Advice regarding archtop purchase

[sgosnell]

I consider the electric guitar a different animal that's only called guitar because it happens to use the same strings and be played in a comparable way.

You can consider whatever you like, but that doesn't make it so for anyone else.

[RJVB]

You can consider whatever you like, but that doesn't make it so for anyone else.

I know (and I may have missed a smiley)... but that doesn't mean there is no truth to the statement. Who was it again who said in what other thread that the amp is really part of the instrument (or something that boiled down to that)?

[Christian Miller]

Electric is different and therein lies the terrible life destroying rabbit hole.

Choose your battles carefully.

[RJVB]

Why would I do battle over this if we agree that "electric is different"

I was going to edit my previous post to add that it's basically off-limits to talk about e-guitar on the Delcamp classical forum (posting videos of them can get you banned even); other types of guitar are perfectly fine (in an appropriate subforum). Not to say I condone this, only that I'm not that alone in my view. Which also doesn't comprise a judgement, btw.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think that it's essential to consider ergonomics. There are things you can't change about a guitar without great expense and questionable results. All the dimensions of the body and neck are primary. Is the guitar comfortable to play?

If it is, than you can consider sound and quality of construction.

If it's to be a guitar you can "grow" with, then versatility would seem to be important. An acoustic archtop is not a particularly versatile instrument. I've never played a jam or gig that I could have done without amplification -- maybe others have. Some people think that practicing and performing should be done with the same guitar; which, in my corner of the music world, would rule out an acoustic archtop.

Electric archtops are some of the best sounding guitars I've ever heard, in the right hands.

If you have a carved top guitar, it may be great acoustically, but it may be more feedback prone. If you then have to dampen the top to reduce feedback, why bother getting a carved guitar?

For quality of construction stick to the name brands and avoid anything without a truss rod.

For sound, recognize that guitarists don't always agree on what sounds good. My experience is that the exact same gear with the exact same settings may sound awful to me at the beginning of the first set and pretty good in the middle of the second set. It's dependent on everything. Your technique, the pick, the guitar, the electronics, the speaker, the room, the other sounds, even your mood, etc etc etc.

My advice is to try all the name brand instruments on your list and pick the one that feels and sounds the best. Oh, and don't leap into a guitar thinking you'll never need to amplify it -- unless you're absolutely sure of that.

[RJVB]

\An acoustic archtop is not a particularly versatile instrument.

Less so than an acoustic (aka steel-string) flattop, according to you? If you ask for the most versatile acoustic (a common question on the AGF) the typical answer is basically "doesn't exist, but ...". And I've come to realise that is quite true, and now more than a few people who gave up and got a classical or a good flamenco for their personal pleasure playing (of different styles all not usually played on such instruments).

I understand the original L5 was a (very) versatile instrument that maybe didn't have an intented audience as limited as later models had? I remember reading that "a good one [L5?] can have sound qualities that are reminiscent of a good classical guitar". My L5-inspired Loar certainly seems much more at ease with different styles to me than my jumbo, even the few classical pieces I currently have in my fingers sound less out of place on it than on the flattop. (Plus there's something in its sound that reminds me of my violin, or maybe rather the viola I played for a while.)

YMMV, and mine might change