Pre-war Gibson L7 Shootout

[ThatRhythmMan]

I happen to have one of each of the three major variations on the L-7 in my possession at the moment. I thought I would make a video of all three of them together.

This is my first attempt at making a video that switches between guitars midstream, so I kept it very simple. I think it worked pretty well though and I believe it demonstrates the general difference in sound due to the differences in build.

[vinnyv1k]

Nice. I like the 37 the best.

[Longways to Go]

Cool. What strings do you prefer on your '33? I only ask because my '34 looks much the same.

[ThatRhythmMan]

Cool. What strings do you prefer on your '33? I only ask because my '34 looks much the same.

I’m one if the TI Swing heretics. All of the guitars in the video have them, so as to keep the comparison as close as possible. I’ve been thinking trying the Martin Retro Monel strings.

[deacon Mark]

The 37 sounded maybe the best they were different but close. My guess is for chordmelody or single line playing that 40 would be the best. The 1940 did not quite have the quite the cutting edge but that was strictly in the rhythm mode.

[NSJ]

Nice. I like the 37 the best.

I’m not sentimental with my guitars I wind up selling them if I don’t play them. I bought a 1937L7 and a 1941L7 from a distinguishing member here in return for cash and another guitar. If he wants to reveal himself he can come out with his thoughts on these guitars As well.

Compared to what the 1937 model, the 41 seemed lifeless after a while. And it was quickly sold off. I’m not gonna sell the 1937 model ever. I have no idea why the X bracing does what it does, but it is a great guitar for fingerpicking . Really sweet dulcet like notes

[Woody Sound]

I’m one if the TI Swing heretics. All of the guitars in the video have them, so as to keep the comparison as close as possible. I’ve been thinking trying the Martin Retro Monel strings.

Flats on acoustic archtops?

[ThatRhythmMan]

I never play out on acoustic archtops, except for my 1940 L-5 and that’s still amplified with a DeArmond RC1100.

I guess I might feel differently if I were playing in a noisier setting, but at home the TI Swings sound better than everything else. My wife, the real talent in the family (pianist and classically trained vocalist) agrees.

[Longways to Go]

I never play out on acoustic archtops, except for my 1940 L-5 and that’s still amplified with a DeArmond RC1100.

I guess I might feel differently if I were playing in a noisier setting, but at home the TI Swings sound better than everything else. My wife, the real talent in the family (pianist and classically trained vocalist) agrees.

FWIW, I've got a set of Curt Mangan flats on my '34 L-7 and they sound just great. I'm using a 11-52 set with 12 & 16 replacement top E & B. I dig these strings a lot -- different vibe than the TI's. I tried Monel's last year -- just not my thing.

[omphalopsychos]

Each one has a unique sound satisfying the needs of different performances. If I wanted to play swing rhythm in a loud environment, I'd reach for the '40. If I were playing solo George Van Eps pieces, I'd probably grab the 37 for the massive bass that it gets. For me (having played a lot of these and owned a few), I'd almost always reach for the 34 (which is the one I kept). The smaller size gives it tremendous agility, something about the design gives it more sustain and reverb (maybe the neck angle?) compared to later Gibsons I've played. It has a wonderfully complex and versatile tone that can handle swing rhythm, single note lines, and folk styles. There's a reason why Gibson's 16" archtops are their most valued.

[rpguitar]

Nice video! And nice room too. Would be fun to sit there and sip a fine beverage.

I have a 1933 L-12 so I am also partial to the 16" archtops. In fact that one and the '28 in my avatar are always my preferred acoustics, even though I own two post-war Gibson acoustics as well. The smaller ones are the most versatile and toneful to me even if they aren't always the absolute loudest.

Personally I'm not a fan of flatwounds on these. I string them with 80/20s in 12-53 gauge.

[Stringswinger]

I never play out on acoustic archtops, except for my 1940 L-5 and that’s still amplified with a DeArmond RC1100.

I guess I might feel differently if I were playing in a noisier setting, but at home the TI Swings sound better than everything else. My wife, the real talent in the family (pianist and classically trained vocalist) agrees.

I use TI Flats on all of my acoustic archtops. I have tried many other choices, but to my ears they sound the best and my fingers are very happy that my ears feel that way.

[Dennis D]

I use Chrome Flats on my '37......I'd tried TI & Pyramids, but for me, both have too many drawbacks.

I would like to try those new Round Core nickels mentioned in another thread - -are those( hopefully ) flats, and who makes them ?

Thx

[joe2758]

I liked the '33 best. very interesting how different they sound, thanks for sharing

[nopedals]

IME a dearmond affects acoustic sound a little bit. The parallel braced guitar was wearing ankle weights in this race ;-)

[Greentone]

I liked all three and could find uses for each. Personally, I would play the '33 most. Lovely balance.

[ThatRhythmMan]

I liked all three and could find uses for each. Personally, I would play the '33 most. Lovely balance.

That one is one of the most balanced guitars I’ve ever played.

[Greentone]

Natural reverb on the treble, too.

[rlrhett]

There is little not to like about the '33, IMO. Just love that sound.

[radiofm74]

Great comparison! I liked the 33 best. 37 came second, but I suspect that the 40 was slightly handicapped by the DeArmond as @nopedals wrote above. I do have DeArmonds on my archtops and when I take them off I think that the guitars sound just a little bit better acoustically.

Anyway, I’ll PM you my address and you can send the one you like the least to me. I’ll keep her well-fed, well-loved and warm

[cmajor9]

Thanks much to That Rhythm Man for the original post and video!

Would it be safe to assume that the sound of a ‘33 or ‘34 L-7 would be comparable to that of a similar era 16” L-5. If so, that could make it a very desirable alternative to that rare and stratospherically priced model. Could anyone lucky enough to have played both comment?

[Greentone]

Very similar. However, the necks are different. L5 has a maple neck; L7 has a mahogany neck. This does result in an audible difference in tone. Both are tremendous.

[rpguitar]

Could anyone lucky enough to have played both comment?

I have a 1933 L-12 and a 1928 L-5. I guess that makes me lucky? Even if it does not, I have definitely played both!

L-12: 'hog neck, rosewood board, kerfed braces
L-5: maple neck, ebony board, carved braces

The L-12 is just slightly lighter in weight (ounces), brighter in tone, and I want to say it is a little bit less refined in its overall playability and sound. How much of that is my bias (L-5 cost me literally 10x as much ), I'm not entirely sure. But they are not exactly the same. The L-5 feels like a concert instrument to me - it feels like the individual parts were tuned, tested, and approved by Lloyd Loar (like the original labels say before he left the company).

However the L-12 is definitely a lovely little guitar, and you would not feel like you got shorted on quality, or on enjoying the early 16" Gibson experience (so to speak), if you had one. It is very lively and rich sounding. They are both very different from the later 17" Advanced models.

[Greentone]

Very well stated, rpguitar. The 16" L7 and 16"L12 are much alike.