just fabulous. In some ways it is better than his '29 L5--in other ways, though, the L5 is better. He also has a parallel braced, 50s L7. It is superb, but can't beat the "picture frame" guitar, overall.

[rpguitar]

With a 1930's L-7 as a benchmark, the playing field diminishes significantly. And in some cases, at great additional cost (cough cough, dot neck L-5, cough) to achieve something "better."

My '47 Gibson is not in the same league as a solo acoustic guitar compared to my old 16" Gibsons. The 17" X-braced 1935 L-12 and 1938 L-7 I once owned beat it too. But on the bandstand, the '47 would be the perfect rhythm machine and classy good looker.

[Dennis D]

With a 1930's L-7 as a benchmark, the playing field diminishes significantly. And in some cases, at great additional cost (cough cough, dot neck L-5, cough) to achieve something "better."

My '47 Gibson is not in the same league as a solo acoustic guitar compared to my old 16" Gibsons. The 17" X-braced 1935 L-12 and 1938 L-7 I once owned beat it too. But on the bandstand, the '47 would be the perfect rhythm machine and classy good looker.

So, how close to that '30's L-7 sound can I get in a cutaway ?

Thanks !

[Dennis D]

'30s picture window inlay L7 archtop is one heck of a rhythm machine. My vintage collector buddy has one that sounds/plays just fabulous. In some ways it is better than his '29 L5--in other ways, though, the L5 is better. He also has a parallel braced, 50s L7. It is superb, but can't beat the "picture frame" guitar, overall.

I remember the first time I saw that guitar w/ those picture frame inlays. I'd never heard or played one, and I was fully ready to make some allowances if necessary, 'cause I liked the look so much.

Then I played one and it was ' end of story '.

[rpguitar]

So, how close to that '30's L-7 sound can I get in a cutaway ?

With vintage Gibsons... you can't, not exactly. The 16" guitars were never offered in a cutaway, and the X-braced 17" guitars of the '35-'38 period were never offered in a cutaway. In 1939 the cutaway Premier model was introduced, but the bracing changed to parallel. Then WWII cut off supply of most of those guitars til 1946 or so, when they were voiced with more midrange. Plus a '39 example is from a special year because it was first, and will cost $$$.

I have played a couple of 1950s L-7Cs, and they were nice but not quite the 30s sound.

The recent Montana L-7C is X-braced and has the shorter scale of the '35-'38 models, and that might be a good way to approach that sound - I've never tried one.

[Dennis D]

With vintage Gibsons... you can't, not exactly. The 16" guitars were never offered in a cutaway, and the X-braced 17" guitars of the '35-'38 period were never offered in a cutaway. In 1939 the cutaway Premier model was introduced, but the bracing changed to parallel. Then WWII cut off supply of most of those guitars til 1946 or so, when they were voiced with more midrange. Plus a '39 example is from a special year because it was first, and will cost $$$.

I have played a couple of 1950s L-7Cs, and they were nice but not quite the 30s sound.

The recent Montana L-7C is X-braced and has the shorter scale of the '35-'38 models, and that might be a good way to approach that sound - I've never tried one.

I haven't played a Montana L-7 either......never seemed to find one...and not real sure about what I'd heard.....

Thanks Roger !

[Greentone]

In the grand scheme of things, it seems to me that you have:

(1) '23-'28 Gibson L-5 guitars

(2) '35-'38 Gibson Advanced body archtops (X-braced) guitars--L5, L7, L10 and L12 (they were all "X" in this period, right?)

(3) '30s era D'Angelico archtops

For my money, these are the premier _sounding_ archtop guitars of all time. Cutaways are beautiful and useful. The tone of 40s, 50s, and later guitars are great--in some cases (e.g., D'Angelico New Yorker) epic. But, when push comes to shove, the pure tone of the archtops mentioned above are tops...and in about that order. I'd rank the L-5 that Loar designed as good as it gets. Groups (2) and (3) are pretty close to being a tie.

My favorite archtops have been a picture frame '37 L-7, and a sunburst '38 L-5. Oh...and my first teacher's non-cut D'Angelico Excel.