-
I don't have a spare $45K lying around, but if I did I'd seriously look into one of these. Can't get over how good they sound. I know these guys are excellent players, but that aside, can anyone explain why these guitars sound so good?
'61 New Yorker Special:
Or this:
'47 New Yorker Special
-
08-18-2015 02:35 AM
-
As the owner of two of John D'Angelico's guitars, I can answer that question.
John D'Angelico was the Stradivarius of the guitar. His acoustic archtops (along with those of Jimmy D'Aquisto who learned from John) are the finest sounding guitars ever made.
John Monteleone and John Buscarino are making some amazing guitars and Bob Benedetto has made about 500 amazing guitars, but the guitars of John D'Angelico (and Jimmy D'Aquisto) are in a class of their own.
-
Wow Stringswinger! 2 D'Angelico's. I am envious. And very happy to you at the same time.
Thanks for you comment.
That acoustic sound is amazing. I've heard lots of nice Gibson acoustic archtops - and even have a very nice '34 L-4 myself - but that D'Angelico acoustic sound is to die for. Sounds very different from a Gibson archtop to me - or any other archtop for that matter.
The NY special is 18", right? How much do you think the size contributes to that warm (almost tube ampy) sound? Or do the 16" and 17" D'Angelico's sound like that too?
Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
Some of the New York specials are 17 inch guitars, some 18 inch guitars. John D'Angelico made very warm sounding guitars regardless of bout size.
Here is a video of me playing my 1948 DA with my swing band:
-
Thanks Marc,
You guys sound fabulous. That made my day. You make that John D'A sound great amplified too. Got any clips of you playing it acoustic you'd like to share?
Thanks, Chris
-
Chris, one of these days I will sit down and do some clips of both of my DA's fully acoustic. They are remarkable guitars. Thanks for the kind words!
Cheers,
Marc
-
well ... 45k is the asking but it probably is not market / actually selling for that. dangelicos never are cheap but you certainly dont have to spend 45k to acquire one. Originally Posted by cgratham
there is a really strange story about the finish color in the description of that particular guitar as well. This is the exact color Daquisto used extensively in the 80s - but they claim the first owner ordered it like that. That would be very awkward, unless you have a time machine, to accidentally request something that didnt happen until two decades later ?
A lot of NY players who bought Dangelicos and later Daquistos had their guitars serviced there, too. And both DAs had the habit of refinishing their instruments for the owners, after the lacquer started to show much playwear. This is very common for the DA guitars and not necessarily as bad for value as say for a vintage Fender. A refinished vintage Strat is maybe worth 50 % of the original finish, but on older archtop I think the devaluation is much lessser (especially if DA did the refin himself it might still be considered more or less original). It is much more likely, that the guitar in the late 70s or early 80s was refinished by Daquisto - as he did all the time
That being said, they are both lovely sounding instruments. I am fortunate enough to have a couple similar guitars but would love to have either one
-
Loved your playing Marc. Tight group. Santa Cruz, what a rough life! What's your other D'A? Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
That's very interesting about the finishing. Kind of makes you think of all the Strad level violins that have been substantially rebuilt and still worth a fortune.
I just checked out your site - you have a whole raft of beautiful guitars and some great info there. My favourites to look at the photos are the 2 D'Aquisto NY's, the '65 D'Angelico NY, and the Benedetto Manhattan. Just gorgeous.
Cheers, Chris
-
it's true that John and Jimmy would either overspray or refinish a guitar w/out thinking twice, as most were owned by working musicians and would routinely get beat up.
these days, a John or Jimmy D refinish isn't going to affect the resale value as much as having someone else do it, but it would certainly affect the value to a degree, just like a Gibson factory refin would, at least 25% or more imo.
I bought an L-5 from an old timer once and he showed me his D'Angelico NYer while I was there, he was the orig owner.
the sunburst finish clearly looked like a later D'Aquisto finish. he showed me the original receipt and I saw 'natural finish' indicated.
he insisted it was original, but if you know these two builder's finishes through the years you could just tell.
I think he just didn't want anyone to know it was a refin as he knew it would affect the value.
I didn't argue w/him and made another trip to his home and installed a replacement period Grover Imperial I had as one on the guitar was stripped and he hadn't been able to play the guitar in years.
-
The D'Angelicos sound amazing. That's the pinnacle right there. And SS, you are a showman all the way.
I never felt as though I deserved a D'Angelico. Sort do like me driving a rolls Royce. Not very convincing. Plus, my playing doesn't yet deserve a DA. But I'm working on it though!
-
2b, my other DA is a 1937 Style A that was restored by archtop guru/legendary jazz guitarist Eddie Diehl.
-
really underrated player, I drove to the Catskills once to see him play in a trio w/a friend of mine on second guitar and Bill Crow on bass. I think his personal guitar was a Syle A Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
08-18-2015, 05:34 PM #14destinytot Guest Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Out of curiosity, Marc, what gauges do you use on your biggest DA?
-
destinytot,
Both of my DA's are 17 inch guitars. I use TI Swing series 13's (flats).
-
JV sold a refinished D'Aquisto early this year for nearly $50k. It was refinished by my local luthier.
-
Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
wow, someone really overpaid, you can get an orig for less, but I guess it's in the eyes of the buyer.
-
That was the guitar on which Lemuel did the rebind ? I thought only the edges were touched up or did he actually refin the whole thing ?
-
I think all three guitars in the videos above sound amazing. So luscious.
I have wondered what the magic sauce is too. Small f-holes, recurve, thin tops? age?
My job is to learn to play well enough to make me think that I deserve one. Lots of years ahead of me for that.Last edited by travisty; 08-19-2015 at 11:05 AM.
-
It is a widely spread misunderstanding that a thin top will make for a resonant guitar. It does not.
if anything, the DA tops are rather thick.
-
I most heartily agree with Stringswinger. My first guitar teacher had a sunburst D'Angelico Excel. It was nearly staggering in the lesson room how unbelievably good that guitar sounded in the hands of someone who really knew how to play it. My teacher was reasonably comfortable in just about any style--I even watched and listened to him do a passable facsimile of flamenco on the D'A once.
I have heard, played, evaluated, and lusted for many, many different guitars since then. Within the scope of what mere mortals can save up for, I would say that the vintage L-5 and Super-400 guitars, not to mention some of the guitars made by the boutique guys, have been some of the most wonderful sounding instruments ever to pass through my hands. A late-20s Gibson L-5 would have to be about tops.
STILL, none of these guitars have the "shut up and listen" immediacy that the D'Angelico commands of its audience. IMO, they are simply a cut above. I have never desired a pile of money...if I had one, I would probably give it away. However, if a guitar from the heavens fell out of the sky, right into my lap, I hope if would be a D'Angelico New Yorker...or even an Excel from the glory days of Mr. John.
-
Oh, among the things that John D'Angelico did that made his guitars sound different/better:
(1) He gently yet persuasively argued against routing the neck for inclusion of a truss rod. He argued that truss rod-less necks made the guitar sound better, and that he could construct steel-string necks that would be stable without rods.
(2) He tap tuned every top and back plate, just as he would if making a violin.
(3) Although customers gave him their preferences, Mr. D'Angelico (I believe) took measurements and built the guitar that _he_ thought the customer should have. [Never listen too closely to the customer--what do they know about luthiery?]
(4) Often in vain, he would discourage customers from getting a cutaway. He argued that noncutaway guitars sounded better. (He is right, by the way.)
-
Bizarre D'Angelico New Yorker clip:
-
GT, one correction, he did use truss rods, but didn't use adjustable ones in the beginning because Gibson had a patent on it.
when the patent expired he began to install them and used them until the endLast edited by wintermoon; 08-19-2015 at 01:16 PM.
-
Wintermoon,
Those are both true facts about JA's use of truss rods. However, I remember an old (60s) Guitar Player interview with Mr. D in which he revealed that he preferred _no_ rod...like a violin, or a classical guitar. You are probably correct, however, in that he found that those necks shifted under the load of steel strings, and he moved to a non-adjustable reinforcement. I bet that he would have preferred wood over steel, but I haven't peeked inside the necks of a 30s neck.
If the master builders of the golden era could have foreseen the use of the dinky strings that everybody uses these days, probably everybody would have eschewed the use of truss rods. Given that _most_ players are going to string up a guitar with .10-gauge strings, who needs a truss rod? The bracing, top plate thickness, end and neck blocks, and neck construction were developed when strings were BIG and actions were generally high.
Reply With Quote
Melody between melody
Today, 03:25 AM in Chord-Melody