Let's talk small-bodied Gibsons

[OldCowboy]

Yep. Twists and turns and the occasional revelation.

[Stevi q]

So, finally, I have the time, money, interest, and a bad right shoulder that won't be getting any better. I am ready to stock up on small guitars. I am enter the post-dreadnought phase of my life or, in other words, I am getting old... As a singer I am really looking for an all around guitar with a lot of tone, charm, and vintage goodness. At the top of my list is a LG-2 and a Martin 0-17. The Gibson is meant to replaced my beloved J-45 when I sit on my couch or my shoulder can't take playing a dread and I find the Martin magical and charming. So right now I am on the hunt but I did want to check in with you fine people as I attempt to jump into the pool. BTW- the LG I am looking for is intended to be the guitar of my dreams, the sound in my head, the one that raises the hairs on the back of my neck. Hopefully my bank account can withstand my tastes. Here are my questions:

 

1. Are there any other standout small-bodied, vintage guitar models that I should try out before pulling the trigger? The lower bout can't be wider than an LG-2. My shoulder makes "crunchy" sounds when I try to rotate it.

 

2. What eras are generally considered good for LG-2s? Early 50's and Banners?

 

3. Vintage guitars seem to be priced according to several factors: age, condition, tone, play-ability, and historical value. For those that have gone through the process, what proved to be the most important to you over time? After all the dust cleared, what do you think you got right, wrong, and what really mattered in the end?

 

Lastly, I do not like V shaped necks.

Sounds like you should try to find a used instrument dealer ,and local music stores that have used Gibson fiat tops nn martins.I would love to know what guitar you go with ..maybe you can record each guitar so you have an extra reference besides your initial take on the instruments.write notes too.good luck on your search

[bobouz]

Have you ever played a 1950s National acoustic with the "Stylist" neck? This was an adjustable neck that had a metal core with a wood veneer surrounding it. Only thought of it because they also have a bit of that metallic sound you are talking about.

No, never have, but it seems like I recall reading something about them.

 

Rather interesting!

[tgaume]

Just acquired this 1948 LG-2 this morning- it is 40" long, 14 1/4" wide at the lower bout, 4 1/4" deep where the arm rests and 4 3/8" deep at the tailpin- very comfortable. I would recommend this for those with shoulder woes.

 

I had wanted a LG2 for over a year and a few months ago got a great deal on a 2013 American Eagle hoping it would scratch that itch. Turns out it was such an awesome little guitar it just made it worse.

 

Today I happened across a '54 LG-2 in a local shop. I just had to bring her home, she's simply amazing. Hung her on what is now officially the Gibson wall.

[BluesKing777]

Well, I was reading a guitar magazine and a totally different approach to a guitar for your shoulder problem is the new Martin D-16E which is slimmer depth (000) they tell us for more comfortable stage play, with electronics with controls in the soundhole.

 

 

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/namm-2017-martin-adds-3-fishman-equipped-acoustic-guitars-to-16-series-644675

 

 

A few months back, I bought a similar idea based 1993 Lowden LSE1 - thinner body for comfort and easier to mic live with the bass trimmed a tad, we are told.

 

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/reviews/product/lowden-guitars-lse-1/565864

 

 

Lowden haven't made that model for years, but they have the new 32SE model, similar in size to a Martin OM:

 

 

http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/guitars/lowden-32se-stage-edition-579817

 

 

 

 

Anyway, have a read and see what you think.

 

 

I love small body guitars!

 

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

[zombywoof]

I am going to run this one up the flagpole but the older I get and the more Gibsons I play I seem to have developed a thing for the CF-100. Not only are they sexy looking as all get out but those I have gotten my hands had a clear and well defined low end, real punchy mids and full and round highs. While I have played more than my fair share of flat sounding LG-2s made in the 1940s and 1950s I cannot recall ever having a run in with a CF-100 or CF-100E that left me cold. Downside, of course, is the cost. These will generally run you around double what a 1950-1959 LG-2 will. Then again, they cost about double when new. But damn, that cutaway really is beautiful. I keep thinking I just may have to do something about this unfulfilled love (or is it lust).

[OldCowboy]

I am going to run this one up the flagpole but the older I get and the more Gibsons I play I seem to have developed a thing for the CF-100. Not only are they sexy looking as all get out but those I have gotten my hands had a clear and well defined low end, real punchy mids and full and round highs. While I have played more than my fair share of flat sounding LG-2s made in the 1940s and 1950s I cannot recall ever having a run in with a CF-100 or CF-100E that left me cold. Downside, of course, is the cost. These will generally run you around double what a 1950-1959 LG-2 will. Then again, they cost about double when new. But damn, that cutaway really is beautiful. I keep thinking I just may have to do something about this unfulfilled love (or is it lust).

The CF guitars are nice, but have been overpriced throughout my lifetime. If the need for a cutaway was an issue, maybe the extra $ would be justifiable to some.

[BluesKing777]

I am going to run this one up the flagpole but the older I get and the more Gibsons I play I seem to have developed a thing for the CF-100. Not only are they sexy looking as all get out but those I have gotten my hands had a clear and well defined low end, real punchy mids and full and round highs. While I have played more than my fair share of flat sounding LG-2s made in the 1940s and 1950s I cannot recall ever having a run in with a CF-100 or CF-100E that left me cold. Downside, of course, is the cost. These will generally run you around double what a 1950-1959 LG-2 will. Then again, they cost about double when new. But damn, that cutaway really is beautiful. I keep thinking I just may have to do something about this unfulfilled love (or is it lust).

 

 

 

Brand new Gibson CF-100E Collectors edition on the Gibson site:

 

 

http://www.gibson.com/Products/Acoustic-Instruments/2017/CF-100E-Collectors-Edition.aspx

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

[zombywoof]

The CF guitars are nice, but have been overpriced throughout my lifetime. If the need for a cutaway was an issue, maybe the extra $ would be justifiable to some.

 

Yeah, these are expensive little guitars. It is more than the cutaway or even the bling. The LG was an entry level guitar, the CF-100 was not - costing more than a J-45/50 or SJ. These guitars were a radical departure for Gibson and they did not produce a whole lot of them. I am guessing, Gibson took some extra care with them. While I have not seen enough CF-100s to really be able to make any generalizations, I know at least the post-1955 CF-100s were built with braces with a longer taper than I have seen in other Gibsons from the mid- to late-1950s. This would give you a lighter bracing and theoretically a more responsive LG although I suspect also a weaker bracing where the X is joined. I am seriously thinking about snagging a CF-100. Depending on what I hear and feel, it s also not beyond the realm of possibility that I will throw my '46 LG-2 in as a trade.

[OldCowboy]

Yeah, these are expensive little guitars. It is more than the cutaway or even the bling. The LG was an entry level guitar, the CF-100 was not - costing more than a J-45/50 or SJ. These guitars were a radical departure for Gibson and they did not produce a whole lot of them. I am guessing, Gibson took some extra care with them. While I have not seen enough CF-100s to really be able to make any generalizations, I know at least the post-1955 CF-100s were built with braces with a longer taper than I have seen in other Gibsons from the mid- to late-1950s. This would give you a lighter bracing and theoretically a more responsive LG although I suspect also a weaker bracing where the X is joined. I am seriously thinking about snagging a CF-100. Depending on what I hear and feel, it s also not beyond the realm of possibility that I will throw my '46 LG-2 in as a trade.

I had a '46 LG-2 that I loved - fine tone and a baseball bat neck. Sold it to cover some expenses long ago and still miss it. That is, as they say, how it goes, but I gravitate more to big guitars in general.

[zombywoof]

I had a '46 LG-2 that I loved - fine tone and a baseball bat neck. Sold it to cover some expenses long ago and still miss it. That is, as they say, how it goes, but I gravitate more to big guitars in general.

 

The one thing I never liked about my '46 LG-2 is what I consider to be a slim neck carve. Probably just a different frame of reference. Many of my guitars date from the 1930s and had no neck reinforcement other than sheer bulk. I would say the fattest neck on any Gibson I have ever owned is the V neck on my 1935 Capital.

[tpbiii]

I have been on the road for a couple of months, so I have avoided this this thread. That is because I have spent a good portion of my adult life researching this topic. I think we pretty much have all the instruments being discussed.

 

Here are some pictures for some of the flat top guitars. I am sorry I don't have them separated by big/little. That is indeed a major divide, particularly in the 1930s.

 

1930s

 

 

1940s

 

 

Zoos

 

 

LGs -- 42 LG-1, 46 LG-2, 59 LG-1

 

 

 

60s

 

 

 

We also have a 49 CF-100 -- not pictured.

 

Much has already been said. I'll just add a few thoughts.

 

First, if neck geometry drives you, then I have not much to add. I long ago developed the ability to adapt quickly (during a short warmup) to any neck we have -- from 2 1/4 RSSD to the fine neck HB. Sound is our thing. The neck does add to the fabric of a session -- nice, but not so important as sound, the acoustic environment and the ensemble.

 

Second, if you like mahogany tops, the 42 LG-1 is a good example for a guitar with that feature -- as is the 0-17 and the 00-17. I like them both, but many people prefer spruce tops.

 

Third, there were 3/4 guitars before the 50s -- we have a 35 L-00 3/4 and a 42 Zoo Sport Model. The L-00 3/4 is a fine kick butt (X-braced) guitar, but it is really small. They all are.

 

Fourth, an interesting outlier among our guitars is the 65 F-25. Amazing power -- reminds one of the 30s. Quirky as stated -- and the designed evolved -- but we have a killer.

 

Fifth with regard just old guitars, we probably walked away from 90% of the old guitars we ever considered just because we only bought exceptional sounding examples. Many, many old guitars have not made it through unscathed -- often the problem can be found and fixed. Often not.

 

Finally we spent a lot of time in the past decade developing a system capable of faithful sound reproduction of single vintage guitars.

 

There are a lot of examples here and here and in other albums here. There are examples of most of the guitars discussed here.

 

Good hunting.

 

Let's pick,

-Tom

[zombywoof]

 

 

We also have a 49 CF-100 -- not pictured.

 

 

 

Not only have I never seen a 1949 CF-100, I have never even heard of a 1949 CF-100. You gotta love Gibson.

[OldCowboy]

The one thing I never liked about my '46 LG-2 is what I consider to be a slim neck carve. Probably just a different frame of reference. Many of my guitars date from the 1930s and had no neck reinforcement other than sheer bulk. I would say the fattest neck on any Gibson I have ever owned is the V neck on my 1935 Capital.

The neck on my '46 was a monster 'C' configuration that took me some time and searching to find a capo that even began to fit. As hefty as many of the 1920's and 1930's Gibsons I've played, except it wasn't a 'V'. Knowing my luck, I most likely turned loose of an anomaly that I can never replace😨

[Bozz]

I've really enjoyed this thread. So much great information, knowledge, and opinions being shared. It's exactly why I continue to hang around and eavesdrop.

[Cabarone]

I had a '66 LG-0 for a little while and loved it. It was a great little player with a lot more sound than I expected...

[theflyingturtle]

I have been on the road for a couple of months, so I have avoided this this thread. That is because I have spent a good portion of my adult life researching this topic. I think we pretty much have all the instruments being discussed.

 

Here are some pictures for some of the flat top guitars. I am sorry I don't have them separated by big/little. That is indeed a major divide, particularly in the 1930s.

 

1930s

 

 

1940s

 

 

Zoos

 

 

LGs -- 42 LG-1, 46 LG-2, 59 LG-1

 

 

 

60s

 

 

 

We also have a 49 CF-100 -- not pictured.

 

Much has already been said. I'll just add a few thoughts.

 

First, if neck geometry drives you, then I have not much to add. I long ago developed the ability to adapt quickly (during a short warmup) to any neck we have -- from 2 1/4 RSSD to the fine neck HB. Sound is our thing. The neck does add to the fabric of a session -- nice, but not so important as sound, the acoustic environment and the ensemble.

 

Second, if you like mahogany tops, the 42 LG-1 is a good example for a guitar with that feature -- as is the 0-17 and the 00-17. I like them both, but many people prefer spruce tops.

 

Third, there were 3/4 guitars before the 50s -- we have a 35 L-00 3/4 and a 42 Zoo Sport Model. The L-00 3/4 is a fine kick butt (X-braced) guitar, but it is really small. They all are.

 

Fourth, an interesting outlier among our guitars is the 65 F-25. Amazing power -- reminds one of the 30s. Quirky as stated -- and the designed evolved -- but we have a killer.

 

Fifth with regard just old guitars, we probably walked away from 90% of the old guitars we ever considered just because we only bought exceptional sounding examples. Many, many old guitars have not made it through unscathed -- often the problem can be found and fixed. Often not.

 

Finally we spent a lot of time in the past decade developing a system capable of faithful sound reproduction of single vintage guitars.

 

There are a lot of examples here and here and in other albums here. There are examples of most of the guitars discussed here.

 

Good hunting.

 

Let's pick,

-Tom

 

Thanks Tom. I appreciate you taking the time to share your experiences, especially the fifth point you made. That's some good advice and some great wisdom. It speaks to the ambiguous nature of seeking out vintage guitars.