-
I am a long time flat top player who is pretty well versed in the structural differences in flat tops over periods of time. I know what I like from decades of experimentation (and losing money...lol) that I like golden-era bracing over straight bracing, for example.
Have archtops undergone similar transformation?
For example, using the following guitars as semi-random samples, are the bracing or other structural differences which have impacted the AT through the years.
'39 Super 400 Gibson Super 400 1939 Sunburst | Liquori Archtop Collection | Reverb
'50 Super 400 1950 Gibson Super 400C – TR Crandall Guitars
'63 Super 400 Gibson Super 400C 1963 | O DiBella Music | Reverb
I could have posted three L-5C models for the same purpose, and figure they are probably structurally similar.
Certainly, any potential changes could be at any other year. I'm pretty much starting in square one in the AT world, and thinking maybe I can apply some structural logistics to funnel more quickly in a direction.
If there are any threads or sources, I have no problem doing the long read on the subject.
Thanks.
-
12-11-2021 10:18 PM
-
Short answer: Yes.
Originally Posted by Calimento
Long answer: To come. I look forward to lots of interesting discussion on this thread about the structural evolution of the archtop guitar.
-
Welcome aboard !
In case your interest goes specifically to the evolution of the Super-400 models then I urge you get a copy of this book :
"The Gibson Super 400" book by Thomas Van Hoose | Van Hoose Vintage
Dr. Tom Van Hoose tells the complete history of this model in astounding detail and you'll learn a great deal about some other
"contemporaries" as well. All fact, no bs, highly recommended.
In my own perception the archtop guitar has taken some major steps forward in the past 30/35 years, starting when luthiers like the late James D'Aquisto (80's), Bob Benedetto (90's), John Zeidler, Tom Ribekke and others began to break out of the molds that were set in the late 20's and early 30's by Gibson and Epiphone and John D'Angelico. The guitar evolved from a mostly loud and brash sounding rhythm driver (ok, the early Loar L5 models are an exception) into a full fledged solo instrument with a balanced tone, easy playability that in the hands of an experienced player/musician is capable of covering pretty much all the bases that an acoustic guitar is generally used for. Today you have luthiers like
Ken Parker - to name but one - who are constantly pushing the the boundaries out further... tbc
-
This should be fun.
-
There are archtops that Gibson made that have parallel bracing and then some went to a cross bracing. Gibson Johnny Smiths always have a cross brace per the specs Johnny wantd. Other guitars can vary with the wind. My 1937 D'angelico New Yorker has 2 parallel braces on each side of top but also has 2 small parallel braces in the opposite direction in the upper and lower bout area by tailpiece and neck block. Somewhat like a box brace but they don't touch each other and are spaced a pretty good distance. This is known on some early D'angelico's. My 1949 New Yorker has the cross braces that conform to similar guitars like a Gibson. These 2 guitars sound quite different but do have what I call the D'angelico sound. The 49 has a much deeper bass and tends to really stand out in the middle registers of the guitar. The 37 is brighter and the treble end stand out more. In both case these guitars can be played soft or very hard and percussive ( aggressive) and the guitars respond well.
Some archtops that are built heavy will not respond well when played softly they need aggressive touch to get the sound out. I see this in some Epiphones. Stromberg used a single traverse brace that ran from the upper bout diagonally to the lower bout. It went from the bass side of the top to the lower f hole on the treble side. Stromberg's are loud and can have beautiful voice but some only responded best when played pretty forcefully for rhythm.
As important as the bracing is so is the thickness of the top. A thicker top is way different than a thin one for sound. The graduating pattern of the top also very important. It is an art and a science. Even the size of the f holes have much to do with how the sound gets out. Individual makers have a much better time with these parameters because they are not on a assembly line making catalog guitars. Gibson did different things in different time periods. In the end I really believe that it is best judge guitars as they are only broad generalizations can be made.
Generally lighter built guitars have an edge but some of the best sounding guitars are heavier. Super 400s with the metal tailpieces, D'a, and Stromberg's are not the lightest built guitars for sure but they are the standard. Modern makers tend to build guitars a bit lighter, and builders that have the most respect for sound and performance don't make heavy archtops that are boat anchors.
Bottom line is bracing is but one part of the equation, and what part is hard to determine. To me it is like a great beer: Is it the hops? The malt? The water? The yeast? The process and home court? Yes but which one? Well you got to just drink the final product and let it be a mystery.
-
Great stuff. Thank you.
Are there any lengthy threads on this forum where the changes have been listed or discussed on chronological order? I'd be essentially looking for the geek discussion on Gibsons and D'Angelicos. I'd be looking for date ranges where I can group years together to say a certain range would be fairly similar to others in that specific range. This is a topic addressed in depth on a certain flat top forum of which I am a member.
In the end...I gotta play them. But, since I have to have them shipped (which isn't free), I'm trying to eliminate redundancy.
-
Originally Posted by Calimento
If you are trying to narrow down the type/model archtop which you think is right for you then there is NO substitute for playing and hearing each one, up close and personal.
I had an ear-opening experience many years ago on a trip to NYC and the nice folks at Mandolin Bros./Staten Island let me have at it in their upstairs quarters where they left me alone
for a couple of hours in the elite company of several D'Angelico, Stromberg, Zeidler, Benedetto, 20's/30's L-5, pre-war Martin guitars .... this filled in many gaps in my knowledge and perception of what a good archtop guitar can be and what it is not. For instance : there was one early 60's D'Angelico New Yorker that belonged to Kenny Burrell and that guitar had the sweetest electric tone (via it's DeArmond 1100 pickup) whereas the Zeidler guitar was the clear winner - for me - in acoustic tone, response and projection.
For those interested in the historic side of things there is the afore mentioned book by Tom Van Hoose, "Epiphone, The complete History" by Walter Carter, "Guitar Heroes/Legendary Craftsmen from Italy to New York" / Metropolitan Museum of Art NYC, "The Guitar Book" by Tom Wheeler, "Archtop Guitars" by Rudy Pensa.
-
This website is the go-to for information regarding early Gibson L-5 archtops:
https://prewargibsonl-5.com
This Epiphone book is VASTLY superior to the Walter Carter Epiphone book:
Epiphone: The House of Stathopoulo
by Jim Fisch and L. B. Fred
Amsco Music; 1st Edition (March 1, 1997)
https://www.amazon.com/Epiphone-Hous.../dp/0825614538
-
To (over) simplify things dramatically, in mid ‘39 Gibson went to latter bracing from x and except for being forced by Johnny smith for his model, never looked back.
X has a sweeter tone generally, latter seems to be more hard and pokey.
also the smaller f holes on the earlier gibsons lends itself to more bass, helping even out the response.
the later larger f, latter braced acoustic gibsons sound more hard wit more emphasis on the upper mids. ‘Tooth breakers’ as a luthier friend of mine called them.
my favorite gibsons are the small f hole x braced, like my ‘38 L-12.
-
Originally Posted by Calimento
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos