Gibson L4 CN question

[FredH]

Hey all:

I am considering buying a 1962 Gibson L4 CN in presumably mint condition, with very little playing time. No added pickup, an older refret job with plenty of life left on the frets. It looks very clean, all original except for the repro pickguard. I don't see many of these around and wondered if anyone had a realistic price range in today's guitar market. Unfortunately, its in a different state so no chance to play inspect it. That's not the way I usually buy guitars - play before pay is my motto - but I see so few of these around that I'm considering it. I've been looking for an L4 C for a couple of years and most of them have been altered in undesirable ways or are in rough condition. What attracts me to this one is that fact that it is unaltered - not even a JS pickup added. I've got a mint 1956 D'Armand that would be a great fit. I've played a couple of L4 C's over the years so I am somewhat familiar with the beast - I play a 175 on a regular basis as well. Any thoughts? Thanks for your help.

I thought my guitar buying days were over....until the next one comes along. You all know the drill.....

Fred

[icr]

...1962 Gibson L4 CN... It looks very clean, all original... I've been looking for an L4 C for a couple of years... I've played a couple of L4 C's over the years so I am somewhat familiar with the beast...

Maybe you could tell us what you think it is worth. I have never even seen a picture of it.

[hotpepper01]

There is one for sale at Larkstreetmusic. 1962, repro pickguard, but with a pickup. You could compare proces though.

[Gibson L4CES]

I own a 1956 L4C and I believe that it is a guitar that is undervalued by the market and overvalued by their owners. Right now there is a a 1959 L4C sunburst on Ebay that has a starting bid of 1,250. I would watch how the bidding goes on it and add 3-500 for the natural finish.

1959 Gibson L-4C | eBay

[Papawooly]

Fred,

Hope this helps:

I have a 1951 L4CN, very good condition, playability is it's greatest asset, just plays like a dream.
Tonewise, it lacks bass (very thin) but has a nice singing treble bell-like tone with excellent sustain.
Purchased it for ~$2300 for it about 1 year ago.

My L4CN is such a sweet looking guitar, however, that sometimes I just pull it out to look at it, the natural wood
finish and fine worksmanship, but best of all is the playability (you know that with your 175) and the classic
"Old Guitar Smell" ... can't beat it!

L4's are supposed to have carved tops and backs, but looks like my back (one-piece) may be laminate.

Although with my Dearmond "Guitar Mike" creates a nice amplified tone, I do most of my playing
unamplified, so the lack of bass (compared to my other 16" archtops) would make me think twice about
purchasing another L4.

Just make sure seller knows that you will send it back if you are unsatisfied with the tone/playability/condition etc...

[FredH]

Thanks, this is very helpful. I play acoustic archtop exclusively....the older the better. Nothing beats old wood. While a couple of mine have JS pups, I like the pure unamplified sounds....and like you, really appreciate the artistic design of old archtop. The one I'm considering is visually stunning, like a CN is. He is asking 4k which I think is over priced for even a mint L4CN.

And thanks to all who have responded to my post. Always appreciate the insights from those on this forum. I'll let you all know if I pull the trigger on this one.

[zizala]

I have a well played '50 L-4c.

I believe L-4c's were pretty much always built with carved tops, solid sides and laminate backs.

Not a bad sounding acoustic....kind of forward and spunky, but would also say that its a lacks deeper resonance in the bottom end. This has usually been my experience with smaller bodied arch tops with laminate backs.
But it all works in a way and its a nice guitar to play.

That being said.....its quite good as an acoustic archtop with a floating pickup.
Mine's currently set up with an old McCarty unit, but I enjoyed the DeArmond Rhythm Chief that was on it when it came to me.

I'm tall and very used to playing 17" L-7's with long scale necks, so the shorter scale L-4c sort of feels like a comfy parlor guitar to me. Sometimes its a welcome change and its always good to have a different perspective.
Guess thats why I probably have too many guitars!

[FredH]

Thanks. I have the same GAS problem....each guitar has its own personality and I enjoy the differences each represents.

Best,

Fred

[Dennis D]

Thanks. I have the same GAS problem....each guitar has its own personality and I enjoy the differences each represents.

Best,

Fred

If you like that size and look I can understand completely. I agree w/ the poster who said the laminate backs make them ' just average ' acoustically.

A suggestion - -keep your eye out for one of those L-5 Reissues. They're in this price range too -- and as good a Gibson buy as you'll find.

Also that one at Lark Street could be worth checking out - - either way, that looks like an accurate ( ' starting ' ) market price.

Good luck !

[Hammertone]

L4's are supposed to have carved tops and backs, but looks like my back (one-piece) may be laminate.

General rule:
Pre-war/wartime L-4 - carved top and back
Post-war L-4 & L-4C - carved top, laminated back

[goldenwave77]

General rule:
Pre-war/wartime L-4 - carved top and back
Post-war L-4 & L-4C - carved top, laminated back

This makes sense. When did laminate start being used? I thought the 175 (1949) was the first laminate guitar. Then the 350 came along during the 50's.

[nopedals]

A dearmond won't fit on a prewar L4. Not enough string clearance. For purely acoustic sound, you can do much better than a cutaway postwar L4 IMHO. There are better electrics, and better acoustics, but if you could only have one guitar, that's a pretty versatile model.

[Hammertone]

General rule:Pre-war/wartime L-4 - carved top and back
Post-war L-4 & L-4C - carved top, laminated back

This makes sense. When did laminate start being used? I thought the 175 (1949) was the first laminate guitar. Then the 350 came along during the 50's.

Gibson started to use laminated backs on some archtops before WWII, specifically on the ES-300 / some L-7 guitars. Some guitars that might have been intended to become ES-300 models with carved tops/laminated backs may have ended up as L-7 models with no electronics. Interestingly enough (and typically Gibson) one also finds post-war L-7 models with laminated backs now and again.

[goldenwave77]

So I guess the 175 was the first all-laminate model.

I wonder if WW II had any effect on this: Parts and probably top grade wood would have been in short supply during the War years.

[Hammertone]

From Duchessoir:
ES-125 - '46 - laminated top and back plates.
ES-150 - '46 - laminated top and back plates.
ES-300 - '46 - laminated top and back plates.
ES-350 - '47 - laminated top and back plates.
ES-5 - '49 - laminated top and back plates.
ES-175 - '49 - laminated top and back plates.

[Plectrum]

A dearmond won't fit on a prewar L4. Not enough string clearance.

Prewar and wartime L-4 had an elevated fretboard extension and they can accommodate a dearmond. Noncut postwar L-4 do not have enough clearance but L-4c do.

[Plectrum]

For purely acoustic sound, you can do much better than a cutaway postwar L4 IMHO. There are better electrics, and better acoustics, but if you could only have one guitar, that's a pretty versatile model.

IME that's right.

[nopedals]

I bought a circa 1936 L4 once, and returned it because my dearmond would not fit.

[zizala]

There are some 16" pre-wars that have room for a neck pickup and some that don't (depending on the pickup).

From my experience, the pre-war f-hole L-4's and other similar 16" models like the early 30's L-7's do have elevated fingerboard extensions, but neck angles can vary by design and with age. And some have lower neck to body construction to begin with.

My '34 L-7 and '34 L-10 had tight clearance.....my '39 L-4 had lots of space.