Overall archtop advice: new or old?

[MysteryMadman]

Hey guys,

My only guitar at the moment is an Ibanez AF55. I do enjoy it, but I'm thinking of acquiring another guitar maybe later this year.
Now, guitar isn't my priority as I'm an amateur play-at-home guy, so I'll likely focus on a sub 1000€ guitar. Also, I'm quite in love with pure acoustic archtops (or perhaps with a floating pickup).
Given that, one of the options I'm considering is a Loar LH 600, but whenever I open Reverb there are a ton of old acoustic archtops around that look amazing.
So, my question is: As an overall notion, and considering an acoustic, would you say it's better to go for a new guitar (even with the limited offer in this price range) or risk and dig into a 50 year old guitar?
Again, this isn't for gigging, just for home playing fun.

[Gitterbug]

Secondhand guitars are not without risks, especially if you can't check them out before buying. However, new ones are risky, too. Back around 2005, I had to send back two defective Gibson ES-175s before an immaculate third sample arrived. The process lasted months and months. A Korean-made Epiphone Emperor Regent from the 1990s isn't quite 50 years, but they're extremely well made, with an acoustic sound that's improved with age and probably gets even better over time. Despite recent attention to this model, it's still underpriced and likely to appreciate. With a new one, you lose value the moment it's sold to you.

[Half-trick pony]

I try to buy as much used as possible. There is such an abundance of guitars and musical instruments in general out there that I feel it is a waste of resources to buy new. Especially when it comes to ancient designs.
Of course, if you live in a remote area with limited options to try out instruments in person, there is a certain risk.

Cheers, Philipp

EDIT: I should add, that this specifically refers to mass-produced instruments.

[citizenk74]

I try to buy as much used as possible. There is such an abundance of guitars and musical instruments in general out there that I feel it is a waste of resources to buy new. Especially when it comes to ancient designs.
Of course, if you live in a remote area with limited options to try out instruments in person, there is a certain risk.

Cheers, Philipp

EDIT: I should add, that this specifically refers to mass-produced instruments.

[citizenk74]

I tend to buy pre-owned for a few reasons - they are available, they cost less, and they are broken in.

I tend to undercut the affordability part by commissioning new frets and that sort of thing.

On the other hand, sometimes I buy new and hope for the two of us to grow old together, such as my ES-175.

Oops! Already an Old, but I can still put some mileage on my guitars....

[Half-trick pony]

Thanks!

[campusfive]

If you're looking for an acoustic archtop, and you can afford a good example of a vintage (pre-1950), professional-grade Gibson or Epiphone model... do that. They're well made, and you can't get new what 70+ years of age does to a guitar. Of course, ANYTHING used has the possibility of problems, so buyer beware.

(I don't mean to speak ill of the lower end vintage brands (like Harmony or Kay, or the catalog brand Gibsons, like Kalamazoo or Cromwell or Recording King), or lower end models of the big brands (say an L-50 or L-48), but since we're generalizing I think it's a no-brainer than a decent triumph, or L-7 will beat any new production guitar, like the Loars you're suggesting. You might find an exceptional L-50 or something, but it's not going to be the same thing as the bigger/nicer models. Similarly, I suggest pre-1950, because that's about when they stop carving the tops with the same acoustic emphasis at least at Gibson - NY Epiphones (I.e. pre-Gibson buyout) are good all the way through until the sale in 1957).

If you can't afford a good pro-level vintage archtop, try to find a Loar or a non-cutaway Eastman. The same issues as to buying any used gear apply, and when it comes down to whether to just buy a new Loar instead, it really comes down to the market, and what's available used. I think the value/price of a brand-new Loar LH-600 or 700, is totally justifiable. It's just a bummer if you think you could've gotten the same for less price by buying used - but that's going to be more a function of what's on the used supply.

[Doctor Jeff]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the cheapest new hand-carved guitar that's available is the Loar 600. Otherwise I am not sure you can get anything but a laminate top at the price you're offering, even used (except for a flattop or pressed top--see below). So you're picking among laminates--while there are a lot out there, and I'm sure you can find something you like, it's not going to have an incredible acoustic tone like a carved top.

The Godin Jazz comes to mind as a nice guitar with a floater (if you can find one on the used market) at a decent price. You can also put a floater on anything, such as a Godin 5th Avenue (which I did). The newer Epiphone Masterbuilts don't get a lot of love for unplugged tone, but the older laminate archies are often highly considered (Korean production being most desirable).

As far as pressed tops, in this country at least there are a lot of used Harmony/Kay pressed tops that might fit the bill. The post-WW2 models at least might have a truss rod and a decent neck. I lucked into a '64 Brilliant Cutaway in pristine condition, which is kind of my acoustic archtop of choice. I also put an RC 1000 reissue on it so I can amplify it if I want to. There are a ton of them out there and they're pretty cheap, but you have to be careful of the condition especially of the neck.

Finally if you are playing mostly acoustic, think about a good flattop. I am a big fan of Taylors--I think their tone is much more mid-range focused and suitable for jazz than Martins, but even some Martins might work--the OM style for instance. I played a friend's 414 (I think) last week, and it was a sweet guitar in every way. Wanted to bring it home with me.

I didn't really answer your question LOL, but hey why not give you some more ideas?

[rpjazzguitar]

I think about this occasionally. It's when I hear a great sounding archtop and I can't get that sound from my current rig. Of course, the other guy might get a better sound out of my stuff than I do -- which is the problem with this line of reasoning.

That said, my answer to "new or old?" is yes. Either one can make sense, but it's about you and the individual guitar -- which has, to my way of thinking, multiple factors more important than age.

First thing I do when checking out a guitar is put my hand around the neck, even if it's hanging on a wall. If it's too big, I won't bother to play a note.

Then, I check whether it feels comfortable to hold. Still haven't played a note.

Then, I play some high notes. High E above the 10th fret. If they don't sing out clearly I lose interest in the instrument, even though I know that a good setup might solve the problem. I also know that it might not.

At that point, I'll plug it into an amp and check out the sound and learn more about playability by trying different things.

I won't buy it without a return privilege because I know from experience I can't tell enough from trying a guitar in a store.

If I were buying it to play at home only, I'd pay a lot of attention to the acoustic sound.

But, I play out too, so I end up paying attention to the amplified sound, the resistance to feedback and whether I'm willing to risk getting it damaged or stolen. Instruments are made to be used, but I really don't want the experience of having to replace something irreplaceable.

[John A.]

As a generalization, I don't think new vs old can be resolved. There are good and bad instances of both (and subjective definitions of good and bad). But for the specific thing the OP is looking for (an acoustic archtop at a fairly low price point), Loar is pretty much the only option in the new market. If you want to be able to choose from a range of more than that, you have to consider used instruments.

John

[ThatRhythmMan]

If you're looking for an acoustic archtop, and you can afford a good example of a vintage (pre-1950), professional-grade Gibson or Epiphone model... do that. They're well made, and you can't get new what 70+ years of age does to a guitar. Of course, ANYTHING used has the possibility of problems, so buyer beware.

(I don't mean to speak ill of the lower end vintage brands (like Harmony or Kay, or the catalog brand Gibsons, like Kalamazoo or Cromwell or Recording King), or lower end models of the big brands (say an L-50 or L-48), but since we're generalizing I think it's a no-brainer than a decent triumph, or L-7 will beat any new production guitar, like the Loars you're suggesting. You might find an exceptional L-50 or something, but it's not going to be the same thing as the bigger/nicer models. Similarly, I suggest pre-1950, because that's about when they stop carving the tops with the same acoustic emphasis at least at Gibson - NY Epiphones (I.e. pre-Gibson buyout) are good all the way through until the sale in 1957).

If you can't afford a good pro-level vintage archtop, try to find a Loar or a non-cutaway Eastman. The same issues as to buying any used gear apply, and when it comes down to whether to just buy a new Loar instead, it really comes down to the market, and what's available used. I think the value/price of a brand-new Loar LH-600 or 700, is totally justifiable. It's just a bummer if you think you could've gotten the same for less price by buying used - but that's going to be more a function of what's on the used supply.

+1

The pre-Gibson NY Epiphone sentence is one to definitely note because, while still above your suggested budget, is where the most value can be had. Even a lower end Epiphone with a carved top van be an excellent acoustic guitar.

[citizenk74]

+1

The pre-Gibson NY Epiphone sentence is one to definitely note because, while still above your suggested budget, is where the most value can be had. Even a lower end Epiphone with a carved top van be an excellent acoustic guitar.

My '45 Zenith has a hella nice bark to it.

Once agin, I should mention that with an acoustic archtop, what the player hears from behind the projection mechanism is only a fraction of its actual sound. Try playing facing a corner, or have a trusted friend play it 15 feet away. It's a whole different experience!

[MysteryMadman]

Alright, it seems like I have a lot to digest here

Thank you all for the input, it seems to me clear that, on my price range it's Loar for new, or a lot of used options.
Unfortunately in my case, there's barely any archtop market here (Portugal), so the used ones will most certainly be internet buys without any chance to try.

It's a matter I'll have to ponder about, but as I'm not buying a guitar overnight there's plenty of time to investigate till I make a decision.

Again, thank you all for the input!

Sent from my M2004J19C using Tapatalk

[neatomic]

the loar is probably the best/if not only, solid wood non cutaway production acoustic archtop out there these days...not many choices...

having said that, there are many vintage guitars that would blow it away

but you can only take what you can get!

luck

cheers

[wintermoon]

Another vote for a low line carved top Epi, just save your pennies, er, euros.