-
I had a chance to play a 1934 Gibson L-7 yesterday. I think it's an L-7, though the headstock and fret inlays don't exactly match most L-7s I see online. I live in a bit of a desert for guitars like this. This is the kind of thing I have been looking for for a while now, and now I have a few pieces of gear listed to try to make it happen.
The pickguard has been hacked a bit, and there are holes on the side of the neck, which I think was all for a floating pickup (monkey on a stick?) at some point long ago. There's also a funny old-shool strap mount for some sort of carabiner or something. Otherwise I think it all might be original.
There are plenty of scratches, but no cracks I can see.
I'm going to be going back to see and play it again, and hopefully I can get the funds together before someone else does. I guess I might be lucky there is not a huge scene for old school jazz here, I might be one of the few interested in this guitar.
My question is basically does it look good/original? And does anyone know what it's worth in this condition? By the way it comes with a case, but I didn't see it yet, so not sure if it's the original.
-
07-24-2022 04:12 PM
-
-
Bridge looks like L50 bridge and replaced tailpiece. Tuners look replaced too (original likely had ferrels). Is there an oval sticker in the f-hole? How are you dating it to 1937?
Based on the 1937 Gibson catalog, it does appear to be an L7 with different fingerboard rather than L4 or L10.
-
-
everything looks right, save for the hole in the guard and added strap button.
are you in the US?
-
I’m in Alberta, Canada. I would agree. I have limited knowledge, but the more I look around the more I think it looks original. I think 1934 was a bit of a transition year, which might account for some of the odd details (like the inlays).
On a slightly different note, I’m wondering about the other pre-war “L” models. Specifically, the hierarchy. As far as I can tell it goes L-5, L-12, L-10, L-7, L-4. That’s from best to least. Is that right?
-
Yes, ps, nice rendition of Kenny Burrell's Soul Lament. Guitar sounds good too.
Originally Posted by oldHaus
-
For a '34 L-7...(I had one)
The bridge and tailpiece look correct.
The "Nick Lucas" style fretboard inlays are correct for a 16" circa '32-34 L-7.
The headstock inlay style is typical for a 16" circa '32-34 L-12, and later was used on the "Advanced" 17" L-7's that appeared circa 1935.
Its entirely possible that this one might be a late '34 example, with headstock inlays that were pointing to later use on the new
L-7 models.
More typical for the L-7's of the '32-34 period was the use of the "fleur de lis" headstock inlay.
I did a quick google images search for "1934 L-7" to confirm, as its been awhile since I had those guitars.
You'll see a lot of photos showing the fleur de lis headstock design. But there are also a few that pop up with the inlay in the OP's photos....possibly the same guitar, but maybe some others got this treatment.
Confusing but true.....all of these '32-34 L-7 inlay style features were transferred to circa '35 to early 40's prewar f-hole 16" L-4 models.Last edited by zizala; 07-25-2022 at 11:41 AM.
-
Thanks for the reply and info! How did you like owning the ‘34 L-7? Why did you move on from it?
-
I enjoyed that '34 L-7.
It had a very lively feel and great sound and response from bottom to top.
Not a loud and strident guitar but had ample volume and was a pleasure to hear and play.
Most of these would have a V-neck and the proportions of the V could vary.
A good thing to keep in mind....it was the one thing that I wished was different.
I've also had 16" L-10's and L-12's from that time frame, and a later 30's f-hole L-4.
All had their own character, but in spite of their similar build style, some stood out more than others.
If you can get an approval period or opportunity to try this guitar I'd recommend it.
I regretfully sold my '34 L-7 along with many others due to a need to raise some needed funds a decade ago.
-
I owned a 1934 L7 too. Great guitar. Very comfortable and good tone. I sold it when I got a 30s 16" Epiphone, which I preferred for the volume. The Gibson had a warmer sound, more responsiveness to light touch, and more sustain. The Epiphone had more projection and overall headroom. How's the volume, tone, & playability?
As for the originality: wintermoon (as usual) is correct. The tuners, bridge, and tailpiece are original. The pickguard/bracket were modified. Originally, the bracket was glued to the pickguard with a mounting block. This one is now mounted with a small bolt, which is less attractive but not the end of the world. That strap pin on the neck is also a modification.
It also seems to have been refretted, but I can't tell for sure. Originally these guitars had very short and narrow frets, which makes it harder to get a good sound. If it wasn't refretted, I would probably get it done.
With the original case I would expect this to go for 4.5k USD, maybe a bit upward from that. 5 years ago I bought one for 3.6, but prices have gone up since then. Try to get a deal based on the modification to the pickguard and the added strap pin.
PRO TIP: Most of these were made with kerfed braces (i.e. braces with small slits cut into them to bend them in place) but some were made with solid braces. Take an inspection mirror and look inside the guitar at the braces. If the braces are solid, it is a rare guitar and probably stands above the other L7s from that period in terms of tone, volume, and projection.
-
Thanks, that's great info! To my ears it's quite loud. I'm going to go back and play it again, the V neck takes getting used to.
It was also kind of hard to play I think because the frets seem quite worn. You can kind of see the pits in photos, especially on the first few frets and under the little E and B strings. With the heavy wear I was assuming they were the original frets. I was also thinking it needs new frets to really be a practical instrument. I'm not sure if having old worn frets takes away from the value.
By the way, I'm a fan of your playing! I especially liked your "Uma Valsa" by Dilermando Reis on electric.
-
that is usually a too big of a gap between the strings and the first fret. Originally Posted by oldHaus
amazing, how many of these guitars make it through the decades without a proper set-up.
-
I wouldn’t put a lot into the kerfed vs fully carved brace thing. I know it’s the common word, but one of the 5 best 16-inch Gibsons I’ve played was an L-12 with kerfed braces and some of the worst sounding I’ve played had solid carved braces. I’ve played other very good sounding kerfed braced examples, better than the majority of solid carved braced ones. These guitars should definitely be evaluated individually. Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
Additionally, I second everything zizala said.
-
Thanks for the reply! I actually came across your video from a couple months ago with a similar guitar. The one I’m looking at is cosmetically quite rough around the edges. That said, I didn’t detect any cracks. I think the original pickguard has been a bit mangled, and it has an odd strap hook added. Nothing to stop me from playing it! I think it also needs a refret though. The guitar is on consignment and I want to make a fair offer based on the condition, any idea what a fair price on this one is?
-
I appreciate all the info folks have shared so far! I did some more reading on the subject of these guitars, and I feel like I've learned a lot. It also leads to more questions!
It seems that many of the most popular, well known models are from the electric era. Acoustic archtops seem to be in their own niche. Is it the case that with acoustic archtops (generally) pre 1934 (pre 17") guitars are more desirable? Also that a pre-war guitar is more desirable than the same model post 1939?
I also have a few more details on this specific guitar.
wonder if these tuners look right
funny hook attached, all told looks clean enough
bridge height is very low, high E string actually frets out almost everywhere on the neck, and I neglected to check if the neck is the issue
some messiness on the fretboard extension
almost looks like someone had a pickguard on for left-handed playing?
there is something written faintly on the pickguard, bottom right, easier to see in person, but I think it says "Mar 30 '09" so probably not the original pickguard
[edit: I also peaked in an F hole and could just make out a kerfed brace. So not carved braces on this one.]
I also did not get to see the case, but talked to folks at the store and I guess it's just a generic case, not original.
If anyone cares to shed more light, that is much appreciated. (Both on these guitars in general, and assessment of this specific one.) There are some great resources around the internet, but it's difficult to find some of this stuff stated explicitly.
-
A few things....
The strings look to be set very low from your photo looking across the fretboard extension.
But the fretboard extension looks like it might have an upward rise....so both these things can contribute to the fretboard buzzing you're getting.
The 16" Gibson archtops starting from the '33-34 period give or take….transitioned to a lower set up with a different more shallow bridge design than those that came from before. Yours has this more shallow bridge by design, but that bridge saddle looks to be sanded less than the original height and is has been adjusted all the way down.
Its worth checking if the neck has a warp, too much relief or a back bow.
It might need a neck reset and refret to get it right, but hard to say with the photos.
The heel looks like its has some damage, possibly from previous dampness/dryness, that might need more photos to understand.
Just having that date stamp makes it likely to be the original pickguard.....or one from the era.
The tailpiece is original but the crosspiece where the strings attach has a warp that shows up in some of these that were cast with pot metal.
It looks like it might contact the top.
Before I knew that some of these were pot metal, I tried to heat one up a little and squeeze the warp out if it in a vice.....but to my surprise when it hit a certain fairly low temperature it melted instantly (almost liquified) and fell to the floor.
I have a spare one of those if you end up taking this on.
If you haven’t acquired this yet, all these concerns should be allowed for in your offer….and you’ll certainly need an expert repair person to do the work.
I’m sure there are others here that might see more or know more from looking at this, so hopefully you’ll get other takes on it.
Last edited by zizala; 08-05-2022 at 08:52 AM.
-
Nice playing, nice guitar. Through my internet headphones it sounds a little bit lacking in the bass. What are they asking for it?
-
They're asking 5k (Canadian).
-
Thanks! That's good info, especially about the tailpiece. I was wondering why some look curved. (That said, it has lasted 80+ years that way, maybe it will hold?) If I were to replace it, would it just be the cross piece, or replace the whole tailpiece?
When you refer to the pickguard, do you mean it's "likely" or UN-likely to be original? (I'm totally ignorant about the date stamp.)
I'm hoping it doesn't need a neck reset. Considering it plays decent right now, and there is plenty of room to raise the bridge, I hope it only needs a refret. But it is definitely good to know this stuff before pulling the trigger.
It does feel good to play, if not perfect. The body is cosmetically rough, but doesn't have a single crack. But it might need work totalling 20% of the price of the guitar. Is that just how it goes with a guitar of this age?
-
Sure.
You could get the guitar, and spend some money to clean it up.
Or you could get one that has already been cleaned up, is ready to go, and is in Canada.
Like this one, eh?:
1934 16” Gibson L-7 - wow!
Reply With Quote
anyone selling an ibanez pm120?
Today, 01:33 PM in For Sale