'30s Gibson L-7

[KirkP]

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.

Here are some photos of my 1937 L-7 to compare to yours. It was refinished by a previous owner and an L-5 fretboard was added. My wife calls this my "redhead". I won't go into the back-story.

The top's been rock-solid and stable for the 13 years I've owned it. The bass strings are just a hair under 1.0" above the top at the bridge, which seems similar to yours. I'm fairly certain the unusual top shape is just the way Gibson carved them when they went to the 17" X-braced design. Supposedly, one clue to a sinking top is deformations across the f-holes. My f-hole contours seem normal.

I realized one reason I may have misidentified your recordings is that I have bronze strings on my L-7 and nickel/steel on the Eastman. I'm thinking of trying monel strings on the L-7, which should tame some of the acoustic brightness. Then maybe I can get rid of the felt.

The bridge on my L-7 seems much less massive than yours, which I suspect might also brighten my tone relative to yours. If changing strings doesn't get me the warmth I'm looking for, maybe I should try another bridge -- perhaps something that's in contact all the way across instead of having two feet.
The Archtop Bridge: Feet or no feet : Guitar Accessories | Koentopp Guitars

[KirkP]

I hope it's acceptable to post links to other forums. Here's a thread discussing the tops of 1934-38 L-5s and L-7s. It might remove some worry.
Archtop "sag" - effect, what to do - Willi? in The Vintage Corner Archives Volume VII Forum

Excerpts:
1934 to 1937 are X-braced and the top (and back) arches are flat in the center. This leads to the appearance of a sunken in top what actually is not the case.
...
BTW, the "flat" arch extended to 1938 when the L-5 again had the parallel bracing and the long scale. There are some transition guitars still with the old flat arch but with the modern bracing and scale. The main reason for the "flat" arch is the fact that an X-brace is more difficult to fit into a curved top than a single (parallel) brace. So the X is glued to a flat surface and tapers where the arch begins towards the edges - very simple.

[omphalopsychos]

I hope it's acceptable to post links to other forums. Here's a thread discussing the tops of 1934-38 L-5s and L-7s. It might remove some worry.
Archtop "sag" - effect, what to do - Willi? in The Vintage Corner Archives Volume VII Forum

Excerpts:
1934 to 1937 are X-braced and the top (and back) arches are flat in the center. This leads to the appearance of a sunken in top what actually is not the case.
...
BTW, the "flat" arch extended to 1938 when the L-5 again had the parallel bracing and the long scale. There are some transition guitars still with the old flat arch but with the modern bracing and scale. The main reason for the "flat" arch is the fact that an X-brace is more difficult to fit into a curved top than a single (parallel) brace. So the X is glued to a flat surface and tapers where the arch begins towards the edges - very simple.

This is very useful information, thank you! It explains why the luthiers I spoke to said it "looks" flat, but the braces are intact. I'm more and more convinced that the flatness is by design. My top looks just like yours (minus the nice red finish). I'm going back to the shop this weekend to get the nut raised, and I also ordered a new bridge from StewMac. If it arrives on time, I'll ask them to fit it too. Otherwise, I feel fairly comfortable fitting it myself.

Regarding the strings on your L7, I strongly recommend d'Addario Nickel Bronze. I haven't tried them on my L7, but I used them on my Eastman before my most recent string change. They're as loud as 80/20 Bronze with a much mellower woody voice. They also have a (much) stronger low end than Monel.

[KirkP]

Frank Ford on archtop bridges:
FRETS.COM
Based on a few google searches, I suspect my bridge base is intended for later parallel braced instruments with more of an arch. If I replace it I'll try to find something closer to the original dimensions.

[teleboli]

Funny enough I have an 1100 Reissue on my counter at the moment ordered just for my L7 as well.

As to this sinking top thing. I'm pretty sure it's the top carve they used during that period. May also be so it doesn't interfere with the X-bracing. The entire thing was explained to me in depth by a fellow forum member/friend who's knowledge of all things arch top is nothing short of encyclopedic. However, the details are eluding me.

Mine's the same and I'm almost certain it's the carve as it was designed and intended.

Thanks for the tip on strings. With the 1100 going on it I'm wanting a set that marries the acoustic voice with the amplified tone.

[sgosnell]

Perhaps the reason the string slots are cut so deeply is that the bridge is already adjusted all the way down, and that was the only way to get the strings lower. A base that isn't so high might work better on this guitar. That one is rather massive.

[KirkP]

If the L-7 tone is just what you're looking for and playability is good, I'm not sure I'd change the bridge much, other than tidying up the slots.

[Dennis D]

I own a '36, and when I first saw that bridge, it looked like the ones on the earlier L-1's & L-4's. Those model bridges seemed to have that higher part on each height adjustment screw. I checked it against mine and also against some other ads & vid's on YT. I think the base pf mine was modified by the previous owner. It has the solid base but not the pedestals shown on the base of op's L-7.

I think I can conclude the solid base, as opposed to the footed base is ' period correct '.

Then I found a mention of a 'flip-over' bridge which would allow for changing the bridge height to accommodate Hawaiian slide playing. ( That's mentioned in a current L-7 Reverb ad ). Has anyone ever heard of this - I sure haven't.

There may be some reasons to reduce the bridge /string height - -I'd definitely check with a luthier. I am not sure, but if a lower bridge height puts less strain on the top, I'd absolutely consider it.

Feel free anyone, to correct me where I'm wrong.

And yes the top on mine is settled, but like yours, the braces are still attached.

And FWIW, the sounds it puts out makes it my favorite guitar - period.

Hope this helps.

[KirkP]

I am not sure, but if a lower bridge height puts less strain on the top, I'd absolutely consider it.

Once the neck angle has been set, the bridge height is set according to how high you want the action. Changing the force that the bridge puts on the top while keeping the correct action would require a neck reset.

That's one on the benefits of a bolt-on neck. I had to increase the neck angle on an old Framus so I could RAISE the bridge to increase the load on the top. That helped the tone immensely due to better coupling between the strings and the top. If that guitar had a set neck it would have cost more than the guitar was worth to get it sounding right.

[wintermoon]

"Then I found a mention of a 'flip-over' bridge which would allow for changing the bridge height to accommodate Hawaiian slide playing. ( That's mentioned in a current L-7 Reverb ad ). Has anyone ever heard of this - I sure haven't."

I have an old L-5 w/the orig. reversible saddle.
It's not meant to change the bridge height, rather it's a straight cut bridge for slide/Hawaiian playing. The reverse side is arched and compensated for conventional playing
Sometimes seen on 20's guitars.

[christianm77]

Both guitars sound great. I guessed right. Eastman's have a little more of that modern voicing, brighter, more articulate, sometimes louder seeming... But given 80 or so years, perhaps the E would sweeten up a bit. Old wood...

[Dennis D]

Attachment 38893

Is that base a one piece carve ? Or are those pedestals ( 'towers' ? ) a different piece that's added ?


I tried to upload a photo of mine, but couldn't. It's a very similar looking one piece base and bridge. The base is just straight across the top - - no pedestals at the height adjustment screws.

Interesting.

[omphalopsychos]

Pardon me for reviving a dead thread. I just wanted to share some photos and a short recording for anyone on the fence about getting an L7. Yes the top is a bit beaten, but I couldn't care less.

[omphalopsychos]

Should I mention the guitar is also amazing for single note solos?

[garybaldy]

Looks like you have the original tailpiece, bridge and saddle. Those things are nearly unobtainable if you don't get them with the guitar. With my L-7 the original bridge & saddle were missing.

The original saddle adjustment washers are tiny and thin.
Attachment 35584

Pardon me for reviving this old thread but I have just purchased a Fleur de Lys motive L7/L4 (not sure which but I think the L4 has a 1st fret marker). Would you say my bridge and tailpiece are original? I know the pg is wrong and I will be putting the guitar back to right handed - but obviously not with that pg! Thanks

[Hammertone]

Yes, original bridge, set up for lefty stringing.
Original tailpiece as well.
Here are three '30s Gibson-built archtops.

[garybaldy]

Yes, original bridge, set up for lefty stringing.
Original tailpiece as well.

Thank you Sir.

[garybaldy]

Just keeping this thread on the subject of 16" L7s.
I've just been having a closer look at mine whilst sprucing it up with a rag and some spit and contemplating the loose 2" of neck binding.
I've noticed under the dark translucent finish on the back, in the right light and at the right angle, there is flame maple to die for! PRS would turn green with envy! Under the dust on the inside it it also very much apparent. The dust is staying! and the finish. But why would Gibson cover up such a wonderful piece of wood with such a dark finish and not sunburst it? Obviously time saving. Perhaps the body could have ended up as an L5.
Also, I don't know whether all the tailpieces were stamped "Patented July 1919". Coincidently that was the year and month my late father was born!

[wintermoon]

But why would Gibson cover up such a wonderful piece of wood with such a dark finish and not sunburst it? Obviously time saving.
Also, I don't know whether all the tailpieces were stamped "Patented July 1919"

Pretty common back then on Gibson and D'Angelico guitars. Usually a knot or other flaw in the area of what would become the lighter center area of the sunburst, but not always.
The t.p.'s from the 20s and early 30s had the 1919 date stamped.