Gibson L5 CES, Wes, and Premier

[Archie]

I have also read that Johnny Smith's dispute with Guild that caused him to not renew his endorsement and move to Gibson was over how Guild did the cutaway. The Guild luthiers did not want to do it as John D'Angelico did. Jimmy D'Aquisto later wrote that the Guild luthiers did it the right way and that D'Angelico did it wrong because of laziness! (He would have had to make a new form). I did not think that the neck extension was part of the Johnny Smith/Guild dispute back then.

It is possible that John D'Angelico might have made the neck attached to the top on Johnny Smith's guitar. Anybody know if that is the case?

I would posit that having the neck contact the top of the guitar would result in more sustain and less acoustic volume. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

Yes Gibson and Heritage do it the lazy way. Guild were the ones who did it right! Again that is why I refer to Gibson and Heritage tops as crudely carved. They couldn't carve it properly using their method even if they wanted to. The top would never respond optimally given the added thickness towards the cutaway. The top should be a diaphragm, vibrating, hence recurves. With the Gibson and Heritage style top, this cant really happen. Thats why they dont put re-curves on the top, there's no point.

Johnny Smith was way wrong on this and just goes to show, he might have been a great player but didn't know how to make the best Archtop, if optimum tone was what he wanted. I'm glad Guild told him to get lost, they stuck up for doing it the right way.

P.s
Just don't call it lazy otherwise Patrick will be on your case. Its called "Traditional" Yeh traditionally lazy

And a WES thats heavier than a CES, jesus christ what did they make the Wes from, bricks? The CES even has more bracing to support the top and an extra pickup, lead, 2 knobs, switch etc...

Goes to show, there is no constancy at all in Gibson's manufacturing if they are making WES Mo's that are heavier than a CES, absolutely no constancy at all.

[Max405]

As I was typing my very minor gripe about how Gibson finishes the overhang, I thought to myself, "stop Joe, your only gonna get Archie started and this is going to turn into yet another Gibson smash fest...." Bingo, it happened. I'm sorry guys, my fault.

SS, I can tell you with 100% certainty, the neck touching the top does work to improve sustain on my HJS. And heritages recipe for the construction on that guitar was perfect because it also has an amazing acoustic voice. The more I play my other guitars, the more I appreciate the HJS when I go back to it. If Johnny wanted the full contact neck to be used on the HJS for sustain purposes, then his idea was a great one because the guitar pulls that off well. I've wondered what it is about that guitar that makes it so easy to play with my light picking style. Thanks for flipping the light on for me. It's clear to me now.

[iim7V7IM7]

Is this the type of neck extension feature that you guys are discussing?

[Max405]

Yep..

[floatingpickup]

This discussion regarding the neck extension has me curious. Here is what I know:

I have two D'Angelico's and both have a floating neck, as do all four of my Gibson archtops, both of my Ibanez archtops, my 1946 Epiphone Triumph and both of my Guild Artist Awards.

I read an interview with Johnny Smith where he stated that he loved the Guild Benedetto Artist Award but wanted the floating neck changed to a full contact with the top construction if he was to endorse it as he thought it would add to the sustain. Guild and Bob Benedetto agreed to do so.

I now read in this thread that the Heritage Johnny Smith did not have a floating neck.

I have played a few Gibson Johnny Smith guitars from the 60's and 70's but cannot remember if they had a floating neck. Can anyone here answer that?

I have also read that Johnny Smith's dispute with Guild that caused him to not renew his endorsement and move to Gibson was over how Guild did the cutaway. The Guild luthiers did not want to do it as John D'Angelico did. Jimmy D'Aquisto later wrote that the Guild luthiers did it the right way and that D'Angelico did it wrong because of laziness! (He would have had to make a new form). I did not think that the neck extension was part of the Johnny Smith/Guild dispute back then.

It is possible that John D'Angelico might have made the neck attached to the top on Johnny Smith's guitar. Anybody know if that is the case?

I would posit that having the neck contact the top of the guitar would result in more sustain and less acoustic volume. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

The only archtop I have owned without a raised fingerboard extension was a Heritage Golden Eagle. I know this is the way Gibson Johnny Smiths are as well, but I have never owned one. My Benedetto is basically identical to the Gibsons (Bob explains the process of attaching the neck that way in his book). I have noticed my Campellones have less space with a gradual rise, but it is still there. I attached pics of my '89 Benedetto and 2012 Campellone.
Keith

[Patrick2]

[QUOTE=Joe DeNisco;558566]

As I was typing my very minor gripe about how Gibson finishes the overhang, I thought to myself, "stop Joe, your only gonna get Archie started and this is going to turn into yet another Gibson smash fest...." Bingo, it happened. I'm sorry guys, my fault.

No, Joe. It's not your fault at all. ATH just can't seem to help himself from being who he is. I do intend to respond to his post later today. But, for now . . I'm taking a very beautiful lady to Cape May for the day. Found a great little family owned BYOB Italian restaurant there. Gonna hang in Cape for the day, dinner at 8PM . . then the long schlep back up the GSP (with all the "Bennies" traffic) to Toms River.

SS, I can tell you with 100% certainty, the neck touching the top does work to improve sustain on my HJS. And heritages recipe for the construction on that guitar was perfect because it also has an amazing acoustic voice. The more I play my other guitars, the more I appreciate the HJS when I go back to it. If Johnny wanted the full contact neck to be used on the HJS for sustain purposes, then his idea was a great one because the guitar pulls that off well. I've wondered what it is about that guitar that makes it so easy to play with my light picking style. Thanks for flipping the light on for me. It's clear to me now.

More on this later on this too!

[Archie]

As far as I know, the over hang is to give more frets, that for the most part we cant reach anyway due to the cutaway. It is also to allow the top to vibrate. However if you don't carve the cutaway properly like Guild Did, then it makes no difference as the wood around that area is too stiff and doesnt vibrate anyway.

So in both case it doesn't really serve its purpose all too well.

I would prefer something that didnt give me set-up issues down the road though ramping but I do love the style of it.

@Joe Come on man, its not your fault I have OCD

Besides the OP gave me all the ammunition I need. A wes thats heavier than a CES? would you have thought such a thing possible?

[Ol' Fret]

>> Gibson invented the elevated fretboard in 1939 <<

>> Gibson had been doing elevated boards since '23 when the L-5 debuted <<

Well, elevated boards on archtop instruments have been around since four or five centuries. In this regard it does not matter whether it's about (fretless) fingerboards or fretboards.
I have to add that 'real' acoustic archtop fretboards are elevated over the full length of the neck extension, not just over 2" or so.


>> Every Gibson archtop I have owned with an elevated board featured the poorly finished area under the overhang. <<

>> In order for the shading to be able to reach fully under that very slight elevation, the craftsman would need to deviate from the typical rhythmic motion of the spray gun, needed to achieve uniformity in the shading on the upper part of the upper bout. Similarly, the buffing process can't reach unter the elevated neck and finger board extension either. That's why it always looks so rough and unfinished. Can it be done better than it is? I suppose so. But, it will add exponentially to the time, effort and the potential for poor finishes. <<

This thinking is understandable from a business perspective, but hard to swallow for any player and lover of archtop guitars, or for dedicated master guitar makers. We are talking about some 'holy grail' guitars here, aren't we?



>> the solution the makers i know seem to have used is not to give up the over-hang but to drastically reduce the distance between the neck and the top. <<

Yes, that's generally a neat looking solution, but why does it keep some from finishing the belly area underneath the overhang?


>> Does anyone know, has anyone ever experienced any curling up or down of the fretboard extension over the body of a guitar where the extension is fully attached to the top <<

A curling or raising/sinking of the fretboard/neck extension can develop on guitars, no matter whether the extension is glued to the top or is overhanging.
If this happens, one reason is that some (most) manufacturers use a small extra board for making the neck extension. Ideally, you take one long continuos boardfor the neck to glue on the fretboard, thus avoiding any 'extension'. The second reason is an often poorly selected (if selected at all) neck and fretboard wood, and the third reason is related to most, if not all adjustable truss rod designs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling or the Geman Wiki with some better illustrations, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knicken ).


>> I would posit that having the neck contact the top of the guitar would result in more sustain and less acoustic volume. <<
My feeling is that the sustain and volume/dynamic range of a guitar depends much more on the respective guitar design and craftsmanship, especially on archtop guitars. OTH, if generations of violin makers experimented around this and eventually developed the overhanging fingerboard between the 12th and 15th century, you can bet your bottom dollar they did this not just for fun!
Flattops classical guitars have a full contact neck - despite their basic lack of acoustic volume and power, as it is. Before thinking about changing to an overhanging neck, I'd recommend them to change to a steelstring design.
Flattop steelstrings (full contact neck also) have more power than classical guitars. Archtop guitars can reach the acoustic volume of steelstrings, while at the same time excelling in power, projection and headroom. The best acoustic archtop guitars, no question for me, feature a full overhanging neck.


>> When I had my 17" Unity built for me by Aaron Cowles back in 1994, I was totally ignorant of archtop builds, tone, etc. When I picked the guitar up at Aaron's shop, I asked why he didn't elevate the finger board as it's done on the L5 and Super 400. He said . . and this is almost verbatim . . "so that I don't have to hear complaints from guys like you about the part of the top under the elevation not being finished properly". I asked if it affected the tone at all. Aaron's reply was, again partially paraphrased and part verbaitm . . . "everything you do to the top of an acoustic archtop affects the tone, so it probably does. But, I've never met anyone yet who can truly hear the difference". <<

Thanks for sharing! Maybe I'm the only one here who does well understand Mr. Cowles' statement and at the same time also takes a critical view.
While I agree with many jazz guitar players, that it's much more the man/woman - and not the guitar, I also have a penchant for all the mastery of countless great musical instrument builders in history. Otherwise mankind would still stick to swan bone flutes, and guitarists would never have progressed beyond cigar boxes.

It's easy to get 95% right when making a good guitar. However, to bring out the best in archtop guitar making, a real master maker must take into account even the smallest details. If they can't hear subtle differences themselves or haven't met in their career players who are sensitive to subtle details, this doesn't mean that there is no difference at all! Some stories about famous professional guitarists could verify the fact that these people often do/did know very little about the principles of archtop guitars and the making of, notwithstanding the fact that they often spend more time with their guitars than their life partners.



Here's one detail shot of the guitar that is just on my workbench for a setup, a late 50s model, much played, handselected woods (the master checked by mainly acoustic criteria), fully carved, graduated and tuned, one single neck block board, neat contouring of the fully overhanging neck bottomside, following the belly arching in all levels.



Carefully elaborated recurve, also around the cutaway area. Of course, these guitars show finish on the belly underneath the overhanging... Glued and super straight neck (with 10x10 x2mm steel square tube). It doesn't move, no matter which string gauge you prefer; neither does it react to changes of RH to such an extent like some premier guitars seem always to do. The strings' pull and shrinkage/extension of the neck and FB wood can hardly effect the 'relief' of the neck under regular conditions - if the neck was made right. Adjustable truss rods by their design pull necessarily energy out of the relatively ineffective guitar system; not good for the acoustic (and related electric-acoustic) efficiency. Your strings and fingers needs more neck relief? No problem, adjust the bridge height on the bass and treble side, and you should be fine... You're a solid body guitarist used to .08 string sets and ultra-low action? Sorry, archtop guitars are playing in another universe; not superior, but just different - so, please, don't compare apples and oranges!

Can I hear the difference of all these features? No, I can't, at least not in detail - if only because I'm partially spoilt by this craftsmanship. But bring along your own holy grail box and listen to the grand total... sometimes, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

I wonder if such an underdog axe would have been approved by someone like Kalamazoo's Aaron Cowles. I don't think so: even some large scale vintage archtop guitar dealers dare speaking about such a guitar, if they are lucky enough to spot one, as a 'show guitar' - which they are definitely not! Even folderol like these 'cream pie side bumbers' was made with nothing but function in mind. Vice versa, I wonder if such a guitar would ever appreciate the variety of archtop luthiers who seem to be quite far from violin making principles now...

[Archie]

>>


.

Exactly what I'm saying. The recurve goes around the top and under the extension. I bet you this guitar doesn't have the Gibson/Heritage style cutaway. I bet the top is properly carved all the way around otherwise there would be no point in re-curving it and having that type of extension.

Lets see what the OP ses

[grahambop]

My 175 doesn't live in a case because it makes me play it more often just seeing it standing there. Consequently there is mainly dust under that overhang. In fact I have never even noticed it in 30 years. I couldn't care less.

[Max405]

My 175 doesn't live in a case because it makes me play it more often just seeing it standing there. Consequently there is mainly dust under that overhang. In fact I have never even noticed it in 30 years. I couldn't care less.

Grahambop, come on bro. The dust needs to go. This will help. Got em all over the place and I'll be glad to send you one...

[grahambop]

Grahambop, come on bro. The dust needs to go. This will help. Got em all over the place and I'll be glad to send you one...

Thanks Joe. In fact I have just cleaned out the dust with a duster. From ATH's description, I was expecting to find bare wood and splinters under there, but it just looks like a matt version of the same finish.

I'll probably dust it again in another 30 years, if I'm still up to it.

[Archie]

Thanks Joe. In fact I have just cleaned out the dust with a duster. From ATH's description, I was expecting to find bare wood and splinters under there, but it just looks like a matt version of the same finish.

I'll probably dust it again in another 30 years, if I'm still up to it.

Don't you mean sandpaper made with broken needles :-))

Actually I have had a couple of Gibson's where the wood is totally bare. I ranted about it a while ago but I've moved on (just).

[Ol' Fret]

>> I bet you this guitar doesn't have the Gibson/Heritage style cutaway. <<

Of course, it has not.
Anyhow, I'd like to stress that I'm not into that European (old world: senile, bull-headed) and US (new world: pubescent, fickle) thing! A great archtop guitar is always a great guitar, no matter where or by whom it was made.

Gibson had great craftsmen who made some wonderful guitars. Well, their status quo... puts me between laughter and tears. If something really devils me, it's companies that have the roots (here: violin and mandolin making) largely displaced in favor of multiple cost-saving, but the sound significantly influencing procedures - at the same time trying to sell the results to customers as ultimate. As always in life, I believe that in the long term companies do better with highly skilled and trained employees, and more honest or down-to-earth marketing.

I have to add that this only relates to top-end acoustic archtop guitars: instruments where my personal goal is a 80% : 20% ratio of acoustic to electric sonic properties - and not vice versa as it is today, unfortunately, rather the rule, since it is much easier and more profitable to achieve.

[2bornot2bop]

Patrick is on the money. (Also, it is great to learn about the sage words from Mr. Cowles.)

Gibson invented the elevated fretboard in 1939...along with the headaches associated with it. Every Gibson archtop I have owned with an elevated board featured the poorly finished area under the overhang. One of the first things I noticed, the first time I picked up a Heritage Johnny Smith Rose, was that the neck overhang was missing--the neck was fully attached to the body. I thought this was brilliant. My first thought was that the fly-over would never develop the "fly-up" that so many Gibsons gradually get later in life, requiring a board plane or elevating the action to prevent buzz on the over-the-body frets. My second thought, though, was that the finish looked flawless in that area.

I cared less about the finish business though. My chief concern was that the guitar would play the same 25 years later. At the time, I passed on the Smith because it had a rose-tinted natural finish. Would you believe that I now, all these years later, own and play a rose-sunburst Heritage Super Eagle? (Got it from Patrick, by the way)

Does anyone know, has anyone ever experienced any curling up or down of the fretboard extension over the body of a guitar where the extension is fully attached to the top, i.e., like Unity, Heritage, Benedetto, etc? It happens, with time, to some Gibsons and Gretsches.

26 years old, no fly up, fly over, over under, ad nauseam.

It's an SE acoustic that's as resonate as any archtop I've yet to own.

[Greentone]

This would be my expectation...level fretboard when the overhang is attached to the top. Maybe it doesn't make a difference, but I would expect it.

A few entries up I think somebody really nailed it: if the overhang is done with a separate piece of wood, it is probably more prone to move around over time. This is, as I recall, the Gretsch construction technique with the old Chet Atkins guitars (I owned two). I loved those guitars, but I wonder how stable the neck/body arrangement was going to prove to be over the long haul? (It might have more to do with the glue they were using, which was kind of notorious, as I recall.)

[2bornot2bop]

This would be my expectation...level fretboard when the overhang is attached to the top. Maybe it doesn't make a difference, but I would expect it.

A few entries up I think somebody really nailed it: if the overhang is done with a separate piece of wood, it is probably more prone to move around over time. This is, as I recall, the Gretsch construction technique with the old Chet Atkins guitars (I owned two). I loved those guitars, but I wonder how stable the neck/body arrangement was going to prove to be over the long haul? (It might have more to do with the glue they were using, which was kind of notorious, as I recall.)

Apparently not limited to "Gretsch's." I recall an early 80's D'Aquisto New Yorker that was posted here on the board early this year which received a restoration due to "glue" issues surrounding complete deterioration of its binding. It's pics were later removed to accommodate JV's seller...man, did that guitar ever experience a night and day restoration. I recall the restoration luthier mentioning the glues being used in the 80's weren't up to todays standards.

[Patrick2]

Apparently not limited to "Gretsch's." I recall an early 80's D'Aquisto New Yorker that was posted here on the board early this year which received a restoration due to "glue" issues surrounding complete deterioration of its binding. It's pics were later removed to accommodate JV's seller...man, did that guitar ever experience a night and day restoration. I recall the restoration luthier mentioning the glues being used in the 80's weren't up to todays standards.

That had more to do with the binding material, than the glue.

[Patrick2]

This would be my expectation...level fretboard when the overhang is attached to the top. Maybe it doesn't make a difference, but I would expect it.

A few entries up I think somebody really nailed it: if the overhang is done with a separate piece of wood, it is probably more prone to move around over time. This is, as I recall, the Gretsch construction technique with the old Chet Atkins guitars (I owned two). I loved those guitars, but I wonder how stable the neck/body arrangement was going to prove to be over the long haul? (It might have more to do with the glue they were using, which was kind of notorious, as I recall.)

When a wood to wood glue joint is clamped, dried and completed, for all intents and purposes . . those two pieces of wood are forever after . . one. Just as a 3 or a 5 piece neck becomes . . one. The glue joint isn't, hasn't and wouldn't move, even a micro millimeter. Gibson uses a dove tail neck/body attachment . . . and the overhang has always been done using a seperate piece of wood. That's not an issue at all . . . and it ain't gonna change anytime too soon. Guild too uses this same process . . . or at least they have used it all through Hoboken and Westerly.

Others use a tongue/mortise neck to body connection that doesn't require or employ the seperate piece of wood that you reference . . . and is actually stronger, but not more stable in the sense that you reference.

[2bornot2bop]

Yes Gibson and Heritage do it the lazy way. Guild were the ones who did it right! Again that is why I refer to Gibson and Heritage tops as crudely carved. They couldn't carve it properly using their method even if they wanted to. The top would never respond optimally given the added thickness towards the cutaway. The top should be a diaphragm, vibrating, hence recurves. With the Gibson and Heritage style top, this cant really happen. Thats why they dont put re-curves on the top, there's no point.

Johnny Smith was way wrong on this and just goes to show, he might have been a great player but didn't know how to make the best Archtop, if optimum tone was what he wanted. I'm glad Guild told him to get lost, they stuck up for doing it the right way.

P.s
Just don't call it lazy otherwise Patrick will be on your case. Its called "Traditional" Yeh traditionally lazy

And a WES thats heavier than a CES, jesus christ what did they make the Wes from, bricks? The CES even has more bracing to support the top and an extra pickup, lead, 2 knobs, switch etc...

Goes to show, there is no constancy at all in Gibson's manufacturing if they are making WES Mo's that are heavier than a CES, absolutely no constancy at all.

If it's your belief that "recurved" archtops offer greater "optimum tone" how do you explain the fact that there are archtops without recurves that offer greater "optimum tone" than archtops with recurves? I acknowledge that a recurve offers a nice visual aesthetic, but where "tone" is concerned I'm not buying the conclusion that a recurve combined with your proposed optimum cutaway shape equals "optimum tone." Reason being I've experienced guitars with recurves that didn't supplant the tone of those without.

I've personally not owned a more vibrant and "optimal" sounding guitar than my last GE. If you've a preference for a certain archtop carving style, I get that. But at minimum, if I'm developing conclusions about guitars it's based upon ownership experience, not theory. But hey, to each their own.

[entresz]

How was the L5-P in terms of volume, would it hold its own in big band situation for example?

[Bluedawg]

Ya'll made me check my Gibson Le Grand .. and the overhang is so close to the top that you can't see in there to see the finish or lack there of ... like the European archtop in the pictures above .... so apparently the Le Grand or at least those from the early to mid 90s are following the Johnny Smith approach

I also have an L5Wes and L5CES and you can see the rough finish underneath the much higher overhang ... I'm not sure it's a big deal .. they sound great .. and my L5WES has as good of an acoustic sound or better then the new L5Ps I've played

If I had a money tree in the backyard I'd have me some Campellones, and Benedettos and a few other small luthier guitars to compare them with .... maybe someday



As far as the new L5s and especially the L5P ... the ones I've played were very nice and sounded great

I've been thinking about how best to buy one of the L5Ps for sale in Tucson, but since I already have a Le Grand I'm not in a hurry to get another Gibson with a floating pickup

I'm more interested in adding something with an 18 inch bout to my little collection.

[Patrick2]

[QUOTE=Ol' Fret;558593]

You post here far to infrequently! The forum would be a far better informed venue if you had the time to contribute more often. I always respect and enjoy your input. However, we seem to be of differing opinions and understanding here, on a few of our positions.

>> In order for the shading to be able to reach fully under that very slight elevation, the craftsman would need to deviate from the typical rhythmic motion of the spray gun, needed to achieve uniformity in the shading on the upper part of the upper bout. Similarly, the buffing process can't reach unter the elevated neck and finger board extension either. That's why it always looks so rough and unfinished. Can it be done better than it is? I suppose so. But, it will add exponentially to the time, effort and the potential for poor finishes. <<

This thinking is understandable from a business perspective, but hard to swallow for any player and lover of archtop guitars, or for dedicated master guitar makers. We are talking about some 'holy grail' guitars here, aren't we?

Holy grail, indeed . . . as it relates to some of the iconic Gibson and Guild archtops. However, we are also talking about businesses that need to offer a product to the market at a market palatable price point.

>> Does anyone know, has anyone ever experienced any curling up or down of the fretboard extension over the body of a guitar where the extension is fully attached to the top <<

A curling or raising/sinking of the fretboard/neck extension can develop on guitars, no matter whether the extension is glued to the top or is overhanging. If this happens, one reason is that some (most) manufacturers use a small extra board for making the neck extension. Ideally, you take one long continuos board for the neck to glue on the fretboard, thus avoiding any 'extension'. The second reason is an often poorly selected (if selected at all) neck and fretboard wood, and the third reason is related to most, if not all adjustable truss rod designs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling or the Geman Wiki with some better illustrations, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knicken ).

I strongly disagree with your theory of any seperate piece of wood added to the neck increasing the possibility of raising or sinking of the tail of the fret board/neck. For this to be even slightly fathomable, one would need to accept that the glue joint moved. What's the likelihood of that happening . . . unless the glue joint was poorly done? Again, what's the likelihood of that happening? There have been thousands of guitars made with the seperate/added piece of maple for the dove tail joint. What would be an estimate of tail rise or drop of these thousands of guitars?

>> When I had my 17" Unity built for me by Aaron Cowles back in 1994, I was totally ignorant of archtop builds, tone, etc. When I picked the guitar up at Aaron's shop, I asked why he didn't elevate the finger board as it's done on the L5 and Super 400. He said . . and this is almost verbatim . . "so that I don't have to hear complaints from guys like you about the part of the top under the elevation not being finished properly". I asked if it affected the tone at all. Aaron's reply was, again partially paraphrased and part verbaitm . . . "everything you do to the top of an acoustic archtop affects the tone, so it probably does. But, I've never met anyone yet who can truly hear the difference". <<

Thanks for sharing! Maybe I'm the only one here who does well understand Mr. Cowles' statement and at the same time also takes a critical view.
While I agree with many jazz guitar players, that it's much more the man/woman - and not the guitar, I also have a penchant for all the mastery of countless great musical instrument builders in history. Otherwise mankind would still stick to swan bone flutes, and guitarists would never have progressed beyond cigar boxes.

It's easy to get 95% right when making a good guitar. However, to bring out the best in archtop guitar making, a real master maker must take into account even the smallest details. If they can't hear subtle differences themselves or haven't met in their career players who are sensitive to subtle details, this doesn't mean that there is no difference at all! Some stories about famous professional guitarists could verify the fact that these people often do/did know very little about the principles of archtop guitars and the making of, notwithstanding the fact that they often spend more time with their guitars than their life partners.

There are many differences, subtle and more easily audible, heard and/or unheard. But, where does a builder draw the line? What's real? What's subjective? Is European cello wood the best way to go? Is Macassar ebony better than Gabon? Is Tite Bond better than hide? Is plastic binding better than wood? Is a bone nut better than a polymeric of some sort? Is NCL better than French polish? Is a two footed bridge base better than a full contact?Does a spruce top need to oscilate like a bass subwoofer speaker in order to move enough air to create great accoustic archtop tone? History has spoken . . and has overwhelmingly said . . .

Builders need to sell guitars. The Gibsons and the Guilds of the world can't devote the time, effort and resources necessary to try to recreate every *perceived* best way to build an archtop guitar. Benedetto and Montelleone can command $30+ end user cost for a new build. Not many others can. And . . again I say . . how many can actually discern any audible differences?

As you say, the masters take into account the smallest details. However, all too often, some of those details are based more upon theory and perception . . . than they are on actual proven results.

[Bluedawg]

How was the L5-P in terms of volume, would it hold its own in big band situation for example?

The ones I've played didn't seem to have that much volume .... but it's hard to tell the volume of an archtop when your the one playing it

Maybe with some round wound strings and a few months of playing they will open up and project like the old guitars

They sounded great plugged in ... at least when matched up to an amp that works well with floater pickups

[Archie]

If it's your belief that "recurved" archtops offer greater "optimum tone" how do you explain the fact that there are archtops without recurves that offer greater "optimum tone" than archtops with recurves? I acknowledge that a recurve offers a nice visual aesthetic, but where "tone" is concerned I'm not buying the conclusion that a recurve combined with your proposed optimum cutaway shape equals "optimum tone." Reason being I've experienced guitars with recurves that didn't supplant the tone of those without.

I've personally not owned a more vibrant and "optimal" sounding guitar than my last GE. If you've a preference for a certain archtop carving style, I get that. But at minimum, if I'm developing conclusions about guitars it's based upon ownership experience, not theory. But hey, to each their own.

The point of an archtop is to act like a diaphragm. The majority of archtops we buy don't really do this. Play a D'aquisto, play a benedetto play a top archtop guitar and you will get why re-curves are so important.

On the other hand, I never once said that the guitars we love are bad. I thought we were having a conversation about technical issues, like over hangs etc. My point that over hangs don't need to float on the majority of archtops is because the basic idea behind it is lost because the tops carved are not carved in a way, that would optimise the point in having them.

Seems like lots of people confuse me saying "the tops are crudely craved and not optimum" with "I think these are bad guitars that sound bad" which is not what I have said at all in anyway.

But if you had a Heritage or Gibson and you compared it to a laminate top of a $500 Ibanez you would have plenty to argue as why yours would have the superior tone. If you then had a benny, or d'aquisto what have you, you would look down on Gibson and heritage like Gibson and heritage would look down on a cheap Ibanez.

Its all stages of of skill, quality and cost. No one in the their right mind would turn down a well tuned recurved top its just most of us cant afford them. In turn though it doesnt mean we take middle of the road archtops, L5's JS's, Eagles etc and elevate them beyond what they are, affordable middle of the road archtops. As great as they are and as much as we all love them.

To me at this point I would say the over hang is cosmetic only and traditional. It would be better if they had some metal coming off the neck block up under or into the over hang to make it more stable, or have the neck block and overhang as one piece as long as it doesn't upset the glance of the guitar.

But anyway