-
Originally Posted by oldane
-
03-17-2017 05:14 AM
-
Oldane,
Oh wow that's beautiful.
I'd have to climb on it to play it, but it would be worth the trek!
Originally Posted by oldane
-
Originally Posted by oldane
-
The only thing that I don't really like on this 1991 L5 is the tailpiece in metal and wood.
Probably I prefer the classic only metal one.
I know that the most important thing is the sound of the guitar, but I think that the look is important to.
-
Originally Posted by louisguitar
But I kind of like that tail piece
Enjoy the hunt ... that's part of the fun!!!
-
^
That is basically what I was going to say. Pretend you know nothing about either and see which one plays, sounds better and calls to you more. I would also love to see some pictures!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Some people say that the silver plated insert of the tailpiece become tarnished badly, so the wood one can be better.
But I don't know why Gibson made it for a little period only.
-
We can make a new thread on the L5's tailpiece.
-
The wood medallion with the MoPearl inlay only appeared in that era. Unique. The silverplated medallion turns black: silver sulphide.
I won't let it hold me back. Worth a drive to check it out or you could have the one in Berkshire, UK. Longer drive though...
-
Originally Posted by louisguitar
but they're long gone now so....
-
There's another guy that sell an exceptional condition 71/72 L5 sunburst with embossed pickups, the maple is almost plain like many examples of this period.
I don't know if the knobs are original.
thi is the link:
GIBSON L5 CES 1970-1972 (EMBOSSED PICKUP COVERS) - #4719401 - su Mercatino Musicale in Chitarre Semiacustiche
-
The wood insert will never tarnish like the silver plated brass ones do. The silver ones don't stay nice and shiny for long. The old ones seem to get a whitish corrosion on them while the newer ones turn a dark blotchy grey.
Yes when those inserts are new they shine like chrome. Really nice looking with the gold tailpiece. Oozes class but when they tarnish then the ebony looks better IMO.
-
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
BTW, despite the seemingly obvious, it's not so uncomfortable to play because of the normal size upper bout and waist (like an Epiphone Emperor but different from a Gibson Super 400). Besides it was big band guitarists who used these big instruments back then and they often held it in a more horizontal position like Freddie Green (I do too) where all the opulence is out of the way to the right of the players the right arm.Last edited by oldane; 03-20-2017 at 06:36 AM.
-
-
Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
Awesome guitar, really cool, but the dimensions are very great.
I don't know if I can play it, I am only 66,5 inches.
For curiosity, in your opinion which L'5 tailpiece cost more, the one all metal or the other whit engraved wood?
-
Originally Posted by oldane
To the OP, I'd play the two L-5CES guitars in question and pick whichever one feels and sounds better.
I suspect that the @25-year-old, unplayed 1991 L-5CES built under Triggs may be the one.Last edited by Hammertone; 03-20-2017 at 11:50 AM.
-
Originally Posted by louisguitar
-
Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
Originally Posted by goldenwave77
Strings comparable to TI Bensons without the...
Today, 07:57 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos