-
I had a set of his plugs and after taking them out a couple times, the foam tore off of the f-hole shaped cover. I went back to packing tape which is what benson, bollenback and rodney jones use.
Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
06-23-2015 01:22 PM
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
mine spend most of the time in the guitar, but I've carefully taken them out at least a couple dozen times over the yrs. and no tearing.
I think we've had this discussion before, but when I got the guitar it had packing tape on the f-holes.
when I took the tape off it had left marks [not tape residue, but marks] in the lacquer @ the perimeter of the tape.
I was able to buff/polish them out, but that was the end of tape for me.
but ymmv....
-
ugh, not good with the tape pulling finish off. I notice the cheaper packing tape doesn't stick very well. Maybe that would be less likely to damage the guitar. I assume the '76 X-500 is lacquer and not nitro? My ES165 didn't suffer any damage when I pulled the packing tape off but with the newer packing tape's Ninja-adhesive who knows?
-
I don't think it pulled finish off, but reacted w/the adhesive leaving the marks...
that was 25 yrs ago, fortunately you can't tell today
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
I got lucky. Mine is a 2002, came with a perfect setup. I think it was NOS, had a bunch of gunk all over it from sitting out in some store for a few years. I change the strings maybe once a year, it tunes better than any guitar I've ever had, action, neck size, total playability makes it hands down the best playing guitar out of the 25 odd guitars I've owned over the last 40 years. I wish it was a 17" body (I'm 6'3") but that's the only downer to an otherwise bullet proof guitar. Love the thing. But, it's not an L5 and an L5 is not a GB10. I'm happy with both. The Sadowsky would be the first to go, if I had to decide. Thankfully, I don't.
-
i'm 5'7 but I find the GB hard to play because it's so small. The neck width and depth is perfect though and it's very easy to play. The action is nice and low but if I dig in about the 12th fret it will fret out a little earlier than the L5, 175 or X500. It's fine but i'm spoilt.
-
ironically, this GB is one of the few I've ever seen that had a tailrise in the FB. It sounds great though and doesn't have the super high output and bright ceramic pickups that they are now using. It's also a blonde which are a little more rare.
-
Yup, got the blonde, as well. I'm not sure, figure mine must be the newer ceramic pickups, but I won't mess with a good thing. At times, I'm tempted to pick up one of the GB15's(?) - single pu with the deep red finish, and swap out the hardware for the gold version, but I think about a lot of things I will never follow up on. Still like the idea of a bigger body, though. Originally Posted by jzucker
I agree, the neck is the shizznits. Makes me feel like I know what I'm doing. Maybe that's the attraction of some guitars, the chemistry and physics come together in a way that more personal expression comes through with less struggle. At least that's why I have favorites. We can talk physics and luthier science (is there such a thing?) all day long, but something special happens rarely enough that we keep trying to find it more often or improve upon it. Sometimes, just trying find it again, is enough of a task.
-
Jack I've made lots of gigs with my X-500 without major feedback problems.. maybe yours it's OK too
-
^This Originally Posted by yebdox
Absolutely, without a doubt. The problem is, those attributes are not the source of the initial attraction because you rarely know until you acquire the guitar and tweak it to your liking. The initial attraction is usually due to something else - the way it looks, its pedigree, etc. In this way, some of us go through a lot of guitars to find the one(s) with magical struggle-free chemistry and physics.
All this being said, since it's an L-5 thread, my L-5s have been among the most magical in that area, once set up optimally. Lots and lots of other guitars, both cheap and costly, have not gotten there. It's not a total accident - Gibson does something right with the L-5 all around in terms of jazz guitar tone and feel.
-
Roger; Agreed! It's the whole package that makes an L5 . . . an L5. Nothing else is an L5.
The closest thing to a Gibson L5 I've ever seen, smelled or touched . . was made by an individual luthier. Only the most observant L5 aficianados would be able to detect the one characteristic (aesthetic) on the guitar that would identify it as having not been made by Gibson, at a Gibson plant. That was intentionally left that way so that it could be identified as an unauthorized copy and [hopefully] not be sold as an original. It was a blond L5C.
I asked the luthier if he could call that guitar an L5C with a clear conscience. His reply, as a God fearing christian was . . . "it is as far as I'm concerned! It's just not a Gibson L5C, made in a Gibson plant". I'm not sure that even Henry J. would know that it wasn't built at either the Kalamazoo or Nashville plant.
-
Ah, but one can hope! Originally Posted by rpguitar
^This
Absolutely, without a doubt. The problem is, those attributes are not the source of the initial attraction because you rarely know until you acquire the guitar and tweak it to your liking. The initial attraction is usually due to something else - the way it looks, its pedigree, etc. In this way, some of us go through a lot of guitars to find the one(s) with magical struggle-free chemistry and physics.
All this being said, since it's an L-5 thread, my L-5s have been among the most magical in that area, once set up optimally. Lots and lots of other guitars, both cheap and costly, have not gotten there. It's not a total accident - Gibson does something right with the L-5 all around in terms of jazz guitar tone and feel.
It really is the total package we are looking for. Years ago, I dated a number of attractive women (before I met my wife) who turned my crank enough to draw me in, but the magic wasn't there. But, if I hadn't been attracted enough to at least entertain the idea, I would have kept looking. Same with guitars.... step by step, test by test. Most of the time, the journey has been engaging, even when it led to a dead end. Who's life has never required constant correction, to stay on track? Experience leads to quicker course corrections.
-
Some of them have a block under the bridge. If you have the block, your feedback will be much less. Mine does not have a block and does feedback at loud volumes though not as badly as my heritage eagle. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
Jack I've made lots of gigs with my X-500 without major feedback problems.. maybe yours it's OK too
-
The guy who's buying the eagle (on layaway) came by today and we compared the eagle to the L5 and the X-500. Quite a different animal. Not subtle at all. It sounded great though. The eagle held it's own and sounded as good as either of the other two guitars. Much more acoustic archtop vibe IMO. Too bad folks hate those heritage guitars. You can get the eagles for around $2k. Just a steal! Originally Posted by jzucker
-
JZ, I'm not sure who you're talking about here. I Loves my Eagle. And yes, it was a great deal for a guitar with lots of MoJo. A Hogback, with one set pup. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
Hey Jack!! It's not the Heritage guitars that people hate. It's those "ugly head stocks"
-
Audiophiles are obsessed with spending mega thousands for cables? Really? Originally Posted by jzucker
Re your recent Wine L5. I've often nearly been moved to buy a WesMo in Wine...it's probably THE shade that appears most coordinated, i.e. balanced, to my eye. The colors Burgandy and Gold are very regal colors that always look good together. Combined with the darker shading of the Wine on your specific L5 if there was ever a wine red L5 I'd have bought it would have been yours...plus it was like just down the street from me in Seattle...I'm glad you bought it.
-
I have been following Jack's thread about the difference between Heritage and Gibson archtops. I have a different take on this.
It seems to me that _Gibson_ evolved its L-5 line to become more of an electric line. To me, the L-5 of the 70s-present has steadily become a more electric guitar, any way you slice it. This is no disparagement by me, by the way. I _LOVE_ the sound of the modern L-5CES and Wes guitars. However, I don't think that they really closely resemble the sound, either acoustically or electrically, of the pre-70s (and especially pre-60s L-5 guitars).
I attribute this to construction. The guitars made in the 40s, 50s, and 60s were typically lighter overall than those made in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and in the 21st century. If you pick up an old L-5C that someone has added a pickup to, be it a P90, a humbucker, or even a Charlie Christian, it is a different animal than, say, a ten or fifteen year old L-5 Wes.
IMO, the older Gibson is going to sound rather more like the Heritage than like the modern Gibson. It won't sound _like_ the Heritage, but it will sound more like that than like the Wes.
This is splitting hairs because all three guitars are going to sound superb. I would gladly take a 70s or later L-5CES guitar anywhere, anytime and be happy to play it, perform with it, you name it. It is an iconic guitar.
However, if you want an acoustic archtop that also doubles as an electric jazzbox, save up and get an older L-5 with pickup...or just go with the Golden Eagle. Then, again, almost any L-7 from before 1960 that I have ever played...with a DeArmond, is a killer acoustic/electric option.
-
greentone, I already said that except for the part where the heritage sounds like the old L5s. That part I disagree with. I owned a '64 and a '75 and i've played plenty of '50s L5s'. None of them had the bright acoustic sound of the Heritage Eagle guitars. The eagle actually sounds more like a modern "boutique" archtop than an old L5.
-
also, the tone I get out of my more recent L5 is extremely close to what Martino was getting on those '60s recordings and to what wes got so I'm not sure the L5 tone has changed as much as you are suggesting.
-
I have a 1975 L-5C and a 1947 L-5. They weigh about the same - 6 lbs or so. And they are very similar in tone, with the older non-cut being a tad louder and brighter. But both are very much acoustic guitars with floating pickups, not electrics. Very different from a CES that weighs nearly a third more.
-
All respect to you Jack, but having owned some 8 or so "Golden" Eagles myself, each acoustic, and now 3 Gibson L5's, I've yet to have owned what I'd classify as a "bright" sounding acoustic Golden Eagle. In fact my last two were clearly on the darker side of any acoustic archtop I've ever owned. In fact, my last acoustic GE was so dark it was much darker acoustically than my current acoustic Super Eagle, which in fact is nearly a pound lighter in weight than the GE was.
If I came across a "bright" archtop of any type, much less a GE, I'd part with it as fast as a hot knife through butter, as bright sounding acoustic archtops are not to my liking. As an example, I owned a dream to play guitar whose tone I'd classify as likely my first harmonically rich sounding archtop in a Dana Bourgeois A350 , that in the end I had to part company with because I couldn't bond with the guitar...even though I strung it w/ TI 14 bebop rounds in an attempt to create some tone thickness from the guitar I failed to tame it's brightness.
Ironically, for my ear, it was a beautiful SB '05 Hutchins L5 WesMO that I also had to part with because I couldn't handle the brightness...that guitar arrived with an aftermarket Lollar humbucker installed.
Needless to say, "brightness" is the death nail to any archtop that comes my way. I've yet to part with a GE because of "brightness." But that's my story...all sound is subjective and each GE is different.
-
i don't mean bright as in shrill. I mean bright as in the spruce top imparting it's acoustic properties on the guitar. There is way less of that on an L5 than any heritage eagle I've owned. I have owned 3 or 4 plus several sweet 16s and they all had the spruce acoustic tonality to them. The L5 is just darker in that it's more of an electric guitar other than the earlier ones.
-
I think you could probably replace the word, bright . . . with the word alive. That's a very real characteristic in a Heritage arch top. They are amazingly alive from the very first time they're strung up and taken for a short test run by Rendal Wall at his bench in the Heritage plant. They do open up beyond what they sound like originally. But, they're very alive immediatly after completion of the build. By contrast, if Joe DeNisco played my Wesmo the first week I got it . . . he might have not bought it, unless he knew it would open up. It sounds wonderful now. But, it's still not as alive as a GE with an inset pup. Originally Posted by jzucker
Edit for an after thought; if you've somehow sampled a GE with a floater and a tap refined/tune top . . they are indeed bright. So to is the tap tuned (by Aaron Cowles) Heritage Johnny Smith model.Last edited by Patrick2; 06-25-2015 at 10:26 PM.
-
Yeah but the funny thing is, even among "tap tuned" GE's there are exceptions. The one I referred to above, my last, with the near black L5 ebony guard, was anything but bright. It was much darker than the acoustic SE, which to the best of my knowledge could potentially be tap tuned. Originally Posted by Patrick2
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions