Legrand vs L-5c acoustics

[deacon Mark]

I am curious for those who might own one of each or played a number of these guitars which one do you prefer. I am specifically asking about these guitars made during the years they both were made from about 1994 through whenever Gibson stopped making them maybe in around 2015. I am not asking for comparisons from older L5's.

My reason is that to me Gibson did some of it finest work in the 1990's through maybe around 2010ish. Both share share the 25.5 scale length and 1 11/16 necks widths. The body is slightly smaller on the Legrand and possibly a bit thinner I need to take a measurement. I know the Legrand is supposed to be a bit modeled after the Johnny Smith but frankly I don't think of it as a Johnny Smith it just has a different feel and sound completely to me.

[Marty Grass]

The L-5 is bigger.

Before plucking the first note, we are smitten by the style, the finish, and the woods. We can't help it.

The feel of the neck and the vibrations of the body on ours are major parts of the experience.

Finally there is the sound.

Both guitars are over-the-top good.

[jads57]

So here’s my take they both play quite similar if you are comparing similar year models. I’m assuming 1990’s-2015 or there about.

Sure there are minor differences in body sizes,but essentially the LeGrande shares more in common than say an older Johnny Smith due to shorter scale, longer headstock, and possibly neck joint construction. And again depending on year made will affect overall feel.

The main thing for me is the heavier Gibson style builds vs Benedetto thinner plates Style construction.

[vinnyv1k]

I have owned both. Necks are identical except for the split block inlays and abalone on the LeGrande. 17x3 vs 17x 3-3/8. The body length is shorter on the LeGrande. X vs Parallel braced. Both 25.5 scale.
The headstock is the same dimensions except for the inlays.
My LeGrande’s top was carved thin as a potato chip. Bright, very acoustic, and thin sounding IMO. Sounded like a flattop to me.

Now IMO the 2014 L5P was the ultimate floater Gibson archtop.
The Crimson shop went all out on that limited run.

[Hammertone]

The L-5 is bigger.

I have played several of both models from this period. The L-5 models I have played were noticeably bigger to me when handled, and sounded bigger and warmer than the Legrands I have played. All other things being equal, this makes sense, but, of course, all other things are rarely equal, it's simply up to the merits of the individual guitar.

I don't think Gibson made any serious attempt to acoustically voice any of these archtops by tuning the bracing on the top plate, or the recarve on the plates after the boxes were closed. I don't think the Gibson business model for these guitars allowed for time spent to do any of that. None of the guitars I tried would hold a candle to decent acoustic L-5P/C, L-12P/C or L-7P/C guitars of the late 1930s, 1940s or 1950s. None of the guitars I tried hold a candle to the L-7C guitars of 2004-2012 that I have played.

[Crm114]

Deacon Marcus talking about the red L5 that I sold him a few months ago and it is built like an older L5 it has so much thinner back and top it’s an incredibly acoustic instrument and the first thing Deacon did was made a Ebony Bridge for it instead of the tune O-Matic

it’s a lovely piece

[Donplaysguitar]

Are we talking about the L5CES? I had one for 10 years or so.

I have LeGrands now. They probably sound a bit brighter. I prefer them. I don’t need two routed humbuckers, nor a 3 3/8” body depth. The LeGrands are more seductive looking too, although that’s not supposed to matter. But it does. I reach for it more.

[floatingpickup]

So here’s my take they both play quite similar if you are comparing similar year models. I’m assuming 1990’s-2015 or there about.

Sure there are minor differences in body sizes,but essentially the LeGrande shares more in common than say an older Johnny Smith due to shorter scale, longer headstock, and possibly neck joint construction. And again depending on year made will affect overall feel.

The main thing for me is the heavier Gibson style builds vs Benedetto thinner plates Style construction.

I think the Legrand is a very attractive guitar and the few that I have tried felt and sounded great. Although they share the body design and other appointments of the Johnny Smith model, I don’t think the Legrand has the shorter scale and longer headstock like a Johnny Smith. According to Vinny’s post, the neck and headstock dimensions are like an L5. I am not sure about the neck-to-body joint, but I also suspect it is like an L5 rather than the unique joint used on a Johnny Smith. Maybe a Legrand owner can check this and let us know.
Keith

[Hammertone]

Are we talking about the L5CES? I had one for 10 years or so.

No, not talking about the L-5CES. Talking about the L-5C / L-5P - acoustic archtop with optional floating pickup.

[skiboyny]

I think the Legrand is a very attractive guitar and the few that I have tried felt and sounded great. Although they share the body design and other appointments of the Johnny Smith model, I don’t think the Legrand has the shorter scale and longer headstock like a Johnny Smith. According to Vinny’s post, the neck and headstock dimensions are like an L5. I am not sure about the neck-to-body joint, but I also suspect it is like an L5 rather than the unique joint used on a Johnny Smith. Maybe a Legrand owner can check this and let us know.
Keith

Keith is right about the Legrand. The Legrand is a longer scale, most coming in around 25 1/4. It uses the smaller headstock, and a conventional raised fingerboard (like l-5) joint, unlike the Johnny Smith where the fretboard was joined at the top. In terms of sound it does not sound like a Johnny Smith. It doesn't sound like a L-5 either. The L-5 being wider has its very resonate bass, perhaps scooped mids. The Legrand is maybe a bit more balanced in terms of sound. That is not to say it's better or worse. I've heard lots of bright comments about Legrand and I don't feel like the ones I've owned or played fit that description. Bright, is a tough word to use I sometimes think it can be confused with "clarity".

[medblues]

Great info ! Thanks ! I know which L5 I will be hunting for in my 70s :-)

[deacon Mark]

Well I ask the question but did not answer in my own case so here goes. My Legrand has a slightly bigger neck feeling, I would guess some call this a D shape. The L5c has a bit thinner feeling in thickness I would call more a C shape. As I play them more to me they do definitely feel different, however I have no trouble going from one to the other. Neither I would say is better just whatever you like. In this respect I prefer the slightly meatier neck of the Legrand.

The sound is actually quite different. They both have same strings I have used both roundwound and flatwounds so good comparisons. Both of course built especially as acoustic arcthops and that is specific according to original flyer from Gibson on this L5 from 2003. The L5 is much brighter especially in the higher registers of the guitar. In fact one of the brightest guitars I have maybe the most. It is as if the sound is coming from the treble F hole in particular.

The legrand has more lows and in the middle of neck and bass smoother, without the biting sound on the top treble frets 8-15 up the neck. It has bit more lush sound as if that makes any sense. Again like the neck feeling the sound is just what you happen to like. I cannot give an specific edge to either one but inclination is the Legrand. If I am playing some percussive chord-melody then the L5c wins. If I am play in a more relaxed manner the Legrand wins.

Interesting to note neither of these guitars sound like anything else I have in carved tops. The L5c in particular due to the cutting highs. I am not one to look at the top as such and say the thinner tops have something to do with this. No way to tell this without a micrometer and taking measurements all over the top. My Hollenbeck has way thinner top at least looking at the thickness at the f hole. The Hollenbeck is an 18 inch guitar although the waist in pinched more than say a Super 400. The bracing has much to with it I would guess too. An while I am at it the comparison to the Hollenbeck is that it has more power and output, but retains a lush voice. So in the case the luthier wins. However I clearly like feeling of the neck on the Legrand better than the Hollenbeck but not by much.

I don't if this sheds any light but I was curious to those who have played both.

[Greentone]

Playing lots of different archtops, my abiding impression is that archtops of all brands (acoustic) carved since the mid-90s are designed to appeal to players who have more experience in flat top guitars. Thin plates yield a snappier tone.

[Donplaysguitar]

They seem like really different guitars to me. That acoustic L5 is comparatively loud as heck, right?


I love my LeGrands but find them to be too quiet when played unplugged, at least for my taste. That provides me with a great excuse to purchase a sweet amp or three. Amiright or amiright?

[Stringswinger]

They seem like really different guitars to me. That acoustic L5 is comparatively loud as heck, right?


I love my LeGrands but find them to be too quiet when played unplugged, at least for my taste. That provides me with a great excuse to purchase a sweet amp or three. Amiright or amiright?

My impression is that most "acoustic" archtops built since about 1955 are really meant to be plugged in. Volume wise, almost any Selmer style guitar makes them sound "quiet" by comparison. Some luthier made acoustic archtops are meant to be played without being plugged in, but since the days of Jimmy D'Aquisto, these guitars have more of a flattop sound than do the acoustic archtops made from the 1920's until the mid 50's.

I have played Gibson L-5Cs from the 70's that had pretty good volume, but never a newer one. In fact, I view Gibson archtops made past 1980 as electric guitars, even those with floaters. I would not want to play an unamplified gig with one.

I would also bet that if you had three LeGrands and three L-5Cs from recent times, other than a preference for the size and cosmetics, one would be hard pressed to make sweeping tone statements about the two different designs. The Proof is in this thread. Deacon Mark has said that his L-5C is brighter than his LeGrand. Vinny had the opposite experience with his examples of those models.

Every piece of wood is different.

[skiboyny]

My impression is that most "acoustic" archtops built since about 1955 are really meant to be plugged in. Volume wise, almost any Selmer style guitar makes them sound "quiet" by comparison. Some luthier made acoustic archtops are meant to be played without being plugged in, but since the days of Jimmy D'Aquisto, these guitars have more of a flattop sound than do the acoustic archtops made from the 1920's until the mid 50's.

I have played Gibson L-5Cs from the 70's that had pretty good volume, but never a newer one. In fact, I view Gibson archtops made past 1980 as electric guitars, even those with floaters. I would not want to play an unamplified gig with one.

I would also bet that if you had three LeGrands and three L-5Cs from recent times, other than a preference for the size and cosmetics, one would be hard pressed to make sweeping tone statements about the two different designs. The Proof is in this thread. Deacon Mark has said that his L-5C is brighter than his LeGrand. Vinny had the opposite experience with his examples of those models.

Every piece of wood is different.

I have always thought of the L-5 design to be a "bright" guitar, although it is rarely described that way. I really think people are describing the electric sound, when they describe any L-5. I do think side by side there is a tone difference between L-5 and Legrand. When I describe an archtop I tend to think of it's acoustic personality. The electric part changes everything really.

[Christian Miller]

I tried an L5 about five years ago without a pickup of any kind that was completely non resonant. It was like playing an unplugged electric archtop - but once again this thing had no pickups. The neighbouring Eastman was about ten times the acoustic volume.

I was quite shocked, obviously it was nicely made but it was like it was more a piece of furniture than a viable instrument. Not sure what that was about but it was almost like they’d built a (modern) electric L5 and not installed the pickups. Bizarre. Maybe someone with a better knowledge can explain the thinking here… maybe there’s a logic here I can’t see.

most of the Gibson L5s and L7s I’ve played have been from the 60s and earlier, and were wonderfully resonant with a powerful acoustic voice, but then I haven’t played many recent Gibson archtops so, interested to hear more; it’s not an experience I’ve been that interested in repeating (if I bought an L5 I think it would be an old one) but maybe that guitar was a dud.

[deacon Mark]

I tried an L5 about five years ago without a pickup of any kind that was completely non resonant. It was like playing an unplugged electric archtop - but once again this thing had no pickups. The neighbouring Eastman was about ten times the acoustic volume.

I was quite shocked, obviously it was nicely made but it was like it was more a piece of furniture than a viable instrument. Not sure what that was about but it was almost like they’d built a (modern) electric L5 and not installed the pickups. Bizarre. Maybe someone with a better knowledge can explain the thinking here… maybe there’s a logic here I can’t see.

most of the Gibson L5s and L7s I’ve played have been from the 60s and earlier, and were wonderfully resonant with a powerful acoustic voice, but then I haven’t played many recent Gibson archtops so, interested to hear more; it’s not an experience I’ve been that interested in repeating (if I bought an L5 I think it would be an old one) but maybe that guitar was a dud.

It certainly could have been a dud or modified that you did not know, but doubt it. I personally have not played an acoustic archtop L5 that was completely a dud but I have played a few Johnny Smith's that weight a ton and where worthless. That goes entirely against the grain of what Smith wanted in a guitar. Eastman carves some good stuff so your experience speaks for itself. In any one guitar we can find sound if the items line up. Eastman does carve tops and uses nice wood I would expect them to be favorable in most respects they simply are not a Gibson so they do not have the price tag.

If someone is searching for a prime acoustic archtop and not had many or even owned one the best advice is: Don't buy online and go play the guitar. Possible visit someone who has some acoustic archtops that would be willing to allow you to play them.

[jads57]

So I’ve found although specs are important, each builder has slightly different take on the same L-5C or LeGrande guitar.
Probably easier to distinguish Norlin and Hutch Hutchins, and or Phillip Wharton’s builds.

You need to see which builder speaks to your preference. A bit easier with the newer luthiers such as Comins,Buscarino, Campellone, etc. Anyway if the guitar inspires you that’s all that really matters!

[Hammertone]

IIRC, the Legrand is x-braced.
What is the bracing pattern on this L-5C?