-
There's a guitar that was never really on my radar. People say that Epiphone was suffering in quality in the post-war period until they were bought by Gibson. Additionally, it's common knowledge that cutaway guitars don't sound as good as non-cut guitars. However, I've been blown away by every 50's Epiphone Regent I've played. Once, I was at TR Crandall just hanging out and chatting with Adam Rogers who happened to be there - I picked up a regent they had played a bit. We were both surprised it sounded so freaking good. Just a few weeks ago when I was dropping off a guitar at Gryphon, they had a Triumph Regent from 53. It was insanely loud, easily one of the loudest guitars I've ever played. It had electric strings and a Johnny Smith pickup, but even with that setup, I think it was louder than any of my guitars. I played a 60's Gibson made one recently that wasn't as loud but still was impressive.
What gives? Have others had similar experience? Did Epiphone just knock it out of the park with these models?
-
04-07-2022 12:38 PM
-
Beats me, but my 1950 Devon (one step down from the Triumph) is a fabulous guitar, even if it isn’t a Regent. Don’t forget these guitars have been played for sixty or more years, and that can only help. I’ll also postulate that, unlike Gibson, the carves may never have switched to electric carves, even in the acoustics. But what do I know.
Steven
-
Back when dirt was new and I was a 14 year old, my teacher had a mid 50's L-7C and a Epi Deluxe non-cut from the 40's. He always chose to play his Deluxe. It was a remarkable sounding guitar-and that sound stayed with me, I can still hear it in my head.
Fast forward to the 90's I bought a '49 Triumph Cutaway from Norm. Epiphone hadn't started using the "Regent" handle for the cutaway models, so the label simply read "Cutaway". I loved that guitar so much, it was wonderful. I think there is a photo of it in Norm's Rare Guitar book. I let go of it in a trade for a Parker Fly Artist that Fred Walecki had, I was a longtime customer and needed the Parker to make a living at the time. Regrets.
I obtained this 53 Triumph Regent a few years ago. I adore it. It's my primary practice and teaching guitar. Some folks don't like the V shaped neck from this era, however it's not an issue for me. It has no pickup, no plans for one. My performing guitar is a 1990 Benedetto Cremona w/a floating Bartolini pu, but I've used the Epi on many, many intimate and small venue gigs with just a mic in front of it.
It's a loud instrument, many players argue that the Gibson L-7C, it's main competitor back in the day, has a more "refined" tone.
I love the Epi bark!
-
This ‘53 Broadway I sold a while back wasn’t among the loudest guitars I’ve played, but it was certainly very nice.
-
Epiphone Epihones are simply great guitars. And they do project! My '45 Zenith was the lowest in the line, but still speaks with authority and grace.
-
I think there is something to the theory that Epiphone still had acoustic instruments in mind when they made their electrics. My 1951 Epiphone Zephyr Regent is the loudest archtop I have played. It's louder than similar vintage Gibson 175s and I remember an owner of an L7 looked at my guitar funny wondering if it was carved or laminate.
-
I have always preferred Gibson's over Epi's but they do deliver a type of sound that can cut and work better for some styles. I think those made in the 30's and 40's give Gibson a real run for the money. One should best evaluate them side by side to get the perfect answer. To me Epi's seem to get the sound out of the box faster and I think because of the shape, carving, and f holes. Gibson's tend to be a little less on the initial attack. That makes sense to me based on Omp's recording he has done that an Epi might in fact be better for his style.
The issue now is that at my age and based on the market and down the road I would rather put my money into a Gibson of any type first. I must admit I have not played a huge Epiphone Emperor in a long time. I tend to like guitars that are pretty even and some are and some are not, but they do command sound most of the time.
-
This Triumph Regent and L-7c are both from 1949.
My take on the sound difference is similar to some of the descriptions posted here.
The Triumph is more forward on the attack than the L-7c and to me as the player, more overall volume.
The wire strings ring like bells all the way up the neck, and overall it has a very even fundamental tone.
One thing I noticed is that its has a very thin top carve at the f-holes....more than any Gibson or pre-war Epiphone I've ever seen or played.
I don't have the tools to measure the overall top thickness and gradiation.
My '47 Spartan has an even thinner top measured at the f-holes.
Its not fair to compare the Triumph to my L-7c, since it's been set up for years with electric strings to use with the McCarty.
But played acoustically it has more low end content (not volume) on the bass side and more "string sound" in the trebles.
Quite a nice balance all together. Not quite as strident acoustically....maybe more "sophisticated" for want of a better word.
Here's another pic with the '47 Spartan....also a very lively and fun guitar to play.
Last edited by zizala; 04-08-2022 at 08:41 AM.
-
Last year, I did a major restoration of a '49 Triumph 'Cutaway', for the owner: he had purchased the guitar 25 years ago, in a dismantled state(neck off; back off; neck block removed. All done very carefully, by the late previous owner, a repairman. My task was to make and fit a new neck block, and reassemble and setup the instrument.
Right from the first chord, after stringing it up, it had to be one of the loudest Epis I've had the pleasure to play. Commanding! Excellent tone as well. So I agree with the OP, these are special instruments. As to why they sound so good...
-
Don't discount the age of the wood. Wood hardens as it ages. 100 year old pine can be so hard you can't drive a nail into it with a hammer. Several years ago down in Galveston they decided to demo an old wooden building on the airport. Pulled up a winch truck, ran the cable in one window and out another, and fired up the winch, intending to pull the building apart. The front end of the truck went up about 30 degrees, and there were shallow dents in the window frames. They had to take it apart board by board, over a few days. The wood was incredibly hard. Same thing happens to guitars, the wood gets hard over decades, and I suspect that modifies the sound. But the exact details of why Epis sound different is something I can't readily explain.
-
What Gives,?
There was a period of time when Gibson was closing in on Epiphone. Epiphone, like Gibson, had some awesome luthiers and inventory of the best wood on the planet. Epiphone, sensing the end was near, began a serious utilization of this inventory.
Anyway, that's what I've been told, and experienced this on at least one occasion with guitars from that period, by one of the best luthiers in my neighborhood for vintage Gibson's and Epiphone's at the time.
-
It's important to distinguish between the folks who own companies and those who work there. In the case of Epiphone, the owners were utter idjits in their post-war behaviour, while those making carved archtop guitars were not. Same thing happened at Gibson after Henry's brain rotted out - no shortage of gorgeous guitar came out of the Custom Shop.
Originally Posted by skykomishone
Last edited by Hammertone; 04-10-2022 at 01:58 PM.
-
I have, among other archtops, Gibson L-4CES (maple/spruce), L-4 CES single pickup (mahogany/spruce), ES-165 embedded, ES-165 floater, L-5 Wes, GIbson 17" Solid Formed, Gibson Super 4000 Chet, Guild Artist Award, Guild-Benedetto Johnny Smith-signed Artist Award, D'Aquisto Fender Custom Shop Deluxe, Gibson L-5CT Acoustic (with DeArmond floater), etc., and a 1951 Epiphone Emperor Regent Acoustic 18-1/2" lower bout beast. All the archtops listed are loved. Not to be a slight to any of the others, the 1951 Epiphone Emperor Regent Acoustic is the single most engaging guitar I've encountered or owned in currently 57 years of owning guitars, and counting, -Phil
-
I have this one looking for a new home in my shop.
1953 Epiphone Zephyr Deluxe Regent - Natural | thatrhythmman
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Common knowledge isn't mutually exclusive with common misconception. Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
The consensus in all discussions I've seen on this topic on forums that focus on acoustic instruments is that there is no evidence of cut guitars systematically not sounding as good or as loud as non-cut guitars. To our ears, that is, of course, and for all practical purposes.
The cut part of the top has very little role in producing sound (non at all in the vast majority of classicals, even), and the reduction of internal volume is probably relevant only in smallish thinline instruments.
There are of course people who listen with their eyes, and among those the ones who don't like the look of cut guitars will probably also not like their sound
-
A recurring theme here is the loudness of '50s Epiphones. It's certainly true for my '51 Emperor Regent. But not unique to Epiphone. My two loudest archtops are that 1951 Epi Emp and my 2001 Gibson Super 4000 Chet, which has a fat humbucker floater on it. They are about equally loud, acoustically and I mean startlingly loud as well as equally sensitive. Great dynamic range, different lutheries and eras but the Epi is 18-1/2" across the lower bout, and the Super 4000 is 18". Interestingly, the Super 4000 is a reduced-depth body per Atkins' preference, but you'd never know it by hearing it played acoustically. My '51 Epi Emp was a performer's guitar in the past, so it got played-in early and that never stopped, plus the wood is probably over 80 years old. I have no idea how these guitars sounded new. The Super 4000, on the other hand came to me fairly near to its birth with very little playing time on it, and it was obviously exceptionally loud right out of the box. Both these guitars bark, but from different throats. The Gibson is the brighter of the two.
Right behind those two, in loudness, is the Guild-Benedetto Johnny Smith Award from 2002. It's very noticeably louder than my 1994 Guild Artist Award, making good on Benedetto's renovation of the Artist Award's architecture & composition. Those two guitars look and feel virtually the same but sound completely different. The G-B JSA seriously competes with the Epi and the Gibson above, in loudness, despite having a lower bout dimension of only 17".
Then, less relevant but while I'm on the subject, almost shoulder-to-shoulder with the G-B JSA in terms of loudness is my Gibson L-5CT Acoustic (which I got from ThatRhythmMan), also a reduced-depth body guitar you'd never guess such from hearing it. In fact, the L-5CT Acoustic (which is the name on the label -- it was built to be acoustic) is notably louder than my L-5 Wes (played-acoustically), which I suppose makes sense as the Wes was built to be electric. All three of the Gibsons mentioned here are Hutch-era and made within months of each other.
Circling back to the topic, my observation is that this Epi-Gibson-Guild cluster of my guitars ranked for loudness is a very tight ranking. The Epi tops the list but not by enough to say there's something unique to '50s Epiphone archtops for which loudness is the indicator. I think something about the build and tuning by the Epiphone '50s lutherie (and maybe their available wood) gave these guitars an exceptionally expressive and tone-dense acoustic voice. My Guild, Gibson and Epiphone archtops are of course voiced differently from each other by their makers. Just as some singers are heard more from the throat and others from the body, it strikes me that Epi's of the era definitely sang (still sing) from the body, and the rest somewhat less so. Having floaters, once they are plugged in, however, pickups and amps become deterministic tonally.
Phil
-
About 2y back I considering buying a Slaman Dome nylon string archtop, and trying to get an estimate how they'd stand up to a regular classical in terms of volume and dynamic range. They're almost all thinline instruments that don't even have an arched back to add some volume. I asked about that on an acoustic or classical guitar forum and was told that there is apparently no clear, systematic link between how body depth and maximum loudness. Originally Posted by 213Cobra
However, the Gibson's reduced depth could well explain its brighter voice.
-
From my admittedly somewhat limited experience, I don't believe that depth has much effect on volume, if any. It does affect bass response, but that is not the same thing as volume. One of the loudest guitars I've played was an Eastman T145, 1.75" deep. There was very little bass in the sound, but it was loud. I've since regretted selling it, but it's too late to cry.
-
Steve Jordan played acoustic swing rhythm guitar on an L-5 thinline. Thin guitars can be loud. My GB10 is surprisingly loud acoustically, too.
-
Yeah, I agree there's no clear or no firm correlation between body depth and guitar loudness -- it's more a function of the dynamic range of the top but side structure can influence that, and an archback introduces focus that a flat back doesn't match. As for brightness, the L-5CT Acoustic doesn't have the brightness that the Super 4000 has, yet both are carved back maple bodies with solid maple sides underneath their carved spruce tops and Gibson on the headstocks. There are many variables between even similarly conceived guitars. -Phil Originally Posted by RJVB
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos