Gibson L5 CES, Wes, and Premier

[Groyniad]

discovered to my surprise (or horror) that a local guitar shop has an incredible range of new gibson archtops. this never happens in the UK

this includes L5CES; L5Wes; L5 P (acoustic)

i have been playing comins, campellone, andersen and sadowsky archtops for the last ten years or so - won't bother you with the details. i gigged with a 90's super 400 for a couple of years fifteen years ago - but i've never even seen an L5 of any kind never mind had a chance to compare three different types.

they were all great.

there - that's the review finished.

seriously though - despite terrible strings and no set up whatsoever (had to raise the action a long way on all three instruments) they were all obviously lovely guitars. they all felt very very substantial and solid under the fretting hand (so to speak) - they all generated a lovely full fat tone.

i was interested to find that the two instruments with pickups felt very similar indeed. the wes was black and slightly heavier than the CES - but the two guitars felt and sounded very much alike. i expected to prefer the amplified tone of the CES but the Wes was just as appealing - if a tiny bit 'fresher' sounding. and both the electric guitars felt like slightly deadened versions of the acoustic guitar. so it was obvious - despite quite drastic differences in construction - that the three guitars belonged to the same type. i thought that alone was pretty impressive.

the other obvious thing was that they were nothing like as appealing to look at as the one-man-shop guitars i have owned. even the P seemed casually put together in comparison to say a comins or andersen or campellone (and even a sadowsky). this came across most strongly in the look and feel of the finish (the nitro that is) and in the way the bottom part of the neck (i.e. the bit that floats over the body of the guitar) was finished. and the aesthetic features of the wood were markedly inferior too. my standard campellone and streamline andersen feature much more appealing wood even than the L5 P (which had a very nice 3d back, but only average rims and a very plain neck). the CES had a flamed back too but the flame was entirely 2 dimensional - giving no illusion of depth. in contrast even my sadowsky has 3d flaming on back and rims (but not on the neck); the campellone is wonderful all over and the andersen is just insane. i would also say that the burst-effect on the sadowsky is much more appealing than the burst on the CES (and I'm a very big fan of gibson sunbursts). the light colour on the gibson is too close to yellow and too far from gold (or something like that).

but whereas the guitars i own look nicer than the gibsons i tried they do not sound or play better. i think if i put proper strings on the gibsons and could use an amp i knew i might well prefer the L5P to my campellone and the CES or WES to my LS17. but i'm not sure about this - its just not obvious to me after trying the gibsons that i prefer the sound and feel of the guitars i own.

[Max405]

Hi, the general consensus around here is the CES usually sounds better for some reason. My findings are consistent with yours. They are close to being the same. My black WES was a sublime player, as classy as it gets. The slightly thicker top made it an electric dream come true. All around amazing guitar. My current WES is sunburst, with a really tight top, slightly thinner. They are incredible guitars for sure. In my opinion, well worth the Kings ransom that they command. The pinnacle. The one thing you said that stands out to me is how substantial they are. The feel like they are built to last a lifetime.
Question. The acoustic version, was it lighter and livelier? If so, did it manage to maintain that substantial feel to it? Was the neck any different? Just wondering.
By the way, there must a reason the neck is not finished on the overhang. It is like that on every one I've seen. Does anybody know why? I've often wondered why they just leave it unfinished.


Joe D

[Groyniad]

v. interesting that the black version may have distinctive benefits - i would never consider such a heavy finish normally (though i did once have a factory black 175). it was certainly heavier than the CES. I think i may have picked it over the sunburst CES in a blind test - but i'm not sure.

in answer to your question about the L5P - my impression was precisely that it did maintain the substantial strong feel of the other two versions. it was more lively for sure - but not in a way that compromised its weightiness. i've had two or three wonderful one-man-shop acoustic archtops from campellone and andersen and it stood its ground against these. they may be more responsive and sensitive but they none of them quite feel as weighty and strong under the pick as the L5P.

it would be great if the black version had real advantages - because they are often a lot cheaper!

[Max405]

v. interesting that the black version may have distinctive benefits - i would never consider such a heavy finish normally (though i did once have a factory black 175). it was certainly heavier than the CES. I think i may have picked it over the sunburst CES in a blind test - but i'm not sure.

in answer to your question about the L5P - my impression was precisely that it did maintain the substantial strong feel of the other two versions. it was more lively for sure - but not in a way that compromised its weightiness. i've had two or three wonderful one-man-shop acoustic archtops from campellone and andersen and it stood its ground against these. they may be more responsive and sensitive but they none of them quite feel as weighty and strong under the pick as the L5P.

it would be great if the black version had real advantages - because they are often a lot cheaper!

Outstanding assessment. I am really happy to hear that the "substantial" element is maintained throughout the line-up.
You made me prouder to own an L5. Maybe one day an L5p will find its way into my hands..
thank buddy, JD

[Greentone]

I owned a black finished ES-175 for 30+ years. FWIW, the black finishes are very thin. The additional weight on the Wes you played was likely due to additional top thickness.

[Max405]

Greentone, I totally agree, 100%. Because they are so perfectly finished in almost a piano black lacquer look, one might assume they are dipped into pool of paint. Not the case at all. Very thin coats of paint, just shy of being translucent. Perfect coverage. Beautiful guitar. Goes with every suit. Class all the way.
JD

[Patrick2]

Hi, the general consensus around here is the CES usually sounds better for some reason. My findings are consistent with yours. They are close to being the same. My black WES was a sublime player, as classy as it gets. The slightly thicker top made it an electric dream come true. All around amazing guitar. My current WES is sunburst, with a really tight top, slightly thinner. They are incredible guitars for sure. In my opinion, well worth the Kings ransom that they command. The pinnacle. The one thing you said that stands out to me is how substantial they are. The feel like they are built to last a lifetime.
Question. The acoustic version, was it lighter and livelier? If so, did it manage to maintain that substantial feel to it? Was the neck any different? Just wondering.
By the way, there must a reason the neck is not finished on the overhang. It is like that on every one I've seen. Does anybody know why? I've often wondered why they just leave it unfinished.


Joe D

Yes Joe. I know why. The Gibson archtop necks are elevated over the body almost 2", at the end of the neck. They are attached prior to going into the spray booth. 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.

If you'll notice, even on Heritage's arch tops with a cupid's bow at the end of the fingerboard, there is only a space of 3/8" to 1/2" under it. They can easily spray and buff out anything under that small of an over hang. You'll notice most boutique builders forgo the elevated neck and finger board as well.

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".

Aaron's words on anything and everything we ever discussed related to archtop guitar building, will stay with me for a life time.

[Greentone]

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.

[Patrick2]

[QUOTE=Greentone;558352]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.

Jack Zucker has been on record here on many occasions stating that the vast majority of Heritage archtops he's been in contact with have had fret board rise at the tail end . . . and needed planing to correct the issue. Not looking to pick a fight here with Jack, but I think it's fair and accurate to say that I've played many, many, many more Heritage archtops than he has . . . and I've never come across a single one. Conversely, one of my custom commissioned Golden Eagles has a bit of tail dive. I can see it slightly when I look down the fret board. But, it's clearly evident from the print out of a Plek diagnostic prior to and after the Plek refinement. Phil Jacobs, who did the Plek said it's not an issue . . unless I intend to play frequently at the 18th, 19th and 20th frets. (duh!! Maybe with a bottle neck?) The rest of the neck is perfectly straight. By the way, the results of the Plek were fantastic!

With regard to Unity arch tops, I've played six of the arch top guitars that Aaron made . . and I currently own two. Six Unitys probably represents somewhere around 20% of all Unity archtops ever made by Aaron. Never a wisp of any tail rise from any of Aaron's guitars.

With regard to Benedetto, has anyone ever played any Benedetto with a neck issue . . . or, any other issue? Bob belongs to a very small and very elite group of master luthiers whom in my opion executed vertually every aspect of arch top lutherie to absolute perfection. I know that's a bit of a presumptious statement to make, not having played ever one of Bob's guitars. But, I'm comfortable with making that statement anyway. :-)

[wintermoon]

"Gibson invented the elevated fretboard in 1939"

actually that was the one year where they were NOT elevated [not counting the prewar ES-150, 250 and Johnny Smith introduced in '61]
Gibson had been doing elevated boards since '23 when the L-5 debuted

[Groyniad]

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. you can only just see that there's no finish under the over-hanging neck because the gap between neck and top is so small. even on the sadowsky its there (neck and top are not joined except near the rims) - but its such a narrow gap you can't see any unfinished wood.

obviously this is not an important issue - but you do tend to stare at just that part of the guitar when you're playing.

[vinlander]

Funny I thought that the unfinished area under the elevated neck tail on the Epiphone Regent was just a kind of lazy cut corner that would not happen on a Gibson...well I was wrong; my CS Tal even has it, not that it affects anything but yes we see it a bit but not as bad as on my Epi. What is more important is the fact the neck is playable in the tail area because it is perfectly straight like the rest of the neck, it is 19 years old so I guess it is stable there.
On the Peerless Regent I got a slight dive that doesn't affect too much the playing; the higher gauge does however.
As a side note, I put JS112 back on the Tal this morning after 2 weeks of JS113; got back some thunk that went away and got also back more playability down the neck. Incredible how big gauge can kill tone down the neck because of tension/lack of string movement there.

[Groyniad]

I owned a black finished ES-175 for 30+ years. FWIW, the black finishes are very thin. The additional weight on the Wes you played was likely due to additional top thickness.

but you can't see any figure in the wood through it - unlike with the wine red finish..and doesn't that suggest its thicker? perhaps not (just darker!).

i would have thought that the CES would have the thicker top - to compensate for the extra pickup hole...

they may make the top thicker on the wes to make it more like the CES in amplified sound than it would otherwise be...?

[Jabberwocky]

The additional weight of the L5 WM Groyniad played could also be due to the maple used for the back, rim and neck. Maple varies a fair bit in density depending on what species it is. On Les Paul Historics, it is quite common to see a one-pound or more variance in weight amongst guitars due to the mahogany and maple, kitted out with essentially the same hardware. Spread out over the surface area of a 17" L-5-type, the extra density adds up pretty quickly. Heavier than an L-5CES means that the extra weight is more than the weight of the bridge humbucker and ring, 6 screws, 2 pots, 2 knobs, 2 caps, extra lengths of wiring harness and one selector switch combined. That is some weight.

Anyway, thanks for the write-up, Groyniad. It is always refreshing to hear from someone who has had experience with archtops from different makers. I'd aver that with a proper set-up and choice of strings, the 3 Gibson L-5s would sound rather good.

[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.

In your defense Lady Rose looks far more elegant and sophisticated than any HJS I ever saw. You were understandably weakened in her midst. No offense Joe.

My last 3 L5's out weighed my Super Eagle. Whatever I'm over it.

[wintermoon]

I know a lot of people fuss about guitar weight, but to me it's never been an issue.
light as a feather-fine, boat anchor-no prob,
if it plays and sounds good, I'm in......

[Max405]

In your defense Lady Rose looks far more elegant and sophisticated than any HJS I ever saw. You were understandably weakened in her midst. No offense Joe.

My last 3 L5's out weighed my Super Eagle. Whatever I'm over it.

None taken my brother. In fact I can tell you for sure, that if I wasn't so intent on owning more than 3 guitars, I'd have a second Johnny smith, it would be sunburst and it would have a Gibson logo on the headstock...

[2bornot2bop]

I know a lot of people fuss about guitar weight, but to me it's never been an issue.
light as a feather-fine, boat anchor-no prob,
if it plays and sounds good, I'm in......

That's funny because, that's what many of us say about Heritage. Good sound has no buts...but, but

[Max405]

Yes Joe. I know why. The Gibson archtop necks are elevated over the body almost 2", at the end of the neck. They are attached prior to going into the spray booth. 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.

If you'll notice, even on Heritage's arch tops with a cupid's bow at the end of the fingerboard, there is only a space of 3/8" to 1/2" under it. They can easily spray and buff out anything under that small of an over hang. You'll notice most boutique builders forgo the elevated neck and finger board as well.

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".

Aaron's words on anything and everything we ever discussed related to archtop guitar building, will stay with me for a life time.

Thanks Patrick, thats kinda what I figured. If I was laying out the run plan for these over hanging necks, I would have made sure the sides of the necks were properly sealed and finished. There is no doubt that a jig could be made to properly finish the guitar. But Gibson doesn't really much care about it so I guess it doesn't matter.
FWIW, my Eastman 580 has a neck over hang. Underneath the overhang, the top is not finished (only a 1/8" space so you can't really see it). However the sides of the neck are beautifully finished. It looks right that way. Also don't you think sealed wood has less of a chance of turning up or down over time? I certainly do.

[Patrick2]

Thanks Patrick, thats kinda what I figured. If I was laying out the run plan for these over hanging necks, I would have made sure the sides of the necks were properly sealed and finished. There is no doubt that a jig could be made to properly finish the guitar. But Gibson doesn't really much care about it so I guess it doesn't matter.
FWIW, my Eastman 580 has a neck over hang. Underneath the overhang, the top is not finished (only a 1/8" space so you can't really see it). However the sides of the neck are beautifully finished. It looks right that way. Also don't you think sealed wood has less of a chance of turning up or down over time? I certainly do.

No. I really don't think that the small area left unsealed with cause the tail of a neck and fingerboard to turn up, or rise. Keep in mind that even though Eastman is sealing the ends of the neck, they can't possibly seal thge underside of the over hang. Also keep in mind, that with true NCL, you're never really *sealing* the wood, as you are with a poly topical coating.

When are we going to see Ronaldo and lunch at MI Bandera? Are we on for Tuesday?

[Cunamara]

[QUOTE=Patrick2;558356]

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.

That was specified by Johnny Smith in his original design. He thought that designing it this was would improve sustain especially on the upper frets. Like many of his design features, JS might have picked this up from D'Angelico.

[Patrick2]

[QUOTE=Cunamara;558453]

That was specified by Johnny Smith in his original design. He thought that designing it this was would improve sustain especially on the upper frets. Like many of his design features, JS might have picked this up from D'Angelico.

Yeah . . it was a cumulative of the little things like that that got him sidways with Guild and other builders. When Benedetto stepped in to do the redisign of the Artist Award, he implemented things that brought out the best of two worlds . . . Guild's and his own.

[Greentone]

Wintermoon hit on something. If you choose with your ears, the weight of the guitar is inconsequential. The two finest Telecasters I have ever played were incredibly far apart, in terms of weight. The very best one was--oddly--about a ten pound guitar. Honest to goodness, it weight about as much as a typical 70s Les Paul. It just killed though. The second best, neck in neck with the first one, weighted pretty close to six pounds...not much over that. Couldn't have been more than 6.5 lbs. It was like holding a bag of feathers. Yet, both were unarguably Telecasters when it came to the sound that they got. Whack 'em over to the bridge pickup and they just mowed everything down.

I have played thick and thin-topped L5 guitars--they _all_ sounded great. Same thing with ES-175s. Some were heavy and dead sounding acoustically; some were thin-topped and lively acoustically. Plugged in, however, they all sounded like ES-175s. Did they all sound the same? Nope. But they all sounded great and they all sounded like they were the same model. Weight varied all over the map. My three favorites? A comparatively heavy-ish, 80s model...not too lively, but sounded completely bada$$ into a Polytone; my '68 ebony single pickup, light and lively; and Herb Ellis' '53 that he played in the Oscar Peterson Trio. (I only got the chance to play this after he had a humbucker installed. I wish I could've tried it with the original P90. Gawd, what a guitar.)

The point: guitars can vary in weight pretty broadly and yet be outstanding instruments. It all comes down to how they sound. Gibson L5CES guitars tend to be heavy, but they are to be quested for.

[Max405]

No. I really don't think that the small area left unsealed with cause the tail of a neck and fingerboard to turn up, or rise. Keep in mind that even though Eastman is sealing the ends of the neck, they can't possibly seal thge underside of the over hang. Also keep in mind, that with true NCL, you're never really *sealing* the wood, as you are with a poly topical coating.

When are we going to see Ronaldo and lunch at MI Bandera? Are we on for Tuesday?

Great point Patrick, I didn't think of that.
is a late lunch Ok? Like around 3ish? I am on vacation the following week and I don't want to take advantage..

[Stringswinger]

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?