What do you think of this 1928 Gibson L-5

Founded by Steve Stallings. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum is an independent Internet forum which is not in any manner related to or affiliated with C. F. Martin & Co., (The Martin Guitar Company) Nazareth, PA. The statements and opinions expressed in the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum are solely those of the individuals posting the same and are not those of C.F. Martin & Co., The Martin Guitar Company, the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, its administrators, moderators, agents and other voluntary staff, its supporters, financial or otherwise, or its members, guests or other contributors. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum does not sponsor or endorse any product or service referred to, submitted or suggested by any member, guest or contributor to the Forum. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum and its voluntary staff shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever to any person or organization with respect to any matter posted by any individual on the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, for the deletion of any such matter, for the content thereof, or for the banning, suspension or other sanctioning of any user from this Forum, or for the denial of an application to become a member of this Forum. The content and accuracy of any post are solely the responsibility of the member making the post. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum shall further not be responsible for references or links to other Internet sites or links contained on other Internet sites to the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum or to the UMGF, or for the contents thereof. This specifically includes the CafePress Store for UMGF Memorabilia, which is not owned, operated or controlled by the UMGF but by Cafepress.com, an independent organization which markets, sells and ships the items contained in the CafePress Store and retains the proceeds therefrom. The sole function of the UMGF with respect thereto is to provide a link for the convenience of its members. By using, browsing or consulting this Forum, you consent to the foregoing terms as well as to the guidelines set forth in the Forum Guidelines and Feedback section and the general terms of use of Yuku. The exclusive venue for proceedings against the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, its members, trustees, officers or Administrators is the Superior Court, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, and any such proceeding shall be governed by New Jersey law. No damages or monetary awards of any nature, including attorneys fees or punitive damages may be assessed against the UMGF, its members, trustees, officers or Administrators under any circumstances whatsoever.

0 Kudos

Add Reply New Topic

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
HD28VGUY	What do you think of this 1928 Gibson L-5	Lead	[-]
(10/23/09 11:16 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Tags : None http://www.om28.com/sarchtop/28l5.html I talked to Eric about it. And he said it plays and sounds great. The reports on the forum, with one exception, are the same. Price seems reasonable given what I know about the current 1928 L-5 market and the guitar seems to be in really good condition EXCEPT the finish on the top. A couple of questions for the experts. Is a finish in this condition a liability in terms of the sound or structural health of the guitar? Also, to tell the truth one of things that attracts me to L-5's (apart from my adoration of Maybelle Carter) is their extraordinary beauty. Wish the one at Schoenberg looked more like this... http://www.blue-g.com/stk/detail.cgi?pid=02948 But the one at Blue G costs A LOT more, and, of course, there's shipping from Japan. What are your thoughts on refinishing an L-5? Is it moronic? Eric said a lot can be accomplished with a French polish. Is this true? Thanks for the feedback.
Howard Klepper		#1	[-]
(10/23/09 11:52 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The one at Blue G looks refinished. A lot of the scratches on the one at Eric's can be made much harder to see by the judicious application of colored shellac with a fine brush. I don't know if that is currently frowned upon by purist collectors. Doing an overall french polished shellac coat on top of that is an option if you want a shine, but by itself the overall coat by itself won't do as much to disappear the scratches.
airstreamgypsy		#2	[-]
(10/23/09 12:13 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	if you could live with block fret markers, you could get A LOT more guitar for the money - you are paying a lot for those dots imo. i like the dot fb too, but not an extra 4K. you can find '28-30 block board L5s in great shape for under $10K. of course, a guitar with this much play wear will probably sound incredible - thats my observation over the years. i've owned and played a lot of early l-5s and i DO like the dot fb period - these guitars are not exactly flying out of dealer showrooms though, and if you bide your time and look, you can find some better examples out there for this kind of money - when you get in the $12-15K range, you would be surprised at how cash talks.
bald melon jefferson		#3	[-]
(10/23/09 12:26 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A gentleman who knew what he was doing was playing that in Eric's shop when I was there in early September. It was hard to ignore. And this in a shop with a ridiculous amount of amazing instruments. I and a couple others stopped our noddling (could no longer hear ourselves anyways) to enjoy the show. Lots of smiles all around. It wasn't as pretty as Howard's guitars but it didn't look as "bad" as in the pictures. But I love the guitars with charactor just as much as the shiney new ones. Good luck, Gary
mylescdavis		#4	[-]
(10/23/09 2:07 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Why would you want to refinish that? If you want one that's minty, then find one and pay for it, but leave that one alone, please! It is a lot of money, but it's one of the iconic guitars. The necks are a delight, they sound great and are very versatile, unlike some archtops. The block inlay guitars are less, but come in a distant second for beauty in my book. "The good Lord might have made something better than country ham, but he never has let me taste it yet...." Senator Sam Ervin Myles Cochran
BHguitars		#5	[-]
(10/23/09 4:04 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	if you could live with block fret markers, you could get A LOT more guitar for the money These are less also for another reason: in 1929 or 1930 they started to use kerfed top braces replacing the solid and carved top braces. The kerfed braces were much easier to fit and to glue in. Larry Wexer has a transition model when I'm right with block inlays and square fingerboard end but still solid top braces. I would contact Larry and discuss this feature directly with him. Laurence Wexer, Ltd. - Fine Fretted Instruments Eric Schoenberg's L-5 looks well, too but considering a refinish is no solution at all. One has to like the guitar and its look as is including the wears. A 4th is at Mass Street Music also with solid top braces. This one looks very nice, too. Talk to Jim Baggett if interested. Willi
Fred aka George		#6	[-]
(10/23/09 5:03 PM) Local user Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Willi: Could you please explain the difference between the two types of tone bars. What is a kerfed brace and how does it differ from a solid one? Thanks.
bassrun		#7	[-]
(10/23/09 6:06 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The price is certainly right on the L-5 that Larry Wexer is selling, but what do you make of the bridge? Is it non-original? And why is it angled so strangely? --John
BHguitars		#8	[-]
(10/23/09 6:25 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Could you please explain the difference between the two types of tone bars. What is a kerfed brace and how does it differ from a solid one? The additional work when bracing an arched or carved top is to shape the braces according to the arch of the top. This is not an easy operation since the arch is not uniform and each brace has to be hand fit separately step by step until it fits into the arch. The kerfed brace is easier to fit. Think about the kerfed lining at the sides. The kerfing makes the lining easier to bend following the sides curves - here: the arch's curved surface/glue joint for the braces. That means slots were cut into the braces in a particular way to make them more flexible when gluing in. That means also a loss in firmness since brace grain was cut through. They introduced this along with the transition from the dot inlay to the block inlay model around 1929 or 1930 (some exceptions possible). Larry Wexer figured this out and explained to me in detail, I was not notice before. As far as I got it right this technique was used until the new 17" L-5 was introduced in 1934. We remember the new "advanced" L-5s (and others) had a less curved arch - with an almost flat area at the top (and back) center and only with a curve at the outer edges. Now it becomes clear for what reason they modified the arch. The "flat" arch was much easier to craft (probably done with a router, then by hand finally) but also the braces could be fitted in easily again without any kerfing since the entire glue surface was flat and only the brace ends curved. In 1939 the full arch of the first L-5 with solid braces was reintroduced again - 10 years after this design was discontinued. what do you make of the bridge? Is it non-original? And why is it angled so strangely? John, The bridge is not original for sure and angled not correct. Willi
Zizala		#9	[-]
(10/23/09 7:30 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Advanced 17" models introduced in '34 were also X-braced, the use of which which might account for Gibson's "new" flatter topped arch profile. From what I've observed so far, the arch of the top reverted to a more curvaceous crown with the reintroduction of parallel tone bars mid '39. Kerfed and laminated parallel braces persisted on post-34 16" models like the f-hole L-4 and the L-50, as well as smaller bodied archtops like the L-30 and L-37. As much as this discovery of the kerfed brace method of assembly miffed me, some of my most beloved and great sounding archtops (a certain '33 L-7) have the things and seem to work quite well anyway. But I don't doubt the likely systemic superiority of the solid fitted braces on the '28 L-5. I kind of like the way the L-5 at Schoenbergs' looks....I'd be pleased to strut that scuff and scruff! z Last Edited By: Zizala 10/23/09 7:34 PM. Edited 1 times.
spock		#10	[-]
(10/23/09 8:39 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	First off, I know very little about archtops. That having been said, I would appreciate someone educating me as to why the L-5 is so highly coveted - and expensive - compared to the many other L model archtops. Thanks, Tim
wiedler		#11	[-]
(10/24/09 3:29 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	But I don't doubt the likely systemic superiority of the solid fitted braces on the '28 L-5. interestingly Epiphone (Gibson's strongest competitor in the 1930s archtop market) always used solid fitted parallel braces (as far as i know). Epi also didn't switch to x-bracing for archtops. felix '22 00-18 / '29 2-17 / '31 1-17 / '32 0-18 / '33 Olympic / '35 Blackstone / '41 Triumph / '46 L-5
BHguitars		#12	[-]
(10/24/09 4:41 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Advanced 17" models introduced in '34 were also X-braced, the use of which which might account for Gibson's "new" flatter topped arch profile. From what I've observed so far, the arch of the top reverted to a more curvaceous crown with the reintroduction of parallel tone bars mid '39. Correct, Ziz. It is my understanding that the X-brace pattern made it even more difficult to shape the braces. BTW, the reintroduction of the parallel tone bars predated the reintroduction of the rounded arch in 1939 by one year. Surprisingly in 1938 the first parallel tone bars showed up along with the long scale but still with the flat arch. Look here - sorry, the article only is in German. why the L-5 is so highly coveted - and expensive - compared to the many other L model archtops. Tim, Prices depend on supply and demand, insofar there might be some further reasons besides quality. But as far as I can tell, the L-5 is the nicest and best sounding (Gibson) archtop. For me it is the best of all even compared to the Super 400 and is not less compared to Epiphones, Strombergs and D'Angelicos. It is a top model featuring the best materials available and an exquisite design and craftsmanship. Depending on the period there are some other models (and of course other makers) like the L-7 and L-10 or the Super 400. But when asking about the best archtops ever made you will hear the L-5 among the top 5 always - 16" and 17". While one of the best examples of the heavier and bigger "modern" archtop style were made between 1939 and 1942 (17" size, parallel bracing, full rounded arch, long scale, red spruce top), the mid to late '20s 16" L-5 is among the nicest and best sounding guitars at all but very unique. Since it's sound is special and not very popular in modern music it is appreciated only by a smaller group of aficionados. For that reason it is much undervalued compared to the top of the line flattops. That said by a flattop guy. Willi
wiedler		#13	[-]
(10/24/09 5:29 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	willi, nicely said! the mid to late '20s 16" L-5 is among the nicest and best sounding guitars at all but very unique usually the most expensive L-5 models are the earliest examples signed by Lloyd Loar (although not as expensive as Loar-signed F-5 mandolins). i have never played a Loar L-5 - has anyone in the forum? i wonder how Loars compare to the examples from the immediate post-Loar years? many Loars seem to have a birch back. felix '22 00-18 / '29 2-17 / '31 1-17 / '32 0-18 / '33 Olympic / '35 Blackstone / '41 Triumph / '46 L-5
BHguitars		#14	[-]
(10/24/09 6:30 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	i have never played a Loar L-5 - has anyone in the forum? i wonder how Loars compare to the examples from the immediate post-Loar years? many Loars seem to have a birch back. Felix, Yes, many have birch B&S what I find is surprising since the period mandos including the Loar F-5s are maple. Birch is a good tonewood but I feel the maple examples are superior also tonewise. The Mandolin Archives also has a number of Loar L-5s listed. At Gruhn's Guitars Features there are some examples shown including Maybelle Carter's famous 1928 model. I'm not aware of any particular change or difference to the early post Loar models in construction. I've heard some people saying that some (1926 models) actually are better sounding than those signed by Loar. A very nice and wonderful sounding L-5 I remember was George Gruhn's personal 1929 with block inlays. Willi
neil harpe		#15	[-]
(10/24/09 6:57 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	On the subject of arch top guitar top braces, I recently acquired a 1944 Harmony (top-of-the-line) "Cremona VI Carved top" guitar. I found this instrument's method of construction rather novel. The braces are integral to the top itself. The top braces were actually carved "in place" rather than being fashioned as separate pieces to be fitted and glued to the under surface of the top.
cfhcfh		#16	[-]
(10/24/09 8:25 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I love Epi archtops. I think they rock. And man they are cheap compared to gibson. The "juice is worth the squeeze" when it comes to Epiphones. They are just really nice arch tops with a great feel and sound. But here' the reason why i REALLY like Epiphones. The following is a combination of the best of ALL worlds. This guitar has it all! (I just wish that bridge was original, though frankly, I don't know what it should look like, just it looks rather big for this guitar. heck maybe it is original? that i don't know.) Last Edited By: cfhcfh 10/24/09 8:28 AM. Edited 2 times.
RevGeo		#17	[-]
(10/24/09 8:58 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I love archtops, both acoustic and electric. I had an ES 350T (the Chuck Berry guitar) for a while and it was the only Gibson electric I ever really fell in love with, tone and playability-wise. It's too bad more people don't appreciate the tone of a fine archtop acoustic guitar, but maybe that is a good thing since it keeps the prices comparativley low. I've always had an itch for a cool old Stromberg. Something about those guitars just gets to me. Archtops make for a nice sounding fingerpicking blues/ragtime guitar, IMHO. Rev George
airstreamgypsy		#18	[-]
(10/24/09 9:40 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	i got out my worn old '39 L-5N (natural!) this morning and i dont quite understand the reference to going back to the high crown, this one IS parallel braced, but the arch is flat - i have always assumed they were all flat on the 17" models, i havent played many post war l-5's, i like the pre-wars better, so maybe they were arched more later. a lot of people think the arch has collapsed on these when they first look at them - thats interesting that some feel the flat arch was to fit the tone bars easily (or X brace) - new one on me. i prefer the // to the X brace sound, although the X may have a bit more power - which would be nice in a big band...but how many people are playing with them these days. imo, many of the early gibson FLATTOPS that i've played, and i own a great '34 Jumbo, have that gibson archtop characteristic in the sound - the note comes out and smacks you and then dies off - almost as if they were designed this way. the early 30's 16" pre-"advanced" guitars seem to be too brite sounding, they do work nice for chord melody stuff. if i had to rank them, it would be a toss up between the '25-28 period and the '39-41 parallel braced period. all of the pre-war L series guitars were professional grade, even the lowly L-50 can be very nice guitars - i have found (as others) that the L-7 is the best bang for the buck, some of the best archtops i've played were L-7s. the L-5 however, once you have a nice one in your hands is the king, even imo, over the S400 which is too big and muddy for anything other than driving a rhythm section (which is what they were designed for) - i read where Les Paul said the only guitar he ever totally disliked was the 400, which he played for a while in the 30's. Last Edited By: airstreamgypsy 03/21/50 4:56 PM. Edited 1 times.
apossibleworld		#19	[-]
(10/24/09 10:07 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Keep in mind that Gibson serial numbers in the late 20s pretty much just give you a vague impression of what's going on. My L-5 has solid braces and a serial number and FON that seem to date from '28, but later '29 neck features, block inlays and the gold grovers, not the waverly strip tuners of 28. But the neck's never been off, it blacklights perfectly. I suspect it's the old "grab a body out of a box and put on a neck" story. Also keep in mind that the neck angle will make a huge difference in how these guitars sound. Mine has a very low angle and a low bridge, which gives it a warm woody response that reminds me more of a great flattop or a later D'Angelico, than the bright cutting sound we normally associate with classic archtops. I looked around for a long time, trying to find a 30s L-7, 12, 10, that would make me happy, but nothing felt right til I put this guitar in my hands. I would be curious to know more about the "pre-catalog" 16" L-10s (and L-12s?) that some people list being as early as 1929. They seem to be L-5s that are finished faster and cheaper, just so Gibson had something to sell for less. Has anybody made a direct comparison for sound?
airstreamgypsy		#20	[-]
(10/24/09 12:04 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	thats true about dating late 20's-30's gibsons by serial number. there is a whole mess of new research that shows many of these guitars, banjos, mandolins were not shipped anywhere near the date of the SN, or where they were "suppose" to be according to characteristics of that time frame. i've seen F-5 mandolins shipped/SN as late as 1933 that i could swear were left from 1927, they would just have the 33 serial number and sunburst pattern and block inlays and the rest was dead on mid-20's F-5. just like any factory, they are gonna use what they have til its gone. the serial number was probably given to the instrument toward the end, rather than right at the beginning of production like martin. the banjo world has realized this for a while, but Gibson would take parts off stock items and put them on current orders - didnt matter what the catalog said - serial numbered rims from 1933 showing up on 1937 shipped banjos, etc.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

What do you think of this 1928 Gibson L-5

What do you think of this 1928 Gibson L-5