1951 Epiphone Triumph Regent

**campusfive** · 06-28-2016, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by vinnyv1k

Jonathan, I really dig your YouTube videos.

Aw...thanks, man!

**Stringswinger** · 06-29-2016, 02:09 AM

Here is a picture of my two vintage Epis, the 46 Triumph and the 51 Triumph Regent:

1951 Epiphone Triumph Regent-image-jpg

**QAman** · 06-29-2016, 05:05 AM

Stringswinger,
Beautiful examples - thanks for sharing !

**Max405** · 06-29-2016, 07:07 AM

Show off.. Now Stevie don't you start.. Then I might have to put the wide angle lens in and whip out my 13"..

**skykomishone** · 06-29-2016, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Stringswinger

For me, nothing sounds as good as a superb vintage archtop. I am also aware that with Epiphone and D'Angelico (and to a somewhat lesser degree with Gibson), the difference in the professional grade archtops was mainly cosmetic.

Marc,

I'm with you on that buddy. I've restored several, including a '44 L7 and '36 Emperor. Each one I bought knowing there would be effort and money involved. I love playing these old relics. I have other guitars, made by well known builders, but there is simply nothing that I have that comes close to these acoustically and the way they play. When I reach for a guitar, it's usually one of them. My wife is very much on the same page as yours, and it's awesome. If I see a deal on an old guitar like what you have there, I'd jump on it in a wink of an eye. Congrats on the new old find. That is way cool.

Steve

**campusfive** · 06-29-2016, 11:30 AM

I'm very bullish on people making new archtops, even at the medium-end range, such at Eastman and Loar. I think for most people in the sub-$1500 price range, they're really a better bet than finding a vintage archtop. Most of the archtops in that price range are not really of "professional" quality, though of course you can luck out, but that takes work and a fair bit of knowledge to make sure you're not getting a lemon. For example, a friend offer me his 1937 (pre-truss rod) Broadway. It was a great-sounding guitar, and given its refinishing and refurbishment, it was a really good price. However, because I knew enough to suspect the tongue had risen, I took it to two different repair shops, and both advised against keeping the guitar because they'd have shave off almost the whole tongue to ever get the set up right. So, I passed on the guitar, and luckily my friend was not pissed when I'd explained the repairs it would need. He liked the set up the way it was, and was just lamenting that he didn't play it enough, so he was happy to keep it.

But, I would definitely agree that there is no substitute for old wood, and especially on guitars that have been played and played. When you find a steal, sometimes you gotta be prepared to jump at it. I could've had a fantastic 40's Triumph for less than $2k a couple years ago, and at the time I didn't have any scratch. Now, $2k is a pretty good price, but this triumph sounded and played extraordinarily good, and $2k for a guitar that sounded that good and was ready to play right away? That was a great deal. Unfortunately, I just didn't have any bread available, and I had to let it go.

Lastly, it helps to have Marc's knowledge and experience when vetting an old guitar. Sadly there's no short cut for that.

**Stringswinger** · 06-29-2016, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by campusfive

I'm very bullish on people making new archtops, even at the medium-end range, such at Eastman and Loar. I think for most people in the sub-$1500 price range, they're really a better bet than finding a vintage archtop. Most of the archtops in that price range are not really of "professional" quality, though of course you can luck out, but that takes work and a fair bit of knowledge to make sure you're not getting a lemon. For example, a friend offer me his 1937 (pre-truss rod) Broadway. It was a great-sounding guitar, and given its refinishing and refurbishment, it was a really good price. However, because I knew enough to suspect the tongue had risen, I took it to two different repair shops, and both advised against keeping the guitar because they'd have shave off almost the whole tongue to ever get the set up right. So, I passed on the guitar, and luckily my friend was not pissed when I'd explained the repairs it would need. He liked the set up the way it was, and was just lamenting that he didn't play it enough, so he was happy to keep it.

But, I would definitely agree that there is no substitute for old wood, and especially on guitars that have been played and played. When you find a steal, sometimes you gotta be prepared to jump at it. I could've had a fantastic 40's Triumph for less than $2k a couple years ago, and at the time I didn't have any scratch. Now, $2k is a pretty good price, but this triumph sounded and played extraordinarily good, and $2k for a guitar that sounded that good and was ready to play right away? That was a great deal. Unfortunately, I just didn't have any bread available, and I had to let it go.

Lastly, it helps to have Marc's knowledge and experience when vetting an old guitar. Sadly there's no short cut for that.

Words of wisdom Jonathan. I sometimes forget that there are pitfalls for those who do not know their way around vintage guitars. In addition to issues that affect playability (like the Broadway that you described), vintage guitars can also have non-original parts and finishes that can affect value. For those who are not well versed in this area, the advice and help of an expert is essential.

**campusfive** · 06-30-2016, 11:37 AM

And exactly to your point, the same is true for all of the those modifications. Sure, John D and Jimmy D didn't think twice about a refin or neck set or refret, or whatever to make a guitar "better." And Gibson surely didn't think twice about slapping a later-era fingerboard, headstock, or neck on to an old guitar when fixing it. Of course, the value is not the same as an unmolested instrument, but as long as the repairs were done well, then that may result in a "better" guitar. Joe V at archtop.com has a 28 L-5 that was re-necked in '36, so it has a ca.1936 neck on it. Is it worth as much as an unmolested '28? No. But does it sound and play amazingly? Yeah, it sure does. If that guitar hadn't been re-necked, who's to say it wouldn't have been relegated to the trash bin for being completely unplayable?

The big problem about refins/neck sets/refrets/etc and even headstock cracks, is that you need to see, play and here the guitar in person to really know whether the work was done well. And that, is a-whole-nother set of experience required.

Sure, it looks funny to me when I see an early 30's guitar refin'd in an anachronistic blonde. Do I cringe when I see aftermarket cutaways and mounted pick ups on otherwise acoustic archtops? Definitely. But, stuff that keeps a guitar playable is, in the long run, better for everybody.

**lawson-stone** · 06-30-2016, 12:40 PM

As long as "campus five" is chiming in, I thought I'd report that my 1954 Gibson L50, strung with bronze "half-flats" has turned out to be a total delight. I will continue to try out different strings, but I'm loving this old acoustic archtop and keep it right at my desk for those "down" moments when a measure or 32 measures of "four-to-the-bar" can be encouraging!