The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 49
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    How does this stuff happen? Looks like they wanted to replace the original pickups with humbuckers.

    Gibson L5-S Natural Refin Top/Sunburst Back 1973 (s837) Price | Reverb


  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    Damn, that is not estethically pleasing

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    I wonder if it originally had low impedance pickups. I wonder if they're still around somewhere.
    But hey, if it's still essentially sound and has a good playing vibe, why not? When you find an instrument that inspires you to play something previously unrealized, it can be worth while to take an 'ugly duckling' and give it the TLC to make it truly a keeper.
    I've played L5S guitars, they were very unique instruments, definitely different necks and balance from anything else I'd known. Pat Martino loved them, didn't he? I could see this with a wooden pickup plate, and done well, it could be a real Cinderella at the ball.
    Looks like the price might be approaching the 'fixer upper' category; especially if it's been played a lot and has a played in feel to it. That can be priceless.
    Too bad there's no app that lets you try out a guitar and get the vibe!

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    L5-S Frankenstein-screen-shot-2022-05-15-9-12-51-am-png
    Yeah this is the way many of them originally came. I gotta say the move to humbuckers is understandable. Those low impedance PU's were not the most versatile, nor the richest sounding pickups. They were nice because you could plug them into a board, and at one time that was seen as a plus. You can see the footprint on those pups was huge.
    I'll bet a good luthier could rework that guitar into a real stunner. ' if you had that desire.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    I’d love to restore that one.
    The holes could be patched, then refinish it black.
    Or inlay a new center section of maple on the top. Not easy, but possible.
    Unfortunately, it’s a little too expensive for me to buy as a project.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    He could have had someone fit 2 vertical humbuckers in the original covers. Looks like a diy project that went wrong


    Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    It’s a rare custom shop weight relieved 5 string! You guys just don’t know your Gibson history! Obviously came from the factory that way. Clearly investment grade…

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    I like it the way it is. A truly stupid guitar made stupider. Needs more holes in the tailpiece, though.

    OTOH, seems like a worthy resto-project.
    Remove the center panel from the top, do some chambering, refinish the top, maybe get the weight down to 15 or 16 pounds from its current, what, 20 pounds?

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hammertone
    I like it the way it is. A truly stupid guitar made stupider. Needs more holes in the tailpiece, though.

    OTOH, seems like a worthy resto-project.
    Remove the center panel from the top, do some chambering, refinish the top, maybe get the weight down to 15 or 16 pounds from its current, what, 20 pounds?
    In my younger days, I thought these were pretty cool.

    The seller says it weighs 8 pounds, 8.3 ounces. For me that is pushing it these days but my 25 year old self would not have found that to be a problem in the least. That seems light for an original L-5S. I am guessing that some chambering has already been done.

    I don't know how worthy this guitar is for a full restoration (doing so seems like a sure fire way to lose some money), but I do think it might be a cool player for someone just as it is.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    I'd suggest leaving as is but switching out the pickup rings with pieces made from bird's eye maple or quilted, finished natural like the top. Wouldn't cost much, I'd guess pretty big chambers are under those massive rings already.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    The tailpiece is cracked or partially replaced, or something.

    Looks like somebody didn't like the low impedance pickups and replaced them, very likely with some routing.

    The L5S didn't strike me as noticeably heavier than my Les Paul, if at all. Not unusual for solids of the era, anyway.

    Martino, per one report, played the L5S because it could take the very heavy strings he used. It wasn't a popular guitar, although Paul Simon played it in One Trick Pony and Ron Wood used it. Maybe Boz Scaggs.

    One possible explanation is that the point on the end of the fingerboard meant that the pickup was not under the node, but, instead, further towards the bridge. Maybe people didn't like the sound.

    I stopped playing it because I couldn't get a pure enough tone out of the upper registers of the high E string. I tried everything.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    I love the sound of the low impedance pickups - in my opinion they're very rich sounding but they do have a more hi-fi quality to them compared to a regular humbucker. To my ears they have more in common tonally with something like a DeArmond Dynasonic than a typical humbucker. It's a shame to see guitars where they've been ripped out.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Have you looked at the sunburst back? Completely clashes with the refinished top. That and the pickup mods means I am amazed at the asking price. Not pretty.

  15. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy blue note
    I could see this with a wooden pickup plate, and done well, it could be a real Cinderella at the ball.
    That's a great idea.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    <I'm sure I've posted this before, but the search function refuses to agree>

    I've owned a number of these. The first, with the low-Z pickups was my least favorite, having a really deep and uncomfortable (to me) neck and the bland-sounding (again, to me) pickups. I followed that one up with the next version, with humbuckers and L-5 tailpiece. That had a much more normal Gibson neck and sounded better, too. Of all of them, it was the closest to being a jazz guitar for me. A few years later I got the same thing, except with stop tailpiece.

    About the same time I was driving past a music store in Allston, MA and saw what looked like a dark sunburst L-5S hanging in the window. I hung a u-ey and careened into the parking lot. If you’ve ever driven in the Boston area, you know that this is normal driving around there. The guitar had been slightly modified, with a Kahler tailpiece and locking nut (!!!), and looked like it had been ridden hard and put away wet. It was not at all playable and the store owner had been using it as a window-hanger for awhile. He was glad to sell it to me at a much lower price than on his price tag. It was a mess, but cleaned up nicely, and once I got the tailpiece properly adjusted it turned out to be a great little rock guitar. The extreme arching and raised fretboard worked really well with the Kahler. A few years after I sold this guitar, I saw it listed for sale somewhere, but the Kahler was gone, replaced by a large ebony plug. Not sure it was an improvement.

    <note that with the Kahler it was a much more attractive instrument than the one in the OP>

    The last L-5S I owned was from ’83, a beautiful blonde that was the only one I ever saw without a volute. This was a really nice guitar.

    Which leads into my thoughts on this series of guitars. While Gibson aimed them at jazz players, they tended to more brightness than most jazz players preferred at the time, and overlooked a great virtue, that they were excellent rock instruments. Besides being expensive, they were heavy, which made them tiring to stand with, and super thin, which meant they’d quickly cut off the circulation in your leg if you sat with them for awhile without something to cushion them.

    I was disappointed in the short scale length. Oddly, Gibson’s corporate memory on this seemed to have succumbed to age. When the Ron Wood L-5S came out bearing little resemblance to the originals, I commented to my official contact at Gibson that at least they finally had the right scale length. He told me that they had always been 25.5”. I pointed out that I had owned a number of them, had played several others, and that all were 24.75” and he said they must have been custom orders. Seriously—six or seven guitars from various periods all happened to be custom orders? I pointed out that all the catalogs showed the shorter scale, but he countered that Gibson literature was full of errors—true, but not in this case. When Gibson built my custom ES-355 with L-5 trim in 1994 they used a leftover L-5S fretboard, because a standard L-5 board was too long. No matter, he refused to acknowledge that they had previously used the shorter scale.

    '74:
    L5-S Frankenstein-1973-l-5s-csb-05-jpg

    L5-S Frankenstein-l-5s-csb-1978-jpg

    '78:
    L5-S Frankenstein-l-5s-1978-front-jpg

    '83:
    L5-S Frankenstein-l-5sn-front-2-jpg

    L5-S Frankenstein-l-5sn-rear-jpg

    I have not been able to locate photos of the Kahler version, although I'm sure I must have them somewhere.

    Danny W.

  17. #16
    Aesthetically, the 3-piece top on all but the later ones always bothered me. Grain not even matched well. I owned one from the middle period, 3 piece top, humbuckers, L5 tail. As much as I WANTED to like it, it just felt uncomfortable. (Of course I had a silly Pat Martino crush then.)
    Last edited by Woody Sound; 05-17-2022 at 09:43 PM.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Woody Sound
    Aesthetically, the 3-piece top on all but the later ones always bothered me. Grain not even matched well. I owned one from the middle period, 3 piece top, humbuckers. As much as I WANTED to like it, it just felt uncomfortable. (Of course I had a silly Pat Martino crush then.)
    Can relate to the Martino reference. That early GP cover with PM and his L-5S kind of imprinted me. There was a music store that had one, and I stared at it reverently while my well-heeled pal worked his "This expensive thing I bought on Daddy'c credit card and which I trashed through my ineptitude is now no good and I want a full refund and some other expensive toy to abuse for a couple weeks" routine, which he always got away with. Then I would get out my quarter and buy a pick. This was a once-a-month occurrence. Baffled, I tell ya!

    I still think a weight-relieved L-5S with the L-5 TP would be the coolest thing ever!

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Well, I couldn't resist. I have a weakness for weird old guitars that have been unwisely altered. And I have successfully done similar wood repairs on another old Gibson. So, I know I can get it looking and playing good. The question is...will I like the way it sounds?

    Since the top is 3 piece maple and all three pieces are ugly, it will be refinished black, which will look great, judging from other examples I've seen. I'll leave the back and sides original sunburst, because the thought of scraping all that binding terrifies me.

    I'll report back in a couple of months!
    Last edited by Gilpy; 05-16-2022 at 02:15 PM.

  20. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilpy
    Well, I couldn't resist. I have a weakness for weird old guitars that have been unwisely altered. And I have successfully done similar wood repairs on another old Gibson. So, I know I can get it looking and playing good. The question is...will I like the way it sounds?

    Since the top is 3 piece maple and all three pieces are ugly, it will be refinished black, which will look great, judging from other examples I've seen. I'll leave the back and sides original sunburst, because the thought of scraping all that binding terrifies me.

    I'll report back in a couple of months!
    Awright, go for it!

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilpy
    Well, I couldn't resist. I have a weakness for weird old guitars that have been unwisely altered. And I have successfully done similar wood repairs on another old Gibson. So, I know I can get it looking and playing good. The question is...will I like the way it sounds?

    Since the top is 3 piece maple and all three pieces are ugly, it will be refinished black, which will look great, judging from other examples I've seen. I'll leave the back and sides original sunburst, because the thought of scraping all that binding terrifies me.

    I'll report back in a couple of months!
    Hopefully, with your renovation, this 'ugly duckling' will turn into a swan. Please keep us informed on your project, and good luck.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    The original L5S was 24 3/4. No question about it.

    It was always an odd fact that this guitar was similar to the L5 only in the decoration and tailpiece. It was solid, not hollow, different scale length, different pickups (low impedance, then super humbuckers), different bridge and probably differences I'm overlooking.

    I had two. My first one was around 76, HB with L5 tailpiece. That one had a thick neck. Stolen.

    Next one was about an 84. Had been hanging in Spitzer music in SF for some time. Thinner neck. TP6 tailpiece (which was needed because the tuners weren't that precise). Super HBs (I replaced the neck pu with a 59 reissue, which improved the sound). I preferred the first one, I think because the action felt better with the trapeze. Also, the L5 tailpiece, looks cool.

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    The original L5S was 24 3/4. No question about it.

    It was always an odd fact that this guitar was similar to the L5 only in the decoration and tailpiece. It was solid, not hollow, different scale length, different pickups (low impedance, then super humbuckers), different bridge and probably differences I'm overlooking.

    I had two. My first one was around 76, HB with L5 tailpiece. That one had a thick neck. Stolen.

    Next one was about an 84. Had been hanging in Spitzer music in SF for some time. Thinner neck. TP6 tailpiece (which was needed because the tuners weren't that precise). Super HBs (I replaced the neck pu with a 59 reissue, which improved the sound). I preferred the first one, I think because the action felt better with the trapeze. Also, the L5 tailpiece, looks cool.
    Rick,

    I remember your 76 L-5S. That was a beautiful guitar and if memory serves me, it sounded damn good. That guitar probably had patent stamped humbuckers as I don't remember if they were making the Super-Humbucker just yet. When we played together regularly in 1979, that was the guitar that you mostly used. I was playing a 1970 ES-175D (Cherry Sunburst). I also remember that you had a Les Paul Standard during that time that I thought had a great jazz sound. Sorry to hear that the L-5S was stolen. I hope that Les Paul wasn't stolen as well.....

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Rick,

    I remember your 76 L-5S. That was a beautiful guitar and if memory serves me, it sounded damn good. That guitar probably had patent stamped humbuckers as I don't remember if they were making the Super-Humbucker just yet. When we played together regularly in 1979, that was the guitar that you mostly used. I was playing a 1970 ES-175D (Cherry Sunburst). I also remember that you had a Les Paul Standard during that time that I thought had a great jazz sound. Sorry to hear that the L-5S was stolen. I hope that Les Paul wasn't stolen as well.....
    Thanks for that memory!

    I sold the Les Paul. I honestly can't remember what I was thinking, but it might have been that plinkiness that some guitars have above about the 10th fret on the high E string. That's an issue I've had with multiple guitars and drives me a little batty. I'm not even convinced it's necessarily always the guitar, as opposed to a combination of the guitar's sound and the EQ/voicing of the amp.

    Iirc I liked the L5S at first because I thought it was beautiful to look at and, secondly, because of the ergonomics. I liked the size and the neck. I don't recall any discomfort playing sitting down although, back then, I gigged standing. I don't recall what I thought about the sound -- I don't recall feeling infatuated or critical. I think I just felt it was in the proper ballpark.

    I suspect that you're right about the pickups, because I didn't care for the Super HB on the 84, but I was comfortable with the 76.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Sounds good to me. I always wanted one. Especially since I do a lot of direct recording.


  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilpy
    Well, I couldn't resist…..I'll report back in a couple of months!
    It could just be the resolution on my iPad screen, but the top looks like two of the lines between the new pickup surrounds could be cracks. Is this just a digital photo artifact?