-
When I played the "photoshoot" 1960 L5 last week I was able to compare it with a 2007 L5 side by side. It was a bit of a sobering experience. The 1960 L5 was a much nicer guitar. It had a perfect neck, way more comfortable and less chunky than the 2007 one. It was of a much lighter build and more responsive so better sounding acoustically. The top on the 1960 was notably thinner. It was almost a different guitar that sounded different too amplified. The 2007 was built like a tank, just like the 1995 Wesmo that I demoed a few years ago.
Same for my vintage laminates (1947 ES 300, 1964 ES 125). The difference in weight with my 98 Tal and 82 ES 175 is notable. Much heavier plates on them.
Mind you, all the "modern" guitars I have mentioned so far sound great, in spite of their weight. That is not the issue. However, I notice that I prefer the feel of the vintage ones somehow. Vintage guitars feel less "plastic" and more vibrant/alive when holding them. Thinner finishes too?
So why is Gibson still doing this? Preventing warranty issues? Feedback resistence? The VOS series proves that they CAN build lighter guitars.
TIA,
DBLast edited by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog; 12-15-2019 at 06:55 PM.
-
12-15-2019 02:07 PM
-
Probably a combination of fewer warranty problems and more feedback resistance.
Some players prefer the more modern build, others prefer the vintage build. When bringing a product to market, you cannot please everyone and company managers have to make certain decisions.
I can say with certainty that no matter which style of build one prefers, there are great guitars and not so great guitars from both eras. Choose with care.
-
String hit it on the head. It can also be thought of as building more for the amplified sound than the acoustic. Even beyond the feedback issue, some folks really prefer the darker amped sound of the heavier VS the lighter build.
I don't know how this subtle preference could influence Gibson's decisions though. Maybe it's also a matter of ease of build. In a production setting it's easier to over-build as the tolerances are not as tight. More room for error and variation, with less chance of wrecking a part during manufacture.
This is the kind of thing that keeps the small shops in business. Buyer decides what they want.
-
If you want a new 1960's L5 buy a Campellone.
-
Mark's a good builder but apples and oranges.
I've never heard any modern guitar w built in pickups that can touch a good paf Gibson, not even close.
In DB's video, even w/ a reverb heavy sounding amp and less than ideal recording conditions you could tell how great that L5 sounds.
-
Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
Other benefits to Gibson:
-Use of a less well-trained, specialist workforce, which lowers labour costs
-Less time required to complete such instruments, which lowers labour costs.
Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
Could be true from a 1960's Gibson but as the 1960's went forward 10 years Gibson necks got really narrow. Not anywhere I want to go. Try one from 1995 to 2012.
-
What happened in 2012?
-
Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
aside from the aforementioned reasons... much has to do with the wood itself...old wood has had time to completely dry out...new wood has moisture..and if not properly aged before being used the matter is compounded...
it can also be argued that the wood used by luthiers of the past was superior to what's available to most these days...
playing under tension and vibrating also helps
so many brands of guitars are much lighter when vintage, than the new same model...not just gibby
cheers
-
Originally Posted by neatomic
But then, if you are selling an 8k guitar why not make sure your woods are naturally dried for your top models? How hard is it to create a limited supply of woods dried in the open air and use that as a selling point? It only takes some space ...
DB
-
I'm 62 years old and have been playing professionally for over 40 years. I have played so many Gibson's it would make your head spin,LOL!
I've also owned a number of Vintage Gibson's from Archtops to Thinlines,and Les Paul's as well
That said I'm not infatuated with old instruments vs newer ones. And while there are some exceptional older ones, that is not always true.
I think these are tools first and foremost not stock investments for me as a player.
And using that criteria I couldn't disagree more with the OP.
The Crimson Gibson's are probably the finest archtop guitars ever produced by Gibson. Also many luthiers like Mark Campellone produce equally fine Archtops.
I also think you will find most professional use newer instruments for that very reason.
-
in the recent tim lerch/linda manzer guitar thread, linda wrote that some of the wood she uses, she's had aging for 40 years!!!...most big companies cannot afford to sit on lumber that long...if the companies even survive that long!!! it's not good business!
old growth wood was far superior to the majority of what's around these days...
older wood is invariably lighter and better grained...for me that signifies better resonance!
rick kelly of carmine street guitars uses old woods sourced from buildings being demolished in nyc...some of the wood sources back centuries..hard to beat!!! pre pollution, acid rains, black holes, pesticides, etc etc
cheers
-
Originally Posted by neatomic
-
Originally Posted by wintermoon
cheers
-
Like DB, I have played L5CES guitars from the 50s/60s with the thinner plates. I have also owned ES-125 and ES-175 guitars from the period with the thinner plates. These guitars are all wonderful, lively guitars.
This being said, the more heavily built L5CES and ES-175 guitars from the 2000s are _also_ exceptional sounding/playing instruments. Get hold of a 21st century L5, or a comparable period ES-175 and you have an excellent jazz guitar. I like the neck carves on the newer instruments. And, although acoustically these guitars aren't much to write home about, as _electric_ instrument a newer L5 or ES-175 is just super.
Either way, for me.
-
I have two modern built Gibsons, a 2011 L5 Wes and a 2009 Super 400. I have also previously owned a 98 L5 Wes. I can say for sure the 98 was built a bit lighter than the current two guitars, BUT I always had feedback issues in loud settings (like in a bag band) and I used to stuff the F holes so help that. I never used a 60s era Gibson in a live setting so I can't comment.
The current guitars I own, are indeed a heavier build but I have absolutely zero feedback issues with either instrument in any setting. With a wood bridge top to help pull some acoustic properties they are acoustic "enough" but these are really electric guitars and that's how I use them. All this to say that they are built to work exactly how I need them to for my application.
I remember seeing Kenny Burrell the first time around 2000 and seeing his Super 400 with the F holes covered up and thinking, aha I'm not the only one dealing with this! I think if one uses these guitars out in live settings, the heavier build could be more suitable. The amplified sound of either of my two Gibsons is just fantastic and as good as anything I've ever heard (for my needs).
Playing at home or acoustic settings I have other acoustic arch tops that fill that role better.
I have never had the chance to spend serious time with a good 60s Gibson arch top. I would love to do that eventually and gain a better perspective for the vintage builds.
-
Over the weekend I was lucky enough to have a play of a beautiful 1949 Gibson ES-5. I've played newer Gibson archtops but the ES-5 blew them away. I remember playing a new ES-175 and being really disappointed by it, it didn't feel or sound anything like I was expecting it to.
The neck on the ES-5 was surprisingly slim, the laminates used were thinner for sure. It was a bit outside my price range (a huge understatement) but just to have a play of it was a thrill.
All those T-Bone Walker licks sounded particularly authentic too!
-
Originally Posted by Greentone
-
I've read that Heritage archtops are lighter builds compared to the modern Gibsons. Is that what others have found to be true?
-
I have tops and backs in the shop that have been sitting around at least 20 years. They are stable as they come.
-
Gitfiddler,
That's my experience. I got to play several of the late Patrick2's Heritage Super Eagles--and I bought one from him that I really like. Additionally, I used to go into "The Classic Axe" in Manassas, Virginia--a seller of Heritage guitars from the beginning. I played Eagles, Eagle Classics, Golden Eagles, and Johnny Smith "The Rose" guitars.
All of the Heritage instruments had thinner top and back plates (judging from the carve at the f-holes, and from the overall weight) than did Gibson's of similar style and vintage--say, a 1995 Eagle Classic and a 1995 L5CES.
-
Originally Posted by DB's Jazz Guitar Blog
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
kiln drying is not a preferred substitute for natural long term aged drying...just like great meals by master chefs are not prepared in the microwave! hah
cheers
Elias Prinz -- young talent from Munich
Yesterday, 10:24 PM in The Players