Gibson "Modern Archtop" -- when was this available?

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I only noticed this guitar just now: Modern Archtop



15" body, 25.5" scale length, Richlite fretboard. Clean lines! What do you think?

I see one on Reverb ("excellent" condition, 2018 model) for $3K

EDIT: found a thread (generally dismissive) from 2018. I guess it came and went quickly. Gibson Custom Shop Modern Archtop Argentine Gray!

[Lobomov]

EDIT: found a thread (generally dismissive) from 2018. I guess it came and went quickly. Gibson Custom Shop Modern Archtop Argentine Gray!

Yes .. That thread is what I instantly thought of when I your post. It was a small run, can't recall if it was 50 of each color or 50 in total? ... Something like that .. 2018 sound about right

[Woody Sound]

They pop up on reverb once in a while.

Gibson Modern Archtop 2018 | Dave's Guitar Shop | Reverb

Reverb

The consensus here was that they were ok, but overpriced. (It IS a Gibson, after all...) I am probably one of the few here who really like the design, but needing a few basic cosmetic upgrades. Nicer tail, different pickguard, etc.

[John A.]

I only noticed this guitar just now: Modern Archtop



15" body, 25.5" scale length, Richlite fretboard. Clean lines! What do you think?

I see one on Reverb ("excellent" condition, 2018 model) for $3K

EDIT: found a thread (generally dismissive) from 2018. I guess it came and went quickly. Gibson Custom Shop Modern Archtop Argentine Gray!

I guess I'll be the lone contrarian ("who was that masked man ...?"). I like the way it looks, and I like the concept/specs. I'd have to try one out to know if it actually is any good, though, so can't comment on whether it works as a musical instrument. But the price? It sort of looks like a $1500 guitar to me. OK, carved top + US manufacture means it probably has to be more, but still ... If I had some spare cash and really wanted/needed a smaller bodied archtop I might make a very low-ball offer. But there are an awful lot of really nice used archtop guitars that cost $3k or less and would have much less resale risk.

John

[Doctor Jeff]

Quite reminiscent of my 135. I like an understated guitar as well.

But I agree not worth more than $1000-1500.

Also, to be contrarian, I don’t see the point of carving the top on a thinner guitar like this if you’re gonna sink humbuckers in there.

[lammie200]

I believe that it is a routed tub design. The back and sides are monolithic. Not saying that is good or bad, but it isn’t the standard acoustic archtop design.

[Cunamara]

What a ginormous waste of wood.

[feet]

Well, at least the finish is nice. But if you change the headstock, the inlays, the f holes, the pickguard and the tail piece, you might have something.

[cmajor9]

It looks like what it’s called... a modern archtop. Similar construction to the Pat Martino and ES-446s models. I’d like to hear it the hands of some contemporary players.

[Woody Sound]

It looks like what it’s called... a modern archtop. Similar construction to the Pat Martino and ES-446s models.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with that build method. It is what it is, not really an "acoustic" archtop. And the PM model normally goes for more. Quite a stodgy bunch here.

[lammie200]

It looks like what it’s called... a modern archtop. Similar construction to the Pat Martino and ES-446s models. I’d like to hear it the hands of some contemporary players.

Except that I think it is fully hollow as opposed to semi-hollow. It also doesn't have any rear routes which I think is a nice touch.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

This guitar also has a 25 1/2" scale, while the Gibson Pat Martino is 24 3/4".

[deacon Mark]

I have mentioned this before but it deserves being mentioned again. I true ugly guitar!

[Woody Sound]

I have mentioned this before but it deserves being mentioned again. I true ugly guitar!

As they say, beauty is in the eye.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I have mentioned this before but it deserves being mentioned again. I true ugly guitar!

I like some things about it, but checklist time!

1. A couple things look "cheap" for a Custom Shop guitar, even if it was a "test balloon" run. For example, the trapeze tailpiece looks cheap. I would swap it for the simpler ES-175 tailpiece -- the one that doesn't have the wiggly wire at the sides:



2. The headstock also looks cheap for a $5K guitar -- no binding?

3. I can't make my mind up about the pickguard. I removed the one on my 335 because it was in the way, so maybe this would face the same fate. I'd like a dark tort one in a nicer shape.

4. The f-holes -- again, the look a little lost, a little cheap.

5. Fretboard inlay -- fine with me, but I'm a fan of no inlay.

6. Richlite fingerboard -- I've read good things about it, so I'm not opposed, especially if this was less expensive guitar.

Just spitballin'...

What I'd really love is a love child of an L-5 and a Tele:

* 25 1/2" scale
* chunky neck, in contour and a 1 3/4" nut
* small body -- 15: wide and 2" deep.
* laminated -- I agree that a carved top is not so important with a small body and mounted pups.

The El Rey comes the closest of the guitars I know, but it's not a Tele neck.

[Woody Sound]

Well, at least the finish is nice. But if you change the headstock, the inlays, the f holes,

F-holes sorta similar to Ribbecke and Moll, but more understated.

[citizenk74]

I could live with the design - my only quibble, really is the fretboard inlay and now you mention it the tailpiece, I just think it's over-priced. fortunately, my buying days are done, so I'll lose little, if any, sleep over this. Sadly, a missed opportunity for G to raise more interest in archtops. IMHO.

[paul s.]

Has anyone here actually played one?

[Woody Sound]

2. The headstock also looks cheap for a $5K guitar -- no binding?

Sorta like this one?:

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Sorta like this one?:

I like straight-pull headstocks, but yeah. Thumbs up on the pick guard, however!

[Eck]

Gibson design some sexy mothers-I was infatuated with the es-235. But build quality is probably not on par with a Mexican Tele.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DRS]

I guess I'll be the lone contrarian ("who was that masked man ...?"). I like the way it looks, and I like the concept/specs. I'd have to try one out to know if it actually is any good, though, so can't comment on whether it works as a musical instrument. But the price? It sort of looks like a $1500 guitar to me. OK, carved top + US manufacture means it probably has to be more, but still ... If I had some spare cash and really wanted/needed a smaller bodied archtop I might make a very low-ball offer. But there are an awful lot of really nice used archtop guitars that cost $3k or less and would have much less resale risk.

John

I think it is a very attractive guitar.
I probably would not pay what they go for up here.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I think it is a very attractive guitar.
I probably would not pay what they go for up here.

Yes, it looks like it would be better as a budget design -- go laminate instead of carved, no neck binding or inlay, maybe a cheaper finish.

[Doctor Jeff]

Gibson design some sexy mothers-I was infatuated with the es-235. But build quality is probably not on par with a Mexican Tele.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would you say that? Teles are well made...but from every one I've seen and read about the 235 and MA are impeccably made. Lack of quality isn't the issue here, IMO, just the cost. The Tele is certainly more bang for the buck.

Yes, it looks like it would be better as a budget design -- go laminate instead of carved, no neck binding or inlay, maybe a cheaper finish.

LOL you're describing the 175 (with a balsa block of course). My contention exactly...though with modern CNC techniques a carved top shouldn't be a huge increase in price compared to a laminate (recognizing a good billet does cost a fair amount, but rarely $3000 or so).

[Lobomov]

LOL you're describing the 175 (with a balsa block of course).

So kinda my old Howard Roberts Fusion III?