Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

The new LG-2 Americana... so what is it??


twalker

Recommended Posts

The L-00 was 14.75" wide, 14 frets to the body with scalloped X bracing under a Spruce top and a hog body. It was discontinued in 1945.

 

The L-2 was also 14.75" wide with 12 frets to the body.

 

The LG-2 was 14 1/8" wide with X bracing under a Spruce top.

 

Gibson is calling this new model an LG-2 but under the specs they say the body size is that of an L-2 which makes no sense at it is a 14 fretter.

 

What does this tell me? That I had WAY too much coffee this morning. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a small-bodied, mahogany Gibson but the LG-2 is a bit of a misnomer. The body mold is new. The shape is similar to the old LG-2 but has been recurved. At times it seems like Gibson Montana is stubbornly resisting issuing the basic LG-2 design. They put it out but with a mahogany top, spruce top but the body is different...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the consistent inconsistency of Gibson's nomenclature and production methods

is just part of the charm. [smile]

 

PS (while I'm writing this)

Enjoying a fine cup of java looking my J-45 TV [wub] with a belly up bridge which it shouldn't

have for the "Banner Era" guitar it is suppose to represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another Gibson model that leaves you scratching your head.

 

gibson's objective is to turn a profit in the most efficient way it can. it's objective is not be a historically accurate reproduction company. i'm sure there are any number of reasons to change things like bridge design, body molds, top type etc. that relate to inventory levels, resource availability, raw material scarcity etc. No question for some the "rarity" of an edition of only 50 creates the insatiable need to own.

 

While I personally wish they would stay as accurate as possible, i'm not naive to the business aspect as the driver of this all. plus as noted, most of these are limited to runs of 50 anyways so not likely to have any real visibility beyond the month they come out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gibson's objective is to turn a profit in the most efficient way it can. it's objective is not be a historically accurate reproduction company. i'm sure there are any number of reasons to change things like bridge design, body molds, top type etc. that relate to inventory levels, resource availability, raw material scarcity etc. No question for some the "rarity" of an edition of only 50 creates the insatiable need to own.

 

While I personally wish they would stay as accurate as possible, i'm not naive to the business aspect as the driver of this all. plus as noted, most of these are limited to runs of 50 anyways so not likely to have any real visibility beyond the month they come out.

 

+1

 

 

I'm just glad gibson is making great stuff !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seems to me that the modern guitar market is pretty odd. Now what lights our fire is old guitars -- the combination of history, sound, and the search has consumed us for years. We really don't have any interest in a new guitar that can be functionally replaced with an old guitar. But I am not an "old" nut -- if new guitars could do stuff I wanted done, I would be on them like a duck on a June bug.

 

As an acoustic scientist, however, I see a lot of possibilities for invention -- I don't plan to do it, because that would be like work, but I thought someone would.

 

For example, we have a couple carbon fiber guitars -- for when we plug in and when we don't want to totally protect the instrument. Modern chemistry, auditory theory, and big data supercomputing has a good chance to craft something extraordinary. It seems to me it might change the world. I would love to have reasonably priced carbon fiber mandolin for example.

 

Now new guitars don't sound like old guitars. So buying new copies of old guitar is not at all like buying old guitar -- big years make a big difference. But for some reason, most of the modern high end American flat top market is anchored in the past. Clearly it is driven by customer desire -- but why is that desire so strong?

 

Until that market can be understood, then it is hard for me to answer what is important in reissues. They are clearly different in so many ways, but the authentic Martin market seems to say people are willing to pay to minimize the differences. I have played many Martin D-18As, and many of them are very good -- but they don't sound old.

 

Let's pick,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Tom!

 

 

A real big seller would be a guitar that sounds entirely vintage (not carbon F); extremely light weight (carbon F); easy to look after in all conditions (carbon F?); with a fold out or self-inflating case of molten carbon F or something really, really strong not invented yet: all at a fair price!

 

 

BluesKing777.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now new guitars don't sound like old guitars. So buying new copies of old guitar is not at all like buying old guitar -- big years make a big difference. But for some reason, most of the modern high end American flat top market is anchored in the past. Clearly it is driven by customer desire -- but why is that desire so strong?

 

 

 

I have heard untold theories about what sets old guitars apart from newer instruments.

 

Some cite the fact that the wood they used like old growth red spruce is just no longer available with the secondary growth wood used today having a different stiffness/strength to weight ratio which allowed Gibson and others to use tops and bracing that were thinner and lighter. Others will bring in maybe pre-EPA lacquer which Gibson actually used to heat before spraying literally creating a bomb ready to explode. Others just say it is a way this wood and lacquer aged.

 

Me, I don't have a clue. After learning about and experiencing more Banner Gibsons with pretty major build screw ups such as mismatched top wood, off center bracing and the like though I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the commonly held logic, beliefs and science about guitar building that can explain why they sound so good - and I mean scary good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard untold theories about what sets old guitars apart from newer instruments.

 

Some cite the fact that the wood they used like old growth red spruce is just no longer available with the secondary growth wood used today having a different stiffness/strength to weight ratio which allowed Gibson and others to use tops and bracing that were thinner and lighter. Others will bring in maybe pre-EPA lacquer which Gibson actually used to heat before spraying literally creating a bomb ready to explode. Others just say it is a way this wood and lacquer aged.

 

Me, I don't have a clue. After learning about and experiencing more Banner Gibsons with pretty major build screw ups such as mismatched top wood, off center bracing and the like though I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the commonly held logic, beliefs and science about guitar building that can explain why they sound so good - and I mean scary good.

 

I don't know either. Our huge focus on old instrument started out with a skepticism about what I was being told -- mostly by old time bluegrass players in the 1970s -- and eventually becoming a true believer. In a signal processing sense, I now mostly understand what I am hearing, but in terms of guitar properties, none of the simple answers stand up to close scrutiny. It does seem to have to do with the passage of time, but why is not at all clear -- at least not to me.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know either. Our huge focus on old instrument started out with a skepticism about what I was being told -- mostly by old time bluegrass players in the 1970s -- and eventually becoming a true believer.

 

I think my affinity for old guitars is that I grew up with them. It is hard to believe now but back then it was not out of choice or design but pretty much all that I could afford. I used to look at my 1930s Martin archtop and just bemoan the fact that I was stuck with it instead of a brand new shiny this or that guitar. But I got over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent a lot of years in the '70s fixing up inexpensive flea market guitars (lots of forgotten archtops) to resell and get increasingly better instruments. Personally, I enjoy both vintage and new instruments. I now have more new instruments than vintage, but can appreciate aspects of both.

 

In looking at the recent series of small LG style guitars being introduced, reissue-worthiness is not much of a factor for me. I tend to take these guitars at face value, and then you've got to get them in hand to see what you've got.

 

I recently took a blind faith leap on the LG-2 AE becuase it was not to be found locally. Of course I assured there were full return rights. But the bottom line is, it ended up being a fine instrument that will go into my "keeper" category.

 

I'm thrilled to see Gibson putting out this current variety of small-bodies.

 

Hope it continues!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent a lot of years in the '70s fixing up inexpensive flea market guitars (lots of forgotten archtops) to resell and get increasingly better instruments. Personally, I enjoy both vintage and new instruments. I now have more new instruments than vintage, but can appreciate aspects of both.

 

In looking at the recent series of small LG style guitars being introduced, reissue-worthiness is not much of a factor for me. I tend to take these guitars at face value, and then you've got to get them in hand to see what you've got.

 

I recently took a blind faith leap on the LG-2 AE becuase it was not to be found locally. Of course I assured there were full return rights. But the bottom line is, it ended up being a fine instrument that will go into my "keeper" category.

 

I'm thrilled to see Gibson putting out this current variety of small-bodies.

 

Hope it continues!

 

I agree ... for some reason these LG/L style guitars gibson has been putting out look like real gems .

beautiful guitars doesn't matter if they are vintage or new .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

listen to this Arlo LG2 3/4 :

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

 

 

I'm just glad gibson is making great stuff !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

 

Totally.. I love the fact that my LG2 has a few modern appointments here and there. If it were an exact modern copy of the original, it would feel like a 'copy'

The tappered neck is super comfortable and the more oval shaped front and back can only help tonewise.. giving it more of a bell like swell.

I never get bored of that guitar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't mind us griping about the name. That has nothing to do with the guitar itself and its virtues.

 

The reason I think "LG-2" is a misnomer is the original LG-2 had, I think, the smallest lower bout of any non-3/4, non-terz Gibson acoustic. In this incarnation this relationship no longer obtains. Re-drawing the curves is one thing. Changing the size seems like another. Oh well. Gibson is an early pioneer of fuzzy logic concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...