Gibson L5 1934 Reissue vs The Loar LH600

[wintermoon]

there's no way I'd play a guitar solely because of the name on the headstock.
I've just found that a great old Gibson suits me perfectly in most situations, my '69 L-5 is all that and a bag of chips and has served me well for many yrs.

but I've been playing a '70s Aria PE-180/Gibson Super L-5 knockoff on my Fri. night gig for over 3 yrs for safety reasons, and while it's not as sweet sounding as the L-5, it's pretty darned good, and I'm as jaded as anyone out there when it comes to sound.

if I found a new guitar that sounded and felt like a great old vintage for much less $, I'd play it in a heartbeat...

[bananafist]

If, like me, you haven't got 20 years left to let it mature, stick a toneright on it for a couple of weeks....... !!!
It'll realign the structure of the crystalline lattice.

[vintagelove]

I'll never forget when I first started teaching and didn't know too much about archtops (so I can't tell you exactly what model it was.... hey I was 17, give me a break!!!) a guy came in for a lesson and brought an old Gibson archtop. I COULD NOT BELIEVE how loud the guitar was. It was my first time hearing a guitar like that, a really eye (ear?) opening experience.

[SamBooka]

crystalline lettuce .

yummmmmm

[fritz jones]

Everything about the Loar is a knockoff, including the name itself and the headstock shape.
At least Eastman has their own headstock and non-derivative brand name.

[nopedals]

I hesitated to post here; don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I do have a different viewpoint, since years ago I was the owner of the precise 1934 L5 Gibson used as the model for the RI. Without padding this note with more gear bragging, A/B experiences, etc., I would offer this opinion:

If you can't go higher than the Loar's price point, that's a wonderful option. At a lower price point than the RI, I think you could get a pre-war L4 that is 100% in terms of originality and structural integrity. The L4 would sound better, and have better short and long term resale. An L7/L10/L12 from the same period would be another option; some folks like the extra low end, some like smaller guitars, personally I would keep an open mind and jump on the first fairly priced prewar L4/L7/L10/L12 without cracks that comes up south of 3K and feel way ahead. Go to the Campus5 site for an entertaining account of how one would shop for one. For even more bucks, a real pre-war L5 is a wonderful choice as well, but realistically more expensive than the RI unless you get really lucky.

Vintage epiphones are in this same category, especially the 17 inch models. Price in some luthiery, refret, neck reset or whatever the guitar needs for future decades of use, but you are still way ahead of where you would be with the RI.

[lawson-stone]

Do you want to be seen with the real deal or a cheap Asian knockoff?

Excuse me, but that "cheap Asian knock-off" is an outstanding guitar and a tremendous value for its cost. It's also the only option a lot of people have who want to play an archtop guitar. And aside from just being a cheap shot, it's not relevant to the question of which guitar plays and sounds best.

I own two Gibson arch tops, an Epiphone Broadway, and also a Loar LH650. The Loar comports itself quite well with its more sophisticated colleagues in my little crew of instruments.

[Dennis D]

I also got to play a Loar at a dealer's and I thought the response was more even with the RI. I played the Loar hard, to see what I could get out of it, and came to the conclusion that yes, it's not bad at all for the money.
I didn't recall any exact volume advantage it may have had, but what did have was a top and maybe a bottom but not an even response. The RI may be a little quieter but it's got top-to-bottom response up and down the fingerboard.

And again I was looking for acoustic-only playability and results, and for me the RI was and is a no-brainer.

MHO

[skiboyny]

You must have lived in Rochester at some point. My teacher was Dick Longale Steve spent quite a few years with him. Small world!

Jabberwocky, that's Steve Greene in that video. He was my teacher. He is brilliant!!!!!!

[eddy b.]

Yeah SkiBoy I grew up in Webster. I also studied with Mark Manetta who was with Chuck Mangione at the time.

[10course]

Wow, I'm at work right now and will attempt to answer some of the questions time permitting.

The Reissue L5 was made in 1995 from what I can tell. The bridge is rosewood and has been fit properly to the top, with some extra material removed from foot presumably to make it lighter.

Strings experimented with since original post:
1) Martin Marquis 13-56 ---- same as Loar
2) Martin SP 80/20 13-56
3) Di Addario 80/20 13-56

Setup done:
-truss rod adjusted to flat plus 1/1000
- action raised as high to 5mm at 14th fret for downward pressure on bridge.
-tailpiece connection point checked at hinging point.

The Loar was used when I bought it and sounded better than some of the new ones I tried out. So, I have no argument with the idea of playing makes it open up. However, the Gibson is much older, and should be open at 21 years old.

Being seen with this or that.......I know there are some contexts like movie music sessions where guitar players are a dime a dozen, price of your instrument can set you apart as "dedicated". However, I do my best to sound good and lend something to the music in any context. If that is not heard, it can't possibly be appreciated. What I'm seen with does not contribute to the music.

[2bornot2bop]

Do you want to be seen with the real deal or a cheap Asian knockoff?

One has to separate ego from guitar sound. What I read the OP state was his Loar 650 produced more volume than his new Gibson. What's "cheap" and "knockoff" got to do with volume production or tone?

It's a pity that more "archtop" fans here have no frame of reference for the Loar 650. It's a great guitar that just happens to be a bargain.

It's acoustic volume is louder and more enjoyable than an L5, and a Super 400 - and what isn't?

I've said it before and I'll say it again...if one has no frame of reference for a specific guitar, aka ownership, not a "tryout" how can one develop an opinion and then post that opinion on an opinion page? I'll tell you how...having a closed mind...which of course is anyone's choice.

Me personally, if I've not owned it...I hesitate to offer an opinion on it...as a matter of choice.

Good luck to the OP and his new guitar venture.

[goldenwave77]

. However, the Gibson is much older, and should be open at 21 years old.

.

Thanks for the clarification. I assumed that the RI L5 was a new guitar, and since it is not, I would say, it is not a keeper. Probably not going to get any better than it is ...even if it can walk into a saloon anywhere in the U.S. and legally buy a drink (at age 21).

My list of keepers includes a late 70's Aria Pro II EA 650 (175) that, to my ear, is darn close to the real thing. And as I bought it for $650, I'm not about to let it go. (The binding is a little ratty...but who cares...it plays great and sounds pretty darn convincing, at least to me.)

In the end, guitars are like children....each is his/her own little being.