Anyone know what THIS vintage Gibby is???

[onewilyfool]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1930-Gibson-Mystery-Archtop-Guitar-L-50-L-37-Orig-Hard-Case-Vintage-Old-Rare-/190737921233?pt=Guitar&hash=item2c68ddb4d1

[zombywoof]

That tailpiece is sure common enough on Gibsons. But I have never seen a Gibson archtop without a waist so you got me.

[Rabs]

Seems to be an L-37

http://www.archtop.com/ac_40L37.html

 

http://www.guitar-museum.com/guitar-36016-Vintage-Gibson-L-37-Arch-Top-Acoustic-Guitar-1939

 

http://www.mainstreetvintageco.com/catalog/item/4827275/5045354.htm

[j45nick]

I did some research on this yesterday, and came away convinced that it is a 1932 L-50 (first year of issue). Apparently, it was produced in both f-hole and round soundhole versions in that year, and had this unusual, almost mini-dreadnought shape that year as well. That would be consistent with the logo, too, I think.

 

I did not find a photo of the complete combination of features shown here, and had to infer it from the description. That pickguard, for example, wasn't introduced until 1934. It may be that the body was a leftover, or someone at some point changed the 1932 glued-on pickguard for an elevated one.

[BigKahune]

.

Interesting Nick. Here's the pic from Home/Provide - The '32 (looking like a dread shape, wide waist as Zomby mentioned), '33, '34 L-50 0

 

 

And the fleaBay 37/50(?) also looking like a dread shape -

 

[j45nick]

.

Interesting Nick. Here's the pic from Home/Provide - The '32 (looking like a dread shape, wide waist as Zomby mentioned), '33, '34 L-50 0

 

 

And the fleaBay 37/50(?) also looking like a dread shape -

 

 

 

Those were the photos I referred to. In thinking further about it, the F-hole '32 L-50 could not have had the glued-on pickguard, as the pickguard shape would have made no sense with the F-hole version of the guitar. I now assume the pickguard is original, and stick with the conclusion that it is probably a 1932 L-50, F-hole version.

 

Gibson had obviously done elevated pickguards of this type prior to 1932, so there is nothing unusual in this conclusion. The big question mark was the unusual body shape, which seems unlike anything before or since.