-
My '37 is a feather. Despite it's size . I've never weighed it but I'd guess 5 lbs (ish)
It's so lightly built and seasoned.
Pick near the bridge and you get more definition and punch. Pick near the neck and it's as mellow as can be. Sooo responsive. Ideal for 'chord melody' IMO, which is all I do.
-
01-16-2017 01:45 PM
-
I didn't weigh it but I recall it being a little over 5 lbs. The Eastman is slightly heavier. Surprisingly, the Eastman is actually louder and punchier when played swing comp style. But the Gibson definitely has more timbral range (punches when picked near the bridge and mellow when picked by the neck). The Gibson is definitely the superior guitar for chord melody, while the Eastman seems to cut better through the mix. It's an x brace era L7, so I don't know if the comparison would apply in later models.
I did some inspecting last night and noted two things. The nut might be original on the Gibson and causes some back buzz. No problem as that's an easy fix. The top has flattened a bit under the bridge but there's no damage whatsoever to the bracing. Any expert thought on the top/bracing? The saddle sits on a pretty thick bridge, so I'm not worried about the metal poles bending. Is this something I should expect on a guitar this age? Should I be concerned?Last edited by omphalopsychos; 01-16-2017 at 02:30 PM.
-
-
Indeed. It's the X-braced/short scale that gives the warmth. Combine those elements with the 17'' body and wow.
Mine sounds like there's a few old ghosts in it that speak. Certain notes on the neck/overtones. It's really quite something.
I'm not interested in cut/power. More into sweetness/warmth.
IMO if the example was well cared for during it's life it's going to be very stable. I put a new set of tuners on mine and it seems to stay in tune for days. The neck never moves. Even in winter there's no buzz anywhere in the upper registry. It seems to have done all the settling it's gonna do.
As to the nut and structural issues I better defer to someone who can give you better direction.
-
Great demo & very interesting comparison. Sweet sweet L7 sound. The Eastman ain't bad but way behind for me.
Congrats for this wonderful acquisition.
-
Teleboli is on the mark. For cut you would want a 17" body with tone bar bracing--i.e., a 40s Gibson, a 40s Epiphone, etc. Those guitars will reach out from the stage and slap you in the face in the back row in the auditorium. (They manage to sound _good_ at the same time.)
However, if you want to hear a sweet, lap piano of a guitar, check out one of the x-braced guitars from the 30s--i.e., like the picture-frame L-7. They are SO sweet across the board--from the 1st to the 14th fret--that they just cry out for use as vocal accompaniment behind a solo singer. Think, Bing and a guitarist, or Ella and a guitarist--that sort of thing.
FWIW, it's tough to know if the pictured L-7 exhibits true "falling arch" due to age. It should be noted that the x-braced Gibsons were noticeably flatter in the bridge area than the tone bar guitars. I have a 1938 tone bar Gibson and its arch is high and round--as much as was the case in 1938. If you held it next to a '38 L-7 you would automatically think that the "Seven" was losing arch height, unless you already knew that it was carved that way originally.
-
typically in '39 there is a flat area in the bridge area and a corresponding flat area on the back.
they were carved this way. but you say this is a '36.
are the edges of the f-holes even w/each other? on guitars that have top sink, usually the inner edge of the f-holes are lower than the outer. if they line up/are on the same plane, it's probably carved that way.
-
The f-hole on the bass side doesn't look funky from this photo. Also, a dropped top would typically necessitate elevating the bridge up on its posts. This bridge looks pretty normal, to me.
-
I actually prefer the Eastman's voice for the type of playing in your clip. That said, the Eastman is still a young guitar. Give it half of the years that the Gibson appears to have been played and it should really sound super.
-
Another reason to keep the Eastman and watch it mature (I'm still in my twenties) rather than sell it.
Originally Posted by rob taft
Regarding the f holes, here's a pic. They look even to me. I deem this a perfectly healthy guitar until proven otherwise. Definitely needs a shim under the nut, but my temporary fix is a piece of paper. I'm hoping the shop offers to place the shim for free.
-
Nothing wrong there. Everything looks like a healthy top on the L-7. You've got a classic. My buddy that I've played in a two-guitar duo with for 25 years has a '37 picture frame L-7. It is a great guitar. I have played it extensively, both privately and at gigs. It sounds discernibly different than his late-20s L-5, but I would not say worse. Each guitar has an exceptional voice, with the "seven" being due to its x-bracing.
-
If the top caves in the saddle adjuster thumwheels will be all the way up. If the neck needs re-set, the adjusters will be all the way down. In a "compensated" condition, both occur and the adjusters are in the middle.
EDIT: That only applies to the original bridge that came with the guitar. Looks like you have a different bridge.
-
Another, simpler, way to fix the nut is with baking soda and cyanoacrylate (Krazy glue). Get just a little bit of soda into the slots, then carefully apply just a little cyanoacrylate. The mixture will set almost immediately, and be about as hard as the nut material. You'll need to do a little filing to get the slots to the right depth and the angle correct, but it's still easier, IME, than removing and shimming the nut. But either way does work.
-
Cool comparison - congrats on owning a couple of sweet acoustic archtops. I have a 1940 Epi Deluxe, and recently purchased an AR910. The Epi is such a great old guitar; you can hear all that history in it's voice. Hard to really compare it with a "new" guitar, but I'd bet that the Eastman will be an equally respectable instrument in a couple of decades, if it isn't already. Different sounds - bottom line is: I'm happy owning both of them.
I'm toying with the idea of outfitting the Eastman with a transducer. I'm thinking that a Pick Up the World would be the easiest to install/least intrusive. Hopefully, the PU won't adversely affect the sound - anyone have any experience with a PUTW archtop pick-up?
-
That looks like the original rosewood bridge on it now. Originally Posted by icr
Sometimes the saddle will be high on the posts on a guitar w/top sink, but many old archtops have had the neck pull up over the years as well so the saddle needs to be lowered to compensate.
Looks to be the case here as the bass side I s cranked all the way down.
-
Hey me too. More precisely, I'm considering putting a floating humbucker and a transducer on to share a stereo output jack. It should be a pretty simple installation, you just need a dedicated preamp to go with the transducer signal. The transducer I'm looking into is the k&k pure mini or the big twin. This guy has the big twin on his archtop and it sounds pretty great. Originally Posted by mercosound
-
That looks like the original rosewood bridge on it now.
Sometimes the saddle will be high on the posts on a guitar w/top sink, but many old archtops have had the neck pull up over the years as well so the saddle needs to be lowered to compensate.
Looks to be the case here as the bass side I s cranked all the way down.[/QUOTE] The base plate on this bridge is much taller than most base plates I've seen. I, again, don't have enough experience with vintage archtops to know if it's a replacement or original. It would make sense as an original if the guitar was designed and built with a slightly flattened area under the bridge. Given that the braces look perfectly intact and the f-holes seem to align perfectly, I don't have a strong suspicion that the top is sinking, but I should ask a qualified luthier. Does anyone know anyone in the Bay Area? Or a luthier willing to consult over email that I could send this picture to?
-
Congratulations on the new old L7. My favorite guitar. Great sound, great player, and in a class of it's own. Never thought I'd like a guitar so much. I expect you will too. Enjoy.
S
-
In the Bay Area I've done business (happily) with Eric Schoenberg in Tiburon, Gryphon in Palo Alto
& am planning to give 'SF GuitarWorks' a try. I've heard they're very good (& they have a PLEK.)
I'd arrange meetings in advance. I understand also that there's a very good resto guy in
the town of Sonoma and others in that county. Certainly there are probably many more,
including the East Bay, but this is the extent of my experience.
-
"The base plate on this bridge is much taller than most base plates I've seen"
Agreed, the base is typically shorter but the saddle looks a bit short on this one as well. Another thing to check is if there's a fraction written on the label like 3/4" or 1 1/4". During this period Gibson was experimenting with different bridge heights and top thicknesses.
-
Thanks. I bought the guitar from Eric Schoenberg's shop. Eric wasn't there this time, but James helped me out. Since the shop has a great reputation, I take their word that they've inspected the top. James' opinion is that the guitar is stable and healthy. I'm not trying to be skeptical; I'm simply seeking additional reassurance given the value of this purchase. Originally Posted by rabbit
Regarding the tall base plate, the other archtops (30s - 40s) they had in the shop also had these tall base plates. I could be a coincidence that they all have the same aftermarket base plates or the guitar truly was designed this way. Hopefully someone with a 30's x braced gibson can chime in with a photo.
-
I have both a 1937 Gibson L-7 (17" X-braced) and and Eastman AR810CE (with cutaway). I thought I'd nail your recordings, but I got them backwards. For some reason my L-7 seems brighter than my Eastman, at least from the playing position. Archtops are highly directional though, so maybe the Eastman would be brighter at the mic's position. Where did you position your mic? I'll try to repeat your comparison on my instruments.
My Eastman gets more use, but that's partly because the pickup and cutaway make it much more versatile. I intend to install a reissue DeArmond 1100 pickup on the L-7, which might get me playing it more.
I doubt the top is sinking on your L-7. Mine looks much the same way. I used to worry about it, but since then I've found several reports that Gibson's 17" X-braced archtops were all carved that way in that era. I'll try to post a photo in the next few days.Last edited by KirkP; 01-17-2017 at 02:12 AM.
-
You are a 'dude of good taste,' omphalopsychos.
I've got a Godin 5th Avenue with an old K & K "Twin Spot" (I think)
and I will say it is very accurate. Just a cheap lark at the time.
Hard to go wrong, ignore if you dislike.
Best of luck.
-
Well,
Today I emailed photos to three different luthiers/repairmen. Two of them said the top looked fine/stable, but the bridge is kinda weird (I agree there). One of them said that the top may have sunk and the repair is expensive and unnecessary unless it's progressive. I talked to Eric Schoenberg (great guy) who said they'll fix the nut while I wait and take another look at the bridge/top. Another reassuring piece of information is that the guitar I bought was a consignment piece owned by their own repairman, who purchased it, inspected it, and set it up himself. In any case, they (Eric and James) have been very willing to help, and they warrant their great reputation.
I took another look at the guitar. The string height at the bridge is about 1 1/16, which seems fairly normal given that the action is set pretty high. The other thing I noticed is that the bridge is a weird one. The baseplate is taller under the bass strings and lower under the treble strings. Consequently, the the saddle is much shorter under the bass strings than under the treble strings. The sum of the effects is an even string height from bass to treble, so I have no idea why a slanted baseplate is on here to begin with. I might see if they will fit a new bridge on the guitar for me, although I believe even this is unnecessary.
-
if it were me I'd trim the bridge base even [provided it gives the correct action on the treble and bass sides and you don't lose too much of the length of the foot]
the string slots can certainly use some work, they're very deep now.
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos