Please advice about buying vintage Gibson L-5 (‘39 or ‘46)

[58dutchie]

Hi there,

I’m about to buy a vintage acoustic Gibson L5 (single cutaway, sunburst). I can buy a ‘39 or a ‘46. Both 100%, great condition, original case, etc. The ‘46 has an ebony fretboard (the ‘39 too). What would you consider the better vintage? Or isn’t there a real difference between these two guitars? The ‘39 is about 5K more expensive than the ‘46, so that’s a lot…where I like the fact that the ‘39 is ‘prewar’ (don’t know why I like that, haha), I’m not sure if I like it ‘5K’ enough…;-)

It will be my first acoustic archtop so I’m a bit new into these guitars. I’m a vintage Gibson collector and player, but only electric archtops so far (50’s).

Please advice and thanks in advance!

[garybaldy]

Hi there,

I’m about to buy a vintage acoustic Gibson L5 (single cutaway, sunburst). I can buy a ‘39 or a ‘46. Both 100%, great condition, original case, etc. The ‘46 has an ebony fretboard (the ‘39 too). What would you consider the better vintage? Or isn’t there a real difference between these two guitars? The ‘39 is about 5K more expensive than the ‘46, so that’s a lot…where I like the fact that the ‘39 is ‘prewar’ (don’t know why I like that, haha), I’m not sure if I like it ‘5K’ enough…;-)

It will be my first acoustic archtop so I’m a bit new into these guitars. I’m a vintage Gibson collector and player, but only electric archtops so far (50’s).

Please advice and thanks in advance!

Sorry, I can't help but I'd love to see some photos.

[omphalopsychos]

Go play both Gibson made amazing guitars from both years. I had a 39 and a 46 (rosewood board) at the same time. Much preferred (and kept) the 46. However I have friends who also have 39s that sound incredible.

[jazzshrink]

@wikipedia: The 17" L-5 Advanced - Starting in 1935, the L-5 was produced with a 17" body...[4]

If you're going to copy wikipedia word-for-word, it would be nice to include a link to the original article so we can check it out for ourselves, evaluate sources, etc.

[customxke]

1939 and 1946 Gibson L5 guitars seem to have the exact same specifications. Both are X-braced.

They would be parallel braced, not x-braced.

[deacon Mark]

I don't know actual price you are paying but I have a 38 L5 noncut. It stands acoustically with any guitar with power and clear voice. Mine is parallel braced punchy and vibrates. I don't see a $5000 difference in the guitars both good years of Gibson production. The cutaway wins if it reasonably competes sound wise.

[58dutchie]

Would there be a difference by the way in the type of spruce used for the top? For the ‘39 adirondack and for the ‘46 sitka? Or would there be no difference at all as far as that is concerned?

[ccroft]

Go play both Gibson made amazing guitars from both years. I had a 39 and a 46 (rosewood board) at the same time. Much preferred (and kept) the 46. However I have friends who also have 39s that sound incredible.

I only wish I had the OP's problem! I have zero experience with vintage archtops where Omph has a ton. What I read from people like him and Deacon is that there's variation in guitars from Gibson out of the same batch, so trying to decide by year is probably not a great way to go.

You might think you're gonna prefer the '39, but you might like the '46 more when you have them in your hands.
Could be The One!

[58dutchie]

I understand that, I was merely trying to find out if there are any differences between the two years construction-wise. If there are none, I understand that I have to choose the best guitar out of the two, sure. Just wanted to know if they are apples and apples or apples and oranges.

[ThatRhythmMan]

They are going to be the same basic construction. There may be some variation in wood species, but there can be more variation between two guitars with the exact same woods compared to two with some variation as far as sound goes. The neck carves may be somewhat different between these guitars also.

Consider it an apples to apples comparison. As noted before, it really comes down to what you prefer, and if the difference is worth $5k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stringswinger]

Both of those years are pretty much the same specs, so the better guitar would be my choice, though for an additional 5K, it would have to be WAY better.

Bear in mind that these are old guitars and may need expensive work. Check the neck angle and bridge height, Neck resets are expensive. Be sure that the truss rod functions properly. Be sure that the top has not sunk.

I have played some acoustic 17 inch non-cut L-5's that were amazing and some that were not.

This is an expensive purchase. Use caution.

[ccroft]

Sorry Dutch! I missed this part:

... It will be my first acoustic archtop so I’m a bit new into these guitars. I’m a vintage Gibson collector and player, but only electric archtops so far (50’s).

[omphalopsychos]

here’s a photo from last year when stout stopped by for lunch, hang, and jam. Left to right is his 31 (?) his 39 my 46 and my 28. His 39 has much more beautiful wood (quilted back). Sound wise they have the same volume (to my recollection). I remember his was more punchy and mine was more zingy. The construction is very similar, neck profiles also very similar. It’s really a toss up and come down to the individual guitar.

[wintermoon]

keep in mind that '39 is a transition year, early '39 is typically still x-braced, but that's not a hard fast rule, check each guitar individually. there are parallel guitars in '37 and '38 like Mark's L-5 for example.

[deacon Mark]

Here is my 38 and case is in the best shape I have ever seen for being original.

[58dutchie]

Meanwhile, there’s a third option: a 1937 Super 400. How do an L5 and a Super 400 compare soundwise?

[ThatRhythmMan]

This is where it gets more interesting. A Super 400 from 1937 should be x-braced, in contrast to the L-5 previously described. That’s likely going to be more important than the additional in inch in size. X-braced guitars tend to have a more balanced tone from low to high, in contrast to the punchy, mid-range focused tone which is more typical of parallel braced guitars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[58dutchie]

This is where it gets more interesting. A Super 400 from 1937 should be x-braced, in contrast to the L-5 previously described. That’s likely going to be more important than the additional in inch in size. X-braced guitars tend to have a more balanced tone from low to high, in contrast to the punchy, mid-range focused tone which is more typical of parallel braced guitars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s true, it’s x-braced and has the 25.5 inch scale length. The top has a ‘strange’ kind of carving in a way that it seems to be very slightly sunken. But it isn’t (nothing strange to see inside, nothing wrong with the braces, bridge is low, etc). Is that typical for that era?

[ThatRhythmMan]

That’s true, it’s x-braced and has the 25.5 inch scale length. The top has a ‘strange’ kind of carving in a way that it seems to be very slightly sunken. But it isn’t (nothing strange to see inside, nothing wrong with the braces, bridge is low, etc). Is that typical for that era?

Yes, that’s typical for those mid to late 1930s, x-braced Gibsons. They have a flatter carve that people sometimes mistake for sink, but it’s the way they were made, intentionally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[58dutchie]

Yes, that’s typical for those mid to late 1930s, x-braced Gibsons. They have a flatter carve that people sometimes mistake for sink, but it’s the way they were made, intentionally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great to know, thanks!

[deacon Mark]

Sound goes in and out of the 17 inch L5 faster. Some players like Jonathon Stout find l5's louder and more powerful. I don't agree with that except bracing and carving can make a guitar sound more powerful. To me a good super 400 has more bass and sound lingers longer. It really comes down to what guitar you like better overall. Some cannot handle 18 inch body well or comfortably. playing them only way to compare.

[58dutchie]

Yes, that’s typical for those mid to late 1930s, x-braced Gibsons. They have a flatter carve that people sometimes mistake for sink, but it’s the way they were made, intentionally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you know why this was done?

[ThatRhythmMan]

Do you know why this was done?

I don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[58dutchie]

I don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess because of the x-bracing? What is considered better, x-bracing or parallel-bracing? Or is it just ‘different’?

[Hammertone]

I guess because of the x-bracing? What is considered better, x-bracing or parallel-bracing? Or is it just ‘different’?

I have plenty of both. Just different.