Gibson L-5 Education

[Rickco]

I don't think you'll here much of a difference. The guitar may be 50 years old but the wood is like 300 years old to begin with. People will tell you that the guitar "opens up" over playing time, blah blah blah. I think that's rubbish though and would bet paycheck's that they couldn't hear that difference in a blind test.

Old guitars sound different for myriad reasons, the least of which is because of age. It's not wine.

Again, a 70 year old guitar played today is going to sound the same as it did 70 years ago.

I agree about the "blind" test, but the question Im always left with is how do you account for the effect of strings, picks, fingers, player, setup, room, mood etc. Ive never heard 2 guitars even of the same make sound the same. Thanks to this forum Ive tried a ton of picks strings etc, all with great differences so that any one my guitars can sound like several different guitars. My point is that although the L5s may all have an L5ness about them you couldnt generalize about which one sounds like what without taking the for mentioned into consideration...what do you think? (youz guys)

[ThatRhythmMan]

I don't think you'll here much of a difference. The guitar may be 50 years old but the wood is like 300 years old to begin with. People will tell you that the guitar "opens up" over playing time, blah blah blah. I think that's rubbish though and would bet paycheck's that they couldn't hear that difference in a blind test.

Old guitars sound different for myriad reasons, the least of which is because of age. It's not wine.

Again, a 70 year old guitar played today is going to sound the same as it did 70 years ago.

I would definitely take you up on that bet if you let me be the one to play them. I find that the easiest way to experience a guitar’s resonance. I’ve had no trouble accurately identifying new archtops when others are playing them with no knowledge ahead of time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dconeill]

I ... was wondering if the fine folks here can point me to some resources that explain the evolution in design and construction [of the Gibson L5C]. For example, I'd like to understand the differences between an L5 made in 1949, 1950, 1953, 1957, 1960, etc. ...

Book:
The Gibson L5
by Adrian Ingram
ISBN-10: 1574240471
ISBN-13: 978-1574240474

[Bob65C]

It helps to look at it like this. I don't know your age or how long you plan to own it, but even at 10 grand if you play and enjoy the guitar for 20 years the cost is only a dollar and change per day.

It's $1.37 per day over 20 years for an initial cost of $10,000.00

[pawlowski6132]

I agree about the "blind" test, but the question Im always left with is how do you account for the effect of strings, picks, fingers, player, setup, room, mood etc. Ive never heard 2 guitars even of the same make sound the same. Thanks to this forum Ive tried a ton of picks strings etc, all with great differences so that any one my guitars can sound like several different guitars. My point is that although the L5s may all have an L5ness about them you couldnt generalize about which one sounds like what without taking the for mentioned into consideration...what do you think? (youz guys)

You nailed it and I couldn't agree more. I think, in general, people under estimate the impact on final sound that comes fromall the above, especially, picks, strings, string height from the fretboard and t dont forget; technique.

[pawlowski6132]

I am interested in acquiring a vintage Gibson L5C, and was wondering if the fine folks here can point me to some resources that explain the evolution in design and construction. For example, I'd like to understand the differences between an L5 made in 1949, 1950, 1953, 1957, 1960, etc. There are quite a few for sale right now but the prices are all over the map (ranging from very expensive to crazy expensive). Any suggestions welcome.

Thanks!

Len

I wonder if Len ever got his L5C. I just got one myself (1950) and think I'll keep it for awhile.

I noticed while shopping that it would be great to understand the differences between vintages, but, you have to just take what you can get. In other words, when you're ready to buy, the selection will be whatever's available on the used market at that time. They all sound great and likely similar. My advice is just to narrow down the main type you want (e.g., 16", 17" PostWar, Late model [>60's], etc.) and then see what's available paying more attention to condition. In other words, regardless of the difference between a 1950, 1953 or 1957 (none by the way) you likelly won't have the choice of all three. You'll just have to take (or not at all) what's currently available. Honestly, you can't go wrong.

[ThatRhythmMan]

I wonder if Len ever got his L5C. I just got one myself (1950) and think I'll keep it for awhile.

I noticed while shopping that it would be great to understand the differences between vintages, but, you have to just take what you can get. In other words, when you're ready to buy, the selection will be whatever's available on the used market at that time. They all sound great and likely similar. My advice is just to narrow down the main type you want (e.g., 16", 17" PostWar, Late model [>60's], etc.) and then see what's available paying more attention to condition. In other words, regardless of the difference between a 1950, 1953 or 1957 (none by the way) you likelly won't have the choice of all three. You'll just have to take (or not at all) what's currently available. Honestly, you can't go wrong.

They definitely aren’t all created equally and that’s true of all periods. There are always some that are exceptional, most that are good, and some that are acoustically pretty dead.

Btw, there are some minor differences in specs in 1950 vs builds made after that in the 1950s, mainly fretboard woods. I don’t think the use of Brazilian rosewood vs ebony yields significant changes in tone, but I’m sure others would disagree.

[skykomishone]

.....
Btw, there are some minor differences in specs in 1950 vs builds made after that in the 1950s, mainly fretboard woods. I don’t think the use of Brazilian rosewood vs ebony yields significant changes in tone, but I’m sure others would disagree.

I agree with you.

[pawlowski6132]

I agree with you.

FWIW, my '50 has Ebony fretboard.

[wintermoon]

FWIW, my '50 has Ebony fretboard.

I wouldnt let what's currently on the market affect my choice, I'd be patient and wait until what I really want surfaces. That said I've never seen a '50 w an orig ebony board.
Care to post a pic?

[pawlowski6132]

I wouldnt let what's currently on the market affect my choice, I'd be patient and wait until what I really want surfaces. That said I've never seen a '50 w an orig ebony board.
Care to post a pic?

Hmm, you were the second person to mention that. Maybe I'm wrong. It's the third neck in. First two are rosewood. Last one is '48 400. That would be embarrasing.

[wintermoon]

sure looks like ebony to me but then again the Super should be rosewood but looks like ebony also.
hmm.....

[pawlowski6132]

sure looks like ebony to me but then again the Super should be rosewood but looks like ebony also.
hmm.....

I also believe the 400 to be ebony. Wacky. I guess it's possible these are not original?

[wintermoon]

I also believe the 400 to be ebony. Wacky. I guess it's possible these are not original?

possible, are you sure of the serial numbers/dates?

[pawlowski6132]

possible, are you sure of the serial numbers/dates?

From what I can find online:

400 = A2402 = 1948
L5 = A6437 = 1950

[wintermoon]

those numbers check out, very interesting that you have 2 late 40s early 50s w/ebony.

[TAA]

The current fingerboard wood discussion got my attention.

This is my only guitar, an L-5 C. The FON is from 1951 and the serial # from 1952, so I call it a '51 1/2...ha!

If the fingerboard is rosewood, did it get dyed black? Not 100% sure what this is.

Regards,

Tom

[wintermoon]

Hey there Tom,
There's a chance your L-5 had a new neck installed which would explain why it's an ebony board.
This would also explain why a Johnny Smith pickup was such a tight fit.
I believe this is it.....

1951 Gibson L-5c – TR Crandall Guitars

[pawlowski6132]

Hey there Tom,
There's a chance your L-5 had a new neck installed which would explain why it's an ebony board.
This would also explain why a Johnny Smith pickup was such a tight fit.
I believe this is it.....

1951 Gibson L-5c – TR Crandall Guitars

Wow. What great forensics work. I guess you never know what the complete history is with these old guitars.

Although I can't imagine that Gibson doesn't have repair records. It'd be great if there was a way to put in your serial or FON and find out if the guitar had ever come back to them for anything.

Like Carfax.

[ThatRhythmMan]

Wow. What great forensics work. I guess you never know what the complete history is with these old guitars.

Although I can't imagine that Gibson doesn't have repair records. It'd be great if there was a way to put in your serial or FON and find out if the guitar had ever come back to them for anything.

Like Carfax.

I can easily imagine Gibson not having records of a lot of things. Gibson’s record keeping has been laughable next to a company like Martin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluejaybill]

They definitely aren’t all created equally and that’s true of all periods. There are always some that are exceptional, most that are good, and some that are acoustically pretty dead.

Btw, there are some minor differences in specs in 1950 vs builds made after that in the 1950s, mainly fretboard woods. I don’t think the use of Brazilian rosewood vs ebony yields significant changes in tone, but I’m sure others would disagree.

Maybe not on an L5C, but on other guitars I must heartily disagree. And most definitely on the feel of the neck. Since you can't swap the fingerboards out on a blind test, we may never know. But I definitely see a difference on LP's and ES guitars. For myself, I prefer rosewood fingerboards on solid and thin-line electrics and ebony on acoustics and full depth jazz guitars as well. Ebony is definitely less porous and I'm guessing has a different (harder?) density, but I haven't done a deep dive into that.

[TAA]

George (#43) is correct. That's the ad I saw and eventually bought in April 2022.

The seller's description, as all of you know, can be either incorrect, accurate or intentionally misleading. One of the bumps in the road, when buying without playing or seeing personally, especially something sourced in NYC and shipped to MN. In this case the word "or" is present in the ad, so the seller "appeared" to be unsure.

When I had the Biltoft CC replica pup installed I asked the luthier to carefully examine the neck, asking if it appeared to have been replaced and he said it had not. Not a big deal...I bought it, I have it and I enjoy it!

But I still question the fingerboard material. What is it and if rosewood, were fingerboards dyed black?

Thanks for any help!

Tom

[ThatRhythmMan]

George (#43) is correct. That's the ad I saw and eventually bought in April 2022.

The seller's description, as all of you know, can be either incorrect, accurate or intentionally misleading. One of the bumps in the road, when buying without playing or seeing personally, especially something sourced in NYC and shipped to MN. In this case the word "or" is present in the ad, so the seller "appeared" to be unsure.

When I had the Biltoft CC replica pup installed I asked the luthier to carefully examine the neck, asking if it appeared to have been replaced and he said it had not. Not a big deal...I bought it, I have it and I enjoy it!

But I still question the fingerboard material. What is it and if rosewood, were fingerboards dyed black?

Thanks for any help!

Tom

I think there’s some variation in opinion over when the change back to standard ebony happened from what I’ve seen, but yours seems late enough that it wouldn’t surprise me if it left the factory with ebony. The slimmer neck profile doesn’t bother me that much either. I’ve seen lots of early 50s Gibsons with a neck profile very similar to early 60s profiles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TAA]

Maybe a "deep dive" of sorts.

The subject of wood density can be searched on the interweb. A common unit of measure for density (of almost every solid) is expressed as pounds per cubic foot.

You can find rosewood having a bulk density of 50-55 pcf. Ebony is expressed as approx. 60 pcf. So according to some sources, ebony is slightly “denser” than rosewood. That also might help to explain why these two woods are so difficult to cut, shape, form, etc. I once tried to make a rifle stock out of rosewood. I started but gave up. That wood is really “tough”.

Tom

[brownheron]

This is a really helpful thread. Much appreciated.

Thoughts on the closest thing to a short-scale L-5? I love the tone and aesthetics but the 25.5" doesn't work well for me. Nor do narrow necks as I play exclusively (and poorly) with natural nails.

I recently purchased a very nice ES-165 from another forum member that sounds cool and is sooo easy to play but have always felt the call of the tone/size/look/carved top and history of the L-5.

I'm years deep in M.Campellone's list so someday a custom will be an option but it doesn't seem like there are many 17"ers with a short scale (and preferably a wider neck). And no Gibsons?