my thoughts on the popular 16x2.5" body size

[Woody Sound]

why is that though? Benson is short and has very small hands and we've all seen him play the big bodies. Is there a difference in the way you hold the guitar? Do you keep it up high like he does?

I knew someone would say that

George is not me, I am not George. That is why I said "Underhanded, similar, but not the same." My avatar pic is probably about 35 yo. Starting in the mid-late 80's I played very little on archtops for at least a decade, was working non-stop commercial gigs with an '86 PRS C24. Over the years my right wrist has migrated downward more and more. My index finger is closer to the neck, my thumb is closer to the bridge. I sweep pick "backwards" - the edge of the pick closer to the bridge is angled down, the edge of the pick toward the neck is angled up. I am fairly short, with long legs and a short trunk. I have to cut off the tail end of my neckties so that the back doesn't hang down below the front. Dancing with tall women is an erotic treat UU

I USED to have a pre-war blond L5, a Heritage JS-Rose, a Vestax D'A, and a bunch of others. I sold all of them, because they are not right for me any more. After a jazz hiatus of about 10 years, I kept TRYING to play the big guitar, but it just would not work. And I grew up on a 335. For years now I have been playing archtops no bigger than 15", currently a Sadowsky JB. And it feels great.

My point is, we are lucky as guitarists to have such choices. Try buying a smaller contrabassoon.

[sgcim]

Hi sgcim, At this moment (2015), roughly $2,800 plus or minus a little depending on options/ornamentation. This tends to go up a bit each year because of material cost increases and general demand.

Sounds very reasonable. I liked the sound of Tim Lerch's single line playing on one of his videos.
Is there any way someone in NY could try one out?
BTW, do you know what amp Tim was playing through?
Thanks.

[kkfan]

Hi sgcim, At this moment (2015), roughly $2,800 plus or minus a little depending on options/ornamentation. This tends to go up a bit each year because of material cost increases and general demand.

That's a very reasonable price, including the plus or minus, IMO.

[kenbennett]

I wonder if the wider neck contributes to that at all?

Since guitars are so individually unique, it's hard to make absolute statements about guitar acoustics. But, yes. The neck vibrates a lot particularly in the lower modes. I don't know of anyone who actually tunes necks, but we want some flexibility. That goes along with how different fingerboard materials affect tone.

[PaulHintz]

An interesting thread indeed. For 12 years, my main gigging guitar was an Ibanez AF207 (the model mentioned by string swinger in an earlier post). Loved the guitar---the durability, quality finish, body size, neck profile...never loved the sound. Tried 4 different pickups and at least that many amps. The problem, I came to decide, was my right hand. I play with a thumbpick and bare fingers. Have for 25 years now. That guitar always sounds bass-heavy and treble-thin. While for most for the time, I had an incredible Comins 7-string (17x3 box) sitting at home. Then a thread about taking-yr-expensive-guitar-on-gigs here on the forum earlier this year really was a wake-up call. The Comins suits my right hand just fine (tho it obviously wouldn't suit everyone---I'm the 4th owner) and sounds wonderful, at home, or at little neighborhood coffeehouse gigs, when I resumed playing, after a lengthy hiatus, last winter. I found a new home for the Ibanez 3 months ago, and have no regrets.

[Grez]

Sounds very reasonable. I liked the sound of Tim Lerch's single line playing on one of his videos.
Is there any way someone in NY could try one out?
BTW, do you know what amp Tim was playing through?
Thanks.

sgcim, the amps were in stereo, a Carr Impalla and a Henricksen Jazz amp. As for demos, sometimes something can be worked out, but I don't have a sample of every size/type available for demo. Contact me via email at [email protected] to discuess further if you like.

[fumblefingers]

And then, there was this "factory second", hehe:

http://benedettoguitars.com/wp-conte...ull_031413.jpg

http://benedettoguitars.com/wp-conte...ull_031413.jpg


16B CUSTOM HONEY BLONDE |

[kkfan]

I can only play a big archtop when standing or sitting with it between my legs. No issues when doing that but if I sit with it on my right leg, my neck hurts.

Different strokes...

[jzucker]

Then again, maybe he didn't have spinal surgery like I did.

Different strokes...

[Fusionshred]

Hey Jack,

I agree with your assessment, as well as the notion that the only thing that really sounds like a 175 is a 175. I've gone through so many different guitars trying to find a balance between playability, tone, comfort, feedback resistance, and whatever other parameters you can think of, and yet I still itch for a 175. I remember the bodies being kind of fat, but that proper playing position and persistence are effective weapons against fatigue.

One of the things nobody has mentioned regarding the 175 that I noticed has nothing to do with the right hand; I found that I was conscious of the distance to the fretboard and that I had to reach my left hand out further to play. I probably would need more time to get used to it. . . .

I'm curious whether you have played any other guitars that have the same specs as a 175 and whether they hold up to that tone you're after or if there is some magic recipe that makes the Gibson unique. . . (They'd have to be maple laminate 16x3.5 bodies, mahogany necks; rosewood 24.75" fretboard, two humbucker, etc. etc. etc.)

Meanwhile, all those "other" guitars still sound fantastic in your hands.

[Groyniad]

i've put a lot of time and energy into smaller archtops - and after over ten years and many guitars, i've recently given up and gone for a full size 17 x 3 3/8'' instrument. it quickly cuts off the blood supply to my right leg if i sit in the most natural way with it, but that is easily remedied (i don't do too much with that leg anyway). but i'm in full agreement with the OP. i've tried to reconcile myself to the smaller thinner sound of smaller instruments, but without success. the full size instrument does the job i want it to.

i wonder if the L5 CT really manages to preserve enough of the L5 sound to sound/feel like a real L5.

and doesn't that Sadowsky SS 15 sound much bigger than it is?

[iim7V7IM7]

I am extremely happy with my 16" x 3" archtop with a 25.0" scale and 1-3/4" nut. I think defining a guitar by simply by its dimensions or its volume ignores other influential factors such as the shape of the arch/recurve, plate graduation/thickness and bracing which can all influence a guitar's capability.

[Groyniad]

if you say:

16 x 2.5'' guitars have distinctive problems

you at least ought to mean

ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL 16 x 2.5 guitars have distinctive problems

without this clause we could never say anything at all about types of guitars - and then there would be very little point saying anything about individual guitars either (nothing would follow about other guitars of the same type from it)

-----------


i think comins for example makes a small bodied 16'' guitar that sounds totally amazing unamplified

but that has all sorts of features which mean that all else is by no means equal.

this does not mean it is wrong to make claims about the way 16 x 2.5'' instruments TEND to behave

-----

we all go round this loop again and again - if we understood this simple point we could save ourselves the bother

[jazz.fred]

It dawned on me that all three of my archtops meet the description. I am very happy with them.

[Bluedawg]

i've put a lot of time and energy into smaller archtops - and after over ten years and many guitars, i've recently given up and gone for a full size 17 x 3 3/8'' instrument. it quickly cuts off the blood supply to my right leg if i sit in the most natural way with it, but that is easily remedied (i don't do too much with that leg anyway). but i'm in full agreement with the OP. i've tried to reconcile myself to the smaller thinner sound of smaller instruments, but without success. the full size instrument does the job i want it to.

i wonder if the L5 CT really manages to preserve enough of the L5 sound to sound/feel like a real L5.

and doesn't that Sadowsky SS 15 sound much bigger than it is?

I finally managed to get my hands on a Byrdland this year ... and while it doesn't have the same bottom end of a full size L5 ... I thought it still had it's own wonderfull tone .... and it was very comfortable to play

So I'll be keeping my eye out for a chance to try an L5 CT .... I expect them to have a similar wonderful sound to the Byrdland with the added benefit of the longer scale neck

[jzucker]

Hey Jack,

I agree with your assessment, as well as the notion that the only thing that really sounds like a 175 is a 175. I've gone through so many different guitars trying to find a balance between playability, tone, comfort, feedback resistance, and whatever other parameters you can think of, and yet I still itch for a 175. I remember the bodies being kind of fat, but that proper playing position and persistence are effective weapons against fatigue.

Yes, it takes me about 40 hours of practice to get comfortable with a guitar that has significantly different geometry. For years, I was playing thinner guitars for a number of reasons. Comfort, resistance to feedback, versatility, etc. I tried 335s, teles, strats, les pauls, a zillion different semihollows, etc.

Then when I decided to get a "bigger" guitar, I tried going the cheaper route and tried some of the japanese copies, yada yada. At some point, I lucked into an '89 175 and within 5 minutes I knew that it sounded considerably more like what I heard in my head than anything else. However, it was so big that it was very uncomfortable and put my right hand and arm in a different geometric position than what I was used to. However, within 2 weeks I found that it was totally comfortable. When I got an L5, I had the same issue. It took me a several weeks to get used to it. However, I alternated between it and the 175 and after a few weeks I was comfortable playing the L5.

One of the things nobody has mentioned regarding the 175 that I noticed has nothing to do with the right hand; I found that I was conscious of the distance to the fretboard and that I had to reach my left hand out further to play. I probably would need more time to get used to it. . . .

I didn't notice that so much but I think it depends on where the guitar falls on your body when you play. I play standing and I think the guitar stays over to the right side of my body.

I'm curious whether you have played any other guitars that have the same specs as a 175 and whether they hold up to that tone you're after or if there is some magic recipe that makes the Gibson unique. . . (They'd have to be maple laminate 16x3.5 bodies, mahogany necks; rosewood 24.75" fretboard, two humbucker, etc. etc. etc.)

Meanwhile, all those "other" guitars still sound fantastic in your hands.

Thanks, lol. I did go through a bunch of other plywood guitars. Both buying as well as playing. Various japanese copies of 175s such as the Ibanez as well as the Aria Herb Ellis. The Ellis was the best IMO. IMO, the ibanez did not sound like a real 175 and had a more "plasticy" sound to it. The herb ellis sounded great and the build quality seemed to be better quality than the gibson. I fell in love with it over a 2 week period but eventually when I compared the tone of it to the Gibson, it was not close. It was a much thinner tone and ultimately - whether due to the sound post or not - sounded more electric and not as big and fat. So I sold it and went back to the 175.

Later, I picked up a '60s, spruce-ply Gibson Barney Kessel guitar and came to the realization that the 17x3" body size really gave the best of both worlds. A bit more comfortable than a 175 due to slightly thinner body size but with the extra width seems to still give the same dynamic range as the 3.5" gibson guitars. Not only that but the '60s axe just had a vibe to it that even my '89 175 can't touch. I subsequently bought a '60s maple-ply Gibson Barney Kessel and it sounds completely different from the spruce one. A bit brighter and more like a 175.

I have also owned the heritage H550 which is their 17"x3" plywood guitar. Similar to a Kessel or Tal Farlow. It's a great sounding guitar but is constructed differently than the gibsons. Probably more similar in construction/bracing to the 335-shaped ES-150 Gibson made in the late '60s and early '70s. I liked the heritage but the Tal, Barney and 175 sound better IMO.

OTOH, I have a heritage eagle and it pushed the L5 out of my lineup. The eagle captures the vibe of a '60s L5 IMO. Much lighter build than my '96 L5 although the L5 still sounds like a classic Wes guitar. I just like the lighter build better. I couldn't use the heritage on a loud gig though. Feedback threshold is very low.

One problem answering your question is that there are not a lot of 175 copies made with the original materials. The eastman copies have maple necks (although so did the gibson 175s in the mid '70s). The eastmans don't come close though. The Ibanez ones also had maple necks as did many of the other copies. Greco and tokai made ones with mahogany necks but they are typically a 1lb or 2lb heavier.

Archtopheaven has a lot of experience with 175 copies but his and my tastes are very different. He considers the 175 muddy so while I love him, i take his 175 vs. "the field" comments with a grain of salt.

[BigMikeinNJ]

I like my 16x2 1/2 inch guitars a lot, yeah I have the 810 to fall back on when I want a slightly fatter tone, but I can coax some very sweet sounds out of my 16's just in the way I attack the strings. It's all a matter of personal taste, being almost 69 the 16's are very comfortable for my old bones. I play sitting down exclusively. You've seen my pictures before, just look at my avatar.