1934 Custom L5 Super 400?

[powerwagonjohn]

That is one great guitar with a story to go along with it. May not be as valuable as a late 30's Super 400 or L-5 but still more than I could afford with out selling most of my guitars. I hope you enjoy that guitar as much as I enjoyed the history and story behind it.

Thanks John

[JimR56]

The entire serial number is 91700, I believe. The first digit is faded, but I'm almost positive that it is a 9. It also does say style L 5, which seems odd since the body is 18", but I guess if it's custom you can have anything you want.

Yes, especially if you're a Gibson employee. :)

 

My grandfather worked for Gibson in Kalamazoo, he was also a very talented local musician. The story that we were always told was that he received the guitar as a prototype.

NOW you tell us!! :)

 

As Big Kahune points out, this makes a big difference in determining the history of a guitar like this. Years ago I had a 1950 ES350 which was non-stock, but an expert made me aware that it was probably an instrument assembled by a Gibson employee. I thought about bringing this up earlier, but I never imagined that your grandfather actually worked at Gibson in the 1930's.

 

Speaking of the 1930's, your serial number appears to date to 1933. This was the year before the Super 400 was introduced, so it might make sense that your grandfather was sort of anticipating the approach of the official 18" Super 400 model, and that your guitar is indeed akin to a "prototype", in a way. That's pretty exciting stuff! I would most definitely contact more vintage guitar experts (perhaps George Gruhn and Walter Carter) if I were you. I don't have the sense that the person you contacted at Gibson fully understands what you have. They should also have pointed out that your tailpiece is not original to the guitar.

 

I can't validate that as I never had a conversation with him about it myself. I'm sure Gibson would have kept some type of record if that were the case though.

No, I wouldn't expect that Gibson would have necessarily kept a record of something like that. Record-keeping was never a real strong point with them.

 

Thank you so much JimR56 and BigKahune, I really appreciate your time and interest in my puzzle !

You're very welcome, and we should be thanking you, actually. It's instruments and stories like this that make this forum so fun and interesting at times.

[JimR56]

Whoa! . Your grandfather worked for Gibson! . Anything is possible!! . In the factory employees are known to have made all kinds of things mashed together with spare parts. I've seen some unusual combinations. After reading your grandfather worked for Gibson, it's totally believable that this came out in 1934 as either a "Special", prototype, or a mashup from an "insider" working in the factory - possibly your grandfather(?).

I agree 100%

 

The trapeze could have been added later.

Not "could". It's definitely the post-WWII type, and couldn't possibly be original to the guitar.

 

And maybe there was a refinish in it's history too.

I'm still curious about that. If this were an experimental one-off prototype, I suppose it could have been made with a different finish on the top and back. It's really the "splice" at the outer edge that makes me doubtful about the natural finish being original, though (but it's certainly possible in a case like this).

 

Very cool, but probably not so much value-wise.

Well, now that we have the added information about her grandfather and the possibility that this was some kind of prototype, I'm much more inclined to think that it could have significant value! That's why I strongly suggest that she contact Gruhn/Carter, or some true authority on the subject. The value is going to be subjective on something like this, of course, but there could be some opinions that the value is significant given the historical nature of this instrument.

[RayWhitley]

Well, now that we have the added information about her grandfather and the possibility that this was some kind of prototype, I'm much more inclined to think that it could have significant value!

 

I really have to disagree. There is very little evidence of Gibson ever making or selling "prototype" instruments, and most of the time that explanation is used to explain away non-original modifications, or create a myth around a guitar to hype the value for resale (the Burnett AJ, for example). Since this guitar has had at least a top refinish, that suggests a very different story.

 

What we do see is Gibson using up parts on hand (sometimes even mismatched) to complete an order and get a guitar out the door. Especially on more expensive and rarely ordered instruments. Gibson produced a lot of "floor sweep" type instruments that defy easy model categorization. Unless the unusual features are desirable to players or collectors, it may even detract from the value.

 

We also see people who change and modify their instruments after they get them. And Gibson has been known to repair instruments with later versions of similar parts. These are infinitely more likely scenarios.

 

I would hate to plant the poisonous idea of "super valuable prototype" in someone's mind incorrectly... if they intend to sell over valuing and incorrectly identifying the guitar could make it unlikely to ever find a buyer.

[JimR56]

I really have to disagree. There is very little evidence of Gibson ever making or selling "prototype" instruments

Just the fact that you're referring to the idea of Gibson selling a prototype instrument makes me think that we're not on the same page here. I don't pretend to think that Gibson would have placed great signicance (thinking ahead to it being "colletible" or valuable) on something like this. I know it doesn't work that way, and certainly would not have worked that way in 1933. I'm using the word "prototype" loosely. This instrument could have been part of the initial phase of designing and experimenting with the use of old (L5) and new (S400) features. If that were the case, then my opinion is that it would have significant historical (if not monetary, although I would leave the door open on that) value. Also, we have the grand-daughter of the original owner telling us that the term "prototype" was used by her grandfather in describing his acquisition of the guitar. At any rate, we don't know, and I'm simply saying that there could be people (with a subjective subject like this) who would place significant (let's just say more than the value of a stock Super 400 from the early years) monetary value on something like this. That value would be somewhat reduced, of course, by the non-original tailpiece and refinish (if it was indeed refinished).

 

One thing I don't think I mentioned is that because this guitar has a label, and also is inscribed with the word "special", I'm inclined to think that it could be more than just a guitar that a Gibson employee threw together using spare parts. That's still possible, but generally, my understanding is that those types of instruments tended not to have labels.

 

most of the time that explanation is used to explain away non-original modifications, or create a myth around a guitar to hype the value for resale (the Burnett AJ, for example).

"Most of the time"? Not sure how you know this. I know that many people try to hype the importance of a guitar, or even intentionally try to deceive. This certainly doesn't appear to be that kind of situation.

 

Since this guitar has had at least a top refinish, that suggests a very different story.

I don't think we can say for certain that this top was refinished. It seems likely, but under the circumstances, I don't think we can say for sure.

 

What we do see is Gibson using up parts on hand (sometimes even mismatched) to complete an order and get a guitar out the door. Especially on more expensive and rarely ordered instruments. Gibson produced a lot of "floor sweep" type instruments that defy easy model categorization.

Interesting comments, which leave me slightly puzzled. You're saying that it was common for Gibson to manufacture oddball instruments made from spare parts, and this was especially common with high end instruments? That doesn't ring true, because parts for guitars like L5's and Super 400's would have been more expensive, and one might think more valued inventory.

 

Unless the unusual features are desirable to players or collectors, it may even detract from the value.

It may turn off more collectors than it turns on, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be enough desirability to a segment of the market to make it more valuable. It's subjective.

 

We also see people who change and modify their instruments after they get them. And Gibson has been known to repair instruments with later versions of similar parts. These are infinitely more likely scenarios.

I don't follow you. "More likely scenarios"? We're talking about one guitar here. What's your theory on it? Do you think the word "special" on the label was added to deceive?

 

I would hate to plant the poisonous idea of "super valuable prototype" in someone's mind incorrectly... if they intend to sell over valuing and incorrectly identifying the guitar could make it unlikely to ever find a buyer.

? For starters, "prototype" was not planted in the owner's mind by anyone here. Nobody has told her that it's "super valuable". I've clearly explained my view about the possibility of an above-normal value. That's all. As for that last part, people are sometimes able to sell something at a lower price once they determine that their price is too high, so "unlikely to ever find a buyer" is exaggerating things in the opposite direction. Nobody is taking any definitive stance here, so I think you may need to take a step back. I suggested that she seek more help from highly expert people such as George Gruhn. Seems reasonable and prudent to me, as a first step.

[retrorod]

Yikes.....what a read!

[JimR56]

Yikes.....what a read!

I know, largely thanks to yours truly. This kind of stuff just fascinates me.

[JimR56]

I'm trying to examine the head and the neck more closely now. Perhaps the most interesting thing is that there are 20 frets, which would seem to suggest 1936 onward. (see: http://www.prewargibsonl-5.com/anatomy-of-the-l-5/4581825011 ).

 

The headstock is hard to examine closely, due to the quality of the photos, but appears to be correct for the period, including those vintage Grover Imperials.

[JimR56]

Mysterious G, I hope you're still here. In addition to contacting George Gruhn ( http://guitars.com/contactdirections ), I might also suggest contacting the author of the book covering the history of the Super 400 model, Tom Van Hoose (contact info here: http://www.gbase.com/stores/van-hoose-vintage )

 

I hope you will report back to us! :)

[RayWhitley]

Interesting comments, which leave me slightly puzzled. You're saying that it was common for Gibson to manufacture oddball instruments made from spare parts, and this was especially common with high end instruments? That doesn't ring true, because parts for guitars like L5's and Super 400's would have been more expensive, and one might think more valued inventory.

 

1. Review the history of the Nick Lucas Special. The most expensive flat top in the catalog for many years, and hardly ever made the same way twice. The guitar was made with banjo tuners, strip tuners, and individual tuners. At least 5 different bridge styles. 12 fret, 13 fret, 14 fret. Two different body sizes. Headstock inlay or no headstock inlay. And a body made from mahogany, no wait, rosewood, back to mahogany, and then maple. It is a great example of an expensive, special-order instrument that was only ever made in small batches or sometimes a "batch" of 1. The construction and materials reflected what Gibson had on hand at the time.

 

2. Read Joe Spann's book.

[JimR56]

1. Review the history of the Nick Lucas Special. The most expensive flat top in the catalog for many years, and hardly ever made the same way twice. The guitar was made with banjo tuners, strip tuners, and individual tuners. At least 5 different bridge styles. 12 fret, 13 fret, 14 fret. Two different body sizes. Headstock inlay or no headstock inlay. And a body made from mahogany, no wait, rosewood, back to mahogany, and then maple. It is a great example of an expensive, special-order instrument that was only ever made in small batches or sometimes a "batch" of 1. The construction and materials reflected what Gibson had on hand at the time.

 

2. Read Joe Spann's book.

Okay, the Nick Lucas is one model, one example. I'll even give you another one, from the archtop world, which you're probably less familiar with being an obvious flat top enthusiast. The ES-250 had a similar evolution and history. Still, I don't think that's necessarily strong evidence that this guitar has to be something assembled from scraps in order to "get it out the door", as you put it.

 

Again, what's your theory on the "Special L5" label and the "prototype" comment from the owner?

[wintermoon]

I agree that it was likely a sunburst top due to the seemingly added spruce wings.

also noteworthy is the absence of binding on the f-holes, as the first advanced L-5's of '34 didn't have binding either.

 

this guitar has an advanced L-5 pickguard [assuming it's original to the guitar]

as Jim pointed out the 40's tailpiece was cerainly added later as some of the hinged versions broke over the yrs. or it could possibly have had an L-5 t.p. originally [checking for extra holes might clear this up]

 

also that style of Grover Imperial tuner wasn't offered until '37 I believe.

it's possible that the tuners were changed between '37 and the early 40s as this was common practice once Grover Imperials and Kluson Sealfast tuners became available--Gibson even encouraged the switch in advertising.

 

another note is that the truss rod cover slightly overlaps the flowerpot inlay, not unheard of, but interesting.

the lack of engraving on the heel cap is also noteable.

 

 

it would be interesting to know if it has the early 24 3/4" scale or later 25 1/2"

 

relatively new research indicates that it was '35 and not '34 that saw the first examples of a Super 400.

if the serial number is indeed 91700 it predates the first 2 examples delivered to Guy Hart, Gibson's general manager in April of '35 [91809, 91889] and production models were first shipped beginning in June of '35.

 

I highly doubt that the guitar in question was an 'employee' guitar due to the label info and serial number, but of course cannot be certain.

the fact that it ended up in the hands of a Gibson employee seems more plausible

 

if it is indeed an 18" body, I'm almost certain that this is some sort of protoype.

checking for an FON might reveal something as well.

 

 

very interesting guitar nonetheless.

[JimR56]

I'm going to have to blame myself here for something. I linked this thread to some other guitar discussion forums, looking for ideas from other guitar enthusiasts. In the process, it was just pointed out to me that this could actually be an L5 (17" "advanced" size) body, not an 18" Super 400 body. This changes things rather drastically, unfortunately.

 

Measuring must be done the right way, and it didn't occur to me that the technique used to measure in this case was incorrect. Taking the tape over the top of the strings like that will throw off the measurement.

 

So, it looks like the biggest remaining questions are why that label says "Special", and what your grandfather could have meant with regard to this being a prototype or unusual in some way. The tailpiece, bridge, and truss rod cover are the only Super 400 characteristics, and all are easily changed or replaced. It's still possible that the bridge and truss rod cover are original to the guitar, but that still wouldn't make this a historically important instrument.

[JimR56]

Great post, wintermoon.

 

that style of Grover Imperial tuner wasn't offered until '37 I believe.

Thanks, that's always been a bit of a gray area for me. I'd like to know if anybody can pin that down.

 

it's possible that the tuners were changed between '37 and the early 40s as this was common practice once Grover Imperials and Kluson Sealfast tuners became available--Gibson even encouraged the switch in advertising.

Very good point.

 

relatively new research indicates that it was '35 and not '34 that saw the first examples of a Super 400.

if the serial number is indeed 91700 it predates the first 2 examples delivered to Guy Hart, Gibson's general manager in April of '35 [91809, 91889] and production models were first shipped beginning in June of '35.

Great info.

 

I highly doubt that the guitar in question was an 'employee' guitar due to the label info and serial number, but of course cannot be certain.

the fact that it ended up in the hands of a Gibson employee seems more plausible

 

that being said I'm almost certain that this is some sort of protoype.

I was following along and everything was making sense to me, but you surprised me with that last sentence. Can you elaborate? It's the serial number and the "Special" on the label that leave me most puzzled now.

[wintermoon]

Jim,

I edited the post while you were quoting me.

check it out..the 18" body would be a big tip off as you referenced.

 

I don't think a custom ordered 18" body on an L-5 would have been possible before the first Supers were built, though I could see that happening later.

 

hopefully the owner will remeasure from the back and include the scale lenght.

[JimR56]

Thanks. Would you agree that her tape measurement was likely flawed?

 

Given a 1933 date for the serial, it seems odd that we may have an advanced 17" L5 body here. And how does the "Special" play into that? Could we still have something important here?

 

For anyone else who is still enjoying this little mystery, I wanted to make sure I posted a link to this "Pre-war L5 Owners' Club" site for reference: http://www.prewargibsonl-5.com/17-inch-timeline/4576201718

[wintermoon]

Thanks. Would you agree that her tape measurement was likely flawed?

 

Given a 1933 date for the serial, it seems odd that we may have an advanced 17" L5 body here. And how does the "Special" play into that? Could we still have something important here?

 

For anyone else who is still enjoying this little mystery, I wanted to make sure I posted a link to this "Pre-war L5 Owners' Club" site for reference: http://www.prewargibsonl-5.com/17-inch-timeline/4576201718

 

it could very well be an incorrect measurement.

I just measured a 14" wide flat object w/ a tape and lifted it about the height that would go over the strings and it lost an inch in the process.

 

as I said, I think the lack of f-hole binding is fairly significant--never seen a Super 400 from any period w/out it, but early advanced L-5's didn't have it either.

 

also keep in mind that serial numbers/dates have recently been updated. 91700 is more likely a a late '34 early '35 number as it's documented that 91809 is a number from April of '35, so it goes to reason that @ only 100 or so instruments apart there's not a 2 yr gap there.

 

 

I think the scale length and possible FON might reveal something as well.

[BigKahune]

... For anyone else who is still enjoying this little mystery...

 

Still following - very interesting comments from Wintermoon too.

 

I hope the owner checks back.

 

 

.

[Mysterious G]

Wow, I was shocked when I logged back in and saw all these comments ! Thank you all so much, I am truly getting an education on guitars here. I will remeasure the guitar from the back. What is meant by the scale length? I will measure that as well if you tell me where to start/finish the measurement.

[wintermoon]

Wow, I was shocked when I logged back in and saw all these comments ! Thank you all so much, I am truly getting an education on guitars here. I will remeasure the guitar from the back. What is meant by the scale length? I will measure that as well if you tell me where to start/finish the measurement.

 

kindly measure from the nut [the white plastic strip w/the notches @ the peghead that the strings pass over] to the top of the bridge

 

look inside the treble f -hole [not the one w/the label] and see if there's a series of numbers penciled in on the back in that area--look closely as they're easy to miss.

 

also kindly add as many close up shots of the guitar as you can.

 

btw, I just noticed that # 91809 is the Elderly guitar and is documented as one of the first 2 Supers delivered to Guy Hart.

the 'Super L-5' truss rod cover is obviously original to that guitar and is different from all subsequent Super 400 covers before the introduction of the 'custom' engraved cover of the early '60s--ie, and also has thinner binding.

 

I'd be curious to know if there are extra holes under the one in question as the screw spacing is different from an L-5 cover.

 

but as Jim points out, if it's a 17" guitar, what's w/the 'special' designation?

[L5Larry]

... it was just pointed out to me that this could actually be an L5 (17" "advanced" size) body, not an 18" Super 400 body.

 

The guitar in question is clearly an 18" body, not a 17" L-5 body size. I just measured two of my Gibson "Advanced Body" 17 inchers (L-5 & L-7) in the same over the string manner. One measured out to about 17 1/4", the other about 17 1/8", neither one anywhere close to the almost 18" measurement shown in the photo.

[JimR56]

The guitar in question is clearly an 18" body, not a 17" L-5 body size. I just measured two of my Gibson "Advanced Body" 17 inchers (L-5 & L-7) in the same over the string manner. One measured out to about 17 1/4", the other about 17 1/8", neither one anywhere close to the almost 18" measurement shown in the photo.

Hmm, I don't know, Larry. Her bridge could be higher (who knows). Perhaps MG could check the measurement again without any bend in the tape (holding it above the guitar, perhaps having someone help her). Measuring the back might be easier.

 

Fwiw...

 

 

Hers looks like a 17" advanced L5 body to me now. (but I keep doubting myself ;))

[L5Larry]

I think the scale length .... might reveal something as well.

 

Isn't the scale length on the "Advanced" L-5 and Super 400 both 25 1/2"?

 

In any case, it's clearly an L-5 neck and that will determine scale length, which would be 25 1/2", right?

[Mysterious G]

I measured the guitar across the back, with a cloth tape instead of a tape measure. It is exactly 18" across. I measured the scale length (looked up on the internet how to do that) and from the fretboard side of the nut to the body side of the bridge stop, measurement to the 12th fret wire is 12 3/8 inches.

[JimR56]

Thank you for measuring again, MG. I don't know quite what to say... I thought it looked 18 to begin with, but for awhile I was persuaded otherwise. I'm usually pretty good at judging things like that with my eyes, but it can be tricky (especially when a photo isn't taken directly from the front).

 

I'm glad you're still following the discussion here, and it's just as interesting to me today as it was yesterday. I really think you'd be well served to contact one (or both) of the experts I mentioned. You could even link them to this discussion for starters, which might save you (and them) some time.

 

And we all want to know what the heck that thing is, so don't leave us hanging when you find out!!

 

Meanwhile, let's keep this discussion going...