-
I love happy endings. I was bummed when your new Tal got hacked by that butcher luthier. The BK looks cool with the L5 tailpiece.
-
07-23-2015 10:44 PM
-
Jim Bastian's site has some interesting BK history and model info:
The Gibson Barney Kessel Pages
-
thanks franz
-
i disagree with him about the maple top ones. If anything, the maple has a more glorious jazz sound than the spruce top like mine. If I ever find a maple one I'd probably swap.
Originally Posted by Franz 1997
-
I would think the better accessibility has more to do with the size/depth of the cutaway, rather than the fact that it is on both sides. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
And where the heel begins. Originally Posted by Woody Sound
Those Kessel's are so cool, and so "sixties."
-
>> I disagree with him about the maple top ones. If anything, the maple has a more glorious jazz sound than the spruce top like mine. If I ever find a maple one I'd probably swap. <<
Swapping should be easy, since the earlier BKs with spruce top (1961 - 64) are considered to sound nicer by many, which is also reflected by the market prices.
Reasons why Gibson changed the earlier BKs into conventional maple bodies could be:
- the body-neck-junction of the spruce models was a bit "delicate".
- they couldn't justify to maintain an archtop production line where only the BK models had (laminated) spruce tops.
Once I got two of the earlier BKs as "shell guitars" directly from Jim Bastian, plus a strongly battered one for donor parts.
I support his sound valuation when he wrote: "After ’64 most BK tops were laminated maple, which produces a decidedly brighter tone in these models. The maple top version, in my opinion, is not the optimal model for traditional jazz, although I have played many that are fine instruments."
Early BKs are basically the same like Tal Farlow models (with all maple bodies), only with spruce tops - forget about that funny looking double cutaway! If you watch out for comparable conditions you'll come to hear that the TFs sound more brash, bright or "compressed", acoustically a tad less lively and lyrical than BKs with laminated spruce tops:
.
Sure, the different necks may play also a role.
While my ears and fingers regard other vintage archtop guitars to be superior to Gibsons, I admit that the BKs are really nice and certainly one of the most universal and underrated electric guitars out there, similar to the universality of Teles. Gibson pick-ups... always shined!Last edited by Ol' Fret; 07-24-2015 at 12:33 PM.
-
Just dug out my battered 62 Gibson catalogue. Page 7 ( 355TDC - SV and BK) :
" It (BK) offers the purest tone over the entire range with a special magnetic field in the bridge pickup to emphasise the highs"
A surprise that BK would have specified that, not being much of a bridge pickup player. Also hard to see exactly what this feature could be, unless ( for example) an Alnico 8 or ceramic magnet; PAFs/ PS's have only room for one magnet!!
-
which is also reflected by the market prices
They're more expensive because most Gibson's closer to 59 are - association to the magical Burst year, PAFs, and neck shape e.g. nut width vs later 60s
It's not generally related to the spruce top, imo. A spruce top BK whose pickups have "Patent Applied For" will be worth ~$2k more than a spruce top BK without such stickers.
The maple top version, in my opinion, is not the optimal model for traditional jazz, although I have played many that are fine instruments.
Most "traditional" jazz were recorded through guitars that didn't have a laminated spruce top e.g. 175s, L5s, and solid spruce tops.
-
BK didn't specify anything. The guitar was already designed when he was brought on. Originally Posted by Franz 1997
-
The reason I disagree is that you can't distill down the differences between maple and spruce by saying one is brighter than the other. Maple is definitely *NOT* brighter than spruce. I have played identical guitars many times where one was spruce and the other was maple. The spruce has a very pronounced, velvety top end that is missing from the maple and this is born out in detail when you play with your thumb. The maple top guitars sound muddy whereas the spruce top guitars have a top end that "survives" the thumb playing. I'll stick to my original statement about the BK guitars though as you point out, the maple neck may have an influence on the tone, so that the mahogany neck guitars may have a little darker attack.
Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
-
>> Maple is definitely *NOT* brighter than spruce. <<
Reminds me on endless dicussions among sax playing buddies of the following way:
- "Hey, did you try this mouthpiece brand? These pieces sound bright as day!"
- " Yeah, I tried them... but they sound dark as midnight!"
LOL, maybe we agree that spruce and maple tops sound different.
>> Most "traditional" jazz were recorded through guitars that didn't have a laminated spruce top e.g. 175s, L5s, and solid spruce tops. <<
Sure, that's a fact! But, honestly, I have difficulties to derive something meaningful from such reasoning. It reflects more simple availability of guitar models, practical considerations of users, historical and economical global circumstances or - in the worst case - herd following, than anything else
I can well understand Wes Montgomery's attitude when saying (and Wes was allegedly interested in sound concepts): "I got a standard box - I don't never want nothing special. Then, if I drop my box, I can borrow somebody else's."
Agreed to Wes, but can you deduce that there may have been no equivalent or even more sophisticated, high-grade archtop guitars out there than what he or many other jazz guitarists used?
Sheer high quantities and production numbers do hardly ever indicate poor quality - but, in reverse, you cannot derive best quality by default.
I believe that Gibson couldn't justify another special production line in the mid 60s, or, in other words, manufacture guitars in the long run that looked (and were almost priced alike) as if they had solid carved spruce tops similar to their top-end models, but were cheaper to produce, i.e., pressed and laminated. Gibson's original pricing concept tells exactly this language.
Last edited by Ol' Fret; 07-24-2015 at 12:32 PM.
-
How do you know- were you there or something? Anyway, the reference was intended ironically Originally Posted by HeyNow
-
You are very fortunate to have found one with such a nice finish! Most are severely "checked." Any idea why?
Best wishes. Keep on pluckin...
-
>> You are very fortunate to have found one with such a nice finish! Most are severely "checked." Any idea why? <<
Yes, he is! Most BKs have been played like crazy, for good reason, though not so much by jazz players.
Btw., the oversized headstock à la Super 400 makes the BK (L-5 size with a bit lower side depth) a bit nose-heavy, especially in combination with the light-weight tailpiece, unlike the L-5.
-
I have owned laminate guitars with both spruce tops and with maple tops. Mostly, the maple topped guitars have been brighter, but not always. Lots of other variables are involved like: pickups, neck wood, fingerboard wood, bridge material, side and back wood, bracing, etc. My 97 ES-175 is a dark guitar. And that pleases me (especially through a Raezer's Edge Cab, adding to the dark tone. I prefer warmth over clarity. Give me Pat Martino's tone over George Barne's tone!)
Every piece of wood is different, therefore, so is every guitar.
Jack, Congrats on the BK. I have never owned one as I do not care for the look (the only double cut guitar that I think looks great is the Strat, hell, I barely like the looks of my 335!), but every spruce top BK that I have heard sounded great.
It sounds to me like the electric Gibson archtop provides the sound that inspires your playing (as it does mine). Regardless of the percentages of inspiration and perspiration required to play jazz well, the inspiration most certainly needs to be there.
If I may plagiarize the old song, play that thunky music white boy!
Cheers,
Marc
-
Something. Originally Posted by Franz 1997
One doesn't have to witness in order to obtain information. History is often documented.
The BK model was already developed when BK was asked to endorse the model. He was never really a fan of the guitar, which is supported by lack of instances where you see/hear Barney using that guitar model.
-
Jack's is very checked. Long vertical checks on the back. A lot of small checks on the top. Originally Posted by otillio
Just the nature of a 50+ year old nitro'd guitar that has been through different humidity conditions through its life.
-
mine is completely checked. Not one inch is unchecked in fact. Originally Posted by otillio
-
Maybe just me, but I hate paying four figures for a guitar with a lot of non original parts. But I have to admit that 5k for a BK sounds very wrong, too. I would pass on that model altogether. As did BK, pretty much. OK, I have rained on the parade a bit, and if a guitar plays and sounds dead solid perfect that's the main thing. At this point in life you clearly know what you like.
-
in an ideal world I agree but realistically, you're never going to find a '60s 175 or Barney Kessel with non-original but functionally equivalent parts for under 4 figures. I've been looking for years. The cheapest I have seen is $1500 for a shell body with no hardware and the two times I have seen that price it's been for a headstock repair. Originally Posted by nopedals
$2500-$2700 is about the going rate for an instrument with non originally but functionally equivalent parts with seth lovers or burst buckers and all parts replacement parts for the rest. Given that you can get $2500 for a PAF pickup, $2700 is fairly reasonable, particularly in this case since the fingerboard was planed flat, neck refretted perfectly and because of the old, dry wood it's going to be very stable.
Yes, it's not for everyone and certainly not for those who like shiny, new, flamed tops but there are a few folks around who appreciate it. The BK in general is not a big seller so buying one in any event is not likely to be the best investment.
-
07-24-2015, 03:39 PM #47Dutchbopper Guest
I may have to check out a BK myself. My dream guitar is a vintage 50s ES 350 but those are completely unaffordable. The BK has all the specs I love too though. At a better price.
DB
-
There was a PAF-equipped BK that slipped through the cracks on an eBay auction a few months ago. I think it sold for ~$4k.
A week later the stripped carcass was on sale for ~$2k. It eventually sold after a few weeks.
Made me sick I missed the original auction. The pickups alone were worth the price.
-
I agree with jzucker's observations on the price of the BK, FWIW. The market, in the recent past, has been soft, but seems to be bouncing back.
I have had laminated-maple and laminated-spruce topped archtops. I'm not sure that I can generalize. The Ibanez JP-20, for example, is a quite bright lam-spruce guitar. Some ES-175s have been bright, some dark--all have had laminated maple as the top material. Sides and backs (and some necks) have varied.
Vintages seem to matter, too. 90s 175s seem darker to me than do 80s or 70s models. 50s and 60s models are in between. I don't have an explanation for this.
If you prize "thunk" as part of the jazz guitar equation, ES-350 (long-scale) and Tal Farlow guitars exude it, ES-175s have it to a degree. It seems largely absent in other archtops. Again, I don't have an explanation.
-
The '80s shaw pickup equipped 175 guitars are super dark due to the pickups. Hate those pickups but they've got a huge following. Not a fan personally Originally Posted by Greentone
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions