2006 Gibson L-7CN at Gryphon Strings... $5,500

[Steve Z]

I tried for a few seconds, and saw the frog. Now I can't unsee it. Arggg! You warned me.

Yup... the "frog" is what will forever be seen now

[Hammertone]

1246031[/URL]]…Thistle headstock inlay
I had never heard the "crown" inlay called a thistle though every guitar I show my daughter that has the crown she states, "I like it... it has the frog inlay". It does sort of resemble a frog. If you now see a frog when looking at the inlay, you will always see a frog... sorry

Reminds me of the old joke: “hey, call me a cab!” “OK, you’re a cab.” It’s a thistle. Everyone calls it a crown, so now it’s a crown. Same goes for “cloud” inlays. They are not cloud inlays. They are fan inlays. Within a few years, guitar companies stopped using separate pieces or engraving the lines for the fan, to save time and money, I suspect. People started calling them cloud inlays, so now they are cloud inlays.

Neck: Somewhat chunky, Traditional V-shaped mahogany neck

Unless the neck was a custom request or has been reshaped, this description is misleading. All of the Bozeman L-7C guitars I have played have remarkably similar necks, which are not like the Honking V necks of many of the earlier 16” Gibson archtops. More like a lovely not-small slight boatneck.

[Hammertone]

1246012[/URL]]…Many of the features you listed are also present on a post-48 L7C, so it's not logically necessary to attribute them to a "30s design". For example, none of the following features you mentioned are exclusive to the original Advanced models. These are all consistent with a post 48 L7C:
-rosewood board w/double parallelogram inlays
-vintage small fretwire;
-Premier-style cutaway carving and binding;
-Thistle headstock inlay
-Tailpiece
Other features you listed (such as sunburst back, sides) are, again, not unique to 30s models. And they were never standard on L7s.

Finally, there are features in this guitar that are unique to postwar models:
- Elevated fingerboard extension
- Post-48 Gibson logo
I stand corrected with respect to the scale length and bracing, but you're stretching to call this a 30s style guitar. It's definitely a combination of features from different eras and even different models (plenty of non-L7 features). But you would expect Gibson to have at least put a 30s style logo on it if they wanted it to look 30s*. And they might have called it an L7P instead of an L7C. And the corresponding inlays for an advanced L7 would have been picture frame, not parallelogram. Anyway, it make no sense for me to speculate what Gibson was thinking. I've cynically assumed they produced what was cheapest to pull off a reissue and meet quality targets.
*At least they used an older logo on the 1934 L5 Reissue. I'm curious for your interpretation of why that model also has x braces, since obviously it's not Advanced-inspired in any way. Or maybe you can list some features that show that it is. That would sure be another surprise.

The elevated fingerboard extension is a feature found on all the Advanced 17” Gibsons, starting in 1934.
I can see why they could have called the guitar the L-7P, but can also see why they would not.
I do agree that they should have used a script logo - that and the tuners are the only post-war features on the guitar. Hmmm…. maybe I’ll swap in a set of Waverlys on my remaining Bozeman L-7C…

[omphalopsychos]

I kinda predicted you would say that. The fingerboard extension on cutaway models was not elevated in the 30s models. I was not referring to the non cutaway models.

[omphalopsychos]

After this back and forth my point of view that Gibson just got some specs mixed up has solidified.

Saying that the split parallelogram inlays are an intentional throwback to an advanced L-12 on what looks like a post-48 L7C is equivalent to saying that the trapezoid inlays on a 57 Les Paul reissue is a throwback to 1946 L-50 which debuted those inlays. Maybe the trapezoid inlays on the les Paul reissue are just a throwback the the trapezoid inlays from the les Paul. Maybe the split parallelogram inlays on an L7C are a throwback to the L7c that featured them.

All I'm saying is that guitar looks a lot like this one (50s L7c), except that it has a shorter neck and x bracing.



Your argument is that-- no, it's actually an 30s L7. But not actually an L7. Instead a combination of features of the L7 and some other guitars from the 30s (oh and 40s), combined in a way that never once existed in the 30s in any model, but somehow are the true model for this guitar, not to mention that there were no factory-original blonde advanced models. You're saying it's essentially an advanced L7, but with inlays borrowed from an L12, a blonde finish (a feature borrowed from the future), a cutaway (another feature borrowed from the future), specifically a cutaway with an elevated finger extension (a feature borrowed from the more distant future), and tuners, logo, and tailpiece all borrowed from the future.

Again, I can’t really read gibsons mind on this, but given the data, Occam’s razor sides with the more immediate explanation. You know I’m sure your guitar is great and I didn’t mean to offend you, but your explanation of why this is a 30s guitar is just too elaborate and messy. To me, this is as much a 30s guitar as an actual post-48 L7 is. You're right that Gibson reused design elements to build this guitar. They always did this.

FYI, it doesn’t really matter since I guess these interpretations can't be falsified and it doesn't affect the quality of the guitar one way or another. If you’re correct, then Gibson just made a super confusing pastiche that I guess sounds good. Good for them and good for owners of these guitars who like them. I love Gibson and the guitars they make but these reissues are weird to me. Wintermoons example takes the cake for weirdness though.

[omphalopsychos]

I was wondering why the pickguards go missing on this model so often.

Aside from just being the terrible cheap black plastic pickguards Gibson made for these, which happen to be a bastardization of the post-1948 multi-ply guard (add to list of non-30s features), apparently Gibson also forgot where an archtop pickguard is supposed to be mounted on these. On every example I've come across, the pickuard is mounted too far up the the neck and extending beyond the cutaway. Weird.

Again, not meant as a diss to Hammertone or his guitar or any of these. Just another Gibson anomaly to note. I bet the one at Gryphon is cool, and I hope it is, and I hope someone buys it and reports back about how cool it is.

[Hammertone]

Yes, of course. The P-series guitars are not Advanced models. I think the Bozeman L-7C is a "what if" guitar - what if an Advanced 17" archtop was made with a P-style cutaway and a few entirely cosmetic changes. I think they answered that question rather nicely.

My experience when I've compared a Bozeman L-7C to an Advanced 17" archtop and to a postwar late '40s or '50s L-7P / L-12P / L-5P / L-7C / L-12C / L-5C has been that the Bozeman L-7C is very similar in sound and feel to the Advanced guitars and very different from the post-war versions.

[Hammertone]

I was wondering why the pickguards go missing on this model so often. ... Aside from just being the terrible cheap black plastic pickguards Gibson made for these, which happen to be a bastardization of the post-1948 multi-ply guard (add to list of non-30s features), apparently Gibson also forgot where an archtop pickguard is supposed to be mounted on these. On every example I've come across, the pickuard is mounted too far up the the neck and extending beyond the cutaway. Weird. ...

Yes, of course. As I said above:

...The original pickguards on these are terrible, but easy to replace [ed: and relocate]. I replaced them on both of my Bozeman L-7C guitars, with Allparts L-5 guards in black, as well as with an original '50's L-7C guard.

I wouldn't dignify the POS original pickguard by connecting it to anything Gibson has previously done. It stands alone as a complete fail, unlike the wonderful guitars to which they were originally attached.

[Woody Sound]

Neck: Somewhat chunky, Traditional V-shaped mahogany neck

The traditional V-shaped neck profile is the big unknown in my opinion...

The V profile went away for many years and is typically a reason I have heard players say they don't care older Gibsons. The v-carve can be nice if subtle, though if a strong v-carve, it can be a bit awkward unless you are a player who tends to wrap your thumb. For me, my thumb typically is placed near the center of the neck.

Funny, from the light reflections in the pic, it doesn't look like a V at all.

I actually owned several Gibsons from the teens and 20s, including a Loar L5. Their huge V is why I parted with them.

[Woody Sound]

Yup... the "frog" is what will forever be seen now

[Hammertone]

After this back and forth my point of view that Gibson just got some specs mixed up has solidified.

My point of view is that Ren Ferguson carefully selected those specifications.

Saying that the split parallelogram inlays are an intentional throwback to an advanced L-12 on what looks like a post-48 L7C is equivalent to saying that the trapezoid inlays on a 57 Les Paul reissue is a throwback to 1946 L-50 which debuted those inlays. Maybe the trapezoid inlays on the les Paul reissue are just a throwback the the trapezoid inlays from the les Paul. Maybe the split parallelogram inlays on an L7C are a throwback to the L7c that featured them.

I think that's a false equivalency, but that’s another, equally interesting discussion. It seems pretty simple to me - all of the features were used on various prewar archtops except for the post-war logo. Calling the Bozeman guitar an L-7C seems simple enough and is perhaps the least confusing name - it sort of looks like one.

All I'm saying is that guitar looks a lot like this one (50s L7c), except that it has a shorter neck and x bracing.

It certainly does look similar.

Your argument is that-- no, it's actually an 30s L7.

My argument, as stated above, is that the Bozeman L-7C is a "what if" guitar - what if an Advanced 17" archtop was made with a P-style cutaway and a few well-considered, entirely cosmetic changes. Except for the not-well-considered logo, and an obvious production process failure with the pickguards.

But not actually an L7. Instead a combination of features of the L7 and some other guitars from the 30s (oh and 40s), combined in a way that never once existed in the 30s in any model, but somehow are the true model for this guitar, not to mention that there were no factory-original blonde advanced models. You're saying it's essentially an advanced L7, but with inlays borrowed from an L12, a blonde finish (a feature borrowed from the future), a cutaway (another feature borrowed from the future), specifically a cutaway with an elevated finger extension (a feature borrowed from the more distant future), and tuners, logo, and tailpiece all borrowed from the future.

Most of these guitars are sunburst, with the same feature set. One is blonde (special order). One is trans-red (special order). Several are black. Some have ebony boards. Some have f-hole binding. A couple are insane presentation models loaded with bling, including one with a Koa back/rims. One is configured as a blonde L-5P (but delivered without an L-5 tailpiece). Four are configured with L-5-style necks, Stromberg-style tailpieces and f-holes and blonde finishes. There are probably a few other interesting custom versions out there, but that’s what I have found to date.

Again, I can’t really read gibsons mind on this, but given the data, Occam’s razor sides with the more immediate explanation. You know I’m sure your guitar is great and I didn’t mean to offend you, but your explanation of why this is a 30s guitar is just too elaborate and messy. To me, this is as much a 30s guitar as an actual post-48 L7 is. You're right that Gibson reused design elements to build this guitar. They always did this. FYI, it doesn’t really matter since I guess these interpretations can't be falsified and it doesn't affect the quality of the guitar one way or another. If you’re correct, then Gibson just made a super confusing pastiche that I guess sounds good. Good for them and good for owners of these guitars who like them. I love Gibson and the guitars they make but these reissues are weird to me. Wintermoons example takes the cake for weirdness though.

No offence taken - I enjoy discussing stuff like this. I have discussed these guitars at length with Ren Ferguson to learn about how they were developed, and I stand by my comments. I don’t think these guitars are “a super confusing pastiche” in the least, more of a well-considered, practical update. I know how good they can sound. I assume there are a few duds out there, but I've been lucky with the ones I have encountered.

"I'm curious for your interpretation of why that model also has x braces" Probably because Gibson did some silly things when they began "reissuing" some models, especially archtops. …Like what's w that semi recent L-10 reissue w the scalloped fingerboard extension? Is that based on a one off original? Very silly things.....

The L-10 reissue with the fingerboard extension is a copy of a specific guitar ordered by Les Paul in 1938, and acquired by Chet Atkins in 1944. The RI was introduced in 2004 and a few were made up to 2008, IIRC. One might argue that the community of Chet Atkins admirers makes this a very smart, very limited-production guitar. Chuck just sold one and can comment on its qualities. Built in Nashville, with no connection to the Bozeman L-7C, I suspect.

[RJVB]

boyohboyohboy

Have you ever looked at Citroën's reissue of the DS, or Guzzi's California reissue? This Gibson (apparently) has at least something in common with the original, besides reusing its name because the maker thought that'd sell...

[Archie]

You can tell the plates are properly copied because they heaven't used the D'aquisto 'extra binding' in the cutaway, which came into fashion around 60-62. You could also refer to it as the 'Johnny Smith' binding.

The top plate also has the pre 60's extended arch not he upper shoulder.

I know very little about pre 50's Gibsons but the top and I suppose back plates own this are definitely in the 50's style.

On the other hand, a great acoustic guitar shouldn't usually have such long history of being passed around.

[skittles]

Thirty-eight plus posts in — enough talk; someone here should just buy it already!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ccroft]

Looks a lot more like a frog than a thistle or a crown. Let's ask John Pisano!

[vinnyv1k]

I always felt that a factory Wesmo L7 would have sold like hot cakes or at least I would buy one. Or bring back the single pu ES350.
A less fancy L5 with a 24.75 scale would be awesome IMO.
I love those 175 fretboard inlays and tailpiece.

[Dennis D]

I always felt that a factory Wesmo L7 would have sold like hot cakes or at least I would buy one. Or bring back the single pu ES350.
A less fancy L5 with a 24.75 scale would be awesome IMO.
I love those 175 fretboard inlays and tailpiece.

And a less fancy L-5 would be awesome and definitely not weigh 8 pounds. ( ' ok, 7.9 # ' ) Not exactly sure how a 350's weight would compare.

[ThatRhythmMan]

[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
The L-10 reissue with the fingerboard extension is a copy of a specific guitar ordered by Les Paul in 1938, and acquired by Chet Atkins in 1944. The RI was introduced in 2004 and a few were made up to 2008, IIRC. One might argue that the community of Chet Atkins admirers makes this a very smart, very limited-production guitar. Chuck just sold one and can comment on its qualities. Built in Nashville, with no connection to the Bozeman L-7C, I suspect.

I think these probably were made with the Chet Atkins market in mind. That was also exactly why my buyer wanted this one. It’s a nice, x-braced guitar which has immaculate construction, albeit with a somewhat thicker top than a typical Advanced L-10. In my experience, the Nashville made L-10 seemed superior to any of the Bozeman L-7s I’ve played, but that’s probably not a fair comparison, as the L-10 is a Custom Shop build made by the same guys in charge of making the other archtops, while the Bozeman guitars were often made by luthiers who were skilled, but often learning how to make archtops.

Just as a side note to clear up any confusion, the fingerboard extension is not scalloped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jazzkritter]

All this goes to show is that Gibson, at any one particular point in the time/space continuum, will do whatever it wants when building archtops. The reasons, rationale and motivations are obscure at best.

But, sure can generate a lot of board posts.

I’m with Vinny, one L5 with a 24.75” scale for me please?

[Dennis D]

All this goes to show is that Gibson, at any one particular point in the time/space continuum, will do whatever it wants when building archtops. The reasons, rationale and motivations are obscure at best.

But, sure can generate a lot of board posts.

I’m with Vinny, one L5 with a 24.75” scale for me please?

And not only are their rationale and motivations obscure, but so were / are the archtops themselves. During that 2000's R/I era, I recall a member here say he was on a direct-from-Gibson ( ? ) regularly updated list of available but limited production instruments. Not sure exactly who the member was - -Woody S or Danny ?
I just remembered drooling over a Western Sky at a guitar show. Never heard of them at all, and sure never saw one for sale anywhere. Then the L-10 R/I, via Jim Atkins then Chet A or vice versa.

Oh well - just another reminder of exactly who the mere mortal is. : )

[2bornot2bop]

I couldn’t find it on the website. Sold?