100 year anniversary of the modern archtop

[coyote-1]

I cannot help but notice that the Gibsons in your photo have two pickups, mounted in the top wood, along with four pots and a switch also mounted in the top. While the Fratello has a solid top that is untouched by electronics, and therefore free to vibrate unimpeded. I’ve noticed a significant difference in the base tone of the built-in vs floating configurations, and there are many players out there who prefer the tone they get when the top is not so free to vibrate.

Whatever works for you!

The Benedetto "Fratello" that I owned some 20 years ago was a gorgeous instrument to behold, with stunning woods, workmanship, finish, it was all there - except the TONE . It did nothing for me and I tried HARD. The '63 L-5 CES that resides in my studio now is a well of inspiration.

There is just nothing like a GOOD Gibson archtop.

Tony

[deacon Mark]

Gibson L5 aqcoustic from the year 1925 has little in comparison to a 1995 Hutch signed L5ces. They are 2 different animals. What a Gibson L5 is, is in fact a jazz guitar that happens to have made it 100 years with a following and reverence that probably no other archtop guitar has come close to being.

Think of things that have lasted 100 years in marketing and solid history of success. I love Honey Nut Cheerios and they are supposed the be about the number one selling cold cereal of all time at least close. They only been around since 1979. Corn flakes since 1894 have many 25 years on those Gibson L5's.

[wintermoon]

I believe the Gibson L5 predates the Ford Model A by several years as well. Pretty
amazing when you think about it.

[Stringswinger]

Gibson archtops rule. John D'Angelico thought so. Mark Campellone thinks so. Enough said.

[rpjazzguitar]

I believe the Gibson L5 predates the Ford Model A by several years as well. Pretty
amazing when you think about it.

Here's an aircraft from 1923. Apparently, aircraft developed a little more than the L5 in 100 years.

Wright F2W - Wikipedia

[coyote-1]

Gibson archtops rule. John D'Angelico thought so. Mark Campellone thinks so. Enough said.

In the few online resources I’ve been able to locate so far, it seems Mark’s admiration for these is as much about the aesthetics as about the sound. And John’s guitars are known for being ornate….

As for construction, I know D’Angelico used both parallel and X bracing. But his famous apprentice D’Aquisto moved to all X bracing (I remember the discussion over this in his Guitar Player magazine interview back then). That is likely because the non-amplified big band guitar was no longer needed in an age of amplification. And the mid-high projection that is the signature** of typical parallel bracing of that era therefore became a market anachronism.

The good thing is that on a modern X (or other) braced guitar, you can pick down by the bridge and you can roll off the low end on your amp or in the PA and thereby sorta approximate the big band guitar sound if you need it. Whereas if your instrument lacks bass response and you need it, you cannot build it back in via tone controls. In any event, I’ve never subscribed to “this person believes _______ , therefore I too believe ______ “. Especially where something as subjective as sound is concerned.

**Of course, making changes in the specs and positions of the parallel braces can bring more bass response out of the instrument. Just as an upright bass viol has a “bass bar” that runs much of the length of the top of the instrument, and the sound changes depending on that bar’s length, thickness, material etc.

[gitman]

I cannot help but notice that the Gibsons in your photo have two pickups, mounted in the top wood, along with four pots and a switch also mounted in the top. While the Fratello has a solid top that is untouched by electronics, and therefore free to vibrate unimpeded. I’ve noticed a significant difference in the base tone of the built-in vs floating configurations, and there are many players out there who prefer the tone they get when the top is not so free to vibrate.

Whatever works for you!

Yes, of course these electrified Gibsons are different beasts - I've owned and played many different types of such guitars and have found "good" ones in all types. "Good" for me simply means that I was able to get a sound out of them that pleased and inspired me, without too much effort that is. As I mentioned, this L5 is such a guitar, as is my Trenier Jazz Special, a TOTALLY different guitar in that it is a lightly built 16" lam-top with a floating pickup. I don't compare apples to oranges and just know what I like and have a pretty good understanding of how these things work, having been around them for over 45 years now ...
Re the various Gibsons I've owned and played : two Byrdland, two Johnny Smith models, 5 different Super-400 CES, one Super-400C, one Super-300, one L7C, three L-5CES ... the JS models never satisfied me, this last '63 L-5CES is a bomb, and the best of the bunch was a '62 Super-400C with a DeArmond 1100 pickup - unfortunately that guitar was un-usable on stage for it`s feedback-threshold was extremely low.

[vinnyv1k]

Gibson archtops rule. John D'Angelico thought so. Mark Campellone thinks so. Enough said.

Well said Marco

[TAA]

Although I’ve never seen a Campellone, DeAngelico, Benedetto, or any other non Gibson archtop in person, I really like this forum for the marvelous photos. I’ll never own multiple guitars but I do appreciate the behavior of others who do. Having two or more “artist series” archtops in the same photo, really lets the observer appreciate differences in finishes, features, shape, electronics, etc. coupled with the owners experiences, is the cherry on top.

Thank you everyone for sharing your guitar photos!

Tom