PSA - Gibson To Revive Archtop (and Mandolin) Production

[sgosnell]

Bollenback is playing right now at Smalls, using a Benedetto Bambino. It's not a semi, it's fully hollow, but it's just 14.5" and 2.25" deep. There are players still using big full depth archtops, but they're mostly not young.

[jzucker]

No f holes is considered by most to be semihollow

Bollenback is playing right now at Smalls, using a Benedetto Bambino. It's not a semi, it's fully hollow, but it's just 14.5" and 2.25" deep. There are players still using big full depth archtops, but they're mostly not young.

[Marinero]

Please don't tell me you are comparing gibson's commitment to quality with bentley???

Hi, J,
Well, that's two people that didn't get it. Sorry. It's about "brand" and "market." Nothing else. No, I'm not comparing Gibson to Bentley.
Marinero

[jzucker]

Hi, J,
Well, that's two people that didn't get it. Sorry. It's about "brand" and "market." Nothing else. No, I'm not comparing Gibson to Bentley.
Marinero

I did get it, it's just your analogy makes no sense. The reason bentley has the type of branding and reputation they have is supreme quality of the parts, machining, assembly, attention to detail and support. Gibson doesn't have that.

[Marinero]

Yeah ... Just skip a few latte's and they will have that $12,000 L5 in no time


Given how succesfull you are, it really amazes me that you have nothing better to do than be on jazzguitar.be?

Hi, L,
Shaming one for success??? Maybe you should have lived under Comrade Fidel. I think you'd be speaking differently about success. And, you also dictate what people do in their leisure time? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Marinero

[Marinero]

I did get it, it's just your analogy makes no sense. The reason bentley has the type of branding and reputation they have is supreme quality of the parts, machining, assembly, attention to detail and support. Gibson doesn't have that.

Hi, J,
What's the sound of one hand clapping?
Marinero

[jzucker]

The gibson archtop threads are *ALWAYS* the same.

Gibson worshippers who think that as long as there is a gibson logo on the headstock it's an instant classic. Nevermind that the recipes, molds, woods, luthiers that made the classic gibson a "gibson" are long gone. Gibson even admitted this when they came back. They had to re-engineer the original guitars to learn how to make them. At that point, are they any different than the copies other than being legally entitled to use their branding?

I also think some of the chest beating is from people protecting their investments - even if they are unaware that they are doing so.

And then there are the anti-gibson folks. They hate gibson and everything gibson stands for.

Me, i'm a worshipper but of the older instruments. I have rarely played a newer gibson that had the sound of the '60s and '70s gibson archtops I've owned. I know it's subjective and stringswinger loves his recent gibsons. I can't disagree with him because we all have our own tastes. I can only speak for myself.

I'll re-state something I said earlier. When you look at the who's who of jazz guitar in New York - Arguably the mecca of jazz today, few of them are playing archtops and even fewer are playing Gibson. To me, that says a lot.

[Marinero]

No surprise that you're defending the "I'll just pour shit over young people while telling stories of how great we where in my youth" lifestyle

Hi, L,
You need to get some new lines for 2022. Perhaps, those that actually relate to real-life responses to a given subject. Otherwise, people might begin to believe that you're ,really, a rather shallow person. So, let's not derail this thread any longer out of respect for the OP.
Marinero

[jzucker]

hey guys, can you quit with the personal attacks and just stick to the subject?

[sgosnell]

No f holes is considered by most to be semihollow

First time I've ever heard that. To me, semihollow means there is a solid block running through the center. F holes, oval hole, holes with other shapes in other places, whatever, have nothing to do with whether the guitar is hollow or semihollow. The block is what counts. But you can call it whatever you like.

[jzucker]

First time I've ever heard that. To me, semihollow means there is a solid block running through the center. F holes, oval hole, holes with other shapes in other places, whatever, have nothing to do with whether the guitar is hollow or semihollow. The block is what counts. But you can call it whatever you like.

Calling the bambino a full archtop is a stretch. Noone considers that a full archtop. That whole line of products including the el rey, the borys jazz solidbody (which is actually also a full hollow and what Paul played before the benedetto endorsement) are generally *NOT* considered full archtops but you can call it whatever you want.

For this week’s demo video, Howard and Maggie present their spectacular version of “I’ll Remember April.” Howard is playing the Bambino model which is a compact tone machine featuring 14.5? lower bout, 25? scale, 1 11/16? nut width, and dual A-6 pickups. Built using laminated maple and incorporating a small block under the bridge, the Bambino model represents the best amplified performance in our archtop range.

[sgosnell]

I don't even know what "full archtop" means. The Bambino is an archtop, but not as big, or "full-sized" as a 175 or similar. Size has nothing to do with hollow or semihollow, IMO. I don't consider a "small block under the bridge" to be semihollow, but YMMV. Anywho, this isn't worth arguing about, and I really don't know why I let myself get dragged into it. I really should finish all my coffee before I start typing.

[Stringswinger]

The gibson archtop threads are *ALWAYS* the same.

Gibson worshippers who think that as long as there is a gibson logo on the headstock it's an instant classic. Nevermind that the recipes, molds, woods, luthiers that made the classic gibson a "gibson" are long gone. Gibson even admitted this when they came back. They had to re-engineer the original guitars to learn how to make them. At that point, are they any different than the copies other than being legally entitled to use their branding?

I also think some of the chest beating is from people protecting their investments - even if they are unaware that they are doing so.

And then there are the anti-gibson folks. They hate gibson and everything gibson stands for.

Me, i'm a worshipper but of the older instruments. I have rarely played a newer gibson that had the sound of the '60s and '70s gibson archtops I've owned. I know it's subjective and stringswinger loves his recent gibsons. I can't disagree with him because we all have our own tastes. I can only speak for myself.

I'll re-state something I said earlier. When you look at the who's who of jazz guitar in New York - Arguably the mecca of jazz today, few of them are playing archtops and even fewer are playing Gibson. To me, that says a lot.

I am a worshipper, but only of the good Gibsons. I have owned Gibson archtops from the 60's up to 2017 and have played my share of Gibsons from the teens through the 50's. When they get it right, there are none better, but they also get it wrong, and when that happens, they suck. I do think that they have mostly gotten it right way more often than they have gotten it wrong.

There is no doubt that old wood changes things and in a good way. Kind of like wine, the guitars get better with age, And on the flip side, like cars, the old guitars can become repair nightmares.

QAman had told me that George Gruhn thinks the best Gibson era was the 90's. I agree with that. The workmanship was great, the pickups sound great and at this point we have 30 years of aging. Enough aging to sound great, but not so old that they need a total restoration. Of my six Gibson archtops, my 97 175 and my 96 L-5 WESMO would be the last to go.

Regarding young jazz guitarists, I sometimes play with guys in their 20's, 30's and 40's here in San Francisco (and down in Santa Cruz) who favor full archtops. Most do not play Gibsons (too expensive) but some aspire to owning a Gibson. Forum member Gitpicker is in his 40's, makes a living playing jazz guitar and has an L-5 WESMO and a Super 400CES.

The demand for Gibson archtops remains strong, both from well heeled collectors who play at an amateur level and pros of all ages who know what they are doing.

Oh yeah, +1 on dropping the personal attacks. Participation with reason beats participation with anger every time.

[John A.]

I'll re-state something I said earlier. When you look at the who's who of jazz guitar in New York - Arguably the mecca of jazz today, few of them are playing archtops and even fewer are playing Gibson. To me, that says a lot.

I haven't taken a rigorous census, so grains of salt, but in my observation seeing live jazz in NYC for decades instrument choices among guitarists have always been pretty eclectic. In the 50s and 60s it was probably almost all Gibson archtops, but not since then. I have never gotten the sense in the real world that people fetishize brands or guitar configurations the way they do online. I Still do see archtops, but it's a bit of everything brandwise.

[jzucker]

QAman had told me that George Gruhn thinks the best Gibson era was the 90's. I agree with that. The workmanship was great, the pickups sound great and at this point we have 30 years of aging. Enough aging to sound great, but not so old that they need a total restoration. Of my six Gibson archtops, my 97 175 and my 96 L-5 WESMO would be the last to go.

depends on what you mean by better. They may be well made but they don't really sound like their '60s counterparts. Whether that's better or worse is subjective of course. In my experience, i would say that the one thing for sure is that old wood sounds different. To me, better. To others, clearly not the case.

[Stringswinger]

depends on what you mean by better. They may be well made but they don't really sound like their '60s counterparts. Whether that's better or worse is subjective of course. In my experience, i would say that the one thing for sure is that old wood sounds different. To me, better. To others, clearly not the case.

I had my 63 175 at the same time as my 97. Soundwise, they were pretty close. The 63 had a touch more clarity, but I think the unpotted pickups may have contributed to that more than the wood. Both had great necks, albeit different profiles and both weighed about the same.

The 63 needed a lot of work and I was not happy with how it turned out so away she went.

I had a 67 that did not sound as good as my 97.

I like 175's from the early 60's, but sure would not want to pay today's prices to buy one.

[jzucker]

I had my 63 175 at the same time as my 97. Soundwise, they were pretty close. The 63 had a touch more clarity, but I think the unpotted pickups may have contributed to that more than the wood. Both had great necks, albeit different profiles and both weighed about the same.

The 63 needed a lot of work and I was not happy with how it turned out so away she went.

I had a 67 that did not sound as good as my 97.

I like 175's from the early 60's, but sure would not want to pay today's prices to buy one.

I had the opposite experience but again, just personal taste. I found that the '60s guitars and even the '70s and '80s had a smokier, woodier sound than the '90s and '00s ones. But of course, the older ones almost all need a lot of work. I've owned more dogs from those eras than good guitars. I'm sure they were much better when they were new but 40-60 years worth of wood drying and twisting and bending caused all kinds of issues like loose braces, sunken tops, twisted necks, fingerboard tail rises, etc. My favorite guitar - my '63 kessel - suffered from tremendous top sinkage. The bridge riser was adjusted really high. I kind of wondered how many years it would remain playable. Maybe another 10? It had had its fingerboard planed because of a tailrise which in theory should have brought the bridge down a tad so it might have been worse at one time. The one I'm looking at currently at retrofret had its bracing reglued but the bridge riser is really low. Perhaps the bracing fix also flexed the top back into position? Those old ones are a pain and at 64, i'm not sure the difference is worth it.

[skykomishone]

This Gibson thread has gotten longer than a Ken Follett novel. I've finally caught up. It's a good read, mostly. Some rehash, some fact, some fiction, and some hard to separate. Some emotional and passionate, some with desire and hope. Now, I'm going to add my own view.

I love my Gibson archtops and intend to continue to enjoy them for as long as I'm on this earth. If Gibson starts building archtops again, I doubt I'll be in the market for a new one. 6 is enough for me. I love them all. 5 are older than my 45 year old son. I think that I've played at least a hundred or more in my lifetime, and owned a couple others. All of my guitar hero's have played Gibson's at some point in their careers. Each time that I take my '44 L7 out of it's original case, which is nearly every day, I think my heart beats faster and I get a great feeling when I hear that incredible sound. It's magic. I could go on about the others (like the L5P that I bought from Vinny), but the thing is, I love the Gibson guitars. Each one of mine has a story.

Gibson's are history. Virtually any modern guitar on the planet has been influenced by the Gibson company, and I hope that they build archtops again. But, if they don't, the sun will continue to rise, and there are still plenty of archtops out there.

Peace. Enjoy!

[wintermoon]

I'm going to be an outlier here but I only own one modern Gibson ['91] and I pretty much bought that one as an investment. none of the newer ones I've played come close to my 60's models from a sonic standpoint, though I think in many cases they're built just as well. I don't know if it's because they were broken in before they got to me or what, but the newer ones just don't sound as full/thick as the old ones. I suspect it's a combination of old wood being broken in and great sounding pickups.

[Greentone]

I love Gibson archtops. I think that the best model for electric jazz guitar has consistently been the ES175. That said, models from all periods serve well. The best one I ever played was Herb Ellis' factory modified '53 model. But the second best was a '97. My '68 was outstanding too.

For freedom from repair issues I would shop now for a late-90s instrument.

[Archie]

I love Gibson archtops. I think that the best model for electric jazz guitar has consistently been the ES175. That said, models from all periods serve well. The best one I ever played was Herb Ellis' factory modified '53 model. But the second best was a '97. My '68 was outstanding too.

For freedom from repair issues I would shop now for a late-90s instrument.

I've had some great 90's Gibsons. I would consider them a second golden era. They're not problem free and some of the necks are all over the place but generally, they sound very good.

[Doctor Jeff]

Well this thread shouldn't be about Gibson praising or bashing anyway, but about how realistic their stated desire to reissue archtops in 2023 is and what that will look like.

On a slight tangent, I was reading an interview with Rick Wakeman from about 20 years or so ago, when he was talking about an upcoming tour with Keith Emerson. He mentioned how excited he was, in the planning stages, would happen within the next year, etc. As far as I can tell this tour never happened, and he never played on a stage with Emerson.

The point of this is to believe they are making archtops when we see it and can buy one, at whatever price. Til then it's all speculation.

[Archie]

The demand for Gibson archtops remains strong, both from well heeled collectors who play at an amateur level and pros of all ages who know what they are doing.

People who like Gibson, play Gibson.
People who know what they're doing, play Guilds

[Doctor Jeff]

People who like Gibson, play Gibson.
People who know what they're doing, play Guilds

Moderator please move to "Controversial statements" thread...

[dconeill]

People who like Gibson, play Gibson.
People who know what they're doing, play Guilds ...

That would certainly explain why Jim Hall, Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, Kenny Burrell, Wes Montgomery, Barney Kessel, Howard Roberts, and many others played Guilds on the classic recordings from the 1950s and 1960s. Oh, wait ...