16" Gibson L-5

[Rickco]

Just a moment...
not much enthusiasm from seller, since 16" is rare thought some may be interested

[Gitfiddler]

That is a beautiful '02 L5 Reissue! Jay Rosen tends to have a eclectic batch of guitars at his SF Bay Area shop.

For example, here's a very odd 2025 Fender 'Space Saver' Tele from the same seller...

[Jsparr1983]

What’s the story on 16 inch L5 and why do people like them?

[garybaldy]

I'd rather the '36 L4 that comes up as a similar listing on the reverb ad. It's in the UK though.

[Jsparr1983]

Didn’t see that one. You mind linking it?

[garybaldy]

Didn’t see that one. You mind linking it?

1936 Gibson L-4 with rare 70s floating BJB pickup | Reverb UK

[Rickco]

I'd rather the '36 L4 that comes up as a similar listing on the reverb ad. It's in the UK though.

I wonder how the necks compare, the reish L5 supposed to have more "modern "shape?

[ThatRhythmMan]

I wonder how the necks compare, the reish L5 supposed to have more "modern "shape?

I just got in this 1936 L-4. It has the typical 1930s V-shape.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[garybaldy]

I wonder how the necks compare, the reish L5 supposed to have more "modern "shape?

I guess that means thinner.

[Stringswinger]

I have played one of these reissue 16 inch L-5's and I have played quite a few vintage examples. The reissue is a nice guitar for what it is, but it sounds and plays very differently from the vintage examples.

[Jsparr1983]

I feel pretty much the same for any reissue “acoustic” Gibson. Not sure why but they seem to fall short maybe because they were so great back then.

Martin seems to do a little better of a job recreating a vintage feel and sound for whatever reason.

[acoustic_archtop]

What’s the story on 16 inch L5 and why do people like them?

They sound awesome, have good volume, good bass, to die for mids.


The old wood and construction is unmatched.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

What’s the story on 16 inch L5 and why do people like them?

They have a wonderfully balanced tone that projects very well, and the ones I’ve played were really sweet guitars. The bass doesn’t boom and the treble doesn’t shriek.

I had a ‘34 L5 when I was in college. A friend inherited it and wasn’t a guitar player. So I swapped him my turntable and a pair of Lafayette speakers for it. It was apparently ridden hard and put in the barn wet for much of its life, so it showed its age and decades of use. But I loved it and only sold it when it really had to be redone before I could gig with it. I couldn’t afford Gibson’s repair estimate (which was about what my 175 was worth at the time - I’d have to have sold it to get the L5 restored).

[Rickco]

instead of "reissue" they should have called it "modern version", an original would cost twice as much for comparable condition and has a different neck profile. You could get a Campellone (right here!) for about the same as this reish but if this fits the bill its a good price?

[ThatRhythmMan]

instead of "reissue" they should have called it "modern version", an original would cost twice as much for comparable condition and has a different neck profile. You could get a Campellone (right here!) for about the same as this reish but if this fits the bill its a good price?

If the model was really a “1934 Reissue” they would have used kerfed top braces. Honestly though, 1934 was an odd year to pick for an L-5 reissue. They can be fine guitars, but are at the low end of desirability of 16” L-5s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Honestly though, 1934 was an odd year to pick for an L-5 reissue. They can be fine guitars, but are at the low end of desirability of 16” L-5s.

I suspect it was picked because '34 was the first year of the "advanced" L-5 with 16 inch body.

[wintermoon]

I suspect it was picked because '34 was the first year of the "advanced" L-5 with 16 inch body.

I think you mean first year of the 17" advanced, but that doesn't have a bearing on why they reissued the block marker 16"

Using solid braces can only help those reissues, kerfed are considered the weak point of the 30s 16" models.
There's a big tonal difference between the kerfed 16" guitars and earlier solid braced ones.
Years ago I had 3 early 30's kerfed ones at one time and a friend said he knew of an earlier one that had just come up for sale and should he buy it. I said of course. Well I thought mine sounded excellent but he brought that solid braced one by....
Fast forward a year later I wound up w my friend's L-5 and the 3 kerfed ones were sold.

[Rickco]

If the model was really a “1934 Reissue” they would have used kerfed top braces. Honestly though, 1934 was an odd year to pick for an L-5 reissue. They can be fine guitars, but are at the low end of desirability of 16” L-5s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You would certainly know, why is that? What would be the good model for 16"

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I think you mean first year of the 17" advanced, but that doesn't have a bearing on why they reissued the block marker 16".

Whoops - I'm in too much of a hurry today. 1934 was the last year in which they made the 16" and the year of transition to the "advanced" 17". My '34 was a 16" and I've seen others with #s dating them to manufacture in 1934. I think of the 16" 1934 L-5 the same way I think of the 1965 Porsche 356 - the last of an era, outshadowed by its replacement. They were already selling 900s, but the 356 made its last gasp in the transition year.

Now that I think about it, there are many similarities between Porsche and Gibson.

[wintermoon]

Whoops - I'm in too much of a hurry today. 1934 was the last year in which they made the 16" and the year of transition to the "advanced" 17". My '34 was a 16" and I've seen others with #s dating them to manufacture in 1934. I think of the 16" 1934 L-5 the same way I think of the 1965 Porsche 356 - the last of an era, outshadowed by its replacement. They were already selling 900s, but the 356 made its last gasp in the transition year.

Now that I think about it, there are many similarities between Porsche and Gibson.

they actually continued making the 16" L-5 throughout the 30s but in smaller quantities

[ThatRhythmMan]

You would certainly know, why is that? What would be the good model for 16"

Personally, I would probably try to replicate circa 1927 or 28. The thing is that if they weren’t going to try to be true to originals, why not go with 1923 since that’s considered the introduction year?

The very best ones I’ve heard have all had solid braces as far as I know, but I’ve heard some with solid braces that sound worse than the vast majority I’ve heard with kerfed ones. In fact, a few of the kerfed ones have been excellent. In general I would agree that your best best is with solid braces. You can’t tell 100% which a given guitar will have just by the year at least once you get into 1929, maybe a little earlier. As always, there are exceptions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[acoustic_archtop]

I think you mean first year of the 17" advanced, but that doesn't have a bearing on why they reissued the block marker 16"

Using solid braces can only help those reissues, kerfed are considered the weak point of the 30s 16" models.
There's a big tonal difference between the kerfed 16" guitars and earlier solid braced ones.
Years ago I had 3 early 30's kerfed ones at one time and a friend said he knew of an earlier one that had just come up for sale and should he buy it. I said of course. Well I thought mine sounded excellent but he brought that solid braced one by....
Fast forward a year later I wound up w my friend's L-5 and the 3 kerfed ones were sold.

Yeah, I've heard that before. I have a 28/29 L5 with kerfed. I've heard probably over a dozen 16" L5 with solid and kerfed, it's so negligible. You'd have to do a real controlled a/b to hear the difference. Even then, it's not better/worse, maybe just different. And your L5 in my hands with my strings and my picks and my style could sound completely difference. In other words, I think that discussion is overrated.

[WilliamScott]

I had a 16" reissue shortly after they came out. Nice guitar but I ended up trading it even for a Heritage Johnny Smith. The fellow I traded with traded it within a week for an ES-175. It seems the consensus opinion was 'nice guitar but not broadly useful'.

[acoustic_archtop]

Yeah, I've heard that before. I have a 28/29 L5 with kerfed. I've heard probably over a dozen 16" L5 with solid and kerfed, it's so negligible. You'd have to do a real controlled a/b to hear the difference. Even then, it's not better/worse, maybe just different. And your L5 in my hands with my strings and my picks and my style could sound completely difference. In other words, I think that discussion is overrated.

But, hypocritically, one of my bucket list guitars has been a '33 L00 which I got recently, it has solid kerfed top bracing.

[wintermoon]

Personally, I would probably try to replicate circa 1927 or 28. The thing is that if they weren’t going to try to be true to originals, why not go with 1923 since that’s considered the introduction year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well if you want to get really technical then you'd have to use birch back and sides, install a Virzi tone producer w an additional label and a Louisville Slugger sized neck w engraved silver plated tuners. But I get your point, the previously accepted dating system of 27/28 models (revised to 30/31 w/ the Spann book) is the ideal model w a modern neck size/shape.