'90s Gibson Tal Farlow Price?

[2bornot2bop]

it ain't an "ngd" without pix...just sayin! Congrats Jack!

[jzucker]

thanks 2b.

Here are some pix from the ebay ad.

Two curious things:

1) Low E tuner barely turns. Took it apart and oiled it but I think the shaft is bent
2) Nut is cut horribly. The E and E strings are extremely close together and the high E is almost off the fingerboard.

The tuner I can excuse because I assume it happened after manufacturing but the nut was obviously but by a beginner. Surprising on such an expensive instrument.

[jzucker]

The sound of the guitar is gorgeous though. It's brighter than my 175 but I can turn the tone control down and get a really mellow 175ish sound. Not quite as much thunk as my 175 curiously enough. And it's a heavier build too so there's not as much resonance as the 175. I was hoping it'd have some of the barney kessel vibe being a similar neck and body width but the build is more substantial. But it's a great instrument. I need to find a repairman that can get a new nut made for me in a day. The guy I normally use has a 6-8 week waiting list!

[edit]...Another thing I like is that the bridge pickup is usable. On my 175, I dislike the bridge pickup but on the Tal, I can turn the tone control down on the bridge and get a very modern, methenyesque tone. Really dig it.

Folks were right though that it's a bit on the heavy side (7.5lbs). My X-500 is a little heavier but it's not a featherweight like my 175 or L5

[citizenk74]

Sweet looking axe. If it sounds as good as it looks, I think you have a keeper! Play it in good health!

[2bornot2bop]

The sound of the guitar is gorgeous though. It's brighter than my 175 but I can turn the tone control down and get a really mellow 175ish sound. Not quite as much thunk as my 175 curiously enough. And it's a heavier build too so there's not as much resonance as the 175. I was hoping it'd have some of the barney kessel vibe being a similar neck and body width but the build is more substantial. But it's a great instrument. I need to find a repairman that can get a new nut made for me in a day. The guy I normally use has a 6-8 week waiting list!

[edit]...Another thing I like is that the bridge pickup is usable. On my 175, I dislike the bridge pickup but on the Tal, I can turn the tone control down on the bridge and get a very modern, methenyesque tone. Really dig it.

Folks were right though that it's a bit on the heavy side (7.5lbs). My X-500 is a little heavier but it's not a featherweight like my 175 or L5

That's a shocker to me. I'd think on the size difference alone the TF's sound would be deeper and darker. Perhaps larger laminates don't possess the same characteristics as larger non laminates? I say that because I've not encountered a single 16" spruce archtop that could match the deeper acoustic sound properties of a larger box.

[jzucker]

i agree 2b but the tal is shallower. I think the shallower box makes a big difference. But yeah, after having owned a couple boutique 16" guitars with 2.5" thick bodies, my conclusion is that the 3 3/8 body depth makes as big a difference as the width of the bout. But also, I think the maple construction contributes to the brightness. My 175 is mahogany (neck,back,sides). It'll be interested to compare the '57 175 when it arrives (probably 13th or 14th)

[2bornot2bop]

i agree 2b but the tal is shallower. I think the shallower box makes a big difference. But yeah, after having owned a couple boutique 16" guitars with 2.5" thick bodies, my conclusion is that the 3 3/8 body depth makes as big a difference as the width of the bout. But also, I think the maple construction contributes to the brightness. My 175 is mahogany (neck,back,sides). It'll be interested to compare the '57 175 when it arrives (probably 13th or 14th)

I can definitely relate to shallower boxes having brighter sound properties to those with deeper boxes. And I hadn't considered the maple vs. plywood...nor did I know the TF wasn't as deep as an L5. I thought other than wood properties they shared the same specs. What's the depth, 3" instead of 3 3/8"?

edit - I wasn't aware the ES 175 was 3.5" in depth...that's deeper than an L5 and a Super 400. Is that accurate?

[jzucker]

my 175 is 3.5, my L5 is 3 7/16 and my tal is 2 15/16

[GNAPPI]

I'm sure there's someone out there with the math skills to figure out the internal size of a body with a 17" 2 15/16" thick venetian cut versus a 16" 3 1/2" thick Florentine cut? Anyone?

To my ear plugged in my 175 (1995) and Tal Farlow (1996) both maple, have an equal acoustic influence on the sound. I definitely would not say my Tal is brighter than the 175, if anything the reverse is true.

I'd sum it up this way... If the Tal Farlow and the 175 were equal in price I'd take a Tal Farlow, but there are lots of very special 175's out there too but IMO the variation between individual 175's is much greater than between several Tal Farlow selections.

[jzucker]

To my ear plugged in my 175 (1995) and Tal Farlow (1996) both maple, have an equal acoustic influence on the sound. I definitely would not say my Tal is brighter than the 175, if anything the reverse is true.

As I said, my 175 (mahogany back/sides) is definitely darker and slightly louder than the Tal acoustically. But the Tal sounds beautiful plugged in and is much more versatile. With the mahogany back and sides, the 175 doesn't have the treble ringing tones of the Tal whereas I can turn the tone control down on the Tal and get very 175-like tones. It's more versatile. I still love my 175 because it's light and it's so resonant. More resonant than the Tal. It's a lighter build so I'm guessing the plywood or bracing is not as stout.

On another subject, I emailed grover about the bad tuner and they are going to replace it. Unfortunately, I have to send the defective tuner to them first, so I won't be playing the Tal for a week or so! Hopefully they turn it around quickly.

[jzucker]

P.S.

Anyone know of a sale or coupon code for Thomastik JS112 strings?

[bluemusic4us]

Andy Brown sure gets his to sound great

[HeyNow]

For historical purposes,

'95 (I think) - sold eBay Oct 29 $2595+75 ship:



'98 - sold eBay Dec 2 best offer less than $2700 local only:

[pingu]

Andy Brown sure gets his to sound great

sure does ... classic sound ,
really nice string balance bottom E not too prominent
and through a Peavey Bandit at the back is it ?

(a tele won't sound like that ... ducks for cover :0()

[vinlander]

For historical purposes,

'95 (I think) - sold eBay Oct 29 $2595+75 ship:



'98 - sold eBay Dec 2 best offer less than $2700 local only:

Superb value for the money for both, market is clearly clueless regarding tone...

[HeyNow]

Superb value for the money for both, market is clearly clueless regarding tone...

It's truly a magical time for archtop buyers, imo.

[2bornot2bop]

Yeah, but some used TF's are still selling at $3.5 and above...well, I know for a fact one local sell did

I'd like a late 90's Sunburst...I couldn't live with the orange....or what has been labeled "viceroy brown" of late

[vinlander]

Yeah, but some used TF's are still selling at $3.5 and above...well, I know for a fact one local sell did

I'd like a late 90's Sunburst...I couldn't live with the orange....or what has been labeled "viceroy brown" of late

Oh you sold your nice Hutchins signed Tal?
I agree what is called Viceroy Brown nowadays seems different than the classic 60s one.
On some pictures it appears clearly more tangerine or iced tea but I always thought it was more a flash effect than the real color.
I never saw another 90s Viceroy Tal in real to compare mine too but my 1996 doesn't look as orange than on pictures.


If there is something it looks very close to the original pre-fading Tal color