L2 Tribute

[JuanCarlosVejar]

check it out :

 

http://www.themusiczoo.com/product/19376/Gibson-L-2-Tribute-Acoustic-Guitar-Antique-Natural/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[TM]

Gibson: Here is an L2 from 1929. Mahogany back and sides..Argentine Grey finish..larger body. Get in touch, glad to give you the details. Case not original.

 

[JuanCarlosVejar]

gibson states that some of those L2's were built with rosewood :

 

 

the music zoo page had this to say about the guitar :

 

This very rare and collectable model combines the body of the famous L-1 blues guitar from 1926 with the upgraded details and materials of a rare 1929 L-2 model

 

 

 

 

so I think that's where the tribute part comes in .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[gov]

have to say i really like what gibson is doing with these reissues lately. historically accurate or otherwise...

[tpbiii]

gibson states that some of those L2's were built with rosewood :

 

 

the music zoo page had this to say about the guitar :

 

This very rare and collectable model combines the body of the famous L-1 blues guitar from 1926 with the upgraded details and materials of a rare 1929 L-2 model

 

 

 

 

so I think that's where the tribute part comes in .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

 

The 1932s were RW -- no others.

 

Many of those had a trapeze bridge -- go figure.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[TM]

Notice the catalog description is for an elevated ebony fingerboard that joins at the 14th fret.

 

I too like some of the reissues.

 

Gibson's ignorance of their history is just a bit too much.

 

Why do they continue to reissue is this body style? Why not do a large body 12 fret like the L2 above with a nice sunburst finish, body binding and call it the L1.

[Jayyj]

I'd understand models like this better if they complimented vaguely accurate reissues of the originals. Sure, they do an L-1, occasionally without the horrendous Robert Johnson inlay across the fingerboard, but with the enormous soundhole, 30's style sunburst and pearl script headstock logo it's hardly more than an artist's impression of the original. Then we have the Keb Mo (and previously the L-20) which is interesting but not a reissue, and the L-00/Blues King which has been through a few incarnations.

 

I know Gibson is in business of making guitars, not giving history lessons, but it's frustrating when you're a fan of this era and body style that a company that make a dozen different historically accurate Les Paul or 335 replicas can't manage anything closer than a vague similarity when it comes to L styles: doubly so when the marketing spiel makes reference to the iconic status of these models and erroneously references particular years.

 

I guess there's an argument that you can still find a nice '30s L-00 for $3-4000, and a '26-'27 pre-sunburst small body L-1 or L-0 for more like $2-3000, so the market for a historically accurate reissue is diluted. After all, I own both those two guitars, which means I'm not really in the market for a reissue myself. But original L-2s sell for not insignificant amounts of money - surely a reissue at least in the same league as the recent J-35 or J-100 would be a more worthwhile venture for Gibson than a weird hybrid?

[tpbiii]

Our '31 L-2 was found in pieces in a box -- it had a terrible refinish, apparently done with a mop.

 

Sound wizard John Farley put it back together and then Randy Wood "restored" it.

 

It is an amazing guitar. People often come to visit our guitars. Many are bluegrass people and flat pickers, and they mostly visit the old dreads. Others are young hot pickers who have varied interests. The last group are coffee house, singer-songwriters and (bare finger) fingerstyle pickers. For these we have quite a few guitars to sample -- prewar OMs and 000s, lots of banners, HG-00, Centurys, KG-14s and 11s, L-00s and L-1s, LGs, and even a F-25. Almost 100% of the time, the L-2 is the "winner." At least two people went home and bought one, and a well known singer-songwriter said if that had been the only guitar he got to play, it would have been worth the trip.

 

It is hard to know how this compares to an original -- I think I'll go take it out right now.

 

 

 

 

Here it is being compared to nine iconic small bodied guitars from the 30s -- HG-Century, 00-18 12-fret, HG-00, 00-18H, 00-40H (the one Norman Blake made famous), 0-18 (14-fret), 31 Gibson Studio King, 26 L-1, and 00-18 (14ret).

 

https://vimeo.com/groups/212305

 

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[jt]

A curious "reissue": the L-2 never came with that body style.

[BluesKing777]

Even I of limited experience saw the picture and thought: "No? They didn't have one that looked like that, did they?"

 

I have been studying L shape Gibsons on the internet for a while, out of interest.

 

I love the pics of the real models, thanks.

 

 

 

The new one looks nice though!

 

 

BluesKing777.

[tpbiii]

Even I of limited experience saw the picture and thought: "No? They didn't have one that looked like that, did they?"

 

I have been studying L shape Gibsons on the internet for a while, out of interest.

 

I love the pics of the real models, thanks.

 

 

 

The new one looks nice though!

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

I am not at all sure that is true -- in fact I'm pretty sure it is not.. The flat top L-2s were introduced in 1929 -- there were two batches that year. During that time period, the L-0, L-1, and Nick Lucas all had the same footprint, and during most of its life (29-31), the L-2 had the same footprint (but different depth) as the Lucas. In 1929 all the others had the same footprint as the new reissue -- I would be amazed if the two L-2 batches were not the same. They are very rare -- the later L-2s are way more common. So maybe for once, Gibson actually knew what they were doing -- sort of.

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

[Jayyj]

If Gibson got it right I'd be inclined to put it down to a fluke rather than any great knowledge in their R&D department!

 

Tom, I bow to your superior knowledge on these things, but I thought the L-2s were the first model to use the new body shape, with the L-1, L-0 and NL switching shortly after? And weren't the Rosewood examples later, following the Argentine Grey examples?

[TM]

but I thought the L-2s were the first model to use the new body shape, with the L-1, L-0 and NL switching shortly after? And weren't the Rosewood examples later, following the Argentine Grey examples?

 

In terms of FONs the present data shows Kel Kroydon, L1s, L0s, L2s switching before the Nick Lucas. The earliest big body FON I have is for a Kel Kroydon. The transition happened fairly close together. Some small body guitars were built after the transition or guitars that were finished after the transition. I would think it would have been a fairly significant change, going to the larger more "modern" looking body shape.

 

The large body 12 frets are somewhat scarce. The Argentine L2 the fewest in numbers. Some of the large bodies had the transitional A bracing although I am not aware of one with H bracing. These 12 fret large bodies were built during the depression and few were built. The 12 fret large bodies are some of the finest guitars Gibson built. That 12 fret neck just makes a sweet spot for the bridge. They are extremely lightly built. Tuning them you think they will explode.

 

By 1932 FON 298 the 14 fret guitar was introduced. Here again a few 12 fret guitars were built after the transition in very small numbers.

 

Terry

[TM]

I just posted these pics in the Vintage section.

 

[tpbiii]

Terry, you are the man!

 

 

 

Best,

 

-Tom

 

 

I just posted these pics in the Vintage section.

 

[JuanCarlosVejar]

I just posted these pics in the Vintage section.

 

 

 

=) wow some really sweet axes right there ...

 

 

 

 

thanks

 

 

 

JC

[TM]

Thought someone may like these pics. Thanks for posting the links you do. I'm not jumping on you about the L2, rather my issue is with Gibson company. It is a rather cool guitar, just nothing like an L2 from 1929.

 

Notice the maple blonde L1? That is a 1993 L1CM (custom maple) one of like 23 they made that year. Documented in the Fabulous Flattops book. They were also produced in sunburst finish. I sold that guitar and it was a nice one. I have seen pics of the sunburst and they are striking.

 

Terry

[TM]

Terry, you are the man!

 

Tom, just a guy like you an owner. Your comments on the L2, which I have heard before, are so true of the L2. I don't know if I own or have owned a better guitar. I had that refinned black one a couple of years back on approval. It had been rebraced on most of the inside and still had a sound similar to my original example. Can't explain that. I have owned an all mahognay 12 fret big body and it was a loud guitar, just not as sophisticated as the L2. Never played a 12 fret L1 in the large body, curious to what they sound like. Maybe they are all as good.

 

Forgot the Kels. They are very deep sounding, but lack the quality of a Gibson branded guitar. The necks are narrower and just not as nice, but they can be affordable.

 

Terry

[BluesKing777]

Incredible pics, thanks Terry.

 

Could I ask if you have an lower end L-00s/L-0s and pics?

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

[Rambler]

A curious "reissue": the L-2 never came with that body style.

Marketing strikes again. The L2 had an L00 chassis. This is more like a shallow '29 Nick Lucas. No doubt a sweet little box but why give it a historic model designation if its not true to specs?