Gibson L-5 CES on Reverb

[Mick-7]

Nope, sorry, all those show is that the economy is cooling or correcting. You can't conclude that the US economy is destined for a recession. That' what the fed is for and that's why they just reduced interest rates and will likely do again if need TO AVOID a recession. People are still spending and companies are still hiring, just not at the same rate, which, is OK. Nothing to be alarmed about. The economy is cyclical.

And, anyone that was in the market to buy a $7,000 discretionary guitar last year is likely still in the market today.

No offense but it sounds like you know zilch about economics..... The Fed lowered the fed funds interest rate .25%, they cannot afford to lower it any further because doing so will impede their ability to sell treasuries in their debt auctions. Besides, the bond market and not the Fed ultimately controls interest rates, bond and mortgage rates climbed significantly after the Fed lowered the funds interest rate. Why? Because it was a sign that the economy is weakening, they do not lower the rate when it is doing well. Fed Chair Powell referred to the rate cut as “risk management.” Never before has the Fed cut rates when inflation was above target. This rate cut will be extremely negative for real rates in the longer term.

What's more, the FOMC target rate applies only to intrabank lending in the overnight fed funds market. However, the fed funds market stopped functioning in 2008 when the Fed began infusing massive amounts of new money into the banking system and paying interest on the money. In other words, lowering the fed funds rate is targeting a market that no longer exists. The Fed's target rate has been transformed from an effective policy tool to nothing more than a market rate of interest.

Don't underestimate all the economic levers Trump is pulling. Just because you don't like his politics.

You've got it backwards, the Trump administrations policies are clearly based on their politics rather than on sound economic theory, that's why they are ruining the economy.

[pawlowski6132]

No offense but it sounds like you know zilch about economics..... The Fed lowered the fed funds interest rate .25%, they cannot afford to lower it any further because doing so will impede their ability to sell treasuries in their debt auctions. Besides, the bond market and not the Fed ultimately controls interest rates, bond and mortgage rates climbed significantly after the Fed lowered the funds interest rate. Why? Because it was a sign that the economy is weakening, they do not lower the rate when it is doing well. Fed Chair Powell referred to the rate cut as “risk management.” Never before has the Fed cut rates when inflation was above target. This rate cut will be extremely negative for real rates in the longer term.

What's more, the FOMC target rate applies only to intrabank lending in the overnight fed funds market. However, the fed funds market stopped functioning in 2008 when the Fed began infusing massive amounts of new money into the banking system and paying interest on the money. In other words, lowering the fed funds rate is targeting a market that no longer exists. The Fed's target rate has been transformed from an effective policy tool to nothing more than a market rate of interest.



You've got it backwards, the Trump administrations policies are clearly based on their politics rather than on sound economic theory, that's why they are ruining the economy.

Incorrect, and it sounds like you are a know-it-all.

The Fed can and WILL cut rates as much as they need to to control inflation and avoid a recession. That's just common knowledge.

I don't have it backwards, I said YOU shouldn't judge economic decisions the President supports based on YOUR politics. You're totally twisting my words.

Please don't obfuscate and speak plainly here. Time will tell. If the whole economy spirals into a recession and we can blame trump you'll be right.

But, we are nowhere near that, and tariffs, immigration trends and the movement of manufacturing, business deals etc. that favor this country point to a stronger economy.

Read the news, not the charts.

[Mick-7]

As I said, you don't understand economics - or even what I just said about the federal benchmark interest rate, i.e., that it hasn't been an effective economic tool for years now. Cutting the Fed funds rate does not "control inflation." On the contrary, it tends to increase it, but it certainly won't lower it.

[pawlowski6132]

As I said, you don't understand economics - or even what I just said about the federal benchmark interest rate, i.e., that it hasn't been an effective economic tool for years now. Cutting the Fed funds rate does not "control inflation." On the contrary, it tends to increase it, but it certainly won't lower it.

ok. i guess you know more then jerome powell, that's awesome

[58flame]

The economic policies of the president are political only. There is no sound logic for random taxes on arbitrary goods across the board. There is no logic for a complete reversal of liaisez-faire GOP economic policy. There is no economic logic in pressuring the Fed to do his bidding. Sorry, GOP your guy is unhinged and hurting everyone. Just like last time. Oh look, time to bail out farmers again! So much winning.

[skiboyny]

I too expect a full blown recession. The profligate spending of the "Big beautiful" bill combined with the massive uncertainty of the executive ordered tariffs might be leading the USA (and maybe the rest of the world) into a recession. Furthermore, I am putting my marker down now that we will see a President Newsom after the next major election.

Let's hope your way off base on this! Way off....

[spencer096]

I gave the guitar a close look. It appears to be a fine guitar and certainly one that is workable. No cracks in the neck, body, or any structural issue that I see or is listed. The yellowing would be nice to see from the angle of the side. I would request a specific photo of that and how it looks. This bit of yellow on the rim would not stop me from buy the the guitar it is otherwise a decent deal. Blond guitars do change and over the years things go one way or another. To me the beats any alternative guitar with a neck crack repair or some other cracks, ect. I would never go to the trouble of doing anything about the finish.

Players buying used guitars must accept the fact they are used and not perfect. Guitars only go downhill in appearance from the day we buy it. Those who seek perfection in finishes and in small details are different animals that me. I generally do not even sell guitars to those who I see are overly focused on appearance and looking great. Not worth the hassle to sell them a guitar.

Guitars with repaired neck cracks, some top and back cracks and neck clearance issue I avoid entirely. I don't want to explain anything if I sell it. To say a guitar has nothing structural but some finish discoloration......... those are much more sellable in my book. Maybe some disagree. Otherwise pony up the money and buy a perfect one. As far as this I might offer $7500 not go through reverb and tell them to take my check, send guitar when it clears, this will net the seller about what reverb would take or maybe more even. I certainly would simply not buy at the listed price. I would not go through reverb. If you trust the seller then cash buy is the way to go, no fees and really in my case I can wait a few days the check clears and they send the guitar.

dunno if anyone has said this but you’d lose all protection from reverb on this if the seller screws you over. Highly suggest not doing this w a private seller.

[tomvwash]

dunno if anyone has said this but you’d lose all protection from reverb on this if the seller screws you over. Highly suggest not doing this w a private seller.

Right, maybe another reason that it is not selling. The sale is final, no return on this one. Nice enough guy months back, when I was messaging him on this, but havent heard back from him this weekend. Would love to find a clean natural L-5 at this price!

[andrew]

Enough politics. Back to the L-5 talk:

This is a broad generalization (and may be biased by my personal ownership of one), but if I had the choice of any era of L-5 CES, I would go with a Hutch. I can see why many folks regard them as the finest of the post-golden era (50s and early 60s). As much as I would like a genuine 50s one, the big neck profiles don’t appeal to me and I wouldn’t want a florentine cut 60s one.

[tomvwash]

Enough politics. Back to the L-5 talk:

This is a broad generalization (and may be biased by my personal ownership of one), but if I had the choice of any era of L-5 CES, I would go with a Hutch. I can see why many folks regard them as the finest of the post-golden era (50s and early 60s). As much as I would like a genuine 50s one, the big neck profiles don’t appeal to me and I wouldn’t want a florentine cut 60s one.

Well put, thanks, Andrew. Maybe Hutch Era for any Gibson archtop, right?

[deacon Mark]

dunno if anyone has said this but you’d lose all protection from reverb on this if the seller screws you over. Highly suggest not doing this w a private seller.

As I mentioned you must go through vetting process and trust the seller. This can be done by your self or from good sources. There are players on this forum I would trust over anyone. Also as mentioned if you can’t trust completely the deal has to be made in person.

[Hammertone]

Enough politics. Back to the L-5 talk:
This is a broad generalization (and may be biased by my personal ownership of one), but if I had the choice of any era of L-5 CES, I would go with a Hutch. I can see why many folks regard them as the finest of the post-golden era (50s and early 60s). As much as I would like a genuine 50s one, the big neck profiles don’t appeal to me and I wouldn’t want a florentine cut 60s one.

Well put, thanks, Andrew. Maybe Hutch Era for any Gibson archtop, right?

Totally disagree, but it's a free world.

[wintermoon]

Hutch Hype
35 yrs ago I owned a couple L-5's he signed and they were no better or worse than a Culbertson signed guitar or a Gibson w no signature.
Buy based on the guitar itself, not a piece of paper w a name written on it stuck inside.

[Stringswinger]

Hutch Hype
35 yrs ago I owned a couple L-5's he signed and they were no better or worse than a Culbertson signed guitar or a Gibson w no signature.
Buy based on the guitar itself, not a piece of paper w a name written on it stuck inside.

+1 I own 6 Gibson archtops. The one that has a Hutch label is no better or worse than the others.

[QAman]

Gibson Luthier Hutchins Passes - MusicRow.com

Sent from my SM-P610 using Tapatalk

[andrew]

Yes, every individual guitar should absolutely be judged on its own accord. I'd rather have the best Norlin guitar over the worst Hutch guitar (Indeed, I've played some fine Norlin Era instruments).

Here's my hypothetical scenario. The L-5 fairy comes down and visits you. It says "you can have one free L-5 CES. You can choose the era, but you cannot play or see the individual instruments beforehand. All instruments are in good, working order. No major repairs or modifications. Standard, factory issued guitars, no custom orders (sorry Charlie Christian pickup fans). Assume all the same color". Here are your choices, which do you choose? (I may have the years off slightly)

1. 1951-1953 with P90s
2. 1953-1957 with Alnico V staple pickups
3. 1958-1960 'golden era' with PAFs and round cutaway
4. 1961-1969 sharp cutaway
5. 1969-1984 Norlin Era
6. 1985-1992 Early Nashville era/Triggs
7. 1993-2005 Hutch era
8. 2005-2012 Culbertson era
9. 2012-present Whorton/Crimson Division era

As much as I'd love to pick #1, the odds are the neck would be too big for my preferences (and everyone has their own personal preference. I like the slimmer, modern necks). #3 is appealing, maybe I could get lucky and get a '59 or a '60 with a slimmer neck. But realistically, it would be too valuable to gig. So my choice is #7. I didn't necessarily mean guitars that Hutch signed personally, I meant guitars that were made while Hutch was in charge of the custom shop archtop division. And yes, #8 and #9 are certainly well respected eras also. I meant no disrespect to them.

Maybe you'd prefer a Super 400 CES instead. OK, same question applies. Or a Tal Farlow, Johnny Smith, etc. Fine. Any 'high end' electric archtop is acceptable (although the choices may be slightly different depending on the model). Acoustic archtops are a whole different story.

Full disclosure of personal bias: I have two archtops made in the Hutch era. Both are '98s and neither of them has an actual Hutch signature. They're different models (L5-CES with factory P90s and ES-5 non-switchmaster with P90s). The L5 absolutely blows me away every time I play it. I'm indifferent about the ES-5. So I don't want to be seen as a Hutch Homer.

[Stringswinger]

I'll take a 1957 with PAF's. So long as that "fairy" isn't a Gay man looking for any quid pro quo.

[pawlowski6132]

I'll take a 1957 with PAF's. So long as that "fairy" isn't a Gay man looking for any quid pro quo.

Ohh!

[Mick-7]

I'll take a 1957 with PAF's. So long as that "fairy" isn't a Gay man looking for any quid pro quo.

I suspect that no one has ever accused you of being politically correct, SS.

I have a trivia question: P.A.F. stands for "Patent Applied For," right? Was Gibson granted the patent?

[Stringswinger]

I suspect that no one has ever accused you of being politically correct, SS.

I have a trivia question: P.A.F. stands for "Patent Applied For," right? Was Gibson granted the patent?

Mick, the day I am acting politically correct, call a priest and ask him to perform an exorcism.

Yes, Gibson did get the Patent, but IIRC, the Patent number that they put on the replacement pickup stickers was actually for a different Patent (Stop tailpiece, TOM bridge or something like that)

Interestingly, some of the earliest pickups with a Patent number sticker (which replaced the PAF sticker), are identical to the late PAF's (which had shorter magnets than the earlier PAF's) in every way. IMO, there is a lot of superstition mixed into the whole PAF thing, but that said, some of those old pickups do sound amazing. And to further confuse everything, I have seen late 57 Gibsons (the first to get PAF's) that had no sticker on the pickups at all and never had one.

If those guys at Gibson back in the day, were told that 60-70 years later, PAF pickups would be selling for thousands of dollars, they would have thought the person telling them that was delusional. Truth is stranger than fiction.

[2bornot2bop]

Hutch Homer!

[Mick-7]

Mick, the day I am acting politically correct, call a priest and ask him to perform an exorcism.

Yes, Gibson did get the Patent, but IIRC, the Patent number that they put on the replacement pickup stickers was actually for a different Patent (Stop tailpiece, TOM bridge or something like that)

Interestingly, some of the earliest pickups with a Patent number sticker (which replaced the PAF sticker), are identical to the late PAF's (which had shorter magnets than the earlier PAF's) in every way. IMO, there is a lot of superstition mixed into the whole PAF thing, but that said, some of those old pickups do sound amazing. And to further confuse everything, I have seen late 57 Gibsons (the first to get PAF's) that had no sticker on the pickups at all and never had one.

If those guys at Gibson back in the day, were told that 60-70 years later, PAF pickups would be selling for thousands of dollars, they would have thought the person telling them that was delusional. Truth is stranger than fiction.

o.k., but a pickup patent seems kind of pointless, very difficult to enforce. As far as I can tell, Gibson has never sued anyone for infringing their pickups patent, they've sued other manufacturers for other things (copying their guitar body designs, etc.) but not that. Lawsuits against DiMarzio were mentioned but they were for their pickups appearance and/or name, not for their actual design.

[Stringswinger]

o.k., but a pickup patent seems kind of pointless, very difficult to enforce. As far as I can tell, Gibson has never sued anyone for infringing their pickups patent, they've sued other manufacturers for other things (copying their guitar body designs, etc.) but not that. Lawsuits against DiMarzio were mentioned but they were for their pickups appearance and/or name, not for their actual design.

Back in 1955, when Gibson applied for the humbucker patent, a design Patent only lasted for 14 years. The humbucker patent was granted in 1959, so by 1973, anyone could use the design.

[deacon Mark]

I have 3 signed Hutch Gibson. From 2002-2005 and they are magnificent guitars, but I understand the name only thing about guitars and labels. That said I still think Gibson's QC from 1990 thru 2010 was great possible the best time ever overall. However, one must evaluate the guitar on an individual bases not the era as a whole. The forest might look bigger and greener in some era's but one must still pick look at the individual trees.

I had a 1979 L5c that was the plain Jayne pickguard yellow sunburst of course a Norlin. The finish was nice in that is buffed shiny and smooth but zero artistic quality to the finish. The guitar itself was a real winner and sounded good, open and smooth like an acoustic should. The neck was great the back plain quartersawn maple. That maple is not figure but some of the hardest maple in existence not a bad thing. Played many 175 Norlin made that were fine guitars.

Moral, the Forest might look good or bad but you still have to check the individual tree.

[tomvwash]

I never did hear from the seller, on Reverb and on FB. Maybe that's why it's still listed. Closure on this one, I suppose.