Gibson Legrand vs Heritage Golden Eagle

[jads57]

As I said earlier it’s all personal taste, and I prefer the thicker tops and backs Gibson carves as opposed to Heritage Archtops. and I’ve played plenty of both of them.

I guess I’m just not that big of fan of the older Heritage head luthiers in general. There’s a feel to the thinner necks as well as their aesthetic that is lacking in my opinion. Gibson especially in its Golden Years as well as Phillip Wharton’s Crimson Period that is how I view Gibsons as spectacular Archtops.

[Rickco]

As I said earlier it’s all personal taste, and I prefer the thicker tops and backs Gibson carves as opposed to Heritage Archtops. and I’ve played plenty of both of them.

I guess I’m just not that big of fan of the older Heritage head luthiers in general. There’s a feel to the thinner necks as well as their aesthetic that is lacking in my opinion. Gibson especially in its Golden Years as well as Phillip Wharton’s Crimson Period that is how I view Gibsons as spectacular Archtops.

I get the thick vs thin carve preference statement. But the head Heritage luthiers were the Gibson luthiers. Not only that but a culture on parson st that had been there for near 100yrs. I dont question anyones taste or preference but the idea that the that a Gibson luthier would be any better or more "qualified" is simply wrong. Rich Severson has done a great job demonstrating the almost non existent difference between the 2 when compared amplified. Nothing is going to sound like well aged S400, including anything Gibson has made since. From a personal point of view I wouldnt buy any Gibson made after the '60s, to many other better choices for far less money.
My most cherished guitar is a Gibson but my Heritage gets played more.

[deacon Mark]

I get the thick vs thin carve preference statement. But the head Heritage luthiers were the Gibson luthiers. Not only that but a culture on parson st that had been there for near 100yrs. I dont question anyones taste or preference but the idea that the that a Gibson luthier would be any better or more "qualified" is simply wrong. Rich Severson has done a great job demonstrating the almost non existent difference between the 2 when compared amplified. Nothing is going to sound like well aged S400, including anything Gibson has made since. From a personal point of view I wouldnt buy any Gibson made after the '60s, to many other better choices for far less money.
My most cherished guitar is a Gibson but my Heritage gets played more.

Ricko your words sound quite wise and very true. The only part I personally think is not correct is that Gibson under Huch from about 1991 through 2007 made some of the best Gibson carved tops for quality. That does not mean that during this time Heritage was not as good. That is not true, the fellows at Heritage can carve guitars with anyone. But as you mentioned they cannot make a 1940 Super 400 today; it will not contain 83 years of playing on it. Also, while I am at it, I cannot deal with the Gibson thin neck period of the late 60's. It seems that it was almost hit and miss sometimes.

Through an amp like a Fender Twin a Heritage Golden Eagle with one pickup built like a GIbson Wes, will sound basically the same or at least the quality. Granted it will not be a Gibson in the marketplace, but if you want a real Wes L5 sound and not pay some $7000 plus,,,,,,,find that Heritage and play.

[Hammertone]

As I said earlier it’s all personal taste, and I prefer the thicker tops and backs Gibson carves as opposed to Heritage Archtops. and I’ve played plenty of both of them.

I guess I’m just not that big of fan of the older Heritage head luthiers in general. There’s a feel to the thinner necks as well as their aesthetic that is lacking in my opinion.

One of the nice things about Heritage over the years prior to 2016 is that they were willing to accommodate customer requests regarding all sort of details, including plate thickness, neck size, as and a variety of cosmetic details. I've been able to find a few used archtops from them with custom features that suit my needs as a player.

[Gitfiddler]

In any Gibson vs Heritage comparison or discussion, the greatest advantage Heritage has is its value. Heritage's pricing from their humble beginnings, were consistently well below Gibson's. So guitarists had a choice. Buy an expensive Gibson archtop, or order a custom archtop made to your specifications by ex-Gibson builders...at a considerably lower price point.

For buyers on a budget like me, it was a no-brainer. The end result is a long term relationship with a magnificent archtop that brings me joy each time I open the case and spend a bit of quality time with my '03 Golden Eagle. And I never even think about a Gibson LeGrand, Citation or L5 when this big girl sits on my lap.

[Rickco]

Ricko your words sound quite wise and very true. The only part I personally think is not correct is that Gibson under Huch from about 1991 through 2007 made some of the best Gibson carved tops for quality. That does not mean that during this time Heritage was not as good. That is not true, the fellows at Heritage can carve guitars with anyone. But as you mentioned they cannot make a 1940 Super 400 today; it will not contain 83 years of playing on it. Also, while I am at it, I cannot deal with the Gibson thin neck period of the late 60's. It seems that it was almost hit and miss sometimes.

Through an amp like a Fender Twin a Heritage Golden Eagle with one pickup built like a GIbson Wes, will sound basically the same or at least the quality. Granted it will not be a Gibson in the marketplace, but if you want a real Wes L5 sound and not pay some $7000 plus,,,,,,,find that Heritage and play.

I dont doubt the Hutch respect but, thats only one guy and your back to finding that rare example not found in the rest of the line up. And to be truthful Im way biased towards the older guitars because Im old! I cant imagine what my GE would sound like through a twin, I had to sell one I bought new in '68 because I couldnt lift it anymore.
Great thread as usual

[Rickco]

I would amend my earlier rather rash statements by adding I wouldnt mind having Qanons(did i get that right?) L5ct or JDs Johnny
Git your GE's beautiful and your pictures as well

[jads57]

Well Gibsons in the 70’s and before that probably mid 60’s were certainly some of the Heritage luthiers for sure. And that also included Aaron Cowels I believe. But I will say I never cared for Norlin Era Gibsons including the Super V and Kalamazoo Award either.
It’s a matter of personal tastes I guess, but I rarely have a found any Heritage that compares to Hutchins or Philip Whartons era Gibsons,in both tone and playability.

[JazzNote]

Since the start of this thread i have acquired a second LeGrand and a Golden Eagle, so i chime in on the original topic once again. Fist of all, a LeGrand is not just a LeGrand. Both of mine have individual distinct "personalities". The older one (1998) is not as strong in the mids, but has more presence in the higher register. The newer one (2013) sounds closer to my 2003 L5CES, very warm, but the thick mids may require additional taming with an external EQ if played @ the volume of a trio/quartet context. I find that the Golden Eagle is a mix of both, with a strong voice in the highs and noticably warm mids. The GE is certainly more comfortable to play than the LeGrands are, although it seems to be slightly heavier. The owner before, who is an expert on archtops, told me that this Golden Eagle was the best one he'd owned. So maybe it's not the best example for comparison. From my point of view, it does sound as good as the LeGrands, some ears might prefer it's voice to a Gibson.

[deacon Mark]

The Heritage GE is actually patterned after the Gibson Kalamazoo Award Guitar. They did not make many of them and I believe the difference is that the body is slightly short a bit like a Johnny Smith. I think I once played a Kalamazoo but not sure. That is one guitar that is pretty rare and not sure in merits anything more or less than other Gibson carved tops. Heritage carvers must have seen something they liked in the model.

[JazzNote]

The Heritage GE is actually patterned after the Gibson Kalamazoo Award Guitar. They did not make many of them and I believe the difference is that the body is slightly short a bit like a Johnny Smith. I think I once played a Kalamazoo but not sure. That is one guitar that is pretty rare and not sure in merits anything more or less than other Gibson carved tops. Heritage carvers must have seen something they liked in the model.

I never had a chance to play a Kalamazoo Award, but out of curiousity i quickly compared the body size of the Golden Eagle with the Johnny Smith. Indeed they are of the same size, the Golden Eagle being just a thad (2mm) thinner at some spots along the rim. (Pics: the Johnny Smith in front of the Golden Eagle)

[2bornot2bop]

Well Gibsons in the 70’s and before that probably mid 60’s were certainly some of the Heritage luthiers for sure. And that also included Aaron Cowels I believe. But I will say I never cared for Norlin Era Gibsons including the Super V and Kalamazoo Award either.
It’s a matter of personal tastes I guess, but I rarely have a found any Heritage that compares to Hutchins or Philip Whartons era Gibsons,in both tone and playability.

Because you never played this one.

[mrwoland]

I recorded my very first solo album with a LeGrand guitar (if someone is interested I can post a link).
It was a beautiful guitar but I didn't like the voicing, it was a little bit too open and clear to my ears.
I think it was because of the 3" deep side, making it more like a "big thinline" , and I was more looking for a full acoustic sound.

[Marty Grass]

Heritage has shown great diversity in their full sized archtop builds. Some have 1 3/4" nuts, 25" scales, depths of 2 1/4-3 1/8", 17-18" tops, various bracings, pickup configurations as you wish, finishes, laminations, and inlays. The neck carves run the full spectrum. There are non-cutaway, Florentine and Venetian options.

At an earlier time it was easy to order exactly what you want.

[Sleeko]

Heritage makes some beautiful guitars. They look and sound fabulous but that headstock leaves me cold.

[Marty Grass]

I agree on the headstock appearance. What the original builders said is that they designed the headstock for less weight, the 17 degree angle dive, and for a linear string pull. This was all for function.

I like the Gibson appearance more.

[Sleeko]

Function over form always reminds me of this roofline when I first saw it. But I get it.

[Rickco]

I agree on the headstock appearance. What the original builders said is that they designed the headstock for less weight, the 17 degree angle dive, and for a linear string pull. This was all for function.

I like the Gibson appearance more.

The Gibson headstock is iconic. I still like the headstock on my Heritages but can understand the Gibson bias. Heres a one off Heritage with a nod to '30s Epiphones

[JazzNote]

I never play my Golden Eagle in front of a mirror, so when i play it, i see the headstock from an angle which makes all headstocks look similar ;-) and i couldn't bother less. Since it is an issue for many (was also an issue for me some years ago) i wonder sometimes when i look at the guitar on the stand. But the great sound of the guitar makes up for it - so much that the headstock does not matter anymore - not at all ;-).

[Marty Grass]

A few years ago I traveled a lot by air. I carried this with me. I'm sure that people in the airport thought it was a gun.

It played well and was great to have with me. No headstock was included.

[Rickco]

are the strings sized in caliber? can ya get semi automatic? really cool! never seen one.