Advantage of Carved Top vs Laminate

[cosmic gumbo]

I thought tenors guitars were a stepping stone for 4 banjo players to get into guitar in the 1920s.

Thanks for questioning that, I had trusted an 80 year old dixieland banjo/guitarist for my information, but after research, it seems the first archtop design was for mandolin, and then was applied to 6 and 4 string guitars at about the same time, originally with a round or oval soundhole. Then Loar re-designed them with f-holes for Gibson. It was still about rhythm and volume, though.

[ronjazz]

With 40 years in as a pro jazz player, I have found that a $700 Phillips 16" laminated-top with a 24.75" scale was the perfect instrument for me, after going through a couple of hundred guitars, including L5s, 175s, various Guild and Ibanez models, Vega carved-tops, Telecaster w/humbucker, etc. Turns out that the instrument has to suit the player and the style of the player.

[woyvel]

I had never heard that before. I thought tenors guitars were a stepping stone for 4 banjo players to get into guitar in the 1920s.
..

I think it was a little of both.

During the transition from Dixieland to ragtime to swing, the ensemble grew to favor the warmer, less percussive sound of a guitar as a rhythm instrument, so what was a banjo player to do? Grab a softer sounding (archtop) 4-string guitar.

Extended ranges and larger ensembles that began to take shape in the 30's. The guitar can compliment the bass as a rhythm instrument by staying out of it's way and can fill in chord voicing in the upper registers. The tenor only has 4 strings and overlaps the bass a bit more, without the benefit of the upper register. Scoreboard: 6-string!

So we guitarists won. The tenor guitar became a bastard. Consequently tenor guitarists and banjo players were banished into the hills to concentrate on bluegrass and country with the mandolin players and jug whistlers.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Marcis]

Hallo jazz friends. What is your opinion about choosing laminate or solid carved top and back on jazz guitars?
i am owner of Sadowsky semi-hollow model for 3years (and now i Want to sell it) cause I am looking for bigger body - and I am really intersted in Gibson Herb Ellis model with floating pickup, but it is all laminated. What is the main difference in sound, feedback e.t.c. I mainly play on my Polytone Mini - brute combo with clean - not effected sound.

Thank you in advance for your answer.

[MaxT]

In my moderate experience, The laminated archtops tend to have a slightly more "middy" sound on average, when played acoustically, than the carved tops. But that can open out when played through a pickup, if you want it to.

Of the three laminate archtops I own now, two are allegedly the same model which is the Epiphone Emperor Regent. I say "allegedly" because although they were both apparently built in Korea they were built at least three years apart. One of them has a brighter, more brilliant sound and the other is rounder, wider.

The third laminate I own is an Ibanez Custom, 2&3/4-inch body depth, 16" lower bout, so slightly less than standard size. Obvious "middy"
sound, opens out amplified.

If I compare these to a '42 Epiphone DeLuxe that I used to own, the DeLuxe is better, but it would set you back several times the money for a carved top.

If I compare these to a 1950s era Maton Starline that I own, again the carved top Maton is better. But it's not 400% better, which is the approximate difference in price.

The bottome line...If you're relatively well-heeled then find a good carved top instrument. If the budget is tighter, don't worry. I was pleasantly surprised by the laminated Epiphone Emperor. It sounds better than it has a right to sound. Nearly as good as the carved tops.

[Marcis]

I was wondering why many of pricely jazz guitars are now crafted using laminate like Sadowsky semi-hollow many Gibson models?????? and still the are guitars like eastman which are solid carved and arent so expensive????

[MaxT]

Marcis,
It's my understanding that a lot of Gibsons are overpriced. And that only their top end models have a carved top.

If memory serves, their Les Pauls break at the headstock where it joins the neck. I asked a local luthier if he thought that was true, he told me he gets one or two a week to repair.

I can buy a carved top archtop from an independent luthier for as little as 3 grand, such as Heindel, or as much as 12 grand, (Hancock, Rizzolo and others). Ed Roman in Nevada will make you some kind of archtop for 5 or 6.

Also, there are the machine-carved solid face archtops. For instance, I think Peerless use this method on some of their models, or else they press the solid face. One or the other. They are somewhere around the 2 grand mark, if memory serves. Or a bit more. In fact, one of their laminate models exceeds the price of one of their solid-face models last time I checked.

There are many, many independent luthiers these days, Some of their instruments are sky-high price and some are within reach....Sort of.
I can't recall your geographical location, but it might be worth checking out who's near you. The independents have one advantage that I can see....They can custom build a guitar to your specifications. That means if you want a non-standard neck width, or a certain type of floating pickup, etcetera, they can do it. Most of the mass production companies don't do much of that.
Going back to Gibson, they seem to have two problems these days, one is too high a price and the other is quality consistency. That same luthier I referred to earlier had a Gibson Super 400 shipped to him here in Australia. He told me he had to return it, as it was "unusable". He didn't elaborate, but let's remember this is an experienced luthier talking.

[Bill C]

In my opinion you get a different quality to the sound with a laminate or a carved archtop. It comes down to which sound you prefer and - more importantly - which better suits the way you play ...

Check out this video - I think it illustrates the difference reasonably well ...

One reason some high-end laminates are expensive is because it's not easy to make strong but responsive laminate plates. And, as you will know, the build quality on axes like your semi-hollow is superb.

A custom builder may build the exact guitar you want, but if you come to sell it a few years down the line when your requirements or tastes have changed, you are likely to get a lot less than you paid for it.

How much are you asking for the semi-hollow, btw?

[cjm]

Carved woods were essential back when jazz guitar was strictly unamplified acoustic guitar, and when archtops were used for rhythm and little more. Carved woods had the volume, projection and tone. Laminates were used in inferior instruments.

With the advent of the magnetic pickup, a time of transition began. Carved woods had been essential for quality acoustic archtops and it was assumed the same would apply to the electric archtop. But as the magnetic pickup began to be applied to laminate archtops, many "A-list" jazz guitarists began to switch from carved guitars to laminates.

During the bebop era, most top players were using carved electric archtops in large part because that was what was readily available during the 1940s -- post bop, cool, west coast -- was mostly laminates. Laminate electric archtops had become more widely available and were regarded as superior for the purpose by a majority of well known players.

[oldane]

I can only speak for my own preferences, and others may differ. For acoustic playing, I prefer a carved top and back (though a laminated back may be OK, but there are few of such instruments. Some Stromberg Master 400s are said to have a laminated backs). For amplified playing, I prefer a fully laminated instrument with a built in pickup (not floating).

[Dennis D]

I had owned a 1960's ES- 175 bought new. Single humbucker, & laminated top and sides. It had a warm sound, plenty of bass for me, and a good fingerboard, feel and balance. I later bought an L-4 - -same size, laminated sides and back, same scale, but w/ 2 P/U, carved top, ebony fingerboard. The sound is noticeably better - -top to bottom. Feel and balance are about the same. Tone is truer, and easier to dial in whatever sound balance you want. It's just a better instrument - -and IMHO a good instrument for the money. A pro player once described it this way : " An L-4 is what a 175 should have been ". FWIW Dennis

[MaxT]

I Think then The Heritage is good option - they have a model Sweet 16 which is hand carved and not so pricely as Gibson???

I've never played the Heritage, but it brings up one point about the shallower-body guitars, or "semi-acoustic" types. Having checked their website it seems the Sweet 16 is a full hollow, but the semi-acoustics sometimes have a wooden block down the centreline and sometimes do not. If you're looking at the shallower-body types, something to consider.

I also recall you mentioned Eastman, their solid face guitars are reasonably priced, (not cheap but reasonable), though I seem to recall a lot of their models do not have fingerboard inlays.

Also in your part of the world, possibly Hofners are available. They make high end stuff (possibly in Germany) and budget models as well, probably in Asia or partly built there and assembled in Germany. They are not so far away from you, and that might mean you can actually get hold of one to try out. I am waiting to try one out myself, I think it is the j-17 model or something like that. I think it is Hofner that makes the "Verythin" ultra shallow archtops as well. I assume their budget models are laminated.

[vinlander]

Tal Farlow, Barney Kessel both laminate ES 350 players with different tones but still, René Thomas' ES 125, all these too many to name ES-175 players including Jim Hall, Pat Metheny and so on ...
Laminated doesn't mean cheap, but usually cheap means laminated that's why!
It is not just a practical thing like less feedback or weather sensitivity, it is a tone too.
Like I said in another thread, even if I had the money and would ask a luthier to build myself a customized archtop, it would still be a quality laminated maple top based on the ES-350 which is to me the ultimate tone machine.
That is obviously very suggestive, to some Wes L5 or Kenny smooth tone is the grail, mine is the Thunk Farlow

[Greentone]

All the bands originally used 4 string banjos because that could be heard AND recorded. Then, the first modern archtop guitar was produced in 1924--Lloyd Loar's L5 by Gibson. It could be heard. It was a six string. Banjo players learned six string guitar. Then, Gibson and others added tenor and plectrum guitars to there lines to accommodate banjo guys, not the other way around. All guitarists, more or less, were rhythm guys until Charlie Christian played horn lines in the Goodman Band. His amplifier facilitated this. Solid top and laminated top guitars sound great when well made. Bruno has sounded great on both, but the best I ever heard him sound was on a Unger American Archtop through a Clarus/RE. I was sitting right next to him. The guitar had a lam top.

[DRS]

You have to be careful applying flat top acoustic theory to archtops. Yes, with flat tops, I can't think of a single example of a lam construction guitar that is better than an all solid wood guitar. But that is not so with archtops. They have different sounds and different price points. You can spend $2000 on an all wood carved archtop. You can spend $5000 on an all lam archtop. You can also get a great lam tone out of a $1000 lam archtop. You have to play a guitar through the amp you will be using (if at all) to know what it will sound like.

[Bluedawg]

There's good sounds to be had from solid or laminate guitars ...

I tend to lean towards solid ...

But in my limited experience if you match up the right guitar with the right amp it doesn't matter

[Spook410]

My solid wood archtops are all louder than my high end flat tops (Martin dreads, Goodall, Kinscherff) when it comes to single note leads or chordal passages. In some cases, a lot louder. Of course the attack is different and the whole envelope of the note is different so there's some apples to oranges, but when I'm playing with a group of flat top players, it isn't just the attack, the archtop is louder.

As for laminates versus solids, I would really like to play a good laminate. Every one I've ever tried had the cardboard thing going and I just don't play loud enough to need the guitar to be self limiting.

[nopedals]

I wonder about whether the introduction of laminates had anything to do with feedback issues. When Gibson introduced the early postwar laminates -- ES-125, ES-150, and ES-300 -- it may have had more to do with spruce being gobbled by war needs, and that they tried for the best acoustic sound they could get. That's why the early ones are so light and have a decent acoustic sound. As to electric tone, all the pros were swapping out the pickups for prewar CCs.

[Tom Painter]

You have to be careful applying flat top acoustic theory to archtops. Yes, with flat tops, I can't think of a single example of a lam construction guitar that is better than an all solid wood guitar.

"Double top" is double speak for laminated. They sound quite fine!

[Klatu]

Thanks for uploading those videos. After watching the one or Anderson's double top build, I can't imagine why there aren't more luthiers building double top archtops. It seems like a far less costly and labor intensive method of building a quality acoustic guitar than the traditional carving method.

[Tom Painter]

Thanks for uploading those videos. After watching the one or Anderson's double top build, I can't imagine why there aren't more luthiers building double top archtops. It seems like a far less costly and labor intensive method of building a quality acoustic guitar than the traditional carving method.

The biggest challenge is not in the making but in the marketing.

For decades the guitar buying public has been told by guitar manufacturers and independent luthiers alike that "all solid wood" guitars are unquestionably superior to laminated instruments. In most cases they're right, but not always. It's a tough spell to break. I think it's very encouraging that the classical guitar players are more or less embracing "double top" guitars...they're even more conservative, generally speaking, than jazzers!

I made one 5 years ago or so but didn't push the idea too hard. I wanted some time to pass to see how it held up.

It's exciting to see Andersen taking the plunge, I hope more follow suit!!

[Klatu]

How much savings, if any, are to be had by the double top process over the solid carved alternative?

[jasonc]

I think the nomex double top idea is fantastic. I've seen the Anderson clip before and have wanted to try it. I really want to add a laminated model but I just need to really figure out some things about the initial mold building.

[Greentone]

I think the thin, stiff laminates are the future...especially for manouch guitars.

[Tom Painter]

How much savings, if any, are to be had by the double top process over the solid carved alternative?

The classical builders charge a premium!

The idea is to make a more responsive guitar than is possible with solid wood construction, it's not a cost cutting measure.

In the future, I think there could be some cost savings once a builder worked out a reliable process, but there is a ton of R&D work on the builder's end to get to anything like a reliable process.