-
Peter Rogine is a fine player who posts lessons on YouTube (-"Have Guitar Will Travel.") He often plays this guitar and has been asked about it, so he here talks about it for 8 minutes. As someone who has never played an L5, I enjoyed this "inside look."
-
01-04-2018 10:13 PM
-
That's a beauty. Thanks for posting this!
Edit; had to root around on FB for the pic.... I had the opportunity (for about 30 seconds! lol) to play a 1947 L5 that was for sale at a local store a year+ ago.
It was an OMG moment. I played a handful of chords, took the pic here, played the opening bars of Stairway To Heaven ala Wayne's World, and gently handed it back to the guy who graciously indulged me the moment.
Beautiful instruments, these.
Thanks again...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So nice. Thanks for sharing! Someday...
Roli
-
That’s a real treat Mark.
I never knew Jimmy D’Aquisto liked the thin frets. I wouldn’t have thought that. It’s a good day when you learn something!
thanks, Joe D
-
I didn't know that either. Had never heard that thin frets are best for clarity and pitch. Learn something every day....
Originally Posted by Max405
-
Very nice
-
Thanks Mark fothe valuable video,
Great guitar for a fine player who deserves it.
Best.
-
Cool video. It just happened to be posted on the same day that I decided to finally try some bronze strings on the 1935 D'Angelico Excel that I bought from Joe D. I think the Excel will be my acoustic archtop that is only amplified with a mike, old school style for a bit. What a voice! A fine non cut vintage archtop is the best of the best for sure.
-
Beautiful guitar with a great sound and enjoyed listening to him talk about it.
So wood used in Japan, Korea, and China to make archtops is 3 months out from standing tree and that's why they don't sound as good as a 1954 L5? Who knew?
Last edited by Spook410; 01-05-2018 at 06:33 AM.
-
While I enjoyed the video and listening to the guitar (it was a fine sounding archtop), I don't think Peter was correct about what he said about some things. The wood used by most modern factories (not just Asian) is not "green" as he states. It is kiln dried to somewhere between 8-12% moisture content typically. The difference in older wood used was:
1) the spruce and maple trees used may have been harvested from old growth forests with different physical properties than the newer growth used by many factories today and
2) the wood was first seasoned outside after it was cut and went through temperature and humidity cycles and then air dried for years to reach a desired moisture content in a protected environment before use.
The subject of what type of fret wire provides the "best intonation" is also a subject that will spur up differing opinions by those skilled in the art. The left hand of the individual player cannot be divorced from the recommendation regarding the best height and width of fret wire. Thin, shallow wire is great for some players and not so great for others.
Forgetting all this guitar geek minutia, that was a fine example of a great sounding L-5 from Kalamazoo...
-
Great guitar, nice video. Mark, you are approaching 12,000 posts and you have not played an L-5? Priorities, man!
If you were closer geographically I'd be happy to help you fix that.
One thing I'd say is that while Peter uses 13s and heavy strings are nearly always touted for these old acoustic Gibsons, I'd suggest that players also give lighter strings a try. I use 12-52 or 11-50 bronze in the 80/20 variety. These lighter strings may have a slight disadvantage in terms of raw volume when you pound swing rhythm, but they will open up the sweetness of the guitar for just about everything else. Besides easier playability, a bit less tension on the top can lower the fundamental tone just a bit, allowing you to coax more tonal depth with a lighter touch.
Since I doubt most of us have a big band handy, why put the acoustic archtop in its stereotypical box? Lighter strings will let you finesse more dynamics from the guitar, and explore chord melody - or just treat these as general purpose acoustic guitars. I have a nice Martin 000, but it gets played far less than my acoustic L-5s.
-
Very interesting comments actually on the video, and also after it. I am by no means an expert, but I was interested to see that Mr Rogine advocates thinner frets, I have always preferred these personally, but am conscious of being in a minority group in this respect.
I applaud RPs suggestion to try 12-52 and even 11-50 acoustic strings, I agree with his comments 100%. Because of hand arthritis I literally cannot play 13s or heavier strings, and I have found the tone and musicality is still there in these lighter strings. I use Newtone strings (being UK based,) and the response and sound works for me.
-
What an amazing guitar you have there sir !! Congratulations... I wasn't that much of a Gibson fan for a long time, but they DO make some guitars that truly explain why they have/had such a strong rep. Nice score !!
Big
-
Great post. Wonderful clip from Rogine.
I have played a noncut Gibson archtop for most of my life. Can't imagine not doing so. In college the other guys thought me very quaint for this eccentricity.
I started out with .13-.54 strings, at my father's recommendation. The guitars were built for these. You get the most volume, for sure. However, as Roger notes, it's worth trying other gauges, too. I gradually moved around and tried everything from bronze .10s on up. I finally settled on bronze .12-.50 strings. The guitar sounds most balanced, to me, right there.
The '38 L50 is not a '54 L5. Both guitars are extremely light and balanced, but the 17" guitar of Rogines is more of a grand piano to the 16" guitar's baby grand.
Note that Rogine mentions that he has a thin topped L5. From the time that Gibson made the 17" L5 some were thin topped and some were thick topped. This made a great difference in the sound. The thin ones are brighter and are great for solo/accompaniment work. The thick ones have a more haunting, chugging sound. They make great big band instruments for holding down the rhythm section. (Great when a pickup is installed, too.)
-
I don't suppose we'll ever find any actual specs for such esoterica... I have a sample of one I can measure at the f-hole with a digital caliper. But without comparisons, it won't mean much. This certainly interests me, though. My '47 L-5 took a long time to dial in, after trying many strings, dressing the frets, and swapping the saddle top piece from rosewood to ebony (HUGE positive difference). Originally Posted by Greentone
-
Sweet axe ! I would love a 54.....my birth year. What he said about Jimmy is only partly true. Jimmy preferred thin frets only on non amplified archtops with .014’s. Anything lighter gauge he called hairs. 012’s were a mortal sin in his eyes. I really don’t think Jimmy liked amplified archtops much at all. I had to beg him to put a pickup on mine and he wasn’t happy about it at all. He believed carved should be acoustic and only plywood amplified.
-
Just out of curiosity, he said that the guitar was not refinished but the finish and gloss was restored.
What does that mean ?
Secondly, why is it that fine violins and cellos and classical guitars how varnishe$ French polish Matte finishes, which helps enhance the sound? But archtop guitars generally do not ?
-
Jimmy D. learned that from John D. Both knew that amplifying a fine, carved archtop results in the sound being changed. I chose round core 12-54 80/20's to try out the Excel. It is loud and incredibly well balanced with that set. And a bit more difficult to play than the 12-50 flatwounds that I have been using. Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
I have come to the conclusion that the best amplified archtop is a 16 inch plywood guitar with a humbucker. And the best acoustic archtop is a non cut 17 or 18 inch carved guitar. I suspect Jimmy D. and John D. would be in agreement. That said, a 17 inch or 18 inch carved guitar with a thicker top and built in humbuckers makes a pretty good sound too.
-
Navdeep, Originally Posted by NSJ
Cris is a BRILLIANT luthier. He has a proprietary method that amalgamates the original lacquer and after it dries he polishes it out.
Joe D
-
SS, Everytime I hear you talk about the Excel it makes me almost tear up. You always say something like, "that guitar is in the right hands now".. That statement can not be more perfect as it pertains to that 1935 D'Angelico Excel and you. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Jimmy D. learned that from John D. Both knew that amplifying a fine, carved archtop results in the sound being changed. I chose round core 12-54 80/20's to try out the Excel. It is loud and incredibly well balanced with that set. And a bit more difficult to play than the 12-50 flatwounds that I have been using.
I have come to the conclusion that the best amplified archtop is a 16 inch plywood guitar with a humbucker. And the best acoustic archtop is a non cut 17 or 18 inch carved guitar. I suspect Jimmy D. and John D. would be in agreement. That said, a 17 inch or 18 inch carved guitar with a thicker top and built in humbuckers makes a pretty good sound too.
I was not worthy. You on the other hand, forget about it.. That guitar wears a smile from fhole to fhole everytime it sees you. In 1935, it was made for you Marco.. And in 1935, John D'Angelico was trying to become the great artist that he eventually became. So he was REALLY putting his soul into those early instruments. You got one.
Joe D
-
Bro, that would be such a nice guitar for you to have. You would be able to grow old gracefully with it. Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
I'd love to see you with a guitar like that.
Joe D
-
Thanks bro. Trouble is I already have the old part covered :-).
-
Hopefully it was apparent that my comment about green wood being used in Asia was facetious. While I don't know about most places, in conversations with Yunzhi some years back they noted their wood had been air dried for over 10 years. While you don't measure wood moisture levels with a calendar, the longevity/continuity was still interesting. Apparently it's their history as violin/cello makers. Seems one could purchase some sets in places like Italy that have been properly stored for quite a long time. Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7
I do wonder how much of what makes some vintage guitars sound like they do is the wood they started with and how much is all the guitar has been through since made. Do under the bed guitars from a given era sound the same as one that's been on the road and played nightly? The sound seems noticeable even in online clips. Would be interesting to see the science.
-
I wonder what he means by thin top and back.
Gibson was experimenting w/ top thickness and bridge heights when the advanced models were introduced in '34 only until about 1939 or so.
these guitars are identifiable by a measurement written on the label, like 3/4" or 1 1/8" for example.
after that they were all pretty uniform.
and not sure what he means about reactivating the finish, sounds like a Joe V. term
-
I would agree with everything Stringswinger said about "bests" for acoustic and electric archtops...if I had never played a 20s Gibson L5.
The early L5s from the 20s are simply fantastic sounding acoustic instruments. I say this having never played a Loar-made L5, but only '28 and '29 versions. They were awesome enough.
If I had to get by with a single guitar, I would want it to be a 17" archtop...but it could be a 16" Gibson L5 instead.
You'd swear the 16" L5 guitars have reverb. I know that's not possible, but it almost sounds that way.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos