Got my Gibson L-5 Wes Montgomery today

[vinnyv1k]

I have been buying Gibson's since 1972 and never have seen them lower their prices. What I am saying is more USA made archtops will benefit "us" as the consumers. More choices is always good. Also it raises the bar. Ford had to start building better cars because Toyota's are so darn good. Patrick you are right. The L5 will always be the KING OF ARCHTOPS and the Gibson brand will always be the king of electric guitars.

[mangotango]

Retgarding your response to the question of the like button; not sure if you were joking or not. But, I don't hink what you're saying is correct. I too have noticed that on occasion, the like and share functions are missing. I hit my refresh button and they reappear. But . . . I sence that you were just making a funny??

Blimey, I'm going to have to start doing sub-titles in North American English. ;-)



Yep, was just a set-up for complimenting Jack on those guitars.

Next time....I'll just hit the Like button.

[Bluedawg]

I have been buying Gibson's since 1972 and never have seen them lower their prices. What I am saying is more USA made archtops will benefit "us" as the consumers. More choices is always good. Also it raises the bar. Ford had to start building better cars because Toyota's are so darn good. Patrick you are right. The L5 will always be the KING OF ARCHTOPS and the Gibson brand will always be the king of electric guitars.

I remember price reductions on many Gibson guitars .. Les Pauls at least ... in the mid 80s and between 2002 and 2003

At least a few 2002 LP buyers were upset

They may need to contemplate another one if the 2015 price increases cause a bunch of dealers to seperate rather than stocking up with loads of guitars they can't sell ... but it is too early to know ... we'll have to see how the 2015 stuff moves

They're super expensive LPs seem to be selling .... but the rest of the LP line is competing with all of the 2014 and 2013 LPs still waiting to sell at their dealers

[Patrick2]

Can't agree. They are fundamentally different instruments and different sounds. The eagle I have sounds way more acoustic and has less sustain than my L5 even though it has 2 pickups. It's also brighter. The 535 I had was similar compared to the Gibson.

I have not played another archtop or semi that nails the gibson sound. I just haven't. Others have "improved" or changed the bar in other ways but i cannot agree that the heritage guitars are damned near identical to the gibsons.

In fact, heritage seems to pride themselves on not being like gibson even though they claim to be the original luthiers using the same designs. It's an odd arrangement...

The term . . "damned near identical models" . . references the size, shape and aesthetics, more so than it does the tone. But, the tone too is damned close when compared to each other. A Heritage Eagle Classic is damned near a Gibson L5CES . . . similarly the H150 and H535 are damned near identical to their Gibson counterparts, the Les Paul and ES335 respectively. Of course there are differences in tonality. That's intentional and by design, at least for the arch top comparison. There are very few people, hobbiest/amature and pro alike who can recognize any significant difference in the tone of a Heritage Eagle Classic or a Golden Eagle with inset pups . . . and an L5 CES. There have been several blind tests posted here and at HOC on this topic . . . with the best being by by a Greek gentleman, (name escapes me) where he played the exact same tune, the exact same way with several different Heritage and Gibson arch tops. There was quite a bit of discussion on how close they all sounded to each other.

You've said as much in previous threads . . that your Eagle Classic was the closest you're head to an L5CES.

Not eveyone (hardly anyone??) looks as deeply into tonal nuances as you do. However, I'd venture an assumption that if even you were to listen to similar recordings of 10 different guitars, 5 of them being L5CES' and 5 of them being Heritage Classics with SD '59s or Seths, you be very hard pressed to correctly identify the Gibsons from the Heritages. You'd probably get more correct than many other people. But, I highly doubt you, or anyone else would be able to get them all correct.

Disagree as you may . . it's undeniable that they're damned near identical . . not withstanding the *beloved Heritage head stock.

[jzucker]

so, some more miscellaneous thoughts. Hope it's ok to share my honest impressions...

Over the last couple days I have been continuing to alternate between the L5 and the X-500. I actually think the X-500 has better sustain than the L5. I think I am going to switch it to a TOM and see what that does to the tone. The X-500 has a little bit more hollowbody tone to it surprisingly. I'm not sure why since it has a laminate top as well as 2 pickups.

I think it actually sounds a bit better for block chords, solo guitar and octaves than the L5 does, as hard as that is to believe. The L5 is darker and smokier but the X-500 is woodier.

For the time being, I'm keeping them both but it's definitely an eye opener.

[Patrick2]

Blimey, I'm going to have to start doing sub-titles in North American English. ;-)



Yep, was just a set-up for complimenting Jack on those guitars.

Next time....I'll just hit the Like button.

"Blimey"??? . . . . ya just gotta love these sayings and expressions. Much nicer than "holy shit!!" or "Day-um!!"

[jzucker]

The term . . "damned near identical models" . . references the size, shape and aesthetics, more so than it does the tone. But, the tone too is damned close when compared to each other. A Heritage Eagle Classic is damned near a Gibson L5CES . . . similarly the H150 and H535 are damned near identical to their Gibson counterparts, the Les Paul and ES335 respectively.

They thicknesses are very different on the eagle vs the L5. The thinline I had actually had kind of an L5 vibe to it but when I compare the L5 to the eagle they sound nothing alike. I don't hear a common ancestry there thought obviously there is one. I think it was you, Patrick who pointed out that most Heritage eagles are customized by the buyer but I have played and owned several that share the same common characteristic of being more of an acoustic build than an electric one. Perhaps Heritage is building them more like the '50s L5s?

Also, i've owned a bunch of 335s and 535s and the 535s just don't have the sustain and power of the 335. I think the differences are similar to the differences between the eagle and the L5.

I did own an H150 and H170 and thought they were good but didn't compare them to anything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Heritage at all (except for maybe the headstock <g>) but I think it has its own thing going on and doesn't really sound like or feel like the gibson. Maybe if they made the eagle the same thickness as the L5 it would be a closer comparison too...

[Patrick2]

I remember price reductions on many Gibson guitars .. Les Pauls at least ... in the mid 80s and between 2002 and 2003

At least a few 2002 LP buyers were upset

They may need to contemplate another one if the 2015 price increases cause a bunch of dealers to seperate rather than stocking up with loads of guitars they can't sell ... but it is too early to know ... we'll have to see how the 2015 stuff moves

They're super expensive LPs seem to be selling .... but the rest of the LP line is competing with all of the 2014 and 2013 LPs still waiting to sell at their dealers

Yeah . . . I'm among those 2002 Custom Shop Historic Reissue R9 buyers. I had a 2000, bought it new in 2000 from Wildwood Guitars. Paid a negotiated price of $3,500 for it. It was stolen by a DHL driver during shipment. I bought a replacement for it, from Wildwood, in 2002. I had to pay $5,500 for it . . . and Lance wouldn't budge even a nickle in the negotiation. In fact, there was no negotiation. Buy, I did get quite a bit more case candy . . and an embroidered framed depiction of a '59 burst. (Big freakin' deal!!!!) Fortunately, the cost of the new guitar was covered by my home owner's insurance . . and by Aaron Cowles personally .. as he was the shipper who didn't get the shipping insurance correct when he filled out the paper work from the DHL driver.

[rpguitar]

For the time being, I'm keeping them both but it's definitely an eye opener.

Well, this is why GAS is so contagious and hard to kick. Relentlessly comparing guitars, while inevitable to types like us, is a game with no end in sight. One usually wins, but then we get bored and look for another competitor to enter the ring.

I have four Gibson L-5 guitars: 1928, 1947, 1975, 1999. They are all wonderful and very different from one another. Not a single one of them does absolutely everything in guitar-land perfectly, or could be "the one" such that I'd not miss the others. (At the very least I'd want to keep two - best acoustic and best electric.)

Keep both. Sometimes you'll want dark; sometimes you'll want woody. (Woody in the dark? Nevermind.)

[Patrick2]

They thicknesses are very different on the eagle vs the L5. The thinline I had actually had kind of an L5 vibe to it but when I compare the L5 to the eagle they sound nothing alike. I don't hear a common ancestry there thought obviously there is one. I think it was you, Patrick who pointed out that most Heritage eagles are customized by the buyer but I have played and owned several that share the same common characteristic of being more of an acoustic build than an electric one. Perhaps Heritage is building them more like the '50s L5s?

Also, i've owned a bunch of 335s and 535s and the 535s just don't have the sustain and power of the 335. I think the differences are similar to the differences between the eagle and the L5.

I did own an H150 and H170 and thought they were good but didn't compare them to anything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Heritage at all (except for maybe the headstock <g>) but I think it has its own thing going on and doesn't really sound like or feel like the gibson. Maybe if they made the eagle the same thickness as the L5 it would be a closer comparison too...

I do not at all think that you're knocking Heritage. Hopefully, you don't take my rebuttal to your post as one that's being defensive of them either. Heck, I've heard you on many occasions sing praises to certain aspects of the Heritages you've owned. Even more so that your mentioning of the ski jump tail pieces lolol

No, I just think we're having a big boy discussion about the similarities and differences between two great arch top guitars. There are indeed tonal differences between an L5CES and it's Heritage counter parts. Those who know what to look for, as well as those who fully understand the build and design differences in the bracing and the top thickness will hear them . . if they listen hard enough. How many jazz guitar players do you know of that do and would??

But, keep in mind that Heritage is far more liberal in allowing their craftsman (who is usually, but not always one guy . . Arnie) their own discretion in determining the final thickness of a top . . as well as it's graduation, during the final shaping and belt sanding after the top comes off of the pin router. Gibson adheres to much more strict guidlines and standards. They have to. As I've said before, I currently own 3 Golden Eagles and I've owned 11 over the years. Lost count of how many I've played. No two sounded alike. Which is why I love them.

With regard to the 335 vs the 535 . . . wouldn't you agree that there were/are definitely some (many) 335s that had absolutely no sustain? Duds?? The 335 and the 535 are very similar, except for these few differences; the body depth on a 335 is 1-3/4" . . the 535 is 1-5/8". The out put jack on the 335 is top mounted. The 535 is rim mounted.

They both use the tongue/mortise method of attaching neck to body . . and they both utilize the elongated neck tennon. With regard to the power, if you're talking about amplified power . . keep in mind that Gibson's pups are characteristically hotter than what Heritage would use as standard . . which was Schaller early on . . and Seths . . (more often than not) currently. I've owned about 8 or 9 ES335s . . . including an all original '59 dot neck with original double white PAFs . . . and an all original '63 with Patent Number sticker pups. The '63 blew the '59 away in every aspect. Go figure! I also owned a Reissue '59 335 . . . returned it because the neck was a monster, way too chunky for my liking . . and replaced it with a '63 reissue. I recently sold it, because it just couldn't compete with my 535 with SD '59s.

So, IMO . . there guitars, the Lester, the L5 series and the semis . . are very close to each other in both brands.

[jzucker]

i'm not talking pickups when I say power, I'm talking about sustain/punch which is missing somewhat from the 535, nothing to do with pickups.

[jzucker]

i don't understand why the heritage eagle is not the same thickness as the L5. I think body thickness matters. I have owned quite a few 16" guitars with 2.5" bodies and my conclusion is that you give up a huge amount of dynamic range with the thinner body.

[Stringswinger]

I think the 535 has solid sides unlike the 335's laminate sides. Perhaps this contributes to the brighter tone of the 535, along with the thinner depth?

[Bluedawg]

Yeah . . . I'm among those 2002 Custom Shop Historic Reissue R9 buyers. I had a 2000, bought it new in 2000 from Wildwood Guitars. Paid a negotiated price of $3,500 for it. It was stolen by a DHL driver during shipment. I bought a replacement for it, from Wildwood, in 2002. I had to pay $5,500 for it . . . and Lance wouldn't budge even a nickle in the negotiation. In fact, there was no negotiation. Buy, I did get quite a bit more case candy . . and an embroidered framed depiction of a '59 burst. (Big freakin' deal!!!!) Fortunately, the cost of the new guitar was covered by my home owner's insurance . . and by Aaron Cowles personally .. as he was the shipper who didn't get the shipping insurance correct when he filled out the paper work from the DHL driver.

And to pour salt on the wound ....

not only were the 2003 Historic LPs cheaper, but they had Brazillian rosewood fretboards through May

Which makes their resale values some of the highest for recently made LPs

[Patrick2]

i don't understand why the heritage eagle is not the same thickness as the L5. I think body thickness matters. I have owned quite a few 16" guitars with 2.5" bodies and my conclusion is that you give up a huge amount of dynamic range with the thinner body.

Trade offs. The dynamic range is definitely different based upon body depth. But, not all see that they're giving something up . . and if so, it may be that they're giving up something that's less important to them than it might be to others.

The decission to go with different body dimensions was based upon two different factors. Heritage was sued by Gibson for "flying too close to Air Force 1" The H150 was a virtual clone of the Les Paul . . . head stock not included. Dimensions and aesthetics were changed in a slightly thinner body depth, and a considerably different horn. Very different pick guard, no poker chip under the selector switch . . . etc.. After being bailed out with assistance in the law suit, by another very well known guitar manufacturer . . way too big to be bullied by Gibson, Marv and Jim thought it best to make sure there was adequate differentiation in the cross over models.

The other deciding factor, was that they wanted their jazz boxes to be more comfortable. If you play a Super 400 and a Super Eagle . .. you'll quickly understand the differences. The 3" depth was deemed acceptable because this is what Johnny Smith opted for (insisted upon) in his signature models. Much like yourself, JS was very demanding and opinionated on what shoud be the quintessential jazz guitar tone.

[Patrick2]

And to pour salt on the wound ....

not only were the 2003 Historic LPs cheaper, but they had Brazillian rosewood fretboards through May

Which makes their resale values some of the highest for recently made LPs

Serial numbers 9 3001 through 9 3674 to be exact. And there are those who gleefully pay the 10 to 13k that these are selling for, just to have a BRW finger board.

[Patrick2]

I think the 535 has solid sides unlike the 335's laminate sides. Perhaps this contributes to the brighter tone of the 535, along with the thinner depth?

I very seriously doubt there's a single drop of tonal difference resulting from solid vs lam rims at a nominal 1-1/2" thickness. I'm sure the thinner body could result in a tonal difference. But, definitelty not diminished power or punch. When you're talking about a semi hollow or semi solid thin line guitar . . almost everything is driven by the electronics.

Part of what Zuck might be detecting, is that for a short period of time . . . Heritage was using real garbage pots and caps. They've long since switched to much higher quality from a well known pot and cap vendor.

[jzucker]

Trade offs. The dynamic range is definitely different based upon body depth. But, not all see that they're giving something up . . and if so, it may be that they're giving up something that's less important to them than it might be to others.

Then the claim of "identical" needs to be amended.

The other deciding factor, was that they wanted their jazz boxes to be more comfortable. If you play a Super 400 and a Super Eagle . .. you'll quickly understand the differences. The 3" depth was deemed acceptable because this is what Johnny Smith opted for (insisted upon) in his signature models. Much like yourself, JS was very demanding and opinionated on what shoud be the quintessential jazz guitar tone.

I'm pretty sure my eagle is 2.75" and not 3 at the edge". I'll have to remeasure.

[jzucker]

I very seriously doubt there's a single drop of tonal difference resulting from solid vs lam rims at a nominal 1-1/2" thickness. I'm sure the thinner body could result in a tonal difference. But, definitelty not diminished power or punch. When you're talking about a semi hollow or semi solid thin line guitar . . almost everything is driven by the electronics.

Part of what Zuck might be detecting, is that for a short period of time . . . Heritage was using real garbage pots and caps. They've long since switched to much higher quality from a well known pot and cap vendor.

I've found pots and caps to make little difference in the electric guitar frequency range. Guitar is an extremely limited frequency device.

[barrymclark]

Not good lighting for this type of guitar but this is what we had for the model shoot.

Attachment 21189Attachment 21190

Really nice looking. I like the finish.

[Patrick2]

i'm not talking pickups when I say power, I'm talking about sustain/punch which is missing somewhat from the 535, nothing to do with pickups.

Sorry man, I've played and owned several of each. I've not detected this difference as a generality. As you know . . the sustain and the punch will vary from guitar to guitar. There are several contributing factors in this. Obnviously the wood. The filler between the two layers of maple. The glue. The neck carve. The head stock mass.

There are 535s out there with maple necks too, not just hog. There are some with ebony boards, not just rosewood. There are different sources (countries) supplying the rosewood to Gibson and Heritage . . . same with the hog. For an upcharge, you can order a Honduran hog neck . . . and for an H150 for the body also.

So, with a custom builder like Heritage . . generalities usually don't apply to well.

[jzucker]

i think you can generalize if you have sampled enough. I have owned 3 535s and a 555. None of them had the fatness of the note exhibited by a gibson 335.

There is a commonality too. The L5 also has a fatness of note that is missing from the heritage. I believe that in some fundamental way, the gibson build is more substantial and gives a more fat fundamental and more sustain and punch to the note than what heritage is typically yielding. This can obviously vary according to customizations of the build but I have owned enough heritage eagles, sweet 16s and 5x5s to generalize.

Whether this "fat fundamental" and sustain is "good" or not, is subjective. Some would say that the more acoustic properties of the heritage are more desirable. When I first got the L5, I was comparing it to my Heritage Eagle and in some ways was lamenting the fact that the L5 sounded more electric. For certain things, I really liked the sound of the eagle better but for sounding like Wes, the L5 was the King.

[Patrick2]

[QUOTE=jzucker;543327]

Then the claim of "identical" needs to be amended.

The claim was actually "damned near identical models" . . . and in my mind that needs no amending

I'm pretty sure my eagle is 2.75" and not 3 at the edge". I'll have to remeasure.

That wouldn't surprize me at all. As I mentioned before, my first ever custom build Golden Eagle is just a shade over 2-3/4". The lower bout measures only 16-7/8" . . . actually, just a shade under that.

When I've taken either the under sized GE or my L5CES to Bob Ferry's studio for scheduled lessons . . they're plugged into a board and run through a pair of old VOT speakers . . powered by Crown (or is it Carver?? Gotta check next time I'm there) power amps. (Tonal nirvana). There's definitely a discernable difference. But, not one that I'd lose any sleep over.

But, from the videos I've seen of you playing . . you really dig in and hit pretty hard. My technique is very opposite of that . . . and I use a lot of slurs. I'm pretty sure the difference wiould be more obvious in your style if picking and attack.

[Patrick2]

[QUOTE=jzucker;543338]

i think you can generalize if you have sampled enough. I have owned 3 535s and a 555. None of them had the fatness of the note exhibited by a gibson 335.

If that's the extent of what you've sampled, then we're just going to continue to disagree on this one. I would totally agree with a comment stating . . . "of those I've sampled . .. " as a preface rather than a generalization.. But, you've only owned 3 535s and a 555, which is more comparable to a 355 than it is to a 535. Hardly enough to generalize.

There is a commonality too. The L5 also has a fatness of note that is missing from the heritage. I believe that in some fundamental way, the gibson build is more substantial and gives a more fat fundamental and more sustain and punch to the note than what heritage is typically yielding. This can obviously vary according to customizations of the build but I have owned enough heritage eagles, sweet 16s and 5x5s to generalize.

Absolutely! And we've mentioned this before. There are differences in body depth, which we agreed earlier has a considerable affect on fatness of tone. There is also the additional wing bracing coming off of the tone bars on an L5 . . . and they're typicall bracing a thicker top. So, the Gibson build is definitely more substantial in that regard. It's what makes an L5 . . an L5.

Whether this "fat fundamental" and sustain is "good" or not, is subjective. Some would say that the more acoustic properties of the heritage are more desirable. When I first got the L5, I was comparing it to my Heritage Eagle and in some ways was lamenting the fact that the L5 sounded more electric. For certain things, I really liked the sound of the eagle better but for sounding like Wes, the L5 was the King.

And those are the differences, causing the claim of "damned near identical" . . . as opposed to "perfectly identical". But, from a marketing aspect . . not many people are choosing the L5CES over the Heritage Classic based upon those relatively slight tonal differences. This whole conversation of similarities was based upon the marketing concepts and what's driving and keeping the Gibson L5CES' prices so high. I maintain it's definitely not that the L5 CES has a bit fatter note sound and a bit more sustain.

I would assume that there are very few people in the jazz guitar playing world that would care too much about the tonal differences in these two clips. Makis hits similarly to the way I hit. (hopefully, I pulled up the correct two video clips)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=bgtjL6h6wRg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=fTkiwrrASPk

[Patrick2]

I just wouldn't be able to tell, in a blind test, whether this was being played on an L5CES or a Golden Eagle. I seriously doubt I'd care one way or another either. The octaves at 1:15 in could have easily been either. The single note lines on the upper register are a bit thin. But, could have been attributable to any of many factors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=5bn09FNrVZ4