brianjamespeck Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Hello forum, I haven't come across any discussion here on L-48's, and maybe it's because they're not worth talking about. However, if anyone has any information about them, or stories of ones you've played please tell. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunningham26 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Hey Brian, I have a '46 L48/L50 that I love. It was the first old guitar I ever bought, so it will never go anywhere, even though I play it infrequently and when I do it seems to have a mood of its own about whether it wants to sound any good. Somewhere along the line someone added a pickup at the neck, and while I wouldnt do that to an old gibson, it sounds 1000x better plugged in than acoustic. These were sort of low man on the totem, student level guitars, so imo they're not going to sound mind blowing even with age. They're also a cheap entry into the world of old guitars, but beware, it's a slippery slope to the banner acoustics! Here's mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianjamespeck Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 Cunningham26, Thank you for your response. I agree, the L-48 is an affordable entry into the vintage market, and it turns out it was my first old guitar as well! I'm sorry that you are unhappy with the acoustic qualities of yours. It certainly influences your opinion on them. Have you played any others? I've had mine for about 5 years, and I had never played or heard of these models when I bought it. I bought it purely because of the way it sounded, the way it felt, and it's appearance. Since I've had it, I've tried a handful of other L-48's that were hanging on the walls of shops, and it's certainly true that there are some really disappointingly dead ones out there. There are only 2 that I've played that hold there own and have the acoustic qualities any seasoned player could appreciate. I'm happy to say I have one of them, and I certainly wouldn't have taken it home if it felt and sounded poorly made. But what do I know, I'm just a "newbie". Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianjamespeck Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 I feel like my response sounded a bit snooty. I apologize, Cunningham. That's not what I was going for. I am a bit frustrated that these guitars have a bad name to them. Has anyone else had there hands on one of these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunningham26 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 No problem brian, i dont think it sounded snooty or anything. Mine has been beat to hell and back and im sure it has taken a toll on the way it sounds- it has water damage and the back and sides were coming apart at one point. Mine being a 46, I'm almost certain it was just made from whatever was lying around. I do however LOVE the giant neck and the feel of it when im in sync with it- I'll never sell it or stop playing it because of those moments of clarity where it shines. I've played some 50's models and been underwhelmed, but I think that's just the difference between a student model and an actual made-for-performance model, sort of like some squiers with some fenders. I also think that a good sounding acoustic archtop still sounds unfamiliar to most people, myself included, and is just an antiquated sound like a harp guitar or something. Plenty of performers like the middle ground of something like the es-125 and 125td Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbiii Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I don't know too much about archtops -- we know a lot more about flattops. I just got this before X-mas. We typed it as an ES-150 (1948/49). So here is my (probably dumb) question. Doesn't the pickup on the one above make it an ES and no an L? Thanks, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Not meaning to 'butt-in' Tom, 'but' Cunningham did mention that someone 'added' the P-90 to the 'L'.... Check out the 'placement' compared to yours.... Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I feel like my response sounded a bit snooty. I apologize, Cunningham. That's not what I was going for. I am a bit frustrated that these guitars have a bad name to them. Has anyone else had there hands on one of these? I have not had my hands on one......nor aware that they have a bad name :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbiii Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Not meaning to 'butt-in' Tom, 'but' Cunningham did mention that someone 'added' the P-90 to the 'L'.... Check out the 'placement' compared to yours.... Rod Good point. I do know Gibson moved them around some. According to Gruhn, the 48 ES-150 would be 17" (which our is) and the 46 L-48 was 16". Hard to tell from the pictures. Thanks, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Thats a good point also, Tom! I noticed also that Cunningham's is a 19-fretter and yours has 20. It seems that this change was made in the early 50's for many Gibson models? Very nice guitars Cheers, Rod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunningham26 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Tom I think the L vs. ES through the entire run from 1902's L1 designates acoustic or electric. Still clueless as to what the L stands for! Mine is most definitely 16", been hard to find an off the rack/cheaper case for it. never noticed mine had 19 frets, nice spot retrorod. As you can imagine i dont really get down the neck for blistering solos on this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.